By Andrew Carey 7/26/2004 A nasty piece of spin in the Sunday Times this week. Readers will need to know that Christopher Morgan is an old friend of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, and was in fact his best man. A pattern is emerging that new initiatives from Lambeth Palace are trailed by Christopher Morgan in The Sunday Times -- a seeming favouritism that other newspapers deeply resent. Morgan reveals that the Archbishop of Canterbury is marking the third anniversary of 9/11 with a speech to praise Islam at Al-Azhar university. Morgan even apparently knows the content of the speech stating that the Archbishop will speak to his Muslim congregation of the common ground between Christianity and Islam through their shared inheritance as 'children of Abraham'. The story it must be said, is genuinely newsworthy and controversial because it marks the anniversary of the Islamist terror unleashed on the United States of America. But the whole tone of the report suggests that this lecture is of groundbreaking significance, whereas in fact Rowan's predecessor, who is criticised later in the article, lectured twice at Al-Azhar University (in 1994 and 1999) and established several important dialogues with Islam, including the Building Bridges seminar which Morgan disingenuously credits to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair. It is in this sense that I believe it to be a nasty piece of spin. Readers will expect me to say that given my relationship to Rowan's predecessor. Naturally enough I object to this from Morgan's report: "Muslim leaders believe Williams' address will repair some of the damage done to relations by a critical lecture from Lord Carey, his predecessor. Earlier this year at a seminar in Rome, Carey accused Muslim societies of being authoritarian and committed to power and privilege. He also criticised Muslim leaders who failed to condemn suicide bombers unequivocally." "In a rare clash among the higher echelons of the two faiths, Muslim leaders rounded on Carey, accusing him of bigotry and religious prejudice. Carey seemed bemused by the reaction." The report aids and abets this strange idea that criticism of Islam is out-of-bounds. So-called Muslim moderates need to have the maturity to accept well-intended criticism rather than petulantly claiming victim status every time someone points out a few home truths. After all, Islamic leaders throughout the world are only too happy to attack western values and describe America as 'the Great Satan'. I cannot believe for a moment that Archbishop Williams will duck the issues by delivering a lecture which minimises the major points of difference between our faiths. If he does then he will let us down badly. A speech which only emphasises our common inheritance and points of agreement will amount to nothing less than a betrayal of Christian minorities persecuted in countries like Nigeria, Pakistan and indeed deprived of their human rights throughout the Middle East. — END —

THE 1979 PRAYER BOOK (MY ATTITUDE TO IT) By Peter Toon People who have the time and inclination to read my little tracts and books will have noticed that consistently over the years I have referred to the official Prayer Book of the Episcopal Church, USA, as "the 1979 Prayer Book." This is a reasonable title to use and it is used by me for one basic reason -- in order to avoid using the official title as given to it by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in Minneapolis 1979 which was "The Book of Common Prayer..." Why do I seek to avoid calling this Book by its official title? The answer is simple. I cannot in conscience or historical judgment see it as "The Book of Common Prayer." It is most certainly a Prayer Book, but to my eyes it is not "The BCP." If we actually take note only of its internal contents which are characterized by variety and choice, we see very clearly and quickly that they belong to the new class of Prayer Books which were produced from the early 1970s onwards in the western/northern parts of the Anglican Communion, after the Lambeth Conference gave its moral backing to this enterprise. These new Books were intended to provide experimental, alternative forms of public services alongside the received, historical, Book of Common Prayer. Thus they usually contained the word "alternative" in their titles -- e.g., An Alternative Service Book (England 1980). Therefore, as a historian of doctrine and of forms of Anglican worship, I see that the 1979 book was given the wrong title. It should have been something like, An American Prayer Book (1979) or A Book of Alternative Services (1979). When I enquire why it has the wrong title, I find a long and involved story about the ecclesiastical politics operative in the Episcopal Church from the 1960s into the 1970s and it is not necessary to tell that story here. However, looking back over the history of the Episcopal Church from the new millennium back to the 1960s, I can see clearly how so often the General Convention is driven not by a commitment to biblical truth and historical orthodoxy, but by the desire to innovate to be relevant to a fast changing society and culture. So, it seems to me, the title of the new Prayer Book was a major innovation, a novel way of using a hallowed and distinctive title in order to make easy the speedy entrance of innovation and change of doctrine. And as such it worked as bishops took up the cause and pressed its use upon all dioceses of the Church. Because its title is the wrong one does not mean that there are not useful, even good, things in the 1979 Book. I gladly accept that by it, in the hands of faithful priests over the years, many have been blessed by God. Thus, in summary, my position in terms of my relation to the Prayer Books of the ECUSA is to regard the last edition of the classic Book of Common Prayer, the edition of 1928 as the true Formulary of the Anglican Way in America and then to see the 1979 Book as the equivalent of the ASB (1980) of the Church of England and the BAS (1985) of the Anglican Church of Canada (and of others similar ones from Australia, South Africa, Wales, Ireland etc). So for me to say "the 1979 Prayer Book" is to see it as an official alternative to the classic BCP and also under the general doctrinal standard of the historic editions in the USA of the classic BCP -- that is those of 1662, 1789, 1892 & 1928. When the new Prayer Book (or perhaps books and web sites of liturgical resources) of the ECUSA appears later in this decade, then I shall have to re-evaluate my position; but I expect that I shall regard the 1979 Book as conservative in comparison with the innovatory content of what will replace it by 2010! In and of itself the 1979 Book was innovatory in 1979 but such have been the changes within the ECUSA that it is now a conservative bedrock for some. (The liberals of the 1970s became the conservatives of the 1990s!) The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.), is vicar of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor & St Anne's, Brown Edge. — END —

By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent The London Times Evangelicals in the Church of England are planning to boycott and withhold funds from bishops who support gay priests. Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is among those bishops whose views on gay sex are considered "problematic" and who could see his ministry rejected by evangelical clergy. The plans, published yesterday, have been drawn up by Reform, the influential conservative evangelical grouping that represents up to a third of the 9,000 stipendiary clergy in the Established Church. If the proposals are endorsed, as expected, at the Reform conference in October, evangelical parishes whose bishops support the liberal gay agenda will refuse to allow them into their churches to perform confirmations and other services. They will also channel funds away from the diocese and into Reform's evangelical mission. Reform leaders denied last night that they were instituting schism. However, the plans are particularly serious because, although fewer than one third of Church of England clergy would count themselves as supporters of Reform, these parishes are the wealthiest in the Church. The precise sums have not been calculated, but if all the country's Reform parishes decided to withhold funds it would cost the Church millions of pounds a year. The plans make clear the growing fears among evangelicals around the world that the Lambeth Commission, set up by Dr Williams to resolve the crisis, will fail adequately to discipline provinces such as the US and Canada, which have taken the lead on the gay issue. The first openly gay bishop, Dr Gene Robinson, was consecrated in New Hampshire and the Diocese of New Westminster, Canada, authorised the first same-sex blessings rite. The liberal bishops who have already earned the opprobrium of evangelicals in England by coming out in support of the celibate cleric Dr Jeffrey John include the bishops of Hereford, Leicester, Newcastle, Ripon and Leeds, St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, Salisbury, Truro, Worcester and Oxford. The report says: "Sadly, there are also problems in Canterbury, where the Archbishop holds that homosexual relationships can be compatible with Christian discipleship." The report continues: "It is incumbent on each congregation to stand firm in this current crisis and safeguard their Anglican heritage." — END —

