Archives

By Richard Eden, Diary Editor THE DAILY MAIL 14 March 2026   For more than 30 years he devoted himself to preaching the gospel and praying for peace and goodwill on earth. But, in the aftermath of his resignation as Archbishop of Canterbury in difficult circumstances last year, Justin Welby was always likely to find life a little less serene – although he might not have expected that one of his first, and fiercest, battles would be at the £1,700-a-year Travellers Club.   That’s the same gentlemen’s club in St James’s, London, from which Welby resigned in 2014 – a year after he became Archbishop of Canterbury – when the Travellers voted conclusively against allowing women members.   Only days earlier, the Church of England had approved legislation which allowed women to become bishops. But last year Welby, 70, decided that, spared the burdens of office, he would allow chums to re-enter his name in the candidates’ book for prospective members. ‘He felt he could swallow his DEI [Diversity, Equity, Inclusion] objections to the Travellers remaining a male bastion, after all,’ reflects a St James’s boulevardier.   But if Welby, who officiated at Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s wedding in 2018, thought that after, as it were, straying like a lost sheep, he’d be rapturously welcomed back, he has been brutally disabused. Though he’s attracted plenty of signatures in support of his candidacy, he has also inspired a barrage of opposition – scrawled furiously under his name and also, I’m told, communicated by other means.   The club chairman, [former MI6 officer] Adrian Stones, has been swamped with letters of objection,’ I’m told. Causing still greater disquiet is the candour with which some of Welby’s critics are expressing themselves in the candidates’ book. ‘They’ve been writing “NO” all over it,’ a member tells me, adding that their fury stems from the publication of the Makin Review – into abuse perpetrated at Christian camps – which effectively ended Welby’s time as Archbishop.   That report concluded that it was ‘unlikely’ that Welby had been unaware of concerns being voiced about the abuser, John Smyth, while Smyth continued to run the camps. ‘Someone’s signed Welby’s page “Jimmy Savile”,’ a Travellers stalwart tells me, adding that the description of Welby as ‘company director’ has been crossed out. ‘“Clerk in Holy Orders” has been written in instead.’ END

By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org March 12, 2026 The Rt. Rev. Ashley Null, Anglican Bishop of North Africa and a leading Cranmer scholar, addressed more than 400 conferees at GAFCON (G26) in Abuja, arguing that assent to the Jerusalem Declaration is a return to the ancient truths Anglicans have always held. At the heart of that return, he contended, lies the foundational Reformation principle of the pervasive nature of human sinfulness—and with it, the hope of the gospel for personal transformation. Cranmer’s Diagnosis of the Human Condition A fundamental principle of Reformation Anglicanism is that human sinfulness is the greatest hindrance to human flourishing—and to God’s will being done on earth as it is in heaven. Thomas Cranmer’s General Confession, prayed at every daily office, gives this principle its most enduring liturgical expression: Almighty and most merciful Father, we have erred and strayed from thy ways, like lost sheep. We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts. We have offended against thy holy laws. We have left undone those things which we ought to have done, and we have done those things which we ought not to have done, and there is no health in us. Each phrase repays careful attention: • Almighty and most merciful Father— God is all-powerful, yet his redeeming love has the last word. Because he is so abundantly merciful, he works even our sinfulness toward his good purposes in his good time. • We have erred and strayed from thy ways, like lost sheep— As Isaiah 53:6 teaches, every one of us has gone our own way. • We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts— We have served the false gods of our own imagination, chasing what we wrongly believed would make us happy. • We have offended against thy holy laws— The result is that we have wronged God, one another, and ourselves. • We have left undone those things which we ought to have done, and done those things which we ought not to have done— Our lives are filled with activity, yet that activity only keeps us running in place—a hamster wheel of effort without effectiveness, wrong choices leading nowhere we wish to go. • And there is no health in us— Cut off from God and our true selves, the soul is sick unto death. Humanity does not need a teacher to show us how to make better choices; we need a Redeemer to deliver us from the numbing guilt and destructive power of our bondage to sin. The Comfortable Words: Scripture’s Answer to Human Need To this searching diagnosis of the human condition, Cranmer appended the Comfortable Words—four promises from Scripture that answer each element of our need: • Come unto me, all ye that travail and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you— Wearied by our endless, misdirected efforts, we are invited to rest. • So God loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son— In his great love, God takes the initiative to solve the problem we have created but cannot fix. • This is a true saying, and worthy of all men to be received, that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners— He came to reveal our sins and to be the way, the truth, and the life that restores us to God’s presence now and forever. • If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins— In the glorious exchange of the cross, the immortal One dies so that mortal humanity might live forever. “This, then, is the Gospel on which Anglicanism was founded. Because of our sinfulness, we cannot find our own way home to God. He must come to us. He must rescue us from ourselves,” said Null. The Reformers’ Return to Scripture “At this conference we have heard repeatedly that Christian unity is not rooted in shared human values, inherited institutions, or a common commitment to mission. Worthy as those things are, they are the fruit of Christian unity, not its source.” “Thomas Cranmer, Nicholas Ridley, Hugh Latimer, and their colleagues understood that the Gospel revealed in Scripture is the source of the church’s life now and of our eternal life together in the age to come. They looked afresh at the Bible and found much to cherish in the inherited tradition: the ancient creeds accurately summarized biblical truth, and Augustine’s sober view of human nature matched what Scripture taught.” Null explained that the reformers adopted Augustine’s hermeneutical principle that Scripture interprets Scripture, with clearer passages illuminating more obscure ones. Mindful of the sin principle, they were suspicious of novelty and always read the Bible in conversation with the generations who had gone before. Cranmer, Jewel, and Hooker consistently tested their sola Scriptura conclusions against patristic precedent. The reformers identified doctrines and practices contrary to Scripture when they saw the church drifting toward relying on human good intentions rather than divine revelation. “The medieval insistence that perfect, personal righteousness was required for salvation struck them as a supreme example of such error—and an utter pastoral disaster.” “Their response was thoroughgoing reform. The Articles of Religion enshrined biblical authority as Anglicanism’s doctrinal plumb line. The Book of Common Prayer restored the systematic, congregational reading of Scripture and wove its very words into the fabric of corporate prayer. The Book of Homilies proclaimed salvation and discipleship from its pages. The result was a church that was, at one and the same time, authentically catholic and biblically reformed.” The Anglican Communion Today Null observed that by the twenty-first century a growing number of Anglican churches had severed their values, structures, and mission from their Scriptural roots. Human good intentions had displaced divine Gospel revelation, and cultural capitulation began to masquerade as cultural accommodation. Predictably, the true knowledge of God eroded, and Anglican unity fractured as a result. The Jerusalem Declaration was written to address this pastoral and missional crisis. The logic is inexorable, he argued: “If Anglicans cannot agree about the human condition, they cannot agree about salvation. If they cannot agree about salvation, they cannot agree about pastoral care. If they cannot agree about pastoral care, they cannot agree about the church’s mission. And if they cannot agree about pastoral care and mission, genuine communion becomes impossible.” The Jerusalem Declaration therefore calls Anglicans back to their first love—to historic faith and morals, to founding formularies and ancient creeds, to the only enduring basis for Anglican identity. “We have come full circle. We began with the Reformation Anglican conviction that human sinfulness pervades all of life and that only God can rescue us from it. We end with the hope of Philippians 1:6—that he who began a good work in us will bring it to completion.” copyright 2026 John Ashley Null, used by permission for educational purposes only. END

