Archives

By Ted Schroder   "Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist." (NIV) "Stand, therefore, having girded your loins with truth..." (RSV) (Ephesians 6:14)   The belt held together the loose tunic of the soldier. It gave him freedom and security to go into action. "Girded" is the same word as translated "buckled". Jesus said, "Let your loins be girded and your lamps burning..." (Luke 12:35) Jesus is saying, "Be ready for action. Be prepared for any eventuality that may come in life."   A belt protects us from injuring ourselves. It gives us the support we need when we are bending over, or lifting heavy objects. It is worn by athletes in training, when they are lifting weights. A seat belt holds us within the zone of safety provided by the frame of our automobile. It prevents us from being thrown out of the vehicle and injured when we are involved in a collision or other kinds of accidents. Recently a woman driving on the Matthews Bridge in Jacksonville was not wearing a seat belt when she was involved in an accident. As a result she was thrown over the side of the bridge to her death.   It was July 16, 1951 and I was 10 years old. That morning I woke to find my mother packing her suitcase. Normally a very self-possessed woman, that morning she was very emotionally distressed. She had reason to be. She had just received news that my father had been involved in an accident. With three of his best friends, he had driven to Christchurch, five hours away, to play in a golf tournament. Dad had just turned 40, the others were all in their thirties.   One of them was our family attorney, Amos James, whose office was directly opposite the public library, and who let me read his National Geographic magazines when I went to return my books. After spending some time at the nineteenth hole, they returned in my father's car to the hotel. I was told by another friend that they were probably laughing at the jokes Ozzie Howat (34) was known to crack as they approached an unguarded railroad crossing. The driver was not paying attention and they were hit by a locomotive. My father's three closest friends were killed. He was found on the rear seat with the others on top of him. Despite it being his car, he had not been driving. The only survivor, he was to remain in hospital for many weeks recovering from his injuries. I will never forget the funeral of those three young men. The whole town turned out. There were truckloads of floral wreaths. It was an evil day. There were no seat belts. If they had been buckled up there is a possibility that my father's three friends would have survived.   My contention is that we all need to be buckled up by the belt of truth if we are to survive when the locomotive of life comes barreling down on us and we are faced with the evil day of crisis.   But what is this belt of truth? There are many who would say today that there is no truth, that we are surrounded by propaganda, with perception which distorts the truth, with facts which are seen from the viewers' perspective. Truth is increasingly seen as a dirty word, an attempt to manipulate and oppress others. There do not seem to be firm and reliable landmarks, no points that hold sure and unchanged in a sea of relativity. One person's view seems as good as any other, leaving the door open for people to believe in anything or nothing. But once truth is abandoned, the distinction between truth and falsity disappears. If we are tolerant of what anyone claims as truth we deny the possibility of contradiction. We wind up by saying that "all religions are the same," when they claim to be very different.   Tolerance used to mean the respecting of real, hard differences. It has come to mean rejecting any claims to universal truth, and a belief in moral relativism - "you let me believe and behave what I think is true for me and I will not judge your beliefs and behavior." In other words tolerance has become a religious and moral libertarianism. We are all for openness, but when it is opposed to thinking that there is a right from wrong, it is hostile to being committed to any truth. The new dogmatism of the day teaches that a believer in compelling truth and who has convictions is dangerous and deluded. As a result life becomes a sea of meaninglessness where anything is morally permitted; where anyone's truth (opinion, belief) is as good as anyone else's, and there is no final word about who we are and what we are meant to become.   All truth claims, including the denial that there is such a thing as truth, can be denied. There are no arguments that can prove one truth claim over another beyond any shadow of a doubt. All truth requires faith, the personal appropriation of the truth that is asserted. Each one of us has to buckle his own belt with the action of faith. Each of us has to commit ourselves to the truth of the claim that cannot be decisively proven, but to which we are willing to stake our lives on.   Each of us lives by the truth to which we have committed ourselves. Everyone is buckled up to one truth claim or another. The media bombards us with truth claims about the products and ideas it advertises. The entertainment industry promotes its own truth claims through stimulating excitement which usually comes through demeaning marriage in favor of extramarital sex, and portraying religion in critical ways. Family, tradition, church is seen to be repressive and individual amorality is championed. The central moral truth claim of Hollywood is to believe in yourself rather than anything outside of yourself. It is a belt of lies that leads to destructive lifestyles. We need a criterion of truth that will help us distinguish between truth and deceptive illusion.   If we believe that all facts are subject to interpretation - which they are - how can we arrive at the truth that will guide us and be the rock on which we can build our lives? What is the belt of truth that gives us security and support in the evil day?   We have to make a decision about the reality of God, about the existence of the spiritual, eternal world, and about the truth claims of the prophets, apostles, and, above all, Jesus.   Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:31,32) The belt of truth for the Christian believer is the teaching of Jesus. The Christian has committed himself to Jesus, and wants to live out the implications of that commitment in his life. We believe that the more the presence of Jesus lives in us, the more we will know true freedom. The more we experience the truth and wisdom of his teaching, the more we will be set free from bondage to sin to live life in all its fullness. When we are set free from self-centeredness, from self-absorption, the more we can discover the freedom of serving Christ and his kingdom of love and justice, and making a difference in the world.   Instead of the truth of Jesus being seen to be oppressive and limiting, it is seen to be liberating and fulfilling. Many people will not marry because they don't want to be tied down, or committed, or have their options closed. They want their love to be "liquid" rather than solid as Zygmunt Bauman has described western lifestyles. As a result they are enslaved by their self-centeredness and never discover the joy of caring more for another than themselves. Many people do not want to commit themselves to Jesus as the truth, because it would close out other options. As a result they are left without a belt to hold them steady and protect them in their lives.   To put on the belt of truth is to support yourself with a belief in, and a knowledge of, the truth as it is in Jesus. It is to be mastered by that truth. It is to be held together by that truth. It binds you and holds you together. It puts you on your feet and gives you the security and support you need to stand in the evil day.   The truth of Christ is the first piece of God's armor we put on. Without it we are completely lost. A person needs a knowledge of who he is and what he is for to have meaning and purpose in his life. So we need a settled conviction with regard to the truth. We need the security of a certain faith. Unless we believe in the truth of the cause for which we are fighting, we will not fight very well, if at all. Morale is affected by the degree to which we believe in the truth of the cause. Conviction of the truth can affect whether a battle is won or lost.   The battle of life, is a spiritual war between the truth of Christ, and the lies of the forces of evil. The truth liberates, lies enslave. We are engaged in a war in which lives are at risk. If people follow the lies that masquerade as truth they will be destroyed. Those lies promise happiness and freedom from pain, but instead they produce despair and terrible suffering. "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death." (Proverbs 14:12) One of Satan's most effective lies is that people are at their most free when in pursuit of "free thought", "free expression" and "free love".   In his book "The People of the Lie", Scott Peck gives case after case of people who have bought into the lies of the devil. These are people who attack others instead of facing their own failures. They construct layer upon layer of self-deception in order to avoid the pain of self-examination. They often succeed in deceiving others, and so are People of the Lie.   When the day of evil comes in our lives we want to be sure and certain of what we believe. It is the truth that we have belted around our waists in better days that will hold us together and give us the support we need to get through the bad days. When we know the truth, and are sure and certain of what we believe, we experience the assurance of conviction. Confidence replaces anxiety, the security of faith drives out fear. This is what we see in Jesus. Before Pilate he says, "for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." Pilate asked, "What is truth?" (John 19:37,38)   Jesus gave no reply to Pontius Pilate. Jesus claimed, not that he knew the truth, but that he was the truth. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life.." (John 14:6) Truth is not just a claim but a person who embodied those claims. He claimed to be God in the flesh. He claimed to live the truth. Why did Jesus not reply to Pontius Pilate? If Jesus was the truth and Pilate standing before him, could not recognize it, then there was nothing Jesus could say that would persuade him of it.   When we recognize that Jesus is the Truth and commit ourselves to follow him, and his teaching, we can be sure and secure. The powers of hell will not prevail against us. We will be able to stand firm against the devil's schemes.   A postscript. Twenty years after my father's automobile accident, Antoinette and I were attending a function at the New Zealand High Commission (equivalent to embassy), in London. As we were circulating we met and introduced ourselves to another young couple. Immediately the wife heard my name she burst into tears and ran out of the room. Her husband explained. She was the daughter of Amos James, our family attorney who had been killed in the accident. She had learned that I and my parents, were in London, but couldn't get up the courage to meet us. Her brother had gone into the Catholic priesthood. Our lives had been impacted by that fatal accident so long ago. The three friends might have survived if they had been wearing seat belts. Life is fragile. When the evil day comes we need the belt of truth to hold us together.