By Associated Press CONCORD Unable to accept their bishop's homosexuality, some Episcopalians have left their church. To others, Gene Robinson's consecration last year served as a powerful magnet. "It was a very strong symbol to us of the inclusiveness of the Episcopal Church, and that is important to us," said Martha McCabe. McCabe of Bow said she left the Catholic Church over the priest sex abuse scandal. She and her husband, who was raised a Methodist, had started looking at other denominations for a church their family could attend. Robinson's consecration drew them in as it did Maria Easton of Hillsboro. Easton had stopped coming to the church, but returned after Robinson became bishop. Her sister is gay, which made the decision personal. "For me, it was really a reminder of one of the things I like so much about the church: its inclusiveness," she said. "I always loved the fact that women could be leaders in the Episcopal Church." Church officials say they don't have a count, but they don't think a large number have joined because of Robinson. "It's a mix," said the Rev. David Jones, rector of St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Concord. "Some are old members who have just started attending again. Others have never been to the Episcopal Church or to church at all." Robinson's election and consecration last year as the Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire caused a stir inside and outside the Anglican community. Religious leaders and church-goers in several denominations denounced the move and said it would cause the church to split. So far, about nine of the country's 107 dioceses and more than 30 congregations have joined the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes, a traditionalist group opposed to Robinson's consecration. Members of the Church of the Redeemer in Rochester cut ties to the diocese and now hold services in the basement of a nearby Baptist church. A small group continues to meet every Sunday at the Church of the Redeemer and several faces are new. April Pirsig of Dover has been attending services for a month, ever since the majority left. Raised a Lutheran, Pirsig had attended Unitarian churches for years, but decided to start attending the Episcopal Church to show support for Robinson. Last week, she filled out a card to become a member. Pirsig says the furor over Robinson is a growing pain similar to the outrage over women becoming ministers. "It makes me angry that people would leave the church over something like this," Pirsig said. "As far as I'm concerned, it's the kind of attitude that goes back to the Civil War, when blacks weren't considered real people, or women weren't allowed to do certain things." Years ago, her mother was forced to give up her position as a Lutheran pastor when it was discovered she was gay. "To me, it doesn't make any sense," said Pirsig. "God loves all his children. I've never seen it written, 'Unless they're bisexual or gay.'" McCabe said she definitely likes what she's seen of Robinson. As far as she's concerned, he is a quintessential spiritual leader: wise and thoughtful, kind and well-spoken. "I think people's obsession with his homosexuality is so out of proportion it borders on ridiculous," she said. — END —

By David W. Virtue SAGINAW, MI – (7/24/2004) Three biblically orthodox rectors in the Flint River Convocation (Deanery), in the Diocese of Eastern Michigan, angry and disappointed by the church's consecration of an openly homoerotic non-celibate bishop; the affirmation of same-sex blessings and other doctrinal innovations, have resigned from their parishes and one has renounced his orders in the Episcopal Church. Their departure will leave hundreds of parishioners rootless, without spiritual direction and nurture and with a theologically and morally flawed revisionist bishop in the person of Ed Leidel who voted for Robinson's consecration and who favors same-sex blessings. "It's a disaster," said one of the priests, "the bishop has no idea what he is doing. He just doesn't get it. This is a new diocese and he is its first bishop. He will probably be its last. There is no future here. No gospel is being proclaimed, and in time it will all die. The diocese was formed in the Nineties and already has financial problems." What doubly angered the priests was that Leidel allowed a non-celibate gay man and his partner to come in as an interim priest at St. Jude's in Fenton, Michigan. "We were betrayed, the bishop lied to us. He said he would never do that," they said. Then he did. The three priests are the Rev. Dr. Greg Tournoux, Christ Church, Owosso; the Rev. Dave Kulchar, Trinity Church, Flushing and the Rev. Scott Danforth, St. Dunstan's, Davison. The priests spoke to Virtuosity represent one third of the Flint River Convocation of nine parishes. The rectors are young, and while each is in a different space with regard to how they have acted and their future plans, the Robinson consecration was the last line in the sand for the three men. "We struggled as to whether we should remain in the ECUSA," they told Virtuosity. In the end they resigned. The Rev. Dave Kulchar, 46, of Trinity Church, Flushing took a three month sabbatical and his parish is discerning their future. "I was told by Leidel that if I spoke to my parish about realignment I would be brought up on charges and that DEPO was not an option." This week Fr. Kulchar was inhibited by Leidel because he would not pledge loyalty to the bishop. Deposition, though not automatic, could follow. "In a season of divided loyalties, you would have thought he could have adopted a 'don't ask don't tell' policy until we heard from the international community. This means I cannot do marriages, funerals, supply, preach in any way represent myself as a priest according to his letter. I am a PBS (Priest in Bad Standing). That is the pastoral response to those who are walking away from the church? Fortunately the Kingdom and our God is bigger than human institutions. I am now forced to look to the Network for foreign oversight or go the way of the AMIA. For one who wanted to hang in there with other orthodox folks as long as possible I was pushed out." Kulchar who recently ended a 3-month sabbatical to discern his future says his congregation has been torn apart by the actions of their bishop. "I saw an early copy of the DEPO document before it came out, and I did not see DEPO as being a viable alternative," Kulchar told Virtuosity. "Leidel asked me if I saw this diocese as being hostile, and I said not up to this point. But then Leidel said that if a priest even speaks about DEPO he will be deposed. How does he know what the priest wants to do if there is no free choice?" Kulchar, who resigned June 1, had been asked by orthodox parishes to do supply work, but Leidel requested a loyalty pledge. Kulchar refused. "It is a season of divided loyalties, and my hope was that grace would be given till we heard from the Lambeth Commission, and I had hoped to serve those people in the interim. Leidel refused." Kulchar said he briefly did supply work till he was inhibited by Leidel. Said Leidel, "The canons require the Standing Committee give their advice and consent...after reading your e-mail, they did not give their consent on the grounds that you are not willing to uphold your ordination vows and obey and be loyal to the bishop." Kulchar said his former parish had 70 souls but it was now down to 30. Over 80 percent opposed the Robinson consecration but they were divided over an appropriate response. "I said we needed to align ourselves with the Network and apply for DEPO. He could not get consensus. I felt in my conscience I should resign and try and be pastoral as well." The priest said his future was uncertain but he intended to stay and live in Flushing, Michigan. "What the bishop has done to Fr. Kulchar is utterly despicable and immoral," said Fr. Gene Geromel of St. Bartholomew's in Swartz Creek. "Here is a priest who served Leidel well and at this point he is going after Kulchar's livelihood. The priest has children and he will not allow him to do supply work or any ministry, anywhere," he told Virtuosity. "They don't just want us to go away they want to obliterate us," said Fr. Geromel. "It is not enough to ignore or go your separate way; it is to destroy all that we stand for and to make an example of us to others who might stand up to their agenda. Fr. Kulchar is a case in point." The Rev. Dr. Greg Tournoux, 45, rector of Christ Church Owosso, resigned for the same reasons in mid June. "General Convention's blessing of same-sex unions and Robinson's consecration was the final straw," he told Virtuosity. "We had 400 communicants with an average attendance that grew to be the largest in the diocese. Now it is dying. We were particularly successful bearing in mind that the church was in a high unemployment area." "The parish has given me a sabbatical of six months which ends in December," he told Virtuosity. "I am doing three things - spending time with my family; working on a second doctorate in Religious Studies at Trinity in Indiana, and thirdly I am seeking the Lord's direction. I want to remain a part of the one holy, catholic and apostolic church as we Anglicans have received it." Dr. Tournoux said he had been approached by four different denominations, but had not made up his mind where to go. "I am evangelical, catholic and charismatic and a member of Forward in Faith, the traditionalist wing of the Episcopal Church." Tournoux says he opposes women's ordination and is not unsympathetic with the AMIA. The rector said that his name has even been submitted for several senior positions in The Episcopal Church, including a bishopric. Tournoux said he took his congregation from 70 to 300 and he did it through establishing 30 cell groups with leadership development using three distinct Eucharistic traditions. "We were successful bearing in mind that we were located in a rural small town with an average weekly attendance of 240 and an 11 percent unemployment rate. After the Vickie Gene fiasco a trickle of people began to leave." "One thing is for sure I won't sit around and be a leader of a morgue or mausoleum," he told Virtuosity. "I don't believe the bishop gets it. The truth is we are a small dying dysfunctional, incompetent, inept outfit. I don't want to spend the rest of my time that doesn't want to do something great for Jesus Christ," said Fr. Tournoux. "Time is short hell is hot and the stakes are high," he said. Since departing, Tournoux said the congregation has divided