VIRTUEONLINE Digest - 7 Jul 2005 to 13 Jul 2005 (#2005-34) Wed, 13 Jul 2005 04:01:09 -0400 There are 16 messages totalling 2909 lines in this issue. Topics of the day: 1. VirtueOnline Viewpoints - July 13, 2005 2. WILLIAMS AND GRISWOLD FALL SHORT IN CONDEMNING LONDON BOMBINGS 3. EPISCOPAL INTEGRITY ORGANIZATION MUST FACE SCIENTIFIC FACTS ABOUT SEXUALITY 4. OPPOSING VIEWS ON SEXUALITY IN NORTH SOUTH DEBATE 5. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA BISHOP SAYS EPISCOPALIANS FACE A CHOICE 6. ENGLAND: Church votes to prepare way for women bishops 7. LONDON: Churchmen on brink of exodus over women bishops 8. LONDON: Bishop says fleeing Anglicans must join church for positive reasons 9. NASSAU: Anglican Pan American Conference Affirms Common Ministry 10. AUSTIN, TX: Liberal Seminary picks Orthodox theologian for President 11. AUSTRALIA: Anglicans choose Brisbane Archbishop as Primate 12. As Eye See It: The whole armour of God - By Richard Chartres 13. As Eye See It: Is This A Serious Theological Dispute? - by Neil G. Lebhar 14. As Eye See It: Terror - a Tale of Two Deities - by Uwe Siemon-Netto 15. As Eye See It: On Gays, Anglicans Use Bible 4 Ways - by Richard Ostling 16. Devotional: "FEAR NOT; I AM WITH YOU" - by Johann Christoph Arnold ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:01:35 -0400 From: David Virtue Subject: VirtueOnline Viewpoints - July 13, 2005 "The persistent claim of these movements [women's liberation and gay rights] is that a greater fulfillment can be achieved when one is freed from the mundane concerns of ordinary family life. The Playboy mentality, which sees females as bunnies, playmates or sensual toys, is joined by feminists and gays offering an alternative to family life. And it is not only that alternative lifestyles to marriage and family should be acceptable [among Protestant clergy], but more often than not, there is a desire to embrace the alternative lifestyles as positively superior because they do not lock the human spirit into humdrum sex, unrewarding labor, and the unexciting relationships that characterize family life." Excerpted from Against the Protestant Gnostics (OUP) by Philip J. Lee. Dear Brothers and Sisters, If you want to gauge the spiritual health of a nation when a tragedy like 911 occurs or what took place in London this week in terror attacks, look at how people respond. A VirtueOnline columnist and former UPI Religion editor Uwe Siemon-Netto who was in London at the time of the blasts wrote this. "Here's the difference: in Washington, people poured into churches and synagogues. In London, they rushed to the pubs by the hundreds of thousands." Uwe then went to St. Paul's Knightsbridge and was appalled to find only four other people kneeling in his favorite London church. "I went there that bloody Thursday afternoon, saddened by what I saw." He found four people on their knees...and they weren't even English, they were faithful visitors from Ohio. There you have it; the Church of England is largely irrelevant in the lives of most British people. They are a nation without God and they don't particularly care what the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks or, for that matter, what most of his bishops think either. The C of E is irrelevant to the lives of tens of millions of Brits. Only a million or so even bother going to church any more. What happened is that most Brits have adopted a stiff upper lip and "we'll get on with it" approach. God is not relevant. Both Dr. Rowan Williams and ECUSA Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold weighed in on the London terror attacks. The two world Anglican leaders fell short in declaring the terrorist bombings in London acts of Jihardist Muslim murderers, while quickly endorsing ecumenical relations with Islam and Muslim leaders; with Griswold indulging in a statement of Western self-loathing and guilt. Let us continue to remember the three faces of Islam. When Islam is the minority in a society, they are humble and deferential; when they are at parity, they are pushy and aggressive; when they are in the majority, they will kill you." I have written a commentary about the statements of both men in today's digest. AND TO ADD to the C of E's problems their General Synod this week faces a crisis now that they have approved of consecrating women bishops. A senior bishop warned that he and hundreds of priests will quit the church and go to Rome if the move is approved. Andrew Burnham the Bishop of Ebbsfleet, is the first leading churchman to state that he would be likely to defect to the Roman Catholic Church. You can read that story today. Fourteen of the world's 38 Anglican Churches have already decided to allow women bishops; the Church of England has had women priests since 1994. Rome has also come up with a response to those fleeing. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams also told the Synod that it was still worth attempting to keep the worldwide Church from splitting over homosexuality despite deep divisions. He said last month's meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council, one of the Church's advisory bodies, had helped to foster respect on both sides. Dr Williams, in his presidential address, said the council meeting had failed to break the stalemate between the liberals and conservatives, but had at least obliged them to listen to each other. The Synod also debated a report suggesting that the Church should switch its resources from dioceses and cathedrals to groundbreaking mission work in an effort to reverse its long-term decline. On another note - the Incitement to Religious Protest Bill produced a protest outside parliament of 2000 black Pentecostals, saying it will inhibit freedom of speech. Not a word about it in the media, of course, writes a VirtueOnline reader. AN ANGLICAN PAN AMERICAN CONFERENCE of churchmen met in Nassau, Bahamas this past week and affirmed their common ministry together. The biblically orthodox Anglicans came from the Americas and Caribbean to promote their common ministry in the Western Hemisphere. They met under the chairmanship of Archbishop Drexel Gomez and Archbishop Gregory Venables. They also took a crack at the revisionist Archbishop of Brazil for his "lack of restraint" in his precipitous actions against The Rt. Revd. Robinson Cavalcanti, Bishop of Recife for not allowing the Panel of Reference an opportunity to mediate the conflict. You can read the full story and line up of invitees in today's digest. IN MY last digest I reported on Bishop "Skip" Adams of the DIOCESE OF CENTRAL NEW YORK's refusal to allow Pittsburgh Bishop Bob Duncan to preach at St. Andrew's Church in Vestal, New York. The Rev. Tony Seel, (the rector) wrote back to say that the reasoning given was that after he asked, the bishop took it to his Standing Committee who argued that Bishop Duncan should be refused because he was a "lightning rod." Fr. Seel blew a gasket. "I pointed out to the bishop that he had no problem inviting the very liberal theologian Marcus Borg into our diocese, another lightning rod..." A previous bishop had invited John Spong to the diocese and under that bishop the diocesan council voted not to support a Luis Palau [evangelistic] crusade in Syracuse. "These inclusive folks just kill me," he wrote to VirtueOnline. GIVING TO THE ECUSA is way down. According to ECUSA DOLLARS a Blog that follows the numbers here is what we know. Diocesan budgets/giving down 36 Diocesan budgets/giving unclear 3 Diocesan budgets/giving up 2! Diocesan budgets/giving unknown 69 THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL met in Louisville, Kentucky right after the meeting in Nottingham and was told by the Rev. Charles Fulton, director of congregational development at New York's church center, that the decline in Average Sunday Attendance (ASA) for 2003 was 23,000 or 2.8 percent. The decline DOUBLED in 2003," he said. But in 2004 it is expected to drop even more. So far nearly 20,000 Episcopalians have dropped out of sight with parochial reports coming in from 73 dioceses. It could rise to 30,000 when all the dioceses check in. That's over 500 dues paying Episcopalians leaving the church every week. "I don't think anyone can deny that the actions of the 2003 General Convention contributed, but so did probably 1,000 other actions," said Fulton. How about ONE action - the consecration of V. Gene Robinson. Fulton said it was a "systemic decline" not a "traumatic decline." Really. It's amazing what Episcopal liberals do with language. The Robinson consecration is the single biggest "trauma" the Episcopal Church has ever faced and it has resulted in at least 22 provinces breaking off from it. And this is not traumatic! "Time will not be our friend," he said. He's right, and if the Episcopal Church doesn't get a handle on the gospel and its true exclusive message, time will destroy it. The council also heard from its investment advisers who in their supreme wisdom decided to cut its payout to the ECUSA from 5.5% to five percent because it might "diminish the church's endowments over time." The half point cut only amounts to $1 million. But a million here and a million there and sooner or later it starts to look like real money. In the DIOCESE OF OKLAHOMA, you may recall the deacon at the cathedral in Oklahoma City one Rev. Paula (nee Paul) Schonauer had had a sex-change operation after divorcing his wife (and two kids). Well, now he/she and his/her girlfriend are planning to go off to California in the near future with his new squeeze Pam Trotter for a "commitment ceremony." Oklahoma Bishop Robert Moody who elevated history's first ordained transsexual deacon (Paul to Paula Schonauer) in 1999 and offered her/him to be a deacon in the cathedral apparently doesn't mind. VirtueOnline called Paula and he/she told me that she/he was taking a leave of absence from the Episcopal Church and had asked for 3 more years. "I have done this by choice. I don't have any connection with the Episcopal Church right now. I still have my secular job. I am not [necessarily] going to remain in ECUSA and hurt the church. I am seeing saw what Gene Robinson's consecration is doing and I don't want to make it any worse." The bishop has been very pastoral, he said. When I called the Diocese to find out more, I was told by a spokesperson, "I'd rather not give you any information." Of course not. Heaven forbid that we should find out the truth. Paula still has a base voice when I spoke with him/her, one would never know he/she had had a sex change operation. Now just imagine how confused a congregation would be! Paul(a) still believes that what he did is good news for transgendered people and the church. "People have exploited my situation," he solemnly told VirtueOnline. MY STORY ON CALIFORNIA BISHOP BILL SWING ordaining a convicted murderer to the priesthood got the ire up of several folks with one writing the following letter to the bishop: TO: The Rt. Rev. William Swing Bishop of the Diocese of California Episcopal Church, USA July 7, 2005 Your Excellency, I read an item in a newsletter reporting that you ordained a convicted murder to the priesthood. This was startling. The Book of Common Prayer -- even the liberal 1979 version -- has the following line in the Presentation of the Candidate for the priesthood, "Therefore, if any of you know any impediment or crime because of which we should not proceed, come forward now and make it known." A couple of questions: 1. Is being convicted of murder no longer an impediment to ordination in ECUSA? 2. What is an impediment to ordination? Not being inclusive? 3. What was your sermon about at the ordination? Something vacuous -- like comparing this murderer's incarceration to Paul's time in prison for evangelizing the Gospel? Looking forward to hearing your exegesis. I am quite sure I could do a doctoral thesis on it. Gene Koprowski, MLA (The University of Chicago) We await Swing's answer. ON THE PLUS side of the ledger, a liberal seminary: the Episcopal Theological Seminary of the Southwest (ETSS) in Austin, Texas, has appointed a known orthodox theologian to run the place. The Very Rev. Philip W. Turner III has been appointed interim dean for the 2005-2006 academic year effective Aug. 1. Turner served as dean of Berkeley Divinity School at Yale University, another of the 11 seminaries of the Episcopal Church, from 1991 to 1998. The recommendation came from neo-conservative Texas Bishop Don Wimberly after Titus Pressler, who will be sub-dean and vice president for academic affairs at General Seminary, resigned. Now it should be noted that this seminary allows cohabiting by its inmates and this will not sit well with Turner who has written scathingly of the Church's new fangled theology of sexual gratification. He wrote: "The Episcopal Church's problem is far more theological than it is moral - a theological poverty that is truly monumen=ADtal and that stands behind the moral missteps recently taken by its governing bodies." We'll see how that goes down with the faculty. EPISCOPAL LIFE, the Episcopal Church's official newspaper in its July/August issue has managed to spin what happened at Nottingham, England recently by saying that the Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada were NOT isolated by the ACC, that the slim margin of two votes to step down from all participation in the ACC including committees amounted to nothing. Wrote editor Jerry Hames; "Ultimately, the decision of the ACC, composed of bishops, clergy and laity, and the Anglican Communion's only constitutional body, will have no effect on these current relationships." So there you have it. Of course he could have added that the ACC's budget in 2003 was $1.8 million and had dropped to $1.37 million in 2005 was being funded to the tune of $600,000 by the ECUSA and another $100,000 by the Canadians. These two provinces alone will cough up over 50% of their total budget. So you think the ACC is going to bite the hand that feeds it? In your dreams. At the meeting, the liberal leaderships of the American and Canadian Churches attempted to explain why they had defied official policy by consecrating Anglicanism's first homosexual bishop and endorsing the blessing of same-sex unions. The council nevertheless endorsed the decision of the Church's primates last year to remove them from its key committees for at least three years, a