Archives

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 Churchs 150-year anniversary earlier in 2003. As part of our familys ministry to historic re-enactors (see www.historicfaith.net www.historicfaith.net/> ; ), Rev. Harper had asked us to help with preparations and we were there in 1850 clothing (I have attached a photo from the event).  I was touched when you stated that you found a power in the old (1845 vice 1928) liturgy, but was not convinced.  There has been twenty years for me to judge your words by.   In 1984 as bishop, you received me into the Episcopal Church. I believe that this confirmation service at Truro was your first confirmation service as bishop of the Diocese of Virginia.  Later, you were the Bishop that licensed me as a lay preacher when my family and I were at Christ the Redeemer.  You were the bishop who I looked to when I began the local discernment process for ordination.  While talking with you at a dozen after-church receptions does not make a deep friendship, you have been my bishop since you became bishop in Virginia.     As you have been my bishop, I have carefully read much of what you have written and listened carefully to what you have said.   You are an intelligent and articulate man and I believe that you have some love for the Episcopal Church.  From what I have read, heard, and seen, I am deeply concerned for your soul.  It seems clear that you have valued the game of church politics and opinions of fellow bishops over your sworn duty to uphold the faith outlined in scripture and our catholic tradition.   I shook your hand at Olivet but I was a little guarded for I believed that when the clear decision point came to choose between the Apostolic faith and the progressive, world loving, rationalistic apostasy that has come into vogue within ECUSA, you would choose the latter.  I was right.   Years ago, you wrote in the Virginia Episcopalian that you saw your duty as Bishop to avoid clarity (what I call fuzzing up) on issues that would divide, such as the immorality of homosexual acts.   This is not the position of a bishop defending the faith.  Your duty is to make spiritual truth clear not to obscure it.  You have acted like a shepherd that will not divide wolves from sheep.  I could give you many scriptural references including the words of Jesus that show that light should not unite with darkness.  Lovingly, and actively, we are to engage the world so that those who sin are come from darkness to light but that is not to have common cause with them.  Scripture set a different course for those who are believers and even higher standards for those who are leaders among Christians.   Some time after that article on your commitment to be fuzzy in the Virginia Episcopalian, I believe around 1997, you instituted the Call to Holy Life at Virginia Theological Seminary to open the school to active homosexual partnerships in lieu of the previous policy that forbade sexual intercourse outside the bonds of marriage, adulterous relationships, and the practice of homosexuality.  By this action (and actions do speak louder than words) you clearly demonstrated that even within your own diocese, you would be go with the flow even it that meant jettisoning the moral teachings of Jesus.  You used your skill at turning phrases to fuzz up this issue.  At the time you instituted the Call to Holy Life you stated you were seeking a policy more in keeping with Anglican comprehensiveness than the previous statement and more in keeping with the biblical balance of the Christian tradition.   Fine words, as I would expect from a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Duke Law School, but VTS, since your action and under your leadership, has become a hotbed of homosexual activism.   VTS is the place in your Diocese where church leaders are  training and you are responsible for the type of leaders you train there.  At the time of A Call to Holy Life, in my deep concern and as part of my discernment process, I exchanged a series of e-mails with you in an attempt to find out where you stood on the authority of scripture and the nature of sin, in particular on the sexual sin, which was being promoted by the apostate.  It was not easy to get a clear answer from you to this fundamental question - did you believe that homosexual practice was sin.  I was at first hopeful when you read my e-mails and took time to reply.   The ongoing exchanges with you, as courteous as they were, eventually convinced me that you did not have a moral compass that would enable me to seek ordination under your leadership.  In my heart, I knew then that when a vote on accepting same-sex immorality would come, you would choose Sodom rather than Zion.  Thus, I left off the ordination process and after subsequent statements and actions by you, left off active life in a local Episcopal Church for a couple of years, moving instead to support our non-denominational ministry.  Recent actions of yours has shown that I made the right decision.  Since you put The Call to   Holy Life into place, VTS students who hold the orthodox faith have told me repeatedly how they feel under siege for their beliefs.   Your recent vote and past actions are clearly destroying our diocese.  Unless you publicly and proximately repent for your part in this apostasy, the diocese you claim to love will fall to pieces, to the despair of the many faithful priest and laity who have stood by you through your past moral fuzziness.  Through your actions, the Episcopal Church, USA has become a scandal within the historic, orthodox, catholic faith.  You stated that in your recent votes:   I had a difficult, even wrenching time deciding. I prayed a lot. I consulted widely, with clergy and lay colleagues, with other professionals, more formally with the deans of the regions, and the Standing Committee. I studied scripture anew.  I was particularly struck by the 15th Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles where the apostles and elders of the church in Jerusalem adapted the requirements of Jewish law to the reality of the situation of gentile converts in Antioch.  My reading of scripture convinces me that the Gospel is ever-increasing its power to erase the barriers that we human beings erect among ourselves.   Did you prayerfully read what the Apostles decided in Acts 15:20?  One of the minimum requirements that the Apostles placed on the Gentiles was to avoid sexual sins - no compromise, no fuzziness.  The requirement for the gentiles was a beginning not the end.  The Apostles decision also had the assumption that Gods ministers would teach the Gentiles to live a life of increasing righteousness through faith, not a life of wantonness masquerading as righteousness.  Again, in your reading of scripture as in past actions as bishop, you cling to the politics and ignore the requirements of faith.  You also stated, I was also struck anew by the centrality of a theology based more on grace than on law.  In Philippians 3:8-14, Paul wrote to the Philippians yearning for a righteousness that comes not from the law but for a righteousness that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith.  Paul continues, I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead.   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 Pauls 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 Gods grace and even stricter conditions for Church leadership.  Why cant 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 theyre 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 theyre addicted to corruption--and they are--theyre enslaved.  If theyve escaped from the slum of sin by experiencing our Master and Savior, Jesus Christ, and then slid back into that same old life again.

Special Report     By David W. Virtue   RECIFE, BRAZIL--The Evangelical Diocese of Recife has terminated its companion relationship with the Diocese of Central Pennsylvania over the consecration of V. Gene Robinson an activist homosexual to the ECUSA episcopacy. The diocese recently voted three resolutions one of which was to terminate its relationships with the Diocese of Central Pennsylvania and its bishop, the Rt. Rev. Michael W. Creighton, because they voted yes to the consecration of Robinson with the bishop, lay and 2 of the 3 clergy in favor of Gene Robinsons election.   The Brazilian diocese is led by the orthodox Rt. Rev. Edward Robinson Cavilcanti.     The resolution kept open the possibility of any parish church or individuals in the Central PA diocese staying in relationship with the Diocese of Recife if they did not support the resolutions of GC2003, said The Rev. Miguel Uchoa, a priest in the diocese who sent the news to Virtuosity.     Our actions officially put us in the position of mainstream Anglicans around the globe, he said.     The first resolution decided to break communion with the two dioceses of New Hampshire and New Westminster and clarifies our position with the biblical understanding of sexuality. A second resolution states that we are not going to have communion, companionship or any kind of relationship with any diocese, bishop, clergy or institution that supported GC2003 resolutions on sexuality.     Fr. Uchoa said the climate of the Church in Brazil was still the same. Sometimes even it is even more aggressive against our diocese [Recife] positions and it is very aggressive against our bishops decisions, he wrote.     The priest said the passing of these resolutions was not easy, as there was a group in the diocese speaking out and asking the province to come with the primate to pastorally intervene in our diocese. Those clergy and some lay people made a lot of noise, people, who once supported the bishop and called themselves evangelicals, he said.     The priest said that in recent discussions with the Evangelical bishop and he is taking a position with two clergy that were licensed because and were assumed to be homosexuals.     Our canons say that no one can be ordained if they are gay or even support the normalization of the behavior. Bishop Robinson also licensed rectors after the convention in different churches in the diocese.     Uchoa noted that opposition in the diocese did not come from a majority, but it is hard to deal with the province coming against us all the time. We ask for your prayers. The good news is that we are taking back the diocesan structure, the seminary and other commissions.   Furthermore the other good news is that our plans to make the dioceses into two dioceses did not result in any prejudice. The churches who are working in the north of Recife (Deanery of north) and they are totally orthodox and the project goes on.     The bishop has already installed a new Dean in the new pro cathedral and there is a new dean of the area, he said.     Uchoa said that by the Year 2006 there will be a new diocese, formed in time for the general synod. We are working hard to plant and to strengthen churches in the area. It requires a lot of hard work and needs much help.   Our hope for Anglicanism in Brazil, comes from the Northeast now more then ever. We need to expand the church here to be a future province, a second province in the country.     Uchoa said the Diocese of Recife was looking for a new companion relationship with an orthodox diocese in the US. We have not cut any links with orthodox churches, dioceses and organizations.     We have the passion for evangelism, church growth, new evangelistic methods...a real passion for the lost. We want to share and be in connection with all orthodox believers. Anglicanism will flourish in the spiritually arid wilderness of Brazil as orthodox and biblical churches are born. God is helping us.     The province was, till recently, in the revisionist grip of  Glauco Soares de Lima. The new orthodox Primate is the Most Rev. Orlando Santos de Oliveira.   END

