By Roger Steer Letter to an Influential Atheist is an open letter from Roger Steer to Richard Dawkins challenging Dawkins' vigorously proclaimed view that the theory of evolution by natural selection explains our existence and makes atheism intellectually respectable. Richard Dawkins is Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford. His books have been extraordinarily influential even in the minds of thousands of people who have never read them. Roger Steer decided to write his letter after reflecting on perhaps the most famous sentence Dawkins has ever written. Dawkins begins The Blind Watchmaker with these words: "This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because Darwin and Wallace solved it, though we shall continue to add footnotes to their solution for a while yet." Roger Steer is not a so-called "creationist". He happily accepts that evolution by natural selection is a good description of the process which produces biological diversity. He has written the letter because Dawkins claims too much for evolutionary mechanisms. He tries to make them into a theory of "life, the universe and everything", and a biological theory – even such a major insight as this – isn't up to such Herculean tasks. It's an abuse of science to take a good theory out of its scientific context and use it for ideological purposes. Roger argues that Dawkins' influential books distort his readers' thinking in at least six ways. First, despite the striking and assured tone of his famous sentence, Dawkins does not actually believe that Darwin and Wallace "solved the mystery of our existence" as from time to time he honestly admits. Second, Dawkins misleads people by suggesting that Darwin and Wallace set out to solve the mystery of our existence: the truth is that the puzzle they sought to unravel was more modest. Third, by repeatedly linking the two men's names in the way he does, Dawkins implies that they drew from the theory of natural selection the same philosophical conclusions as he does: in fact they did not agree in their estimates of the explanatory power of natural selection and neither man agreed with Dawkins. Fourth, Dawkins does not acknowledge how controversial the wider conclusions he draws from the theory of evolution by natural selection are among his own colleagues within the scientific community. Fifth, in vigorously proclaiming his view that the theory of evolution has made atheism intellectually respectable Dawkins misrepresents the story of Darwin's alleged "loss of faith" and totally ignores Wallace's insistence on the universe's essential spiritual dimension. And finally, Dawkins either misunderstands or deliberately caricatures the nature of Christian faith. In correcting Dawkins flawed history, and in discussing the complexity of the human mind, human possession of consciousness, our life in an orderly universe, and the Christian understanding of creation, Roger Steer presents a compelling and interesting case for belief in God. You can read some reviews of Letter to an Influential Atheist by visiting Amazon.co.uk Reviews, and also clicking on the Customer Reviews link. You will also find a debate about the book at http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk. or from Authentic Media, Box 1047, Waynesboro, GA 30830-2047, USA. In 1800 a 15-year-old Welsh girl, Mary Jones, walked 28 miles, barefoot, across the side of a mountain to buy a Welsh Bible, for which she had saved six years, from a Methodist minister, Thomas Charles. Impressed, Charles persuaded friends to set up a society to provide affordable Welsh Bibles. The group quickly realised that Bibles in the language of the people must be made available not just in Wales, but around the world. They agreed to distribute the unadorned Bible, without note or comment, to transcend sectarian divides. The subsequent achievements of Bible Society are astonishing: so much so that the elderly Mary Jones, aged 71, would donate a half-sovereign to the Society's appeal to print and circulate a million Chinese New Testaments. The Society whose formation she unwittingly triggered quickly attracted within its orbit kings, queens, a Russian tsar, an Ethiopian emperor, prime ministers - the list goes on. This is the story of men and women of immense ability and courage. But above all it is the story of a book - the Book - and of the way it has broken through barriers of culture and language to set hearts on fire right around the world. Roger Steer is the author of 12 books, including George Müller: Delighted in God, which has been continuously in print for nearly 30 years. He has been a trustee of Bible Society for many years. He lives in Devon, UK.

By Ben Merkle The Episcopalian Church of the USA consecrated homosexual Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003. That same year the Bishop of Oxford in the Anglican Church attempted to appoint homosexual Jeffrey John as the Bishop of Reading. Although this attempt failed, the close call was enough to ruffle feathers throughout the Anglican communion and tensions have arisen once more as Jeffrey John has been recently put forward as Dean of St. Albans. In 2002, the New Westminster diocese of the Church of Canada recognized a same sex union, also causing a tremendous uproar within the Anglican communion. These various inroads of sodomy within the Anglican Church are a small part of a much larger sodomite movement, but an odd complication has arisen in this particular arena for the homosexuals. In the unbelieving story, opposition to sodomite Bishops is supposed to be proof positive of homophobia, and generally synonymous with northern European, white power obsession. In the Ameri-pagan mind, those who object to practicing queer clergypersons are the folks who walk arm-in-arm with clansmen and uneducated snaggle-toothed rednecks. They are supposed to be the unenlightened persecutors of minorities. Only with the mightiest of efforts have the progressives managed to ignore the glaring problem of the Nigerian Church. The Primate of Nigeria, the most Reverend Peter Akinola, has been at the front of the battle over sexual perversion, speaking out against the Anglican apostasy in no uncertain terms. When the Church of Canada gave her blessing to a sodomite union, the Nigerian Church officially severed communion with the diocese of New Westminster. But most significant is how Akinola cast the nature of the controversy. Many of us from the two-thirds world feel that the global north still seeks to retain its disproportionate power and influence in our Church just as in the world. It is significant that those dioceses most tempted to indulge themselves with unilateral actions, taken without consulting the wider Communion, seem so often to be among those materially most advantaged and to be in the global north. Should this not occasion reflection? Do we not see here, in the ready assertion of superior wisdom, a new imperialism? The Nigerian Church has continued to cast the European and American sodomite agenda as another wave of white colonialism. This is "a new imperialism." It's "colonialism" all over again. It is a white, European agenda being forced onto the African Church. Akinola noted that "... the rich Churches in Europe, America and Canada ... have long used their wealth to intimidate the financially weak Churches in Africa." The homosexual debate has evangelicals hemming and hawing and trying to make their timid objections friendly, all the while knowing that no matter how many qualifications are made, they will still be portrayed as back woods fundamentalists. Akinola is immune to these concerns. He writes, "I cannot think of how a man in his senses would be having a sexual relationship with another man. Even in the world of animals, dogs, cows, lions, we don't hear of such things." What an awkward position our liberal brothers are in. This is supposed to be a fight between the enlightened, open minded, educated progressives and the intolerant, ignorant, hatemongering Bible thumpers. But when the Church of Nigeria steps into the ring, propaganda gets tricky. How enlightened is it to call Africans ignorant? "Backward African bishops," as some have called them, really doesn't sound so enlightened. Things get trickier: of the 76.5 million members of the worldwide Anglican Church, 36.8 million are African. It works to use nasty invectives against other whites. Mary Ann Sieghart vomited a tirade in the London Times against Peter Jensen, the Archbishop of Sydney, Australia and the movement begun in his diocese. Sieghart describes the Sydney Anglicans as "the most narrow-minded, puritanical and zealous brand of Anglicanism, a new puritanism." Sieghart attempts to lay the blame for the blocking of Jeffrey John's appointment on Jensen's shoulders, writing "It would not be too much of an exaggeration to say that it was Jensen's people who managed eventually to block the appointment of Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading." Jensen is certainly a player, but his being singled out over the African Churches, is far more strategic than honest. You can call Australians "narrow-minded," because they're as white as the sodomites they oppose, and so are preferable as an enemy. Akinola is certainly in a rhetorically privileged position, making him a powerful voice in the current fight. And his faithfulness in light of the privilege has been glorious. The most telling moment throughout this debate came quite recently. Several African churches, including both the Nigerian and the Kenyan have refused to receive money from any diocese recognizing sodomite clergy. The decision will have a major impact on the already impoverished Church. But unlike "principled" American tax objectors who make the hard decision of refusing to pay money, the Churches of Nigeria and Kenya are refusing to take money, just when it is most needed. Akinola explained the decision well: "We will not, on the altar of money, mortgage our conscience, mortgage our faith, mortgage our salvation."

By Terry Mattingly When it comes to media-bias surveys, God is almost as big a story these days as the president of the United States. It helps if researchers release their work as journalists prepare for trench warfare in an election year. God is more newsworthy when linked to life's crucial issues, which, in journalism, are always politics, sports, entertainment and then more politics. Thus, news coverage of a study by the Pew Research Center and the Project for Excellence in Journalism immediately focused on the fact that 34 percent of national-level journalists described themselves as "liberal," 54 percent as "moderate" and 7 percent as "conservative." The majority of national journalists considered their peers too soft on President George W. Bush. In a 1995 survey, the criticism was that President Bill Clinton was being treated too harshly. "These political questions always attract attention," said Tom Rosenstiel, director of the project. But this time around, the questions that offered the best insights into tensions between journalists and their readers were the "ones we included about religion and social issues. That may be the biggest issue of all." One of the nation's top reporters on media news quickly connected the dots, jumping from abstract statistics to a hot story -- same-sex marriage. "The survey confirmed that national journalists are to the left of the public on social issues," wrote Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post. "Nine in 10 say it is not necessary to believe in God to be moral (40 percent of the public thinks this way). As might have been inferred from the upbeat coverage of gay marriage in Massachusetts, 88 percent of national journalists say society should accept homosexuality; only about half the public agrees." There's more. Only 31 percent of national journalists still have confidence in the public's election choices, as compared with 52 percent under Clinton. For Kurtz, the implication was clear that "many media people feel superior to their customers." Once again, the Pew survey has raised a divisive question about media bias: Is the wide gap between journalists and their readers on social issues the result of (a) politics, (b) social class, (c) religious practice or (d) all of the above? Rosenstiel said journalists are used to having their political beliefs criticized and most -- on left and right -- believe they can achieve accurate, balanced coverage. But this is where survey questions about religion and morality are important. For most journalists, these highly personal issues may be hidden in the blind spots of their professional training. "If you are truly trying to be fair, it's probably easier to overcome your most obvious political biases. You're used to thinking about them," he said. "But the cultural and religious values that we hold are much harder to recognize. They are just a part of us. They are part of how we view the world and we may have trouble seeing that." Nevertheless, Rosenstiel stressed that readers must not be hasty when interpreting the Pew question that asked if "belief in God ... is necessary to be moral." The 91 percent of the national press (and 78 percent of local journalists) who answered "no," may include many religious believers who admire the skills and convictions of their secular colleagues. It would be unfair, he said, to use this question "as a proxy" for a specific question that asked how many reporters and editors believe in God. Yes, this survey did hit a nerve in tense newsrooms. One conservative scribe stressed that if researchers are truly concerned about the future of journalism, they must keep asking these faith-based questions. But some of the most delicate questions are actually linked to culture and class in elite news organizations, according to John Leo, writing in U.S. News & World Report. "When I was at the New York Times, the leadership was full of people who had gone to the wrong schools and fought their way up with brains and talent," he said. "Two desks away from mine was McCandlish Phillips, a born-again Christian who read the Bible during every break. ... Phillips was a legendary reporter, rightly treated with awe by the staff, but I doubt he would be hired by most news organizations today. He prayed a lot and had no college degree." Terry Mattingly (www.tmatt.net) teaches at Palm Beach Atlantic University and is senior fellow for journalism at the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities. He writes this weekly column for the Scripps Howard News Service.