ANiE Seeks Provincial Status with GAFCON QUOTES OF THE DAY "Here's how to determine God's will for your life: Go wherever your gifts will be exploited the most." — John Stott "Be very sure of this — people never reject the Bible because they cannot understand it. They understand it only too well. They understand that it condemns their own behavior, that it witnesses against their own sins, and summons them to judgment." — J. C. Ryle "The Church's one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord. The communion is a fellowship of churches who submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, whose life and teaching is revealed in the Scriptures. … True communion is confessional, rather than defined by a shared history or institutional structures." — GAFCON G26 Abuja Statement "Do you know the rules in Iran? Carrying the Gospel or changing your religion: execution, brother, execution. You cannot go to a bookshop and ask for a Gospel or Bible. It is like asking for drugs." — Ali Rezaei Majd, Christian convert in Iran "Almost 400 million Christians worldwide face persecution or violence, making them the most persecuted religious community in the world — one in seven Christians. Almost 5,000 were killed for their faith in 2025, an average of 13 per day." — Archbishop Ettore Balestrero, Vatican Permanent Observer to the United Nations Dear Brothers and Sisters, www.virtueonline.org March 13, 2026 RAYS OF LIGHT IN A DARKENING WORLD Despite all the bad news — and there is plenty of it — here is some worth holding onto: religious people consistently self-identify as happier than non-religious people. Ryan Burge, a foremost expert on religion and politics in the U.S., puts it plainly: happier people tend to be more religious. Those with no religious affiliation are measurably less happy than those who identify with a faith tradition. In a world increasingly darkened by war, rising prices, fear, contempt, and growing unbelief, there are still shafts of light that tell another story. Recently, I was forced to stop my car over serious de-icing issues on a road not known for its friendliness. Within minutes, standing in freezing rain and trying to address the problem, two cars stopped. Both drivers asked if I was okay. I said I was; they smiled and drove off. I have no doubt that had I said otherwise, they would have called 911 and stayed with me until help arrived. Last year, when faced with heart issues, I nearly collapsed at Walmart. Within seconds I was surrounded by people wanting to help — and spontaneously, a couple prayed over me. What do we make of the dichotomy between what we see on TV, TikTok, YouTube, and the news — mostly shootings, hard luck stories, despair, poverty, and war — and these quiet human moments? Were these people Trump supporters, Democrats, Republicans, libertarians, believers, or skeptics? Who knows. But in one brief, shining moment, they stopped what they were doing, noticed my plight, and came to help. Amazing grace, common grace — whatever it was, a human moment prevailed. Burge notes that for any given relationship between two variables, a majority of studies may confirm a positive link — but about 30% find no relationship or even a negative one. Still, the preponderance of evidence holds: those of us who believe are happier than agnostics, atheists, or the indifferent, no matter what life throws at us. "Consider it pure joy, my brothers, when you encounter trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Allow perseverance to finish its work, so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything." (James 1:2–4) GAFCON ABUJA: THE DAY AFTER Repercussions — both positive and negative — continue to roll out from the GAFCON (G26) gathering in Abuja, Nigeria. For many, it was definitive: a clear declaration of what Anglicans truly believe, have always believed, and why we remain Anglicans today. For others, it was a disappointment. "What, another committee?" some critics asked. "Why didn't they declare formal schism with Canterbury?" That is a fair question. What GAFCON did was establish a new council to lead its churches, formally accusing the Church of England of straying from biblical faithfulness. Rebranded as the Global Anglican Communion, the group appointed Rwandan Archbishop Laurent Mbanda as its chairman — replacing the Archbishop of Canterbury in that role. Formal schism did not happen, and new Archbishop of Canterbury Sarah Mullally rests somewhat more comfortably at Lambeth Palace knowing her institutional position is secure. But she is not out of the woods. She will not be welcome in most Global South provinces, which remain orthodox in faith and morals. She has bent to the winds of modernity on gay marriage and women priests, and has focused more on reparations and safeguarding than gospel proclamation. The primates of the Global South will not visit her at Lambeth Palace or at Canterbury Cathedral. Those days are done. Who Attended? Many have asked which primates attended this significant gathering. Here is the count: eight Anglican primates attended in person, and one participated via Zoom. Note: Due to the outbreak of the Iran war, several primates in the region were unable to travel because of immediate logistical difficulties caused by the conflict. Three GAFCON Province Primates recognized by Canterbury: Nigeria: Henry Ndukuba Uganda: Stephen Kaziimba Rwanda: Laurent Mbanda Three GAFCON Province Primates not recognized by Canterbury: ACNA: Julian Dobbs REACH-South Africa: Siegfried Ngubane Brazil: Miguel Uchôa Two primates not part of GAFCON: Indian Ocean: Gilbert Rakotondravelo South America: Brian Williams One GAFCON Primate via Zoom: Chile: Enrique Zugandi Six GAFCON Provinces represented by bishops (not their Primate): Alexandria, Myanmar, Kenya, South Sudan, Sudan, Congo Some of these primates also overlap with the GSFA. "THE JERUSALEM DECLARATION IS OUR CONFESSION" One of the highlights of the Abuja gathering was a lecture by North African Bishop the Rt. Rev. Ashley Null. Null, a Cranmer scholar, boldly declared that assent to the Jerusalem Declaration is a return to the ancient truths Anglicans have always held — and told more than 400 conferees why. At the heart of his argument lies the foundational Reformation principle of the pervasive nature of human sinfulness — and with it, the hope of the gospel for personal transformation. His full lecture is available here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/north-african-anglican-bishop-the-jerusalem-declaration-is-our-confession IASCUFO VS. THE GLOBAL ANGLICAN COMMUNION Anglican liberals, however, refuse to abandon their vision of unity. 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 — this despite 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 unwelcome. The central sleight of hand lies in IASCUFO's first proposal: replacing 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 have already "reset" the communion. They no longer share even common ground with IASCUFO, and an 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. You can read more here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/up-the-anglican-creek-without-a-paddle Church of England evangelical scholar M. Barratt Davie assesses two competing visions for the Communion's future here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/assessing-two-different-visions-for-the-future-of-the-anglican-communion And as TEC declines, a growing number of Anglicans are quietly migrating to other traditions — Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and beyond. The Rev. Dr. Ronald H. Moore writes about that trend here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/the-quiet-anglican-migration-why-serious-christianity-is-growing-even-as-denominations-decline TEC: DENIAL, DECLINE, AND SCANDAL "A Lie Straight from the Pit of Hell" 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 denomination's future. Bishop Rowe declared that the belief that the mainline Protestant denomination is dying amid considerable attendance decline is "a lie straight from the pit of Hell." Apparently, the Presiding Bishop is tired of hearing that his church is doomed and would like to change the narrative. But the numbers do not lie. The denomination has lost roughly half its baptized membership since the 1960s, declining to approximately 1.5 million adherents today. Congregations continue to shrink and demographics continue to age. Top-level trends confirm TEC's ongoing decline: the number of parishes and missions dropped from 6,754 in 2023 to 6,707 in 2024 — a 0.7 percent decline. Median in-person attendance stands at just 38, and the average Episcopalian is now in their 60s. No younger generation appears 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 stark. Despite making anti-racism training a priority, the Episcopal Church 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 wildly 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. 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. 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 well beyond his power to reverse. The Rev. Dwight Zscheile, an Episcopal priest and professor, has put it starkly: the overall picture is one not merely of decline but of demise within a generation, unless trends change significantly. Researcher Brandon Showalter estimates that the Episcopal Church will be functionally dead within 20 years — with no one in worship by around 2050. You can read more here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/episcopal-leaders-push-back-on-rumors-of-fatal-decline Scandal in Pittsburgh As TEC descends slowly into the abyss, it finds itself increasingly riddled with scandal. The latest: the Dean of Trinity Episcopal Cathedral in Pittsburgh has been accused of stealing baseball cards from Walmart. The Very Rev. Aidan Smith was arrested with 27 packs of baseball cards concealed under his clothing and in a cardboard box, according to court records. Smith, 42, was charged with receiving stolen property and retail theft. Walmart valued the stolen cards at $1,099.99. Smith had been on administrative leave since late January; the diocese offered no explanation. For more on TEC's ongoing scandals, visit Anglican Watch — the unofficial watchdog of the Episcopal Church: https://www.anglicanwatch.com/ As the culture goes, so go the churches not rooted in Scripture. If sodomy is no longer a sin, why should stealing be? It all filters down. UPCOMING: FUTURE OF GLOBAL ANGLICANISM SYMPOSIUM If you want to engage seriously with the future of global Anglicanism, consider attending a spring symposium at the Reformed Episcopal Seminary in Oreland, PA. Featured speakers include former Egyptian Archbishop Mouneer Anis, the Rev. Dr. Gerald McDermott, Dr. Alice Linsley, Ben Jefferies, and Dr. George Westhaver — among the brightest theological minds in the communion today. Your scribe will also be present. Date: April 24, 9 a.m. – 5 p.m. Cost: Free (lunch provided) Reserve your spot here: https://www.paperlesspost.com/go/2vKja7mHKdvBZ8fW2Gx5y ATHERSTONE ON MULLALLY Andrew Atherstone, biographer of England's archbishops — with two volumes on Justin Welby to his credit — has turned his pen to Sarah Mullally, the new Archbishop of Canterbury, producing a biography in remarkably short time. He sent a copy to evangelical theologian Dr. Ian Paul, whose review is here: https://www.psephizo.com/reviews/what-is-the-story-of-sarah-mullaly/ The biography arrives just in time for her enthronement in two weeks and clearly raises the issues that will define her tenure. Mullally has promised no grand schemes or big ideas — a sharp contrast to Justin Welby. Unlike her predecessor, she is committed to due process, working collaboratively, and building teams. But questions remain: How will this sit with her "inclusive" agenda and commitment to a "broad" church? Is "agreeing to