up with four different responses. "One group stayed, another group left for other churches that were not Anglican, a third group left and have not found a church home and a fourth group comprising a new leadership base have begun a new work outside of The Episcopal Church." Despite his departure, Tournoux said he was still excited about the future, "and I intend to serve in Holy Mother Church." The Rev. Scott Danforth, 51, rector of St. Dunstan's in Davison, Michigan chose to resign and renounced his orders. He is an evangelical and charismatic from California and has been in the diocese for nine years. "I have had an ongoing frustration with the direction and theological path of the church and I saw no hope of its ever changing," he told Virtuosity. "I am looking to teach and have found a non-Anglican congregation that my family and I now attend. I have left St. Dunstan's and ECUSA." He said he plans to pursue teaching. He said General Convention was one symptom of a much larger problem that included theology, integrity and authority. "I built a solid core of lay leadership, but the church is fractured over the issues. People have taken different directions. We lost a number of people over the issues. We had up to 120 on a Sunday; it dropped to 60 but is now down around 40. The parish will continue to struggle with the unbiblical direction of the National Church as they experience depleting numbers." The priest said he was in a process of soul searching and reflection. The Rev. Steve Dewey, 55, Grace Church, LaPeer, MI another orthodox priest in the diocese said he was not threatening to leave ECUSA but was considering joining the NETWORK. "Bishop Leidel said it was schismatic, but we have ceased and desisted all funding to the diocese and the national church," he told Virtuosity. He said the Diocesan Standing Committee won't harass him about money till the Archbishop of Canterbury speaks in October following the release of the Lambeth Commission report. "We are hoping and praying for the best, but planning for the worst," he said. "My parish has sent a resolution to our Diocesan Convention in October that effectively denounces the actions of Bishop Leidel to affirm the Robinson consecration and same-sex blessings. We will see how that goes." "I have 300 souls and I have to take of all of them and while there is some division in my congregation, we will do what we have to do to proclaim the orthodox faith." Dewey said he had lost four families since the Robinson consecration. "We have done reasonably well helping people to stay on board doing something." Fr. Dewey predicts there will be a mass exodus of parishioners and priests if the decision is not to discipline the Episcopal Church. "They have denied, delayed and hoped it would all go away. There has been some success, but it won't go away, the authority of Holy Scripture is not up for negotiation." Fr. Dewey describes himself as an evangelical catholic. Both Danforth and Dewey served as deans of the diocese and were the bishop's right hand men, representing the bishop in their respective convocations, so the betrayal is particularly hurtful. Said Fr. Danforth, "We served the diocese faithfully; we gave the bishop and the diocese committed service and this fuels the irony of the whole situation." Fr. Gene Geromel, rector of St. Bartholomew's in Swartz Creek, Michigan left the Episcopal Church over four years ago and is now an independent congregation though it remains a Forward in Faith parish. "I have not been deposed nor inhibited," he told Virtuosity. He described the departure of the parish as an exceptional circumstance, and said the bishop would never let that happen again. "I do not minister sacramentally to any Episcopalians in the Diocese of Eastern Michigan," he told Virtuosity. Leidel has allowed Bishop Keith Ackerman, Diocese of Quincy to do confirmations, but he is not sure how much longer that will continue, he said. "We have kept our property and Bishop Ackerman has been allowed to administer, so far. We don't know what the future holds. We have also signed up to join the NETWORK under the Forward and Faith name." Fr. Geromel said over 70% of the parishes now had fewer than 70 persons on any Sunday. He reiterated that what Leidel had done to Fr. Kulchar was indeed despicable and immoral. "They want to obliterate us. It is not enough to ignore us; it is to destroy all that we stand for and to make an example of us to others." "They use canons to see to it that they have absolute power. No Roman bishop has the power that Leidel has seen to it that he has himself. It is very clear to me that when an organization disintegrates it tightens its control. This is precisely what is going on in The Episcopal Church." Another Anglo-Catholic Episcopal priest, The Rev. Darryl Pigeon of Trinity Parish, Croswell-Lexington, has withheld contributions to the diocese and has said he would not receive communion from Leidel. Another priest who asked not to be named, said that the diocese has recognized that redirecting funds has hurt them, but there was no sense of panic as yet. The diocese does not receive money to stay afloat, but the diocese is dependent on part time and semi-retired priests and mutual ministry teams for Sunday coverage, he said. In writing about Anglicanism, the bishop said, "The Anglican Church is a Church that is tolerant of ambiguity," apparently not enough for his orthodox priests. For them he is anything but ambiguous. Leidel said that The Anglican Church is a Church that is more communal than doctrinal, but that too is a fiction. Bishop Leidel came to the Diocese of Eastern Michigan seven years ago after it split in the 90's. He is its first bishop. He will be its first and last bishop of the diocese, said a knowledgeable insider. Bishop Leidel did not return an E-mail requesting his perspective on what is taking place in his diocese. — END —

SPECIAL TO VIRTUEONLINE By Rev. Dr. Ronald H. Moore www.virtueonline.org March 8 2026 Few passages of Scripture reveal the heart of Christ more fully than John 17. Spoken on the night before the Crucifixion, this prayer stands at the threshold of the Passion. It is not merely a moment of personal devotion; it is the prayer of the High Priest as He prepares to offer Himself. The ancient Church often called this chapter  the High Priestly Prayer , and the title is fitting. In it, Jesus intercedes for Himself, for His apostles, and for all who will believe through their witness. Because John 17 contains Christ’s prayer for unity, it is frequently cited in modern discussions about the divisions of the Church. Yet the passage is often invoked without careful attention to what Jesus actually says. Unity is treated as an end in itself, as though Christ prayed merely for institutional harmony or doctrinal minimalism. A careful reading of the text reveals something far deeper. The unity Christ prays for is not created by negotiation or sentiment; it is the fruit of sanctification in truth and participation in the communion of the Father and the Son. John 17 is therefore not simply a prayer for unity. It is a theological charter for the life of the Church. The Setting of the Prayer The prayer occurs at the close of the Upper Room discourse (John 13–17). Judas has already departed into the night. Christ has washed the feet of the disciples, foretold His betrayal, and given His final instruction concerning love, obedience, and the coming of the Holy Spirit. Now, knowing that His “hour” has come, He lifts His eyes to heaven and prays. The structure of the prayer unfolds in three movements. First, Jesus prays concerning Himself (17:1–5).Second, He prays for the apostles (17:6–19).Third, He prays for all who will believe through their testimony (17:20–26). The progression is deliberate. Christ’s mission flows outward: from the Son to the apostles, and from the apostles to the Church in every generation. Glory Through the Cross The prayer begins with a striking paradox. “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You” (John 17:1, NKJV). In the Gospel of John, “the hour” refers to the Passion. The glory Christ seeks is not worldly triumph but the revelation of divine love through the Cross. What appears to human eyes as humiliation is, in truth, the unveiling of God’s redemptive purpose. Christ immediately connects this glory with the gift of eternal life: “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (17:3). Eternal life is not merely endless duration. It is communion with the living God. To “know” God in the biblical sense is covenantal and relational. Yet it is not a vague spiritual feeling. Knowledge of God is inseparable from the revelation of truth in Jesus Christ. Already the prayer reveals a central principle: life, glory, and unity all flow from the revelation of the Father through the Son. The Apostles: Guarded in the Name Beginning in verse 6, Christ turns His attention to the apostles. “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world” (17:6). In biblical language, the “name” of God signifies His revealed character and authority. To receive the Name is to enter into covenantal relationship with the One who bears it. Christ has revealed the Father’s Name to the apostles, and they have believed that He was sent from God. Because they belong to God, Jesus prays that they will be guarded. “Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are” (17:11). Here we encounter the first reference to unity. Yet notice the order: the apostles are first  kept  in the Name. Unity flows from divine protection and fidelity to God’s revelation. It is not something the apostles manufacture for themselves. Christ also acknowledges the reality of conflict. The apostles are “not of the world,” even as He is not of the world (17:16). Their mission will place them in tension with the surrounding culture. Unity is therefore not maintained by accommodating the world, but by remaining faithful to the truth entrusted to them. Sanctification in Truth The central theological statement