The split between the Gospel and culture is undoubtedly the drama of our time (“Evangelii Nuntiandi,” 20). It is manifest today as a “crisis of meaning” (cf. “Fides et Ratio,” 81). Ambiguous moral positions, the distortion of reason by particular interest groups, and the absolutization of the subjective are just some examples of a perspective of life which fails to seek truth itself and abandons the search for the ultimate goal and meaning of human existence (cf. ibid., 47). —Pope Paul VI Dear Brothers and Sisters, The worldwide Anglican Communion stepped a little closer to the brink of schism this past week when several orthodox Archbishops demanded the expulsion of the Anglican Church of Canada over its affirmation of the “sanctity” of gay relationships. It was an interesting use of the word “sanctity,” with liberal supporters of the amendment claiming they did not intend the word to have any theological significance. Not true, fired back a number of orthodox Anglicans. They argued that, in Church language, sanctity meant “blessed”—and they weren’t buying it. But what happened was far more than linguistic—it was a downright slap in the face to the Global South bishops, the Lambeth (Eames) Commission, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, who the previous day had praised the restrained actions of the Canadian church. He miscalculated or spoke too soon. Some 24 hours later, the Canadian church back-doored an amendment, approved by a large majority of the Canadian Synod, to placate disappointed gay rights activists who approve of homosexual relationships. It was about as sneaky a thing as you could imagine—but should come as no surprise to those familiar with the tactics of revisionist gay agit-prop. When Virtuosity inquired whether Lambeth Palace would now issue a repudiation of the Canadian action or a rebuttal of their former statement, I was told no—largely because it is suspected that the deep thinkers in the palace have no problem with what happened in Canada, and why open yet another can of worms? But a group of Global South primates reacted with fury to the late amendment that injected new controversy into the resolution. Two Primates, Drexel Gomez (Nassau) and Greg Venables (Southern Cone), said what happened in Canada was worse than one could have imagined—putting homosexual relations on a par with marriage. (There was no collective Primatial disapproval despite a number of media reports.) Frank Griswold went to the Canadian Synod and preached at the installation of the new Canadian Primate-elect, Andrew Hutchison. It was vintage Griswold. Herein the gospel according to Frank: “Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and right doing there is a field. I’ll meet you there.” Thus exclaims Rumi, the Sufi poet and mystic. “The field is the ‘open place’ of the psalmist. It is the pasture into which Christ the Good Shepherd leads his sheep. This field is the force field of the divine love which sustains the universe.” “We speak a great deal these days about communion. Are we in communion or out of communion? Is our communion real but imperfect, or is it impaired? We speak of communion as if it were a human construction—as if it were something we have the power to bestow or withhold. In so doing, we overlook the fact that communion is an expression of God’s love: the love with which the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father in what St. Paul calls the ‘communion of the Holy Spirit.’” This is the Griswoldian version of truth—a mixture of Star Wars Gnosticism and mystic paganism stirred in a panentheistic Islamic salad bowl and eaten at leisure while waiting for the Second Coming. And as far as who is in and out of communion—that’s easy to answer. Some 22 Primates have said they are out of Communion with Griswold, and the Lambeth (Eames) Commission might make it a home run. Later in the week, the Anglican Church in Nigeria took a swipe at the actions of the Canadian church, condemning what they did in no uncertain terms. “This latest move of the Church of Canada can neither be justified nor supported,” the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa (CAPA) said in a statement issued in Nairobi. The late President’s state funeral was held at the Episcopal Church’s Washington National Cathedral this week. Across America, orthodox Episcopalians found it morally offensive and totally inappropriate because Washington Bishop John Bryson Chane’s sexual views were seen as dishonoring to Ronald Reagan’s memory. “It not only dishonors the president—it also insults those of us who are aware of liberal hatred of everything for which he stood,” wrote one Episcopalian. “President Ronald Reagan was a champion of conservative causes. He was pro-life; he gave moral support and leadership to conservative Christians in Washington. Sadly, his funeral was held at a monument to secular humanism, liberal tyranny, and homoerotic marriages—the National Cathedral. The Episcopal Diocese of Washington proudly admits it has been conducting same-sex marriages since the 1970s and routinely has such services at this ‘religious institution.’” The Gipper would not have approved. The next day, in a brazen act of ecclesiastical disobedience, Chane performed a same-sex blessing for one of the country’s top homosexual rights advocates and his partner while protesters stood outside St. George’s Episcopal Church in Glenn Dale holding crosses swathed in black fabric. (You can read two stories about that in today’s digest.) A little-known historical footnote about Chane is that when he was pastor at St. Paul’s Cathedral in Erie, PA, he performed a same-sex blessing service. He was in Erie from 1975–1987—long before the church approved sodomite rites. An observer at the wedding said Michael Hopkins broke down while saying his vows—the two men joined hands and promised each other “faith, hope, and love” in “mutuality of body and spirit.” Then the two men and Chane hugged—and then the two grooms kissed each other. A reception featured lavender tablecloths and purple orchids—but not two grooms atop a cake. The “blessing of the covenant” the bishop pronounced was actually the Sursum Corda. Former Episcopal evangelist Lee Buck wrote to Chane and gave him an earful: “Pagans are defaming and scandalizing the words found in our sacred pages. You, sir, are not a Christian, and the Episcopal Church is no longer a Christian Church… The day is coming when you will meet the Master face to face, and He will say to you, ‘I never knew you!’” Ouch. Across the nation—in one Episcopal diocese and parish after another—the lines are being drawn as orthodox parishes and revisionist diocesan bishops fight for control over who owns what and how much orthodox priests and parishes should pay to stay or keep bishops away—often waiting for the heavy hammer of inhibition to fall. In the Diocese of Long Island, Cathedral Dean James J. Cardone was fired on Friday by Bishop Orris Walker after he walked uninvited into the Vestry meeting of the Cathedral of the Incarnation at Garden City. He allegedly accused the dean of racism, said a reliable source. The source reported that when the bishop was asked if he was bringing somebody in, he said no—and that he did not care if the cathedral fell down. Cardone’s “sin” seems to have been the reinstatement of Rite I twice a month at the request of the congregation. I called the diocese and they said the bishop had sent out a letter explaining his actions. I was told I would be faxed a copy—but it never came. In the Diocese of Albany, liberal forces were routed at their diocesan convention. An overwhelming number of clergy and laity voted to join the Anglican Communion Network. Out of more than 120 clergy who attended the convention, almost 80 percent voted to join, according to Canon Kay Hotaling, spokeswoman for the diocese. Among the 100 or so lay members, about 60 percent voted to join the network. Bishop Dan Herzog reaffirmed his commitment to the unchanging gospel of Jesus Christ. He also announced his differences with the direction of the Presiding Bishop and the revisionist majority of the House of Bishops—and made a strong stand for the Network. The Via Media group and all their liberal apparatchiks were roundly defeated by comfortable majorities, and they were blown off trying to table the resolution. The orthodox forces were organized—and they enjoyed a clean sweep. And in the Diocese of Pennsylvania, Charles E. Bennison paid an unwanted visit to the biblically orthodox Church of the Good Samaritan—causing more pain by talking more rubbish than it is humanly possible for a bishop to talk. While down the road at the Church of the Good Shepherd in Rosemont, PA, Central African Archbishop Bernard Malango paid a very much anticipated and wanted call on Fr. David Moyer and gave him his apostolic blessing. Bennison has been trying to unseat Moyer for years—but to no avail. But Bennison is in serious legal trouble on two other fronts. Legal bills for the Diocese from lawsuits by Fr. Moyer have begun to pile up. Bennison tried to get the insurance company for the Diocese to pay the fees. However, in a letter to Chandler Joyner of the Diocese, the insurance company pointed out that there is no coverage for an “intentional, malicious, and fraudulent scheme.” Now, the insurance company has sued both Bennison and the Diocese, asking the Montgomery County Court to declare that the company has no obligation to pay legal fees or to indemnify the Diocese or Bennison if the jury awards damages to Father Moyer. But that’s not all of Bennison’s woes. DIOCESAN WHISTLEBLOWER: Virtuosity has been given a copy of a 7-page letter to Bishop Bennison—with copies shown to the Chair of Diocesan Council, the President of the Standing Committee, and the Chair of the Finance and Property Committee. The author of the letter, Joseph A. Suprenuk, describes himself as a former Diocesan employee; a CPA; and an MBA in Finance & Accounting. The subjects of the letter are: “Wasteful Spending”; “Ineffective Financial Management”; and “The Intentional Withholding of Pertinent Financial Information from Certain Decision-Making Bodies.” The author has refused to consent to the publication of the letter. Virtuosity spoke to Glenn Matis, the president of the Standing Committee, and asked for comments. Matis promised to call back—but never did. The only question that remains is: how long will the Standing Committee go along with the revisionist Bennison? In truth, even the liberals don’t trust him anymore—as they don’t know what he will do to them when the money, already drying up, does not flow freely to their dying parishes. In the Diocese of New Jersey, Virtuosity has learned that the Rev. Kristin Krieger, a deacon at the Episcopal Church in Wenonah, NJ—and lesbian partner to the Rev. Mantelle Bradley—is pregnant. “Mother Mantelle,” as she is known, recently gave birth to a child—and now her lesbian partner has conceived. Both are heavily involved in youth ministries for the diocese. This is hardly a role model for parents desperate for their children to stay on the straight and narrow. And in the Diocese of Bethlehem, an ecumenical gay-welcoming service was held—to which the revisionist Bethlehem Bishop Paul V. Marshall lent his blessing and his words. The Allentown Morning Call newspaper reported that at the “All Together Now” (ATN) meeting, Marshall spoke on the theme, “The Gay Faithful, Equal before God.” The combined choir members from the Lehigh Valley Gay Men’s Chorus and choir members from various other organizations participated. Pastors from a number of denominations participated using a worship liturgy developed jointly by all represented denominations. Refreshments included gallons of fruit juice. In the Diocese of Virginia, the Rev. Vinnie Lainson of Trinity Episcopal Church, Manassas, Virginia, asked, “If you don’t give and you don’t allow any bishops from the diocese to come and visit, are you still an Episcopal Church?” Wrong set of questions—and the fact that these questions can be seen as foundational says everything about the state of the church. Here are some of the right questions: “If you disbelieve the Incarnation, Atonement, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus Christ, are you still an Episcopal Church—or, to put it another way, are you still a Church at all?” The question that begs to be asked is: “Do we place our identity as the Episcopal Church above that of belonging to the same Church that can be traced historically from the time of Jesus Christ—which the Episcopal ‘Church’? Can this be sustained with any level of intellectual and moral honesty?” At the University of the South at Sewanee, a senior member of the faculty of the School of Theology has petitioned the University to give an honorary degree to Gene Robinson. Don Armentrout—a Lutheran pastor and a complete revisionist—has written to Dr. Cunningham and the committee in charge of honorary degrees, pointing out that, since Robinson is a graduate of the university, he should be given an honorary degree. There seems to be some internal debate on the committee because, while Robinson is a graduate of the college, he’s not a graduate of the seminary. Alums of Sewanee who are elected to the episcopate are customarily given honorary degrees—but the internal debate now seems to hinge on whether that applies to the seminary alone or if it also applies to alums of the college. It sounds as though there hasn’t been a distinction made in the past. Armentrout and a few others on the faculty are pushing this. A source tells Virtuosity that some of the more orthodox faculty and students say that, if Robinson is given an honorary degree, they simply won’t attend. Are protests and boycotts next? In the Diocese of Colorado, an orthodox priest took a major swing at his revisionist Bishop Robert O’Neill over allowing a lesbian to perform a “shack-up” ceremony in a parish. You can read his hard-hitting letter in today’s digest. The Church of the Holy Spirit in Tulsa, Diocese of Oklahoma, has voted to join the Network of Confessing Churches. The resolution passed unanimously in the vestry and passed 119–4 in a vote of the congregation. Bishop Moody is planning a visit to this church. It’ll be interesting to see how much arm-twisting he does. And in the Diocese of Connecticut, St. Francis Episcopal Church in Stamford, Conn., is now giving Holy Communion to pets. The New Oxford Review reports, “That’s one way to minimize membership losses in the shrinking Episcopal Church. It can only be given on the tongue, so there is a traditional aspect here. We imagine the priest or priestess must be very agile so as not to get bitten. There are fewer condemnations of bestiality in the Bible than of homosexuality. If the Episcopalians can swallow homosexuality, bestiality has to be a cinch. Yes, we can see it now: Fido and Forklift Florence inside a sumptuous Episcopal Church. What a cute couple!” Back in the Diocese of Pennsylvania (read Transylvania, where the ghoulish Bennison resides), the Rev. Greg Brewer, rector of the Church of the Good Samaritan in Paoli, wrote a letter to the revisionist bishop telling him that his visit was a rip-roaring failure. The figures declared it: the total attendance for three services was 131—of which 50 were ringers—leaving 81 from a congregation that regularly sees more than 750 at four services. Brewer was irenic enough. He wrote the bishop, “You see truth as fluid, changing in its definition and its application from generation to generation and culture to culture. We see truth as fixed and not fluid, expressed definitely in the life and witness of Jesus, the Son of God.” That’s telling him. Brewer also said the bishop’s visit was “painful” and “difficult.” It’s hard to hang out with heretics. Bennison was not offered coffee. Most of the congregation thought Brewer handled it all very graciously. ROBINSON INVITED TO LUTHERAN CONSECRATION It was reported in Kairos News that homoerotic Episcopal NH Bishop Gene Robinson was a participant in an ELCA Lutheran ordination service recently. This report was based upon the report of an eyewitness. However, ELCA New England Bishop Payne says that although Robinson was invited, he did not attend—and according to the NE Bishop, would not have taken an active part in the service had he been there. ECUSA’S AD CAMPAIGN GETS UNDERWAY A national ad campaign to help create awareness of the Episcopal Church took its first public step last week as Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold indicated his support in a letter sent to diocesan bishops on June 2. “I affirm this initiative, and I think that it comes at the right time for our church,” Griswold said. “As we continue to engage the mission energies in our