reprimand that increased the likelihood that they will be expelled. AUSTRALIAN'S ELECT ASPINALL. The Anglican Church of Australia's General Synod elected the Archbishop of Brisbane The Most Rev. Phillip Aspinall, 45, to be the next Primate of the Anglican Church. It was Aspinall who fired Fr. David Chislett an Anglo-Catholic priest in his diocese and then revoked his licence because he was consecrated a bishop in the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) even though he holds a licence from the Anglican bishop of the Murray diocese. It was a disappointing but not surprising move, said one observer. A high level source in Australia called VirtueOnline to say that the vote was close. A slim two votes. Aspinall got 9 votes with orthodox evangelical Archbishop Peter Jensen of Sydney garnering 7. Aspinall's term is only for two years and the source said that significant developments will take place in Australian Anglicanism which could translate into Jensen easily winning two years from now. The next time Australia elects a Primate it will vote to have a new primate in the style of the American Episcopal Church whose Primate, Frank Griswold has no diocese. WHILE THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION particularly the American Episcopal Church plays footsie with the Arabs over disinvestment to punish Israel for occupying the West Bank (the Israelis are leaving the Gaza strip) and regularly sees Arab leaders while ignoring Israeli leaders, Israel has invited Pope Benedict to visit the Holy Land. In another sign of warming between the Jewish state and the Holy See the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told the pontiff that a first edition copy of an Israeli stamp commemorating Pope John Paul II's visit to the Holy Land had been struck. We wonder if the Jewish state will ever strike up a stamp with Rowan Williams' or Frank Griswold's head on it. Don't hold your breath. They ain't loved in quite the same way. They bear-hugged Yasir Arafat too many times to please the Jews. The Episcopal Church was never known for its objectivity. Inclusion never includes Israel. AFRO-ANGLICANS will meet in Canada to celebrate black heritage this month. They will converge on Toronto, Canada, for the third international conference on Afro-Anglicanism. The line up speakers speaks volumes. It includes: South African Anglican Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane, a thorough going liberal, Frank Griswold of ECUSA and Ugandan-born Bishop John Sentamu who has been named as the next Archbishop of York. Interesting that neither Peter Akinola (Nigeria), Henry Orombi (Uganda) or Bernard Malango (Central Africa) were invited. THE SEWANEE UNIVERSITY OF THE SOUTH had a goal to raise $3 million. Progress to Date is: $2.97 million with participation goal of 50%. Participation to date has been only 40%.Can one smell an honorary doctorate for V. Gene Robinson in the winds now that most of the money has come in? ON A TRULY BRIGHT NOTE The DIOCESE OF PITTSBURGH announced this week that it had started four new congregations since 2001. The diocese is averaging one plant a year. Their vision: Four years - four newly established congregations. "All indications are that Bishop Robert Duncan was being realistic when in 2001 he outlined his vision to see 10 new "parish or parish-like institutions" planted during the first decade of the 21st Century. Jenni Bartling, the Diocese's congregational developer said "people are actually seeing churches being planted," she said. To help others prepare to plant, Bartling formed the "Church Parenting Network" this April. The group, which meets every month, brings together rectors and parish leaders from churches considering spinning off a new congregation to talk about what is involved and share ideas. Perhaps some revisionist dioceses that are busy closing down parishes like the DIOCESE OF NEWARK could take a lesson out of the Diocese of Pittsburgh's book and figure out what to do. First thing of course is to have the right message to proclaim, and it is not inclusion. Try transformation. It might just work. The Standing Committee of the DIOCESE OF FLORIDA met with Bishop John Howard to discuss the request by seven clergy of the diocese for Alternative Episcopal Oversight. The Standing Committee came to no conclusion and left the decision in the bishop's hands, one of the seven priests told VirtueOnline. The Standing Committee includes the following members: The Very Rev. Edward Harrison, Mr. Robert Ashmead, The Rev. Eric Dudley, Mr. Harris Willman, The Rev. George Young, III, and The Honorable William Stafford. Among today's stories there is a statement from the he bishop of the DIOCESE OF THE SOUTHWEST the Rt. Rev. John B. Lipscomb who says that Episcopalians face a choice: accept the recommendations of the Windsor Report or walk apart. I have also examined at length the latest findings on sexuality, specifically bisexuality, which puts another dent in the Episcopal organization Integrity's claim that LGBT sexualities are fixed. VIRTUEONLINE WELCOMES ALL ITS NEW READERS this week. We continue to grow by leaps and bounds with thousands going daily to the website to get the latest news. This is a ministry which is supported by its readers. Please take a moment to sit down and write out a tax deductible check to: VIRTUEONLINE 1236 Waterford Rd West Chester, PA 19380 If you prefer you can make a donation at the website through PAYPAL at www.virtueonline.org. Thank you for your support. All Blessings, David W. Virtue DD ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:02:04 -0400 From: David Virtue Subject: WILLIAMS AND GRISWOLD FALL SHORT IN CONDEMNING LONDON BOMBINGS WILLIAMS AND GRISWOLD FALL SHORT IN CONDEMNING LONDON BOMBINGS News Analysis By David W. Virtue Two world Anglican leaders fell short in declaring the terrorist bombings in London acts of Jihardist Muslim murderers, while quickly endorsing ecumenical relations with Islam and Muslim leaders; with one leader, an American Presiding Bishop, indulging in a statement of Western self-loathing and guilt. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams issued a statement expressing his horror and grief following the explosions; extended his personal sympathy and condolences to everyone who was suffering and grieving and then said, "I have spent this morning with Muslim colleagues and friends in West Yorkshire; and we were all as one in our condemnation of this evil and in our shared sense of care and compassion for those affected in whatever way." One should be grateful that Dr. Williams did not conclude his peroration with his signature statement, "Incidents like this cause me to question the existence of God." Nowhere does he identify the attackers - a fully-equipped, metastasized Western branch office of Al Qaeda, preferring instead to ignore the perpetrators for the kinder, gentler call of ecumenical niceness. It is, to this writer's mind, the profound failure of Affirming Catholicism; that it does not have a deep enough understanding of Original Sin, hoping that in the Incarnation, and God's all pervasive, unconditional love, that all humanity can dwell in peace regardless of religion and race with the cross as a mere symbol of God's redemptiveness of all people. By contrast Pope Benedict XVI had this to say: "We are deeply saddened by the news of the terrorist attacks in central London. The Holy Father offers fervent prayers for the victims and for all those who mourn. While he deplores these barbaric acts against humanity he asks you to convey to the families of the injured his spiritual closeness at this time of grief. Upon the people of Great Britain he invokes the consolation that only God can give in such circumstances." No mention of how nice Islam is as a religion. What is even doubly tragic is the singular failure of British Muslim leaders not to denounce its own extremists or issue a Fatwa against Osama Bin Laden. This is very troubling. The Jihardist death cult requires a vigorous open condemnation by the Archbishop of Canterbury and he could have led the way. He didn't. All the large Muslim groups in Britain swiftly condemned the bombings, which they said were contrary to Islam's highest principles of peace, justice and humanity, but none of them mentioned Osama Bin Laden and his destructive organization bent on destroying Western civilization. New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman said the bombing was a "civilizational problem" and he is right. Western Civilization has its roots in Judeo-Christian teachings, and not to say that is to abrogate one's responsibility in the face of this murderous act and to play footsie with what one hopes are moderate Islamic groups. And to reinforce the view that Islam is not a religion Christians can lie down with, the Rev. Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo, Director of the British-based Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity, an Anglican priest and world authority on Islam, writes in his book Understanding Islamic Terrorism, "Although Islamic terrorists are few in number, they should not necessarily be considered a marginalized fringe group rejected by the mainstream of Islamic society as "not real Muslims". Their guiding principles are not a modern aberration of some undeniably peaceful true Islam but have deep roots in Islamic history and theology. Such terrorists are simply following a particular interpretation of the sources of Islam." There you have it. To criticize Islamic fascism is supposedly to be unfair to Islam, so we allow on our own shores (Britain included) mullahs and madrassas to spread hatred and intolerance, as part of our illiberal acceptance of "not offending Islam," writes Victor David Hanson in the National Review. But someone did it! Someone hates us. A whole lot of someone's are unrepentant sinners, and they are not simply idealists, they are Muslim ideologues who hate the West, Christianity, Judaism, our democratic institutions and a whole lot more. The 'lets all be nice to everybody' mantra just doesn't cut it. The denial of culpability by Dr. Williams is breathtaking. Dr. Williams should take note. But even worse than Williams, was the response by Episcopal Presiding Bishop Frank T. Griswold. He wrote this: "My prayers and those of the Episcopal Church in the United States embrace all who have died and have been injured in yesterday's attacks in London. We pray as well for their families and friends. Through this tragedy we are put in mind once again of our common vulnerability. "In order to win the "war on terrorism" we must address its underlying causes and win peace in the Middle East. The three Abrahamic faiths are called to be the servants of God's peace which embraces all people and alone can overcome the fears and hatreds that divide us and prevent us from regarding one another as God's beloved children. May all who call God Father and the Compassionate One be drawn together in a renewed commitment to peacemaking for the sake of God's world." No mention of the evil that befell London or the evil that men do, or mention of Al Qaeda, just some well intentioned prayers that probably go no higher than the roof. He talks about "underlying causes." Now this was the same speech he gave when the twin towers were hit on 911, just toned down a bit. At that time Griswold blamed American foreign policy and Islamophobia for what took place. It was an enormous fiction and a lie then and it is now. This time he soft pedaled his criticism, but it is implicitly there. The message is the same; self hatred, Western self-loathing and guilt. There is no talk about the sin of those who committed murder, no calls for justice for those killed, just a simplistic muddling of the theological waters by appealing to "God Father" (presumably Christian) and the Compassionate One (Allah) to find "peacemaking." A legitimate Christian would argue that "He (alone) is our peace", that Jesus is the "Prince of Peace", but Griswold is not willing or prepared to say or affirm that. That would be to make Christianity too exclusive; true inclusivity for him is to include all (Abrahamic) Faiths and put them all on an equal footing. Even counting that Islam claims to be an Abrahamic religion is problematic. Abraham's first son, Ishmael, is the ancestor of all Muslims. The Prophet Muhammad is a direct descendant of Ishmael, thus being a descendant of Abraham. But Muslims believe Hagar's son Ishmael was cheated out of his birthright; and they thus regard all Jews and Christians as "infidels," because Jews and Christians honor Isaac, not Ishmael. Nothing is that simple. "Whether the jihadists are in Iraq, the United States, or Europe, they all share a sick notion that someone else (the decadent Western oppressor and unbeliever) is responsible for their own poverty and backwardness rather than the fundamentalism, corruption, bias, and intolerance endemic to the Middle East," writes Hanson. And Griswold has fallen right into that propagandist trap. He hates stereotyping, but when did you last here of a 60-year old white male living in suburban Philadelphia with a mortgage, wife and 2.3 kids planting bombs on the New York subway? Terror is the signature of the Islamist: hit, back off; hit, back off - hoping in a few years to erode the will and nerve of affluent and leisured Western countries, writes Hanson. But there is also a parasitic dimension to Islam in the West. Through intimidation and terror they have carved out zones of Muslim sanctuary where they can live off the largess of Western society, while overlooking the very notions of freedom and equality that enable them to live while trying to implant Shari' a Law. This is happening in France and northern Nigeria. Evangelical Episcopal leader and former president of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, Dr. Peter Moore got it right when he said; "It is all very well and good for the Archbishop of Canterbury to say that he and the Muslim leaders who were meeting at the time all together condemn the violence. But unless the Muslim leaders voice their own condemnation in unmistakable ways, the A.B.C.'s comments are vacuous. It is precisely the failure of Muslims who live in the free world -- contrary to their own Muslim tenets (for Muslims are supposed, under normal circumstances, to live in Muslim controlled states with