COMMENTARY   By David W. Virtue   LONDON (8/6/2004)--The widely read British broadsheet newspaper The Telegraph, has come out slamming the possible appointment of Pakistani-born Bishop of Rochester, the Rt. Rev. Dr. Michael Nazir Ali as a successor to Dr. David Hope who retires shortly as Archbishop of York.   In a scathing editorial this week, the Telegraph said the Crown Appointments Commission and Downing Street must find one, and that convention suggests that the job should go to an evangelical, but that no suitable candidate was available.   The Telegraph opined that Michael Nazir-Ali of Rochester, an Evangelical, was singularly unsuitable because he "made a fool of himself by pushing himself forward for Canterbury."   This statement by the Telegraph is simply untrue. At the time of a successor being sought for Dr. George Carey, the name of Michael Nazir-Ali emerged as did many others, including other evangelicals, and the press, along with this writer speculated as to who might succeed the Evangelical Carey. One possibility was Bishop Nazir-Ali.   During that period Dr. Nazir-Ali was hounded and accused of being both homophobic by the overtly loud-mouthed and ugly British gay community, with press reports accusing him of plagiarism in one of his several doctoral dissertations.   These charges were unfounded and never proven to be true. But the accusations stuck and Bishop Nazir-Ali's chances of becoming the next Archbishop of Canterbury were dead on arrival.   Now this writer had the opportunity to spend several breakfasts with the Bishop of Rochester at a hotel in Minneapolis at the time of the ECUSA General Convention and he talked hesitantly but with a good deal of pain about the personal vilification he had suffered at the hands of the British Press and the Church of England's gay community.   Dr. Nazir-Ali is a gentle soul and the personal attacks hurt him terribly, and he was still feeling the after affects as we talked about it over coffee, now many months later.   The attacks were doubly strange to him because he was the one person who, having been born in a predominantly Islamic nation would have best understood how to speak to the growing Islamic threat in the world today, and he would have been far more outright in public declarations of the gospel and the irreconcilable differences between Islam and Christianity.   The present incumbent, Dr. Rowan Williams seems more bent on appeasing Islam and finding common ground between the Abrahamic religions, rather than facing head on the possibility that Islam, an evangelistic religion itself, is bent on either converting or destroying Christian believers.   How much better to have had a Pakistani born bishop from the Global South who could talk to Primate Peter Akinola, than a wifty Affirming Catholic that no one seems to understand to lead the Anglican Communion! Hindsight tells us that Dr. Nazir-Ali might have been a far better choice as Archbishop of Canterbury.   That, however, is history.   The choice now is who would best succeed the High Churchman, Dr. David Hope as the next Archbishop of York. If no other candidate emerges who has the credentials that Dr. Nazir-Ali has, then thoughtful people might rightly assume that the growing, and increasingly angry British Evangelical Anglican community could best be suited by having an Evangelical like Nazir-Ali for all the reasons stated.   Certainly some balance is needed to offset the Affirming Catholic Rowan Williams. An Anglo-Catholic replacement would not be suitable as one would not speak for the majority of British Anglicans, and they are busy looking for a Third Province to get out from under the liberalizing trends in the Church of England, especially, and because of, women's ordination.   If Nazir-Ali is given the job, he might be the one person who could rescue the Anglican Communion as it heads towards the cliff edge.   His evangelicalism and scholarship would be hailed in the Global South. Being a person of color would be a considerable plus as well. That he would have a strong voice in the corridors of ecclesiastical power and be close to Canterbury wouldn't hurt either. He could also keep the Anglican Communion Office in its place. They could not ignore him. He would balance them out on trips to Africa.   The Telegraph editorial opined that The Church of England (COE) was "finished" as an "Anglican" entity during the tenure of Archbishop of Canterbury Carey; the final dissolution of the COE as an Anglican entity will be accomplished under Archbishop of Canterbury Williams.   They may well be right.   If a "new" Anglican Communion, centered in Africa, South East Asia and the Southern Cone emerges later this year or early next year (2005) then Nazir-Ali might well be the person that English Evangelicals could turn to as they watch the last remnants of the Church of England head with gadarene like swiftness over the cliff's edge. The Anglo-Catholics will head to Rome or demand a "His and Hers" church.   But a new generation of ALPHA-driven English evangelical Anglicans will need a leader and there is, quite possibly, none better than the Bishop of Rochester, the Rt. Rev. Dr. Michael Nazir-Ali.

To all Virtuosity readers. Please read the following statement which came unsolicited from a long time Virtuosity subscriber.   Fellow Virtuosity Readers around the World,   How important is it to you to keep the lights on, the telephone service working, and your other household or church utilities in good working order? Such support services are essential, aren't they? When you think about your mission and ministry budget, support services don't generally inspire a lot of excitement for the spread of the Gospel. All too often we take them for granted, but as you well know, they're essential.   So it is with the cyber journal Virtuosity. I for one think it's essential, especially in these days of great turmoil, reformation, and realignment in the Anglican Communion. I am guilty of taking Virtuosity for granted. I expect to receive the Virtuosity Digest in my inbox every few days now because David has been giving us increased coverage and analysis with so much happening in the Church on a daily basis. In fact I usually check the website daily to be sure I haven't missed something. Frankly, our impassioned cyber journalist has been working overtime to keep us informed.   I e-mailed him yesterday telling him how critical I thought the upcoming African Bishops Conference in late October will be since it comes shortly after the release of the Lambeth (Eames) Report, and to a large degree the future of the Anglican Communion is in the hands of the Global South Primates. I asked David if he'd be there to cover it for us. I frankly expected him to be there since he's traveled to so many important events to give us reliable and timely coverage and analysis. Some have said David's a bit fiery, but, for my money, he's the most accurate and comprehensive reporter we have. I do believe that God has raised him up for a time such as this. David had to tell me that he doubted that he would be able to travel to the conference since, frankly, he is extremely short on the minimum funds needed to keep his service up and running.   Friends, this is not just a "we're running a bit behind" message. This is a serious "not sure if I can continue" situation. I've supported David from time to time in the past, but not on a regular basis. My wife Ginny and I are going to dig into our reserves for now, and we're going to put him in our 2005 monthly budget. As Dean of the Network's Southeastern Convocation, I need current information and analysis on the Anglican Communion. Other than my weekly conversations with the Network leadership, I rely on David as my primary news source over all the other excellent websites, listservs, and blogs.   I know that thousands of you rely on David as well. I encourage those of you who do to keep the lights on and the service working. Check your personal offerings budget and your discretionary funds to get Virtuosity through 2004, and when you're setting your parish and personal budgets this fall for 2005, prayerfully consider adding Virtuosity to your monthly giving.   Your brother in Christ,   Rev. James K. McCaslin, Jr.+ Dean, Southeastern Convocation Anglican Communion Network Rector, All Souls Church Jacksonville, Fl 32257   You can send your tax deductible donation to: VIRTUOSITY 1236 Waterford Rd., West Chester, PA 19380   OR through PAYPAL at the Virtuosity website. www.virtuosityonline.org   Your donation will be responded to promptly.   Thank you   David W. Virtue DD

LETTER: To The Clergy and Faithful Diocese of Ruvuma   THE STATEMENT OF THE BISHOP OF RUVUMA CONFIRMING THE PLACE OF THE DIOCESE OF RUVUMA IN THE ANGLICAN CHURCH OF TANZANIA IN THE GLOBAL ANGLICAN COMMUNION   Friends of the Diocese of Ruvuma have drawn to the attention of the Bishop of Ruvuma during his stay abroad pursuing theological study, a newspaper report in which the Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion is reported to have claimed that the Diocese of Ruvuma has entered into full communion with that Communion. While the Bishop of Ruvuma has already assured Friends of the Diocese who enquired about the matter, that nothing to that effect has taken place, this is his Official Statement confirming that, as it has always been, so the Diocese of Ruvuma remains a Diocese in the Anglican Church of Tanzania, in the Global Anglican Communion.   At no time has the Synod of the Diocese of Ruvuma considered joining the Traditional Anglican Communion. Only the Synod of the Diocese of Ruvuma could decide to take such as a step.   The Bishop of Ruvuma, who is an Associate Bishop (Member) of Forward in Faith North America (FIFNA) was encouraged by the faith he saw when at the FIFNA 2002 Annual Assembly. At that meeting FIFNA entered into full Sacramental Communion with the Traditional Anglican Communion.   The Bishop witnessed the event at the Belleville, St Louis Assembly. Subsequently he initiated correspondence with the then TAC Primate, Archbishop Louis Falk exploring possibilities of a link with him and the TAC Bishops especially those who are in Africa cooperating in the ministry of the Church for the salvation of souls and to the glory of God. The Bishop of Ruvuma already maintains such links with FIFNA, a constituency of FIF/UK and FIF/Australia, which have recently initiated such a link with him. He also maintains such links with Bishops in the Anglican Continuum.   It was at the June 2003 FIFNA Annual Assembly at Rosemont Pennsylvania, that the Bishop of Ruvuma met the new TAC Primate, Archbishop John Hepworth and continued exploring the possibilities of cooperation in the ministry of the Gospel. When asked, he told the Primate specifically that he was pursuing this as a Bishop of the Church and that it did not involve the status quo of his Diocese. It was at the Rosemont FIFNA Annual Assembly that the Bishop of Ruvuma calling for unity among orthodox Anglicans (and other orthodox Christians) proclaimed the axiom: "One Faith, One Team, One Game".   When, in May 2004 the TAC Primate en route to his apostolate in Central Africa made a flying one-day visit to the Bishop of Ruvuma, he was made welcome. The Bishop introduced him to his Clergy and Faithful as a brother in the Faith, stating that his visit stemmed from the unity in the faith that we share, the unity in Our Lord and Saviour, the unity that we celebrate in the Eternal Sacrifice.   It was during the celebration of the Eternal Sacrifice that the Clergy and Faithful presented him with a gift of the Ciborium and the Bishop presented him with a Kiswahili copy of the Bible challenging him to return to the Diocese in the future and to preach the Gospel in Kiswahili. The Bishop of Ruvuma reiterated his call for unity among orthodox Anglicans and orthodox Christians in the "One Faith, One Team, One Game" axiom. Never, during the TAC Primate's visit (or at any other time at all) was the idea of the Diocese of Ruvuma 'joining' the TAC ever thought of, let alone discussed.   The Bishop of Ruvuma wishes to reiterate in this Statement, his commitment to continue defending the faith of the Church once delivered to the saints and the catholic order of the Church. He reiterates his commitment to the pursuit of unity among orthodox Christians as a divine mission to which he believes he has been called by Our Lord and Saviour. He blesses the Lord for the full support that the Clergy and Faithful of the Diocese of Ruvuma lend him in his apostolic labours both in the Diocese and in the wider Church.   The Statement which the Canons of the Cathedral Chapter and the Committee of Rural Deans of the Diocese of Ruvuma issued on 09.06.2004, a copy of which is being sent to you, is a clear testimony to this support.   As the Diocesan of that part of the Vineyard of the Lord which is the Diocese of Ruvuma, in the Anglican Church of Tanzania in the Global Anglican Communion, the Bishop of Ruvuma reiterates his commitment to carrying out those apostolic labours which the Lord of the Vineyard which is His Church will thrust on his shoulders for the Salvation of Souls et Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam. He begs your prayers, that the Lord Our Merciful God, will remember his episcopate and his apostolic labours in His Kingdom-always.   Sincerely In Him,   His slave,   Rt Rev Dr Maternus K Kapinga Bishop of ACT-Ruvuma