church, the campaign is a bold step towards reaching out to a broader audience.” The idea of a campaign was born from the strategy group of the 20/20 movement—a goal that General Convention adopted in July 2000 to contribute to the growth and vitality of the church and its congregations. The group, which recognized that advertising is a key part of the conversation—especially among “next generations”—saw advertising as an opportunity “to raise Episcopalians’ perceptions of themselves and lead to intentional welcoming training among churches.” Forget everything you know about the ECUSA. What comes to mind when you hear the words “Episcopal Church”? Exactly. Old money. Pew rents. Phillips Brooks. Caviar and an ’82 Mouton Rothschild whilst watching polo. People who use words like “whilst.” Sipping sherry after the fox hunt. Twenty-two Primates hold love-in for ECUSA. Not exactly the sorts of images which appeal to the great unwashed. One wag wrote, “What the Episcopal Church needs is a new, fresh, contemporary, human name so that the masses will not be scared away. I like to be constructive here every so often, so I’ve come up with a few suggestions that the Episcopal Church is welcome to use. This is an old one: I Can’t Believe It’s Not Roman Catholicism! Piskiemania 2004! TGI Griswold’s; McChristianity; Gene Robinson’s Episcopalooza. You get the idea. EXTREME ANGLICANISM!! IT’LL BLOW YOU AWAYYYYY!! And the PR campaign cost to make the ECUSA more lesbitransgay (with occasional straights) friendly—a mere $750,000! And in the Diocese of Western New York, things go from bad to worse. The Dean of the cathedral, Allen Farabee, got terminated this past week. He was running it into the ground. You can read that story. A recent meeting of Episcopal Communicators at Kanuga focused on “listening”—a much-favored word by ECUSA’s liberal elite. Behind these words is the idea of keeping an open mind, presumably indefinitely, with the greater sin being to close it on anything substantial. God forbid. By keeping an open mind, one can, presumably, allow anything to go in and out at random without stopping on the way to find out if it is true or not. You can read my full report today. The outgoing president of the Southern Baptist Convention, Rev. Jack Graham, told the media recently—when asked about the Episcopal Church’s consecration of an openly homosexual bishop—what the orthodox in ECUSA should do: “I pray that Bible-believing Episcopalians can either change their church or divide it and move on.” The outgoing SBC leader also hopes that his own denomination will consider changing its name to reflect the “national and international presence of Southern Baptists.” And if you thought it was just the ECUSA that was having problems over same-sex marriages, then consider what 500 members of First Church of Christ in Wethersfield, CT, did recently. They voted to leave the United Church of Christ last week after years of growing discord over differences in theological beliefs and social issues. The decision to break away returns First Church to its status for much of its 369-year history: an independent Congregational church. First Church is the largest UCC church in New England, and its leaders have criticized what they say is the denomination’s embrace of same-sex marriage, acceptance of homosexuality, and teachings that do not conform to their view of the Bible. And in the Diocese of North Carolina, the diocesan retreat, The Summit, is to close. According to Council minutes of March 25, The Summit is running out of cash—and at this time, it does not appear that the Diocese has the means to supply it. Blame it on the conservatives who no longer want to fund Bishop Michael Curry’s pansexual religion. The diocesan balance sheet total showed only $303,594, with a warning that due to a number of factors, it would stand at less than $50,000 by the end of this year. There are a couple of offers to purchase The Summit—with one from the Assemblies of God. Guess they must have figured out who Jesus REALLY is and the Kingdom he proclaims. Bishop Curry is still figuring it out, apparently. Bishop John W. Howe of Central Florida took a swing at Bishop Jon Bruno, Diocese of Los Angeles, this week for participating in the “marriage” of poet and spiritual gadfly Malcolm Boyd, 80, to his 51-year-old lover. He told him in no uncertain terms that it hurts ECUSA and “saddens me” and “I oppose what you have done.” It also makes ECUSA look bad abroad. One wonders at this point if the revisionists even care anymore what the Global South thinks. Diocese of Rio Grande Bishop Terence Kelshaw was hospitalized in Canada this week after collapsing on a plane. He was placed in the ICU at the Health Science Centre in St. John’s, Newfoundland. The main health concern for the Bishop right now is the pneumonia in his lungs. He is on strong IV antibiotics to help fight the pneumonia and infections. He is on a ventilator that is assisting his breathing, allowing his lungs to rest while they heal. His temperature is fine and his blood work looks good, said his wife. Progress is slow—but we are optimistic on his recovery. PRAY FOR THIS GODLY BISHOP. And this just in: ECUSA’s Executive Council yesterday elected the most revisionist bishop of Canada, Michael Ingham of New Westminster, as the new Anglican Church of Canada liaison to the Episcopal Church. That is probably the single most outrageous act the ECUSA could have done in the face of the Global South bishops, many of whom have publicly declared themselves out of communion with the Canadian bishop. ON THE INTERNATIONAL SCENE, the Province of Aotearoa (which includes New Zealand) got themselves a new Primate—a Maori—and he says he has a vision of a world without homosexuality. Bishop Whakahuihui Vercoe, 75, is the controversial replacement for Archbishop John Paterson, who has headed New Zealand’s largest church for seven years. In his first big interview, he told the Weekend Herald he believed that homosexuality was unnatural and not morally right. “And that’s not quoting scripture either… I’m just basing it on my human—I s’pose I should be basing it on scripture also—but I’m basing it on human accepted norms.” It’s wrong. Unnatural! Whatever next! After the liberal John Paterson, this is a welcome change. Does this mean that the whole country will go orthodox? Not necessarily. Only the Diocese of Nelson under Derek Eaton is orthodox in NZ—but at least the head of the church seems to have his head on straight. Now if only the Australians would elect Sydney Archbishop Peter Jensen to be the next Primate, replacing Peter Carnley in that country, it would be a clean sweep for the Antipodes. But the Anglican Church of Australia is not without current woes. The Archbishop of Adelaide, Ian George, resigned this week over a cover-up of a pedophile sex scandal. It never pays to hide sin—it has a way of coming back to bite you. And in the Church of England, the clergy of the Diocese of St. Albans are preparing to rumble over the appointment of Jeffrey John to be the next Dean of the cathedral. This problem is not going away—and the evangelicals know the power of money, or the withholding of it—and they will do precisely that to prevent his appointment. His appointment as dean might be a sop to the job of not getting the bishopric of Reading—but the Evangelicals see no difference. Over 70 clergy and laity along with 17 others said that the Bishop’s action has caused a breakdown of trust and divided the Diocese, impinging upon the desire of the Bishop to be seen as a focus of unity. They may seek alternative Episcopal oversight, redirect monies, and more. If you are looking for a new website with a different perspective on the news, go to http://getreligion.typepad.com/getreligion/2004/02/what_were_doing.html. Two friends of mine, Terry Mattingly and Doug LeBlanc, have started this blog. Mattingly writes: “Day after day, millions of Americans who frequent pews see ghosts when they pick up their newspapers or turn on television news. They read stories that are important to their lives, yet they seem to catch fleeting glimpses of other characters or other plots between the lines. There seem to be other ideas or influences hiding there. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t there. www.getreligion.com will give you more… try it.”

By David W. Virtue Bishop Charles Jenkins, the tenth Bishop of Louisiana, is currently at Kanuga alongside Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, meeting with the Lambeth Commission. Bishop Jenkins has apparently just arrived at Kanuga from “Camp Haven’t-got-a-Clue,” if his pastoral letter to the Diocese is any indication. SEEKING RECONCILIATION By Charles Jenkins JUNE 2004 Dear Friends in Christ: Plans are being made for the summer, and I hope we look forward to a bit of rest and a slower pace. I know that I eagerly anticipate both; life has gotten too fast. Spring is always a busy time for bishops, as every board in the church seems to meet in May—but this spring has been particularly busy for me and will remain so through June. You may know that I accepted election as president of the Presiding Bishop’s Council of Advice. Little did I know what I was letting myself in for. If this was ever a quiet and somewhat honorary position, it is such no longer. I believe there is a way forward in our church in these troubled times concerning human sexuality. I believe the way forward can be found that preserves the integrity of what is described as “two mutually exclusive positions” and preserves the dignity of those who hold those seemingly irreconcilable views. Of course, one position could “triumph” over the other and the issue(s) could be “settled”—but I think such is no settlement at all. So, I am working to seek reconciliation, honor, integrity, and truth in this. I realize that all my striving is for naught unless this is the will of God. In June, I will accompany Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold and Bishop Arthur Williams to testify before the Lambeth Commission. You may remember this is the commission chaired by the Most Rev. Robert Eames, Archbishop of Ireland, which was requested by the primates of the Anglican Communion when they met at Lambeth Palace in the autumn of 2003. I’ve not been told what I ought to say or how I should structure my testimony. I am free to describe the situation in our church as I perceive it. I am told that other American bishops have also been invited to appear before the Lambeth Commission—but probably not at the same time as we. I don’t know what the Lord will do with all this. I ask your prayers. What would “getting over this” or “moving beyond this” look like? The questions themselves draw the ire of some, for in the past, the answer has meant that one sense of justice and right has prevailed over another. What happens when your justice becomes another’s injustice—or another’s sense of justice is in fact an injustice to you? The quest for justice is hollow when it results in a new injustice. Just look at the world situation to see what I mean. I think that one of the many reasons there is so much emotion in this conversation and debate is because of our history of exclusion as a means of settling difficult questions. I don’t have a clear sense of what “getting over this” is like—except that I believe with all my heart that the answer has something to do with embrace and Resurrection. I think that those who disagree can embrace one another without surrendering their integrity, self, and honor. If not, the world is in for a season of religious strife and war that makes the religious wars of the past look like child’s play. How long will it take for us to find healing? There are strident voices out there on both sides calling for the exclusion of the other. This is a devilish tactic—for when we do so, we can then devalue the other; they become to us a heretic or subhuman. I have been reading Umberto Eco’s new book, Baudolino, which has some fanciful scenes from the rape of Christian Constantinople by the armies of the Christian West. How could this happen? Heretics deserve such—at least so goes the thinking. It is hard to find the way to embrace the other in such emotion. I think this is something in our history that hinders us from finding healing. There is fear in our discussion. Each position seems to think the other “holds the cards,” at least in the church. I have had bishops on either side—and in the center—tell me of their fears in this. It is not surprising, then, that some seek not reconciliation but separation. There are some who work not for reconciliation but for alienation and schism. I do not think this to be of the Lord. I think Jesus calls us to be reconciled one to another and to God in charity, integrity, mercy, honor, honesty, and truth. I don’t know who would benefit most from the demise of the church—nor do I think that is going to happen, despite the best efforts of some. I suppose there are some who imagine for themselves some kind of benefit. I do know that millions in the church—and served by the church—will be injured, and I would predict that the injury would last for generations. We have an opportunity for good or ill, and I pray that we will be led by grace into goodness. At the consecration of a new bishop, the ordinand is pledged to participate in the councils of the church. I think myself ill-prepared to do so—thus I pray for God’s grace to guide me as I attempt to be faithful to my ordination vow. I just wanted to let you know what I am doing in the national and international church and ask your prayers. Please don’t think I am not enthusiastic about this work to which I am so strangely called. I do feel enthusiasm and conviction—but there is more. There is for me a sense of awe, wonder, humility, and mystery. The people who strive in seemingly opposite directions are like me—those for whom Christ died and was raised to glory. The institutions with which we deal are not simply man-made but are called into being by the Holy Spirit as Christ’s Body in the world. This is a sacred precinct in which I feel I should remove my shoes. It is always good to come home to the Missionary Diocese of Louisiana and be with you. God’s blessings, The Rt. Rev. Charles E. Jenkins Tenth Bishop of Louisiana

Special Report By David W. Virtue The Archbishop of Uganda, the Most Rev. Henry Orombi, has written a letter to the Suffragan Bishop of New York, the Rt. Rev. Cathy S. Roskam, telling her that the money she is raising for clergy wives’ training in Uganda is not welcome. The Church of Uganda will not receive it because of the Episcopal Church’s stand on same-sex blessings. “I am writing to make it very clear to you that the Church of Uganda (Anglican) has not changed her stand on the recent events in the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (ECUSA) and all those who support them,” wrote Rev. Canon Stanley Ntagali, Provincial Secretary for the Ugandan archbishop. Roskam had written to all the clergy wives in her diocese asking them to contribute financially to The Global Women’s Fund of the Diocese of New York to educate clergy wives in Uganda. “The total cost of the project is $40,000, but with just $5,000 we can start the first phase, while we look to broaden the base of our support. Your donation can help make this possible.” She added, “Educate a priest’s wife in Uganda and you educate a community. That’s an awfully good return on our dollars!” But the archbishop wrote back, saying that in light of The Episcopal Church’s stance on homosexuality—specifically same-sex blessings—he would not accept the money. “I am sure that Bishop Roskam, you are motivated by genuine concern for the difficult circumstances that pastors’ wives experience in Uganda. That is not a bad thing, but the situation is overshadowed by your support for the same-sex agenda of ECUSA. That agenda is so wrong, so very wrong, that it is endangering people’s souls and separating them from Christ,” said the archbishop. “As the Church of Uganda, we cannot overlook such a crisis for the passing comfort that money can bring. As we have made it clear and loud to the international community on many occasions, we are dealing with eternity here, and souls of innocent people are at great risk.” “Therefore, I want to say it with sadness and deep regret that we cannot receive any financial support from you and your diocese. To do so would not only contradict the stand of our Province but it would also imply that we are willing to accept what you have come to believe and accept to be brought into the Church of Christ. The Bible is very clear that same-sex behavior separates people from Jesus Christ. The Church of Uganda can never participate in that, no matter how costly it is.”