News Analysis   By David W. Virtue    Ted Mollegen, the 20/20 coordinator who will lead the hoped for expansion of ECUSA in 2004, is upset at dissenting Episcopal and Anglican brothers and sisters who opposed the recent election and confirmation of Canon Gene Robinson as the next Bishop of New Hampshire. In an Open Letter to the Dissenting American Bishops and Priests and to the Anglican Primates, Mollegen asks them to reconsider what they are contemplating and says he has the support of Holy Scripture to support his contention.     This is what he says. My concern is solidly based in the bible. In the Council of Jerusalem, the Churchs leaders concluded that gentile believers did not need to be circumcised. This decision overthrew a central part of the religious practice inherited from Judaism. The reasoning behind the Churchs decision was that uncircumcised gentile believers were seen to be exhibiting signs of the Holy Spirit. The situation with Canon Robinsonis quite comparable.   In the New Hampshire Diocesan election, the duly elected leaders of that diocese affirmed that they clearly saw signs of the Spirit in Canon Robinson and his life and work, including his relationship with his partner, Mark Andrew. General Convention looked carefully, saw the same signs, and confirmed New Hampshires choice. This is why this autocephalous part of Gods church has selected and confirmed Canon Robinson to be New Hampshires next bishop. This action is clearly a break from the practice of the past, but it is also clearly not a break with the faith. The action is fully based on the bible, as explained further below.     Ted Mollegen does not understand Scripture and he does not know how to interpret it.     First of all the Council of Jerusalems concern over circumcision (Acts. 15) was that the Judaizers said that circumcision was necessary for salvation (which it is not), and Peter came down hard on such thinking arguing that He [God] made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Two verses later he said, but we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.     Mollegen says the situation with canon Robinson is quite comparable. Nonsense. It is not remotely comparable.     Circumcision and homosexuality are not even on the same page. Genesis 17 shows circumcision as firstly a spiritual and only secondarily a national sign. It signified membership of the Israelite nation, (homosexual proclivities indicate you need help) visited on the Hebrew people following the exodus from Egypt. It was integrated into the Mosaic system in connection with the Passover. It is a foundation feature of NT Judaism, and occasioned the judaistic controversies of the apostolic period. The Jews in the NT had so associated circumcision with Moses that they had virtually forgotten its more fundamental association with Abraham. Our Lord had to remind them that it antedated Moses, and Paul is emphatic that it was the current understanding of the Mosaic connection which was obnoxious to Christianity and he constantly brings them back to Abraham.   Attempting to enforce circumcision repudiated the unmerited salvation offered freely by, through and in Christ. Homosexuality (all seven Biblical references) is repudiated in both Old and New Testaments, with Paul in 1 Cor. 6:9 making it abundantly clear that its practice alienated one from Christs future Kingdom ...neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate nor homosexuals... shall inherit the Kingdom of God.   To put the elimination of circumcision in Acts 15 on a par with or the brokering in of homosexual behavior is patently absurd, poor interpretation and bad theology.     Mollegen writes: The human authors of the bible did not know Christian life-committed unions of same-sex partners. Many of you who are forming divisive plans likewise do not have personal familiarity with Christian life-committed same-sex couples. Those of us who do have such familiarity can clearly see the signs of the Holy Spirit present in many life-committed Christian same-sex couples, in much the same way that those in many Christian heterosexual marriages show signs of the Holy Spirit. You will see these signs too, if you will only stop and look.     Mollegen makes two fundamental errors here. He says that the human authors of the bible did not know Christian life-committed union of same-sex partners.   First of all Scripture has a double authorship; it is God-breathed words working through man. Both are necessary. Human authors did not work apart from the Holy Ghost.     Secondly it is true that the authors didnt talk of or anticipate same-sex unions, and what is more they wouldnt have approved if they did.   The prophets, priests and apostles would have gone back to the creation ordinance of Genesis, and the mandate male and female made He them...with the added proviso that God closed the sexual matrix and never re-opened it. Secondly Gods specific creation was heterosexual marriage between a man and a woman both for purposes of fellowship and procreation, the latter totally missing in homosexual activity.     The second Mollegen argument is pure ad hominum, ...you do not have personal familiarity with Christian life-committed same-sex couples, he writes. Really.     How does Mollegen know that? This writer is personally and deeply acquainted with such committed same-sex relationships and they are morally bankrupt from first to last. My brother-in-law was in such a committed relationship for 11 years and both he and his partner still died of AIDS. Furthermore there is increasing and overwhelming evidence that faithfulness is virtually non-existent in homosexual relationships. It is presaged upon promiscuity with bath houses still in operation and casual homo-erotic sex is re-emerging with greater force with new statistics showing that bare-backing (non-condom sex) returning full blast, facts duly noted by the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta and ignored by ECUSAs ardent homosexualists.     Furthermore most American families know someone, usually a relative or friend, or friend of a friend who is engaging in homoerotic behavior to their detriment.     It is arrogant of Mr. Mollegen to suggest that orthodox bishops clergy and laity don’t have familiarity with Christian life-committed same-sex couples; so what if they did or didn’t, does that suddenly make it right, because Mr. Mollegen thinks that knowledge of such relationships automatically makes it right. This is a totally absurd argument and afatuous piece of ad hominum reasoning.     Mollegen then goes right over the top. He writes: For Church leaders to take action now in opposition to New Hampshires and General Conventions acts of discernment looks to me very much like blasphemy against the Holy Spirit -- because the competent authorities most familiar with the situation have found the signs of the Holy Spirit to be present in Canon Robinsons life and work.     My God, if competent authorities suddenly agreed that we should all sprinkle anthrax on our steaks, we should all do it?     Mr. Mollegen has turned truth completely on its head. It is BLASPHEMY of Mollegen to turn Scripture upside down and distort its plain meaning to suit the proclivities of a handful of whinny sodomites who are demanding that the church accept their lethal behavior.  No, the blasphemy is being committed by Mollegen not the biblically orthodox in ECUSA for daring to call a lie the truth and to say something is true when it is a lie.     And what signs of the Holy Spirit are present in Canon Robinsons life? That he was married, had two kids, then discovered he was gay, divorced his wife, then meets and mates with his boyfriend Mark Andrew!   This is a sign of the Holy Spirit! What distorted perverted logic is this. It is distorted and perverted because Scripture will have none of it and neither will any of the worlds religions or leading Christian denominations.   So by Mollegens logic, the entire Roman Catholic Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, 20 million Southern Baptists and more are blaspheming the Holy Ghost because Ted Mollegen says so. This is beyond all human logic and totally laughable.     Then Mollegen says that, Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was cited by Jesus in three Gospels as an unforgivable sin. Likewise, in three Gospels, he warns those who cause others to sin: ... It would be better for him to if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. For the sake of your own souls -- and the souls of those whom you lead -- I ask you the dissenting Episcopal and Anglican brothers and sisters to reconsider what you are contemplating as your response to the election and confirmation of Canon Gene Robinson as the next Bishop of New Hampshire.     So here we see Mollegen, having turned truth on its head, he now proceeds to use the very Scriptures that Jesus used against those who would abuse children to support his sick logic.     He writes: Jesus himself said nothing (that we know of) against homosexual unions. However, he clearly spoke against dividing the faithful. And he spoke severely against causing your followers to sin.   And he spoke quite strongly against judging others. I pray you, do not let your cultural heritages and emotional responses lead you and your followers astray -- please reconsider what you are about to do.     Jesus said nothing about homosexuality (though he may have done so based on John 21:25) because it was not even on the radar screen of contemporary or ancient Judaism. No one even considered homosexual behavior a viable sexual option. Jesus reaffirmed marriage between a man and woman as did the Apostle Paul who reaffirmed marriage as the ONLY acceptable venue for sexual behavior.     Jesus also had nothing to say about bestiality or bisexuality, does Mr. Mollegen think we should practice that?     Finally Mollegen cites Gamaliel ...If this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!     You are right Mr. Mollegen it will and it is failing. The Episcopal Church is in a state of  total chaos and breakdown with thousands having left to join the AMIA and a new Episcopal structure is emerging to challenge the revisionist and immoral powerbrokers who are daily crucifying the ECUSA.     I am already praying for you, and will continue to do so, writes Mollegen. And we are praying for you Mr. Mollegen to repent for the sake of your soul, which is in serious jeopardy of winding up in Hell.     Mr. Mollegen spearheads 20/20. He is a Member of the Episcopal Church Executive Council, General Convention Deputy L-1 from Connecticut, Founder/Convener of the Episcopal Network for Evangelism Former Secretary, Episcopal Church 2020 Task Force.     END