Sharia law as the official law of the land) -- to speak out at the violence of the extremists that causes me the greatest concern. Unless there is a chorus of Muslim objection, it is useless for tolerant Christians in the West to continue to defend tolerant Muslims and make a firm distinction between radical and peace-loving Muslims. (Of course Muslims who do speak out risk their own lives. But that is another issue). One more time our Anglican leaders have failed us. Is it any wonder that both the Church of England and the Episcopal Church are in major decline with millions walking out the door never to return, while Global South nations rocket skyward with new conversions every day. Western Anglican leaders are giving us stones instead of bread, succumbing to death rather than life, acquiescing to global terror while implanting in us their own self-loathing and guilt. We deserve much better than this. Sadly we will probably never get it. END ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:02:37 -0400 From: David Virtue Subject: EPISCOPAL INTEGRITY ORGANIZATION MUST FACE SCIENTIFIC FACTS ABOUT SEXUALITY EPISCOPAL INTEGRITY ORGANIZATION MUST FACE SCIENTIFIC FACTS ABOUT SEXUALITY News Analysis By David W. Virtue Integrity, the Episcopal Church's official organization for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender [LGBT] Episcopalians is finding itself increasingly marginalized by newer scientific studies that show that sexuality preferences can not only be changed, but some sexual orientations might actually be fraudulent. Since the founding of the organization by Dr. Louie Crew in rural Georgia in 1974, Integrity has been the leading grassroots voice for the full inclusion of LGBT persons in the Episcopal Church and for equal access to its rites, says the promo at its website. Inclusion has been the mantra of Integrity, with 'come as you are stay as you are' theology being promoted to allow persons not willing to toe the heterosexual hard line a place at the communion table of our Lord without changing their behavior. Not only are their tens of thousands of former homosexuals and lesbians who have testified that change is possible, (many of whom are now married with children,) a new study argues that true bisexuality may not even exist. A report in the New York Times, a bastion of liberal proclamation, headlined a story: "Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited". The story by Benedict Carey casts doubt on whether true bisexuality exists, at least in men. The study, by a team of psychologists in Chicago and Toronto, lends support to those who have long been skeptical that bisexuality is a distinct and stable sexual orientation, she writes. People who claim bisexuality, according to these critics, are usually homosexual, but are ambivalent about their homosexuality or simply closeted. "You're either gay, straight or lying," as some gay men have put it. In the new study, a team of psychologists directly measured genital arousal patterns in response to images of men and women. The psychologists found that men who identified themselves as bisexual were in fact exclusively aroused by either one sex or the other, usually by other men. The study is the largest of several small reports suggesting that the estimated 1.7 percent of men who identify themselves as bisexual show physical attraction patterns that differ substantially from their professed desires. "Research on sexual orientation has been based almost entirely on self-reports, and this is one of the few good studies using physiological measures," said Dr. Lisa Diamond, an associate professor of psychology and gender identity at the University of Utah, who was not involved in the study. The discrepancy between what is happening in people's minds and what is going on in their bodies, she said, presents a puzzle "that the field now has to crack, and it raises this question about what we mean when we talk about desire." "We have assumed that everyone means the same thing," she added, "but here we have evidence that that is not the case." Several other researchers who have seen the study, scheduled to be published in the journal Psychological Science, said it would need to be repeated with larger numbers of bisexual men before clear conclusions could be drawn. Bisexual desires are sometimes transient and they are still poorly understood. Men and women also appear to differ in the frequency of bisexual attractions. "The last thing you want," said Dr. Randall Sell, an assistant professor of clinical socio-medical sciences at Columbia University, "is for some therapists to see this study and start telling bisexual people that they're wrong, that they're really on their way to homosexuality." He added, "We don't know nearly enough about sexual orientation and identity" to jump to these conclusions. In the experiment, psychologists at Northwestern University and the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto used advertisements in gay and alternative newspapers to recruit 101 young adult men. Thirty-three of the men identified themselves as bisexual, 30 as straight and 38 as homosexual. The researchers asked the men about their sexual desires and rated them on a scale from 0 to 6 on sexual orientation, with 0 to 1 indicating heterosexuality, and 5 to 6 indicating homosexuality. Bisexuality was measured by scores in the middle range. Seated alone in a laboratory room, the men then watched a series of erotic movies, some involving only women, others involving only men. Using a sensor to monitor sexual arousal, the researchers found what they expected: gay men showed arousal to images of men and little arousal to images of women, and heterosexual men showed arousal to women but not to men. But the men in the study who described themselves as bisexual did not have patterns of arousal that were consistent with their stated attraction to men and to women. Instead, about three-quarters of the group had arousal patterns identical to those of gay men; the rest were indistinguishable from heterosexuals. "Regardless of whether the men were gay, straight or bisexual, they showed about four times more arousal" to one sex or the other, said Gerulf Rieger, a graduate psychology student at Northwestern and the study's lead author. Although about a third of the men in each group showed no significant arousal watching the movies, their lack of response did not change the overall findings, Mr. Rieger said. Blasting the findings of Dr. Alfred Kinsey who said "males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats." But current researchers were unable to produce direct evidence of bisexual arousal patterns in men, said Dr. J. Michael Bailey, a professor of psychology at Northwestern and the new study's senior author. "I'm not denying that bisexual behavior exists," said Dr. Bailey, "but I am saying that in men there's no hint that true bisexual arousal exists, and that for men arousal is orientation." About 1.5 percent of American women identify themselves bisexual. And bisexuality appears easier to demonstrate in the female sex. A study published last November by the same team of Canadian and American researchers, for example, found that most women who said they were bisexual showed arousal to men and to women. Yet researchers were unable to produce direct evidence of bisexual arousal patterns in men, said Dr. J. Michael Bailey, a professor of psychology at Northwestern and the new study's senior author. "Most of them seem to lean one way or the other, but that doesn't preclude them from having a relationship with the nonpreferred sex," she said. "You may be mostly interested in women but, hey, the guy who delivers the pizza is really hot, and what are you going to do?" Frank Griswold, ECUSA's Presiding Bishop has argued that homosexuality is "hard-wired" thus perpetuating the myth that gays cannot change, yet Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, a psychiatrist and one of the world's leading authority's on homosexuality says our sexuality is not immutable, it is malleable and he has provided documented evidence to show that. In his book "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth" Satinover tracks the way that the discussion over sexuality in North America has been hijacked and truthful dialogue subverted in order to support a particular political agenda, namely the public support of same-sex activity. It began with the historic APA vote in 1973, which moved contrary to the then current psychological understanding of homosexuality. In the 30 years since then no evidence has emerged that there is a substantive biological, genetic or chemical basis to homosexual attraction. This has not stopped the gay lobby promulgating both the fallacious "One in Ten" assertion and equally the notion that you are "Born Gay" (a notion for which there is no scientific evidence to this day). A Diocese of Quincy priest, Mario Bergner who directs Chicago-based Redeemed Lives Ministries, an organization that brings ALL people into the saving and healing embrace of Jesus Christ argues that for some, homosexuality is a biologically determined orientation and a justice issue, not a moral issue. Others consider homosexuality an orientation as defined above, but also as a moral issue, and do not allow for homosexual practices. For still others, homosexuality is a practice motivated by psychological issues, not an orientation as defined above and is a moral issue. We do not agree on the definition of "homosexual orientation." Bergner argues that the term "homosexual attractions" should be used instead of "homosexual orientation." The Gospel revealed in Holy Scripture, the uniqueness of the Person of Jesus Christ and the witness of the Church over two millennia defines morality, shapes subjective feelings and interprets experience. Because of this the Church should not bless same-sex unions because there is no witness for this in the Bible or Christian history." Bergner says that such care begins with abstinence leading possibly to holy celibacy or change in attractions, sometimes fulfilled in heterosexual marriage, "as it has for me." This is certainly in line with the Lambeth 1.10 resolution which called for the pastoral care of homosexuals. Bergner said that Biblically, homosexuality is never referred to as an orientation but as a sinful practice. See Robert J. Gagnon's, The Bible And Homosexual Practice (Abingdon Press 2001). "Homosexuality is a sexual attraction and a moral condition, which is transformed through being "washed, sanctified and justified in Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 6:11). It is clear that recent studies cast doubt on the premises of the homosexual/bisexual agenda promoted by the Episcopal Integrity organization. While purporting to be "inclusive" Integrity deliberately fails to come to grips either with scientific studies or the power of Christ to rescue us from a life of sin. The price Integrity is asking the orthodox in the Episcopal Church to pay with fleeing priests and parishes and thousands of ordinary Episcopalians who know in their hearts it is wrong, is too high. It may yet result in the fragmentation of the worldwide Anglican Communion. END ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:03:24 -0400 From: David Virtue Subject: OPPOSING VIEWS ON SEXUALITY IN NORTH SOUTH DEBATE OPPOSING VIEWS ON SEXUALITY IN NORTH SOUTH DEBATE News Analysis By David W. Virtue There are two equal and opposing views on human sexuality that make it clear that one must triumph and the other fail, the one adopted and the other abandoned. The first view, held by the vast majority of the Global South (and by a number in the North) is that Holy Scripture is God's divinely revealed word and will on all matters of faith and practice and that includes how human beings should behave sexually. The second view, maintained by those in the liberal North is that the Bible has been used to support oppressive social conditions and patterns of behavior and to justify the unjustifiable like slavery, and sexism and therefore is no longer a reliable guide and should be abandoned for its "imperialism". That being the case the Bible should also not be seen as a reliable guide for its views on sodomy. In the words of Dr. Rowan Williams "The Churches of the North have been made aware of how much their life and work has been sustained in the past by insensitive and oppressive social patterns, with the Bible being used to justify great evils." As an Affirming Catholic Dr. Williams has a great respect for Scripture but clearly he does not believe it is an infallible rule of faith in its utterances on sexuality and therefore authoritative on all matters of faith and practice. His Affirming Catholic counterpart in the US one Frank Griswold, has gone a step further and said that the biblical writers have simply no comprehension of, and do not speak to the modern context of homosexuality and therefore should be written off, or at the very least, discounted. Both Williams and Griswold believe that longevity or "commitment" by same-sex attracted persons justifies the behavior, but that raises the obvious question as to how promiscuous one night stands can suddenly morph into acceptability and cease to be sinful if you do it for 16 years with the same person! Ratification by longevity somehow equals acceptance? This also raises the question at what point on the time continuum does God say, "Well done, you've passed the commitment test"...is that five, ten or fifteen years? This type of thinking completely undermines the Pauline understanding that sin is built into the very warp and woof of our humanity and that it needs to be rooted out if we are to be found acceptable to God. Sin committed once and then multiplied 5,000 times legitimizes it? The Bible does not address emotional, psychological or sexually related time commitments, it looks only at actions that bespeak holiness or ungodliness, obedience or disobedience, faithfulness or unfaithfulness to His Word, it is - 'not my will but thine be done.' Self deception (which can go on longer than 16 years or V. Gene Robinson's relationship with his male lover) is one of the oldest sins in the book, and we all commit it. It is like playing three card monte with the Almighty in the hope that if you play it long enough you will win a hand or two while completely overlooking