By David W. Virtue COLORADO SPRINGS—An orthodox rector in the Diocese of Colorado challenged Bishop Robert O’Neill this week over a wrist slap he gave to a lesbian priest after she participated in an illicit “blessing” of her relationship with another woman. The Rev. Don Armstrong of Grace Church and St. Stephen’s in Colorado Springs took issue with the bishop following what he described as an “unsatisfactory meeting” with some 20 other conservative diocesan clergy over the matter. In a letter to Bishop O’Neill, Armstrong said the blessing of same-sex relationships had no basis in the Prayer Book formularies and defies canonical prohibitions against sex outside of marriage. He went on to say that this “new thing” will never be accepted because it is an aberration, diminishes the church’s witness, and makes it look profoundly sick and silly. Armstrong also criticized the bishop over the diocesan Task Force set up to examine current divisions in the Diocese, concluding it was on the wrong track by trying to find common ground for continued diocesan life. Armstrong told the Rev. James Harlan, rector of the Church of the Ascension in Denver and head of the Task Force, that the situation was hopeless given Bishop O’Neill’s commitment to same-gender relationships. “What we need is direction on how to divide the assets, how to give everyone title to their property, because we are certainly not going to live together if these fundamental disagreements are left in place,” he wrote. “There is no common ground that transcends the kind of thinking process that arrives at same-sex blessings. We are truly divided between those operating from a concern for rights and choices and those holding the faith of the prophets and apostles,” Armstrong wrote. He then sharply rebuked the revisionist bishop: “I would certainly consider joining with others in a pastoral/spiritual relationship stoppage until such time as we have a commitment from you to uphold Communion teaching in all things, and to maintain Communion membership without equivocation. Your fine-tuning of how Communion authority might be understood is nothing more than a dodge—being too smart by half, putting your personal discernment above subjection to the body.” “Rob, as I have said many times, we don’t care what you think—we care what the church (defined as the larger Body of Christ—certainly greater than merely ECUSA but no less than the Communion) teaches. You weren’t elected to make personal decisions about either teaching or Communion membership for us, but to uphold and protect both the teaching and membership already given.” “To even have the reservations you seem to hold—to have such ambiguous answers to some of the questions we asked you yesterday—was in itself distressing. Do you know that the only position you took with any energy was that you would not further discipline Bonnie Spencer (who continues to live in a sexually intimate relationship outside of marriage)?” “I am discouraged and exhausted after such a dismal meeting with the 20 orthodox rectors. That we now have established—as seemingly irrevocable—a large group of practicing homosexual clergy; that same-sex blessings are occurring with impunity in our diocese; that you merely shrug in a false display of powerlessness at the liberal disobedience is a real sign of spiritual and communal decay.” “Of course I am not persuaded that what is happening here is anything less than what you want. It is clear to me that your overt ambiguity is merely designed to placate the conservatives while the revisionist agenda moves ahead and becomes firmly entrenched—completing the shift from orthodox to secularist begun by the failed and faithless Winterrowd.” “Nothing less than repentance will bring healing to the Diocese of Colorado,” said Armstrong. “We will not bargain with ‘the pressures of well-meaning people from the other side.’ There is truth and there is error—and one must simply choose.” Which will you choose, Rob? Armstrong said the Diocese of Colorado was in free fall—into a new religion of rights and choices—now rejecting the faith of the prophets and apostles. “Lord Carey was right—we are becoming an American Sect—a religion in which it is no longer Christ who lives, but me, my partner, and whoever will bless us.”

Archbishop Mullally used her maiden presidential address to re-commit to better safeguarding standards. No mention of God, Jesus, sin or salvation COMMENTARY By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org February 10, 2026 By any reckoning, Dame Sarah Mullally, the new Archbishop of Canterbury's maiden presidential address to Synod was a dismal, disastrous failure. The rite for penance should be invoked. The address was delivered to members of General Synod - the Church's parliamentary body - meeting in London this week and she lamented the Church of England's past failings on safeguarding of which she is one of the worst offenders. She said she planned to double down on raising standards. You can read my piece here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/the-church-of-england-is-a-cesspool-of-failed-safeguarding God was not even mentioned, neither was Jesus. Not even a hint of why the Church of England is in business or why it is irrelevant to 98% of the British public. There was no mention of the gospel that liberates people from their sins, just a long whine about safeguarding and the hope, however anecdotal, that, over the last four years, people have been returning to church. Not entirely true, of course. The churches people are turning to are Pentecostal churches, independent evangelical Anglican churches, other evangelical churches that actually proclaim the risen Christ. Chinese churches have grown by 28% and large evangelical churches are growing, while smaller ones (mostly CofE) are shrinking. Vibrant Nigerian Anglican churches are dotted throughout the country. A headline on the official Church website said attendance rose for the fourth year in a row. "The overall number of regular worshippers across the Church of England's congregations rose to 1.009 million in 2024, a rise of 0.6 per cent, according to the annual Statistics for Mission findings," the Church of England "Statistics for Mission" report says. But Madeleine Davies of the Church Times contradicted the official optimism. "The data, published, record that in 2024 attendance rose for the fourth year, but that recovery since the Covid-19 pandemic has slowed. Increases in attendance since 2023 were smaller than in previous years. In 2019, a "middle-sized" church had an all-age average weekly attendance (AWA) of 34.5; in 2024, the equivalent figure was 26. The median church has just one child in attendance, compared with three in 2019." The moral of this story is don't believe what the church turns out as official news. A different reading could be that any revival in the UK is occurring outside the Church of England. Dame Mullally can't even tell the truth about her own church. The appalling state of the Church of England will not be mitigated by telling untruths about the true state of the church. With the population of England now around 67 million, 685,000 worshippers in 2023 (the most accurate figure we have) means barely 1 per cent of the people living in the nation are turning up to C of E churches. The C of E has been in decline for decades. She conceded the Church of England and wider Anglican Communion were facing many challenges. That's the understatement of the year. Nearly 80% of Anglicans worldwide won't even recognize her, especially those churches belonging to GAFCON. Her GSFA brethren have said that her appointment is "a missed opportunity to reunite and reform the Anglican Communion". That she is a woman in the most sacred seat of the Anglican communion is one setback; she previously led the Church of England's Living in Love and Faith consultation on marriage, sexuality and gender identity which paved the way for its approval of same-sex blessings. That's a huge no-no to evangelical Global South Anglicans. She just doesn't get it. And probably never will. She even faces pushback from evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics in her own church. One wonders if occupying Lambeth Palace and the pension that goes with it, is really worth the job, even with the support of the Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, an arch defender of the new ABC and a man facing safeguarding issues of his own. She said the Church had in the past "fallen tragically short" on safeguarding and that she was "committed to bringing an approach of seriousness and focused direction to all matters relating to safeguarding in all contexts in the church". If you believe that, then you still believe Santa Claus comes down chimneys. This appointment will turn out to be the most disastrous in the See of Canterbury's history. If you thought Justin Welby’s reign was a debacle, you ain't seen nuthin' yet. END

(Note: the original text with footnotes is available as an Adobe PDF file) There is a scene from seventy years ago, recounted by Karl Barth’s biographer, Eberhard Busch, that came to mind as I watched the sorry proceedings of the Anglican Church of Canada’s 2004 General Synod. On the evening of 22 January [1934] Barth was again called to Berlin unexpectedly. The next day he was a highly undesirable guest at an assembly of church leaders and theologians which was to make preparations for Hitler’s reception of seven representatives from each of the two church camps on 25 January. When Barth arrived at the meeting at St Michael’s Hospice he was asked to agree to a memorandum issued by the Tübingen theologian Karl Fezer. To his horror he could only regard it as heretical. “I therefore said to Fezer on 23 January, ‘We have different beliefs, different spirits, and a different God.’” ‘That proved a bombshell. Wild tumult broke out. Fezer turned pale and was almost helpless, and some people … shouted, “Can Barth be serious?” Others … wanted to leave the place and others again wanted to throw Karl (Barth) out. Yet others asked Barth to take back his remark and to show some Christian love. When calm had just about been restored, he began to speak again and said that of course he was in earnest. That was the situation between him and the German Christians… Bishop Meiser moaned that this was the end of the Evangelical Church… [Karl Barth: His Life from Letters and Autobiographical Texts, Eerdmans 1994, p. 242; drawing on the account of Charlotte von Kirschbaum] This scene presented itself as I pondered the much better-orchestrated debate on 3 June over the amendment to resolution A-134, which added an article affirming “the integrity and sanctity of committed adult same-sex relationships.” During the debate an indigenous brother (whose name I did not catch) appeared ready to launch some such Barthian bombshell when he was asked by the acting primate, David Crawley, to sit down. Apparently he had exceeded his three minutes, but this violation of the white man’s culture was not his most egregious offence. His greater sin was to ask the question that no one else that morning dared to ask. If I may be permitted to paraphrase, the question was this: How is it an act of loving affirmation towards homosexuals to refer them for salvation to someone other than their Saviour? Make no mistake, that is exactly what the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada has done. A well-marshalled parade of speakers, including the amendment’s sponsors, made perfectly explicit the principle on which this “pastoral” amendment rests: The only way to affirm the homosexual – and in this respect at least, the homosexual cannot be regarded as an exception – is to affirm the integrity and sanctity, the wholeness and holiness, of what he or she already is and has as a sexual being in a sexual relationship. In that relationship, he or she already has and knows the divine blessing. That is the good news offered by the church to the homosexual; the bad news is that rites articulating the church’s “amen” to the divine word seen and heard in the natural sacrament of committed homosexual relationships – rites certain now to proliferate across Canada – will continue to be experimental until 2007. Now of course it may be objected here that no one is supposing that anyone’s eternal salvation is secured by virtue of participation in a committed sexual relationship. It is therefore unfair to say that the homosexual, or anyone else, is being referred to himself for salvation rather to the Saviour. But the speciousness of this defence can be shown by a closer look at the analogy between the objection of Barth to the German Christians and the objection of our native brother to the Bulmers and Crawleys and Hutchisons and Inghams of Canadian Anglicanism. On 31 May 1934, at 11:30 a.m., the first Confessing Synod of the German Evangelical Church adopted unanimously the now famous Barmen Declaration, which Barth had chiefly drafted, then “rose spontaneously and sang the verse ‘All praise and thanks to God’” (Busch, p. 246). The first three articles of Barmen are especially instructive and I quote them at length: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.” (John 14.6) “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber… I am the door; if anyone enters by me, he will be saved.” (John 10:1, 9) Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and in death. We reject the false doctrine, as though the church could and would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation, apart from and besides this one Word of God, still other events and powers, figures and truths, as God's revelation. “Christ Jesus, whom God has made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.” (1 Cor. 1:30) As Jesus Christ is God's assurance of the forgiveness of all our sins, so, in the same way and with the same seriousness he is also God's mighty claim upon our whole life. Through him befalls us a joyful deliverance from the godless fetters of this world for a free, grateful service to his creatures. We reject the false doctrine, as though there were areas of our life in which we would not belong to Jesus Christ, but to other lords – areas in which we would not need justification and sanctification through him. “Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body [is] joined and knit together.” (Eph. 4:15, 16) The Christian Church is the congregation of the brethren in which Jesus Christ acts presently as the Lord in Word and sacrament through the Holy Spirit. As the Church of pardoned sinners, it has to testify in the midst of a sinful world, with its faith as with its obedience, with its message as with its order, that it is solely his property, and that it lives and wants to live solely from his comfort and from his direction in the expectation of his appearance. We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church were permitted to abandon the form of its message and order to its own pleasure or to changes in prevailing ideological and political convictions. These articles were aimed directly at the premises and goals of the German Christian movement, whose platform of 1932 intended “to point out to all believing Germans the ways and the goals by which they can attain a new order in the church.” Like General Synod, the German Christians insisted that their directives and resolutions