Archives

Associated Press 2/22/2004 CHARLESTON, S.C. - Theological differences over homosexuality are causing rifts in the Episcopal Church, but they do not have to be fatal to the church's unity, according to speakers at a forum here. Nearly 200 Episcopalians from around the state gathered Saturday to discuss ways of coping with conflicts over the 2003 confirmation of V. Gene Robinson, the denomination's first openly gay bishop. Clergy and laity, most from the Charleston-based Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, gathered for "Seeking Unity in Diversity," a conference set up by the Episcopal Forum of South Carolina. The Mount Pleasant-based group was formed to help members of the diocese try to find common ground despite differences over Robinson's confirmation. "Our goal today was to get some constructive conversation going within the Episcopal Church because there is so much polarization in the church and in our diocese," said Lynn Pagliaro of Mount Pleasant, one of the Forum's board members. "Members of the diocese want to learn about different opinions on these issues, and we see ourselves as an ongoing place for conversation within the Episcopal Church." The Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon, bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina, has been one of the most vocal opponents of Robinson's confirmation. In December, the diocese he leads became one of four charter members of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes. The network is for Episcopalians opposed to Robinson's confirmation. Network membership, as well as differences of opinion over Robinson, same-sex unions and other issues have caused distress among many lay members of the diocese. The only way to continue conversation between the two sides is to recognize the seriousness of the step the Episcopal Church took in affirming Robinson, said the Rev. Kendall Harmon, the diocese's canon theologian. "This is a debate about essentials," he said. Both Harmon and the Very Rev. William McKeachie, dean of the Cathedral Church of St. Luke and St. Paul, challenged Robinson's supporters to come up with a way to reconcile gay relationships with Scripture. "The biblical case for monogamous, heterosexual unions has not suddenly been proven wrong," McKeachie said. "... If schism and the breaking up of the Anglican Communion is incipient, it is not, in the view of the Diocese of South Carolina, we who caused the schism." McKeachie said both sides need to work out a theological compromise, such as the statement worked out at the 1988 General Convention that recognizes abortion as legal but also as a serious matter. The Very Rev. Samuel Candler, dean of the Cathedral of St. Philip in Atlanta, said he believes in "the possibility that certain same-sex relationships can offer the grace of God." Many members said they were encouraged after the daylong conference. "I think this is a step in the right direction," said Georgia Ann Porcher, a member of Grace Episcopal Church in Charleston.

From the Church Times THE CHOIR of St Andrew's Cathedral in Sydney will not proceed with a planned tour of churches in the United States, in response to the consecration of Canon Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. The tour, which had been scheduled for April, was to have been in conjunction with a tour by the St Andrew's Cathedral School orchestra, and was to have included engagements in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Washington DC. Phillip Heath, the head of the Cathedral School, where the 24 choristers are educated on school scholarships, confirmed that the choir tour, but not the orchestra tour, had been cancelled by a decision of the school council. The choir represented the cathedral, the church of the diocese, but the orchestra represented only the school, he said; the orchestra would continue to offer concerts in school-based institutions in the US. The decision to cancel the choir's involvement, while difficult, was a "prudent" one, given the current uncertainty about the nature of the Anglican Communion, Mr Heath said. Although he had been involved in planning the tour, he said he supported the decision the school council had made. Contrary to some press reports, the Archbishop of Sydney, Dr Peter Jensen, had not been consulted directly about the decision. Mr Heath said the cathedral choir, which includes 12 lay clerks, was one of only three choirs outside the United Kingdom to belong to the Choir Schools Association. The choir was "a very high priority" for the Cathedral School, he said.

COMMENTARY   By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org Nov. 5, 2025   The Most Rev. Dr. Samy Fawzy Shehata (Archbishop of the Episcopal/Anglican Province of Alexandria and Diocesan Bishop of Egypt) recently addressed the Sixth World Conference on Faith and Order, in which he called for ongoing work to “serve the unity for which Christ prayed”.   The conference which ran from 24-28 October, explored the theme: 'Where now for visible unity?' It met at the Logos Papal Center of the Coptic Orthodox Church at Wadi El Natrun, south west of Alexandria.   The focus of the archbishop’s message was the Nicene Creed; it’s origin and the role it plays in all the churches today. All three churches: Roman Catholic, Anglican and Eastern Orthodoxy affirm the Nicene Creed and recite it regularly in their services.   “This year holds a special significance for all Christians. We celebrate 1,700 th anniversary of the Nicene Creed, the confession of our faith that proclaims Jesus Christ as God from God, light from light, true God from true God. And we remember with deep reverence that it was here in Alexandria, in the Egyptian church, that the light of Nicene faith [was] first shown through the courageous witness of St. Athanasius the apostolic,” he said.   It was a brilliant move by the Egyptian archbishop to focus on the creed. There are other issues he could have talked about that have not brought unity, and seem never likely too.   In his address, Archbishop Samy celebrated the importance of the See of Alexandria, which played a key role in the debates that led to the Council of Nicaea. St Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, sought to resolve the Arian controversy and facilitated the reception of the Nicene faith.   It is significant that all three churches celebrate the Nicene Creed including the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox churches who recite the Nicene creed in their services. However, the unity for which Christ called for, still has not brought the long for unity and points of separation remain.   THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST   The Eastern Orthodox Church believes in Christ's one nature, which is understood as the union of divine and human natures. This belief is rooted in the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils, particularly the Council of Chalcedon, which defined that Jesus has one hypostasis (person) but two natures (divine and human).   The Roman Catholic Church and Anglicans believe in the two natures of Christ, which are both divine and the human. This belief is central to their understanding of the nature of Christ and his role as the mediator between God and humanity.   The Catholic Church, in particular, emphasizes the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, asserting that Jesus Christ is both fully divine and fully human. This doctrine is formally articulated in the Definition of Chalcedon (451 AD), which emerged from the fourth ecumenical council. According to this definition, Jesus is acknowledged to be in two natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved.   Anglicans, while also recognizing the importance of the two natures of Christ, emphasize the role of faith and scripture in the believer's relationship with God. Anglicans affirm that Jesus Christ is fully divine and fully human, but do not recognize the Pope's authority. They, like their Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters, do not see the Pope as the final authority in the Church.   These are unsurmountable barriers to true unity even after a thousand years of separation.   Between Rome and Canterbury stands the Reformation, and the great doctrine of Justification by Faith which still stands as a road block to unity between the two churches.   The Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England (Canterbury) have different views on the concept of justification. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that justification is a divine act where God declares the sinner to be innocent of his sins, based on the sacrifice of Christ by His shed blood. This is seen as a gift of grace that comes through faith (Romans 3:24; Titus 3:7) and is not earned by works (Romans 3:20, 28; 4:5; Ephesians 2:8-9). The Church of England, on the other hand, holds that justification is not by works but by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ. They believe that justification by faith alone is a core teaching of the Reformation and that the Catholic Church has not fully understood the biblical text.   INFUSION VS. IMPUTATION: TWO VIEWS OF JUSTIFICATION   Infused righteousness is the basis for the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification as defined by their early church father, Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274).  Aquinas taught:  It is a necessity for man to achieve a level of righteousness by his works (acts) for justification. The righteousness of Christ is not imputed, or fully accounted, to a repentant sinner who is saved by Jesus. The righteousness of man’s acts and the righteousness of Jesus is gradually infused to the believer.    For the Reformers in the sixteenth century and Evangelical Protestantism in the twentieth century, man's righteousness is not inherent or intrinsic to his being since it was forever lost in the fall of Adam and Eve. The justification offered by Christ, says the Reformed tradition, is a legal declaration. It is an attribution or 'imputation' only.   Imputed righteousness is the basis for justification for Lutherans and those in the Reformed traditions of Christianity.   