disagree" enough to hold things together? And what happens when due process and her inclusive commitments pull in opposite directions? Which will win? Perhaps most fundamentally: how will the Church fare being led by someone who is a doer rather than a thinker — someone who understands the Church almost solely in terms of action rather than theology? We will soon find out. But one thing is already clear: the majority of Global South bishops and archbishops want nothing to do with her. That day is done. ANiE SEEKS PROVINCIAL STATUS WITH GAFCON The Bishops of the Anglican Network in Europe met recently at the AMC Cathedral Church of Restoration in Wythenshawe, Manchester, to discuss the future relationship between ANiE and GAFCON. ANiE and the Church of Uganda recommitted to a mission partnership, with the aim of recruiting and sending gospel workers from Uganda to the spiritually dark continent of Europe — including the British Isles. Uganda will begin selection, training, and fundraising immediately; ANiE will identify host congregations and suitable mission projects. "Our dream is Europe renewed by the gospel — as Spirit-filled Anglican communities, diverse but united, shine the light of Christ into places of darkness; where new churches are planted, new leaders nurtured, and new dioceses formed, as God displays his multi-variegated wisdom through the renewed Global Anglican Communion (Ephesians 3:10)," said ANiE Bishop Andy Lines. The bishops of ANiE have resolved to: Request that GAFCON/the GAC move toward recognizing ANiE as a province: the Anglican Church of Europe. Affirm that Presiding Bishop Andy Lines has the full support of all ANiE bishops and leaders. Request that at least one member of the GAFCON Global charity (GFCA) be drawn from ANiE. Continue planning to multiply missionary dioceses in Europe. Begin planning for a full ANiE Assembly before the major G28 GAFCON Conference in Athens. The reset, renewal, and reforming of the Anglican Communion is truly underway — and nothing will stop it. Liberals, progressives, and revisionists can only watch as the communion forges ahead without them. Their day is done. PEACE, PEACE — WHEN THERE IS NO PEACE Everybody is crying out for peace in the Middle East, even as bombs and rockets fly in all directions. The UN wants the United States and Israel to stop bombing Iran. The Pope wants peace. Pope Leo has repeatedly appealed for calm in the region since the February 28 American and Israeli strikes and Iran's ongoing retaliation. China's Defense Ministry has issued similar warnings, cautioning that prolonging or escalating the conflict "would produce no winners" and could push the Middle East into a "dangerous abyss." But George Weigel, a prominent American Catholic theologian and public intellectual, has pointed out that Pope Leo's condemnation of all "violence" repeats his predecessor's pacifism and ignores the Catholic Church's just war tradition — which holds that violent conflict is sometimes necessary to stop egregious evil. The Augustinian pope ought to know that his namesake taught precisely this in The City of God. My take on what a false peace looks like is here: https://davidvirtue2.substack.com/p/peace-peace-when-there-is-no-peace-3f9 SUPPORT VOL Please consider a tax-deductible donation to VOL to keep the news coming. This work is a labor of love, but we still have bills to pay. There are no salaries, but writing continues 6.5 days a week — and a webmaster, researcher, and overseas journalists must be supported. I take nothing. VOL has brought on new writers in 2026 with clear insights into Scripture and culture. We have no mega-donors and no grants — only faithful readers like you who believe in what we do. Tens of thousands of readers trust us to cover the most pressing issues facing Anglicanism today, yet only a small percentage contribute. We have proven ourselves over more than 35 years and remain committed to this mission. How to Give: Online: PayPal donation at https://www.virtueonline.org/donate By check (tax-deductible): VIRTUEONLINE, P.O. Box 111, Shohola, PA 18458 Thank you for your support. All blessings, David

Special Report   By David W. Virtue   Ponce, PR (8/5/2004)   An Anglo-Catholic priest and hospital chaplain in the Diocese of Puerto Rico of The Episcopal Church, has been fired by the bishop for holding to orthodox biblical views on the issue of homosexual practice.   The Rev Luis Morales, 55, a Forward in Faith priest in the Diocese, has been terminated by revisionist Bishop David A. Alvarez and relieved of his job as a chaplain to St Luke's II Episcopal Hospital in the city of Ponce, Puerto Rico. He has not been immediately inhibited or deposed but expects the bishop to proceed in that direction.   "I am not surprised at what this bishop has done. He is no lover of the gospel, and he hates people who are orthodox," he told Virtuosity. "I rejoice in my martyrdom." The priest said he was fired on July 23 and is now on vacation but will not return September 1.   Fr. Morales said the problems began after the Minneapolis General Convention and later with the Robinson consecration. "I met with Bishop Alvarez in private and told him I was going to distance myself from his positions on sexuality. I held a press conference with the knowledge of the bishop to state my position. We corresponded back and forth."   The priest was rector of Holy Trinity in Ponce, the island's first and oldest Episcopal Church. The parish church was built in 1869.   "I, along with the vestry resigned after one year because the bishop made a decision regarding the parochial school contrary to what the parish and vestry agreed upon with him. The bishop then offered me a position as hospital chaplain at St. Luke's Memorial Hospital 2."   Fr. Morales said that some 30 parishioners from Holy Trinity followed him and started attending the chapel at the hospital, but the bishop would not recognize them, so fearing they would have no spiritual oversight the priest decided to ask for spiritual help from the Anglican Mission in America.   "I have not personally joined the AMIA but when Bishop Alvarez found out that the group wanted to become part of the Anglican Mission, he sent two letters telling them they could not worship in the chapel. When I shared that information with the people they stopped going to the chapel and came together as a more structured group. I saw it as my pastoral responsibility to turn them over to a priest who would take care of them," he told Virtuosity.   Holy Trinity which once had about 100 members has since dropped to less than 35 active members, said Morales.   "The bishop is painting it all as personal and wants to portray himself as the victim and we are persecuting him, but it is not true."   Fr. Morales turned to his old friend the Rev. Dr. Dennis Paris and Dean Humberto Nieves. Dr. Paris had already been stripped of his priesthood and deposed by Bishop Alvarez for writing a book condemning the revisionist arguments supporting the ordination of practicing homosexuals.   The priest said that Dean Nieves had resigned to be part of the AMIA, but the bishop would not accept his resignation, but he decided to join and worship under the protection of the Anglican Mission anyway.   "I wrote to the bishop and told him that I had turned the 30 worshippers over to the AMIA and if you want to get rid of me you can get rid of me from the hospital."   "I had earlier asked the bishop for DEPO but he flatly refused and said these people could not apply because they were not an official congregation. He then said they could not use the Chapel anymore. I was devastated by the bishop's action. It was unnecessarily vindictive."   Fr. Morales said the group decided to leave and join the AMIA and made a formal request to Bishop Alexander M. Greene, who oversees their mission which is run by the Rev. Dr. Dennis Paris in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Dr Paris who was forcibly deposed is now with the Anglican Mission.   Bishop Greene then delegated the pastoral oversight of the group in Ponce to the Rev Paris, who is now pastoring the new Anglican Mission of St Peter & St Paul, with the Deacon Humberto Nieves.   "Bishop Alvarez has stated in meetings with his clergy that sexual intercourse between men and men and women with women must not be viewed as a sin. One of his more recent arguments for his revisionist positions is that no Ecumenical Council has ever censured homosexual practice."   Bishop Alvarez has also been very vocal through the media in Puerto Rico, promoting support for homosexual practices and has lobbied the local legislature to promote laws that will favor gay couples and civil unions, Paris told Virtuosity.   "To date he has deposed three priests, inhibited another, and will fire from work and pay any priest that does not bend to his 'hermeneutics'. In a nutshell his pastoral program can be described as promotion of the gay agenda and a heavy hand against the orthodox in his diocese," said Paris in a phone call to Virtuosity.   Bishop Alvarez was the only bishop in ECUSA's Province IX that voted in favor of the V. Gene Robinson consecration and confirmation.   Interviewed on the Morales firing, Dr. Paris, who is also a Psychologist and Professor at the University of Puerto Rico, told Virtuosity: "This is a clear picture of what is really going on in the ECUSA. On one side you have Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold and his assistants working hard to project an image of the Church that is struggling to promote reconciliation and understanding amongst its different groups; on the other hand, revisionists in ECUSA are discreetly suffocating any and all dissident points of view that tries to promote orthodox positions or any type of faith founded on Scripture."   Dr. Paris said there were many in the Anglican Communion, especially in Puerto Rico who are sincerely waiting on the Lambeth Commission to provide alternative communion structures to resolving their problem. "St. Paul addressed the issues when he talked about light and darkness not having fellowship with one other," said Paris.   The situation in The Episcopal Church cannot go on forever, there will be a day of reckoning, he said.   In October 2003, three priests including the Rev. Dr. Dennis Paris, the Rev. Dr. Manuel A. Rivera assistant priest of the Spanish speaking congregation at the cathedral church of St. John Baptist and the Rev. Pedro Balleste, a senior cleric in the diocese were all inhibited by the bishop. Dr. Paris and Rev. Balleste were deposed. Fr. Balleste is currently assisting Dr. Paris with the two AMIA missions.