were “not intended to constitute a creed nor to replace one;” they simply pointed to “a way of life” that would no longer “obstruct the high purpose” to become one inclusive church. “We want a living People’s Church [Volkskirche],” they proclaimed, “which is the expression of all the religious powers of our nation [Volk].” We take our stand on the platform of positive Christianity. We affirm an affirmative style of Christian faith, as appropriate to the German spirit of Luther and heroic piety. We want to bring to the fore in our church the reawakened German feeling for life and to make our church life of positive value for life… We want our church to fight in the forefront in the decisive struggle for the existence or extinction of our nation. She dare not stand aside or indeed shy away from the fighters for freedom… We want an Evangelical Church which roots in the national character... [We want a church] which by maintaining confessional peace will develop the powers of our Reformation faith into the finest of the German nation. Barth (and other Barmen elders) saw in the actions of the German Christians, who attained a following of roughly two-third of the Protestant church, something more than a mere political mistake. He pointed to the heart of the problem, and the problem was at once a theological and a pastoral one: The German Christians thought it possible for the church to be an expression of the religious powers latent in the German people – powers released by faith and baptism – when in fact the church can only be the church in so far as it becomes an expression of the transforming power of God in Jesus Christ. The German Christians called “pious” and “godly” and “spiritual” and “Christian” what was not pious or godly or spiritual or Christian, because they looked at what human beings – specifically German Christians – could be or become in their own right. They thus left themselves open to interpreting historical events – such as the rise of National Socialism – as driven by the Spirit of God, when these events were driven rather by the spirit of this world and by the Prince of Darkness. They failed to measure these events by reference to the redemption of humanity accomplished by God, once for all, in Jesus Christ. Neither did they understand the correlation between salvation in Christ and the lordship of Christ. Since there is nothing lacking in the former, responded Barmen, there is nothing lacking in the latter: “We reject the false doctrine, as though there were areas of our life in which we would not belong to Jesus Christ, but to other lords – areas in which we would not need justification and sanctification through him.” I am not going to develop in detail the analogy that might well be made between the German Christians’ embrace of the spirit of their age and the embrace of the spirit of ours by General Synod. On that score I will only remark that General Synod, when through the amendment to A-134 it declared extra-marital sexual relations between “committed” partners to be holy, made a rather obvious concession to the idol of sexual self-expression – an idol that certainly existed in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s, but in the latter decade took a back seat to the idol of nationalism. All that matters here is that both the German Christians and General Synod invite the same theological critique. For both have based their concessions to their respective idols on the same principle: that what we are in ourselves is already (potentially if not actually) whole and holy. Neither as Germans in the one case, nor as sexual beings in the other, do we require any special justification, sanctification and transformation in Jesus Christ. Neither then must we be submitted in that respect to Christ or to the rule of his lordship. Like it or not, this is the implication of the passing of the amendment to A-134. Several members who spoke in favour of the motion were quite explicit: Synod was being asked to affirm the presence of God that already inheres in every committed (homo)sexual relationship between Christians. Many have charged General Synod with speaking out of both sides of its mouth, and in a confusing manner. Nothing could be further from the truth. Canon Gregory Cameron placed before it at the outset a dilemma: Approve the blessing of homosexual relationships and you let down your brethren in the global south; disapprove and you let down your gay and lesbian brethren. Canon Cameron intimated that, regrettably, the right choice at the moment was to let down the latter, but General Synod found a better way. It decided that homosexual relationships were already holy and did not require the church’s blessing in order to be so. In doing this General Synod clearly revealed its mind and its character. It was not indecisive but decisive. The theologically illegitimate distinction between a “theological” and a “pastoral” motion is a form of prevarication that cannot cover up the radical break that the Anglican Church of Canada has made with the Christian faith and the Christian tradition – indeed, with the very baptism to which A-134’s first clause appeals. Neither that clause nor the other three that were put in as a buffer around the same-sex clause(s) mean anything more than did the German Christians’ appeal to baptismal unity. Indeed, the record suggests that these clauses, though foolishly assented to by the would-be orthodox, mean anything much even in themselves. (What happened, for example, to the clause affirming “the principle of respect for the way in which the dialogue and study may be taking place … in indigenous and various other communities within our church in a manner consistent with their cultures and traditions,” when our native brother was told in mid-sentence to sit down?) It is time to face reality. I for one find myself, post General Synod 2004, utterly divided from the Anglican Church of Canada in its present form. Utterly divided not over issues of sexuality, as some vainly imagine, but over something much more serious, as the primates of the global south have recognized. To those responsible for this situation, it is time to say: We have different beliefs, different spirits and different Gods. © 6 June 2004. The author is associate professor of Christian Thought at McGill University, and was until recently a member of Archbishop Hutchison’s theological commission. See further “Beyond Nature, Shy of Grace” (International Journal of Systematic Theology 5.3, 2003: 261-86) and “Is Theological Education Possible?” (Pro Ecclesia 9.4, 2000: 404-13). See also Ascension and Ecclesia (1999).

The Most Rev. & Rt. Hon. Rowan Williams Archbishop of Canterbury Lambeth Palace London SE1 7JU ENGLAND Dear Archbishop Williams, Grace and peace from God the Father and from our Lord Jesus Christ. Much has been made of the divisions among the orthodox here in North America. The divisions are, in fact, scandalous and we recognize that we must do everything we can to bring them to an end. We write to you as leaders of key Anglican movements in North America. We write to you in cooperation with and under the chairmanship of Bishop Bob Duncan, Moderator of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes. This letter is a first step in signifying our commitment to make common cause for the gospel of Jesus Christ and common cause for a united, missionary and orthodox Anglicanism in North America. While little trumpeted, there are already numerous specifics of cooperation among us. Our intention is to take such additional steps as will help all observers to recognize that a new day is dawning among us. As we seek to do our part, please be assured of our prayers for you as you strive to give leadership at this extraordinary moment in the history of the Christian Church and of the Anglican Communion. Faithfully in Christ, Robert Wm. Duncan, Moderator, Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes Leonard W. Riches, Presiding Bishop, Reformed Episcopal Church Charles H. Murphy III, Bishop Chairman, Anglican Mission in America David L. Moyer, President, Forward in Faith North America Walter H. Grundorff, Presiding Bishop, Anglican Province of America David C. Anderson, President, American Anglican Council

The Anglican Communion Network (ACN) announced today an unprecedented alliance of six groups in the Anglican tradition. The groups, all based in the U.S. have committed to a “common cause” under the chairmanship of the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, ACN Moderator. In a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, leaders of the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC), the Anglican Mission in America (AMIA), Forward in Faith North American (FiFNA), the Anglican Province in America (APA) and the American Anglican Council (AAC) pledged “to make common cause for the gospel of Jesus Christ and common cause for a united, missionary and orthodox Anglicanism in North America.” As a whole, the groups represent or provide pastoral oversight for approximately 200,000 Christians in the Anglican tradition. Calling divisions among orthodox Anglicans in North America “scandalous”, the letter goes on to state that the signatories clearly committed to cooperation through “additional steps as will help all observers to recognize that a new day is dawning.” “To see orthodox Christians in the Anglican Tradition move from competition and divisiveness to cooperation signifies a new season in the life of the Church,” Bishop Duncan said. “This is not a declaration of organic unity – far from it – but it is a proclamation that we can function as allies in the common cause of Jesus Christ,” he added. The Reformed Episcopal Church and the Anglican Province in America had been engaged in ecumenical dialogue with the Episcopal Church for years, but actions of ECUSA’s General Convention 2003 halted such efforts. Both welcomed the opportunity to join the common cause initiative undertaken by the Anglican Communion Network. “The events of history have resulted in separations among those who claim the same Anglican heritage. The circumstances of the present compel us to find ways of reestablishing and rebuilding relationships among all those in the Anglican world who remain steadfast in holding ‘the faith once delivered to the saints’," said the Rt. Rev. Leonard W. Riches, REC Presiding Bishop. “We share a common heritage with our orthodox brethren in the Episcopal Church and pledge our support in building unity among faithful Anglicans,” said the Rt. Rev. Walter Grundorf, Presiding Bishop of the APA. Leaders of the various Anglican groups pointed to the growing crisis within ECUSA and the importance of working cooperatively for creative solutions to fulfill the mission of the Church. "Even as we watch with some sadness the painful yet necessary realignment in the Anglican Communion, I am encouraged by the willingness of a growing number of orthodox groups and voices to work together and to shape a new Anglican witness for the 21st Century," noted the Rt. Rev. Charles Murphy III, Chairman of the Anglican Mission in America. “The Holy Spirit is uniting Biblically-centered Anglican jurisdictions and organizations for the common cause and integrity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; and for the necessary re-alignment of the Church,” the Rev. Dr. David L. Moyer, FiFNA President. “The crisis of faith and authority in this Episcopal Church that cripples, undermines and damages the witness of the Anglican Communion in North America has impelled us as leaders to embrace and uphold each other in unity of spirit and action. We have prayerfully committed ourselves to each other in this new relationship for the maintenance and growth of our Anglican heritage for our children and our children’s children.” The American Anglican Council, which, with other orthodox groups in ECUSA, assisted in organizing the Anglican Communion Network and serves as its interim Secretariat, considers this a key alliance. “We have maintained, since the debacle of General Convention 2003, that realignment in North America is a necessity,” said the Rev. Canon David C. Anderson, AAC President. “Our common cause effort with these other Christian communities increases our numbers, our strength and our witness.” The Anglican Communion Network is a growing ecclesial structure that counts nine Episcopal Dioceses and scores of individual Episcopal congregations as affiliates. The affiliated dioceses provide pastoral oversight for approximately 140,000 communicants in 595 local congregations. The scores of individual Anglican Communion Network parishes account for thousands more. Approximately 14,000 communicants worship in the 137 churches of the Reformed Episcopal Church. The Anglican Province of America includes 55 congregations in the United States with some 5,000 members as well as a further 15,000 members overseas. The Anglican Mission in America counts 65 member congregations and numerous church plants where some 15,000 Anglican Christians worship. Though many in Forward in Faith North America and the American Anglican Council are also members of a Network-affiliated diocese or parish, both have memberships that number in the tens of thousands. END