of the prayer appears in verse 17. “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.” Sanctification means to be set apart for God’s purposes. In the Old Testament, priests, vessels, and sacrifices were consecrated for sacred use. Here Christ asks the Father to consecrate the apostles through the truth of the divine Word. This statement is crucial for understanding the unity of the Church. Unity cannot be separated from sanctification, and sanctification cannot occur apart from truth. Any vision of Christian unity that treats truth as secondary has already departed from the prayer of Christ. Jesus then adds a remarkable declaration: “And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth” (17:19). Christ’s self-sanctification refers to His consecration as the sacrificial offering. He sets Himself apart for the Cross. The sanctification of the Church is therefore grounded not in human effort but in the priestly self-offering of Christ. The Church is holy because Christ has made her holy. The Prayer for the Church Beginning in verse 20, the prayer expands beyond the apostles to include all believers. “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word” (17:20). Here the continuity of the Church becomes clear. Faith arises through the apostolic witness. The unity of the Church is therefore rooted in the truth handed down from the apostles. Christ then utters the line most frequently cited in discussions of Christian unity: “that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me” (17:21). This statement has often been misunderstood. The unity of believers is patterned after the communion of the Father and the Son. Yet the comparison is analogical, not identical. Christians do not become a single person or consciousness. Rather, they participate in a shared life grounded in the divine communion. This unity is also missional. Jesus explicitly connects it to the witness of the Church before the world. When believers share a common life rooted in truth and love, the world sees evidence that Christ truly came from the Father. Glory Shared with the Church Christ continues: The Rev. Dr. Ronald Moore is the Vicar of St. Luke's Anglican Church in Corinth, Mississippi. You can find his books at amazon.com/author/ronaldhmoore

By Ronald Moore THEOPOLIS INSTITUTE February 17, 2026   When the Apostle Paul wrote to the Romans that Gentile believers were “grafted in” to the olive tree of Israel (Romans 11), he was not announcing the birth of a new religion but the restoration of God’s ancient purpose. The covenant was not discarded but fulfilled; the tree was not uprooted but renewed. In Christ, the promises to Abraham reach their intended harvest: the nations brought in, Israel restored, creation reconciled. The covenant is not a coalition of moral traditions; it is the resurrection of a people in the Messiah. The fiction of the “Judeo-Christian” West The modern phrase  Judeo-Christian civilization  emerged not from the prophets or apostles but from mid-twentieth-century political discourse, particularly during World War II and the early Cold War, when writers such as Will Herberg employed it to describe a shared religious identity standing against both fascist and secular totalitarianism. In that context it functioned as a rhetorical alliance, a way for Jews and Christians to affirm common moral concerns in the face of ideological threats. As a cultural project it had a certain usefulness; as a theological category, however, it remains inadequate. God’s covenant cannot be reduced to a shared moral consensus. By joining “Judeo” to “Christian,” the hyphen performs sleight-of-hand by turning redemptive history into sociology. It imagines the West as a child of a moral consensus rather than of the Cross. Yet the moral architecture of the West—its concern for conscience, justice, and human dignity—arose not from a broad Abrahamic compact but from the Incarnation itself. The light that illumined the Gentiles did not come from shared law but from shared life in the risen Lord. From continuity to fulfillment Paul’s olive-tree imagery corrects both triumphalism and nostalgia. The Gentiles who are grafted in do not form a second people beside Israel, nor do they replace her. They become part of the same covenantal organism now sustained by the life of the Messiah. As Jason Staples argues in  Paul and the Resurrection of Israel , Paul’s gospel announces Israel’s restoration through the death and resurrection of Christ, bringing to completion the story begun with Abraham. The covenant’s boundaries expand, but its root remains holy. Israel’s vocation to bear God’s name among the nations is not cancelled but completed as Gentiles enter through faith. The Church, therefore, is not “post-Israel” but Israel renewed: the people of God now defined not by genealogy alone but by participation in the Spirit. The Cross, then, does not divide history into competing religions. It unveils what the Law and the Prophets had long foretold. As Augustine said, “In the Old Testament the New is concealed; in the New the Old is revealed.” The hyphen between “Judeo” and “Christian” conceals this revelation, suggesting continuity without fulfillment and unity without conversion. By framing Christianity as merely the moral heir of Judaism rather than the fulfillment of Israel’s covenant in Christ, the hyphen shifts attention from redemption to heritage and from conversion to cultural continuity. Our covenant with God is not a coalition with him or with the Jews. The confusion arises when covenantal grace is mistaken for cultural partnership. The Kingdom of God is not an alliance of the pious; it is a new creation. A covenant binds by divine promise, while a coalition binds by mutual interest. Shared virtues, public prayers, and moral declarations may indeed grow from covenant life, but they are its fruit, not its foundation; in a coalition they become the basis of unity precisely because they demand no common root. But the gospel’s claim is far more radical: through the crucified and risen Christ, God has made one new humanity, not by negotiation but by regeneration. To call the West “Judeo-Christian” is to soften revelation into cultural respectability, recasting the scandal of Christ’s particular claims as a broadly shared religious heritage. It replaces Pentecost with parliament, baptismal incorporation into Christ with the looser language of cultural belonging. The Church does not exist to preserve civilization’s moral order; she exists to embody a redeemed one. The olive tree flourishes only where the sap of the Spirit flows. Without that life, even the most venerable branches become dry wood fit for the fire. The Law fulfilled in the Spirit The Law given at Sinai is not abolished but fulfilled in those who walk by the Spirit (Rom 8:3–4). What was once written on tablets of stone is now written on human hearts. The covenant’s continuity is not institutional but incarnational. The same God who called Abraham now calls the nations; the same righteousness once revealed in the Law is now revealed in Christ. Here is the true unity of the Testaments: promise kept, not partnership maintained. The God of Israel has not changed his mind, but he has kept his word in ways that only grace could imagine. Every moral vision worthy of the name “Christian” must arise from this miracle of fulfillment, not from nostalgia for a cultural synthesis that never existed. The Church is the fulfilled people of God. When the Church forgets her identity as grafted Israel—incorporated into the covenant promises first given to Abraham—she begins to speak the language of coalition rather than covenant. The olive tree into which Gentiles are grafted is not a new organism but the living root of Israel’s calling, now sustained by the Messiah. The distinction between natural and grafted branches remains historically real, yet both draw life from the same root and share the same covenantal hope. Paul’s gospel leaves no room for confusion: “You were once far off, but now you have been brought near by the blood of Christ” (Eph 2:13). The nearness of the Gentiles does not dilute Israel’s election; it manifests its purpose: that through Abraham’s seed all nations should be blessed. This is why the Church cannot adopt the idiom of “Judeo-Christian civilization” without losing her own tongue. The phrase points not to covenant fulfillment but to an imagined moral consensus drawn from a shared religious past, while the gospel points forward to new creation. Civil religion seeks agreement; covenant faith seeks transformation. The one preserves, and the other resurrects. The cross fulfills the Old Testament promises. Between synagogue and Church stands not a wall of enmity but the open tomb. The difference is real and decisive, yet it is the difference between promise and fulfillment, not between error and replacement. The Cross unites by fulfilling; it reconciles by judging; it brings peace by passing through death. Therefore the Church does not boast against the branches but remembers her dependence on the root. She confesses that her very existence is the fruit of Israel’s faithfulness and God’s mercy. The covenant has no hyphen because it has a heart of flesh, animated by the Spirit poured out on all who believe. The covenant has a Savior The moral order of the West, such as it remains, is a fragile afterglow of the light of Christ’s revelation. To rebuild on any foundation other than Christ is to return to Babel with better manners. The Church’s calling is not to preserve a mythic “Judeo-Christian” civilization but to proclaim the crucified and risen Lord through whom Israel’s promises live. The covenant fulfilled in Christ is not a hyphenated civilizational project but the living promise of God made flesh. Its center is not a shared ethic but a Savior—Jesus Christ himself. And in him the nations find not merely a moral code to admire but a life into which they are grafted, a single tree whose root is holy and whose branches reach to the ends of the earth.