Theopedia.com , an online encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity, defines “imputed” as used to “designate any action or word or thing as reckoned to a person. Thus, in doctrinal language, the sin of Adam is imputed to all his descendants, i.e., it is reckoned as theirs, and they are dealt with therefore as guilty (Rom 5:12) the righteousness of Christ is imputed to them that believe in Him, or so attributed to them as to be considered their own (2 Cor 5:21). Our sins are imputed to Christ; he undertook to answer the demands of justice for our sins. In all these cases the nature of imputation is the same (Rom 5:12-19; comp. Philemon 1:18, 19).”   The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that justification is a process maintained through good works and keeping commandments. It involves a change in the believer enabled and perpetuated by participation in the life of Christ, leading towards theosis—Christlikeness. This teaching is maintained despite some Eastern Orthodox scholars' criticisms of the doctrine of justification as found in Protestant Christianity.   The terms homoousios and homoiousios are also significant in Christian theology, particularly regarding the nature of Christ.   Homoousios means “same essence” or “same substance,” indicating that the Son is of the same substance as the Father.   Homoiousios, on the other hand, means “like substance,” suggesting that the Son is of a similar but not identical essence to the Father.   All three churches adhere to homoousios affirming Jesus’s full divinity.   Homoiousios implied a lesser status held by Arians and declared a heresy by the church.   There is no theologian in the Eastern or the Western Church before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy [in the fourth century], who did not in some sense regard the Son as subordinate to the Father.   However, to say that the Son was subordinate to the Father means that the Son's role and authority are not absolute. Instead, the Son submits to the Father's authority and has a specific role that complements the Father's role. This submission is not a result of the Son's inferiority but rather a reflection of their eternal relationship and function within the Trinity. The Son's submission is a model for believers' submission to Christ, as seen in the teachings of the Apostle Paul.   Archbishop Samy's address encouraged those gathered to work for church unity, saying: “In a world where divisions deepen, God calls us to be instruments of reconciliation. We are reminded that true communion begins in repentance and prayer.”   END

There's a reason why the gospels don't dwell on the blood and gore of the crucifixion. Most of us have yet to see Mel Gibson's "The Passion," but we've gained one sure impression: it's bloody. "I wanted to bring you there," Gibson told Peter J. Boyer in September 15's New Yorker magazine. "I wanted to be true to the Gospels. That has never been done before."   This goal means showing us what real scourging and crucifixion would look like. "I didn't want to see Jesus looking really pretty," Gibson goes on. "I wanted to mess up one of his eyes, destroy it."   It's a mark of our age that we don't believe something is realistic unless it is brutal. But there's another factor to consider. When the four evangelists were writing their own accounts of the Passion, they didn't take Gibson's approach. None of them depict Jesus with a destroyed eye. In fact, the descriptions of Jesus' beating and crucifixion are as minimal as the writers can make them.   "Having scourged Jesus, Pilate delivered him to be crucified," the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) agree. "When they came to the place which is called The Skull, there they crucified him."   Little more than a dozen verses later he is dead. The evangelists did not linger over his suffering in order to stir our empathy. The account of physical action is so brisk that, back when I was in seminary, I asked one of my professors why we presume Jesus was nailed to the Cross, rather than bound with ropes. He supposed it was because Paul later refers to redemption through Christ's blood.   If Mel Gibson had allotted his time the way the evangelists do, the majority of his film would have been about the swirl of people around Jesus in his last days, how they interact with him and what they do because of him. The scourging and crucifixion would have passed in a flash.   Why would the earliest Christians have handled these events so discreetly? Not because the events were thought unimportant; the whole Gospel story builds toward them. Not because the writers were squeamish, or because they were ashamed. St. Paul speaks boldly about Jesus' saving blood and proclaims that he will boast in the Cross.   But in the earliest Christian writings we see a different understanding of the meaning of the Cross, one which, shockingly, didn't think it was important for us to identify with Jesus' suffering. For contemporary Christians it's hard to imagine such a thing. The extremity of Jesus' sacrifice has been the wellspring of Christian art and devotion for centuries. It has produced great treasures, from late Renaissance paintings of the Crucifixion, to the meditations of Dame Julian of Norwich, to Bach's glorious setting of "O Sacred Head, Sore Wounded." Mel Gibson's "Passion" arrives as the newest entrant in a very old tradition. A funny thing happens, however, if we press further back in time. Before the middle ages, depictions of the Crucifixion show very little blood. Though the event itself was no doubt horrific, artists preferred to render it with restraint (like the Gospels, but unlike Gibson). The visual elements in an ancient icon of the Crucifixion are arranged symmetrically, harmoniously, and the viewer is placed at a respectful distance. The depiction is not without drama: Mary and the disciple John, at the foot of the Cross, reel in grief. But Jesus does not reveal any sense of torment. He is serene, almost regal.   What changed? In the 11th century, a theory emerged that shifted the common understanding of the Cross. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, proposed that our sins constituted a debt to God that could not be simply erased without unbalancing justice. The debt was too immense for any human to pay, and only Jesus' death could be an adequate sacrifice. Protestant Reformers retained the same theory substantially intact, but during the Enlightenment some theologian proposed instead that Jesus' suffering is meant to unite us in grateful love toward the Father, rather than pay a debt.   In both cases, Jesus as the God-Man takes on the sin of the world, bears its crushing weight, and accomplishes divine reconciliation. The movement in this drama is from earth to heaven, and the Cross means "suffering."   Yet for the first millennium, and continuing in Eastern Christianity today, the Cross means "victory." In this idea of the atonement, God in Christ effects a rescue mission. Humans are being held captive by Death, due to their voluntary involvement in sin, and are helpless to free themselves. In a majestic sweep of events Jesus takes on human life in order to die, invade hell, and set the captives free. The focus is much broader than the Crucifixion alone. The movement is from heaven to earth, the reverse of the later pattern. Paul, writing about 60 AD, describes this divine descent in the words of the earliest existing Christian hymn:   "Who, though he was in the form of God, Did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant. And being found in human form, he humbled himself to death, Even death on a Cross." (Phil 2:6–8)   Early Christians understood the Cross to be the way that Jesus broke into the realm of Death. Suffering itself is not the point.   How then could Jesus be a ransom, sacrifice, or offering? Early Christians understood such terms to mean that it cost Jesus his life to rescue us. It was a sacrifice to the Father, as a soldier might offer a superlative act of courage to his beloved general. It was the price of entry into the realm of Death. It cost Jesus his life's blood to enter Hades and save us, but it wasn't a payment to anybody.   This helps us see why they did not linger over the details of his suffering. It would be as odd as welcoming home a wounded soldier, and instead of focusing on the victory he won, dwelling on the exact moment the bayonet pierced his stomach, how it felt and what it looked like. A human soldier might well feel annoyed with such attention to his weakness rather than his strength. He would feel that it better preserved his dignity for visitors to avert their eyes from such details, and recount that part of the story as scantly as possible to focus instead on the final achievement.   This is the sense we pick up in the Gospels. Jesus' suffering is rendered in the briefest terms, as if drawing about it a veil of modesty. What's important is not that Jesus suffered for us, but that Jesus suffered for us. It is the contrast with his eternal glory that awed the earliest Christians.   Eastern Orthodox hymns for Good Friday convey fearful wonder: "Today he is suspended on a Tree who suspended the earth over the waters. A crown of thorns is placed on the head of the King of angels. He who covered the heavens with clouds is clothed in a false purple robe."   At such sights, "The heavenly powers trembled with fear...The whole creation, O Christ, trembled; the foundations of the earth were shaken for dread of thy might... The sun hides its rays at seeing the Master crucified... The armies of the angels were amazed."   Mel Gibson's "The Passion" promises to be a landmark expression of the strand of devotion that emphasizes identification with Jesus' sufferings. It is a strand that has produced powerfully affecting works of art, and moved and inspired Christians for centuries. The Crucifixion was, in fact, bloody and brutal—Gibson is on solid historical ground in wishing to depict them this way—and when he prayerfully reads the Gospels, no doubt these are the pictures that appear in his mind.   But these pictures are not, actually, there in the Gospels. The writers of the Gospels chose to describe Jesus' Passion a different way. Instead of appealing to our empathy, they invite us to awesome wonder, because they had a different understanding of the meaning of his suffering.