COMMENTARY By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org March 9, 2026 Two branches of the Anglican Communion are in direct conflict over how the Communion should move forward in the years ahead. The Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO) has issued a Lent 2026 supplement to its Nairobi-Cairo Proposals, confirming plans to revise the Communion's self-definition and diversify its leadership. They are doing this in the face of deep opposition from the newly formed Global Anglican Council, recently established in Abuja, where some 400 bishops, clergy, and laity assembled to signal that they have "reset" and reformed the Communion — and that IASCUFO's proposals are, in effect, unwelcome. Here is the central sleight of hand. The first proposal would replace the 1930 Lambeth language of churches being "in communion with the See of Canterbury" with a description of provinces as sharing an inheritance of faith and order, mutual service, common counsel, and a historic connection with Canterbury. The problem is that GAFCON and the Global South no longer share even common ground with IASCUFO, and the appeal to "a historic connection with Canterbury" is dead on arrival. Liberal Anglican provinces may talk among themselves, but no one in the Global South will pay serious attention to what they say. IASCUFO has proposed redefining Anglican identity and sharing global leadership between the Archbishop of Canterbury and a new Primatial Council. These proposals will be sent up the chain to the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC-19) in Belfast later this year. However, the orthodox Global Anglican Council has already made clear it will not participate in this process. The phrase "dead on arrival" has taken on new meaning. Here is the convoluted Canterbury-driven process in detail. The second proposal would strengthen the role of the Primates' Standing Committee so that regional primates, gathered in a Primatial Council, could at times represent the Communion in ways currently reserved to Canterbury — such as attending provincial inaugurations or installations of new primates. The Archbishop of Canterbury would remain the presumptive representative in most ecumenical settings, but IASCUFO argues that "the diversified face of the Communion ought not always be the face of the Church of England." The reason for that argument is straightforward: roughly 80% of the Communion wants nothing to do with the direction Canterbury has taken. The archbishop can remain at Lambeth Palace and hope for a miraculous change of heart among Global South bishops, but that day has passed. Lambeth Palace has not offered a formal counter-proposal to Nairobi-Cairo. Instead, its messaging has been to present the IASCUFO package as one contribution to a wider discernment, not a finished settlement. The Archbishop of Canterbury has spoken of ACC-19 as a moment to receive "the fruit of IASCUFO's labours" and to seek renewed common life, while stressing that any changes must be owned by the whole Communion over time. A counter-proposal is not forthcoming because one is not possible. The Global South has made it abundantly clear it will not engage on those terms. One wonders whether the archbishop's advisers have properly briefed her on what happened in Abuja. Liberal Anglicanism is shrinking and will continue to do so because it has lost a clear grip on the gospel. Institutional loyalty, however sincerely held, has never been a substitute for doctrinal conviction. The outcome has been determined. There will be no "new conversations" on the current terms. The Anglican Communion as presently constituted is effectively over, even if a formal declaration of schism has not yet been made. END

By The Rev. Dr. Ronald H. Moore www.virtueonline.org March 11, 2026 Recent commentary has highlighted the continued decline of the Episcopal Church and other historic Protestant denominations. The numbers are real and the institutional challenges are undeniable. Yet focusing only on decline risks missing another development quietly unfolding beneath the surface of Western Christianity — a slow migration of believers toward deeper, more serious expressions of the historic faith.    For years observers have noted the steady decline of mainline Protestantism. The statistics are familiar: shrinking membership, aging congregations, and the closure of historic parishes. The Episcopal Church, like many older denominations in the West, has experienced decades of numerical contraction.   Yet focusing only on institutional decline risks missing a quieter and far more interesting development taking place beneath the surface.   While large denominational structures are shrinking, a different pattern is emerging: a slow but steady migration toward more serious forms of Christianity.   This movement is not large enough to dominate national statistics, but across the United States—and throughout much of the Western world—individual Christians are increasingly seeking churches that offer something deeper than cultural religion.   The Collapse of Cultural Christianity For much of the twentieth century, the Episcopal Church functioned as what sociologists call a “status church.” It attracted educated professionals, civic leaders, and families who valued dignified worship and social respectability.   In many cases, however, membership rested more on cultural habit than theological conviction.   Attendance was expected. Parish life was part of respectable society. The church functioned as a stabilizing institution within the broader culture.   That cultural ecosystem has largely disappeared.   Modern Americans no longer join churches for social standing. The professional classes have grown increasingly secular, and the old incentives for nominal affiliation have faded. When cultural Christianity collapses, churches that relied upon it inevitably shrink.   But that is only half the story.   The Rise of Intentional Christianity Even as nominal affiliation declines, another pattern is emerging—particularly among younger Christians.   Many believers raised in informal or seeker-sensitive environments are discovering that a thin, consumer-oriented Christianity cannot sustain faith over a lifetime. In response, they are searching for churches rooted in historic tradition, sacramental worship, and doctrinal clarity.   Increasingly, these seekers are finding their way into traditions such as:   Eastern Orthodoxy   Roman Catholicism   Confessional Lutheranism   Classical Anglicanism   What draws them is not novelty but depth.   They are looking for liturgical worship rather than entertainment, sacramental theology rather than religious self-help, and historical continuity rather than constant reinvention.   In short, they are looking for a church that takes God seriously.   What the Data Suggests Recent sociological research hints at this shift. Studies by religion researchers such as Ryan Burge and data from the Pew Religious Landscape Survey indicate that while overall church participation continues to decline, the believers who remain are increasingly intentional and theologically defined. In other words, nominal affiliation is fading, but committed religious identity is becoming more concentrated.   The result is a paradox: institutional Christianity is shrinking, yet the Christians who remain are often more serious about their faith.   The Irony of Anglican History The irony is that Anglicanism once embodied precisely the qualities many modern seekers now desire.   For centuries Anglican worship combined Scripture, sacrament, liturgy, and pastoral order into a coherent form of Christian life. The Book of Common Prayer formed believers week after week in the truths of the Gospel.   Yet in the late twentieth century many Anglican institutions lost confidence in that inheritance. In an effort to adapt to changing cultural expectations, some churches shifted toward progressive activism or toward forms of worship increasingly detached from historic Anglican identity.   As a result, many Christians searching for deeper roots bypassed those institutions altogether, often turning instead to Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, or smaller Anglican jurisdictions committed to classical doctrine and reverent worship.   Why the Statistics Miss the Story Because this migration occurs one household at a time, it rarely appears in denominational statistics.   There are no dramatic surges. Instead, the change appears quietly:   A small parish begins welcoming young families who discovered liturgical Christianity after years in evangelical churches.   Former megachurch attendees begin exploring sacramental worship for the first time.   Young professionals rediscover the Church Fathers and historic liturgy.   These communities remain small, but they tend to be highly committed.   Historically speaking, renewal movements often begin exactly this way.   A Smaller but Stronger Church Christianity in the West may be entering a new phase—one in which the Church no longer occupies the cultural center of society.   That shift is painful. It means fewer members, fewer resources, and less social influence.   Yet history suggests that when the Church loses cultural power, it often gains spiritual clarity.   The early Christians of the Roman Empire were a minority. The Reformers were a minority. The Oxford Movement began with only a handful of clergy seeking to recover the Church’s sacramental and theological heritage.   In each case renewal began not with large numbers but with serious believers committed to recovering the fullness of the Christian faith.   The Remnant and the Future The decline of institutional Christianity is real and should not be minimized.   But neither should it be misunderstood.   Beneath the headlines of decline, a quieter movement is underway. Christians who desire a deeper, more reverent, and historically rooted faith are slowly gathering into communities that take worship, doctrine, and discipleship seriously.   The Church in the West may indeed be becoming smaller.   But the believers who remain may well become stronger.   And throughout history it is precisely such faithful remnants that God has often used to renew His Church.   The Rev. Dr. Ronald Moore is the Vicar of St. Luke's Anglican Church in Corinth, Mississippi.