the fact that the Omniscient One happens to know what the whole deck is at all times and the cards being dealt. The other truth is that the debate over sexuality has totally drained the North American churches of their energy for mission, leaving hundreds of thousands of Episcopalians and Anglicans tired and confused, their evangelistic passion zapped to the point that it is killing their spiritual zeal. And it is one reason why thousands are fleeing the ECUSA; they simply do not want to be preoccupied endlessly with talk of gay sex acceptance, especially mothers with young children growing up in a church; that is way too much of a threat to their sense and sensibility. But the problem is often posed as one of interpretation. The Bible was used to justify slavery say the liberals and those who did that were wrong. However it should be noted that it was an English Evangelical Anglican politician, William Wilberforce who spent most of his life working for the eradication of slavery. The Church of England and the ECUSA differ over what patterns of relationship are acceptable to ordained leaders. The C of E through its archbishop believes that the Church has not been persuaded that change was right, "And where there is a strong presumption against change, a long consensus of teaching in Christian history, and a widespread ecumenical agreement, it may well be thought that change would need an exceptionally strong critical mass to justify it." What Dr. Williams is saying is that if the church should change its mind using his word "strong critical mass to justify it," then it would be acceptable and therefore justifiable! His appeal then is not to Scripture as his primary source for truth but the community of the faithful. But why should that be trusted? Popes and councils have erred said Luther, and so have whole communities. The vast majority of the German Church rolled over to Hitler. It was a small band of confessing Christians under Dietrich Bonhoeffer that opposed Hitler and his co-opting of the church for state purposes. If the archbishop is right then the case the Episcopal Church makes is right. For nearly 40 years the ECUSA has steadily advanced that notion, through successive General Conventions, that human sexual practices can be changed and now it believes that "strong critical mass" has been attained, therefore it is okay. And what Griswold says by implication, if he doesn't exactly come right out and say it, is if the Global South will just wait long enough and "listen" long enough they will see the [divine] light that has shone through ECUSA about homosexual acts, and say altogether "we have seen the light brothers." He also argues that he doesn't want other provinces interfering or intervening in his province's decision-making while hoping he can maintain those increasingly elusive "bonds of affection." So procedure, resolutions, general convention resolutions and synods trump God's revealed will, and divine prohibitions on just about anything can be lifted if a lot of purple clad people say so. The invitation to provinces to reconsider their actions was not to say that there were no issues to be resolved, it is to say that the mind of the church CAN be challenged if it fails to be inclusive, the Bible's prohibitions notwithstanding. So what Western liberals are doing is stacking the various instruments of unity and committees in their favor so they can find the "mind of the church" and the Africans be damned. What was once a minority viewpoint has become a majority viewpoint by only a handful of handpicked appartiks thus making it possible for Robinson and his pals to be brokered into the club with all due solemnity. In his speech the Archbishop of Canterbury warned of the dangers of passing judgement, of looking to others to repent, of "a deadly lack of self-knowledge", and of the constant danger of "the easiest religious technique of all, the search for the scapegoat". Frankly this is to blame those who want to uphold biblical standards and accuse those of us who are orthodox of being homophobic! This is outrageous. No one is looking for scapegoats. Western pansexualists began this fight asking for the church to change its mind and received teaching on the subject and now it is us who are being unjustly accused! How about the "deadly lack of self knowledge" being aimed at homosexuals and their supporters. There is overwhelming evidence that change is possible, change that THEY don't want to accept in or believe. An article in the Church Times put it well. "A learned and charming man, Williams is the archetype of the thoroughly bogus bishop, playing the pantomime role of a reluctant statesman with a kind of Gilbert & Sullivan recklessness. The hardest part of his job, as far as I can tell, is pretending that the intermediate pacifying measures really matter to him. He calls for unity, but seems to regard the divorce as inevitable, and acts as if his main concern is to avoid giving offense to those who will write the future article on him in the Oxford History of the Christian Church. Look at his roster of reprimands. The conservatives receive scoldings with real moral wallop (prejudiced, insensitive, oppressive, judgmental, eager for scapegoating). The liberals receive scoldings for failure to adhere to protocol. It's not hard to see where his heart is, yet it's sad to reflect that there are serious, believing, good-willed Christians out there who still think that he's playing for the same stakes that they are." How very true. If the church's final authority is its own councils and not Holy Scripture, then God help it and us. At the end the only thing we can cry out is "Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy" and for that we don't need a "critical mass." END ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:04:37 -0400 From: David Virtue Subject: SOUTHWEST FLORIDA BISHOP SAYS EPISCOPALIANS FACE A CHOICE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA BISHOP SAYS EPISCOPALIANS FACE A CHOICE By David W. Virtue The Bishop of Southwest Florida the Rt. Rev. John B. Lipscomb has written to his diocese saying that Episcopalians face a choice: accept the recommendations of the Windsor Report or walk apart. In a statement at the diocesan website, Lipscomb said time was drawing to a close when decisions would have to be made to be faithful to the decisions of the General Convention 2003 "which have strained and in some cases broken the bonds of affection within the Communion" or make a conscious decision to walk apart from the Anglican Communion. "There will be others who will choose to accept the recommendations of the Windsor Report and remain in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other Anglican provinces. Those who choose to remain must fully embrace the radical claims of interdependence within a global community. Such individuals, congregations, and dioceses have a rightful and constitutional claim to be the Episcopal Church in the United States." Lipscomb prayed that the Episcopal Church could walk together "bearing witness to the transforming grace of God in Jesus Christ [but] if we cannot walk together, I pray that we will be gracious to one another for the sake of the Gospel. Whatever our individual decisions must be, let us bear witness to the transforming power of God that will one day renew and restore all people to unity with God and with one another in Christ Jesus our Lord. Is this not the mission that we share?" Lipscomb did not say what he or his diocese would do if at GC2006 the Episcopal Church did not fully repent of its decision to consecrate V. Gene Robinson to the episcopacy, but he did say that those who choose to remain must fully embrace the radical claims of interdependence within a global community. "Such individuals, congregations, and dioceses have a rightful and constitutional claim to be the Episcopal Church in the United States." The entire document can be seen here: http://www.dioceseswfla.org/ezine/jblonwindsor.htm Reflections on the Windsor Report July 11, 2005 From the Rt. Rev. John B. Lipscomb, Bishop of the Diocese of Southwest Florida The Windsor Report is the product of the Lambeth Commission established by the Archbishop of Canterbury in October 2003, at the request of the Primates of the Anglican Communion. The Commission was a formal response to the actions of the Episcopal Church in the United States at the General Convention 2003, confirming the election of Gene Robinson to be Bishop Coadjutor in the Diocese of New Hampshire, and the decision of the Diocese of New Westminster in Canada to authorize rites for the blessing of same gendered unions. The mandate to the Commission by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams: 1. To examine and report to him by 30th September 2004, in preparation for the ensuing meetings of the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council, on the legal and theological implications flowing from the decisions of the Episcopal Church (USA) to appoint a priest in a committed same sex relationship as one of its bishops, and of the Diocese of New Westminster to authorise services for use in connection with same sex unions, and specifically on the canonical understandings of communion, impaired and broken communion, and the ways in which provinces of the Anglican Communion may relate to one another in situations where the ecclesiastical authorities of one province feel unable to maintain the fullness of communion with another part of the Anglican Communion. 2. Within their report, to include practical recommendations (including reflection on emerging patterns of provision for episcopal oversight for those Anglicans within a particular jurisdiction, where full communion within a province is under threat) for maintaining the highest degree of communion that may be possible in the circumstances resulting from these decisions, both within and between the churches of the Anglican Communion. 3. Thereafter, as soon as practicable, and with particular reference to the issues raised in Section IV of the Report of the Lambeth Conference 1998, to make recommendations to the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council, as to the exceptional circumstances and conditions under which, and the means by which, it would be appropriate for the Archbishop of Canterbury to exercise an extraordinary ministry of episcope (pastoral oversight), support and reconciliation with regard to the internal affairs of a province other than his own for the sake of maintaining communion with the said province and between the said province and the rest of the Anglican Communion. 4. In its deliberations, to take due account of the work already undertaken on issues of communion by the Lambeth Conferences of 1988 and 1998, as well as the views expressed by the Primates of the Anglican Communion in the communiqu=E9s and pastoral letters arising from their meetings since 2000. The following summary of the Windsor Report was provided by the Anglican Communion Office in October 2004, at the time of the release of the full Report. The Windsor Report should be read in full. It is a document in which one section builds upon another, presenting a developing ecclesiology for the Anglican Communion in which recommendations for relationships among the provinces and the governance of the Communion grow out of a deepening theological understanding of our common life and mission. Section A The report begins by describing the nature of the relationship into which all Christians believe that they are called by God. This relationship is expressed by "communion" and the way in which this relates to the mission of the Church. It describes how the life of communion works when it is operating well giving a specific example relating to the ordination of women before turning to a description of the current difficulties within the Anglican Communion. This is followed by a description of the underlying tensions which give rise to the current difficulties. Section B This section examines the principles which underlie the way in which the Anglican Communion lives its life. It looks more deeply at the importance of communion as a principle of church life before addressing specific elements of church life and ministry as understood in Anglicanism: scripture, ministry of bishops, and the way in which Anglican/Episcopal churches discern God's will together and in their own context. Section C The discussion in the first two sections is important, because it is the basis from which the Commission moves to its recommendations on the future life of the Communion. After a segment which gives the history of the central councils or Instruments of Unity of the Anglican Communion, the report offers recommendations on the future working of the Instruments of Unity, and especially the Archbishop of Canterbury to be supported by a Council of Advice. It goes on to consider the legal and constitutional binds which underpin the communion and recommends the creation and adoption of an Anglican Covenant. Section D The report then turns to the matters that have disturbed the life of the Communion. It identifies the central issue and offers its recommendations on elections to the episcopate, on public Rites of Blessing of same-sex unions, and on the care of dissenting minorities. In conclusion, the Commission sets its work within the wider mission of the Church. Appendices A vital part of the report is its appendices. Appendix One sets out reflections on the operation of the conciliar Instruments of Unity and the Anglican Communion Office. Appendix Two sets out a possible draft of an Anglican Covenant to illustrate what such a document might look like. Appendix Three sets out the documentation behind many recent debaters and decisions of the Communion, and a select bibliography is offered in Appendix Four. At the end of the publication, readers will find a selected thematic index, by which the paragraphs relating to a range of topics may be identified. Reflection The Windsor Report should be read as a challenge to the entire Anglican Communion. While the Report is occasioned by the crisis created by the Episcopal Church in the United States (ECUSA) and the Anglican Church in Canada (ACiC) it asks each of the Provinces to address concerns of authority, autonomy, and interdependence within our common life. Paragraph 66 of the Report draws