"All communication has a moral dimension. People grow or diminish in moral stature by the words which they speak and the messages which they choose to hear." — Pope John Paul II   Dear Brothers and Sisters, It is now becoming apparent that the Church of England and the Episcopal Church USA are working off the same page with regard to sexuality issues. It is no longer a matter of will the C of E hold the line for the greater good of the Anglican Communion, or even that it believes that Scripture has spoken finally and definitively on human sexuality, but rather how can we live in a culturally diverse society and say dogmatically and with clarity that there is only one form of sexual expression—namely a man and a woman united in marriage.   The latest buzzwords from Lambeth Palace are "interpretive charity," with such lines as the "debate about the interpretation of biblical texts has to be understood in the wider context of the societal shifts that have caused attitudes towards sexuality and sexual behavior to change in the modern era."   Dr. Rowan Williams has attacked both sides in the fight over gay clergy in the Anglican Church, accusing them of letting their differences of opinions detract from the Church's faith and of distorting the Bible.   In a speech to the opening session of the commission looking into sexual diversity and the Church, Williams reminded members that the debate over whether actively gay clergy cannot be reduced to a simple "biblical faithfulness versus fashionable relativism."   If that is really what Rowan Williams believes—not just Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford, or Robin Eames, Primate of Ireland—then schism is almost inevitable for the Anglican Communion.   The vast majority of the Anglican Communion, but mainly the Global South with pockets of resistance in Europe, North America and Australasia, are totally committed to a Biblical worldview on matters sexual and they are not going to compromise for a handful of Western post-modernists like Frank Griswold, some 62 revisionist ECUSA bishops and, it would seem, Dr. Williams himself. The point is they do believe in "biblical faithfulness," and that is precisely why they will not stand idly by and watch the Communion go down this cul-de-sac. Pansexuality has produced moral outrage not only from the Anglican Communion's orthodox but also from the Islamic community and is hurting evangelism in Africa and other parts of the globe where Islam is strong.   (Dr. Williams has not repudiated The Body's Grace, a lecture affirming homosexuality which has been republished and redistributed since it was first given several years ago.)   The Global South bishops—mainly the CAPA bishops of Africa—are eerily quiet these days. One wonders what they are thinking, plotting and planning. They meet, so Virtuosity has learned; they talk—and while no press releases are being issued, it probably doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that they too are working on a strategy that will not please the deep thinkers at Lambeth Palace. (Furthermore, Nigerian primate Peter Akinola is not presently seeing the press and not returning calls from international journalists.)   Several things point in the direction that African Archbishops may well be plotting a different course. The first is their willingness to separate themselves from the North American Episcopal Church AND its money; secondly, they are now willing to make forays into the US Episcopal Church (and Canada) and take parishes under their ecclesiastical protection; and thirdly, they are willing to publicly condemn and separate themselves from ecclesiastical acts like Robinson's consecration, knowing the financial consequences could affect their own mission outreach.   But they are doing it, and their actions speak volumes. They are saying with increasing clarity and stridency that either the West (or North, as it is better understood) had better shape up and get back into biblical line on sexuality, or there will be a tectonic shifting of the ecclesiastical plates that will be irreversible. The Anglicanquake, when it comes, will be brutal and possibly fatal, affecting the whole Communion. That we are inching in that direction is undeniable.   A SIGN OF THE MORAL SCHIZOPHRENIA in The Episcopal Church erupted in the Diocese of Texas this past week. Bishop Don Wimberly came under fire from biblically orthodox parish priests at his diocesan convention, giving further proof that if you say you stand for one truth (the bishop opposed same-sex rites and Robinson's consecration) but would not allow four orthodox resolutions concerning sexual intimacy and doctrine to be aired on the convention floor because it was deemed "too divisive, hurtful and distracting from the mission of the church," then you set yourself up for disappointment and failure.   One orthodox parish priest walked out—and you can read that story in today's digest. But the bottom line is this: There has never been a single instance where a bishop has compromised on sexuality issues that the pansexualists and theological revisionists in that parish have not ultimately won and taken over the reins of power in that diocese. None. Sooner or later, the Diocese of Texas will go the way of all flesh. It is a given. And the second truth is this: Once that compromise has been made, a bishop is forced to use ecclesiastical power to keep the diocese together and in line. Mission will, in time, die; the orthodox will grow more restless; money will be withheld; and Wimberly will spend the rest of his days running around putting out fires, hoping against hope that no parish (especially the wealthy) pulls up stakes and joins the AMIA or comes under an African or Southern Cone Primate. He has created his own endless-loop video nightmare. Compromise never works. Never.   AND RATCHETING UP THE PAIN ON THE ECUSA this week, a 13th Anglican Primate has added his name in support of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes. The Archbishop of the Indian Ocean, the Most Rev. Remi Rabenirina, has added his name to the list who now recognize the new Network. The others are:   The Most Rev. Peter Akinola – Nigeria The Most Rev. Drexel Gomez – West Indies The Most Rev. Greg Venables – Southern Cone The Most Rev. Joseph Marona – Sudan The Most Rev. Benjamin Nzimbi – Kenya The Most Rev. Henry Orombi – Uganda The Most Rev. Fidele Dirokpa – Congo The Most Rev. Donald Mtetemela – Tanzania The Most Rev. Bernard Malango – Central Africa The Most Rev. K.J. Samuel – South India The Most Rev. Alexander Malik – Pakistan The Most Rev. Yong Ping Chung – South East Asia The Most Rev. Ignacio Soliba – Philippines This brings the number of Anglicans out of communion with the Episcopal Church to nearly 50 million!   AND IN IRELAND, the Irish bishops have issued an open letter on human sexuality. They are offering to arrange meetings and receive written submissions on human sexuality issues. In the event of the bishops being unable to accommodate every request for a meeting, they intend nonetheless to hear a broad range of opinions and experiences. Listening is the key word here. But "listening" in liberallingo means accommodating sodomy, or trying to find a middle way—or third orifice perhaps—to appease all sides in the debate. It won’t work, of course—but you can be sure that Archbishop Robin Eames will exercise his bounteous charm to find a way forward. On the subject of the Eames Commission set up by Dr. Williams, it seems the commission will miss its first deadline. Why are we not surprised? This commission is a minefield waiting to be walked over.   AT LAMBETH, members of Forward in Faith met with the Archbishop of Canterbury. Nothing earth-shattering came from their meeting except a photo op which shows the deposed Pennsylvania priest Fr. David Moyer standing right next to Dr. Rowan Williams. A picture is certainly worth a thousand words. New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson can’t get a license to preach in the CofE.   AND IN ECUSA, THE BEAT GOES ON. The Episcopal Diocese of Central Florida has filed suit to keep the Episcopal Church of the New Covenant from leaving the denomination and taking its property with it over the confirmation of an openly gay man as a bishop. "Our vestry does not feel at this point that we can remain underneath the authority of an organization that we feel has departed from the historical Christian faith and order," said Scott Culp, secretary to the church's governing board.   And again, the pain is precisely because Bishop John W. Howe—who is orthodox—is feeling the backlash of last summer's General Convention decisions. So an openly orthodox parish in an orthodox diocese has a lawsuit dumped on it by an orthodox bishop because a bunch of revisionists in other dioceses want to change the church's teaching with sexual innovations that would have the Apostle Paul and Church Fathers rolling over in their graves. The pain has only just begun.   AND IN THE DIOCESE OF CONNECTICUT, Bishop Seabury Church in Groton, CT, by resolution at their annual parish meeting, Sunday January 25, 2004, voted in total unity (250+) to request Alternative Episcopal Oversight. The letter was forwarded to Bishop Andrew D. Smith, Diocesan, who at a meeting on January 29th refused the request.   And the DIOCESE OF CENTRAL NEW YORK is being extremely tight-lipped about their finances, a parish priest wrote Virtuosity. "We were told at diocesan convention that any budgetary shortfall would be made up by trust fund monies."   And the Rev. Michael Fry writes from Fresno, CA, that the DIOCESE OF SAN JOAQUIN is also withholding funds. "At our 2003 Convention held in October, the Diocese redirected all of the funds earmarked in the proposed 2004 budget for 815 to African missions. The only money in the budget for participation in the larger ECUSA community were funds for delegates to attend future Provincial and National Conventions as well as the General Convention Assessment. The 21% National Church asking got a response of 0%."   SEMINARY CENSORSHIP. A Virtuosity reader writes to say that the BISHOP OF LEXINGTON, Ted Gulick, will not permit hiring priests who graduate from Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry—which was, she writes, the final blow with the Versailles congregation that departed ECUSA. The good news is that the new congregation met in a home "packed with people the Sunday after they lost their church," and she had never seen a more joyful, Spirit-filled worship service anywhere! "The light shines in the darkness and the darkness does not overcome it."   "Our rector is walking in the Spirit like no one I have ever seen. He has been 'beaten up and bruised' time and time again by a small group of very angry revisionists in our parish who would like to bring him down. They have been on the warpath ever since he stood up and gave a wonderful talk to the whole parish in early September clearly laying out why he could not accept the Minneapolis decisions and why they happened. They circulate hate emails; they tell the community that we are all a bunch of 'right wing homophobic fundamentalists.' The really sad thing is that other revisionist clergy in the diocese are buying into their ugly tactics of attack. This is a new low as far as clergy behavior goes. This is a wild ride, with much pain."   So much for the wonderful doctrine of inclusion so ballyhooed by revisionists.   BUT THE ORTHODOX ARE FIGHTING BACK. A Convocation is being held Feb 21 for all concerned Episcopalians in New England who support a biblical view of marriage and sexuality: The first meeting of the New England Convocation of the recently formed Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes will take place on February 21st from 9am to 5pm at St. Thomas Episcopal Church, 111 High Street, Taunton, Massachusetts 02780.   Out in the DIOCESE OF OKLAHOMA, the Oklahoma Anglican Council has been formed. This is a laity-driven, grassroots organization seeking to preserve an orthodox Anglican presence within that diocese. The Council is willing to share its experience with those outside of Oklahoma who want to establish a similar council and who wish to benefit from the experience of this chapter. The Oklahoma Anglican Council disagrees with the actions of the 74th General Convention of ECUSA and intends to preserve the remnant of orthodox Anglicanism within the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Oklahoma. The initial and primary task of the O.A.C. is to network throughout the diocese with those who identify with orthodox Anglicanism, a press release said.   AND IN PHILADELPHIA, a meeting of the Anglican Fellowship of the Delaware Valley ( www.anglicanfellowship.com ) met at St. James the Less, a parish under siege by Bishop Bennison. A steering committee has been set up and representatives of 6 groups (ACC, ACA, PCK, DHC, FiF/NA & AMiA) are working together. The hope is to get traditionalist Bishop John Broadhurst (FIFUK) to come and address the upcoming Festival of Faith, with the assistance of Fr. Michael Heidt, an orthodox priest from the Diocese of Washington. There are also rumblings that orthodox clergy within the DIOCESE OF PENNSYLVANIA might band together to fight the revisionist Bennison.   AND IN CANADA, the organization ESSENTIALS is holding a cross-country 2-hour television program on February 28 to discuss what is happening in the Anglican Church of Canada. Canadian Bishops Tony Burton and Lorna Dueck will introduce panelists to discuss the crisis in that province. The conference will be "beamed down" to local venues across the country.   MONEY LOSSES CONTINUE IN ECUSA. The Episcopal Church is being financially hit hard, but the folks at 815 insist it is "the economy, stupid," not the decisions to promote sodomy and approve Robinson's consecration that is the problem. Is this more spin? There is some truth in that argument, but not much. Some wealthy parishes are not only not feeling the pain—they are ploughing millions into new church plants and fixing up their own parishes.   Predictions of dire fiscal consequences as a result of protests against the consecration of an openly gay priest as Bishop of New Hampshire have so far failed to materialize, according to the Episcopal Church's treasurer, Kurt Barnes.   Barnes told the Executive Council at its meeting in Tampa, Florida (February 9–12) that total income from diocesan apportionment is expected to be down by 6.8 percent, a decline which he characterized as "not material." Diocesan commitments make up 61 percent of the church's anticipated revenue for 2004.   But the fact is that churches from one end of the country to the other are either running deficits or cutting back on the money they send to New York—suggesting that something other than a "bad economy" is at work here.   Here is the list so far:   SOUTHERN VIRGINIA is in the red. The diocese ended its 2003 fiscal year with a $177,000 revenue shortfall, caused at least partly by parishes that withheld contributions as a way of protesting Robinson’s ordination. SOUTHWESTERN VIRGINIA diocesan annual council, meeting at the Hotel Roanoke, was presented a budget almost 9 percent smaller than last year. The $976,000 spending plan represents reductions or stagnation in all but three of the diocese's 28 expense categories. "Deep cuts had to be made," said finance committee chairman Bud Hooss. DIOCESE OF MISSISSIPPI will cut its donations to the national church by 6 percent because of financial difficulties. Its budget had to be cut by $640,000 this year—can be attributed to the anger of members who oppose gay clergy and same-sex unions. DIOCESE OF VIRGINIA took a $900,000 hit caused by the decision of some conservative parishes to withhold their annual contributions. DIOCESE OF ALABAMA: Bishop Henry N. Parsley said the Episcopal Diocese of Alabama expects a $260,000 shortfall in its 2004 budget as churches reduce contributions because of dissatisfaction with the denomination's approving its first openly gay bishop. DIOCESE OF WEST TEXAS will keep its money home. With emotions running high among parishioners, the San Antonio-based Episcopal Diocese of West Texas will begin considering today whether to cut off funds to the national church because of its approval of an openly gay bishop last year. But a report from the Episcopal News Service states that less than half of ECUSA dioceses will meet or exceed their pledges. Barnes told the council that of 84 dioceses that have so far made commitments, 40 pledged or exceeded the 21 percent of diocesan budget sought according to the formula established by General Convention. While half will either just miss it or won’t even come close. Another 42 dioceses, some of which historically have given less than 21 percent, indicated they would give between 3 and 20 percent. Pittsburgh and Dallas have cut New York off entirely.   But all this is "not material," says deputy director Jan Nunley. "With 9 million unemployed Americans, 4.7 million who have given up looking for work altogether and 80,000 unemployed who exhaust their benefits every week, I have a question: How many of those folks are Episcopalians?" No one knows, of course—but as Episcopalians are generally among the richest groups in the US, it is unlikely that that is a contributing factor.   And in the DIOCESE OF PENNSYLVANIA, an historic parish in downtown Philadelphia, St. Stephen's is selling off its treasures to pay the bills. To be auctioned off is a 1902 marble sculpture by Augustus Saint-Gaudens, Angel of Purity. Other artistic pieces up for sale are Tiffany windows and furnishings—innnumerable artworks that have graced its interior since 1822. Once-monied Episcopalians are not in love with revisionist thinking. Some 15 Episcopal parishes are in financial trouble in Philadelphia, and Bishop Bennison has no gospel to lift them out of their inevitable slide.   ONE SHREWD OBSERVER asked: Is Pittsburgh Bishop Bob Duncan in agreement with Virginia Bishop Peter James Lee that Heresy is better than Schism? They are both coming to the same conclusion—i.e., "we’re not leaving the church." Interesting.   A story floating around the Internet that TRINITY EPISCOPAL SCHOOL FOR MINISTRY, a conservative seminary situated within the Diocese of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, might change its name, is not true, writes Dr. Peter Moore, TESM’s president. "There is nothing new. We discussed the possible name change (dropping the Episcopal); but the Board decided that this was not the time to do it. The new Network is claiming, rightly I think, to be the true Episcopal Church in the USA. So, we’ll use the word Episcopal bearing this in mind. Most of the other Episcopal seminaries don’t have the word Episcopal in their name. We do, and still will."   IN WHAT MUST TRULY BE A SIGN OF THE THEOLOGICAL TIMES, only half of America's ministers hold to a biblical worldview—but even many who do aren’t imparting it to their congregations. According to a new study by the Barna Research Group, 49 percent of Protestant pastors reject core biblical beliefs. You can read that story today. The collapse of theological literacy and the rise of out-and-out unbelief among Americans who consider themselves to be "born again Christians" is on the rise.   A NEW POLL SHOWS A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS do not want state laws that would make same-sex marriage legal. The survey was taken after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said last Wednesday in an advisory opinion that same-sex couples are entitled to marriage and not an alternative, such as Vermont-style civil unions. Only full and equal marriage rights will fulfill its November ruling, four of the seven judges said—paving the way for the nation's first "gay" weddings in mid-May.   END

There's a reason why the gospels don't dwell on the blood and gore of the crucifixion. Most of us have yet to see Mel Gibson's "The Passion," but we've gained one sure impression: it's bloody. "I wanted to bring you there," Gibson told Peter J. Boyer in September 15's New Yorker magazine. "I wanted to be true to the Gospels. That has never been done before."   This goal means showing us what real scourging and crucifixion would look like. "I didn't want to see Jesus looking really pretty," Gibson goes on. "I wanted to mess up one of his eyes, destroy it."   It's a mark of our age that we don't believe something is realistic unless it is brutal. But there's another factor to consider. When the four evangelists were writing their own accounts of the Passion, they didn't take Gibson's approach. None of them depict Jesus with a destroyed eye. In fact, the descriptions of Jesus' beating and crucifixion are as minimal as the writers can make them.   "Having scourged Jesus, Pilate delivered him to be crucified," the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) agree. "When they came to the place which is called The Skull, there they crucified him."   Little more than a dozen verses later he is dead. The evangelists did not linger over his suffering in order to stir our empathy. The account of physical action is so brisk that, back when I was in seminary, I asked one of my professors why we presume Jesus was nailed to the Cross, rather than bound with ropes. He supposed it was because Paul later refers to redemption through Christ's blood.   If Mel Gibson had allotted his time the way the evangelists do, the majority of his film would have been about the swirl of people around Jesus in his last days, how they interact with him and what they do because of him. The scourging and crucifixion would have passed in a flash.   