https://mbarrattdavie.wordpress.com/ March 11, 2026   On Sunday I was asked by a member of my parish church if I could explain what was happening in the Anglican Communion. She had heard a report on the BBC about the declaration issued by GAFCON after its recent meeting in Abuja and asked what the division between GAFCON and other Anglicans was about.   The answer is that the division is about two different visions of the future of global Anglicanism.   The Nairobi-Cairo Proposals   The first vision is set out in the ‘Nairobi-Cairo Proposals,’ which have been produced by The Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order (IASCUFO). As the Anglican Communion News Service explains:   ‘IASCUFO is a permanent commission of the Anglican Communion, composed of Anglican theologians from around the world. The commission is charged with advising the member churches and Instruments of Communion on all matters of faith, order, and ecumenism with the intention of promoting ‘common understanding, consistency, and convergence.’[1]   The Anglican Communion website further explains that the Nairobi-Cairo Proposals (so called because of the location of the meetings at which they were developed) are:   ‘… a theological paper written by IASCUFO offering a framework for fostering Christian Unity and maintaining communion. The paper makes recommendations for updating how the Anglican Communion describes itself and encourages a ‘maximal sharing in leadership’.   The proposals seek to reflect the diversity and breadth of the worldwide Anglican Communion, ‘to account for changes of the last century’. They are also intended to help Anglican churches navigate difference and divisions, upholding the call of all Christians to sustain the unity of the Church.’[2]   In a statement released earlier this month IASCUFO declares:     ‘The Nairobi-Cairo Proposals boil down to three urgent calls for our common life:   • Acknowledge developments in the structures of the Communion since 1930. When the Lambeth Conference of 1930 offered its description of the Anglican Communion, it presumed an understanding of all Anglican churches as gathered round the Church of England as mother. This has not been the case since at least 1968. All Anglican churches, including the Church of England, are now sisters. The Constitution of the ACC governs the Communion’s membership. In view of these facts, an updated description of the Communion will enable all Anglicans to speak truly and honestly about the faith, ministry, and mission that we share.   • Acknowledge that communion has been damaged between some churches, but that real communion remains, both as God’s gift and as something Christ calls us to intensify. All the churches of the Anglican Communion are bound together, despite our differences, in living relationships with one another, aided by the Instruments of Communion. We are not defined by the decisions of any single member church. This fact enables us to articulate our communion in various ways, and to walk together to the highest degree possible. It encourages us to be honest about our divisions and make room for one another in love.   • Ensure the Communion’s leadership looks like the Communion. This means recognising the fact that the Anglican Consultative Council and Primates’ Meeting, as well as the Lambeth Conference, complement and complete the unique ministry of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Communion. The ACC incorporates lay voices and leadership: we propose that these contributions be enhanced. The regional primates already assist the Archbishop of Canterbury in his or her ministry in the Communion: we propose that the collegial character of this shared ministry be developed.   To acknowledge the need for change and act accordingly will enhance the integrity of our witness, promote collegiality between our leaders, and amplify Anglican voices in both ecumenical and secular settings. It will enable us to shed some of the baggage of colonialism while celebrating a shared theological and sacramental inheritance, to which the ministry of the Archbishop of Canterbury bears witness. And it will encourage all Anglican churches, even amid serious disagreements, to speak and embody a word of hope and healing in a world riven by violence and despair.’[3]   The Abuja Affirmation   The second vision is set out in the Abuja Affirmation which was issued this month after a meeting in Abuja Nigeria of bishops, clergy and laity belong to GAFCON.   GAFCON, which was founded in 2008, describes itself as ‘a global movement, gathering authentic Anglicans, guarding God’s gospel, growing orthodox leaders, and generating missional resources, for the glory of God!’ [4]  Although the figures are disputed, it seems probable that the churches affiliated with GAFCON, which include the Anglican churches in Kenya, Myanmar, Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda and Chile, and the Anglican Church in North America, represent the majority of the world’s practising Anglicans.   The Abuja Affirmation[5] declares that:   ‘Reordering the Anglican Communion is now necessary, because a significant number of provinces who claim to be Anglican have abandoned the authority of Scripture and failed to follow Christ faithfully. While matters of human sexuality are one expression of this, this is merely symptomatic of doctrinal and moral departures from the teaching of Scripture.   The leadership of the Canterbury Instruments of Communion have failed to exercise discipline and maintain the biblical witness and uphold fundamental Anglican doctrine as expressed in its Reformation Formularies (the Thirty-nine Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer including the Ordinal). Instead, these Instruments seek to hold together a confused communion of institutional co-existence, based on the fiction of ‘walking together’ with those who are walking away from the truth of the gospel and the teaching of Jesus.’   Looking back over recent Anglican history, the Affirmation notes that:   ‘Recent Archbishops of Canterbury have failed to guard the faith by inviting bishops to Lambeth who have embraced or promoted practices contrary to Scripture. The former Archbishop of Canterbury welcomed the provision of liturgical resources for the Church of England to bless people who had entered same-sex civil marriages. The current Archbishop of Canterbury led the ‘Living in Love and Faith’ project that produced these liturgical resources for the Church of England. The moral and spiritual authority of the Seat of Augustine has been severely compromised by this.   Notwithstanding the unequivocal rejection of ‘homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture’ as expressed in Resolution I.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference, contrary teaching has continued to gain a foothold in some Anglican provinces. At Lambeth 2022 it was treated as a matter over which Christians could disagree but remain in fellowship. Archbishop Justin Welby affirmed both a ‘traditional teaching’ and a ‘different teaching’, the latter held by those who are ‘not careless about Scripture. They do not reject Christ. But they have come to a different view on sexuality after long prayer, deep study and reflection on understandings of human nature’. This is unambiguously contrary to Anglican doctrine as it has been received.   The ACC and the Primates’ Meetings have likewise failed to uphold the doctrine and discipline of the Anglican Communion, notwithstanding the repeated recommendations of various reports, for example the 2004 Windsor Report. They have neither restrained nor challenged false teaching and instead have called for the acceptance of false teachers as fellow members of the Communion.’   The result, says the Affirmation, is that:   ‘… there are now two incompatible forms of Anglican Communion in existence. There is the ‘Anglican Communion’ which is based on institutional links with the failed Canterbury led Instruments of Communion and there is the ‘Global Anglican Communion’ represented by GAFCON.’      The Affirmation goes on to explain that:   ‘The Global Anglican Communion is neither a breakaway Communion nor an alternative Communion. The Jerusalem Statement clearly says that ‘We cherish our Anglican heritage and the Anglican Communion and have no intention of departing from it’. What has occurred instead is a shift of the stewardship of the Anglican Communion from the Canterbury Instruments to the Global Anglican Communion. We are returning the Anglican Communion to its roots. The Global Anglican Communion is not a new Communion, but the historic Anglican Communion reordered from within.’   Membership of the Global Anglican Communion is confessional in the sense that what is required for membership is subscription to the ‘Jerusalem Declaration’ an updated statement of Anglican faith produced by GAFCON in 2008, and for the leaders of the Communion belonging to it:   ‘…. requires a principled disengagement from the Canterbury Instruments. Leaders who hold office in the Global Anglican Communion must not attend future Primates’ Meetings called by the Archbishop of Canterbury, nor attend the Lambeth Conference, nor attend ACC meetings or participate in Commissions of the ACC, nor personally approve financial contributions to the ACC. It is also expected that they will not receive financial assistance from compromised sources. This principle enables, for example, a Gafcon Branch chair in a mixed province to participate in Global Anglican Communion leadership.   A full and public disengagement from these structures is necessary. The clear and consistent teaching of the New Testament is that those who seek to lead the church astray must not be tolerated and Christians must refuse to have fellowship with those who promote false teaching (Romans 16:17; 2 John 10-11; Revelation 2:20).’   Continued participation in these Canterbury-led meetings gives credence to the lie that it is possible to ‘walk together despite deep disagreement’ with those who have abandoned biblical teaching. A separation from the Canterbury Instruments is necessary to demonstrate that such teaching is not of secondary importance. The warning of the prophet Amos rings true: ‘Can two walk together unless they are agreed?’ (Amos 3:3).’   However, while the Affirmation insists on a rejection of the traditional leadership structures of the Anglican Communion it also states:   ‘… that it is a matter of conscience, when rejecting the authority of revisionist leaders, as to whether one remains or not in a compromised ecclesial structure. We stand, for example, with those who remain within the Church of England who assent to the Jerusalem Declaration, who seek to remain as a faithful witness within the Church of England structures. And we stand with those who have joined Gafcon-authenticated jurisdictions, such as The Anglican Network in Europe, who are a faithful witness in the UK and Europe.’   Assessing the two views of the future of global Anglicanism   The difference between the two views of the future of global Anglicanism put forward by the Nairobi-Cairo Proposals and The Abuja Affirmation is that the former holds that the Anglican Communion can continue as it is providing its traditional patterns of leadership are tweaked to give a greater role to other Anglican Primates alongside the Archbishop Canterbury, while the latter holds that the patterns of leadership in Communion have been irrevocably compromised by their failure to exercise proper discipline against those who have departed from the orthodox faith through their acceptance of same-sex sexual relationships, and that therefore a new way for Anglican churches to relate to one another has become necessary.   