By Stanley Kurtz NRO Contributing Editor   The Federal Marriage Amendment can win. Anyone who believes it can't simply hasn't thought through the complicated chess game that is the battle over gay marriage. I'm not saying the FMA is bound to pass. Marshaling the super majorities required to ratify a constitutional amendment is always an uphill battle.   But the FMA has a vastly greater chance of passage than most folks realize. We're only past stage one of the process. And the overwhelming victory in Missouri this week of a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman has ushered in stage two.   A federal constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress, and must be ratified by three quarters of the states. Impossible? Well, the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) received well over two thirds of the vote in both houses, and three quarters of the states now have DOMAs of their own. (The number of state DOMAs recently expanded from 37 to 38.)   Some say the country is more liberal on gay marriage than it was in 1996. And the public is always reluctant to amend the federal constitution. Yet Americans oppose gay marriage by large margins, and that opposition is easily enlarged by events. Above all, much of the sentiment against an amendment rests on the conviction that federal and state DOMAs will hold. Once the DOMAs come under attack, everything is going to change.   The gay-marriage contest is not like other political battles. It has its own rather peculiar political dynamic. Gay marriage is an issue most people prefer to avoid. The public may oppose gay marriage, but what it really wants is to avoid having to talk about it. This creates a false impression of apathy. Yet when court-imposed gay marriage looks inevitable, the public's stance flips. Once people decide that gay marriage is about to be forced on them against their will, they are galvanized into action.   It's happened again and again. Back in 1998, Hawaiians amended their state constitution to prevent their supreme court from imposing gay marriage. In 2000, Vermont's formerly quiescent conservatives were pushed into full rebellion by civil unions. The Republicans managed to take back the lower house of the Vermont state legislature for the first time in 14 years — this in a state won in a walk by Gore (with a huge vote for Nader to boot).   For those with eyes to see, it was clear in the last session of the Massachusetts state legislature that the state's Supreme Judicial Court was about to legalize gay marriage. Yet given public reluctance to deal with the issue, the Democratic leadership managed to squelch an effort to call a constitutional convention.   After Goodridge, though, Massachusetts was turned upside down for months at a time, as session after deadlocked session of a constitutional convention bitterly debated gay marriage. There were angry public demonstrations, and the media was filled with the issue for weeks on end. Finally, a constitutional convention passed an amendment that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman — and provided for civil unions.   Delaying the Inevitable   If all this can happen in one of the most liberal states in the union, we can expect an even greater battle once it becomes clear that gay marriage is headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. The public is reluctant to act on this issue until they absolutely have to, precisely because people fear the polarizing debate that inevitably follows. Yet time and again, when pushed to the wall by the courts, the public has been galvanized into action.   Sometime between now and the moment the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to take a gay-marriage case, the American public is going experience its own galvanic moment. At that point, all illusions that federal or state DOMAs can hold will be swept aside, and the battle over the Federal Marriage Amendment will be well and truly joined. I can't tell you whether the FMA will pass at that moment, but I can tell you that it's going to get a whole lot more votes than it received in the Senate a few weeks ago.   Right now, the national battle over gay marriage is at the stage the state battle was in when the leaders of the Massachusetts legislature squelched concerted calls for a constitutional convention. While plenty of people are girding for the inevitable showdown, many others are doing what they can to delay and deny.   Yet the truth is, a major national showdown is inevitable. And when that moment comes, the FMA is going to get a whole lot closer to passage than anyone now realizes. A two-thirds vote in Congress is by no means out of the question.   Looking at the recent Senate FMA debate, you can see the signs. It was next to impossible to find a Democrat willing to defend gay marriage. Instead, the Democrats claimed that DOMA would hold, and dismissed the drive for an amendment as a distraction. Most Republicans, on the other hand, argued vigorously in favor of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.   There were plenty of references to the critical importance of marriage for children, and to Europe's experience of gay marriage. There was a time when gay-marriage advocates claimed that Republicans were afraid of this issue, and bereft of substantive arguments. Yet in the Senate, it was the Democrats who awkwardly ran from substantive debate. When the progress of this issue though the courts makes it clear that an up or down vote on substance is required, what are the Democrats going to do?   A couple of weeks ago, the House passed a bill that would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over gay marriage. That vote was a shot across the bow of every court in the country. The House put the judiciary on notice that their usurpation of the legislative role puts their powers at risk. Still, the vote on court stripping was prelude to a later showdown over the Federal Marriage Amendment. Even stripping the federal courts of their authority to rule on the constitutionality of DOMA would not prevent them from imposing gay marriage on equal protection or due-process grounds. Only a constitutional amendment can do that. But the House vote was clearly a warning to the courts that a major battle looms.   There is simply no issue on which media bias is greater than gay marriage. The New York Times buried news of the House's court-stripping vote on page 19. Yet after the Senate vote, the press played up the Republicans' failure to get close to a two-thirds vote, and touted the supposed split within Republican ranks. And of course, gay-marriage advocates did their best to portray the FMA campaign as nothing but an attempt to cater to religious conservatives.   Democratic Indecision   On just about every point, the truth is the reverse of the media's line. It's not just that the recent FMA vote was merely a prelude to what will surely be a more serious and closely fought showdown in the future. The truth is, it's the Democrats who are divided on gay marriage. Republicans oppose gay marriage by large margins. Democrats are almost evenly split.   That's why some Senate Democrats support the amendment. And that's why virtually no Senate Democrats dare argue in favor of gay marriage. The truth is, there simply aren't enough religious conservatives in the country to account for substantial majority of the public that opposes gay marriage. It wasn't conservative Southern Baptists who prevented Senate Democrats from making an open defense of gay marriage. It was the many independents and moderate Democrats who think gay marriage is a bad idea.   If you want to get a truer picture of what's happening in the gay-marriage battle, look at Oregon. Oregon is a battleground state that could easily be tipped into the president's column by the issue of gay marriage.   Activist judges have been issuing marriage licenses in an Oregon county. And elected officials in Oregon have taken some truly outrageous actions to circumvent democratic procedures and impose gay marriage on the public. Outrage over all this has kicked off intense public debate. Petitions to place an amendment to the state constitution on the November ballot received more signatures than any other ballot measure in Oregon's history.   Oregon senator Gordon Smith's speech on the Senate floor did not fit the stereotype purveyed by gay-marriage advocates of those who support FMA. Smith spoke eloquently for the many Americans who happily approve of greater social tolerance for gays, yet who also believe that gay marriage would weaken the institution of marriage.   But the big news this week was the runaway victory of a state marriage amendment in Missouri. The measure passed with 71 percent of the vote.   That is a strikingly high number — substantially higher than pre-vote polling. A pre-election poll by the Kansas City Star had found that 62 percent would favor the amendment, with 20 percent opposed and 8 percent undecided.   A St. Louis Post-Dispatch poll conducted a week before the vote had 56 percent of voters in support of the amendment, with 38 percent opposed and 6 percent undecided. While the final 71-percent margin might have indicated a last-minute surge, it's more likely that some voters were reluctant to tell pollsters that they favored the amendment. On this issue, polls often underplay voter support for one-man, one-woman marriage. This suggests that current polling substantially underestimates public support for a Federal Marriage Amendment as well.   Ah, but perhaps recognizing the depth of public sentiment on this issue, gay-marriage advocates and liberal judges alike will hold off on further attempts to transform the meaning of marriage. Don't bet on it. Just yesterday, a judge in Washington state ruled to legalize gay marriage. (The decision has been stayed pending final resolution by the Washington state Supreme Court.)   Since Washington is one of the 38 states with their own DOMA laws, explicitly defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, it's evident that neither fear of, nor respect for, democratically expressed public opinion have called this process to a halt. In his decision (which never truly confronted the key arguments against same-sex marriage), Judge William Downing explicitly stated that he could not allow the political ramifications of the issue to stop him from rendering a decision.   This, again, reflects the unique legal-political dynamic of the gay-marriage question. Although the analogy is seriously flawed, gay-marriage advocates see this issue as one of fundamental civil rights.   They cannot and will not hold back from moving gay marriage through the courts. Once faced with the issue, liberal judges recoil in horror from the prospect of going down in history as an opponent of civil rights. So despite the political risks of pressing forward, the process moves on of its own ineluctable weight. This is truly a case where an irresistible force is hurtling swiftly toward an immovable object. And when the clash comes, the political calculations in this dispute are going to change.   The media have continually stressed the supposed apathy of the American people on this issue. Yet the arousing of the public in Missouri, Oregon — and a series of other states — belies those claims. As soon as people believe that elites are about to impose gay marriage on them, they spring into action, however reluctantly. The electoral fate of senators who voted not to consider the FMA will give an early indication of how this campaign is going.   But the recent votes in the House and Senate are just the beginning of the dawning realization that, in the end, this is a national issue that requires a national solution. Sooner or later, the inevitable raft of lawsuits, the chaos of marriages that fall apart on the Interstate, and the untiring efforts of gay-marriage advocates and liberal judges to circumvent the democratic process, will force the issue nationally. When the final showdown comes — and it will come — victory for the FMA is a very real possibility.