Why would the earliest Christians have handled these events so discreetly? Not because the events were thought unimportant; the whole Gospel story builds toward them. Not because the writers were squeamish, or because they were ashamed. St. Paul speaks boldly about Jesus' saving blood and proclaims that he will boast in the Cross.   But in the earliest Christian writings we see a different understanding of the meaning of the Cross, one which, shockingly, didn't think it was important for us to identify with Jesus' suffering. For contemporary Christians it's hard to imagine such a thing. The extremity of Jesus' sacrifice has been the wellspring of Christian art and devotion for centuries. It has produced great treasures, from late Renaissance paintings of the Crucifixion, to the meditations of Dame Julian of Norwich, to Bach's glorious setting of "O Sacred Head, Sore Wounded." Mel Gibson's "Passion" arrives as the newest entrant in a very old tradition. A funny thing happens, however, if we press further back in time. Before the middle ages, depictions of the Crucifixion show very little blood. Though the event itself was no doubt horrific, artists preferred to render it with restraint (like the Gospels, but unlike Gibson). The visual elements in an ancient icon of the Crucifixion are arranged symmetrically, harmoniously, and the viewer is placed at a respectful distance. The depiction is not without drama: Mary and the disciple John, at the foot of the Cross, reel in grief. But Jesus does not reveal any sense of torment. He is serene, almost regal.   What changed? In the 11th century, a theory emerged that shifted the common understanding of the Cross. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, proposed that our sins constituted a debt to God that could not be simply erased without unbalancing justice. The debt was too immense for any human to pay, and only Jesus' death could be an adequate sacrifice. Protestant Reformers retained the same theory substantially intact, but during the Enlightenment some theologian proposed instead that Jesus' suffering is meant to unite us in grateful love toward the Father, rather than pay a debt.   In both cases, Jesus as the God-Man takes on the sin of the world, bears its crushing weight, and accomplishes divine reconciliation. The movement in this drama is from earth to heaven, and the Cross means "suffering."   Yet for the first millennium, and continuing in Eastern Christianity today, the Cross means "victory." In this idea of the atonement, God in Christ effects a rescue mission. Humans are being held captive by Death, due to their voluntary involvement in sin, and are helpless to free themselves. In a majestic sweep of events Jesus takes on human life in order to die, invade hell, and set the captives free. The focus is much broader than the Crucifixion alone. The movement is from heaven to earth, the reverse of the later pattern. Paul, writing about 60 AD, describes this divine descent in the words of the earliest existing Christian hymn:   "Who, though he was in the form of God, Did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant. And being found in human form, he humbled himself to death, Even death on a Cross." (Phil 2:6–8)   Early Christians understood the Cross to be the way that Jesus broke into the realm of Death. Suffering itself is not the point.   How then could Jesus be a ransom, sacrifice, or offering? Early Christians understood such terms to mean that it cost Jesus his life to rescue us. It was a sacrifice to the Father, as a soldier might offer a superlative act of courage to his beloved general. It was the price of entry into the realm of Death. It cost Jesus his life's blood to enter Hades and save us, but it wasn't a payment to anybody.   This helps us see why they did not linger over the details of his suffering. It would be as odd as welcoming home a wounded soldier, and instead of focusing on the victory he won, dwelling on the exact moment the bayonet pierced his stomach, how it felt and what it looked like. A human soldier might well feel annoyed with such attention to his weakness rather than his strength. He would feel that it better preserved his dignity for visitors to avert their eyes from such details, and recount that part of the story as scantly as possible to focus instead on the final achievement.   This is the sense we pick up in the Gospels. Jesus' suffering is rendered in the briefest terms, as if drawing about it a veil of modesty. What's important is not that Jesus suffered for us, but that Jesus suffered for us. It is the contrast with his eternal glory that awed the earliest Christians.   Eastern Orthodox hymns for Good Friday convey fearful wonder: "Today he is suspended on a Tree who suspended the earth over the waters. A crown of thorns is placed on the head of the King of angels. He who covered the heavens with clouds is clothed in a false purple robe."   At such sights, "The heavenly powers trembled with fear...The whole creation, O Christ, trembled; the foundations of the earth were shaken for dread of thy might... The sun hides its rays at seeing the Master crucified... The armies of the angels were amazed."   Mel Gibson's "The Passion" promises to be a landmark expression of the strand of devotion that emphasizes identification with Jesus' sufferings. It is a strand that has produced powerfully affecting works of art, and moved and inspired Christians for centuries. The Crucifixion was, in fact, bloody and brutal—Gibson is on solid historical ground in wishing to depict them this way—and when he prayerfully reads the Gospels, no doubt these are the pictures that appear in his mind.   But these pictures are not, actually, there in the Gospels. The writers of the Gospels chose to describe Jesus' Passion a different way. Instead of appealing to our empathy, they invite us to awesome wonder, because they had a different understanding of the meaning of his suffering.

EDITORIAL   By David W. Virtue, DD Nov. 5, 2025   It landed like a bombshell in the ACNA cathedral Narthex.   ACNA Archbishop Stephen Wood has been accused of sexual misconduct, abuse of power, plagiarism and much more. Some 3,500 words have been written blowing up a single orthodox archbishop in a small denomination by one of America’s leading newspapers.   Why did it merit such printers ink? A reporter and photographer were sent to dig it all up from willing talkers.   So, the first question is why didn’t these aggrieved persons, not go first to their bishop and tell their story in keeping with Mt. 18:15-20.   The second question is, did they go to their bishops to tell their story and did the bishops circle the wagons to prevent it from leaking out?   Was Wood’s election pre-determined by insiders who wanted him badly enough to ignore the charges? Why didn’t Wood reveal some of these charges before he was given the nod? He must have known that stuff like this would leak out sooner or later and he would have to answer to us, his loyal constituents?   Is the ACNA House of Bishops any less duplicitous than TEC’s House of Bishops in bobbing and weaving around the canons?   Why has it taken nearly a year and a half to bring Bishop Stewart Ruch III to trial to face charges of disobedience or willful contravention of the canons of the Church and conduct giving just cause for scandal or offense?   What if it is all a stitch up of Archbishop Wood and there is simply no truth to any of it? Possible but unlikely. What would be the motive to undo a man for no other reason than you disliked him. Lying amounts to perjury and a violation of the 9 th Commandment about bearing false witness.   Wood has stepped back from both his archbishop role and retired from his parish. The truth is he had no option. The charges are horrendous.   There is some chance he could do a “he said/she said” over the sexual touching with the divorced woman and perhaps win that part of the charge, but the other charges of abuse of power by fellow priests goes right to the heart of his pastoral abilities.   John Stott the doyen of preachers is on record saying, “At every step of our Christian development and in every sphere of our Christian discipleship, pride is the greatest enemy and humility our greatest friend.” Apparently, this was not a lesson Archbishop Steve Wood learned.   END

by Mark Harris   For a very brief period of time -- less than 160 years -- Episcopalians have been able to point to the shadow of something almost solid that we called the Anglican Communion, and in which we took comfort. But it was hard to define the nature of this Anglican Communion, and indeed every time there was an effort to define it by ostensive definition we turned from the shadow only to find the thing itself was less solid than we thought, and was itself disturbingly ephemeral.   Still, we understood ourselves to be part of a worldwide body of Christians, much as Roman Catholics and the Orthodox were, but a reformed body, with all the potential evangelical robustness of the churches of the distinctly modern world. We felt we shared in the essence of the ancient and undivided faith, and we witnessed that by considering ourselves a modern catholic body molded specifically out of the nation-state environment of modernity in a way that would make us both transnational and yet national, global and local.   Naught for our Comfort: The End of Colonial Anglicanism The comfort of believing our task to be the spread and growth of Anglican churches with a common ecclesial culture -- colonialism in its truest sense -- has been replaced by the reality of an autonomy process in which each new gathering of Anglicans has its own distinctiveness, its own culture. A single culture for a single worldwide Anglican Communion (which only existed as a hope) has become the reality of a plurality of Anglican cultures in a plethora of Anglican churches.   Events have overtaken the comfortable sensibilities of colonial Anglicanism. By colonial, I infer not only the politics of master and slave, parent and child, civilized and primitive, applied to church life, but also the biological notion of a colony, a culture, which transposed to a new environment, also takes hold.   In colonial Anglican thinking, one could suppose that the relationships among the churches were based on the inheritance of theological understandings from parent churches and such quarrels as existed were the products of exhaustion or excitement of older churches and maturation or testing by younger churches. Nothing prepared us for what would happen when the Anglican line of churches produced profoundly different sorts of churches -- when the biology of cultures morphed, when the politics of tradition were breached.   