As we have seen, IASCUFO accepts that ‘communion has been damaged between some churches’ over the issue of same-sex relationships but it insists that it is possible for ‘real communion’ to continue to exist in spite of differences over this issue.   In the Nairobi-Cairo report IASCUFO notes that:   ‘… sustained Anglican disputes and divisions concerning marriage and sexuality are disconcerting, and have been a cause for scandal.   Many believe that to celebrate and bless the relationships of non-celibate same-sex couples in the Church is to bless what Scripture and the tradition of Christian teaching has always called sin. In this case, such blessing marks a departure from the proper and holy ordering of sex and sexuality. As the union of a man and a woman, holy matrimony is a sign of the nuptial relationship between Christ and the Church and is a union of the two distinct parts of created humanity which has the potential to bring new life into the world and sustain the human race. Marriage therefore also recalls Christ the Word’s sanctifying of created matter in the events of his Incarnation and Passion.   For others, the refusal of the Church to bless committed same-sex relationships perpetrates an unholy offence against the love of Christ and a rejection of persons made in God’s image, whose natural affections are understood to be innate rather than chosen. The sin described here is against charity, the more when committed same-sex relationships reflect some of the goods of marriage, such as faithfulness in mutual support, companionship, and the nurturing, if not begetting, of children. Moreover, for many within the Communion, the criminalisation of homosexual acts, including punishment by imposition of the death penalty, supported by Anglicans in some countries, amounts to a sinful refusal of Christ’s justice.’   These two accounts are not entirely contradictory. Anglicans disagree, however, about what constitutes the holy life, including questions about the proper place of celibacy as an expectation for single persons, expectations for the moral life of the ordained, and public liturgies of blessing of same-sex relationships. Is there some reliable way of resolving this? Again, the councils and synods of the Church are given by God for the shared discerning of truth, centred on the Scriptures, on the way to achieving agreement or ‘one mind,’ as the New Testament exhorts (Phil. 2:2; 1 Cor. 1:10; 1 Pet. 3:8; cf. Acts 15). If divisions should be expected here as well, these will be resolved in the just judgment of the Lord, when all is revealed (1 Cor. 11:19,32).’ [6]   IASCUFO goes on to suggest that:   ‘When Anglicans, like others, differ profoundly about aspects of holy living, they can recommit themselves to finding holy ways of handling differences and divisions. What might it look like to be ‘completely’ humble, gentle, and patient, ‘bearing with one another in love’? How might we ‘make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace’ (Eph. 4:2-3)? Refusing to give up on those with whom we differ means pressing into renewed love when the world would have us walk away. A dogged refusal to give up on each other, to remain in relationship despite deep and significant disagreement, can be a remarkable witness to the power of Christ to bring unity in a  divided world, and a foretaste of the day when all things in heaven and on earth will be brought together under Christ (Eph.1:10).’[7]   According to IASCUFO, the Anglican tradition contains two different approaches to handling theological differences.   ‘One, evidenced in the Church of England’s departure from the Church of Rome, calls for a clean break from what is taken to be heresy or deliberate moral sinfulness within the Church. The other, illustrated in the Elizabethan Settlement, sets the inevitability of doctrinal dispute within the broad contours of a visible Church, which serves as a staging ground for God’s just judgment and right ordering in the end. Bishop John Jewel’s polemical justification of the Church of England’s split from Rome   gives way to Richard Hooker’s synthesis a generation later, which labours to affirm the  authentic ecclesiality of even the Church of Rome, notwithstanding serious doctrinal disagreement.   As Hooker writes, Christians in the Church of England certainly hope ‘that to reform ourselves, if at any time we have done amiss, is not to sever ourselves from the Church we were of before. In the Church we were, and we are so still.’ But this must be true of others, as well — not only the Lutherans, for instance, but also the Church of Rome, with which the Church of England can still seek to ‘hold fellowship,’ insofar as it ‘lawfully may.’ Thus, just as St. Paul can speak of Israel as both the enemy and the beloved of God (Rom. 11:28), so too with Rome, says Hooker: we ‘dare not’ commune with ‘her gross and grievous abominations,’ and ‘yet touching those main parts of Christian truth’ in which Roman Catholics ‘constantly still persist, we gladly acknowledge them to be of the family of Jesus Christ.’ Accordingly, ‘our hearty prayer unto God Almighty is, that being conjoined so far forth with them, they may at the length (if it be his will) so yield to frame and reform themselves, that no distraction remain in anything, but that we ‘all may with one heart and one mouth glorify God the Father of our Lord and Saviour’ (Rom. 15:6), whose Church we are.’ [8]   The approach to handling theological disagreements that IASCUFO thinks Anglicans should follow today is the approach taken by Hooker, and they hold that his approach supports their view of maintaining unity within the Anglican Communion even in the face of theological disagreement. AS IASCUFO sees it, what unites Christians is fundamentally the communion established by their common baptism and remaining in ecclesial communion in the face of disagreement is the proper expression of this fact. It is on this basis that they think the existing Anglican Communion should hold together in its current form, albeit with some appropriate post-colonial tweaking to its patterns of leadership.   What are we to make of this argument?    First of all, we should note that it is a mistake to set the approach of Richard Hooker against that of his mentor John Jewel. Hooker, like Jewel, believed that the Church of England was right to differentiate itself from the Roman Catholic Church even though Roman Catholics were ‘of the family of Jesus Christ’ because those in the Church of England ‘dare not’ commune with ‘her gross and grievous abominations.’  Renewed unity between the Church of England and Rome could only follow from Rome reforming itself of its errors.   Applying Hooker’s teaching would thus mean that if there are churches today that are guilty of ‘gross and grievous abominations’ Anglicans should differentiate themselves from them until such time as they reform.   The question then becomes what status we should give to the acceptance of same-sex sexual relationships by some Anglican churches today.   In the words of C S Lewis, the traditional rule of the Christian Church with regard to sexual ethics has always been ‘either marriage, with complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence’[9] (marriage here means marriage between a man and a woman). This is the consensual teaching about marriage and sexual ethics that, as Vincent of Lerin puts it, has been held ‘always, everywhere and by everyone’[10] from biblical times onwards, in the same way that belief in the divinity of Christ and his bodily resurrection have been universally taught and accepted.   In the words of Darrin Belousek in his book Marriage, Scripture and the Church:   ‘Scripture, consistently, presents a single picture of marriage and approves a single pattern of sexual relations: male- female union. Jesus summarizes this witness: ‘the two’ of ‘male and female’ joined into ‘one flesh.’ The Holy Spirit has woven this pattern of holy union throughout Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, in the form, function, and figure of marriage. Tradition, East and West, also has consistently taught a single standard of sex and marriage: marriage is man-woman monogamy; all sex outside man-woman monogamy is sin. This doctrine has been taught always by the church, beginning with the apostles’ testimony to Jesus teaching; It has been proclaimed throughout the worldwide church, among all people in every place and epoch, as God’s will for sex and marriage; it has been articulated by apologetic writings and theological treatises, transmitted through baptismal catechesis and canonical discipline, celebrated in monastic vows and nuptial rites.’ [11]   Judged against this standard, the acceptance of same-sex sexual relationships (and even same-sex marriages) by some churches in the Anglican Communion has to be viewed as a ‘gross and grievous abomination,’ since it constitutes a departure from a key part of the Catholic and apostolic faith and an endorsement of sin. To put it plainly the churches involved have supported both heresy and immorality.   Furthermore, as the Church of England Evangelical Council report ‘Guarding the Deposit’ notes, the apostolic witness in the New Testament, which has also been accepted ‘everywhere at all times and by all,‘  teaches that:   ‘…the Church should make a separation in this world between the people of God and those who practise sexual immorality (1 Cor 5: 1-13).   As Tom Wright notes, Paul teaches that the Church has the ‘God-given right and duty to discriminate between those who are living in the Messiah’s way and those who are not’.   This discrimination needs to involve ceasing to associate with those living a life of sexual immorality—both so as to protect the Church from their influence and to make clear to them the seriousness of their behaviour in the hope that they will repent. The apostles also warn against the destructive effect of ‘false teachers’ who teach people to engage in sexual immorality (see Eph. 5:6-8, 2 Peter, Jude and Rev. 2:19-23). Christians are repeatedly warned against such teaching and the toleration of it within the Church.’[12]   The exercise of ecclesiastical discipline called for in the precious paragraph may well seem harsh to many people today. However, it is a necessary part of the Church’s calling. In the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer:   ‘If the Church is to walk worthily of the gospel, part of its duty will be to maintain ecclesiastical discipline. Sanctification means driving out the world from the Church as well as separating the Church from the world.’ [13]   If what has just been said is true, then IASCUFO’s vision for the future of global Anglicanism must be judged as inadequate. What IASCUFO proposes is precisely that toleration of false teaching and immoral conduct that the apostolic witness contained in the New Testament warns us against. According to IASCUFO those Anglican churches that have promoted heresy and immorality by their acceptance of same-sex sexual relationships, and even same-sex marriages, must still be treated as churches in good standing within the Anglican Communion, regardless of the fact that what they have done constitutes, in Hooker’s words, a ‘gross and grievous abomination.’   By contrast the approach set out by GAFCON in the Abuja Affirmation makes perfectly good sense. GAFCON correctly recognises that the traditional leadership structures of the Anglican Communion are not going to take action to discipline those Anglican churches that have gone astray and so it is up to those Anglican churches who continue to uphold traditional Christian teaching to separate themselves from these churches until such time as they reform.   The creation of the ‘Global Anglican Communion’ announced by GAFCON is a way of doing this. It is a way of reforming worldwide Anglicanism that aims to bring orthodox Anglican churches together while excluding those churches that have gone astray.   