COMMENTARY   By David W. Virtue, DD VirtueOnline.org March 7, 2026 G26 in Abuja: High Expectations, Muted Results   A UK Anglican blog known for its orthodoxy observed that what emerged from GAFCON’s mini-conference (G26) in Abuja, Nigeria was a “terribly British” way of doing business. The Anglican Futures writer noted that many had expected a rival to the newly appointed Archbishop Sarah Mullally—a pro-pansexual, progressive woman bishop and former head nurse—to emerge, along with a rival communion. Anticipation was high. Instead, a triumvirate was announced—with no primus inter pares to compete with the occupant of Lambeth Palace. As the writer observed, “The initial response was muted. Many feared that once again orthodox Anglicans had been marched to the top of the hill, only to be marched back down again”—a reference to the “Grand Old Duke of York” nursery rhyme. It seemed GAFCON’s bark was worse than its bite, and that the Archbishop of Canterbury had little to fear. The result is rule by committee. Three men will now lead the newly formed communion: a Rwandan archbishop, a Brazilian archbishop, and an American bishop. The latter, Paul Donison, is essentially a public relations operative—all flare, little substance. GAFCON is clear that it is “reordering” the Anglican Communion—not breaking away, nor executing a takeover, since there is nothing to take over. The Anglican Communion is, at heart, merely a set of relationships between provinces and between dioceses within provinces. It is at the diocesan and provincial level that episcopal and archepiscopal jurisdiction plays out, not at the level of the broader communion. The Problem with Conciliarism The approach taken by GAFCON is a conciliar one that has little basis in Anglican ecclesiology. Anglicanism is confessional, acknowledging Scripture as primary, alongside the Thirty-Nine Articles and the two sacraments. A number of scholars have challenged this direction, including Dean Chuck Collins, who has spent over 40 years in Episcopal and Anglican circles, and the distinguished Anglican scholar Dr. Gillis Harp. Anglican theologian Philip Edgecombe Hughes (1915–1990) also weighed in on the matter. Hughes was an Anglican theologian and patristics scholar best known for his work in Reformed Anglican theology. He consistently subordinated conciliar authority to Scripture. Drawing on the Reformed Anglican tradition—particularly the Thirty-Nine Articles—he maintained that general councils “may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God” (Article XXI). For Hughes, no council, however authoritative, could claim infallibility, because infallibility belongs to Scripture alone. Conciliarism—rule by rotating committee—will only work if all parties remain on the same page. That is not guaranteed. While there is consensus that homosexual marriage (per Lambeth Resolution 1:10) and the failed Windsor Report are off the table, the issue of women’s ordination remains very much alive. Anglo-Catholics sit uneasily in the Anglican Church in North America, as they do in the Church of England—further complicated by active homosexuals drawn to the liturgical tradition who remain uncommitted to justification by faith alone in the finished work of Christ. Anglican theologian Ephraim Radner argues that the conciliar tradition developed because the Church is wounded, not because it is inherently democratic. Councils emerged to maintain communion, address crises, and preserve doctrinal unity. He emphasizes that conciliarism is a practice of bearing wounds, not simply a method of governance. Radner is also critical of modern attempts at conciliar structures, arguing that they try to solve problems structurally rather than penitentially. In Roman Catholicism, conciliarism does not override the magisterium. Indeed, the official Catholic position since the nineteenth century holds the opposite: the magisterium—especially the papal magisterium—has final interpretive authority, and councils function only with and under the pope. Recovering the Reformation Heritage Dr. Gillis J. Harp, a retired history professor at Grove City College, argues that the path forward for orthodox Anglicans lies in recovering their Reformation heritage, not in building new institutional frameworks. Harp traces the current doctrinal drift in part to a decision made at the founding of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 1780s, when American Anglicans chose not to require clergy to subscribe to the Thirty-Nine Articles. By the late 1970s, those Articles had been relegated to a “Historical Documents” appendix at the back of the American prayer book. “The Articles will help reinvigorate Anglican theology because they reflect the core teaching of the Protestant Reformation,” Harp writes. He identifies key doctrines—including the supremacy of Scripture, justification by grace through faith, and the proper administration of the sacraments—as non-negotiable for any genuine Anglican recovery. The Three Streams Problem Both Archbishop Bob Duncan (ACNA emeritus) and Bishop Phil Ashey (Diocese of Western Anglicans) have championed the Three Streams model, but it has been roundly criticized by reform theologian Dean Chuck Collins as insufficient Anglican ecclesiology. Collins writes: “‘Three Streams’ threatens our Anglican identity. An idea that was hatched in 1954—in Lesslie Newbigin’s book The Household of God—cannot possibly describe what the Church of England was founded on or what Anglicans believe today. Three-streams not only explains why there is wild diversity and sometimes no continuity from Anglican church to Anglican church, but the idea that equal respect be given to Catholic, Evangelical, and Pentecostal streams is nowhere in the historic Anglican formularies or hinted at in Anglican teaching until modern times. It is the latest in a long line of conciliar attempts to reach consensus apart from confessional Anglicanism. Each ‘stream’ holds contradictory views on primary issues of faith, including authority in the church and the place of the Reformation in determining belief and practice. The notion of three streams does violence to the founding conviction that Holy Scripture—the Bible alone—is the primary authority of the Church of England, as understood and explained in the Thirty-Nine Articles, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the two Books of Homilies.” The Jerusalem Declaration and the G26 Communiqué Since GAFCON’s inception in 2008 and its founding document—the Jerusalem Declaration—its leaders have sought to cement the differences between Canterbury and GAFCON. It is a remarkable document; membership requires signing the Declaration. Its five core commitments are: 1.        The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God, containing all that is necessary for salvation. 2.        The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught, and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respecting the Church’s historic and consensual reading. 3.        The Anglican Communion will be guided by the Jerusalem Declaration, with its second clause emphasizing the centrality of the Bible in the Church’s identity and authority. 4.        The Declaration calls for a renewed commitment to lifelong fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those who are not married. 5.        The Anglican Communion will be reordered with one foundation of communion: the Holy Bible. The recent G26 Communiqué is equally unambiguous. The Abuja Affirmation represents GAFCON’s formal declaration of a new Global Anglican Communion, rooted in biblical authority, orthodox doctrine, and separation from Canterbury’s structures—framed not as schism but as a claim to continuity with historic Anglican faith. Conclusion: From Conciliar to Confessional The only remaining hurdle is whether GAFCON can move beyond conciliarism to a genuinely confessional Anglicanism. That shift would go a long way toward establishing an authentically Anglican witness capable of standing the test of time—and of replacing the morally and theologically compromised Canterbury-driven communion.   END

End Times Speculation Unleashes “Prophecy” Nutters //Gen Z least Religious in US History QUOTES OF THE DAY: "The early Church converted the Roman world without altar calls, stage lighting, or seeker-sensitive liturgies. She did it by forming disciples, baptizing converts, and worshiping God with seriousness and awe." — Rev. Dr. Donald H. Moore "The souls who don't know Christ need us to be clear in articulating the faith and faithful in presenting it with our words and our deeds. Our children do not need us to leave a legacy, but a field bearing fruit. GSFA and GAFCON, put your hands together on the Gospel plow and get to work." — Andrew Brashier "Reordering the Anglican Communion is now necessary, because a significant number of provinces who claim to be Anglican have abandoned the authority of Scripture and failed to follow Christ faithfully." — GAFCON Communiqué "God intends us to penetrate the world. Christian salt has no business remaining snugly in elegant little ecclesiastical salt cellars; our place is to be rubbed into the secular community, as salt is rubbed into meat, to stop it going bad. And when society does go bad, we Christians tend to throw up our hands in pious horror and reproach the non-Christian world; but should we not rather reproach ourselves? One can hardly blame unsalted meat for going bad. It cannot do anything else. The real question to ask is: Where is the salt?" — John Stott Dear Brothers and Sisters, www.virtueonline.org March 6, 2026 THE Anglican Communion has been reset — but not, as anticipated, with a rival to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Even so, the Anglican Communion as we have known it is seriously, perhaps fatally, wounded by the heresies emanating from the West. As a result, the Global South has set the stage for a major change in how the Communion will function going forward. Leaders representing 80 million Anglicans met this past week in Abuja, Nigeria — the largest province in the Communion — and declared that the marker for orthodoxy is Holy Scripture, not culture, and that the