The comfort in believing the Anglican Communion to be a substantial reality in a relatively secure universe has been replaced by the discomfort of a more fractured world and a shadow of a substance. The comfort of thinking the Anglican Communion is a modern answer to the question of how as a church to be catholic-minded and still national (in its several national contexts) has dissipated. The comfort in believing the Anglican Communion to be a substantial reality in a relatively secure universe has been replaced by the discomfort of a more fractured world and a shadow of a substance.   But here we have it, an Episcopal Church in the United States (ECUSA) that makes decisions and understands its life in one way, and some Anglican churches elsewhere that see things quite differently with decision-making done in quite different ways. And modern communications and travel make it possible to make new alliances that cross all church and culture boundaries.   Matters truly get complex. Unity on the basis of a "faith once delivered" is no longer possible, if it ever was. The carriers and receivers of the faith, both within and without particular cultures, have differently understood Anglican sensibilities about just how to be Christian in the world.   The pilgrimage of faith we are all on is not about sound bites and news flashes: it is about the end of simple answers to questions in a complex world.   Much of the recent media analysis and much of the hand wringing within the Episcopal Church and the other churches of the Anglican Communion suppose the crisis in the Anglican Communion is a product of specific decisions made by this or that church community. It is "all the result" of ordaining women, or giving up the ancient prayer book, or blessing gay and lesbian people, or ordaining a gay bishop. This is how the front (or more often the back) page story is written in the secular press. If only, some suggest, we were (check as many as apply) more tolerant, more forceful, more faithful, more biblically based, more forgiving, more demanding, more self critical, more exact about what makes a church an Anglican church -- then we would not be in this mess.   We are in the church mess of our times because national churches, denominations and world church structures cannot stand solid in a world where the notion of a single overarching narrative is no longer considered either relevant or possible. But of course the facile analysis of the 15-second sound bite can not bear to look into the pit that constitutes the end of modernity. If it could, it would not lay the blame for the current Anglican disarray on this or that particular unraveling moment or event. We are in the church mess of our times because national churches, denominations and world church structures cannot stand solid in a world where the notion of a single overarching narrative is no longer considered either relevant or possible.   If being Anglican was supposed to signal a unity across, or even within, cultures and society, that signal is now becoming dim. Being part of the Anglican Communion will either mean something else beside unity in action, culture and norms, or it will wither and die. Neither Wippell's, the ecclesiastical clothiers of choice, nor the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, the liturgical touchstone of choice, will hold the Communion together.   The So-Called "Instruments of Unity" The desire to return to a more settled order, in which churches are brought into some semblance of unity, gave rise to the so-called instruments of unity in the Anglican Communion (the four instruments are the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council, and the Primates), all of which placed a central focus on Canterbury.   This has proven increasingly unsatisfactory, for the Archbishop of Canterbury is bishop in a very English way -- as liege lord as well as father in God, both. The bishop is, in this view, both head of a spiritual family and head of a national institution. Both models assume a hierarchy of values well suited to modernity in which images of stability in family life and national leadership have been mainstays of social order. But of course, outside the particular context of England, the Archbishop is neither our Father in God nor an image of the Realm or nation in which we live. He becomes, as well he ought, a symbol of our desire for unity, not a sign of it.   Church-related events of these past months have certainly shown that allegiance is not due the Archbishop, Rowan Williams. His hope that the Episcopal Church not ordain Bishop Gene Robinson at this time was not realized. The Bishop of Pittsburgh, Robert Duncan, made fairly uncharitable remarks about what would transpire for the Archbishop if he did not act to condemn the Episcopal Church for its trespasses (which he did not). Various Primates, bishops and other potentates have flexed their ecclesiastical muscles in quite independent ways. Revolt against the office of the prince father is in the air, from the left unto the right, from the Global North to the Global South.   Whatever else the Anglican Communion is about, it is not, it seems, about unity based on the symbol of the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is not a time for symbols of unity.   Another option is that the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, or even the American Anglican Council and its "moderator bishop" for the network it is establishing, might become not a symbol of unity but a sign of the actual existence of such unity. But for that to work there would need be a reinstitution of a forceful system of actual allegiance, such that there would be unity, and the bishop would be a sign of that, or there has to be a breadth of practice in which people uncomfortable with one another still sit at the same table.   The Episcopal Church in its General Convention is an example of trying to work with the breadth of practice in which comfort is not very central. At the same time the Episcopal Church is in most matters of this sort agonizingly slow. We don't like or want things to get too uncomfortable, and as a result matters that might have been painful for a short time hang on and on.   At the moment, those in the Episcopal Church who are talking realignment are unwilling to sit at table with the rest of us through any more of this painful process. They require a separate table, and in the long run the only table, with those who did not sign a confessional statement left out.   All free thinkers and all members of the ecumenical community in which congregationalism is rampant take note -- these people want you and me out because they think we deny the Name of Jesus. What is sought is confessional allegiance, based on the statement, "Confession and Calling of the Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes" which supposedly promotes "unity of belief and practice that serves to expose the individualism and congregationalism that is now regnant within the Church at large and denies the Name of Jesus" (italics added). All free thinkers and all members of the ecumenical community in which congregationalism is rampant take note -- these people want you and me out because they think we deny the Name of Jesus.   The final basis of such actual allegiance should not be mistaken by anyone: the basis of that allegiance would include the strong enforcement of laws concerning heretical and other incorrect thinking. The basis of such allegiance would involve a reinstitution of what in a post-modern world we would view as a form of fascism -- the attempt to force the bundling together of the various expressions of the faith that grew from the experience and practice of the Church of England.   The longing for such a solid bundling of Faith and Order into a single whole proved impossible in the full bloom of modernity, when there was still the effort to grasp a unified worldview, be that political, economic or religious. That effort led us to astounding warfare, for the contention among world powers always has at its base the desire for empire. That in turn has justified the decimation of peoples, cultures, and the environment, and has turned religion into a primary way to engender solidarity for conquest. It is appalling that at the close of the modern era that religion has once again become the rallying point for the warrior's courage.   And in the microcosm of the Episcopal Church the unity of belief and practice called for by those who seek a realignment of the Episcopal Church's polity and practice is a rallying point for yet more warfare, this time for the good name of this church, and the powers, privileges, rights and property thereto appended.   Misguided Guile in the New Network The quite remarkable and in many ways admirable document, "Confessing and Calling of the Anglican Communion Diocese and Parishes," is an example of such an effort to bundle, to put things back into order -- the "historic Faith and Order" that the writers understand to be within the grasp of a faithful and obedient community. It looks on the surface to be a reasonable document, but within it are the clear signs of an emerging structure of control and takeover.   It is possible to sign the Confessing and Calling statement, which is called a Theological Charter: if one does so, depending on the signer, one is an "Anglican Communion Diocese," an "Anglican Communion Parish," or "Anglican Communion Clergy or Laity."   These designations are a sort of badge of honor, and remind me of the Wizard of Oz and the various citations handed out to the faithful and obedient friends of Dorothy. The problem is, of course, that they are meaningless in all save one regard: They distance the signers from being an Episcopal Church diocese, parish, clergy or layperson. That is precisely what this nomenclature does, and in signing the Charter the intent is signaled that the Episcopal Church is no longer how signers identify themselves.   No entity in the Anglican Communion is such a diocese, parish, clergy or lay person. Those extra-provincial dioceses that exist are attached to some other provincial entity. Those parishes in lonely isolation are parishes still of some diocese, persons are attached to parishes or dioceses. This nomenclature is deceptive.   More, of course, that nomenclature is what is used in the Charter for the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes. These dioceses and parishes "shall operate in good faith within the Constitution of The Episcopal Church" (Article I). The keen eye notices nothing being said here of the Canons. This network "will constitute a true and legitimate expression of the world-wide Anglican Communion" (Article II). One may ask, again, by whose authority or by what measure? The same, one supposes, that made them "Anglican Communion Dioceses," etc, in the first place.   