attention to comments made by Archbishop Robert Runcie in his opening address to the Lambeth Conference of 1988: "...are we being called through events and their theological interpretation to move from independence to interdependence? If we answer yes, then we cannot dodge the question of how this is to be given 'flesh': how is our interdependence articulated and made effective; how is it to be structured? ... We need to have confidence that authority is not dispersed to the point of dissolution and ineffectiveness ... Let me put it in starkly simple terms: do we really want unity within the Anglican Communion? Is our worldwide family of Christians worth bonding together? Or is our paramount concern the preservation of promotion of that particular expression of Anglicanism which has developed within the culture of our own province? ... I believe we still need the Anglican Communion. But we have reached the stage in the growth of the Communion when we must begin to make radical choices, or growth will imperceptibly turn to decay. I believe the choice between independence and interdependence, already set before us as a Communion in embryo twenty-five years ago, is quite simply the choice between unity or gradual fragmentation." Many of the working assumptions of Anglicans who live in a post-Enlightenment/post-modern cultural context regarding the authority and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures are being challenged by our Communion partners. This upheaval also calls us to re-examine our understanding of autonomy as a Province of the Anglican Communion. The Windsor Report provides an opportunity to reconsider in this contemporary context the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the character of bishops and synods, and the Instruments of Unity of Communion life as we approach the work of reconciliation and transformation. Integrity as faithful disciples of Jesus Christ in a global context no longer allows the Anglican Churches in the West the luxury to assume a position of preeminence in the theological and ethical teachings of the Communion. The provinces in the developing nations of the Global South have emerged as rapidly growing, theologically sophisticated communities offering leadership within the Communion. If we continue to assume the right to teach, we must also accept the responsibility to learn from those who live in a cultural milieu different from our own. The decisions of ECUSA and the Anglican Church in Canada that have engendered this current crisis have also affected our relationships with our ecumenical partners. Paragraph 28 of the Report calls our attention to the following reality. "The overwhelming response from other Christians both inside and outside the Anglican family has been to regard these developments as departures from genuine, apostolic Christian faith. Granted, some churches in other denominations have made provision, or are considering making such provision, for the ordination of persons in sexually active same-sex relationships, offering arguments based on modern scientific proposals about sexual attraction, and corresponding, in their proposals, to changes and innovations in civil law in some of the relevant countries. But condemnation has come from the Russian Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches, as well as a statement from the Roman Catholic Church that such moves create "new and serious difficulties" to ecumenical relationships. Within our own Communion, some eighteen of the thirty-eight provinces of the Anglican Communion, or their primates on their behalf, have issued statements which indicate, in a variety of ways, their basic belief that the developments in North America are "contrary to biblical teaching" and as such unacceptable." Our actions have had a profoundly negative impact on ecumenical conversations and relationships, as well as on the mission of the whole Church. In areas of the world in which many Christian communities live as minorities the actions of ECUSA and the ACiC have been detrimental to the work of mission and ministry within other Christian denominations. To live into the vision of Communion expressed by The Windsor Report requires that we adopt a spirit of humility -- accepting limitations on provincial autonomy in order to live into new possibilities in mission and ministry. The Report calls each province to recognize their interdependence and responsibility as members of the Anglican Communion. The recommendations of the Windsor Report have been received by three of the four Instruments of Unity of the Anglican Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates Council, and the Anglican Consultative Council have endorsed the Windsor Report which embodies the teaching of the bishops gathered for the 1998 Lambeth Conference (The Lambeth Conference is considered the fourth instrument of unity for the Communion). For some, the Windsor Report appears to be a departure from traditional Anglican patterns of organization which provided a degree of latitude in the governance of the life of individual provinces. Even at an early stage, however, our freedom was limited by our acceptance of the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Church of England. The work of the Lambeth Commission continues a process set in motion by the 16th century Reformation and the American Revolution. These moments of crisis also brought opportunities for developing new approaches to living out the mission and ministry of the Church. The Reformation allowed The Church of England to develop an expression of catholic Christianity apart from the Papacy. Anglicanism existed for half a millennium with the Holy Scriptures, read within the context of common prayer, as its central teaching authority. As the Communion grew, we were held together by bonds of affection and affinity. Current circumstances require us to reassess the means for maintaining our common life. The American Revolution set in motion the possibility of a global communion of autonomous provinces sharing the common heritage of the Church of England. As the various colonial churches attained independence from the Church of England it was necessary for them to develop new patterns of relationship with the Church of England and with one another. Over the course of the past 100+ years the member Churches of the Anglican Communion have accepted and developed four Instruments of Unity to enhance and strengthen our relationships with one another. These Instruments of Unity have enhanced our ability to pursue a common mission. The Windsor Report is another step toward giving form to Anglicanism as a distinct part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Church is the Body of Christ. It does not exist as a static entity, but as a living organism where growth and change are inevitable. I have made a commitment to accept and live within the framework of the Windsor Report as part of the process of maturation in our Communion. I encourage the congregations of the Diocese of Southwest Florida to join in such a commitment by resolution of our vestries or bishops committees. I also encourage the clergy of our diocese to make a personal and public decision to support the recommendations of the Windsor Report. We may not agree with all of the recommendations of the Report. This Report is, however, the point from which we will continue our development as a Church in communion with the See of Canterbury. The Windsor Report is an invitation to a life of discipleship in submission to Jesus Christ and to one another within the Anglican Communion. Such mutual submission bears witness to the reconciling power and grace of God. The members of the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Anglican Church in Canada must decide if they are able to live in such mutual submission with the other member Churches of the Communion. It is in recognition of this call to humility and interdependence that I turn to the concluding remarks of the Windsor Report: We call upon all parties to the current dispute to seek ways of reconciliation, and to heal our divisions. We have already indicated (paragraphs 134 and 144) some ways in which the Episcopal Church (USA) and the Diocese of New Westminster could begin to speak with the Communion in a way which would foster reconciliation. We have appealed to those intervening in provinces and dioceses similarly to act with renewed respect. We would expect all provinces to respond with generosity and charity to any such actions. It may well be that there need to be formal discussions about the path to reconciliation, and a symbolic Act of Reconciliation, which would mark a new beginning for the Communion, and a common commitment to proclaim the Gospel of Christ to a broken and needy world. There remains a very real danger that we will not choose to walk together. Should the call to halt and find ways of continuing in our present communion not be heeded, then we shall have to begin to learn to walk apart. We would much rather not speculate on actions that might need to be taken if, after acceptance by the primates, our recommendations are not implemented. However, we note that there are, in any human dispute, courses that may be followed: processes of mediation and arbitration; non-invitation to relevant representative bodies and meetings; invitation, but to observer status only; and, as an absolute last resort, withdrawal from membership. We earnestly hope that none of these will prove necessary. Our aim throughout has been to work not for division but for healing and restoration. The real challenge of the gospel is whether we live deeply enough in the love of Christ, and care sufficiently for our joint work to bring that love to the world, that we will "make every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. 4.3). As the primates stated in 2000, "to turn from one another would be to turn away from the Cross", and indeed from serving the world which God loves and for which Jesus Christ died. Within ECUSA there will be those who after prayerful consideration conclude that they must be faithful to the decisions of the General Convention 2003 which have strained and in some cases broken the bonds of affection within the Communion. To decide on such a course is to make a conscious decision to walk apart from the Anglican Communion. There will be others who will choose to accept the recommendations of the Windsor Report and remain in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other Anglican provinces. Those who choose to remain must fully embrace the radical claims of interdependence within a global community. Such individuals, congregations, and dioceses have a rightful and constitutional claim to be the Episcopal Church in the United States. I pray that we will walk together bearing witness to the transforming grace of God in Jesus Christ. If we cannot walk together, I pray that we will be gracious to one another for the sake of the Gospel. Whatever our individual decisions must be, let us bear witness to the transforming power of God that will one day renew and restore all people to unity with God and with one another in Christ Jesus our Lord. Is this not the mission that we share? In Christ, +John B. Lipscomb, D.D. Fourth Bishop of Southwest Florida ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:05:11 -0400 From: David Virtue Subject: ENGLAND: Church votes to prepare way for women bishops Church votes to prepare way for women bishops By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent THE LONDON TIMES LONDON (July 11,2005) WOMEN in the Church of England finally broke through the stained-glass ceiling yesterday when the General Synod voted to begin the legal process that will enable them to become bishops. Thirty years after the synod decided that there were no fundamental objections to women's ordination, and 13 years after the vote to ordain female priests, women were granted permission to start their ascent up the ladder to the hierarchy. In an organisation that still moves in decades, if not centuries, it will be at least ten years before a woman becomes a bishop in England. But no amount of time will assuage the fears of traditionalists that the feminisation of the Church is under way. The 1992 debate, on a cold February day, was heated, with clerics comforting those in tears as the vote to ordain women priests scraped the two-thirds majority required by only two votes, a victory given poignancy by the abstention of Valerie Bonham, an outspoken opponent whose support had been counted on by traditionalists. Mrs Bonham has subsequently been ordained, one of more than 2,500 women priests. About 1,300 of the 9,000 stipendiaries are women. Nearly half of those training for the ministry are women. Yesterday's debate was cooler than 1992, although the temperature in the non-air conditioned central hall at York University was in the 80s. There were a few gentle protests outside from supporters of women bishops, including one woman robed in purple and carrying a large wooden cross. Opponents such as Valerie Bryden, from the Durham Diocese, gave warning of "irreversible damage" if women became bishops. But with so much of the opposition from 1992 now in the Roman Catholic or Orthodox churches, and with so many women in the Church of England speaking as ordained priests, the debate was less confrontational, less political than before. There was still passion. The Rev Jennifer Thomas, of the Southwark Diocese, compared the debate to the struggle between Jacob and Esau over the stolen birthright. "Now women are claiming what is rightfully theirs," she said. She added: "How can we speak to the nation about justice when we cannot organise ourselves in a just way?" The Very Rev June Osborne, Dean of Salisbury and the woman most likely to lead the procession of women to the bishoprics, described the legions of wise, much-loved women priests in her diocese. She said: "In another ten years it will be inconceivable to us that such women as those should not be considered as bishops." The Rev David Phillips, of the St Albans Diocese and general secretary of the evangelical Church Society, said that the Church had "bought into" a cultural model in which men and women were treated as the same. "I do not believe the Church should be dictated to by our culture," he said. Jane Pitts, a teacher from Formby, Merseyside, said: "Women now occupy pole positions in national life . . . if we continue to make entry qualifications to high office impossible for half of humankind, we should not be surprised if our message does not cut much ice with people used to seeing women in other high offices." Fourteen of the 38 Anglican provinces worldwide have voted for women bishops, and they have been elected in Canada, the US and New Zealand. The Right Rev Michael Langrish, the Bishop of Exeter, and the Right Rev Richard Chartres, the Bishop of London and the Church's most senior traditionalist, were not present for the debate. With such key opponents absent, it was clear that the mood of the synod was going to back women bishops. An unexpected intervention from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, effectively scuppered any remaining hopes of the backers of an amendment asking for time for more theological study. He called for the synod, next time it meets, to move out of debating mode to "tease out" some of the issues in a non-confrontational setting. Yesterday's debate needed a 50 per cent majority to begin the process of drawing up legislation. The bishops voted 41-6 in favour, the clergy 167-46 and the laity 159-75. Over the next few years the issue will go to the dioceses and parishes for debate and will return repeatedly to synod. It could be eight years before synod is asked to approve the legislation, when it will require a two-thirds majority, and a further two years before the first woman is ordained a bishop. END ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:05:45 -0400 From: David Virtue Subject: LONDON: Churchmen on brink of exodus over women bishops Churchmen on brink of exodus over women bishops Christopher Morgan THE SUNDAY TIMES LONDON (July 10, 2005)--ON THE eve of a critical vote on the creation of women bishops in the Church of England, a senior figure has warned he and hundreds of priests will quit if the move is approved. Andrew Burnham, Bishop of Ebbsfleet, this weekend becomes the first leading churchman to state that he would be likely to defect to the Roman Catholic Church. The General Synod will tomorrow be asked to vote on the first stage of the process for "removing the legal obstacles to the ordination of women to the episcopate". A vote in favour will set in train church legislation that may take three years. "A woman bishop wouldn't be a bishop because a bishop is someone whose ministry is acceptable through the ages to all other bishops," said Burnham. "A Church of England with women bishops would no longer have a united episcopate. Bishops would no longer be what they say they are. I would have to leave." He said he would be forced to quit if Anglicans did not make proper provision for opponents of women bishops, and indicated that he believed 800 priests would follow suit. Until now leading opponents of women bishops have kept their counsel in the belief the church could provide a free (or third) "province" in addition to those of Canterbury and York. It would have only male bishops, and its members could be drawn from anybody subject to the archbishops of Canterbury and York. It has recently become clear that a majority of the House of Bishops would not support such a compromise. Traditionalists face the prospect of serving in the church alongside women bishops or leaving. Geoffrey Kirk, national secretary of Forward in Faith, the main Anglo-Catholic group in the church, was as candid as Burnham. "One option is to become a Roman Catholic. I don't think there is any other option for me." If the church does not provide a free province Kirk said he would have to make a stark choice. "It would be a choice between becoming a Roman Catholic or digging in in my parish and preparing for a period of litigation." John Broadhurst, Bishop of Fulham, who has long been linked with plans to create an Anglican-style grouping within the Roman Catholic Church, forecast that the Church of England would face an exodus if the third province compromise were rejected. "The introduction of women bishops without proper provision (for opponents) would be intolerable," he said. Asked if the Roman Catholic Church would be the destination of clergy and bishops if no provision were made, he said: "There certainly would be a very large haemorrhage." Last week a group of bishops warned that proceeding with the plans would endanger the unity of the church. A further sign of that disunity was evident last week when it emerged that Lord Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury, had angered Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster, by agreeing to become patron of the campaign for the ordination of women in the Roman Catholic Church. The cardinal wrote to Carey questioning the decision of the former leader of the Anglican communion to lend his name to a marginal group calling for reform in the Catholic church. Carey has since removed his name from a list of patrons backing the group's aims. Additional reporting: Alex Delmar-Morgan ADDITIONAL STORY WITH MORE DETAILS Hundreds of clergy 'will leave church over women bishops' By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent THE TELEGRAPH 7/11/2005 Nearly a quarter of the Church of England's bishops, including several of its most senior, are likely to oppose moves to consecrate women as bishops at the General Synod in York today. About nine of the Church's diocesan bishops, including the Bishops of London, Winchester and Durham, are thought to harbour strong doubts about the reform. Traditionalists raised the stakes yesterday by warning that up to 800 clergy, including a number of bishops, could quit if women are consecrated. In an historic vote, the Synod will decide whether the Church should begin the process of "removing the legal obstacles for the ordination of women to the episcopate". If the Synod agrees, a House of Bishops' working party will start drawing up proposals to allow the reform to be implemented with the least damage to the Church. The traditionalist wing does not have the numbers to halt the proposed reform at today's vote, but they intend to demonstrate their strength. They are threatening a mass exodus if the Church refuses to grant them a Third Province, a parallel Church with male-only clergy led by its own Archbishop and bishops. A number of bishops oppose the reform in principle, and have been joined by others who feel the timing is not right because the issue is too divisive for a Church already rent by disputes. Many liberals, however, are determined to thwart the traditionalists by forcing the reform through Synod with only minor concessions. They argue that it is a matter of justice that women, who have been ordained as priests for more than 10 years, should be able to become bishops on equal terms with their male counterparts. The Bishop of Ebsfleet, the Rt Rev Andrew Burnham, a leading traditionalist who oversees parishes that have rejected women priests, told a Sunday newspaper that he would resign if women become bishops. Bishop Burnham said that women could not be bishops, and that he would consider becoming a Roman Catholic if they were to be ordained. "A woman bishop wouldn't be a bishop because a bishop is someone whose ministry is acceptable through the ages to all other bishops," he said. "A Church of England with women bishops would no longer have a united episcopate." The Synod yesterday gave its overwhelming support to a report that backed the work of clergy among other faiths, including Muslims. The debate coincided with a rare joint statement delivered by five faith leaders at Lambeth Palace in London to demonstrate their unity after Thursday's bombs. Led by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, the group included Zaki Badawi, the Chair of the Council of Mosques and Imams, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, Sir Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi, and Dr David Coffey, the Free Church Moderator. They condemned the "evil" attacks, offered prayers for the victims and their families and said: "It is vital, when many will be feeling anger, bewilderment and loss, to strengthen those things we hold in common and to resist all that seeks to drive us apart." . Plans by the Church of England to popularise church weddings by scrapping the reading of the banns of marriage have collapsed. The General Synod had agreed to abolish the 800-year-old tradition of reading the banns in church on three Sundays before a wedding as part of wide-ranging changes to marriage law. But Synod members have been told that the plans will now not go ahead because parallel moves by the Government to overhaul civil marriages have stalled. END ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:06:21 -0400 From: David Virtue Subject: LONDON: Bishop says fleeing Anglicans must join church for positive reasons Bishop says fleeing Anglicans must join church for positive reasons By Simon Caldwell Catholic News Service LONDON (CNS) 5/12/2005 -- A Catholic bishop said Anglican clerics opposed to the ordination of women bishops should not be received into the Catholic Church for "negative reasons." Bishop Declan Lang of Clifton, one of England's leading Catholic ecumenists, spoke amid rising speculation that the vote taken by the Church of England July 11 to remove legal obstacles to the episcopal ordination of women would lead to mass defections of traditionalist clergy. Bishop Lang, co-chairman of the English Anglican-Roman Catholic Committee, a group that meets twice a year to promote ecumenical projects and the joint study of theology, said mechanisms existed within the English Catholic Church to receive married Anglican ministers and even to ordain them as Catholic priests. "When there was the ordination of women in the first place there were some Anglicans who applied to be received into the Catholic Church, and the same provision is there at the moment," he told Catholic News Service July 12. "But there is an understanding that you don't come into the Catholic Church for a negative reason. "Those Anglican priests who were received into the church were received for positive reasons -- for example, that they accepted the teaching authority of the church," he said. About 400 English Anglican clerics converted to Catholicism after the General Synod of the Church of England voted to ordain women in 1992, and a number of them -- married and single -- became Catholic priests. The vote for women bishops has led to predictions of more defections, with Anglican Bishop Andrew Burnham of Ebbsfleet telling The Sunday Times newspaper July 10 that he would join the Catholic Church along with about 800 Anglican ministers if the Church of England failed to provide a "third province" with an all-male clergy. The two provinces in the Church of England are Canterbury and York, established during the Anglo-Saxon period by St. Augustine and St. Paulinus. A third province would require an archbishop and would be totally autonomous from, but in communion with, other Anglican churches throughout the world. Bishop Lang said he did not think the decisive vote by all three houses of the General Synod of the Church of England, meeting at York University, would harm relations between the Catholic and Anglican churches. "Our conversations will continue," he said. Anglican Bishop Tom Butler of Southwark said during the debate that the Church of England should not be deterred by its relations with Catholics. "The Church of England, catholic and reformed, has before acted prophetically for the wider church: The vernacular liturgy, married clergy, have all been pioneered by our church and have proved to be a blessing to other communions also," Bishop Butler said. "The same I believe will be true of women's orders, which we are pioneering." The vote means that women could be ordained bishops in England within seven years. Fourteen of the world's 38 Anglican churches already have decided to allow women bishops. The Rev. David Houlding, leader of the Anglo-Catholic group of the General Synod, told the British Broadcasting Corp. radio July 12 that he feared the unity of the Anglican Communion would be damaged as a result of the vote. "We need proper provision for people who do not agree with that decision to stay within the Church of England," he said. But Christina Reese of the campaign group Women and the Church told the same program that such a move would result only in an "ecclesiastical ghetto." "We have had women priests for over 11 years, and it's normal now for people to see women as part of the clergy," she said. William Oddie, author of "The Roman Option," a 1997 book about the defections from the Church of England after women began to be ordained in 1994, told CNS July 11 that it was "ludicrous to say you can't have women bishops" if it was accepted that women could be ordained as priests. Oddie, a former Anglican minister who converted to Catholicism in the 1980s, said that in the 1990s some disaffected Anglicans made contact with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Vatican's doctrinal congregation, about a possible "parallel jurisdiction," and the future Pope Benedict XVI was said to have been sympathetic. Such a parallel jurisdiction, Oddie said, would mean that the former Anglicans would be in communion with the Catholic Church but would be under the authority of their own bishop. "This pope might accept a separate body which is outside the jurisdiction of the English Catholic bishops," Oddie said, adding that he thought the vote would mean many Anglican ministers would be "coming to Rome one way or another." "They have been asking for a third province, and it is possible that they could be offered that rather than go to Rome," said Oddie. "Personally, I think Rome ought to outbid them (the Anglican bishops) and say 'Come to us, we are here for you.'" END ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:07:24 -0400 From: David Virtue Subject: NASSAU: Anglican Pan American Conference Affirms Common Ministry Anglican Pan American Conference Affirms Common Ministry Biblically Orthodox Anglicans from the Americas and Caribbean meet to promote their common ministry in the Western Hemisphere Nassau, Bahamas--(July 10, 2005)--The Pan American Conference of orthodox Communion-committed Anglicans met in Nassau, Bahamas, from July 6-8 under the guidance and direction of the