Jerusalem Declaration is the new "Nicene" creed of Anglican orthodoxy. Some 400 bishops, clergy, and laity, meeting in Abuja under the banner of GAFCON — the Global Anglican Future Conference — said they would now determine the future for orthodox Anglicans in more strategic ways than when GAFCON first reorganized the Communion in 2008. GAFCON declared that the Anglican Communion will be reordered with its sole foundation in Holy Scripture, rejecting the previous instruments of communion such as the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC). The conference emphasized the need for a conciliar structure to lead the Communion, moving away from traditional Anglican leadership — though not necessarily toward a confessional model. GAFCON continued to uphold the Jerusalem Declaration, which articulates the Communion's commitment to the authority of Scripture. These developments represent a significant shift in the Anglican Communion's governance and theological outlook. The full communiqué can be read here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/communique-the-abuja-affirmation What GAFCON did was declare a new council to lead its churches, accusing the Church of England of straying from biblical faithfulness. Rebranded as the Global Anglican Communion, the group appointed Rwandan Archbishop Laurent Mbanda as its chairman — replacing the Archbishop of Canterbury in that role. The council also elected Brazilian Archbishop Miguel Uchoa and Bishop Paul Donison (USA) to serve alongside him. Mbanda will not hold the title of "first among equals," a designation the Archbishop of Canterbury traditionally holds. One speaker, the Anglican Bishop of Tasmania, the Rt. Rev. Richard Condie, took the gloves off when he declared that antichrists had entered the Church. Speaking to conferees at GAFCON's G26 mini-conference, he said the challenges facing the Church today should come as no surprise. The Apostle John described false believers as a sign of "the last days," referring to them as the spirit of antichrist. "We are here because of the antichrists among us," Condie said, emphasizing that false teachers and false believers have always been a feature of Christian discipleship. He cautioned that the danger is not limited to those outside the orthodox faith — church leaders themselves must guard their hearts against denying Christ. "We deny him when we expect deference and walk in pride as leaders," he said. "We deny him when we are taken in by money given to us by heretical teachers." You can read more here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/abuja-tasmanian-bishop-says-anti-christ-s-are-among-us I have written at length about this gathering, with other reliable sources also adding to the mix: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/gafcon-overhauls-leadership-structure-stops-short-of-formal-schism https://www.virtueonline.org/post/abuja-competing-communions-to-emerge-from-g26 https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/gafcon-denies-schism-insists-continuity ***** One criticism of GAFCON is its embrace of conciliarism, which critics argue is inconsistent with Anglicanism's confessional tradition. Dr. Gillis J. Harp, a retired history professor at Grove City College, argues that the path forward for orthodox Anglicans lies in recovering their Reformation heritage, not in building new institutional frameworks. Harp traces the current doctrinal drift in part to a decision made at the founding of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 1780s, when American Anglicans chose not to require clergy to subscribe to the Thirty-Nine Articles. By the late 1970s, those Articles had been relegated to a "Historical Documents" appendix at the back of the American prayer book. "The Articles will help reinvigorate Anglican theology because they reflect the core teaching of the Protestant Reformation," Harp writes. He identifies key doctrines — including the supremacy of Scripture, justification by grace through faith, and the proper administration of the sacraments — as non-negotiables for any genuine Anglican recovery. Both Archbishop Bob Duncan (ACNA emeritus) and Bishop Phil Ashey (Diocese of Western Anglicans) have championed the Three Streams model, but it has been roundly criticized by Reformed theologian Dean Chuck Collins as insufficient Anglican ecclesiology. Collins writes: "'Three Streams' threatens our Anglican identity. An idea hatched in 1954 (in Lesslie Newbigin's book The Household of God) cannot possibly describe what the Church of England was founded on or what Anglicans believe today. Three Streams not only explains the wild diversity — and sometimes complete discontinuity — from one Anglican church to another, but the notion that equal respect be given to Catholic, Evangelical, and Pentecostal streams appears nowhere in the historic Anglican formularies or in Anglican teaching until modern times. It is the latest in a long line of conciliar attempts to reach consensus apart from confessional Anglicanism." Interestingly, the Continuing Anglicans — a splinter group of orthodox Anglicans — also weighed in on this week's GAFCON meeting. Bishop Chandler Holder Jones said: "The Continuing Anglican Churches have a different, distinctive, more robust, precise, perspicuous, and well-defined dogmatic foundation rooted in the First Millennium Consensus of the Undivided Church — the fullness of the Catholic Faith. GAFCON and the Jerusalem Declaration suffer from major lacunae in the matrix of Catholic orthodoxy. Most seriously, and an insuperable barrier to communion, GAFCON as an organization or network permits the purported ordination of women to the episcopate, priesthood, and diaconate. The same innovation that splintered the Canterbury Communion persists in GAFCON." Whether he is right or wrong, time will tell. For the moment, the future has arrived. As the Jerusalem Communiqué states: "For more than two decades, we have in prayerful humility called for the repentance of those senior leaders of the Anglican Communion who have denied the orthodox faith in word and deed. Reordering the Anglican Communion is now necessary, because a significant number of provinces who claim to be Anglican have abandoned the authority of Scripture and failed to follow Christ faithfully. While matters of human sexuality are one expression of this, they are merely symptomatic of deeper doctrinal and moral departures from the teaching of Scripture. The leadership of the Canterbury Instruments of Communion has failed to exercise discipline, maintain the biblical witness, and uphold fundamental Anglican doctrine as expressed in its Reformation Formularies (the Thirty-Nine Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer including the Ordinal). Instead, these Instruments seek to hold together a confused communion of institutional co-existence, based on the fiction of 'walking together' with those who are walking away from the truth of the gospel and the teaching of Jesus." There you have it — schism in all but name. If you do not recognize the titular head (Archbishop Mullally), you have for all intents and purposes cut yourself off from the Communion as it now stands. There will be no more journeys to Lambeth Palace, no more Eucharists in Canterbury Cathedral (now overseen by a dean in a same-sex partnership), and fewer ordinands from the Global South pursuing theological education at English universities. A new day has dawned. Now we await to see how far and wide the light will shine. For an excellent commentary on the GAFCON communiqué, see theologian Michael Bird's analysis here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/the-jerusalem-statement-a-commentary-part-one-the-gospel-of-grace-and-biblical-authority ***** An Honorary Canon at Chelmsford Cathedral has resigned over its use of the controversial Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF). The Rev. John Dunnett said it was "impossible" to fulfill his role while maintaining his integrity when the Cathedral is using prayers that bless the relationships of same-sex couples — contrary to the teachings of Scripture. The cathedral first used the PLF in November 2025. The Chelmsford Diocesan Evangelical Network (CDEN) wrote to the Bishop and Dean expressing "profound concern" and asking them to reconsider. In January, the Dean responded confirming they would continue to use the prayers. You can read more here: https://www.christian.org.uk/news/cofe-canon-quits-over-cathedrals-use-of-same-sex-blessing-prayers/ ***** What exactly is wrong with the Church of England? Bijan Omrani, author of God is an Englishman: Christianity and the Creation of England, argues that the Church simply isn't doing enough. It is underpowered in spreading public knowledge of the faith. Instead of properly investing in its workhorses — the parish clergy — it funds ever-ballooning diocesan bureaucracies and squanders capital on unjustifiable initiatives such as Project Spire, the £100 million "reparations" payment for historic slavery. One might also add the grossly mishandled safeguarding failures that have seen countless children sexually abused while church leaders closed ranks and gave abusive priests and bishops a pass. "This is not the behavior of a church that is taking its problems seriously. Just as Jerusalem should have listened to Jeremiah before the Babylonians destroyed it, so too should the church now heed the warnings of the Humanists, before it is too late," Omrani writes. You can read more here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/if-the-church-of-england-were-serious-about-revival-this-is-what-they-would-be-doing ***** A serious power struggle involving a well-respected aid organization ministering to the persecuted church has gone public, causing immense grief to those it serves and to its donors. Barnabas Aid, founded in 1993 by Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo, has become embroiled in legal disputes resulting in what some describe as an illegitimate seizure of the organization, amid cries of mismanagement and a string of resignations. You can read the full story