The requirement for acceptance of the Jerusalem Declaration makes sense given that the Declaration is re-statement of traditional Anglican and Christian teaching which includes the statement:   ‘We acknowledge God’s creation of humankind as male and female and the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman as the proper place for sexual intimacy and the basis of the family. We repent of our failures to maintain this standard and call for a renewed commitment to lifelong fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those who are not married.’ [14]   Subscribing to the Jerusalem Declaration is a means by which a church, or a group within a church, publicly affirms that it stands by traditional Anglican and Christian teaching in general and the traditional Anglican and Christian  teaching on marriage and sexual ethics in particular.     Separation from the traditional Anglican ‘instruments of communion,’ the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference and the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC), also makes sense as a way of a church, or a group with a church, disassociating itself from the willingness of these instruments to officially tolerate the presence of heresy and immorality within the Anglican Communion. It is a way of publicly declaring that what they are doing is wrong. [15]   In summary, global Anglicanism has a serious problem caused by the rejection of the Catholic and Apostolic teaching concerning marriage and sexual ethics by a number of Anglican churches. What is being proposed by IASCUFO in the Nairobi-Cairo proposals does not provide an adequate response to this problem as it calls for the toleration of this departure from orthodoxy.  By contrast, the restructuring of worldwide Anglicanism set out by GAFCON in the Abuja Affirmation provides an adequate response in that it provides a way for orthodox Anglicans to relate to one another while separating themselves from those Anglican churches with which in Hooker’s words they ‘dare not commune.’   We can still recognise that these are Christian churches. To quote Hooker again, we can still ‘gladly acknowledge them to be of the family of Jesus Christ.’ However, the proper exercise of ecclesiastical discipline must mean, as GAFCON says, distancing ourselves from them until they come, as we must hope they will, to a better mind.  FOOTNOTES [1] Anglican Communion News Service, ‘IASCUFO shares learnings and supplement to The Nairobi-Cairo   Proposals in preparation for ACC-19’ at: https://www.anglicannews.org/news/2026/03/iascufo-shares-     learnings-and-supplement-to-the-nairobi-cairo-proposals-in-preparation-for-acc-19.aspx.   [2] The Anglican Communion, ‘The Nairobi-Cairo Proposals’ at: https://www.anglicancommunion.org/the-nairobi-cairo-proposals/   [3] IASCUFO,  ‘Supplement to the Nairobi-Cairo Proposals’ at https://anglicancommunion.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Supplement-to-NCPs_Lent-2026.pdf   [4] GAFCON, ‘About GAFCON’ at: https://gafcon.org/about/ .   [5] GAFCON, ‘Communique: The Abuja Affirmation’ at: https://gafcon.org/communique-updates/the-abuja-affirmation/ .   [6] IASCUFO, ‘The Nairobi-Cairo Proposals,’ paragraphs 41-43 at: https://anglicancommunion.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Nairobi-Cairo-Proposals-Advent-2024-2.pdf   [7] The Nairobi-Cairo Proposals, paragraph 45.   [8] The Nairobi-Cairo Proposals, paragraphs 50-51   [9] C S Lewis, Mere Christianity (Glasgow: Fount, 1984), p.86.   [10] Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory, Ch.II in The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 2nd series , Vol.XI (Edinburgh and Grand Rapids: T&T Clark/Eerdmans, 1998), p. 132   [11] Darrin Belousek, Marriage, Scripture and the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2021), Kindle Edition, p.284.   [12] Church of England Evangelical Council, ‘Guarding the Deposit’  pp.4-5 at https://declaration.ceec.info/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/CEEC-Guarding-The-Deposit.pdf .   [13] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship (London: SCM, 1959), p.360.   [14] The Jerusalem Declaration. Article 8 at: https://gafcon.org/about/the-jerusalem-statement/ .   [15] It should be noted that the reason that GAFCON cannot accept the ministry of the new Archbishop of Canterbury is not because she is a woman, but because, like her predecessor, she has supported the acceptance of same-sex sexual relationships in the context of the Church of England’s Living in Love and Faith process.

COMMENTARY By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org March 11, 2026 When I first saw the headline, I thought it was satire. But Episcopal Presiding Bishop Sean Rowe really said it — to more than 850 Episcopal Church leaders gathered in Charlotte to discuss the future of the denomination and what it still has to offer. Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Sean Rowe has declared that the belief that the mainline Protestant denomination is dying amid considerable attendance decline is “a lie straight from the pit of Hell.” iscopal Church Presiding Bishop Sean Rowe has declared that the belief that the mainline Protestant denomination is dying amid considerable attendance Apparently, the presiding bishop is tired of hearing that his church is doomed, and he would like to change the narrative. But the numbers don’t lie. The denomination has lost about half its baptized membership since the 1960s, declining to roughly 1.5 million adherents today. It still faces shrinking congregations and aging demographics. Top-level trends confirm that the Episcopal Church (TEC) remains in decline: the number of parishes and missions dropped from 6,754 in 2023 to 6,707 in 2024 — a 0.7 percent decline. The median in-person attendance over the past year stands at just 38, and the average age of an Episcopalian is now in the 60s. No younger generations appear poised to fill the pews. Despite passage of the gay marriage canon, gay and lesbian couples have not joined the church in significant numbers. The racial demographics are equally striking. While the Episcopal Church has made anti-racism training a priority, it remains 95 percent white — compared to 59.3 percent white for the United States as a whole. Only 4 percent of Episcopalians are Black, versus 13.4 percent of the U.S. population. The denomination has consecrated approximately 50 Black bishops, a number disproportionate to its actual Black membership. Meanwhile, the average Episcopalian age of 60-plus stands in sharp contrast to the U.S. median age of 38.7, as Anglican Watch notes. On attendance, 2024 saw a continued increase in Average Sunday Attendance (ASA) to 534,579 persons — including online attendance. That figure, however, merely represents where attendance would have been had COVID not occurred; it is roughly 2.2 percent below pre-pandemic numbers, consistent with historic rates of decline. The church’s growing reliance on online attendance raises further concerns. There is little evidence that congregations have considered its financial implications. Churches have not found ways to monetize online attendance, which is problematic given that aging and costly church buildings require significant cash flow to remain operational. Promoting livestreaming may actually accelerate financial decline, Anglican Watch warns. For the first time in its history, the Episcopal Church posted a churchwide budget deficit. Average pledge size dropped from $3,658 to $3,093 — a 16.3 percent decline. Denominational priorities cited in reports include energy efficiency and racial reconciliation. Yet reducing a carbon footprint across a vast portfolio of aging, obsolete buildings is a near-impossible task, and the continued absence of racial minorities in the pews suggests that racial reconciliation remains more a symbolic gesture than a lived reality. As Anglican Watch bluntly notes: “Most of the conservatives in the church left long ago. The fact that those who remain are continuing to walk away suggests the church has serious problems.” Conspicuously absent from Bishop Rowe’s proposed solutions is any call to return to apostolic doctrine and teaching. There was no mention of sin and salvation, and no mention of the Great Commission. TEC’s stated mission, drawn from the Book of Common Prayer’s catechism, is “to restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ.” The denomination describes its path as “loving, liberating, and life-giving relationships with God, with each other, and with the earth.” Yet this language carries no theological grounding. Scripture is nowhere referenced. The phrase “loving, liberating, life-giving relationships” functions as an implicit endorsement of homosexual practice and a rejection of the binary understanding of human sexuality that Jesus affirmed (“male and female created He them”). The phrase “all people” gestures toward universalism. Heaven and hell go unmentioned. And if God is to “restore all people” regardless, one must ask: what role does the Episcopal Church play in that restoration? “I believe that — as a final word and as a final story — is a lie from the pit of hell,” Rowe declared to the assembled leaders. When asked from the stage whether they were optimistic about the future, most answered with a resounding yes. What, exactly, do they plan to do to reverse the trend? Activism around racism, reparations, diversity, inclusion, and equity has not filled pews. The passage of Resolution 012 — which authorized marriage rites for same-sex couples — has not brought an influx of gay and lesbian worshippers. Moreover, the average Episcopalian has little idea how to evangelize a neighbor, largely because they have never been discipled themselves. You cannot pass along what you have not received. While there is anecdotal evidence that some parishes are thriving, most are not. Absent a substantial endowment, full-time rectors are becoming increasingly rare. Once a flagship denomination of the wealthy Protestant establishment, the Episcopal Church today more closely resembles a cathedral gargoyle — ornate, obsolete, and clinging to a façade. TEC offers no salvific message. From the earliest days of Christianity, followers of Jesus have insisted on an objective standard of orthodoxy — meaning that not everyone who claims the name “Christian” is a genuine disciple. TEC surrendered that orthodoxy long ago. Today, TEC functions largely as a progressive advocacy organization with liturgical trappings. Its trajectory is set, and no amount of institutional optimism will restore it to former prominence. Bishop Rowe will preside over its continued diminishment; the forces at work are beyond his power to reverse. The Rev. Dwight Zscheile, an Episcopal priest and professor, has put it starkly: “The overall picture is dire — not one of decline as much as demise within the next generation unless trends change significantly.” Researcher Brandon Showalter, an opinion writer and social commentator, estimates that the Episcopal Church will be functionally dead within 20 years — with “no one in worship by around 2050 in the entire denomination.” In a recent episode of “The Holy Post” podcast, researcher Ryan Burge echoed that assessment, predicting the Episcopal Church will be dead within two decades. In a subsequent blog post, he allowed that it might not disappear entirely but will be “vastly diminished” and likely on “life support.” Burge further reports that only 14 percent of Episcopalians are parents of children under 18 — the lowest figure of any religious tradition surveyed. The Episcopal Church has been hollowed out largely by secularization in regions where liberal religious traditions have long been concentrated: the Northeast, the West Coast, and the Rust Belt. Its progressive theological direction — particularly on marriage and sexual ethics — has compounded the decline. The 2003 consecration of openly gay bishop Gene Robinson was a watershed moment that prompted widespread departure by theologically conservative congregations, many of which formed new Anglican structures organized around doctrinal alignment rather than geography. The Anglican Church in Canada appears to be on a similar trajectory. In a November 2019 presentation before the Anglican Church of Canada’s Council of General Synod, the Rev. Canon Neil Elliot warned that the denomination would effectively cease to exist by 2040. END