Holy Spirit. The meetings were chaired by Archbishop Drexel Gomez and Archbishop Gregory Venables. The group met for prayer and bible study and to find ways to promote and support our unity and common ministry in the Western Hemisphere. Submitting to one another and to our Lord Jesus Christ, we were greatly blessed by our time together and by the relationships we have established and strengthened. Those present have committed to furthering the common ministry of the Americas and the Caribbean and to assist the global Communion with finding solutions to the crisis currently afflicting the Anglican churches in the Western Hemisphere which hinders our gospel witness in this region. We look forward to building on the work of the Conference and working with our constituencies to strengthen our ties and promote our traditional Anglican heritage in submission to the Primates and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Given the enthusiasm for this preliminary meeting, we are confident of future participation from a broader representation of Communion-committed Anglicans in this hemisphere. The conference was attended by representatives from the following biblically orthodox and Communion committed groups: The Province of the West Indies The Province of the Southern Cone The Anglican Communion Network (ACN) The Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC) The American Anglican Council (AAC) The Anglican Communion in Canada (ACiC) The Anglican Communion in New Westminster (ACiNW) Anglican Essentials Canada (AEC) The Anglican Mission in America (AMiA) The Anglican Province of America (APA) Anglicans United (AU) Christian Formation Ministries (CFM) The Diocese of Recife Forward in Faith America (FIFNA) The Foundation for Christian Theology The Reformed Episcopal Church (REC) Sharing of Ministries Abroad (SOMA) Ekklesia The conference also made a further statement which follows: Resolution on Recife The Anglican Pan American Conference, meeting in Nassau, Bahamas July 6-8, 2005, notes with profound concern and regret the lack of restraint by the Primate of Brazil, Orlando Santos de Oliveira, and the Province of Brazil in the precipitous actions taken against The Rt. Revd. Robinson Cavalcanti, by not allowing the Panel of Reference an opportunity to mediate the conflict. In this way, the Province of Brazil has failed in its fiduciary and pastoral duty towards the diocese of Recife. The rush to judgment being both unwarranted and untimely has caused a fundamental lack of confidence in the findings of the court. Therefore we are constrained to maintain our relationship with Bishop Cavalcanti and the clergy and lay people who continue to recognize him as their bishop. Further, we implore the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates of the Communion to call for a halt to the legal process in Brazil regarding this issue and to conduct a fair and impartial inquiry into the conflict. END ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:08:37 -0400 From: David Virtue Subject: AUSTIN, TX: Liberal Seminary picks Orthodox theologian for President ETSS Appoints the Rev. Dr. Philip Turner Interim Dean and President Austin, TX. - The Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees of the Episcopal Theological Seminary of the Southwest (ETSS) has appointed the Rev. Dr. Philip Turner Interim Dean and President of the Seminary effective August 1, 2005. As Interim Dean & President, Turner will provide continuity of leadership while the seminary conducts a search for a new permanent Dean and President. The vacancy was created by the previously announced resignation of the Rev. Dr. Titus Presler. Presler will be Sub-Dean and Vice President for Academic Affairs at the General Theological Seminary in New York City. The move will enable him and his wife, the Rev. Jane Butterfield, Mission Personnel Officer for the Episcopal Church in New York to make their home at the seminary in Manhattan. Turner brings a wealth of experience to the interim position having served as Dean of The Berkley Divinity School at Yale University, one of 11 seminaries of the Episcopal Church, from 1991-1998. He also held faculty positions at two other Episcopal seminaries, General Theological Seminary and ETSS. Turner began his ordained ministry as a Missionary of the Episcopal Church in Uganda where he served from 1961-1971. He has also served the worldwide Anglican Communion as an appointee of the Archbishop of Canterbury to the Primates Committee on Theological Education. His wife, Elizabeth, is also an Episcopal Priest, and currently serves on the staff of St. Mark's Episcopal Church in Austin. "We are excited to have a person with Dr. Turner's credentials and experience to provide continuity and leadership during this interim period and to assure that the many initiatives currently underway continue. These initiatives include the goals and objectives supporting our new Vision Statement", said the Rt. Rev. Don A. Wimberly, Bishop of the Diocese of Texas and Chair of the ETSS Board of Trustees. The vision of the Episcopal Theological Seminary of the Southwest is to be a seminary for the whole church. We will grow to meet the leadership and mission needs of the Episcopal Church. Wimberly added that a Search Committee will be announced shortly and that the Board anticipates receiving a recommendation from the Search Committee and the calling of a new Dean and President by the end of the upcoming academic year. ETSS, founded in 1952 to meet the educational needs of the Episcopal Church in the Southwest, today serves over 150 full and part-time students from 32 Dioceses across the US and the worldwide Anglican Communion. Utilizing its location in the multicultural Southwest, the seminary understands mission to be ministry in the dimension of difference. The curriculum takes students out of their comfort zones to explore ministry across the divides of culture, race, ethnicity, language, economics, and geography. ETSS awards the degrees of Master of Divinity, Master of Arts in Religion, Master of Arts in Counseling, Master of Arts in Pastoral Ministry and certificates in Individual Theological Studies, Youth Ministry, Christian Education, and Special Studies. Additional information is available at www.etss.edu. CV The Rev. Dr. Philip Turner Education: 1958 B.A. (Magna cum Laude) Washington and Lee University 1961 B.D. Virginia Theological Seminary 1963 Diploma, Social Anthropology Oxford University 1973 MA Princeton University 1978 PhD Princeton University Honorary Degrees: 1990 D.D. Virginia Theological Seminary 1998 D. Canon Law The Berkeley Divinity School at Yale Academic Honors: Zabriski Lecturer Piepkorn Lecturer Lecturer, The Ecumenical Institute at Bossey Switzerland Episcopal Church Fellow 1971-1974 Lilly Grant 1985-1986 Professional History: 1961-1971 Missionary of the Episcopal Church in Uganda 1961-62 Priest in Charge of rural mission congregation in Buganda 1962-1963 Tutor, Bishop Tucker College 1963 1964 Graduate work at Oxford University 1965-1971 Lecturer in Religious Studies an Sociology, Makerere University and Secretary for the Diploma in Theology for East Africa 1971-1974 Graduate Work at Princeton University 1974-1980 Professor of Christian Ethics, ETSSW 1982 Visiting Professor of Christian Ethics, Princeton University 1980-1991 Professor of Christian Ethics, The General Seminary 1991-1998 Dean, The Berkeley Divinity School at Yale Church Appointments: 1. ECUSA representative to the Mission Strategy Advisory Group (MISAG I) 2. Archbishop of Canterbury's appointee to the Primates Committee on Theological Education 3. Member of Abundance Committee of the Church Pension Group, (5 years) 4. Member of the Board of Church Publishing 1998-2003 Select List of Publications Books: Sex, Money and Power Men and Women (editor and contributor) The Crisis of Moral Teaching in The Episcopal Church (editor and contributor) Cross Roads are for Meeting (editor and contributor) Recent Articles: The Marriage Canons of the Episcopal Church (Anglican Theological Review) Sexual Ethics in the Life of the Church (Virginia Seminary Journal) Authority in the Church (First Things) Episcopal Authority in A Divided Church (Pro Ecclesia) Rowan Williams, The New Archbishop of Canterbury (Pro Ecclesia) John Cassian and the Desert Fathers (Pro Ecclesia) The Communion of Anglican After Lambeth 98 (Anglican Theological Review) Tolerable Diversity and Ecclesial Integrity: Communion or Federation? (Journal of Anglican Studies) When Worlds Collide: A Comment on the Precarious State of the Episcopal Church New Conversation: Essays on the Future of Theology and the Episcopal Church (ed. Robert Slocom) The Ten Commandments in the Church in a Post Modern World I Am The Lord Your God: Christian Reflections on the Ten Commandments (eds. Carl Braaten and Christopher Seitz) A RECENT ARTICLE BY DR. TURNER An Unworkable Theology by Philip Turner It is increasingly difficult to escape the fact that mainline Protestantism is in a state of disintegra=ADtion. As attendance declines, internal divisions increase. Take, for instance, the situation of the Epis=ADcopal Church in the United States. The Episcopal Church's problem is far more theological than it is moral - a theological poverty that is truly monumen=ADtal and that stands behind the moral missteps recently taken by its governing bodies. Every denomination has its theological articles and books of theology, its liturgies and confessional statements. Nonetheless, the contents of these documents do not necessarily control what we might call the "working theology" of a church. To find the working theology of a church one must review the resolutions passed at official gatherings and listen to what clergy say Sunday by Sunday from the pulpit. One must lis=ADten to the conversations that occur at clergy gather=ADings=96and hear the advice clergy give troubled parishioners. The working theology of a church is, in short, best determined by becoming what social anthropol=ADogists call a "participant observer." For thirty-five years, I have been such a participant observer in the Episcopal Church. After ten years as a missionary in Uganda, I returned to this country and began graduate work in Christian Ethics with Paul Ramsey at Princeton University. Three years later I took up a post at the Episcopal Theological Seminary of the Southwest. Full of excitement, I listened to my first Student sermon - only to be taken aback by its vacuity. The student began with the wonderful ques=ADtion, "What is the Christian Gospel?" But his answer, through the course of an entire sermon, was merely: "God is love. God loves us. We, therefore, ought to love one another." I waited in vain for some word about the saving power of Christ's cross or the declara=ADtion of God's victory in Christ's resurrection. I waited in vain for a promise of the Holy Spirit. I waited in vain also for an admonition to wait patiently and faithfully for the Lord's return. I waited in vain for a call to repentance and amendment of life in accord with the pattern of Christ's life. The contents of the preaching I had heard for a decade from the pulpits of the Anglican Church of Uganda (and from other Christians throughout the continent of Africa) was simply not to be found. One could, of course, dismiss this instance of vacuous preaching as simply another example of the painful inadequacy of the preaching of most seminarians; but, over the years, I have heard the same sermon preached from pulpit after pulpit by experienced priests. The Episcopal sermon, at its most fulsome, begins with a statement to the effect that the incarnation is to be understood as merely a manifestation of divine love. From this starting point, several conclusions are drawn. The first is that God is love pure and simple. Thus, one is to see in Christ's death no judgment upon the human condition. Rather, one is to see an affirmation of cre=ADation and the persons we are. The life and death of Jesus reveal the fact that God accepts and affirms us. From this revelation, we can draw a further conclu=ADsion: God wants us to love one another, and such love requires of us both acceptance and affirmation of the other. From this point we can derive yet another: Accepting love requires a form of justice that is inclu=ADsive of all people, particularly those who in some way have been marginalized by oppressive social practice. The mission of the Church is, therefore, to see that those who have been rejected are included - for justice as inclusion defines public policy. The result is a practical equivalence between the Gospel of the Kingdom of God and a particular form of social justice. For those who view the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops and its General Convention from the out=ADside, many of their recent actions may seem to repre=ADsent a denial of something fundamental to the Chris=ADtian Way of life. But for many inside the Episcopal Church, the equation of the Gospel and social justice constitutes a primary expression of Christian truth. This isn't an ethical divide about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. It's a theological chasm - one that separates those who hold a theology of divine acceptance from those who hold a theology of divine redemption. Look, for example, at the increasingly common practice of inviting non-baptized persons to share in the Holy Eucharist. The invitation is given in the name of "radical hospitality." It is like having a guest at the family meal, so its advocates claim: it is a way to invite people in and evangelize. Within the Episcopal Church, a sure test of whether an idea is gaining favor is the appearance of a question about it on the general-ordination exam. Questions on divorce and remarriage, the ordination of women, sexual behavior, and abortion all preceded changes in the Episcopal Church's teaching and practice. On a recent version of the exam, there appeared a question about "open communion for the non-baptized, " which suggests that this is far more than a cloud on the horizon. It is, rather, a change in doctrine and practice that is fast becoming well established and perhaps should be of greater concern to the Anglican Communion's ecumenical partners than the recent changes in moral teaching and practice. Indeed, it is important to note when examining the working theology of the Episcopal Church