here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/serious-doubt-cast-on-veracity-of-accusations-against-barnabas-aid-founders-accusers-now-under-inve and here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/barnabas-aid-was-an-illegal-takeover-say-solicitors END-TIMES SPECULATION is multiplying rapidly. It has become fashionable to forecast the apocalypse as war heats up in the Middle East, and self-styled prophets entertain the credulous with predictions drawn from the books of Daniel and Revelation. There is no "battle of Armageddon" in the Book of Revelation, says theologian David MacInnes. Given recent news that more than a hundred service members have filed complaints alleging that a commander told them war with Iran is part of "God's divine plan" — and that a sitting president is "anointed by Jesus" to ignite Armageddon — it is important to be clear about how unbiblical these claims are, MacInnes writes. "This claim has more to do with the fiction of the Left Behind series and dispensational theology than it does with the Book of Revelation." Revelation was composed in the late first century, most likely during the reign of Domitian, when the Roman Empire demanded not only political loyalty but religious reverence. Rome ruled through claiming divine sanction. Emperors were hailed as "Lord" and "Savior," and participation in imperial cults was a sign of allegiance. Refusal could mean marginalization, economic exclusion, or worse. Revelation is not a coded forecast of 21st-century geopolitics. As John states in the opening verse, the entire letter is the revelation of Jesus Christ — the way of God through Jesus Christ being revealed in the world. It is written in the prophetic genre of apocalyptic resistance literature, pulling back the curtain on earthly empires and naming them for what they are: beastly. You can read more here: https://www.facebook.com/david.macinnes.92 The basic narrative goes something like this: modern Israel is the same Israel described in the Bible. God made eternal promises to that nation. And before Jesus returns, certain prophecies must be fulfilled in the Middle East. The more of those prophecies get fulfilled, the closer we are to the end of the world. This means that in the minds of the doomsday cult adherents, wars are never just wars. They’re signs. They’re signals. They’re proof that the end of the world is getting closer. Be excited, not sad. You can see this mindset every time a major event happens involving Israel. When Donald Trump moved the American embassy to Jerusalem in 2018, many conservative Christians celebrated it not primarily as a diplomatic decision but as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy. Fox News host Jeanine Pirro even wrote that Trump had acted like the ancient Persian king Cyrus, fulfilling prophecy by recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. This kind of thinking isn’t fringe inside white evangelicalism. It’s mainstream. And because white evangelicals wield enormous political power in the United States, their theology often spills over into foreign policy. ***** Gen Z is the least religious cohort in American history. 43% of this generation born roughly between 1996 and 2012 identify as religious “nones.” While there have been many reports since Charlie Kirk’s assassination indicating increased interest in religion and increased church attendance, according to statistician Ryan Burge, there is not yet statistical evidence of religious revival among young people. There is, however, ample evidence that these Zoomers are looking for meaning and willing to reconsider religion. Specifically, though these trends may not be large enough to be captured in statistics, there seems to be a growing interest in more rigorous forms of faith. John Stonestreet and Glenn Sunshine of Breakpoint. You can read their full take here: https://breakpoint.org/why-gen-z-nones-are-reconsidering-religion-2/ ***** SUPPORT VOL VOL has brought on new writers in 2026 with clear insights into Scripture and culture. We have no mega-donors and no grants — just faithful readers like you who believe in what we do and write. Tens of thousands of enthusiastic VOL readers trust us to cover the most pressing issues facing Anglicanism today, yet only a small percentage contribute. We have proven ourselves over more than 35 years and remain committed to this mission. Please consider a tax-deductible donation to keep the news coming. How to Give: Online: PayPal donation link at https://www.virtueonline.org/donate By check (tax-deductible): VIRTUEONLINE, P.O. Box 111, Shohola, PA 18458 Thank you for your support, David

By Kevin Martin 7/22/2004 What has been the consequence of last year's controversial decision to consent to the election of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire? As I travel about the Episcopal Church — my most frequently asked question these days is, "What do you think will happen next in the Episcopal Church?" As we approach the first-year anniversary of the consent to Gene Robinson's election, I would like to address some of the issues related to this question. This decision has badly fractured and divided the Episcopal Church. Further, it has provoked a crisis throughout the whole Anglican Communion. Locally, many congregations and dioceses have experienced a drop in financial support. They have had to cut staff and program and make serious adjustments. Many congregations have lost significant families. Many congregations have redirected funding. Some congregations have removed themselves from ECUSA. A series of spin-off congregations have formed that are looking to the Network or AMIA for affiliation and support. Of course, we also have become inwardly focused as a denomination and less concerned about the great commission or the great commandment and more concerned with who will be in control. Meanwhile, our national leadership seems to be largely in denial over the negative effects of this decision. Our own Presiding Bishop and many others try to spin present events in a positive light. In fact, we seem to be following the culture in its political life in two ways. First, spin has become the name of the game for both liberals and conservatives. Second, there is a great deal of demonization and lack of tolerance and understanding toward those on the other side of issues. We show all the signs of a growing polarization. Most of our present leaders seem to be fueling this polarization and few seem to be addressing it. Many people on the pro side of this issue claim that this decision has opened the doors of the Episcopal Church to thousands of new people. Some have pointed out the threats of a major split have not played out. On the other hand, many people on the conservative side have claimed that large numbers of people are leaving. What is really happening regarding membership and numbers? As I said, many of these comments are just spin. What we mostly hear are anecdotal stories. For example, from the liberal side, we hear of people joining the church because of our decision. I think this has minimal statistical effect. We have been a declining denomination and we will continue to be so. The current crisis is predictably accelerating this decline. It is true that even a declining church brings in new people and it is probably true that our front door is more open right now to those on the political left of the current culture wars in America. In addition, The Episcopal Church, which has had a very low public profile, is now unfortunately seen as a divided church. Most un-churched people don't look for a polarized community when seeking a spiritual home. Some conservative people are attempting to spin events too, but it is clear that the Church has clearly taken a hit. We saw this first in 2004 financially and will see this further in 2005. We will not see the total effect upon our attendance until the 2005 parochial reports are out. When they are out, we will see a decline in average Sunday attendance. There will also be a turn down in membership. While the financial turn down is of significance, the more important issue for the long run will be average Sunday attendance. I believe we will see a 5-to-10-percent decrease over the next four years. What will be the next steps in this crisis? Right now we are living in a transitional moment. Things are on hold. I know personally that many people are waiting to hear from the wider communion and are being very patient, surprisingly so. We have reached a point where there seems to be little that the Episcopal Church can do to resolve this polarization. Essentially, we are waiting on three predictable next steps. First will be the report of the Eames Commission in October. I believe this commission will make some effort to distance the whole communion from the American and Canadian Church. It will be impossible to hold the worldwide communion together without some strong language directed at North America. I predict the report will contain both strong language and typical Anglican ambiguity when it comes to actions. In the long run, the Commission will attempt to hold the Communion together by affirming all sides. Second will be the reaction of the Primates to the report. If the report is not strong enough, the global south may very well threaten alternative action. A key player in this is, of course, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. While I believe he will want a more moderated response, he may be forced to choose between the global South and North America. Given that choice he must choose the vast majority. Third will be the first House of Bishops meeting following these two events. This will be a sort of last chance for the American Church to moderate its strident and self-righteous tone and take a more reconciling position toward the wider communion. This will be a most critical moment for ECUSA. Personally, I don't believe the present House of Bishops is up to the challenge. I believe they will attempt to defend their decisions and hold the line affirming their autonomy as a province. If they do this, they will hasten the realignment of Anglicanism both here and on the international level. The Rev. Kevin Martin heads Vital Church Ministries based in Plano, Texas.