Article V declares that "we...commit ourselves to full membership in the Anglican Communion of Churches throughout the world." And where, one might ask, is that declaration to be melded to the facts? It would appear by this Article that the Network is proposing to become a member church of the Anglican Communion. That does not sound like being part of the Episcopal Church, but rather replacing the Episcopal Church.   Article VII puts all of us on notice that it intends to work to provide "adequate Episcopal oversight" quite independently of the efforts by the Episcopal Church.   Article IX is the beginning of the structure to take on assets including property, in the beginnings of a parallel or perhaps replacement national church structure.   The call for a unity of belief and practice, as given in this Theological Charter, is in its authors' minds linked to the Barmen Declaration (1934). The Barmen Declaration is the only reference in the "Confessing and Calling" statement not from scripture. Such an attempt to link this document to the Barmen Declaration is an offense to the Episcopal Church, its deputies and bishops, and an offense to the seriousness of the Barmen Declaration.   As a reminder, the Barmen Declaration was written as a gathering point for Christians who were unwilling to give allegiance to the "official" German Church and therefore to the German Third Reich. To compare the signers of the Confessing and Calling document to the signers of the Barmen Declaration and therefore to compare the official German Church to the Episcopal Church (I presume by way of the acquiescence of both to the prevailing culture) is outrageous.   Those working for realignment are not countering fascism; they are supporting precisely the binding together and unity of belief and practice (on their terms) that is the mark of fascism in practice. Those working for realignment are not countering fascism; they are supporting precisely the binding together and unity of belief and practice (on their terms) that is the mark of fascism in practice. Those working for realignment are not facing a linkage of church and state as did those who signed the Barmen Declaration, indeed the decisions of the Episcopal Church's General Convention seem to be without support of the state, the administration, or even public opinion.   Those working for realignment are facing the Episcopal Church, of which they are a part, which made decisions with which they disagree. They believe they may be put in a minority or powerless place by the whole system, and feel betrayed, abandoned, and angry. Fair and lamentable enough. But that is a far cry from the persecution faced by those who signed the Barmen Declaration.   This comparison is full of guile.   The two statements -- the Theological Charter and the Charter for the Network -- constitute the front edge of what has become the struggle by those wishing "realignment" to cut away the sorry lot of us -- regular paid-up Episcopalians who are in their eyes the sick majority. If they can, they will take what is possible, but for sure they will attempt to take the "slot" in the Anglican Communion for a U.S. church. All the pretense of naming themselves "Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes" works to this end, as does a Charter that under cover actually allows what it seems not to allow -- in its protestations of "operating in good faith within the Constitution of The Episcopal Church."   The problem does not lie with the decisions made, but with the time at hand.   The strange, small and somewhat tortuous trail of statements, declarations, organizations, networks, convocations, etc., that began well before Lambeth 1998 have gotten us to this point where a fraction of the people of the Episcopal Church are unhappy enough to want to revise, restructure and realign this church in ways other than the normal canonical processes. The problems pointed to in the complaints concern recent actions of the General Convention, ordinations, celebrations of same-sex relationships, but the issues are deeper.   The complaints play into the hands of persons who believe they know how to fix things: by restoring ancient well-loved answers, and by taking over leadership of the "real" Anglican presence in the United States. But they are doomed to failure over time, for the problem is not in the decisions made in the recent past, but in the end of a time in which the story of faithful pilgrimage in Jesus Christ has only one telling.   The western world was brought kicking and screaming into modernity, and parts of the church never got over it...And now, as modernity is undergoing a transformation into we know not what -- that is, as we enter the post-modern period -- the church is kicking and screaming again. The western world was brought kicking and screaming into modernity, and parts of the church never got over it. To some extent the missionary efforts of the western churches gave voice to faithful people who found modernity difficult. In new places the old worldview could still be voiced without the need to make science and religion mesh. And now, as modernity is undergoing a transformation into we know not what -- that is, as we enter the post-modern period -- the church is kicking and screaming again.   And now the discontented are both the holders of a classical or pre-modern worldview and those who took on modernity in all its complexity. Those opposed to what the Episcopal Church is doing represent a cloud of witnesses from increasingly un-useful worldviews, and it is no wonder these brothers and sisters are often at odds with one another as well as with the actions of General Convention. And with all that, the opponents to the decisions of ECUSA's General Convention are nonetheless our brothers and sisters in the faith. We may, however, all need to find new ways of living in conflict. We must still learn to live with those who find what the Episcopal Church has done to be in error. Perhaps "living with them" means separation. Perhaps it means living together but not talking very easily with one another.   We live in a fractured world and we must find ways to live together anyway. I am convinced, however, that the way forward is not represented by the Theological Charter, nor by the Charter for the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes, nor by the American Anglican Council. Those efforts look back to a time whose goals have now expired. History is passing them by.   The Rev. Canon Mark Harris is author of The Challenge of Change: The Anglican Communion in the Post Modern Era, and a member of the Episcopal Church Publishing Company's (The Witness magazine) board of directors. He lives in Lewes, Del., and may be reached by email at poetmark@worldnet.att.net   This article was first published in The Witness Magazine and is republished here with permission.   END

Only half of America's ministers hold to a biblical worldview, but even many who do aren't imparting it to their congregations   By Gene Edward Veith   WORLD MAGAZINE HAS DISCUSSED THE COLLAPSE OF theological literacy and the rise of out-and-out unbelief among Americans who consider themselves to be "born again Christians" ("Unbelieving 'born-agains,'" Dec. 6, 2003). Now we know at least part of the reason. According to a new study by the Barna Research Group, 49 percent of Protestant pastors reject core biblical beliefs.   The Christian pollster George Barna put together a list of biblical teachings that presumably Christians of every denomination or theological tradition could affirm: There is absolute moral truth based on the Bible; biblical teaching is accurate; Jesus was without sin; Satan literally exists; God is omnipotent and omniscient; salvation is by grace alone; Christians have a personal responsibility to evangelize.   This is a bare-bones list. It says nothing about the Trinity or the Deity of Christ or other important teachings that are essential for salvation. The list has to do not so much with theology as with the assumptions that are behind one's theology; that is, with worldview. Any minister of whatever denomination, especially a Protestant one, should be able to agree on these basics. But only 51 percent do.   Mr. Barna's breakdown of this data is telling. In the two largest Protestant denominations, Southern Baptists had the most pastors, percentage-wise, who hold to this biblical worldview (71 percent), while Methodists had the fewest (27 percent). The glass is either three-quarters empty or one-quarter full. That one in four Methodist pastors takes what the Bible teaches seriously might be surprising and encouraging in a liberal-leaning denomination. But it is equally surprising, though discouraging, to find that one in four Southern Baptist preachers does not.   The statistics of pastors holding a biblical worldview for other denominations studied were 57 percent of (non-Southern) Baptists; 51 percent of nondenominational Protestants; and 44 percent of charismatic or Pentecostal churches. In the so-called mainline Protestant churches (essentially those belonging to the National Council of Churches), those pastors who could be described as having a biblical worldview numbered only 28 percent.   Mr. Barna also broke the statistics down demographically. Only 35 percent of pastors of black churches hold to a biblical worldview, as he defines it. In denominations that ordain women, only 15 percent of female pastors hold to a biblical worldview.   Mr. Barna also found that pastors who attended a seminary are less likely to have a biblical worldview (45 percent) than those who did not (59 percent). This is doubtless due to the anti-Christian scholarship that dominates much of today's academic religious studies, such as the higher-critical approach to Scripture, which begins by assuming that the Bible is nothing more than fiction.   There is some good news, though, in Mr. Barna's numbers. Younger pastors (those under 40) are more likely to have a biblical worldview (56 percent) than older pastors (50 percent). Those who have been in the ministry for five years or less score even higher (58 percent). Perhaps the unbelieving ministers mostly aging baby boomers, shaped no doubt by the theological, moral, and cultural upheaval of the '60s, and still assuming they are relevant today will die out, to be replaced by younger and more faithful shepherds.   But, in the meantime, the sheep are hungry and are not fed. Many have already starved to death. Mr. Barna, who discusses these findings in his new book Think Like Jesus, says that if the numbers are bad among pastors, they are even worse for church members. Just 7 percent of American Protestants overall agree with the biblical tenets on that list. And among those who consider themselves "born again," only 9 percent do. About one out of 10.   There is a huge gap even when pastors do hold to biblical beliefs. "The research also points out that even in churches where the pastor has a biblical worldview," said Mr. Barna, "most of the congregants do not. More than six out of every seven congregants in the typical church do not share the biblical worldview of their pastor even when he or she has one."   This suggests, he says, that "merely preaching good sermons and offering helpful programs does not enable most believers to develop a practical and scriptural theological base to shape their life." Based on his research of those who have a biblical worldview, he says that acquiring one "is a long-term process that requires a lot of purposeful activity: teaching, prayer, conversation, accountability, and so forth.   "Based on our correlations of worldview and moral behavior," he said, "we can confidently argue that if the 51 percent of pastors who have a biblical worldview were to strategically and relentlessly assist their congregants in adopting such a way of interpreting and responding to life, the impact on our churches, families, and society at large would be enormous."   © 1996 - 2003 WORLD Magazine