Ethics & Religion   By Michael J. McManus   Forty-six evangelical Christian leaders have signed a letter to President Bush urging him to send "massive humanitarian aid" to the Darfur region of the Sudan where Congress charges a genocide is going on, and to consider "sending troops...to stop the killing."   This is a distinct shift of emphasis for the National Association of Evangelicals, who represent 30 million Americans most likely to support the President.   In the past, the NAE successfully pushed the Administration into ground-breaking human rights initiatives such as $15 billion of AIDS relief, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and to halt violence between Muslims and Christians in southern Sudan.   However, the victims in Darfur are Muslim. "We view this as an opportunity to reach out to Muslims in the name of Jesus," said the Rev. Ted Haggard, NAE president.   Secretary of State Colin Powell visited Sudan recently to urge the Khartoum regime to halt its arming of a civilian militia called Janjaweed who have destroyed Darfur villages, raped tens of thousands of women and slaughtered 30,000 men, women and children. The terrorism has so frightened residents that 1.2 million have fled their homes to isolated tent refugee camps on the Sudan-Chad border.   The U.S. Agency for International Development characterizes the crisis in Darfur as the "worst humanitarian crisis in the world today" that could lead to the deaths of 300,000 Sudanese refugees due to starvation, disease or ethnic cleansing violence. So far, few aid agencies have been able to penetrate the region due to continuing violence.   The few groups who are there — CARE, World Vision, AID — have sent back alarming reports of impending starvation and mass death.   Evangelicals wrote to the President, "We agree with the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum which has named the Darfur crisis a 'full-fledged genocide emergency,' the first such warning in the museum's history.   "Your Administration's goal — to redefine our national interest not as power but as values and to identify one supreme value, what John Kennedy called 'the success of liberty' could be jeopardized by not taking a strong enough position on Sudan's genocidal behavior. The World Health Organization estimates that ten thousand people are dying each month and that a catastrophe equivalent to what occurred in Rwanda a decade ago could unfold within weeks."   What has been the Administration's response? It has increased its relief assistance to $146 million, but has failed to enlist other nations to help. The entire European Union has pledged a niggardly $13 million. Last week prodded by America, the UN Security Council sent Sudan a warning that it might face sanctions if it did not stop the Janjaweed militia within 30 days.   Golly. Khartoum sneered at that failure to take serious action by mobilizing 100,000 Muslim demonstrators on Sunday against the "Crusaders" threatening their holy land.   That action galvanized the evangelicals to demand that the U.S. government take a more decisive role to prevent further "slaughter and death."   NAE urged "massive humanitarian aid," of at least $100 million more, if the Europeans won't pony up. More important, NAE urged "active exploration of all available interventions options — including sending troops to Darfur as has been proposed by the United Kingdom and Australia." It noted one option short of military intervention "would be dramatic expansion of the efforts of the African Union Protection Force by providing its soldiers and monitors with much-needed equipment and resources, toward the goal of securing humanitarian relief corridors." Today those troops lack walkie talkies, let alone significant troops or arms.   The heads of such denominations as the Assemblies of God, the Christian Reformed Church, Free Methodists and the Evangelical Free Church joined seminary and college presidents and the editor of Christianity Today in demanding that Sudan be kicked off the UN Human Rights Commission, that Sudan grant visas to aid workers, and that it arrest and prosecute Sheif Musa Hilel, a former bank robber and killer who leads the Janjaweed militia.   NAE concluded, "If...the United States government cannot end all evil in a large and complex world, it can nonetheless immediately adopt policies that limit today's persecutions and ensure greater fulfillment of inalienable and internationally recognized rights to freedom of belief and conscience....We vow never to commit the sin of silence whenever we learn of persecution."   America could earn new respect among the world's Muslims by standing up to a bully who is slaughtering them.

By Alan Hamilton The Times August 4, 2004 AN EVANGELIST who considers homosexuality an "abomination" has been arrested after police and passers-by in Salisbury, Wiltshire, objected to the tone and the volume of his preaching. John Holme, 44, a computer software salesman, was released without charge on police bail pending further inquiries, after his car and trailer were seized as he bellowed his divine message through the streets of the cathedral city at the weekend. Mr Holme, who is married with two children, was asked to tone down the volume of his sermon as he drove through busy streets in his car and trailer berating homosexuality as a wicked perversion. He declined, pleading his human rights, but was arrested when a police officer noticed that his trailer bore the slogan: "God says; if you reject Him you may become homosexual." Wiltshire police confirmed yesterday they had stopped a man after complaints from the public about his method of preaching, and about a sign on his trailer which many found offensive. He had declined to withdraw the sign and was arrested under the Public Order Act. He continued preaching in his cell at Salisbury police station. Yesterday Mr Holme, free but fuming at his arrest, continued to preach his message. "The Bible teaches that any form of sex outside of the marriage bed between a male man and his female wife is an abomination to God." He said he wished people "delivered from the bondage of sexual perversion", but emphasised that he did not intend any violence or evil towards homosexuals. Last month Mr Holme incurred the wrath of shopkeepers and customers in a Salisbury shopping centre who presented him with a formal request to curb the excessive noise of his oratory, which they claimed could be heard half a mile away. Six years ago Salisbury magistrates fined Mr Holme £1,050, plus £250 costs, for attempting to preach to a local housing estate from a motorised hang-glider equipped with a megaphone. The case was brought by the Civil Aviation Authority, who claimed he had been flying too close to a populated area, even though his ill-starred flight was at times barely 6ft off the ground. After his 1998 flight, which narrowly missed bird tables, trees and an electrified fence, Mr Holme said: "I thought that maybe if they heard this voice booming out from the sky, they would think it was God. I wanted to get through to kids on council estates, and I needed some cred." Mr Holme, who is an elder at his parish church in Coombe Bissett, Wiltshire, said yesterday: "The purpose of my preaching is to see people come to believe in God and put their trust in Jesus Christ for salvation. We are not born homosexual; that is logically impossible."

A pastoral and theological perspective on the dilemma in ECUSA from the point of view of a parish priest. A submission to the Lambeth/Eames Commission By the Rev. Ian Montgomery August 3, 2004 I write as a parish priest, ordained in 1975 in England. I was a curate in London from 1975 - 1978 and moved to the USA in 1978. (I have been rector of three congregations in different parts of the USA and a college chaplain.) I wish to focus on what has happened and what may happen to the congregation that I currently serve. Following the passing of the General Convention 2003 votes related to human sexuality it was as if a knife had been stabbed in the heart of our congregation. A choice between "yes" and "no" was forced upon us. No longer could pastoral discretion make some sense of our sexual confusions. No longer could we as a more evangelical/catholic congregation ignore the theological innovations and actions of our national leadership. The issues in relation to our own bishop were not in doubt as he has consistently and bravely resisted these innovations. His passion is mission and ministry, to lead people to a transforming relationship with Jesus Christ. I issued a pastoral letter to the congregation stating my grief and opposition to the actions of the convention. This had the effect of stemming some significant departures from our congregation and ECUSA. I begged the congregation to await the October meeting of the primates. Following the meeting of the primates I distributed copies of their statement and gave a personal address, followed by a forum after services. The congregation was divided into four components. First, there were a few who were adamantly in favor of the actions of the convention. Several others favored ignoring the whole matter as not that important. Several more were opposed on grounds of traditional morality. But the majority was opposed because of the violation of Scriptural teaching reinforced by the resolution of Lambeth 1998. It was noted how the majority of the Anglican Communion had begged ECUSA to pull back from its resolutions and intentions. The Primates warned of dire consequences should ECUSA continue with the consecration on November 2. Our Diocese (Fond du Lac), by a narrow vote decided to reject the General Convention decisions concerning sexuality while seeking to affirm unity and mission. The consecration service on November 2 took place the next day. The effect on our congregation was the loss of some parishioners to either more liberal or more non-involved ECUSA congregations. One family left for a more conservative and Biblical denomination. We gained several families from another more liberal congregation. By springtime this year our average Sunday attendance had grown from 245 to 285. Our budget had increased by over 8%. However about 60% of our income is restricted by its givers from the "National Church." In many ways we are thriving. Our relationship with the Presiding Bishop and those who either voted for the consecration, or participated in it, is functionally and irretrievably lost. We are betrayed in our trust in these bishops. The Presiding Bishop has proven himself duplicitous in signing the Primates statement and then being the chief consecrator on November 2. The presiding Bishop has been the chief advocate of these innovations and offenses. Under the surface and in our ecumenical relations things are still difficult and we are in a temporary "holding pattern." Several churches have come to our aid in prayer support. We are partnered in a feeding ministry with a large Bible Church that considered severing its links with us because of the convention votes. Once our and my stance was made clear they have become even more supportive. On a local level the name "Episcopal" has become an embarrassment and a point of disgusted comment from outsiders. Though our signs include the word "Episcopal," this designation has been quietly dropped in conversation. Within our congregation there are at least 52 families patiently awaiting the decisions of the Lambeth Commission in October and the Primates in February. They are determined to leave ECUSA but would prefer to be Anglican. In fact they and I have already left, in our minds. Communion is effectively broken within the USA, not simply impaired. What are we hoping for? We hope for a complete restructuring of the Anglican Communion in the USA. ECUSA must be declared no longer Anglican (with the hope of repentance and restoration). We seek recognition and support as we seek to continue to be loyal to Christ, the Scriptures, the Creeds and the Anglican formularies as they are adhered to by most of the rest of the Anglican Communion. Ideally our congregation would affiliate with some continuing Anglican community such as the Anglican Communion Network. It would then remain largely intact, stay in its buildings and continue its ministry in the local and larger community. We would hope to continue to be in communion with our bishop whom we support and love. In the absence of such a solution the 52 families above mentioned are likely to leave. They are likely either simply to disperse to other denominations and churches or to leave and form a new church entity. That new church would seek to be in communion with some part of what may be left of the Anglican Communion. I say the latter because it is clear to me that a numerical majority of the Anglican Communion has clearly indicated that they would not tolerate continued communion with ECUSA's leadership. ECUSA's disdain of the rest of the Communion is legendary. The likelihood of the breakup of the Anglican Communion is clear if no action is taken to discipline ECUSA. Certainly this congregation's future would be in doubt. Why not reconciliation? For the last twenty years in which I have been involved in dialog on either a local or national level there has been one goal. That goal has been the conversion from a biblical, orthodox and traditional view into a more liberal and revisionist one. Coupled with this we have seen increasingly intolerant and totalitarian rule by bishops who bring all their canonical authority to intimidate and force out clergy and congregations whose only "sin" is to conform to the doctrine and teachings of Scripture and the Anglican Communion at large. Dialog effectively ended on November 2, 2003. ECUSA has not simply made decisions that separate it from the Anglican Communion, but ECUSA has steadily been moving away from doctrines of apostolic and biblical salvation in favor of a gospel of affirmation that is married to the spirit of the age and enforced by a type of canonical fundamentalism and tyranny. Those clergy who seek with diligence "to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's Word" risk discipline deposition if they speak or act contrary to the will of their tyrannical and monarchical bishop. Many have already left ECUSA for alternate Anglican communities - often at great personal cost. Those of us who remain have one hope left. It is to be given a choice, to remove to another church entity, preferably in communion with Canterbury. We desire to keep our churches intact because we are a local manifestation of the body of Christ and we do not wish it "by schisms rent asunder." This has nothing to do simply with property. It is because to leave our church building would be an impossible wrench for many in the flock. The connections are not simply theological or doctrinal they are family connections. In our congregation it is not unusual to see four generations of one family in the pew. Not to both discipline ECUSA (always with the hope of repentance and restoration) and to give our people a choice as to where to go will be to abandon us. So far as ECUSA goes it is as fragmented as Humpty Dumpty. So far as this priest and this congregation is concerned we are first Christian and second Anglican. The leadership of ECUSA has abandoned us. I know that this congregation is but a tiny part of the Anglican Communion. We treasure it and beg you not to abandon our hopes or us. The Rev'd Ian Montgomery, FCA, LLB, DMin is Rector, St. Thomas, Menasha, Wisconsin.