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

Dear Brothers and Sisters, www.virtueonline.org December 2003     As this tumultuous year draws to a close in the life of the Anglican Communion we might well reflect for a moment on why it is necessary to uphold the Faith once delivered.     We are not playing word games here. Words have meaning and they change how we think and view the world. Think what Das Kapital and Mein Kampf did to a generation before us. Words matter. They change the way we think, influence our decisions and more. We act upon words every day of our life. We make decisions for good or ill on what we hear and learn, and words influence what directions we will take, what we support with our money and much more.     Virtuosity’s whole purpose is to defend the gospel of Jesus Christ as it is practiced within the context of the Anglican Way. There is nothing particularly new or startling about this, no mind-shattering revelations or illuminations, just the solid, defense of something that is true for us today as it was 2,000 years ago. It is a message that has not changed with time, the passage of history, passing cultural fashions, the findings of science, advances in education, the new morality, or more.     Human nature we now know has not changed appreciably over aeons of history. Regardless of how well-educated we might be, however advanced in our understanding of how the mind and body works; that intractable thing we call the ego rears its ugly head and we sin.   For the good that I wish, I do not do; but I practice the very evil that I do not wish, said the Great Apostle, and he is right. The pull of power, the urge of libidos, and the false security of money pulls us down to equalize us all. None of us is exempt, including this writer.   I love words. I love what they do, how they influence lives, and more. Perhaps one day when I come to die someone will carve on my tombstone; He used words well. I should be so lucky.     For most of you who have endured VIRTUOSITY for another year, will note that many of my writers and contributors, essayists and columnists have used words far better than me, for they are better writers than I am, and know their subjects better than I do.   I am truly grateful for each one of them. I suffer from the sin of envy (among other sins), that God has enabled them to put together sentences more illuminating than my own, more powerful in their ability to persuade, and so I sit in awe of them. Still we must press on.     Virtuosity is a calling and a ministry and it will go on into the New Year vigorously proclaiming, defending, and building up, at the same time pulling down strongholds of satanic influence. We will leave no stone unturned in the search for truth and exposing the lies and half- truths, the pomposity and venality of revisionist hegemony found in The Episcopal Church. We will reveal, expose and bring to the light, those things which we have done and those which we ought not to have done.     That does not mean that this writer comes covered in a mantle of perfection, far from it. I will make my own mistakes and hopefully you the reader will tell me so I can correct them. I expect that. I would be shocked if I did not hear from you.     IN TODAY’S LEAD STORY we continue to look at the implications of what a New World Anglican Order could look like if the Episcopal Church becomes, in effect, two churches. A church within a church or para-church, a church that is, that comes alongside the main body, drawing the good from it and leaving a dead carcass behind.     Events are shaping up fast. Two conflicting views over the future of the ECUSA is beginning to emerge and you can read the substance of that in today’s lead story.     TED MOLLEGEN, the point man for The Episcopal Church hoped for growth with General Convention20/20 has written a propaganda piece at those who opposed Vicki Gene’s consecration. I have taken this apart for your edification. This man has managed to turn truth so violently on its head that cranial damage has ensued and now seems permanent. His blasphemous attack on orthodoxy and those who defend it is exposed for all to read.   ONCE AGAIN, THE DIOCESE OF PENNSYLVANIA LEADS THE WAY.   The Rev. Douglas G. Scott, rector of St. Martin’s Church, Radnor has issued a Stirring call to action on page 28 of Episcopal Life. It is an outrage, he writes, that Christianity seems to have little tolerance for the suffering fat. We should ask the obese to share with their faith community what it means to be at the margins of societal acceptance and learn from them.   I kid you not. The obvious solution, Virtuosity believes is to consecrate an openly fat man who is in a committed relationship with his refrigerator. Do you Douglas take Kelvinator to be your awfully wedded significant other, to have and to hold, till high cholesterol do you part...Dear friends, it is utterly impossible to out-satirize this stuff. With the removal of the twin sins of gluttony and sodomy it just gets easier and easier to become an Episcopalian. Will we abandon the Prayer Book in time? Perhaps we will all live long enough to see a fat bisexual with bestial proclivities who has a hankering for non-neutered Dalmatians publicly consecrated in a NYC bathhouse. Frank Griswold will preside. ECUSA has become a lunatic asylum and the lunatics are in charge.     And our Bible reading today is taken from First Bennison (Pennsylvania Episcopalian Page B) chapter 1 verse 1: Moses smashed the tablets brought down off Mount Sinai to free the Word of God to be heard not seen. How long will the Standing Committee put up with this lunatic?     IN A RECENT NEWS ARTICLE THE PRESIDING BISHOP Frank Griswold gave some instructions to his Executive Council on the relationship between truth and community. This is what he said: Truth is discovered in communion.   Schism is the shattering of communion. In order to discover God’s  truth, everyone has to be at the table.     The Rev. Lawrence D. Bausch, rector of Holy Trinity Church, San Diego, begs to disagree. He argues the exact reverse. He offers four examples when leaving the table has occurred because truth had been discerned and not agreed to.   First, the calling out of Abraham and his descendants as followers of Yahweh, separating them from their neighbors. This is a recurrent theme throughout the Old Testament. Secondly, the separation of Christians from Jews over the identity of Jesus. Third, the conciliar definitions including the creeds and canon of Scripture which determined acceptable parameters for communion. And fourth, the English reform under Queen Elizabeth I, which resulted in separation from the Catholic Church. It is amazing how much rubbish Griswold manages to get away with unchallenged by his fellow bishops.     RECENT REPORTS in newspapers like the Church of England newspaper and on the Internet that Anglo-Catholics and groups like the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) are ready to run to Rome are exaggerated and premature. In discussions with various leaders in Episcopal Anglo-Catholic circles, word is that while talks and visits to Rome have been undertaken no one is going anywhere. The TAC under the leadership of Archbishop Falk and more recently the newly anointed Archbishop John Hepworth admit that while seeking unity to the fullest degree is desirable no one is going to abandon the Anglican tradition. Merger with Rome is not imminent. Furthermore Rome never acts in a hurry, even to embrace hurting Anglicans under siege from revisionist forces. All in good time.     THE REFORMED EPISCOPAL CHURCH has had a defection. Bishop Gregory Hotchkiss has resigned over the REC’s stance against gay marriage. Even the most orthodox of jurisdictions are not immune, it would seem, from all this craziness over homo-erotic behavior.     SPRINGFIELD BISHOP PETER BECKWITH reports that no presentment Charges have been made against him despite coming under heavy fire from a Group of hard-line revisionist gay and lesbian priests and laity in his diocese who want him gone. (Virtuosity exposed their tricks in a secret chat room where they used anonymous names to blast the bishop). Beckwith wrote to VIRTUOSITY, I have heard there has been some interest/desire/attempt to present me for 1) Teaching against the doctrine of the Church; and 2) Abandoning the Sacrament of the Church. I’m told 1is because I will not recognize Gene Robinsons ministry, allow blessing of same sex relationships or likely to welcome clergy into the Diocese who would.  I’m told this is because I did not visit a new mission initiative in our Monroe County before I pulled the plug on it. After 15 months of preparation, we were aiming at having 200 at the first service.  20 showed up.  In the seven weeks of operation, it was reported between 13 and 20 people participated per service.  We had about 80K left to invest after which the congregation would have to raise the 100K annually to support the operation.  That seeming most unlikely led to my decision. Frankly I consider the efforts to present me laughable! Thank you Bishop.     AND IT WILL COME AS NO SURPRISE, that the Religious Newswriters Association picked the Gene Robinson consecration as the top news story of the year.   But it is very revealing that not one of the bishops who supported Robinson has expressed any concern that he accepted a Person of the Year award from a gay soft porn website, PlanetOut, and a gay magazine, The Advocate.     Second top story is Michael Ingham attempted slaughter of 11 godly parishes in the Diocese of New Westminster. They are still open for business and thriving.     And in the DIOCESE OF COLORADO the bishop there one Jerry Winterrowd now expresses regret for supporting the election of the nation first openly gay bishop. He says the church was not ready. Winterrowd, who retires on Dec. 31, said he went into August General Convention of the Episcopal Church USA intending to vote against the election of Gene Robinson as New Hampshire bishop. His rationale: Robinson election would fly in the face of the church desire to delay setting policy on blessing same-sex unions. But Winterrowd said he became convinced that each diocese had the right to elect its own bishop Subsequently, I would say that I am on very thin ice there, Winterrowd said. Indeed you are bishop. Very thin.     IN CANADA, the Bully of Vancouver, Michael Ingham closed down the fledgling mission parish of Holy Cross in Abbotsford, BC. The timing of the Anglican Bishoppre-Christmas closure of the church is ironic.   