BY JOHN F. PERRY PRECIS The decision taken by the Evangelical Lutheran Church In America at its August, 1998, Churchwide Assembly to reject the revision of the Concordat of Agreement, whose purpose was to achieve full communion between the E.L.C.A. and the Episcopal Church, represents a setback for the "Porvoo process." Some measure of historical consciousness, however, will help those concerned about ecumenism to realize that the Porvoo Declaration remains a major hermeneutical breakthrough. In order to contextualize this important ecumenical agreement by showing that we have indeed "come a long way," notwithstanding the American defeat, we will return to the nineteenth century, to Oriel College in Oxford and to the Lectures on Justification by John Henry Newman. In this series of lectures and the subsequent book Newman tried to delineate a via media position on justification for Anglicans between that of the Roman Catholics and the Protestants. He also discussed Luther's position on the question. This essay will show how Newman's hermeneutics were unfair to Luther's own point of view on justification. His citations of Luther's texts, partial and misleading, were standard for the Oxford movement from the time of Hurrell Froude. The position taken here is that Newman's treatment of Luther was more an intra-Anglican argument with the Evangelicals in his own church than an argument with Luther or the Lutherans. The continuation of the process begun with the Porvoo Declaration indicates that both Anglicans and Lutherans are now in dialogue and, to some extent at least, in communion again. INTRODUCTION The August 14-20, 1998, Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America brought both good and bad news for those involved in the ecumenical movement. The good news was that the gathering agreed to a process of unification with several Reformed churches. The bad news was that the issue of the historic episcopate led the assembly delegates to reject the revised Concordat of Agreement, whose purpose was to achieve full communion between the E.L.C.A. and the Episcopal Church. This is a setback for the "Porvoo process." Those concerned about the future of ecumenism might take heart in the realization that the Porvoo Declaration of 1996, an agreement between Lutheran churches in the Nordic and Baltic countries and the Anglican churches of Great Britain and Ireland, represents a major hermeneutical breakthrough. Arriving for the 1998 Lambeth Conference, the "Porvoo bishops" were fulsome in their positive estimation of the process with which they were involved. "The establishment of the Porvoo Communion is one of the most important steps of this century," said Archbishop John Vikstrom of Turku and Finland. Bishop John Hind of Gibraltar said that the Declaration was not so much a theological development as a "hermeneutical breakthrough of an enormous kind." [1] Hind's comment indicates his historical consciousness of the complex history of the relations between Anglicans and Lutherans. In order to contextualize the hermeneutical breakthrough achieved with "Porvoo" and almost attained by the Concordat of Agreement in the U.S.A., this essay will return to a key moment in the relationship between Anglicans and Protestants, namely the Oxford Movement in England between 1833 and 1845. Within the confines of a single essay and the context of the "Porvoo Agreement" we will limit this discussion to the series of lectures delivered by John Henry Newman at Oriel College of Oxford University in 1837 and published as Lectures on Justification in the following year. A hypothesis will be tendered as to the biographical factors that led Newman to treat Luther and his writings in the way he did and, in particular, for the ellipses that a close reading of his Luther citations can discover. Unlike those of the Porvoo Declaration, Newman's hermeneutics were unfair to Luther's own position on the question of justification. His citations of Luther's texts, partial and misleading, were standard for the Oxford Movement since the Hadleigh Conference of 1833 and the writing of Hurrell Froude. The hypothesis of this essay is that Newman's treatment of Luther had more to do with an intra-Anglican argument with the Evangelicals in his own church than it did with Luther or the Lutherans. The process of moving beyond polemics into the hermeneutics of Luther depends on earlier work, such as that of Karl Holl, [2] Gerhard Ebeling, [3] and James S. Preus, [4] which has prepared the way for the "Porvoo phase" in the ecumenical movement. I. NEWMAN'S LECTURES ON JUSTIFICATION Newman's Lectures on (the Doctrine of) Justification is a book much less well known than the Apologia, the Grammar of Assent, or The Idea of a University. For a number of reasons it deserves to be ranked among the most important of his theological writings. Newman himself considered it to be a key to the via media theological position that he and the others involved with the Oxford Movement were attempting to construct. In the Lectures Newman established a dialectical position on justification between the errors of Protestantism and the distortions of Roman Catholicism. [5] "Nothing I have done," Newman wrote to his sister, Harriett, Mrs. Thomas Mozley, on January 9, 1838, "has given me such anxious thought and so much time and labour." [6] The Lectures represent Newman's attempt to construct an Anglican doctrine of justification based upon the theology of the later Caroline divines such as Bishop George Bull and Jeremy Taylor in the period of English ecclesiastical history [7] after the restoration of the monarchy in 1660. At the time it was published, Newman's book was respected by the theological community even though it was primarily intended for ordinary Anglicans. [8] Among those who appreciated the Lectures was German historian Johann Joseph Ignaz Von Dollinger, who, it was reported, "always spoke of Newman's Justification as the greatest masterpiece of theology that England had produced in a hundred years." [9] From the point of view of Newman studies the Lectures offer us a clear indication prior to his publication of Tract 90 in 1841 of the orientation of his thought in the direction of Roman Catholicism. A reader has the distinct impression that it is Luther and the Protestants, rather than such Roman Catholics as Albert Pighius, Roberto Bellarmine, and Gabriel Vasquez, who were the real subjects of Newman's criticism. An indication of this lies in the fact that, after he became a Roman Catholic, Newman republished the Lectures, adding only a few footnotes and other minor revisions by way of correction of his original text. [10] A. HISTORIOGRAPHY Newman was attempting to construct a dialectical position on justification for Anglicans located midway between the Protestant and Roman Catholic viewpoints. If one pole of this dialectic were in error, then the theological structure of the via media would collapse. There is an emerging consensus that Newman in the Lectures misunderstood and misrepresented Luther's position on justification. Luther's thought was a theological "blind spot" for Newman. [11] Due to his visceral hostility to Anglican Evangelicals in his own day, he was unable to evaluate correctly Luther's "thesis," which led to the Oxford Movement's "synthesis" of the via media. An examination of Newman's treatment of Luther in his Lectures is an exercise in historiography. It is an attempt to understand how, in one limited area, Newman wrote history. What is proposed is that he, like any other historian, studied Luther and his writings within a definite horizon [12] of thought and values. This horizon was made up of the particular concerns and questions that originally brought him to want to study Luther, as well as the presuppositions that were operative in his thinking about him. B. NEWMAN'S EVANGELICAL BACKGROUND Newman disliked Luther [13] because he had played a part in creating the doctrines of the evangelical Protestants of the nineteenth century. Crucial to an understanding of how Newman treated Luther in the Lectures is the evangelical background of Newman's own life. The word "evangelical" can mean different things to different people. As it will be used here, it refers to a widespread movement arising in the early eighteenth century within the Protestant Christian world. [14] A good definition is provided by Peter Toon as follows: An Evangelical Anglican has a strong attachment to the Protestantism of the national Church with its Articles of Religion and Prayer Book. He believes that the Bible is authoritative in matters of faith and conduct and is to be read individually and in the home as well as in church. He emphasises the doctrine of justification by faith but with good works and a specific (holy) life-style as the proof of true faith. He claims to enjoy a personal relationship with God through Christ, the origins of which are usually traced not to sacramental grace but to a conversion experience. And he sees the primary task of the Church in terms of evangelism or missions and so emphasises preaching at home and abroad. [15] Put differently, evangelicalism placed great stress on the human component of faith consisting in the experiential aspect of a Christian's encounter with Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior. As compared to the tradition it was reacting against, evangelicalism emphasized conversion rather than baptism as the instrument of entrance into the church, the scriptures rather than tradition or church authority as the primary locus of revealed truth, receiving the "Word" through prayer and preaching rather than through the sacraments, and the doctrine that "faith alone," not good works, is the sole way we can be saved. Original sin was central in evangelical preaching, complemented always by the doctrine of the atonement by God in Christ. Newman's own conversion to Christianity took place within the context of this evangelical movement. In his Apologia he simply, yet movingly, described this crucial event: "When I was fifteen (in the autumn of 1816) a great change of thought took place in me." [16] He then described the influence on him of the sermons and conversation of the Rev. Walter Mayers (1790-1828), an evangelical teacher of classics in his school at Ealing, and of certain books, "all of the school of Calvin." Newman was elected a Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford, on April 12, 1822. It was at this point in his life that he came under the influence of Dr. E. B. Pusey whom he revered and who embodied so many of his evangelical values, while refusing to espouse any particular party or camp within Anglicanism. [17] It was with him that he argued about the questions raised concerning justification after he read Sumner's Apostolical Preaching, which he finished on August 24, 1824. [18] Newman argued in favor of "imputed righteousness" and a separation of regeneration from baptism; Pusey opposed these positions. On January 13, 1825, Newman indicated in his diary that he had finally made up his mind on the question and had changed his evangelical theology of justification. [19] With his acceptance of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, a new theological horizon opened up for Newman, and his relationship changed with fellow members of certain evangelical religious societies to which he had formerly belonged. His loss of the post of secretary of the Church Missionary Society had to do with his stubborn insistence that the organization should disown certain evangelical sermons preached on behalf of their collections. Newman introduced 254 amendments to their annual report as part of this unsuccessful effort. [20] C. HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE PUBLICATION OF NEWMAN'S LECTURES The same doctrinal dispute between Newman and the evangelicals provided the immediate historical context of the Lectures on Justification. In 1834 an Anglican, the Rev. J. J. Hornby, had edited the letters and papers of an Irish Anglican layman, Alexander Knox, titled Remains. In the first volume, an 1810 essay by Knox on justification caused a stir because he had interpreted Article XI of the Thirty-Nine Articles in a way similar to that of Bull. For Knox (and Bull) justification was neither simply forensic nor without moral content. [21] The Rev. George Stanley Faber (1773-1854), an Evangelical, provoked by Hornby's having published Knox's essay, wrote a rebuttal of the suspiciously "Roman" doctrines contained in it. After it was published, Newman sent author's copies of his Lectures to both Hornby and Faber. [22] The second volume of the Tracts for the Times for 1834-35, published by "Members of the University of Oxford," included an "Advertisement" and three tracts written and signed by Pusey. These three tracts were numbered 67, 68, and 69 and were titled "Scriptural Views of Holy Baptism as Established by the Consent of the Ancient Church and Contrasted with the Systems of Modern Schools." They represent a long, thorough, and scholarly defense of baptismal regeneration. Although it was assumed that Pusey had written the three tracts, the advertisement appearing before Tract No. 47 in the same volume was unsigned. In reviewing this volume a writer for the Anglican evangelical journal, the Christian Observer, presumed that Pusey had also written the advertisement and reacted with shock to the notion expressed in it of administering the eucharist to infants or to the dying and apparently insensible. [23] The Christian Observer made a personal attack on Pusey, ending with the question, "Will any approver of the Oxford Tracts answer in print?" Newman answered the Christian Observer's challenge. He planned a three-part response. On January 11, 1837, he defended Pusey's argument that baptismal regeneration, as opposed to sanctification by the Holy Spirit, was a gift peculiar to the Second Testament and was not given before the coming of Christ. The second part of his reply was dated March 3, 1837, and began with a complaint to the editor of the Observer, Samuel Wilks, about the way he had printed the first part of his text and demanded the following: "... what I send, I hope to see inserted without mutilation ..." [24] Newman then simply denied that Pusey had written the advertisement to the second volume of the tracts and, therefore, the offensive words concerning the possibility of administering the Lord's Supper to infants and to the dying and apparently insensible. [25] He then demanded to know what it was in Pusey's tract that offended against the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Homilies. Before he went on to the third part of his letter, which would treat of justification, he demanded: "Now, then, state definitely what Dr. Pusey's opinions are, for which he ought to give up his Professorship; and state also, why, that is, what statements of our Church his own oppose." The letter was not continued any further "partly on account of the very unsatisfactory mode in which the above was printed in the pages of the Magazine, and partly because the challenge ... had not been met." [26] Instead, Newman delivered his lectures on justification in Adam de Brome's chapel at St. Mary's, Oxford, in the spring of 1837, which he then published in the following year. They are considered by some to be the most important single contribution of the Oxford Movement. [27] II. NEWMAN TREATMENT OF LUTHER IN THE LECTURES The antecedent difficulty with Newman's treatment of Luther in the Lectures on Justification is that he may not have been fair to the Reformer. Luther was the key to Newman's theory concerning the degeneration of Protestantism. The strict adherence to Luther's teaching on justification was, according to Newman, an important source of disunity within the Anglican Church. This is because the Anglican understanding of justification is different from both Luther on the left of the dialectic and Roman Catholicism on the right; it belongs to its own via media. For Newman, Luther was the first Protestant, and it was with him that he carried on an intensive and extended argument. Newman's evidence for his own position vis-a-vis this Reformer was derived from his research into Luther's own writings, especially his 1531 Commentary on Galatians. Newman's treatment of Luther has at least as much to do with a controversy within the Anglicanism of his own day as with Luther's comprehensive doctrine of salvation. Luther was the first Protestant, and his teaching was the intellectual birthplace of the nineteenth-century Anglican Evangelicals. Concluding his treatment of the teaching of Luther and popular Protestantism on justification, Newman said: "I have tried to delineate it fairly," [28] but he judged that it was "an utter perversion of the truth." [29] Newman was convinced that the theology in his own day, which took literally the Reformer's dictum that justification is by faith alone as its "leading idea," [30] necessarily had "a flaw in its leading principle" [31] and was consequently forced into a "false position" [32] on Christianity. Newman's basic interest in studying Luther was to discover what the Reformer meant when he said that justification is by faith alone and to explain how the Anglican Church understood this watchword of the Reformation. The primary source for the Anglican interpretation of the sola fide doctrine is the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. Newman agreed with Luther and the 11th Article that