By Matt Franck | St. Louis Post-Dispatch | Tuesday, Aug. 03, 2004 Missouri voters gave resounding approval to an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage, putting the nation on notice that similar proposed bans in other states could be difficult to defeat. The Missouri Constitution will now state that "to be valid and recognized in this state a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman." They're words that gay marriage opponents like Vicky Hartzler have wanted for years -- but particularly after judges in Massachusetts ruled to legalize same-sex unions. "I think that Missouri values have spoken," said Hartzler, a spokeswoman for the Coalition to Protect Marriage in Missouri. "This is a message of the heart, and here in the Heartland, we value marriage." Early returns showed the ban winning by a ratio of more than 2-to-1. Missouri's vote on the amendment has attracted nationwide interest from people on both sides of the issue. The state is the first to vote on the matter this election season, with seven set to follow suit by November. State constitutions have become the battleground of the gay marriage debate, after an anti-gay marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution failed in the Senate last month. Hartzler said Missouri -- which has a reputation as a bellwether state -- had sent a message with its vote. The wide margin may be especially noteworthy given that the Democrats outnumbered the Republicans at the polls Tuesday, as a result of the hotly contested Democratic gubernatorial primary. Opponents of the gay marriage ban said they were discouraged by the results but proud of their campaign. "We stepped up to the challenge and organized ourselves," said Doug Gray, who headed an anti-amendment campaign for the Constitution Defense League. "We moved this debate forward." Opponents of the amendment had hoped that a blitz of television ads in the days before the primary would change public opinion. The campaign was fueled by nearly $400,000 in donations, most of it gathered through house parties in St. Louis and Kansas City. Supporters of the gay marriage ban raised little for their cause -- less than $10,000 -- relying instead on dozens of church congregations to carry the message via newsletters and announcements from the pulpit. But values appeared to beat dollars at the ballot box. The success of the gay marriage ban may have been tied to the failed amendment to approve a casino in Rockaway Beach. There, too, voters rejected a well-funded advertising campaign. At the polls, many voters like St. Louis firefighter Steve Pappageorge said they turned out specifically to make a statement against both gay marriage and gambling. "I guess I'm a little old-fashioned on that kind of thing," said Pappageorge, who voted for the gay marriage ban. Amendment opponents like Gray said he believed Missourians would have defeated the ban if the advertising campaign had more time. The television spots emphasized that Missouri already had a law banning same-sex marriage. Some voters said they looked at the ballot and didn't see a need for the marriage ban. "They have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us married people," said Brian Diehl, of Robertsville, who has been married 43 years and has five children. "My wife's going to be unhappy with me saying that." Four other states -- Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska and Nevada -- have passed constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. Now that voters have added such a ban to Missouri's Constitution, leaders from national gay rights organizations say they have their work cut out for them fighting similar ballot initiatives this fall. "I think we'll definitely have an uphill battle," said Seth Kilbourn, national field coordinator for Human Rights Watch, which spent $60,000 attempting to defeat the Missouri amendment. "But I do think we'll have more time in other states to educate voters and talk about what the amendments are really about." Florence Shinkle and Michelle Munz contributed to this report. — END —

By Terry Mattingly | Editor's Note: The first of two columns. No Tony Campolo sermon would be complete without his pulpit-shaking gestures of inspiration and exasperation, punctuating litanies of not-so-subtle digs at U.S. foreign policy, Hollywood, Wall Street and the Religious Right. As he ended one recent oration, the sociologist, urban activist and evangelical gadfly fell to his knees, hands raised to heaven. "I believe Americans must heed this call and turn away from our wicked ways," said Campolo, who made headlines counseling President Bill Clinton. "We need to turn away from sexual promiscuity, turn away from the consumeristic materialism, turn away from our failure to pay attention to what we have done collectively to poor and weak peoples around the world... "Then, let our prayer be that God will hear from heaven, forgive our sins and heal our land." Many of the faithful said "amen," lifted their hands or made the sign of the cross. Then Campolo froze for a moment, as an hourglass icon hovered in the Romanesque arches of the Church of Fools, the world's first 3D, interactive, virtual church. This kind of thing happens when traffic jams the Internet. The computer-generated "avatar" looked like Campolo and he was delivering a Campolo sermon entitled "Why Many People in the World Hate America." But Campolo was not controlling his own computer image, since the site's webmasters were not sure he could master the technology needed to preach online -- line by line, gesture by gesture. Actually, Campolo was at a clergy conference in St. Simons Island, Ga. But he stayed on the telephone with his Philadelphia office staff, which communicated with the Church of Fools in Liverpool, England, through an online instant-messaging program, while one of site's creators controlled the "pixilated preacher." The question-and-answer session was especially tricky. "I wanted Tony to be animated, because that's the way he is -- live," said Stephen Goddard. "I have known him for years and I know his gestures and style. I was sure I could get our Tony to preach like the real Tony." The experimental site -- www.ChurchofFools.com -- opened its doors on May 11, with help from the Methodist Church of Great Britain and others. The pilot project ends this weekend (Aug. 8) and the future is uncertain. Goddard said he is confident they can keep the doors open -- but not as often. The Church of England is also poised to open a digital church of some kind. So far, volunteers have donated the time and expertise needed to create and run Church of Fools, with most of its $30,000 budget being used to purchase the bandwidth needed for interactive services. Goddard said the goal is to raise $300,000 to cover the next three years and to expand -- hopefully including churches in America, China and elsewhere. It is hard to picture what happens in a "virtual church" without images on a screen. At any one time, 35 worshippers can sign in and create characters that stand, sit or kneel. They can whisper or talk to nearby worshippers, slip into the church crypt for discussions or linger at icons in prayer. Another 1,500 can take part as silent ghosts. Campolo packed the pews. Participants sang along as the organ played through their speakers, typing phrases from the hymns that seemed meaningful. During the July 28th service, one warden led the global flock in prayer, giving thanks for computers, satellites, bloggers, online friendships and their virtual church. "Help us to use our networks to do good things," she said, "to act justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with you, our God, and to be good neighbors online and off." One thing visitors cannot do is jump the virtual altar rail. Early on, an avatar called "Satan" stormed the pulpit and cursed the Anglican bishop of London. That wasn't cricket. Wardens now have the power to smite the rowdy. "It only took a day or two to discover that there are lots of people who could not resist the chance to scream 'wanker!' in a church sanctuary," said Goddard. "Actually, all that cursing was a good sign. It told us that we didn't have the usual holy club in the pews. This wasn't going to be just another safe Christian crowd." NEXT WEEK: Is an online church a "real" church? 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. — END —

Dean Credited for Growth of City's Largest Episcopal Church | By Greg Garrison, News Staff Writer | Sunday, August 01, 2004 The Rev. Paul Zahl will say goodbye to his flock today at Cathedral Church of the Advent after a decade of growth inspired by his sometimes controversial theological flair. "I say things sharply and carry it to the limit to engage a listener," said Zahl, who leaves Monday for Ambridge, Pa., to become the dean and president of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry. "I hope I gave most people room to disagree." Since he took over as dean of the Advent in 1995, Zahl has helped expand membership from about 2,400 to 3,424 at Birmingham's largest Episcopal church. Sunday attendance grew from less than 900 to 1,249. And the annual budget doubled, to more than $3.4 million. "I think it's been Paul's preaching," said the Rev. John Harper, the vice-dean who takes over as interim dean Monday. "It's his message and his style." Zahl will preach at the 7:30, 9 and 11 a.m. services today and teach his dean's class for the last time at 10 a.m., with a reception after the 11 a.m. service. When Zahl takes the pulpit, the sermons tend to overflow with cultural as well as biblical references. He quotes rock music lyrics and makes literary or cinematic allusions to novels, little-known scholarly treatises, obscure foreign films and 1950s American science fiction movies. "I don't think he's ever forgotten anything he's read or seen," said Harper, who noted that Zahl draws a youthful crowd. Eighty percent of the downtown congregation is age 55 or younger, more than half is under 40. "I didn't come in worrying about membership or financial giving," Zahl said. "I trusted the message." Zahl, 53, came to Advent after earning his doctorate in theology from the University of Tubingen in Germany and kept a high profile in international theological circles. He especially played a prominent role last year as a voice of opposition when the Episcopal Church approved its first openly gay bishop. "There's no question I came on very strong," Zahl said. "The stakes were so high and continue to be so high. It was of rather decisive significance." Black Flag Up 'Too Long' That prompted a dramatic symbolic move. Zahl hung a black flag outside the cathedral for two days after the vote to approve New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson. "I got severe criticism," Zahl said. "I got a tremendous amount of support. It was an important symbolic gesture to make it plain that something very important was at stake." He said if he had it to do over, he would still hang the flag. "I would take it down immediately after it was noticed. I think it stayed up too long. Five hours would have been long enough." Zahl said he's