The Queer Christ: Transforming Anger, Making Justice-love. A Community Eucharist was held at Episcopal Divinity School February 19.   CAMBRIDGE, MA--A community Eucharist on the theme of "The Queer Christ: Transforming Anger, Making Justice-Love" was held on Thursday, February 19, at 8:30 am in St. John's Memorial Chapel, Episcopal Divinity School.   Planned by the seminary's gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered students, alumni/ae, faculty, staff, and friends, the service began with a "parade of anger" which marched between a row of wooden crosses on which hung photographs of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people who have been victims of hate crimes.   Once inside the chapel, the service included music, readings, prayer, homily, the Eucharist, and finally a blessing for the transformation of anger into a potent energy for making justice, compassion, and reconciliation. Participants included gay and lesbian clergy and lay people from Episcopal, Roman Catholic, and various Protestant traditions, as well as GLBT allies.   A reception was held in Washburn Lounge following the service.   END

Bishop Robert Duncan, spiritual leader of conservative Episcopalians, talks about heresy in a "highly sexualized culture."   Interview by Diana Keough   Bishop Robert W. Duncan Jr. of Pittsburgh, 55, is the de facto spiritual leader of conservative Episcopalians outraged over the consecration last year of Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire--a gay man in a long-term relationship. Once Robinson became a bishop, Duncan began helping to organize what he calls a "realignment" within the Episcopal Church and, by extension, the Anglican Communion. It is not yet clear what lies ahead for the Episcopal Church, but Duncan says he is sure that change will happen.   In an interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Duncan said some of his earliest memories revolve around attending church in his hometown of Bordentown, N.J. The church was stable and reliable, a sanctuary for a boy whose home life often included beatings from his emotionally disturbed mother. In a society that he calls highly sexualized and confused, Duncan believes Robinson is clearly outside the moral bounds of the Anglican Communion.   Duncan recently sat down to talk with Diana Keough, a regular Beliefnet contributor who lives and works in Ohio.   How are you keeping your spiritual life in balance these days?   I keep up with my daily prayer life, and in particular, my time of morning prayers. I make a monthly retreat of 24 hours where I spend time with the community of St. Vincent's Arch Abbey, which gives me an opportunity to be with my spiritual director and confessor.   What are you praying about?   For my own ministry, for my family, for all the people who have been part of my walk over the years. I keep a monthly list and pray every morning along with all the standing prayers. A lot of my day-by-day prayers are about the present situation. I pray for those who are in opposition. I pray for those who see me as someone who's hurting them. I pray for the presiding Bishop of the church and the other Bishops who are on the other side.   What particular Scripture is helping you through this time?   Right now, I'm reading Genesis, Hebrews and John. The other day when we came to the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, there was the word about the patriarchs and those who set out by faith, and they knew they were aliens and exiles--those are wonderful passages for what we're going through There is a particular verse I was given when I was elected bishop--in fact, the same verse was sent to me by two different leaders who didn't know one another. It was I Thessalonians 5:24, which says, "He who called you is faithful and He will do it." I have great trust that anything that happens in this is going to be the Lord's doing, and not mine. I'm just trying to listen to Him day by day.   Why are you taking this battle so far?   The battle is about the authority of Scripture. It's about the basics of Christian faith. It's about sin and redemption. It's just so fundamental. The issues have to do with sexuality and morality, but at the very heart of it is whether Scripture can be trusted. In my experience I learned the one person I could trust was Jesus Christ and the only testament that was reliable was what was in Scripture. And I cannot let the Church, of all bodies, challenge the notion that you can't trust the plain meaning of Scripture.   Are you referring to what the conservatives in the Episcopal Church call "revisionism?" And if so, can you define revisionism?   A more ancient word for the same thing is "heresy." What's going on in this day and age (and, incidentally, it's not unlike other ages) is that this particular age has a notion that we're created good and we just need to be self-actualized. Well, all that is directly contrary to Scripture--it's heresy that doesn't require a Savior. But revisionism within the Episcopal Church has been going on for decades.   Revisionism in the Episcopal Church is to revise what's been received, and we've been in the process of revising a lot of things in the last 50 years, particularly relating to sexual morality. Matters like abortion, like remarriage after divorce and issues like sexual activity outside of marriage, including homosexual activity.   END

News Analysis   By David W. Virtue   VANCOUVER, BC-- The revisionist Bishop of New Westminster, Michael Ingham, faces a triple crisis that could derail his plans to depose, at the minimum put on hold, his desire to toss 11 biblically orthodox priests out of their parishes and seize their properties.   He faces a legal ultimatum with the leaders of St. Martin's parish in North Vancouver who argue that unless the parish is allowed to control its own finances and staffing, it will ask the B.C. Supreme Court to overturn the firing of two church wardens last year.   In a letter delivered to Bishop Michael Ingham on Friday, former Trustee and spokesperson Linda Taunton said, "we want our church and we want to be able to control our own destiny. Ingham has until Feb. 23 to respond," she told Virtuosity.   Last September, Ingham invoked an obscure piece of church law to remove the wardens, St. Martin's parishioners say. The parishioners maintain that as a legally incorporated organization, they have the right to make decisions for themselves. They contend Ingham's actions violate the provincial Societies Act.   The parish has voted twice to seek alternative episcopal oversight. Late last year, Ingham closed one church.   The second crisis the bishop faces is that four parishes have now obtained Temporary Adequate Episcopal Oversight from four international Anglican primates with immediate oversight of the Canadian parishes by a US-based AMiA bishop. The offer is temporary measure until a more permanent solution can be found.   Seven of the parishes have not signed as yet, but sources tell Virtuosity that they are weighing their options. They are not ready to jump ship but all of them still support the Anglican Churches in New Westminster (ACiNW) coalition, with none having fled.   "Those parishes who have not immediately accepted TAEO want to continue the Canadian process set up by the House of Bishops to look for a way to provide alternative episcopal oversight."   All the conservative Canadian bishops have been informed of the TAEO offer as well as Yukon Bishop Terry Buckle who had offered alternative Episcopal oversight and then withdrew it.   "Everybody is acting in good faith, some parishes just felt they cold not wait any longer," said the source. We should not view this as a break-up of the ACiNW coalition. It isn't."   Ingham faces a third crisis with the Canadian House of Bishops Task Force that could recommend some sort of oversight for the beleagured 11, which, if he doesn't accept, will put him at odds not only with the Anglican Church in Canada but with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the 38 Primates of the Anglican Communion.   To date Ingham has not responded to either crisis.   But those close to Ingham say he will never accept a recommendation from the Canadian House of Bishops to grant alternative oversight, because basically he believes he is the bishop and that is the end of the story.   "He will never go for it. He will never accept AEO because it would be a diminishing of his ecclesiastical authority, and he is a power driven person, not gospel driven," said the source.   The following Anglican clergy have already accepted the four Primates' offer of TAEO: The Revd Charles Alexander, Timothy Institute of Ministry, Calgary, Alberta; Dr David Bowler, Comox, Vancouver Island, a Church Plant; Revd Paul Carter, Immanuel Church, Westside; Revd Ron Gibbs, St Simon's, Deep Cove; Revd Ed Hird, St Simon's, Deep Cove; Revd David Hollebone, Living Waters Church, Victoria, Vancouver Island; Revd John Lombard, St Simon's, Deep Cove; Revd Barclay Mayo, St Andrews, Pender Harbour; Revd Silas Ng, Emmanuel Church, Richmond. These clergy come from two Canadian dioceses.   St. Martin's, North Vancouver, St. Matthias & St Luke, Vancouver, St. Matthew's, Abbotsford, Church of the Good Shepherd, St Andrew's, Pender Harbour, St Simon's, North Vancouver, St. John's, Shaughnessy, Church of Emmanuel, Richmond, Holy Cross, Vancouver, Immanuel Church, Westside, and Vancouver Holy Cross, Abbotsford, still have not accepted Temporary Alternative Episcopal Oversight.   END