In attempting to include new ideas, the Anglican Church is making sure there is no room in the inn for traditionalist thinkers. The parishioners must defend their faith. If this was happening in another country, Holy Cross would be listed under the persecution of Christians. That it should be persecuted at the hands of its own infrastructure is alarming, wrote one priest.     The parish priest James Wagner remains committed to his congregation, saying, we will continue to worship, even though were apparently not recognized formally. We hear a lot about tolerance and diversity and how diverse views should be respected. It seems to me a strange way to resolve conflict, said a parish layman.     Holy Cross is a mission church, which is distinct from an incorporated parish. Holy Cross voted by overwhelming majority to accept the offer of Bishop Terry Buckle of Yukon to lead them. The Bishop later withdrew.   Ten years ago when the small parish of St. George Anglican Church in Hamilton, Ontario, was disestablished, it was re-born immediately as St George Reformed Episcopal Church and functions as a traditional Anglican parish. It is flourishing. There is hope.   And this from WASHINGTON BISHOP JOHN CHANE KORANIC CHRISTMAS MESSAGE:   And what was God thinking . . . when the Angel Gabriel was sent by God  to reveal the Law to Moses? And what was God thinking . . . when the Angel Gabriel was sent by God to reveal the sacred Quran to the prophet Muhammad? And what was God thinking . . . when the Angel Gabriel was sent by God to reveal the birth of Jesus Christ, the Son of God?     Virtuosity thinks that God thinks that Bishop Chane should be tossed out of his bishopric for talking rubbish.   DEMOCRATIC FRONT RUNNER HOWARD DEAN was once an Episcopalian in Vermont. But owing to a squabble about the construction of a pathway on a nine-mile stretch of land along Lake Champlain opposed by a group of Episcopalians, he left the Episcopal Church. Apparently the much vaunted Doctrine of Inclusion hit a snag and the wannabe next president left the ECUSA.     I WROTE TO CANON PATRICK MAUNEY, the Episcopal Church Director of Anglican and Global Relations this week asking if the Episcopal Church was still planning to go ahead and send money for the poor Guluin Uganda, even though Frank Griswold has been disinvited to attend the consecration of their new archbishop. I got no answer. Unless Virtuosity hears otherwise you can safely assume the gift will not be going out to these poor starving Ugandans, which goes to prove that money and politics are inextricably twined in The Episcopal Church.     THE BISHOP OF OHIO CLARK GREW went on the offensive this week about a group of parishioners who left a parish in Hudson, Ohio. This is what he said on radio WKSU: I think the tension I feel is, and I don’t want to devalue the authenticity of scripture claim that people make that this is a matter of scriptural authority, but I think, deep within that posture is a deep-seeded homophobia and an inability for people to see gay and lesbian people as children of God. Other members on the panel took him to task and you can read the he said/she said into today's digest. He has some very revealing thoughts about a parallel jurisdiction in the ECUSA.

At Christmastime in the remote mountain valleys of Fujian, it is possible to pick up the live sounds of a brassy approximation of Silent Night or Onward Christian Soldiers or even Jingle Bells.   Each year at this time, the 15-member brass band of the Hutou Christian Church are on the march. Farmers, construction workers, and small business owners temporarily leave their jobs to assemble the only brass band, amateur or professional, anyone in this region has heard about. They even have a new CD.   China is not known for participatory Christmas celebrations. But in these terraced Fujian mountain villages, where the lines between official and unofficial churches are blurred beyond recognition, well, Christians will be Christians when December rolls by.     The Hutou church was officially founded in 1983, though it started with more than a thousand Chinese unofficial believers. As pastor Li Qing Ling tells it, the band is a gift. The church considered what it could give to their city of 100,000 and decided it should be something different that everyone would enjoy.     We decided to have a brass band because in the countryside, you need a sound that people can hear. This is a very open area, he says.     Music plays a large role in Hutou services; members proudly point to a drum set and electronic keyboard in their 800-seat sanctuary. But to drum up, so to speak, a brass band - took nights of planning, months of fundraising, lining up the proper talent, and sewing uniforms.     After three years of work, the church sent a delegation in 1996 to a music shop in Quanzhou, on the coast. They purchased 12 instruments. Each year for the next five years, they bought another. Progress was slow since band members first needed to learn how to play the instruments they signed up for.     Yet now the Hutou Christian Church Brass Band tours with three trombones, two snare drums, a bass drum, two clarinets, three trumpets, a cymbal, and three alto horns. A saxophone was purchased this year, but you can’t hear it yet. The sax player is still learning how to blow his jazzy riffs.   END

By Robert Marquand Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor 12/24/2003     (XIAMEN, CHINA) China first Protestant church is still located on a winding back alley of fish markets and fruit stalls in this old port city.   Yet the Xinjie Church here is hardly a museum piece. Every Sunday it literally overflows with more than 2,000 attendees during its two regular services, with more people coming during the Christmas season. This church - with an alter flanked by blinking conifers - and the four other government-sanctioned churches nearby, are home to rising numbers of worshipers. Christianity - in both the official and unofficial churches - is again gaining momentum in China, and is a source of some consternation for the party leadership Being Christian is fashionable, with young people sporting crosses as a mild form of dissent, and others feeling the faith has a certain international cachet. But something more is at work. In many interviews, congregants say the deity they worship communicates, and has power in their lives, especially now when China is going through immense, jarring economic changes that upset older social contracts.     People in China have a spiritual hunger, very much so,says an official church pastor in Xiamen, and there is a need for that to be filled. I think this is the main reason why we continue to have larger services.   Congregations in China comprise all ages, with younger people popping up during the service to take cellphone calls outside - this being Asia.  Last Sunday, several Xiamen churches held a Christmas party, notable because preaching took place. The gathering at an ocean-side exhibition center was so large that 300 people were turned away. In Quanzhou, north of Xiamen, church members tore down an 800-seat edifice, and have nearly finished a 2,500-seat $1.6 million new church which is 90 percent financed by the 3,000 congregants there. Along the easy-going southeast coast, Protestant worshipers pay little attention to China Shanghai-based official church hierarchy. They hold Bible study groups, have choir rehearsals, and gather in volunteer groups. We have to join the [official] church, but then we do and say what we want, says a local pastor. We preach the living God.   Still, what’s happening around Xiamen is a far cry from the way Ji Lu worships in Beijing, the center of political power. Mr. Ji helps lead prayers in an unofficial church - where 20 people gather in a room so small that when they share tea and cakes afterward, all must stand.     Ji is one of an estimated 30 to 60 million unregistered Christian believers. His sect is made up of nearly a hundred other small groups around Beijing - part of a range of illegal evangelical sects in China, some extremely devout, who say the church fills a spiritual voidin their lives.     The rising evangelical movement in China is creating a complex and dynamic set of tensions, as individual longings challenge a state operating for a half century on principles of collective social order. Not only are there renewed government efforts to curb Christian churches, policies to stop Sunday schools, restrictions on the movement of pastors from one city to another, attempts to dilute theological content, and efforts to stymie new church applications with red tape, but tensions and suspicions have also been growing between official and unofficial home church Christians as well.   One expert says the home church-official church split is more serious in the long term than Beijing scattered, stop-and-start efforts to rein in religion. A lot of Chinese are becoming Christians, argues the US-trained theologian. But the biggest problem is between unregistered and registered churches. There is a lot of antipathy between the two, a lot of water under the bridge.     Christianity in China began to flourish after the Opium Wars, as European and American missionaries set out for the Orient. In 1842, the Gospel of God was disseminated in Xiamen, according to the Xinjie Church council here. Xiamen is one of the original five treaty ports negotiated with China imperial court. Churches grew rapidly throughout China, and have been regarded by officialdom and locals as a mixed blessing ever since.   When the communists consolidated power in 1949 under Chairman Mao Zedong, religion was reorganized. Missionaries were largely driven out. Catholics, Buddhists, Muslims, Protestants, and Taoists were brought under government control, and they remain the five officially sanctioned religions in China today. Protestants found themselves gathered under one roof called the Three Self Patriotic Movement- whose purpose was to bring the Gospels into the service of the state.     According to the official Xinjie church records, In 1966, owing to the Great Cultural Revolution, church services came to a halt. This situation lasted 13 years.   Since the 1980s, as China liberalized, churches were again allowed to open. But a burst of religious expression brought a series of tighter controls whose actual enforcement has varies from province to province - with urban areas such as Beijing and Shanghai drawing more oversight and intervention than rural China and the south.     Churches in the city of Wenzhou last year conducted a campaign of civil disobedience in response to official efforts to stop the teaching of Sunday School. Evangelicals in Henan Province have been targeted, as have home-church prayer leaders in Shanghai, who have been sent to labor camps in recent months. Church building is constricted. A government official in Fujian says one reason for so many home churches is that official services are over flowing. It is very difficult to register any new churches right now, says the official. There has always been a policy not to allow more churches, but now it is being enforced. The government wants to stop the evangelical growth.     