By Kathy Routliffe Staff Writer, GLENCOE NEWS 7/22/2004   A group of North Shore area Episcopalians who say they don't like the "liberalization" of their church have formed an Evanston congregation dedicated to what their spokesman called orthodox values.   Those include rejection of last year's decision by the Episcopal Church USA to consecrate Gene Robinson, a publicly gay Episcopal minister, as a bishop in New Hampshire.   Members of the new Church of Christ the King held their first service June 6 in rented chapel space at the Levere Memorial Temple, 1856 Sheridan Road, spokesman Wes Schneider said last week. They hold both high and low rite services at 9 a.m. each Sunday and plan to expand the service schedule when the fledgling congregation's two rectors are able to do so, he said.   Schneider, a Kenilworth resident who once attended the Church of the Holy Comforter, is one of the founders of Christ the King. He said Friday that he and a small number of Kenilworth congregation members began last fall, after Robinson's consecration, to discuss the possibility of forming "an orthodox classic Anglican parish" in the Chicago area.   "I believe a number of our parishioners believed that the Episcopal Church and its teachers have become much more liberalized than what we were taught," Schneider said. The new church is keeping to faith "as found in the Bible, the Book of Common Prayer and the 39 Articles of Faith, and that which is espoused in the Nicene Creed," he said. Robinson's consecration was inconsistent with those, he said.   Prospective congregation members heard about the new church through word of mouth and now hail from as far south as Chicago, as far west as Arlington Heights and as far north as Lake Zurich. Members include non-Episcopalians, such as Lutherans concerned about their own church's increasingly liberal policies, and Roman Catholics who are concerned about issues in that church, Schneider said.   The chapel is at Sheridan Road and Chicago Avenue in the building commonly known as Sigma Alpha Epsilon men's fraternity headquarters. Congregation organizers heard last fall that it might be available and negotiated with the fraternity to rent it.   The congregation's acting rector is Rev. Joseph Murphy, an ordained Anglican and Episcopal priest from Virginia. It will also have another minister when the Rev. Robert Barasa returns from a trip to Kenya. Barasa will provide Saturday night services, Schneider said.   The group is now establishing a Sunday school curriculum and intends to have a fall fellowship dinner in October, inviting prospective members. It also plans to reach out to young people through the Saturday services.   It has organized itself as a not-for-profit group and those who wish to support Christ the King can write checks to the attention of the treasurer of the church, at 1856 Sheridan Road in Evanston, Schneider said. Founders of Christ the King not only oppose the consecration of Robinson, but believe the American church is moving "further away from scripture and further and further towards reason, and interpretation and change and revisionism," Schneider said.   Schneider said the decision to leave his Kenilworth congregation was personally difficult "because I'm a cradle Episcopalian" confirmed by the 9th bishop of Chicago, James Winchester Montgomery and involved in his former parish for seven years. A spokesman for the Chicago Episcopal Diocese said the formation of the church was disappointing to Bishop William Persell, head of the diocese.   "It's distressing that people feel they have to leave their parish. The bishop is firmly behind the idea that we can grow in mutual fellowship," said David Skidmore, communications director for the diocese. "He would prefer people to work together even though they disagree, and to have mutual respect, to work through disagreements."   Schneider said he and others who shared his belief in the Kenilworth congregation tried to bridge the differences between them and the rest of the congregation but were unable to do so.   Schneider said Christ the King has been approached by representatives of the Anglican Communion Network to become an affiliate. That group comprises a conservative group of American Episcopal dioceses and parishes. Schneider said Christ the King members have not yet decided whether to affiliate with the ACN.   "Our desire is not to be divisive," Schneider said. "It's to be positive, to say that the message we bring forward is that the faith in its historic teachings is being maintained at the Church of Christ the King."

By The Rt. Rev. William C. Wantland In recent years, more and more congregations have declared "open Communion", that is, any baptized Christian may receive Communion at our altars. Some have even advocated Communion for the unbaptized. Never mind that baptism has always been seen as a prerequisite to receiving the Sacrament. Canon I. 17. 7 specifically states that no unbaptized person shall receive Holy Communion in this Church. In 1979, General Convention adopted Resolution A-43, which provides: Resolved, . . . that the following standard be adopted for those of other Churches who on occasion desire to receive the Holy Communion within the Episcopal Church: a. They shall have been baptized with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and shall have previously been admitted to the Holy Communion within the Church to which they belong. b. They shall examine their lives, repent of their sins, and be in love and charity with all people, as this Church in its Catechism (PBCP, p. 860) says is required of all those who come to the Eucharist. c. They shall approach the Holy Communion as an expression of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ whose sacrifice once upon the cross was sufficient for all mankind. d. They shall find in this Communion the means to strengthen their life within the Christian family "through the forgiveness of (their) sins, the strengthening of (their) union with Christ and one another, and the foretaste of the heavenly banquet . . ." (PBCP, p. 859-60). e. Their own consciences must always be respected as must the right of their own Church membership to determine the sacramental discipline of those who, by their own choice, make that their spiritual home. The Resolution also provided that the Commentary on Eucharistic Sharing prepared by the Standing Commission on Ecumenical Relations be used as a pastoral context for the interpretation of these standards. The Commentary declares: "If local circumstances present a pastoral need for a public invitation, it should not in any way be coercive, nor should it be in terms of an 'open Communion' applied indiscriminately to anyone desiring to receive Communion." The Commentary goes on to state: "What about those times when Christians cannot communicate at the same altar because of church doctrine, discipline or reasons of conscience? One of the realities of life within a divided Church is this very brokenness at the Table of the Lord. There is a great temptation to pretend that this is not true or to believe that we as individuals can do what denominations still feel should not be done. This is an experience of the Cross in a sinful world. Often it is more appropriate to bear the pain and give testimony to the integrity of faith and discipline in one's church than to act as though full unity existed where it does not." Neither the Resolution nor the Commentary has ever been amended or repealed by General Convention. It appears that too many in the Episcopal Church are either ignorant of the teaching of the Church, or simply don't care. Bishop Wantland is the retired Bishop of Eau Claire.