By Herbert Thompson I have received The Rev. Richard Terry's letter of resignation as Rector of St. Paul's, Chillicothe. I regret both his resignation, the manner in which it was tendered and the course that Mr. Terry has charted for the days ahead, notably the proposed establishing of an "Anglican" congregation in Chillicothe. This action amounts to a gross exploitation of Mr. Terry's relationship with St. Paul's Church and the congregation with which I entrusted him when I instituted him as Rector in March of 1993. I am at pains to understand Mr. Terry's problem with the Diocese of Southern Ohio and with me as Bishop. It cannot be the issue of human sexuality. As Bishop for 16 years I have made it clear in the Diocese and the National Church, that I will not bless or countenance the blessing of same sex unions in the Diocese, nor ordain any person living in a sexual relationship with another person. I believe and have taught that, for those who have sworn allegiance to Christ, sexual relations are to take place only in the context of Holy Matrimony between a man and a woman. I taught and teach the same in the Diocese and beyond. At the 1998 Lambeth Conference in England on the human sexuality resolutions I voted with 570 Bishops from around the world against changing the Church's teaching on this matter. Last year at the General Convention in Minneapolis on the matter of confirming the election of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire, I voted "no." However, from the day of my ordination, I have never wavered from my defense of and work for the Unity of the Church or my affirmation of God's love for all of His people. I am convinced Mr. Terry needs to examine his conscience and recall his own ordination vows. For it is clear to me that his actions have nothing to do with human sexuality, nor me. Rather they spring from Mr. Terry's tragic misunderstanding of Anglican Christianity and polity. In my pastoral directive, I stated that I believe the Anglican Communion Network to be a threat to the unity of the Church. The directive clearly stated that while individual members, lay or ordained might affiliate with the Network, congregations under my jurisdiction could not. Subsequent to my letter to Mr. Terry, Bishop Duncan, Convener of the Anglican Communion Network, called and then wrote to me to say that in response to my position and that of other Bishops of the Episcopal Church he would not accept the congregational affiliation of St. Paul's. I expressed my gratitude for it meant that there was no action for Mr. Terry to take regarding the directive. I do not presume to know Mr. Terry's motives, only God knows and I am content to leave the judging to God. I do know that his actions have precipitated turmoil and tragedy. In his letter to you and to the Chillicothe Gazette, Mr. Terry says, "I have decided to leave quietly." How quiet is it to publish to the entire town of Chillicothe a matter that properly belongs between a priest and his Bishop? In so doing Mr. Terry has not only abandoned the trust of the people of St. Paul's, but the Communion which ordained him and instituted him as Rector in that place. He has also abandoned the trust of the people who chose him as pastor, priest and teacher. On the night before he died, Our Lord Jesus did not pray that his disciples would be right, good or even holy. He prayed that they would be one as He and the Father were one, that the world might believe that He was sent by the Father. It was out of that clear understanding that I as Bishop issued my pastoral directive to Mr. Terry and now write to call you to work for the unity of the Church and resist Mr. Terry, or anyone else's attempts to divide the body, for such division would grieve Our Lord and distract us from the sacred mission for which the Church exists, to preach the Gospel to all nations and to witness to Jesus as Savior and Lord. That task calls us to a future. I have asked Archdeacon Hanisian to be with you on Sunday August 8, 2004, to answer any questions you may have and to begin the work which will ultimately end in the calling of a new Rector for St. Paul's. Throughout this period my staff, Bishop Price and I will be working with you committed Episcopal Christians to strengthen the witness of this congregation in Chillicothe. Yours in Christ, The Rt. Rev. Herbert Thompson, Jr. Bishop of Southern Ohio

By Ted Schroder, Amelia Plantation Chapel The reason the first Christians changed their day of worship from the seventh day of the week (the Sabbath), to the first day, was because of the resurrection of Jesus. The resurrection was so important to them that it even changed the way they worshipped. The Sabbath, which was so holy to the Jews, became the Lord's Day. For it was on that first day, that Jesus appeared to the disciples in the Upper Room. He came and stood among them, spoke with them, and showed them his wounds. John's Gospel tells us that the disciples were overjoyed when they saw him. He commissioned them in his service of preaching the Gospel of forgiveness of sins in the power of the Holy Spirit. But Thomas was not there. He missed church that Sunday! The other disciples told him what had happened. They gave their first hand testimony: "We have seen the Lord!" But Thomas was not easily persuaded. He wanted proof. "Unless I see with my own eyes the nail marks in his hand and put my own finger where the nails were, and put my own hand into his side, I will not believe it." Have you had the experience with someone who does not share your faith? They want first hand proof that your experience is valid. Or perhaps you have had difficulties believing yourself that the Gospel record is true, and want to see everything tested before you will receive it as valid? Why did St. Thomas doubt? Why do many people find it difficult to believe the testimony of others, the witness of history, the record of his post-resurrection appearances, the claims of Christ to be God in the flesh, the Lord of all, the conqueror of death and Hades, the authority of Holy Scripture? What causes some people to be congenital doubters? Did Thomas suffer from existential angst? Philosophers explore the problem of having a fundamental sense of uncertainty about the reality of existence. Doubt and despair can be the result of a basic pessimism about the human condition. Modern atheistic philosophy, that denies any divine purpose, and defines life in terms of a biological determinism, breeds cynicism. Life that is lived on the surface, that seeks to escape boredom and emptiness through material acquisition and pleasure, is prone to perennial doubt. Doubt cannot be always kept at bay by distraction from anxiety. Perhaps Thomas was plagued with troubling questions that he couldn't ignore. Doubts are often rooted deep in the personality. Did Thomas suffer from emotional mood swings: a manic period when faith was strong, and a depressive period when faith was absent? When we feel good, and life is going well, faith is easy. But when we pass through periods of discouragement, doubts resurface. It is important to distinguish mood swings from genuine doubt. Our feelings have to be offered up to God, to be purified, so that we can experience peace. We can choose to be governed by our feelings or by our daily commitment to follow Jesus. Jesus said, "Come to me all you who weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke (i.e. my teaching) upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." (Matthew 11:28-30) Was Thomas at a turning point in his development and personal history? Different seasons of our lives affect our faith and our doubts. Changes in life lead to vulnerability which leaves us open to doubt. Transitions, a sense of danger, insecurity, loneliness, which Thomas must have been experiencing, can cause doubt and fear. Adolescence, mid-life crises, menopause, empty nests, illnesses and retirement bring stresses that cause us to doubt. As we age we ask, "Is there nothing more?" and we face the three big D's: decline, depression and death. Did the death of Jesus trigger some emotional connection in Thomas's life? The loss of Jesus may have led him to contemplate other losses in his life, which he interpreted as abandonment by significant people, and consequent feeling of anger, or lack of value. Some doubts can be traced to painful chapters in our emotional history. Deaths of parents, siblings, or close friends in tragic circumstances, may have left unfinished business. The fact that Jesus had appeared to the other disciples and not him may have upset him. Was Jesus avoiding him? Was he not important? Why was he being put on the spot and expected to believe when the others had it easy? It could have looked to him as favoritism. Pressure points and crisis events can shape our doubts. Job losses, illness, bereavements, tragedy of one kind or another, may push us to doubt. Loss of children or other people we love, often cause us to doubt that there is a God of love. Perhaps this is what led to Thomas's doubting. He had undergone the stunning shock and stress of Jesus' arrest, trial, torture and execution. This was a major life crisis for Thomas. All his hopes and dreams had crashed and burned. Parental abuse causes distrust and doubt of any authority figures. New York University psychology professor Paul Vitz, in his book Faith of the Fatherless, studied the childhood of several well-known atheists and saw strong evidence that their rejection of God is directly related to father pain: the death of a father or abuse or abandonment by their fathers. Vitz points out that Friedrich Nietzsche, the philosopher who declared that 'God is dead,' lost his father at age four. Samuel Butler, skeptical British novelist, was often brutally beaten by his 'pious' father. Sigmund Freud said his father was a 'pervert' and built much of his psychological theory around father hatred. Joseph Stalin's father beat him unmercifully. Madelyn Murray O'Hair once tried to kill her father with a butcher knife. Vitz suggests that after studying these and other 'major historical rejecters of God... We find a weak, dead or abusive father in every case.' Consequently Vitz urges great compassion for atheists, because behind their unbelief, in all likelihood lies some painful memory. So as you examine your doubts, you may want to honestly confront the possibility that one of your roadblocks to faith may be some pain from the past. Lynn Anderson in "If I Really Believe, Why Do I Have These Doubts?" claims that the pace of our lives breeds doubts. He calls it cognitive overload. The impact of the media upon us transforms every day into a crisis as we absorb the tragic events in the world through our television screens. We are overstimulated by our environment and overcommitted in our schedule. We keep ourselves busy so that we do not have to find time for reflecting and listening. Activism, no