justification means being "counted righteous before God." Thus, "in logical order, or exactness of idea, Almighty God justifies before He sanctifies; or that, in rigid propriety of language, justification is counting righteous, not making." [33] However, the 13th Article adds a more Catholic color to the Anglican position, for it makes justification equivalent to "the grace of Christ and the inspiration of His Spirit." [34] Therefore, Newman could concur with St. Augustine and other Fathers of the church in understanding it actually to consist in sanctification. By "threading a theological needle" in this way, Newman struggled to undo the error in Luther's teaching and yet remain faithful to the Thirty-Nine Articles. This is the essence of the via media. If Newman could understand the meaning of the term itself in the way Luther did, he could not agree with him that justification is by faith alone. Perhaps the most central primary text of Luther for Newman's understanding and disagreement with the "German Reformer" was the following one from the 1531 Commentary on Galatians: "Sola fides, non fides formata charitate, justificat: fides justificat sine et ante charitatem." [35] This is what he called Luther's "paradox." Although Newman understood Luther to have associated faith closely with trust in Christ as one's Savior, [36] he found that the Reformer had refused any association of faith with charity. This, Newman argued, was intellectually absurd. In fact, Luther rarely used the phrase "sola fide" that is attributed so commonly to him. Where he does use it, he refers to "fides Christi," so that it is part of his Christology. What Luther wanted to insist upon was the real and saving presence of Christ in the believer brought about by the activity of the Holy Spirit and not the "fiduciary apprehension of the benefits of Christ." [37] Because he had misunderstood Luther, Newman rejected what he thought was the Reformer's position on both philosophical and theological grounds. "Luther's doctrine, now so popular, that justifying faith is trust, comes first, justifies by itself, and then gives birth to all graces, is not tenable; -- such a faith cannot exist, and if it could, would not justify." [38] This "false position" [39] makes for a shadowy and unreal theology, "which has a flaw in its leading principle"; this gives "a character of vagueness and equivocation to the whole system built upon it." [40] III. NEWMAN'S TREATMENT OF LUTHER VIEWED IN RELATION TO THE MAJOR COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS (1531-35) In the footnotes and text of the Lectures Newman referred to three primary sources of Luther: his Libellus, [41] his Freedom of a Christian, [42] and the major Commentary on Galatians. Since the great majority of his citations come from the Commentary, including all those in the main body of his text, it seems logical to conclude that this work was the most important source for Newman's understanding of Luther on the doctrine of justification. His understanding and presentation of Luther's own writings derive from the characteristic ethos and ecclesiology of the Oxford Movement and its via media. A. JUSTIFYING FAITH AS TRUST IN LUTHER'S COMMENTARY Newman interpreted Luther's doctrine to be that justifying faith was trust but that it included no other virtue: Luther's doctrine, now so popular, that justifying faith is trust, comes first, justifies by itself, and then gives birth to all graces, is not tenable; -- such a faith cannot exist, and if it could, would not justify. For, as faith cannot exist except in this or that mind, so it cannot be as much as trust, without being also hope, nor hope without having some portion of love. [43] Newman's riposte was that justifying faith "cannot be as much as trust without being also hope ...," but he then vitiated this point made against Luther by citing as evidence for the argument a Latin text from Luther's Commentary that made faith and hope inseparable. Beside the word "hope" in the text cited above Newman inserted this footnote: "Luther and Calvin both virtually grant that faith and hope are inseparable or parts of one thing, though Luther, and perhaps Calvin deny this of love." To provide evidence for this last assertion Newman then quoted from the last part of Luther's Commentary: In fact, therefore, faith and hope are scarcely distinguishable; and yet there is some difference between them....just as in the political realm prudence is vain without fortitude, so in theology faith is nothing without hope, because hope endures and lasts in the midst of evils and conquers them. And, on the other hand, just as fortitude without prudence is rashness, so hope without faith is presumptuousness about the Spirit ... [44] Because this footnote actually contradicted the assertion that Luther's doctrine defined faith as trust, it seems fair to conclude that this definition of justifying faith does not pertain, in Newman's understanding, to Luther's doctrine itself, but to a nineteenth-century interpretation of it, that is to say, to "Luther's doctrine now so popular." The context from which Newman took this citation is remarkable because it was here that Luther actually attempted to distinguish faith as it is from hope to which latter virtue he accorded a traditional understanding. In other contexts of the Commentary, especially when faith was compared with love, Luther tended to give this virtue some of the characteristics of the "fiduciary apprehension of the benefits of Christ" as discussed by Newman. [45] But, in the context of the footnote under discussion, faith relates to the intellect and has to do with instruction and defense against error and heresy. What is clear from Newman's reference to Luther and from its context is that faith does not, in fact, justify alone, but needs hope in order for it to be sustained in time of temptation. [46] In the second half of his footnote Newman said that Luther separated faith from love. This is the real point of dispute between Luther and Newman. B. LUTHER'S PARADOX Luther emphatically shut out the virtue of love from the office of justification, which belongs to faith alone. [47] The real difference between Newman and Luther did not consist in the question of how we receive our justification, for they both agreed that it is by faith, [48] but, rather, in the question of how it lives in us and is sustained in us once we have been justified. Newman understood Luther to say that it is not sustained, nor does it live in us through love or obedience to the Law but by faith alone. [49] This is what Newman refers to as Luther's "paradox." [50] It was Newman's contention that, toward the end of his life, Luther renounced his "paradox." [51] The evidence for this claim was tenuous. [52] Luther's paradox" influenced how Newman used Luther's Commentary in his own Lectures. Although he left Luther's text intact in his footnotes, Newman carefully removed this "paradox" from anything he quoted from Luther in the actual text of his book. C. NEWMAN'S MANIPULATION OF LUTHER'S TEXT In addition to the footnotes, Newman made two citations from Luther's Commentary in the main body of his Lectures. He used these quotations in order to support his own case against the extreme Protestants of the Anglican Church. The reason why he used Luther in this way was that he considered that only scripture itself would carry greater weight among his opponents. [53] In the last lecture in his book, "On Preaching the Gospel," Newman argued that the emphasis in contemporary evangelical preaching on the subjective experience of conversion was an abuse that tended to direct the congregation to concentrate more on themselves than on Christ. In order to make this point, Newman introduced a quotation from the Commentary on Galatians, discussing the text, "Yet not I" (Newman's emphasis), "but Christ liveth in me," [54] with the condescending phrase, "Even Luther ...," [55] Newman's citation then reads: "'Here,' says he, 'the Apostle clearly shows how he lives; and he teaches what Christian righteousness is, viz. that with which Christ lives in us, not that which is in our own person. And so when we treat of Christian righteousness, we must altogether put away our person......'" [56] Newman added six dots, indicating to his reader that he was leaving out part of Luther's text. It comes as no surprise to observe what it is he was leaving out, namely Luther's "paradox": "For if I pay attention to the person or speak of the person, then, whether intentionally or unintentionally on my part, the person becomes a doer of works who is subject to the Law. But here Christ and my conscience must become one body, so that nothing remains in my sight but Christ, crucified and risen." [57] Newman then continued to quote Luther, after having passed over this part of the text: ...... If I look at myself only, Christ being excluded, it is over with me. For then immediately the thought comes across me, "Christ is in heaven, thou upon earth, how wilt thou now come to Him?" I will live spiritually, and do as the Law demands, and so as to enter into life. Here reflecting on myself, or what it ought to be, also what I ought to do, I let go Christ from my eyes, who is my sale righteousness and life. [58] Once again a series of dots indicates a break in Luther's text. Presumably, what has been left out by Newman would be included in the "etc. etc." at the end of his footnote. This is what Newman has omitted: "Once He is lost, there is no aid or counsel; but certain despair and perdition must follow. This is an extremely common evil; for such is human misery that in temptation or death we immediately put Christ aside and pay attention to our own life and deeds. Unless we are raised here by faith we perish." Newman then went on quoting his text from Luther: "We should accustom ourselves, turning from ourselves, in such distress of conscience, from the Law and works, which only force us to reflect on ourselves, simply to turn our eyes to the Brazen Serpent, Christ fixed to the Cross, on whom fixing our earnest gaze we maybe sure that He is our righteousness and life." [59] Although only a single dot follows the end of Newman's citation, Luther actually finished his sentence with these words: "and care nothing about the threats and terrors of the Law, sin, death, wrath, and the judgement of God." [60] Would it not seem clear that Newman tried to "sterilize" Luther's text from his opinions about the Law and works that he found objectionable and that Newman also quoted Luther out of context? While Luther might have agreed with Newman's opinion with regard to evangelical preaching in the nineteenth century, had he lived then, what he was actually writing about in the text Newman quoted is the "temptation" we have to trust in our own works-righteousness rather than in our salvation through Christ, a recurring theme in Luther's Commentary on Galatians.[61] The second text from Luther's Commentary of which Newman made use appears at the end of his lecture dealing with the proper role of sacred ordinances, such as the rite of baptism, and of good works in justification. Newman employed Luther here to corroborate his own position that, since "[j]ustification comes through the sacraments; is received by faith; consists in God's inward presence; and lives in obedience," [62] good works can properly be said to justify us. [63] In other words, Newman used Luther in order to defend the Roman Catholic teaching that a Christian can truly cooperate with God in his or her own salvation. Newman was aware that this was a somewhat unusual position for Luther to take. Nevertheless, he used the text because "he will be found to corroborate by his testimony what has been said; not willingly as the extract itself shows, but in consequence of the stress of texts urged against him. I take him, then, for what he says, not for what he does not say." [64] Newman then quoted some of Luther's comments on Gal. 3:10: "It is usual with us," he says, "to view faith sometimes apart from its work, sometimes with it. For as an artist speaks variously of his materials, and a gardener of a tree, as in bearing or not, so also the Holy Ghost speaks variously in Scripture concerning faith; at one time of what may be called abstract faith, faith as such: at another of concrete faith, faith in composition or embodied. Faith as such, or abstract, is meant, when Scripture speaks of justification, as such, or of the justified. (Vid. Rom. and Gal.). But when it speaks of rewards and works, then it speaks of faith in composition, concrete or embodied. For instance: 'Faith which worketh by love;' 'This do and thou shalt live;' 'If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments;' 'Whoso doeth these things shall live in them;' 'Cease to do evil, learn to do well.' In these and similar texts, which occur without number, in which mention is made of doing, believing doings are always meant; as, when it says, 'This do and thou shalt live,' it means, 'First see that thou are believing, that thy reason is right and thy will good, that thou hast faith in Christ; that being secured, work.'" Then he proceeds: -- "How is it wonderful, that to that embodied faith that is, faith working, as was Abel's, in other words, to believing works, are annexed merits and rewards? Why should not Scripture speak thus variously of faith, considering it so speaks even of Christ, God and man; sometimes of His entire Person, sometimes one or other of His two natures, the Divine or human? When it speaks of one or other of these, it speaks of Christ in the abstract; when of the Divine made one with the human in one Person, of Christ as if in composition and incarnate. There is a well-known rule in the Schools concerning the 'communicatio idiomatum,' when the attributes of His divinity are ascribed to his humanity, as is frequent in Scripture; for instance, in Luke ii the Angel calls the infant born of the Virgin Mary, 'the Saviour' of men, and 'the Lord' both of Angels and men, and in the preceding chapter, 'the Son of God.' Hence I may say with literal truth, That Infant who is lying in a manger and in the Virgin's bosom, created heaven and earth, and is the Lord of Angels. .... As it is truly said, Jesus the Son of Mary created all things, so is justification ascribed to faith incarnate or to believing deeds." [65] On the face of it, the analogy between the hypostatic union of the human and divine natures in the Person of Christ and human cooperation in the divine work of justification afford the perfect ground for a rapprochement between Luther and Newman. Although the potential for an agreement existed in Luther's use of this analogy, Newman misread the Reformer in claiming from this text that he actually held a Catholic position on good works. The difficulty of Newman's reading Luther in this way is that he did not follow through with the "communication of idioms" in order to attribute theandric value to Christ's human deed and, therefore, to attribute a role for a Christian's good works in the divine work of his or her salvation. This is made clear by the fact that, after saying, "The Infant lying in the lap of His mother created heaven and earth, and is the Lord of the angels," Luther went on to say: I am indeed speaking about a man here. But "man" in this proposition is obviously a new word and, as the sophists