convinced all the hard feelings were smoothed over. "There was a little bit of a rocky time after the Episcopal Church General Convention when a lot of people seemed to understand what I was saying as an attack," Zahl said. "I was trying to underline an understanding of a crucial point. That was the only time I felt I was misunderstood." He leaves on a high note, he said. "I feel I'm leaving the Advent on a wave of goodwill," he said. "We have never been happier in all our 30 years in ministry. We've never felt better received or better understood." Zahl noted that when he was rector of St. Mary's Episcopal Church in Scarborough, N.Y., from 1982 to 1988, he was among the earliest clergy dealing with the AIDS epidemic. "Part of the irony was that I conducted the funerals for the first two gay priests who died of AIDS in New York and have always been warmly connected to the gay community," he said. "I have a hard time convincing people that it's theology, not politics." Zahl said he wanted to stay at Advent for several more years, but felt called by God to take the seminary post. "I had decided not to do it and had withdrawn from the search," Zahl said. Then the seminary's search committee voted unanimously to offer him the job anyway. "At that point we saw it as the call of God," Zahl said. A Rally Point for Dissent Trinity has a reputation for producing priests who are willing to take on tough assignments, revitalizing dying parishes, he said. It also stands for traditional, orthodox Christianity and opposition to the denomination's growing acceptance of same-sex unions. "Trinity has a reputation as a rallying point for dissenters," Zahl said. That's not likely to change with Zahl in charge. "The stakes are so high that we've never seen anything like it," Zahl said. "I've taken an unflinching stand on it." The problem has been that bishops won't send their priest candidates to Trinity, preferring such schools as University of the South in Sewanee, Tenn., or Virginia Theological Seminary. Zahl wants to build trust with bishops. "Most bishops will accept our graduates as clergy," Zahl said. "Our problem has been that bishops won't send candidates to us to be trained. I hope many bishops will look at us in a new way." Zahl hopes he's remembered at Advent for more than just his theological stances. The important legacy is touching and changing people, he said. The ministry of small groups, with 70 such groups meeting, has been an important force in shaping the congregation's focus and work. "The fruit of transformed lives is the lasting testimony," Zahl said. — END —

News Analysis | By David W. Virtue Two American Episcopal bishops and a seminary Dean are in Africa trying to understand why African Anglican Provinces and their bishops will have nothing to do with ECUSA's theological and moral innovations. The three are John Lipscomb, Diocesan Bishop of Southwest Florida, Ted Daniels, Assistant Bishop of the Diocese of Texas and Titus Pressler, Dean of the Episcopal Seminary of the Southwest. Dr. Pressler wrote a letter from Nairobi, Kenya, which Virtuosity has obtained, explaining their 12-day mission. "The purpose of the trip is to have conversations with African bishops in the context of the current tensions in the Anglican Communion. We hope to build relationships that can strengthen our communion in Christ, even as we aware of differences." Pressler says that formal statements publicized by many parties are not as good as "face-to-face conversation." The trip is being pushed by Frank Griswold ECUSA's Presiding Bishop who is now persona non grata in most of Africa. "We view the trip as a pilot project in having conversation and building relationships. The keynotes are listening and vulnerability." Pressler positions it theologically on the "incarnation of God." Pressler writes: "We are seeking to communicate that there is a diversity of views within the Episcopal Church and that dialogue is ongoing. We are inviting conversation...we are sharing our confidence that most Episcopalians are committed to unity of our church amid current disagreements." Pressler argued for what he called "companionship in mission." Titus Pressler is either ignorant, a fool, or he thinks he can pull the wool over the eyes of bishops and Primates of the Global South. "Pressler's assumption that the good ship ECUSA can stay afloat because part of the hull is intact is simply wrong. Just because ECUSA shares some things with the Christian Faith, the places where it doesn't, leave gaping holes below the water line," said EKKLESIA leader Canon Bill Atwood who acts as a go between for orthodox bishops in the West with those in the Global South. "The trip is a pernicious strategy to use weak bishops that voted against Robinson but support Frank Griswold. Griswold is clearly behind this whole trip in an effort to find weak links in Africa," said Atwood. And Pressler's own seminary, The Episcopal Theological Seminary of the Southwest recently approved of homosexuals and lesbians who come to his seminary to cohabit in the dorms, something that is totally anathema to Global South Primates and bishops. They won't even send their seminarians there any more. Two ordained homosexuals standing up in a pulpit telling us about God's redeeming love, of freedom from sin and grace! The Africans will never buy it. Why then should the Africans listen to anything Pressler has to say? He goes to Africa as head of a morally flawed seminary and expects graceful conversation. In his dreams. All these "wise men" are doing is running interference for Frank Griswold, because he has been declared anathema on that continent! Pressler says he views the trip as being about "conversation". Now that's a buzzword for, we'll listen to you, if you listen to us about sodomy and then you agree that you are wrong and we are right. Fiat Lux. Then he talks about "listening" and "vulnerability". Let me explain what these words means in the cultural context of the ECUSA. The orthodox have been listening to Episcopal homosexualists whine for over 30 years about sodomy, and all it has done is polarize the Episcopal Church to the extent that we now have two churches inside one. The orthodox have been pushed to the margins on this subject for the last four general conventions till their brains have become numb and they are still being yelled at as uninclusivie, homophobic, narrow-minded fundamentalists, and dozens of orthodox parish priests are either being hounded out of their parishes or forced to leave because they won't get into lockstep with their revisionist Episcopal bosses (bishops). That's what "listening" and "vulnerability" has done. The orthodox have been so damn vulnerable that a bunch of them are now hiring lawyers to fight their revisionists bosses who demand total obedience, especially over money, so the bishops are using the Canons and Constitutions like a broken sewer pipe. Conform or else, is the word being spoken from East coast to West coast. And Pressler thinks he can schmooze the Africans into believing that his intentions are honorable!!! What foul calumny is this? Pressler: "We are seeking to communicate that there is a diversity of views within the Episcopal Church and that dialogue is ongoing. We are inviting conversation...we are sharing our confidence that most Episcopalians are committed to unity of our church amid current disagreements." Well, diversity has been forcibly entrenched and dialogue is a joke. If the revisionists don't get what they want immediately they invoke local option and do it anyway. Furthermore how is Pressler going to explain to African bishops the existence of the Anglican Communion NETWORK or the AAC, or Plano East, West, North and South or the cries of orthodox priests under siege in Connecticut or Eastern Michigan or Pennsylvania et al and the fact that the vast majority of ECUSA dioceses will never allow graduates from Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, a solidly Evangelical seminary to darken their diocesan doors. They could ask Dr. Pressler about some of Bishop Charles Bennison's attitudes towards Africans especially the part about likening their growth to the growth of the Nazi Party. Now there's a party stopper. Perhaps Pressler and Lipscomb and Daniel's can do a Mea Culpa and apologize for Pontius Bennison's remarks. After all Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades...it's the least the three "wise men" from the West could do. But don't count on it. Perhaps Dr. Pressler can give the Africans a lecture on theological diversity in The Episcopal Church seminaries and how they all work together. He could make up a story about all the love that Sewanee, EDS, GTS and VTS shower on Nashotah House. Then they can write and tell Virtuosity all about it. Pressler says Episcopalians want unity. Maybe. But not unity at any price. The majority of the orthodox are staying because they believe they can outlive the revisionist agenda and in time things could swing back. They may be right, or they could be wrong. The Bishop of South Carolina believes that but the Bishop of the Anglican Mission in America, in his backyard, does not. Pressler talks about "reconciliation in Christ" but reconciling what exactly. Does he really believe that a church that cannot affirm Resolution B001 on basic Christian doctrines can be reconciled with an African Church that does believe B001. Or that heterosexual behavior can be "reconciled" with homosexual behavior is a win win for the Kingdom? Pressler is blowing smoke if he does. Pressler talks about "healing our alienations" to "release energy and vision for shared mission". This is pure theobabble. The alienations are there precisely because the Episcopal Church no longer believes in the authority of Holy Scripture, denigrates the very orthodox folk who have a clear fix on the content of the gospel, and is pushing pluriformity which has no gospel absolutes at all! We have a church that no longer calls sin by its name, talks endlessly about the need for anti-racism training, while Spong, Bennison and Griswold have all made denigrating comments about the backwardness of African Christians! And Pressler, Lipscomb and Daniels expect to be taken seriously? A choice two lines in Pressler's letter reads thus: "We are inviting conversation (that word again) about the dynamics of the rooting of Christ's gospel in local cultures, an important aspect of events in our church." Oh God, here we go again. The gospel message is the same whether it is spoken in English, Swahili or Booga Booga. It is the same message whether you are wearing a toga or a $1,200 Boss suit and Givenchi tie bought in Times Square, whether you wear a Timex or a Rolex on your wrist. Culture is irrelevant to the core message of the gospel. Does Pressler honestly think that American culture (which many of us see is in massive denial and decline) requires a different understanding of the gospel because Phoebe Griswold shops at Gucci and Pucci and Frank's Soutane comes from Almy's and Otis and Guido and Louie and Ernest are making whoopee with each other! Jesus and Paul never had laptops, I do, and no one (who knows me) would ever (in their right mind) confuse me with the other two gentlemen. I am still trying to figure out Romans 9-11. The three not so wise men should have stayed at home. They could have spent the plane fare on supporting an AIDS clinic in South Africa, it would have done more good. They will get nothing but smiles, nods and hospitality from the Africans, because the Africans are unfailingly hospitable and polite even to those who disagree with them, but that is all they will get. Come October and they will learn just how far off base they have been, and by next February they will be crying in their empty cupcakes. But no one can say they were never warned. — END —