matter how well-intentioned, leaves life shallow. It can also leave us with faith that may appear to be a mile wide but may not be an inch deep. Cynicism and skepticism pours over us from the talking heads, and the experts. As in the garden of Eden, the tempter can stimulate these roots of doubt and encourage their growth so that we question the presence of God. The influence of evil seems more pervasive than the power of the goodness of God when we see innocent civilians and children killed or maimed by terrorists. "Where is God in all of that carnage?" we ask. Henri Nouwen refers to this experience as 'the absence of God.' But some of the times when God seems to be absent may actually be fulfilling his purpose. "His absence... is often so deeply felt that it leads to a new sense of His presence." (Reaching Out, p.127) When we feel that God is absent, he may be more completely and sharply focused in our conscious thoughts, more so than when we take for granted that he is very near. Henri Nouwen writes: The mystery of God's presence, therefore, can be touched only by a deep awareness of his absence. It is in the center of our longing for the absent God that we discover his footprints... In the patient waiting for the loved one, we discover how much he has filled our lives already. Just as the love of a mother for her son can grow deeper when he is far away, just as children can learn to appreciate their parents more when they have left the home, just as lovers can rediscover each other during long periods of absence, so our intimate relationship with God can become deeper and more mature by the purifying experience of his absence. (p.128) When you consider your doubts, look for its roots in your basic temperament, or your particular stage in life, or to a negative experience either long past or recent. Doubt may have more to do with your personality or your personal history than it does with the facts, with the issue of truth, or the conflict between faith and knowledge. Who knows what were the roots of Thomas's doubts about the resurrection? Eventually he came to believe. Some of us take longer to process the information we need in order to experience the presence of Christ. That does not mean that we should give up or summarily reject the evidence we have in hand. It means that we need to be patient and humble enough to be open to what God might want to teach us. A week later, the next Sunday, the first day of the week, the Lord's day, when the disciples were gathered together again (the second Sunday in the Christian era), Jesus came and stood among them, as he does whenever his church gathers. He said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." When Thomas saw Jesus he acknowledged him with words of personal faith, "My Lord and my God." Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:24-29) Jesus says to every one of us, "Stop doubting and believe." That means making a choice. Will I consciously believe, or will I choose to continue to doubt? Doubt is a decision, just as much as faith. Feelings of uncertainty or doubt, should not prevent us from making the decision to believe in Jesus and to follow him. Sometimes we have to act on our choices before the feelings will follow. The habit of keeping company with Jesus, will result in a secure relationship of love, which fosters faith. Walking in the way of Christ each day, gradually dispels doubt, until it withers away through lack of attention. Faith needs to be fed, and doubt needs to be starved through prayer, study, service, witness, and worship. In that way the past can be put behind us, and the future becomes an adventure of faith with all the possibilities the kingdom of God promises. It is the only way to live.

By Ted Schroder Jesus said, "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one." (John 10:27-30) Sheep are helpless creatures. They are not able to protect themselves. They have no weapons, no protective armor, no ability to strategize or to outwit their enemies, no speed to outrun them. Predators have a field day with sheep. Evolution doesn't work for sheep. It is not a question of the survival of the fittest. Having been bred for human convenience the wooly animals are completely dependent on their shepherd. This is the analogy Jesus uses to remind us that we are helpless in the face of those things that prey upon us, those things which threaten our security, those things which frighten us and destroy our peace, those things that seek to snatch us out of the hand of God and destroy our faith, hope and love. Our natural predators are doubt and despair, anxiety and fear, bitterness and resentment. We are vulnerable to financial setbacks, to unexpected health problems, to relationships that disappoint us, to accidents and tragedies. It is possible for us to do something about protecting ourselves from known dangers. We try to secure ourselves against disaster we would be irresponsible and shortsighted if we didn't. But no one can completely control all the circumstances surrounding them. We cannot dictate the conditions of the economy, or the actions of other people. We cannot force other people to fulfill our expectations. We are interdependent. If we place our total and complete trust in what other people may or may not do, in the reliability of companies or politicians, and they prove unable to protect us, we panic. We can't altogether trust in continued, increasing prosperity, in continued good health, in continued peace in the world. Faith in God cannot prevent bad things happening to us. "God causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." (Matthew 5:45) Life can be full of suffering. How we handle it is the test of our faith. Lil Holley was a short, buxom lady who reigned over our kitchen. As a child I spent a great deal of my time in that kitchen with the staff. They were part of my extended family. Lil was given to strong language at times when she was exasperated. One lunch-time, I was home from high school, when, with her head in the oven, she started cussing me out for no apparent reason. I was standing on the other side of the kitchen, minding my own business, and could not understand why she should light into me in such a fashion. She thought I was standing behind her and pushing her into the oven! When she realized that I was on the other side of the room, she started to wonder whether she had suffered a fainting spell. Then we all felt it. It was an earthquake tremor. My mother was sick in her bedroom upstairs at the time. I thought she might be frightened, so I ran out the door and up the back staircase, which kept moving on me, in a strange way. When I arrived at the bedroom I found my mother half out of the bed to unplug an electric heater so that a fire might not be caused. We had all heard about fires following earthquakes and devastating badly damaged towns. I went back down the front staircase, and saw the unmistakable sign of an earthquake the light fixtures were swaying to and fro. Bottles had crashed down from the shelves, making an awful mess on the floors. Then the quake stopped, to be succeeded by a quiet, as everyone caught their breath, and wondered what damage had been caused. For several days aftershocks would occur, but none as violent as the first. The chief question on people's minds was, "Where was the epicenter?" for we knew that the damage would be greatest there. On this occasion the epicenter was found to be offshore in the Tasman Sea. In Florida, a different kind of earthquake can happen. As underground streams dry up in droughts, the limestone aquifer will contract, and a sinkhole suddenly can form. The earth caves in, taking anything that sits upon the surface. Houses, roads, automobiles, can disappear into the sinkhole. Earthquakes are the result of the expansion and contraction of the earth, the shifting of the tectonic plates that make up the surface of the earth. They are completely outside human control. No one can forecast when an earthquake or a sinkhole will happen. It could happen tomorrow, or not for ten years. It could happen where we live, or somewhere else. Jesus tells us that ultimate protection and peace of mind is to be found only in the Lord. We are truly helpless apart from Christ. It is he who gives us the security of eternal life, the guarantee that we will not be snatched from the protective power of God. When Jesus said, "I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand," he is telling us that he will give us a life that is full of the splendor and magnificence of the life of God. He is telling us that he will give us a life that none can ultimately destroy, or diminish, or degrade; a life that is everlasting, that endures into the glory that is heaven. He is telling us that he will give us a life that is secure, in which there is no deprivation of the presence and the power of God, a life that will know the serenity of God even if the world collapses around us. How can this be so? Jesus says: "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one." We can be confident in the power of God to protect us because he is greater than all the problems that could prey upon us, and that he has given us into the care of Christ, who is one with him in this care and concern. "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? ... For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 8:35,38,39) There are two errors we tend to fall into. First, we tend to over-estimate our own ability to protect ourselves. We think that we have the personal strength to be self-sufficient. There are many people who think that they can survive in their own strength, and beat the system by themselves. The image Jesus uses is telling we are sheep, and ultimately, when trouble looms in our lives, we are helpless on our own. We just don't have the ability to fend off the predatory elements. We are fragile creatures, vulnerable to attack. We are not made to survive on our own. Secondly, we under-estimate the ability and desire of God to protect us. Jesus said, "I know my sheep." God knows everything about us, even to counting the numbers of hairs on our heads. Not a sparrow falls to the ground without him knowing it. Jesus promises us protection. We need not fear. Yet we are often unwilling to admit our need, and to acknowledge that God can take care of us and will if we let him. The message of the Scriptures is, "If God is for us, who can be against us?" (Romans 8:31) "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." (Philippians 4:13) What is it that is preying upon you, upon your mind? What is it that seeks to snatch you out of the hand of God? What is it that seeks to destroy your peace and assurance of God's love? Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice and follow me." Listen to the promises of Jesus rather than the voice of your fears. Follow him in faith to the way of safety.