themselves say, stands for the divinity; that is, this God who became man created all things. Here creation is attributed solely to the divinity, since the humanity does not create. Nevertheless, it is said correctly that "the man created," because the divinity, which alone creates, is incarnate with the humanity, and therefore the humanity participates in the attributes of both predicates. Thus it is said: "This man Jesus led Israel out of Egypt, struck down the Pharaoh, and did all things that belong to God." Here everything is being attributed to the man on account of the divinity. Therefore when Scripture says (Dan. 4:27): "Redeem your sins by showing mercy" or (Luke 10:28) "Do this, and you will live," it is necessary to see first of all what this "doing" is. For in these passages, as I have said, Scripture is speaking about faith in the concrete rather than in the abstract, in a composite sense rather than in a bare or simple sense. Therefore the meaning of the passage, "Do this, and you will live," is "You will live on account of this faithful 'doing'; this 'doing' will give you life solely on account of faith." Thus justification belongs to faith alone, just as creation belongs to the divinity. [66] Immediately following these words is a final sentence by Luther that was quoted by Newman: "As it is truly said, Jesus the Son of Mary created all things, so is justification ascribed to faith incarnate or to believing deeds." Within their context these words mean something very different from what Newman would have led us to believe. With regard to Luther's writings, Newman claimed to be following hermeneutics in a straightforward way: "I take him, then, for what he says, not for what he does not say." It is clear from what Newman chose to leave Out from Luther's text that he has opted for what we might today call a hermeneutics of "deconstruction" in Luther scholarship, for Luther actually said precisely the opposite of what Newman claimed he was saying. With regard to the relationship between faith and good works, Luther actually said in the text cited by Newman that concrete or embodied faith never exists alone but is always united to the Divine Person of the Word and that justification belongs only to abstract faith, never to concrete faith. [67] This was actually quite clear to Newman because earlier in his book he had cited a text to this effect from the Commentary. [68] D. NEWMAN'S DECONSTRUCTION OF LUTHER Newman's deconstruction [69] of Luther was quite deliberate. He used Luther against Luther and the Protestants in his Lectures on Justification in the sense that he deliberately omitted any mention of Luther's "paradox" in the texts under discussion and that he made Luther say something very different from what he had intended. This was not dishonesty on Newman's part. Dishonesty was not congruent with his character as we know it nor with his distinguished academic career. Newman did not begin reading Luther's Commentary on Galatians without presuppositions, nor did he read it with an "empty head." [70] Newman was reading and making use of Luther's work within the specific context of the aims and objectives of the Oxford Movement and its via media. After noting the mutilation of one of the Luther passages discussed above, Alister McGrath, in the second volume of his Iustitia Dei, raised the same problem: "We are thus confronted with two possibilities. Either Newman encountered this passage at second hand, already in its mutilated form; or else he deliberately chose to omit a section on account of its evident significance. We incline towards the former." [71] The position of the present study inclines toward the latter possibility and claims that Newman was involved in a deconstruction of Luther and the Protestants of his own day. The particular hermeneutics that Newman used in applying Luther's Commentary on Galatians to his own Lectures on Justification came from an ethos with regard to the Reformer cultivated within the context of the Oxford Movement. The age of the Oxford Movement is over. It is to be hoped that the bilateral dialogue between the Lutherans and Anglicans that has resulted in the Porvoo Declaration has ushered in a new hermeneutical methodology. The example of Newman's treatment of Luther in the Lectures on Justification illustrates why all the effort to achieve this agreement has been important and worthwhile. John F. Perry, S.J. (Roman Catholic), has been an assistant professor of religious studies at St. Paul's College in Winnipeg, Manitoba, since 1998, following three years in a similar position at St. Augustine's Seminary of the Toronto School of Theology. Ordained a deacon in 1974 and a priest in 1975 in Ontario, he took his final vows in the Jesuit order in 1983 in Bhutan. He lectured at St. Joseph's College in India (1969-70); was an educator in the mostly Buddhist Kingdom of Bhutan (1971-72, 1980-87); and has lectured on moral and ethical issues throughout Canada in college, hospital, and parish settings. He has also served parishes in Winnipeg and Toronto. Since 1994 he has been editor of Ultimate Reality and Meaning. He holds a B.A from the University of Guelph (ON); an M.Div. and M.Th. from St. Mary's University, Halifax; and a Th.D. (1992) from Regis College of the University of Toronto. His articles have appeared in URAM, Theological Studies, and Perspective; his occasional articles and reviews, in the Canadian Catholic Review, Religion and the Arts, and Studies in Religion. He and Dean Bryan Hillis (Luther College, University of Regina) are principal investigators for an interfaith, cross-cultural project concerning Canadian religious beliefs around end-of-life issues. (1.) Anglican Church News Service (LC044), July 24, 1998. (2.) Karl Holl, "Luthers Bedeutung fur den Fortschritt der Auslegunskunst," in his Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Kirchengeschichte, I: Luther, 4th and 5th eds. (Tilbingen: Mohr, 1927; repr., Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1965). (3.) Gerhard Ebeling, "Die Anfange von Luthers Hermeneutik," Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche, vol. 48, no. 2 (1951), pp. 172-230; idem, "The New Hermeneutics and the Early Luther," Theology Today 21 (April, 1964): 34-46. (4.) James S. Preus, From Shadow to Promise: Old Testament Interpretation from Augustine to the Young Luther (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969). (5.) Marvin O'Connell, The Oxford Conspirators: A History of the Oxford Movement, 1833-1845 (London: Macmillan, 1969). For a general background on the status question is, the following books are helpful: Thomas L. Sheridan, Newman on Justification (New York: Alba House, 1967); Peter Toon, Evangelical Theology, 1833-1356: A Response to Tractarianism (Atlanta, GA.: John Knox Press, 1979); and P. B. Nockles, The Oxford Movement in Context (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994). (6.) Gerard Tracey, ed., The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman, vol. 6: January 1837 to December 1838 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), p. 186; cf. Henry Chadwick, "The Lectures on Justification," in Ian Ker and Alan G. Hill, eds., Newman after a Hundred Years (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), p. 291. (7.) Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, vol. 2: From 1500 to the Present Day (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), pp. 110-111, 130-134. Kenneth Parker has raised questions about Newman's first-hand knowledge of the Caroline Divines and their tradition; see his "Newman's Individualistic Use of the Caroline Divines in the Via Media," in Gerard Magill, ed., Discourse and Context: An Interdisciplinary Study of John Henry Newman (Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1993), pp. 33-42. (8.) Apart from its long and detailed "Appendix," it is not a systematic or technical treatise. Its style is sometimes that of a lecture and at other times reminds the reader of a sermon; cf. Chadwick, "Lectures," p. 289. In fact, it is mainly a work in biblical theology; see Toon, Evangelical Theology, p. 150. (9.) Robrecht Boudens, ed. and notes, Alfred Plummer: Conversations with Dr. Dollinger: 1870-1890 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1985), p. 254. (10.) In the "Advertisement" to the 3rd ed. of the Lectures on the Doctrine of Justification, Newman said: "Unless the Author held in substance in 1874 what he published in 1838, he would not at this time be reprinting what he wrote as an Anglican; certainly not with so little added by way of safeguard" (John Henry Newman, Lectures on the Doctrine of Justification [Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1966 (1st ed., 1838; 3rd ed., 1874; 7th ed.: London: Longmans Green and Co., 1897)1, p. ix; hereafter, L.J.). (11.) Gordon Rupp, The Righteouseness of God (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1953), p.4. (12.) I understand this word as Bernard J. F. Lonergan used it in Method in Theology (New York: Herder & Herder and Seabury Press, 1972). (13.) John Henry Cardinal Newman, Apologia Pro Vita Sua: Being a History of His Religious Opinions, ed. Martin J. Svaglic (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), p. 35. (14.) See Geoffrey Best, Evangelicalism and the Victorians: The Victorian Crisis of Faith, ed. A. Symondson (London: SPCK, 1970), pp. 37-56; Yngve Brilioth, Three Lectures on Evangelicalism and the Oxford Movement (London: Oxford University Press, 1934). (15.) Toon, Evangelical Theology, p. 5. (16.) Newman, Apologia, p. 17. (17.) John Henry Newman, Autobiographical Writings, ed. and intro. Henry Tristram (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1957), p. 191. (18.) Ibid., pp. 202-203. (19.) Ibid., p. 78. (20.) T. C. F. Stunt, "John Henry Newman and the Evangelicals," Journal of Ecclesiastical History 21 (January, 1970): 66-71. (21.) Chadwick, "Lectures," p. 292; McGrath, in Iustitia Dei, vol. 2, P. 122, wrongly stated that Newman was the editor of this volume. (22.) Chadwick, "Lectures," pp. 292-293. Faber eventually wrote a rebuttal of Newman, stating that he "mixes up together wholesome food and rank poison, the sound doctrine of the Church of England and the pernicious dogmas of the Church of Rome" (George Stanley Faber, The Primitive Doctrine of Justification Investigated Relatively to the Definitions of the Church of Rome and the Church of England, 2nd ed., [1839], p. 427). (23.) "Letter Addressed to a Magazine on Behalf of Dr. Pusey's Tracts on Holy Baptism" (1837), in John Henry Newman, The Via Media of the Anglican Church, vol. 2 (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1891), pp. 150-154. (24.) Ibid., p. 169. (25.) Ibid., p. 172. (26.) Ibid., p. 194 (emphasis in original). Dr. Pusey held a position at Oxford that was bestowed on the incumbent at the behest of the Anglican Church. (27.) McGrath considers them to be "easily the most significant theological writing to emerge from the Oxford Movement" (McGrath, Iustitia Dei, vol.2, p. 122). (28.) L.J., p. 5. (29.) Ibid., p. 60. (30.) Ibid., p. 282. (31.) Ibid., p. 264. (32.) Ibid., p. 263. (33.) Ibid., p. 65; Newman's emphasis. (34.) Ibid.; Newman's emphasis. (35.) Ibid., p. 343n. This text seems to be the same as Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar: Hermann Bohlaus Nachfolger, 1883-), 40:1, 239, 31-240, 1, 2 (hereafter, W.A.), although the Latin in the Weimar Edition is slightly different from Newman's quotation: "Et concludendum cum Paulo: Sola fide, non fide formata charitate justificat ... Haec fides sine et ante charitatem justificat." McGrath took this as evidence that Newman was using a secondary and inaccurate (Latin) source for Luther's writings (McGrath, Iustitia Dei, vol. 2, p. 129). (36.) L.J., p. 257. (37.) McGrath, Iustitia Dei, vol. 2, p. 126. The irony, as McGrath pointed out, is that Newman's notion of justification's consisting in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the believer and Luther's theology were similar. (38.) L.J., p. 256. (39.) Ibid., p. 263. (40.) Ibid., p. 264. (41.) Ibid., p. 19. It is uncertain to what "little book" of Luther Newman is referring here. Newman's reference simply reads: "Luther. Libell. ad Ed. August." It may refer to Luther's "Marginal Notes" on Augustine's writings, the Randbemerkungen zu Augustini opuscula (1509), which is found in W.A. 7, 39ff. (42.) L.J., pp. 29,215. (43.) Ibid., pp. 256-257. (44.) Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Chapters 5-6, vol. 27 in Luther's Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1964), p. 23. In his footnote Newman cited Luther in Latin; cf., W.A. 40:2, 20-21, 27, 28, 31. (45.) See, e.g., W.A. 40:1, 229, 18-19. (46.) W.A. 40: 2, 24, 13-15. (47.) Ibid., 40:1, 240, 17-25. (48.) L.J., p. 278. (49.) In another footnote he quoted the Reformer to this effect: "Non enim dicit [Paulus], Charitas est efficax, sed, Fides est efficax; non, Charitas operatur, sed, Fides operatur. Charitatem vero facit fidei velut instrumentum, per quod operatur.... Illa charitas, vet sequential opera, nec informant meam fidem, nec ornant; sed fides mea informat et ornat charitatem" (ibid., pp. 9-10). (50.) Ibid., p. 78; 215, n. 2; 343n. (51.) Ibid., p. 60n. (52.) Newman referred to the fourth Bampton Lecture by Richard Laurence, the Archbishop of Cashel, in which Laurence was discussing not justification but the question of free will; cf. An Attempt to illustrate Those Articles of the Church of England which the Calvinists Improperly Consider as Calvinistical, Eight Sermons Preached before the University of Oxford in the Year MDCCIV, at the Lecture Founded by J. Bampton, M.A., new ed. (Oxford: Printed by W. Baxter for J. Parker and F. C. and J. Rivington, 1820), p. 93. (53.) L.J., pp. 113, 275. (54.) Ibid., p.332. (55.) Ibid., p.331. (56.) Ibid., p.332. (57.) It should be noted that this first omission is included in its Latin original as found in Newman's footnote: W.A. 40:1, 282, 19-22; Lectures on Galatians, 1534, Chapters 1-4, vol. 26 in Luther's Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1963), p. 166 (hereafter, L.W. 26). (58.) WA 40:1, 282,19-22; L.W. 26, p. 166; Newman's emphasis. (59.) L.J., p. 332; Newman's emphasis. (60.) WA 40:1, 283, 13-14; L.W. 26, p. 166. (61.) E.g., W.A. 40:1, 128, 32ff.; L.W 26, pp. 63ff.; W.A. 40:1, 322, 15-17; L.W. 26, p. 197; W.A. 40:1, 345, 31ff.; L.W. 26, pp. 215-216; W.A. 40:1, 369, l3ff.; L.W. 26, p. 233. (62.) L.J., p. 278; Newman's emphasis. (63.) Ibid., p. 274. (64.) Ibid., p. 300. (65.) Ibid., pp. 300-301. (66.) W.A. 40:1, 416, 10ff.; L.W. 26, pp. 265-266. (67.) In confirmation of this, see W. A. 40:1, 417, 25-418; L. W. 26, pp. 266-267. (68.) L. J., p. 28; W. A. 40:1, 50, 25ff.; L. W. 26, pp. 11-12. (69.) Obviously, to speak of "deconstruction" with regard to Newman is anachronistic. However, Newman's freedom to make Luther say what he believed was the truth for the sake of the evangelical Anglicans in his own day deserves a description; "deconstruction" will serve as a meaningful term. (70.) Lonergan, Method in Theology, p. 223. (71.) McGrath, Iustitia Dei, vol. 2, p. 129. Publication Information: Article Title: Newman's Treatment of Luther in the Lectures on Justification. Contributors: John F. Perry - author. Journal Title: Journal of Ecumenical Studies. Publication Year: 1999. Page Number: 303.