Estimates of Chinese Christians vary widely. The official figure is 15-20 million unregistered, 1.8 million registered. Some Christians with access to unpublished figures in Beijing say the number is 85 million unregistered, 5 million registered. A recent graduate of Nanjing Theological Academy, considered the center of official Protestantism, gives a figure of 60 million. Jason Kindopp, a visiting scholar at George Washington University says the figure is at least 30 million, and possibly 60 million.     In some ways, the efforts of the government in recent years has been to offer greater support to official churches - while making efforts to undermine the evangelical fervor found in home churches.     For the majority of Christians in home churches, the basic question is how or whether to worship in an official church, which they see as woefully compromised by state rules. Ji, the home-church believer in Beijing, for example, jokes about one leading theological institute as a place where first-year students believe in God. By the second year, they are merely good men. By the third year you become a ghost who no longer believes in grace or being saved. But you are a ghost with a car, a salary, and a job.     Typical of what Ji objects to is a 1998 policy (recently given new prominence) known as the Theological Construction Campaign. It is promulgated in leading Chinese seminaries - and can be summed up by what are known as the Four Againsts: the Bible is not the revealed Word, Jesus was not born of a virgin, the resurrection is a myth, and there is no second coming. Along with this view is a strong push among official Protestant church leaders to eradicate the concept of individual salvation. To the essentially conservative Chinese Protestant mind, such ideas are an effort to de-Christianize Christianity, says one Guangdong pastor.     Such liberal views do not yet predominate in official churches, especially in rural areas. But what separates Christians in China runs far deeper, and is reflected by fears on both sides. In numerous interviews, official church pastors said they couldn’t currently engage home-church brothers and sisters (as they are known to each other) due to legal constraints.     Official clergy say that home-church Christians simply cannot forget the Cultural Revolution period and its attendant horrors. Yet from the home-church view, to blame the Cultural Revolution for all problems, and to assume that all is forgiven, is too easy and too risky. In their memory, Protestants underwent more than a 10-year persecution - but they have been targeted since 1951. Land was taken, purges and self-correction campaigns were conducted, patriotic loyalty tests were prescribed, overseas support was cut, churches were closed, and pastors were demonized as imperialists or parasites. Moreover, they point out that evangelical Protestants are still arrested, and that campaigns (like the new liberal theology) are still powerful in official circles.

By Robert Marquand Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor 12/24/2003     (XIAMEN, CHINA) China’s first Protestant church is still located on a winding back alley of fish markets and fruit stalls in this old port city. A crest atop the brick colonial structure reads 1848.     Yet the Xinjie Church here is hardly a museum piece. Every Sunday it literally overflows with more than 2,000 attendees during its two regular services, with more people coming during the Christmas season.   This church - with an alter flanked by blinking conifers - and the four other government-sanctioned churches nearby, are home to rising numbers of worshipers. Christianity - in both the official and unofficial churches - is again   gaining momentum in China, and is a source of some consternation for the party leadership. Being Christian; is fashionable, with young people sporting crosses as a mild form of dissent, and others feeling the faith has a certain international cachet. But something more is at work. In many interviews, congregants say the deity they worship  communicates, and has power in their lives, especially now when China is going through immense, jarring economic changes that upset older social contracts.   People in China have a spiritual hunger, very much so, says an official church pastor in Xiamen, and there is a need for that to be filled. I think this is the main reason why we continue to have larger services.;   Congregations in China comprise all ages, with younger people popping up during the service to take cellphone calls outside - this being Asia.  Last Sunday, several Xiamen churches held a Christmas party, notable because preaching took place. The gathering at an ocean-side exhibition center was so large that 300 people were turned away. In Quanzhou, north of Xiamen, church members tore down an 800-seat edifice, and have nearly finished a 2,500-seat $1.6 million new church which is 90 percent financed by the 3,000 congregants there.     Along the easy-going southeast coast, Protestant worshipers pay little attention to China Shanghai-based official church hierarchy. They hold Bible study groups, have choir rehearsals, and gather in volunteer groups. We have to join the [official] church, but then we do and say what we want, says a local pastor. We preach the living God. Still, what is happening around Xiamen is a far cry from the way Ji Lu worships in Beijing, the center of political power. Mr. Ji helps lead prayers in an unofficial church - where 20 people gather in a room so small that when they share tea and cakes afterward, all must stand.     Ji is one of an estimated 30 to 60 million unregistered; Christian believers. His sect is made up of nearly a hundred other small groups around Beijing - part of a range of illegal evangelical sects in China, some extremely devout, who say the church fills a \spiritual void in their lives.     The rising evangelical movement in China is creating a complex and dynamic set of tensions, as individual longings challenge a state operating for a half century on principles of collective social order.   Not only are there renewed government efforts to curb Christian churches, policies to stop Sunday schools, restrictions on the movement of pastors from one city to another, attempts to dilute theological content, and efforts to stymie new church applications with red tape, but tensions and suspicions have also been growing between official and unofficial home church; Christians as well.     One expert says the home church-official church split is more serious in the long term than Beijing scattered, stop-and-start efforts to rein in religion. A lot of Chinese are becoming Christians, argues the US-trained theologian. But the biggest problem is between unregistered and registered churches. There is a lot of antipathy between the two, a lot of water under the bridge.     Christianity in China began to flourish after the Opium Wars, as European and American missionaries set out for the Orient. ;In 1842, the Gospel of God was disseminated in Xiamen, according to the Xinjie Church council here. Xiamen is one of the original five treaty ports negotiated with China imperial court. Churches grew rapidly throughout China, and have been regarded by officialdom and locals as a mixed blessing ever since.   When the communists consolidated power in 1949 under Chairman Mao Zedong, religion was reorganized. Missionaries were largely driven out.   Catholics, Buddhists, Muslims, Protestants, and Taoists were brought under government control, and they remain the five officially sanctioned religions in China today. Protestants found themselves gathered under one roof called the Three Self Patriotic Movement; - whose purpose was to bring the Gospels into the service of the state.   According to the official Xinjie church records, In 1966, owing to the Great Cultural Revolution, church services came to a halt. This situation lasted 13 years. Since the 1980s, as China liberalized, churches were again allowed to open. But a burst of religious expression brought a series of tighter controls whose actual enforcement has varied from province to province - with urban areas such as Beijing and Shanghai drawing more oversight and intervention than rural China and the south.   Churches in the city of Wenzhou last year conducted a campaign of civil disobedience in response to official efforts to stop the teaching of Sunday School. Evangelicals in Henan Province have been targeted, as have home-church prayer leaders in Shanghai, who have been sent to labor camps in recent months. Church building is constricted. A government official in Fujian says one reason for so many home churches is that official services are overflowing. It is very difficult to register any new churches right now, says the official. There has always been a policy not to allow more churches, but now it is being enforced. The government wants to stop the evangelical growth.   Estimates of Chinese Christians vary widely. The official figure is 15-20 million unregistered, 1.8 million registered. Some Christians with access to unpublished figures in Beijing say the number is 85 million unregistered, 5 million registered. A recent graduate of Nanjing Theological Academy, considered the center of official Protestantism, gives a figure of 60 million. Jason Kindopp, a visiting scholar at George Washington University says the figure is at least; 30 million, and possibly 60 million.   In some ways, the efforts of the government in recent years has been to offer greater support to official churches - while making efforts to undermine the evangelical fervor found in home churches.   For the majority of Christians in home churches, the basic question is how or whether to worship in an official church, which they see as woefully compromised by state rules. Ji, the home-church believer in Beijing, for example, jokes about one leading theological institute as a place where first-year students believe in God. By the second year, they are merely good men.; By the third year you become a ghost who no longer believes in grace or being saved. But you are a ghost with a car, a salary, and a job.   END