By Ted Schroder The Lord's Prayer is a prayer of liberation. It is the cry of an oppressed people for deliverance from a cruel tyranny. It is the yearning of an enslaved people for freedom. It is the desperate desire of a victim of abuse for safety. It is the plea of the sick for healing, and the rejected for acceptance. It is the longing of the exile for home. All these things Israel experienced as it awaited the coming of the Messiah. That was why Isaiah prophesied, "How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings, who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion, 'Your God reigns.'" (Isaiah 52:7) So when Jesus first began his ministry in Galilee he proclaimed the good news of God: "The time has come. The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!" (Mark 1:15) The kingdom of God came with Jesus. In his life and ministry the kingdom of God arrived. Jesus is the king of the whole earth through whom God will rule. God had arrived to deliver his people from bondage, to liberate them, not from foreign oppressors as they thought, but from evil, guilt, fear of death and rebellion against his rule. Therefore the proper response was to repent, to turn one's life around, and accept the freedom God was offering in Christ's salvation and service. This inner turning or process of being turned, accompanied a deep change at the core of one's being. The kingdom of God was ushered in by Jesus in his first sermon in Nazareth: "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." (Luke 4:18) When we pray, "your kingdom come," we are praying that what Jesus proclaimed, taught, and accomplished through his death and resurrection, would become a reality in our lives. We are praying that he would reign in our lives, and give us the victory over anything that would prevent us from living in the fullness of God's life. What does the coming of God's kingdom in our lives through Jesus as Victor, Liberator and Lord mean for us? St. Paul tells us that the "kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." (Romans 14:17) When we pray for the coming of God's kingdom into our lives, we are praying for these three gifts of grace. Righteousness is the gift of being made right with God through the atoning death of Christ. Peace is the gift of access to God by Christ's sacrificial act of reconciliation. Joy is the gift of resurrection hope, as the work of the Christ's Spirit is made a present reality. But despite these gifts of salvation we still experience spiritual poverty and real personal pain. Liberation from a cruel tyranny doesn't eliminate or banish the effects of a long occupation or exile. There is much rebuilding to be accomplished. Recovery takes a long time a life time. That is why we need to pray continually, "Your kingdom come." The kingdom of God comes incrementally throughout our lives. There are stages of recovery we must go through. Our liberation takes a lifetime. We have work to do in our personalities, in our desires, and in our relationships. We continue to be held in bondage by those aspects of our lives that prevent the kingdom of God coming into fruition. Let me list some of them. There are our personality defects: our introversion, our defensiveness, our quirks, our temptation to criticize others, to look at the bad not the good, to tear down people rather than build them up, to be quick to judge before we know all the facts, to blame others or circumstances for our own failings, to excuse ourselves, and be full of self-pity; to be so wrapped up in what we want to say that we don't listen or take an interest in others; to be self-righteous, convinced we know all the answers, that we are better, smarter, richer, prettier, and can therefore look down on others; our proneness to exaggeration, and to say what is not true, to be boastful of our achievements; our disorganization, our unpunctuality and rudeness; our inability to relax, and our need always to be doing something; our lack of imagination and spontaneity, fear of taking risks or leaving our comfort zone; our tendency of wanting to be in control, our gullibility or our skepticism; and our ingratitude. Our personality defects continue to cause us and others pain rather than afford us and them pleasure. There are our desires: we want to accomplish a number of worthwhile goals but we are frustrated by the conflicting demands on our resources of time, money, and health. We complain, and get depressed by our seeming inability to do what we want to do. Our emotions enslave us rather than release us. There are our relationships with others who disappoint us, or who oppose us. We seem at odds with people we expected better from. Instead of being encouraged by them we feel used by them. They do not seem to be interested in us but only in how we can entertain them. These relationships are oppressive rather than liberating. When we pray "Your kingdom come" we are praying that Jesus would liberate us from these so that we can become whole: better, purer people. What are we acknowledging each time we pray, "Your Kingdom come"? We are responding to God's invitation to enter his kingdom. Jesus said we must accept God's invitation when it is given. He told the parable of the man who prepared a great banquet and invited many guests. He sent his servant to those he had invited, "Come, for everything is now ready." But they made excuses, and said they couldn't come. When the servant reported their excuses the master became angry and ordered his servant to invite the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame. He sent him to go to the roads and country lane and invite more people so that his house would be full. "I tell you, not one of those men who were invited will get a taste of my banquet." (Luke 14:15-24) We must not put off the invitation to feast at God's table, to fellowship with him now, if we want to feast with him in heaven. Jesus is telling us to respond to God's call now to become part of his kingdom. If we want God's liberating kingdom to come into our lives we must respond to the invitation. If we don't we will regret it. When we pray, "Your kingdom come" we are desiring that we will put it first. Jesus said, "Seek first God's kingdom and his righteousness." (Matthew 6:33) We have to get our priorities right. Those who were invited had other worthy and important things to do, but they were not as important as responding to God's call. We can miss out on God's kingdom if we don't respond immediately. We all have many things to do in life, but we need to put this first. Results at first will seem infinitesimal. Jesus said that God's kingdom starts small and unnoticed. He told the parable of the mustard seed (Matthew 13:31,32) to illustrate that the kingdom of God begins minutely in a person's life. It begins with tiny acts of unselfish love and gratitude. It begins with humility. It doesn't require grand acts or magnificent gestures. The kingdom of God grows in us secretly and almost imperceptibly when we apply ourselves to prayer and following Jesus. "This is what the kingdom of God is like. A man scatters seed on the ground. Night and day, whether he sleeps or gets up, the seed sprouts and grows, though he does not know how. All by itself the soil produces grain first the stalk, then the head, then the full kernel in the head. As soon as the grain is ripe, he puts the sickle to it, because the harvest is come." (Mark 4:26-29) No one would have thought that the life of a Jewish carpenter in an obscure part of the Roman Empire would attract much notice. Yet that seed of God's kingdom grew into the most powerful spiritual movement this world and history has ever seen. The coming of God's kingdom in Jesus has affected more people than we can count. Yet it all starts in the life of one person at a time, beginning with the seed of God's Word. It is hard for us to see the results of our prayers. Jesus reminds us that there is a secret work of God going on in our souls which we cannot see. Just because the farmer cannot see the growth of the seed, doesn't mean that it isn't growing. The kingdom of God grows within us. We facilitate the coming of God's kingdom when we nurture the interior life, and work on our inward attitudes through reflection. It is not what is going on around us that is important but what is going on inside us. Jesus said, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:20,21) This can also be translated that the kingdom is "among you" even when you cannot see it, just as it was present on earth in the Person and ministry of Jesus. People could not see the kingdom in Jesus when he came. When we pray, "Your kingdom come" we are committing ourselves to doing whatever it takes to give us the victory over anything that is not of God. This involves waging war against the enemy. If we want the kingdom of God to come in our lives we must be prepared to pay the price, to win this battle in the power of Christ. We have to choose sides in this spiritual war. We cannot serve two masters. We must choose between God and mammon, between serving in God's kingdom by following Jesus, or by being a slave to Self's kingdom by following our selfish pride. Jesus said, "The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it." (Matthew 13:44-46) We are recognizing the value of what we are fighting for with Christ. We are investing our life, and our future in this conflict. That is why Jesus said: "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:23,24) Praying, "Your kingdom come" is acknowledging that everything we have is on loan from God, to be used in his service. When his kingdom slowly comes into our lives we will be gradually liberated, free to enjoy the love he longs for us to experience. ---