by Michael J. McManus     Pollster George Barna reported recently that three-fifths of Americans believe cohabitation is an acceptable behavior.  In fact, two-thirds of Catholics see no problem with unmarried couples living together, nor half of all Protestants and even 49 percent of born-again Americans. Whatmore, Barna says “The moral perspectives of Americans are likely to continue to deteriorate. Compared to surveys we conducted just two years ago, significantly more adults are depicting such behaviors as morally acceptable.”   Certainly, the number of couples living together has soared from only 520,000 in 1970 to 5 million today, a ten-fold increase in a generation. That double the number who marry in a year. Cohabitation, not marriage, is the primary way male-female unions are formed.   However, Scripture is clear; Flee fornication, St. Paul wrote (I. Cor 718). I cited that quote in England, and a very dignified dowager interrupted me to exclaim, Jesus never said anything about it. Yes he did.  Remember the woman at the well, who Jesus said had five husbands and the man you now have is not your husband; (John 418).    The problem, as I see is two-fold ignorance of cohabitation’s consequences by the general public, and a willful avoidance of the issue by America’s clergy.   Sociology backs up Scripture on the evil of cohabitation. Since men and women living together begin with minimal commitment, there’s greater unhappiness - more infidelity, more conflict and even violence, more illness and depression.   Sociologist Pamela Smock estimates that 45 percent of such couples undergo premarital divorce, which can be painful and complicated.  A woman at a Christian publishing company told me she lived with a man for six years, and desperately wanted to leave, but felt trapped We bought a house together and he doesn’t want to sell it. Many live together to test their potential for marriage. Big mistake. Marriages that are preceded by living together have 50 percent higher disruption rates than marriages without premarital cohabitation, according to the National Survey of Families and Households.   St. Paul sagely wrote, Test everything. Hold onto the good. Avoid every kind of Evil. Cohabitation may be perceived as a test, but it is an embracing of evil. A stunning 43 percent of unmarried couples have children, vs 46 percent of married couples.   Yet have you ever heard a sermon on cohabitation?  I bet not. In scores of cities, I’ve asked pastors if they have preached on it. One hand in 50 goes up. This moral abdication is perhaps the major reason why Barna found Christians have a higher divorce rate than atheists.   There is an alternative.  A third of America’s churches now provide a more appropriate way for couples to test their relationships - with a test called a premarital inventory.  The man and woman are asked if they agree or disagree separately to 150+ one sentence statements   At times I am concerned about the silent treatment I get from my future spouse. I am concerned that my future spouse sometimes spends money foolishly. I am hoping that after marriage my future souse will change of his/her behaviors.;   A computerized report is prepared comparing what the man and woman said on each issue. Result a tenth of couples decide not to marry.   Studies show that their scores are equal to those who marry and later divorce.  So they are avoiding a bad marriage before it has begun!   In 1992, my wife and I added another component, having couples in solid marriages administer the inventory. Clergy will normally provide only an hour of feedback. They do not have time to talk through scores of issues that a couple aged 50 can provide. With both genders present, mentor couples; can actually do a better job than clergy or counselors.   From 1992-2000, 302 couples were mentored at our home church.  Of that number, 21 dropped out part way through, mostly to break up.   Another 34 couples met with their mentors six evenings, but decided not to marry. Thus, more than 50 couples avoided a likely divorce.  But of those who did marry, there have been only seven divorces or separations in a decade.  That is a 3 percent failure rate, or a 97 percent success rate.   That’s not just marriage preparation - but marriage insurance. What’s more, we created an organization called Marriage Savers that has trained 3,000 mentor couples across the country, whose churches often have even lower divorce rates. To learn more, see marriagesavers.org .   Why doesn’t your church, synagogue or mosque set a goal in 2004 to radically reduce your congregation divorce rate?     END

By TREVOR KAVANAGH Political Editor THE SUN February 1998   TWO top bishops last night warned Tony Blair must answer to God for toppling Saddam Hussein.   The Bishop of Durham and the Archbishop of York blasted the war in newspaper interviews.   In an astonishing grab for the moral high ground, they admitted Saddam was wicked but claimed the allies were not the right people to oust him.   Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham, accused the PM and President George Bush - both devout Christians - of a strange distortion of Christianity; to justify action.   He compared them to white vigilantes going into Brixton to stop drug dealing. Dr David Hope, Archbishop of York, reminded the Prime Minister of the higher authority; he will have to face one day and urged churchgoers to pray for his soul.   Referring to Saddam, he said Undoubtedly a very wicked leader has been removed but there are other wicked leaders.   His words echoed Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams; warning that Mr. Blair would be called to account.   Some years ago, the main-line Christian denominations were taken over by leftists; the process is even more far gone in Europe than in America.   Hence this utterly bizarre news story Two Top Bishops Last Night Warned Tony Blair Must Answer to God for Toppling Saddam Hussein. Yes, that’s right. God was in Saddam’s corner all the way The Bishop of Durham and the Archbishop of York blasted the war in newspaper interviews. In an astonishing grab for the moral high ground, they admitted Saddam was wicked but claimed the allies were not the right people to oust him.     Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham, accused the PM and President George Bush - both devout Christians - of a strange distortion of Christianity; to justify action. He compared them to white vigilantes going into Brixton to stop drug dealing.   If anyone understands that reference, send us an email; I’m completely in the dark. And if England and America weren’t the right people; to oust Saddam, who were? All those other nations who have been lining up to do the dirty work all these years, I guess.   Dr David Hope, Archbishop of York, reminded the Prime Minister of the higher authority; he will have to face one day and urged churchgoers to pray for his soul. Referring to Saddam, he said. Undoubtedly a very wicked leader has been removed but there are other wicked leaders.     Meaning, I guess, that God will fault Tony Blair for not removing the Mullahs, Kim Il Jong, and a few others. Well, Reverend, give him time.   Meanwhile, when it comes to removing very wicked leaders, the score is Tony Blair and George Bush--(remember the Taliban), Church of England clerics--.   ***

Tanzania Archbishop Denied Access to Zanzibar Cathedral over Easter   Christ is risen! So what is next? If Jesus is risen then put your faith where your fear is. If Jesus is risen, then your business is the kingdom and the kingdom calls us to busyness. – Michael Bird   Every single one of our most pressing moral issues today – abortion, euthanasia, same-sex “marriage,” transgenderism, the proliferation of IVF, contraception, the collapse of the family, declining fertility, anti-natalism and environmental extremism, pornography, sex trafficking – in some way violates, devalues and deforms the image of God in mankind. --- Zachary Mettler   The conclave will be a contest between two competing visions of Catholicism. On one side are the aging liberal boomers, who came up in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council and whose vision for the church is decidedly modern. On the other side is a cohort of more traditional, theologically orthodox and culturally conservative prelates who reject the liberalism of “the spirit of Vatican II.” They understand that Catholicism is attracting new, increasingly young converts worldwide precisely because it stands against the chaos and confusion of modernity. --- The Federalist   Evangelicals—for the most part—no longer think of the pope as the “antichrist” or of the Roman church as the “whore of Babylon” from the Book of Revelation. --- Russell Moore   We are not called to be Church watchers. We are not called to fuss at the rectory, the chancery, or the Vatican. Our proper “stance” is to face the world with the Church at our back. (We should add the gospel on our lips) – Austin Ruse   Our love grows soft if it is not strengthened by truth, and our truth grows hard if it is not softened by love. Every Christian should be both conservative and radical; conservative in preserving the faith and radical in applying it. – John Stott   Dear Brothers and Sisters, www.virtueonline.org April 25, 2025   THE POPE IS DEAD . Beloved by the masses, Pope Francis’s tenure was marked by controversy and scandal. His public persona as a pope of the people, was evident by his concern and defense of the poor and marginalized with optics of foot washing, baby kissing and daily phone calls to Christians in Gaza, told only one side of the story.   There was another side that revealed his hatred of orthodox Catholics, the Rupnik scandal, his cozying up to Fr. James Martin and the LGBTQ crowd, his rejection of the Latin Mass for those who still wanted it; his abandonment of Chinese Catholics, and much more. His refusal, during his entire papacy, ever to return to Argentina raised more questions than answers, with hints of sexual abuse coverups and suggestions that the pope himself might be homosexual. Francis was not an intellectual like his two predecessors, he had a pastoral heart which appealed to the masses. He will not go down in history as a saint like Mother Teresa.   Judge Andrew P. Napolitano wrote that Catholics believe that he is the Vicar of Christ on earth. But Francis may have been the worst pope in history. He watered down Church teachings on marriage, sexuality and confession. He declined to judge right from wrong. He forbade the Mass that every canonized saint in Heaven attended and participated in since 1564. He has even claimed that all religions are equal and welcomed in the eyes of God — contrary to 2,000 years of express Church teaching. “This is heresy.”   He attacked long-standing theology, universal liturgy and Thomistic Natural Law; when his principal job was to preserve them. He even questioned the concept of sin, said the judge. One sign-post was the abortion issue and Nancy Pelosi. San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone barred her Holy Communion, she went to Rome where the Pope gave her the Eucharist.   Biblical theologian Carl Trueman writing in First Things , said the era of Francis is now over, and it is time to start the post mortems on his tenure. Throughout his time as pope, Roman Catholic critics of Francis typically prefaced their remarks with an acknowledgment of his strengths: his care for the poor, his stand on abortion, his clarity on transgenderism. He was certainly solid on these matters, as one would expect any Christian with a basic catechetical knowledge of the faith to be. Yes, one might say, the pope was Catholic. But in other areas, he was more problematic.   No matter, the Episcopal Church and the official Anglican Communion put out the usual bromides about how wonderful he was on a whole range of social issues, including his warmly embracing former Archbishop Justin Welby and more. Pope Francis, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Moderator of the Church of Scotland jointly visited South Sudan, making it the first trip of its kind in Christian history. The visit aimed to raise awareness about the conflict that has left over 400,000 people dead. Their visit changed nothing. South Sudan today is still a hell hole of violence, starvation and death.   “Francis was thus my own worst Protestant nightmare: an authoritarian Roman pope driving a liberal Protestant agenda, a leader who embodied the worst of all possible Christian worlds,” concluded Trueman.   The Most Rev. Steve Wood , Archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America, issued the following statement upon the death of Pope Francis: It is with profound sadness that I have received the news of the passing of His Holiness Pope Francis. On behalf of the Anglican Church in North America, I extend our deepest condolences to our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters throughout the world during this time of mourning and transition.   “Pope Francis’s leadership was marked by his heart for the poor, his commitment to interreligious dialogue, and his unwavering call for us all to be better stewards of God’s creation. Through his humble service, he reminded Christians of all traditions of our common call to bring Christ’s compassion to a broken world.”   Not a single mention of Francis’s heresies, In the name of being pastoral, and his all-paths lead to God, many believed he abdicated his right to be the pope sending mixed messages to the faithful. The faithful just cringed and moved on.   Will the next pope follow the agenda of powerful elites or challenge it? Pope Francis failed to bring clarity to those issues almost certainly because of his overwhelming orientation toward a left-leaning view of social justice. Can that be reversed?   The papal conclave will be a battle not just for the Catholic Church but for Western Civilization, wrote John Daniel Davidson for the Federalist. He might be right. (See the movie.)   I have posted a number of reflections on his life as the pope, including Carl Trueman in First Things, Pope Francis, My Worst Protestant Nightmare - First Things Dr. Jules Gomes in The Stream, https://www.virtueonline.org/post/pope-francis-sharp-left-turn-toward-heresy Mary Ann Mueller, a hermit and Catholic did not have good things to say about Francis, which you can read here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/is-pope-francis-a-lamppost-to-perdition The Death of a Pope by David Duggan offers insights into Pope Francis’s papacy. https://www.virtueonline.org/post/the-death-of-a-pope My own ramblings about Rome and Canterbury can be read here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/roman-catholic-liberals-and-anglican-revisionists-have-much-in-common You can read one positive take on Pope Francis by former Anglican bishop Michael Nazir-Ali here: https://anglicanmainstream.org/michael-nazir-ali-on-a-pope-for-the-poor/   Time will tell whether the next pope will follow in Francis’s footstep and permit the continuation of liberal Protestant policies. It’s up to the men who will be gathering in the Sistine Chapel in the coming weeks. As a Catholic friend once said to me about the last papal election, the Holy Spirit never errs. But, he added, the same cannot be said for the College of Cardinals.   As of this digest the odds-on favorite to be the next pope by bookmakers and artificial intelligence is Pietro Parolin , suggesting a 27.6% probability of him winning. As reported by the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, the Italian cardinal, currently serves as Secretary of State of the Holy See.   *****   King of England, Charles III , put his foot in it in his mouth over his Easter message that would have had his mother the late Queen rolling in her grave. Here is what he said; “On Maundy (Holy) Thursday, Jesus knelt and washed the feet of many of those who would abandon Him. His humble action was a token of His love that knew no bound or boundaries and is central to Christian belief.… The love He showed when He walked the Earth reflected the Jewish ethic of caring for the stranger and those in need, a deep human instinct echoed in Islam and other religious traditions, and in the hearts of all who seek the good of others.” The King’s anti-Christian statement and mass arrests for those voicing unfashionable opinions are ugly signs of Britain’s rapid decline, noted The Spectator. Former Chaplain to the Queen (Charles’ late great mother Elizabeth II) Dr. Gavin Ashenden ripped the statement. “It’s very offensive both for Jews and Christians to have this put together. It’s as if there’s no distinction between Jesus the Savior and Mohammed the warlord.”   The king, before he became king, had made it clear that he would not be a proponent of the faith once for all delivered to the saints, but of all faiths. He clearly followed through in this Easter message.   As one British woman screamed; "We have no proper leadership for Christianity in this country. Is someone going to stand up and do something about the Church of England in this country?" She has a point.   *****   One wonders for how much longer the issue of homosexuality will continue to consume the Anglican Communion both in money and headlines. It’s a fair question and the short answer is, I don’t know. The long answer is, not forever and probably not for much longer.   The lines have been drawn; Western Anglicanism has largely capitulated on the issue and the Global South has tightened its theological and moral reins. Both GAFCON and the GSFA have repeatedly reiterated that there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that they will capitulate to Western demands to approve sodomy and homosexual marriage. From Lambeth Resolution 1:10 to the latest iteration in the Jerusalem Declaration, that marriage will only be recognized between a man and a woman is the irreversible standard. But money is being used by Anglican pansexualists to twist Global South prelates into changing their thinking. It’s a difficult choice when people are starving. You can read my latest, Dancing Around Christ here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/dancing-around-christ   It is fascinating to watch intellectual gadfly’s like entrepreneur Elon Musk, philosopher Richard Dawkins and Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson flirt with Christianity but are not prepared to make a commitment to Christ.  The label “cultural Christian” has become a new way to position oneself between theism and a rejection of the value of Western culture and civilization that has its foundation in Christianity.   The long and short of it is, we have become a nation of idolaters; we worship everything but the one true God. Millions have dropped out of the church and Gen Zs are not even giving the church a first thought.   What is truly sad to read is that nearly 70% of born-again Christians disagree with the biblical position that Jesus is the only way to God. A clear majority of Americans (72%) say they believe in the classic Christian doctrine of the Trinity, one God in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, only about one third of Americans 55 and under believe in an active, creator God.   And now you know why only ONE PERCENT of churches in America are growing with effective evangelism. You should also know that Boomers (those born between 1946 and 1964) are the church’s biggest financial supporters. They represent 80 percent of all church giving. When they have gone there are no new generations to support the local church. It is why churches are dying and that part time pastors and priests along with retired priests are the future. The only healthy thing left in mainline churches are their pension plans.   Here's a snippet of what is going on in the mainline churches and how they are devolving. Jeff Walton an Anglican writer with Juicy Ecumenism wrote this: Presbyterian Church (USA) Shutters Foreign Missions ran the headline. The 1.09-million-member mainline Protestant denomination counted more than 3 million members at the merger of its predecessor bodies in 1983 and has experienced a membership decline of nearly 65 percent since that time. Gender queer is clearly not working. This week the Presbyterian Church (USA) fired missionaries around the world, ending its foreign mission agency.   The gravity of the church worldwide has shifted to the Global South. The church is at most half the size compared to when the current structures were set up. Does this sound familiar to Anglicans? It should.   The PCUSA leaders sent out a letter that didn’t lament missionary cuts resulting in less people hearing the gospel message, but instead expresses concern that “When progressive Christians, communions and mission sending organizations leave a mission field, their absences are inevitably and invariably filled with voices, personnel, and mission partners who view Jesus and his ministry differently, in less inclusive and liberating ways.”   If the newfangled doctrines of inclusion and diversity haven’t worked in the West, why does anyone think they will work in the Global South! Do you think the Anglican Church of Nigeria that faces daily persecution and is growing like crazy started down this rocky road that they would have a church in ten years? Of course not.   Just to make the point, Walton notes that The Episcopal Church’s international mission structure is (now) less centralized, but the closest equivalent to the Presbyterian Mission Agency in The Episcopal Church is Ecumenical and Interreligious Ministries. The Episcopal Church recently moved to cut staff through layoffs, early retirements, and the elimination of vacant positions in a reorganization announced in February.   Presiding Bishop Sean Rowe, a management wonk, was brought in to clean house, lower expectations and fire unproductive units. With dioceses merging and churches closing, death is inevitable. There are just so many life-support machines…and when the (spiritual) power goes out…   *****   An unofficial source told VOL that the Tanzania Archbishop the Most Reverend Maimbo Mndolwa, was denied access to the Anglican Cathedral in Zanzibar over Easter. The archbishop is caretaker of the Diocese as they are without a sitting bishop. The previous incumbent was forced to retire early. The archbishop is orthodox but not all his bishops, many of whom have been bought with TEC dollars. The Cathedral was built by Anglicans on the site of the former Slave Market, which David Livingstone fought to clos; is the island’s largest tourist attraction.   *****   REPARATIONS have become an issue de jure in both the Episcopal Church and the Church of England. The CofE is grappling with the issue, and theologian Ian Paul has come out blasting the Church Commissioner’s decision to put aside £100m ($133 million)  of their investments to be directed to working with and for communities affected by historic transatlantic slavery, with the intention that it creates a lasting legacy. The £100 million, which will be built up over the 9-year period of the three triennia through to 2031, sits alongside the £3.6 billion ($1.336 billion) indicative distributions that the Commissioners have articulated for the corresponding periods.   Paul notes the lack of evidence, the racist assumptions behind the goals of the project, and the way that this has been driven by ideology instead of Christian theology. “For my troubles, I was identified in the Fifth Report of the Racial Justice Group as an ‘Anglican blogger’ who puts out a ‘false narrative’ that must be ‘suppressed’ (p 23). Actually engaging with the issues raised might have been more productive!”   Collectively, these [papers] argue that the Church of England’s program of reparations is problematic for two reasons:   (a) Firstly, it represents a departure by the Church Commissioners from their core duties, of which international reparatory justice is not one, however worthy or not it might be in the abstract; and a diversion of funds intended for the good of parishes to a purpose for which they were not intended.   (b) Secondly, that this specific act of reparatory justice is poorly justified, historically uninformed and overall inadvisable.   Handing out millions of pounds while the CofE can’t pay decent salaries to vicars is an appalling use of funds. Paul said it lacked due consideration of the legitimate prior claims on the money entrusted to the Commissioners – especially those of parishes, where preaching the Christian gospel and performing pastoral acts of charity most effectively take place and which should be the Commissioners’ highest priority. You can read more here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/uk-should-the-church-commissioners-pay-slavery-reparations   The Episcopal Church has been working to promote what it calls racial justice and healing through direct institutional change and advocacy for public change. The church advocates for a Congressional commission to study reparations and draft proposals for the government moving forward. Several dioceses in the Episcopal Church have launched reparations programs in the past 13 months, while others are preparing to do so. The Diocese of Georgia is committing 3% of its unrestricted endowment to help create a center for racial reconciliation. The Episcopal Church has struggled to address its complicity with racial injustice and white supremacy for more than three decades.   *****   If you want to know where the Christian faith is spreading the fastest, think Iran . Iranians are rejecting Islam and embracing Christianity. The Iranian Revolution led by Ayatollah Khomeini, the uprising against the shah was fueled by a mix of economic dissatisfaction, opposition to his authoritarian rule and a rising wave of religious fundamentalism. What followed was not just a change in leadership but a complete reordering of society. Sharia law became the foundation of the state, and the Islamic Republic swiftly moved to suppress secularism, silence dissent and impose rigid moral codes.   But of the 75,000 mosques in Iran, 50,000 have closed. Dissatisfaction with Islam and its leaders is growing. Rather incredibly, Iran now has one of the fastest-growing Christian populations in the world. Not in grand cathedrals. Not in public squares. But underground, spreading quietly and carefully. The underground church is growing by leaps and bounds. Persecution is making new Christians. Most Christian churches are outlawed. There are an estimated 1 million Christians in Iran and the figure grows daily as people declare their faith in Christ.   Apostasy — leaving Islam — is a crime punishable by death. Churches were outlawed, converts were hunted, and Farsi Bibles became contraband. Any challenge to the regime’s authority was swiftly and brutally crushed. Yet today, despite every effort, Christianity is exploding. You can read more here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/why-iranians-are-rejecting-islam-and-embracing-christianity   *****   One hopeful sign this week in England was a UK Court ruling shutting down trans madness. The Stream reported that Great Britain’s Supreme Court has declared in a landmark ruling that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the 2010 Equality Act referred to biological sex, not acquired gender.   The judgment was hailed as a victory for common sense by gender-critical campaigners and politicians, with JK Rowling saying it would protect “the rights of women and girls across the UK”.   Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, said the ruling meant that the “era of Keir Starmer telling us women can have penises has come to an end”.   ***** You can read more stories at www.virtueonline.org website where we look at the Culture Wars, the Theology of the Church, reform and renewal and daily news of the Anglican Communion.     *****   I have been given an opportunity to attend the consecration of the new Bishop of North Africa in Tunisia . There will be a number of archbishops, bishops and clergy attending. I could use some financial support to make this trip possible and to assist the new bishop.   Please consider a tax-deductible donation. A PayPal donation link can be found here: here: http://www.virtueonline.org/support.html   If you are more inclined with old fashioned checks, you can send your donation to:   VIRTUEONLINE                                                                          P.O. BOX 111                                  Shohola, PA 18458   Thank you for your support,   David   My Substack on the Middle East continues to grow. It is drawing a lot of attention across the globe. You can access my Substack here: https://davidvirtue2.substack.com/

By Chuck Collins www.virtueonline.org April 25, 2025   “Church” isn’t an optional extra for Christians. Anglicans understand that church is God’s idea and his special way of reaching his people. It’s his appointed meeting-place. As the Old Testament tabernacle and temple were glimpses back to Eden before the fall, and looked forward to paradise restored in the New Jerusalem when Jesus returns, so today’s church is God’s instrument by which he delivers his grace. And he does this specifically in the reading and preaching of the Bible, and in the word eaten (the sacrament). The English reformers understood and respected the supernatural power of the Bible to turn people’s hearts and affections to God where Christians re-union with their Redeemer. And it is in this reunion by which the Lord reorients the hearts and affections of Christians. Thomas Cranmer, the chief architect of our Anglican heritage, knew this: “For as the word of God preached putteth Christ into our ears, so likewise these elements of water, bread, and wine, joined to God’s word, do after a sacramental manner put Christ into our eyes, mouths, hands, and all our senses.”   The people who gather expecting to meet God in word and sacrament is the bridge between heaven and earth. One aspect of this is what Anglicans call: the communion of the saints. Before Holy Communion, the congregation is invited to join angels and archangels, and all the company of heaven, who are in eternity forever acknowledging God’s holiness - to “lift up your hearts!” When Anglicans sing and when they pray, they are not just coming up with something on their own to offer God. No, it’s far bigger and more important than that! Worshipping Anglicans join the ongoing heavenly choir who are continually, day and night, acknowledging God’s beauty and his worthiness: “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!” (Revelation 5).   Anglicans say in the creed recited each week that the church is “one, holy, catholic and apostolic,” but have you noticed that the word “holy” is missing from the Nicene Creed in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer? This is curious, but it is not accidental. This is a loud and important statement of reformational understanding. The rejection of this word by Cranmer shows how the English reformers viewed the institutional church as essentially a human institution, a larger body that includes Christians and nonChristians.   Anglican formularies make the distinction between the visible and invisible church. The visible church is the human institution rooted in human society that is populated with believers and unbelievers. The invisible church is the mystical body of the elect within the visible church who are chosen from eternity for eternal life. Because no one knows who really belongs to God, the church of which Christ is the head can only be invisible.   This distinction between the visible and invisible church explains how King Henry VIII could be the head of the institutional Church of England, while Christ is the only head of his mystical body, the church invisible, which will be revealed on the day Jesus comes back to bring heaven to earth.   The Thirty-nine Articles spell this out for us: “The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.   As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith” (Article XIX). The reformers wanted to make sure the English church distanced itself from any ideas that the church and tradition (i.e. the pope) is infallible, or in some way equal in authority with Holy Scripture.   There is an ongoing debate in the church today as to whether or not the Bible is the “product” of the apostolic and catholic church. To the extent that this is true, the church that wrote the Bible can then modify it or add teachings that do not necessarily stand the test of Holy Scripture. This makes the Bible subject to the church, and it makes some amorphous undefined “great tradition” the guiding rule of faith and worship above the Bible. Cranmer, once again, saw this coming and he declared, “The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies and authority in controversies of faith; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God’s word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another” (Article XX).   Holy Scripture is the divinely inspired authority by which all other authorities are to be judged, including creeds, councils of the church, traditions, human reason and experience. This is why the first Homily is the first: “The Reading of Holy Scripture.” In this sermon, that was appointed to be read in every church in England and Ireland sequentially along with the other homilies, Christians are reminded that, “As drink is pleasant to those who are dry, and meat to those who are hungry, so is the reading, hearing, searching, and studying of holy scripture, to those who desire to know God, or themselves, and to do his will” (Gatiss version).   So, the church is a gathering in which the word of God is preached and the sacraments are duly ministered specifically for the reunion and refreshment of God’s people. Neglecting the gathering, the fellowship, and the worship is to say, “No thank you” to the God who has made his plan and grace available to us in this way. When someone is born again, it is never in isolation to be lone-ranger Christians, but rather into the family of believers who want to be together where God said he will meet and bless his children.   Rev. Canon Chuck Collins is a reform theologian who regularly writes on Anglican issues. He resides in Texas.