that changes in belief and practice within the church are not made after prolonged investigation and theologi=ADcal debate. Rather, they are made by "prophetic actions" that give expression to the doctrine of radical inclusion. Such actions have become common partly because they carry no cost. Since the struggle over the ordination of women, the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops has given up any attempt to act as a unified body or to discipline its membership. Within a given diocese, almost any change in belief and practice can occur without penalty. Certain justifications are commonly named for such failure of discipline. The first is the claim of the prophet's mantle by the innovators-often quickly followed by an assertion that the Holy Spirit Itself is doing this new thing, which need have no perceivable link to the past practice of the church. Backed by claims of prophetic and Spirit-filled insight, each dio=ADcese can then justify its action as a "local option," which is the claimed right of each diocese or parish to go its own way if there seem to be strong enough internal reasons to do so. All of these justifications are currently being offered for the practice of open communion - which is the clearest possible signal that it is an idea whose time has come in the Episcopal Church. But the deep roots of the idea are in the doctrine of radical inclusion. Once we have reduced the significance of Christ's resurrection and downplayed holiness of life as a fundamental marker of Christian identity, the notion of radical inclusion produces the view that one need not come to the Father through the Son. Christ is a way, but not the way. The Holy Eucharist is a sign of acceptance on the part of God and God's people, and so should be open to all-the invitation unaccompanied by a call to repentance and amendment of life. This unofficial doctrine of radical inclusion, which is now the working theology of the Episcopal Church, plays out in two directions. In respect to God, it produces a quasi-deist theology that posits a benevolent God who favors love and justice as inclu=ADsion but acts neither to save us from our sins nor to raise us to new life after the pattern of Christ. In respect to human beings, it produces an ethic of toler=ADant affirmation that carries with it no call to conver=ADsion and radical holiness. The Episcopal Church's working theology is also congruent with a form of pastoral care designed to help people affirm themselves, face their difficulties, and adjust successfully to their particular circumstances. The primary (though not the sole) pastoral formation offered to the Episcopal Church's prospective clergy has for a number of years been "Clinical Pastoral Edu=ADcation," which takes the form of an internship at a hos=ADpital or some other care-giving institution. The focus tends to be the expressed needs of a "client," the attitudes and contributions of a "counselor," and the transference and countertransference that define their relationship. In its early days, the supervisors of Clini=ADcal Pastoral Education were heavily influenced by the client-centered therapy of Carl Rogers, but the theo=ADretical framework employed today varies widely. A dominant assumption in all forms, however, is that the clients have, within themselves, the answer to their per=ADplexities and conflicts. Access to personal resources and successful adjustment are what the pastor is to seek when offering pastoral care. There may be some merit in putting new clergy in hospital settings, but this particular form does not lend itself easily to the sort of meeting with Christ that leads to faith, forgiveness, judgment, repentance, and amendment of life. The sort of confrontation often necessary to spark such a process is decidedly frowned upon. The theological stance associated with Clinical Pastoral Education is not one of challenge but one in which God is depicted as an accepting presence - not unlike that of the therapist or pastor. But this should not be an unexpected development. In a theology dominated by radical inclusion, terms such as "faith," "justification," "repentance," and "holi=ADness of life" seem to belong to an antique vocabulary that must be outgrown or reinterpreted. So also does the notion that the church is a community elected by God for the particular purpose of bearing witness to the saving event of Christ's life, death, and resurrection. It is this witness that defines the great tradition of the Church, but a theology of radical inclusion must trim such robust belief. To be true to itself it can find room for only one sort of witness: inclusion of the previous=ADly excluded. God has already included everybody, and now we ought to do the same. Salvation cannot be the issue. The theology of radical inclusion, as preached and practiced within the Episcopal Church, must define the central issue as moral rather than religious, since exclusion is in the end a moral issue even for God. We must say this clearly: The Episcopal Church's current working theology depends upon the oblitera=ADtion of God's difficult, redemptive love in the name of a new revelation. The message, even when it comes from the mouths of its more sophisticated exponents, amounts to inclusion without qualification. Thinking back over my thirty-five years in the Episcopal Church, I was distressed to realize that this new revelation is little different from the basic message communicated to me during the course of my own theological education. Fortunately, in my case God provided an intervening event. I lived for about ten years among the Baganda, a people who dwell on the north shore of Lake Victoria. The Baganda have a proverb which, roughly translated, says, "A person who never travels always praises his own mother's cooking." Travel allowed me to taste something differ=ADent. It was not until I had spent a long time abroad that I realized how far apart the American Episcopal Church stood from the basic content of "Nicene Christianity," with its thick description of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, its richly developed Christology, and its compelling account of Christ's call to holiness of life. The future of Anglicanism as a communion of churches may depend upon the American Episcopal Church's ability to find a way out of the terrible constraints forced upon it by its working theology. Much of the Anglican communion in Africa sees the prob=ADlem. Can the Americans? It is not enough simply to refer to the Episcopal Church's Book of Common Prayer and reply, "We are orthodox just like you: we affirm the two testaments as the word of God, we recite the classical creeds in our worship, we celebrate the dominical sacraments, and we hold to episcopal order." The challenge now being put to the Episcopal Church in the United States (and, by implication, to all libera1 Protestantism) is not about official docu=ADments. It is about the church's working theology=AD - one which most Anglicans in the rest of the world no longer recognize as Christian. Philip Turner is the former Dean of the Berkeley Divin=ADity School at Yale. He currently serves as Vice President of the Anglican Communion Institute. Printer Friendly Page ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:09:02 -0400 From: David Virtue Subject: AUSTRALIA: Anglicans choose Brisbane Archbishop as Primate AUSTRALIA: Anglicans choose Brisbane Archbishop as Primate From General Synod 9th July 2005 Archbishop of Brisbane elected Primate of the Anglican Church of Australia The Most Rev Phillip Aspinall, Archbishop of Brisbane was today elected Primate of the Anglican Church of Australia by the Board of Electors of the Primate which comprises diocesan bishops, and representative clergy and lay members of the General Synod. He will hold office until the next General Synod to be held in 2007. Archishop Aspinall was consecrated Bishop in 1998, when he went to serve as Assistant Bishop in the Diocese of Adelaide. He was elected Archbishop of Brisbane in 2001. Before going to Adelaide Archbishop Aspinall was Director of Anglicare in the Diocese of Tasmania. He was awarded an MBA from Deakin University and holds a PH.D from Monash University, Faculty of Education. He is a member of the Appellate Tribunal of the Anglican Church of Australia, and is a past member of the State and Territory Advisory Group for Commonwealth Stronger Families and Communities Strategy. For 2 years 2000-2002 he was the Chair of Anglicare Australia. He is married to Christa and they have two children. The Primate of the Anglican Church has a varied portfolio of responsibilities. He retains his role as a diocesan bishop, but at the same time he chairs the meetings of the General Synod of the Church and its attendant Boards and Committees, as well as the annual meeting of bishops. He represents the Anglican Church of Australia in many forums of the worldwide Anglican Communion. As well, one of the Primate's main tasks nationally is to speak out and to represent the voice of the Anglican Church on major issues for the Australian community, without fear or favour. A media conference with Archbishop Aspinall will be held at the Chevalier Resource Centre, 1 Roma Avenue Kensington at 3.00pm tomorrow, Sunday 10th July. END ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:09:55 -0400 From: David Virtue Subject: As Eye See It: The whole armour of God - By Richard Chartres The whole armour of God Sermon by the Rt. Rev'd Richard John Carew Chartres St Paul's Cathedral LONDON (8/07/05)--With the events of yesterday in London in mind, does religion help, or is it useless or is it even part of the problem? Yesterday was a very dark day. The attack on London was not an attack on heavily guarded Presidents and men of power but an attack on ordinary Londoners going to work by bus or tube. The bombs went off without warning and were obviously designed to cause maximum panic and indiscriminate slaughter of Londoners, Christians and Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Sikhs because that is what modern London is like. I was in touch with the Muslim Council after their statement and we are determined to speak and act in solidarity with one another. The centre we established here in the City, St Ethelburga's Centre for Preventing and Transforming conflict has been working recently with Muslim students and we have been able to contact our friends as part of an effort to ensure that no one will be able to exploit this time of grief and anxiety. One bright light was the way the emergency services responded and I am very proud of the role played by the clergy who worked alongside the emergency services and of course in the hospitals to which the injured were taken. The response of local parishes was prompt, energetic and imaginative and the crisis certainly illustrated the virtues of having a local parish network with resident clergy. Yesterday was such a contrast to the euphoria of Wednesday. For us in St Paul's it was not only the news of the success of the Olympic bid but the gathering here of three thousand people to hear Kofi Annan and Gordon Brown set out their hopes for the G8 summit. The Cathedral was packed and alas the doors had to be closed when the queue to get in still stretched as far as the underground station. The atmosphere was electric. People were passionately engaged with the question of what they as well as governments could do to alleviate global poverty. That is the real agenda in today's world and by contrast yesterday's actions simply added to the suffering and were a tragic irrelevance. It is useless to speculate on the state of mind of the people who cold bloodedly planned and executed this atrocity but is a sin against God and against every decent human feeling. With all this in mind does religion help, is it useless or even worse part of the problem? One thing is clear, false religion is part of the problem. The attitude which says - it doesn't really matter what you believe as along as you are sincere - will not do. It belongs to the world of the day before yesterday when people in the west had the delusion that religion was a harmless fantasy left over from the pre-rational age. False religion is awesomely powerful and destructive. What I am talking about is not of course other world faiths but a phenomenon which is a threat to all genuine spiritual ways. The Bible calls this threat idolatry. It is not so much worshipping idols like Moloch - there is as far as I know remarkably little Moloch worship in the City of London; it is projecting parts of ourselves, our anger, our resentment and organising our thoughts and actions around these projections. The true and living God who communicated supremely in the suffering love of his human face Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh is not a God who murders the innocent. There is no excuse for not being serious about religious education at every level. In the Ethelburga Centre we are hosts to the London part of the scriptural reasoning project which brings together competent Jewish Christian and Muslim scholars not to say something evidently untrue like "all religions are really saying the same thing" but to study their own scriptures from the standpoint of believers but in company with believers in the other Abrahamic faiths. The horizon is defined by some of the contemporary problems like conflict and poverty which challenge our modern world. We are looking together in the same direction rather than at each other. It is a method which could be replicated with advantage at the university level throughout the world. On the basis of my experience I do not know any competent religious authority in any of the great world religions who would regard yesterday's events as anything but an atrocity and a sin against God. It is obviously vital that good teaching from a faith perspective is available in our schools because false religion flourishes in a spiritual vacuum. But to confront some of the more personal questions which arise from yesterday's events. Another form of faith that is not so much false as immature is that as a believer one should be exempt from suffering and loss. It is of course true that if you practice the cardinal virtues recorded in Wisdom VIII,7 which as knights you will remember are: Be savvy, - learn all you can about God's world, learn about limits and balance be just, - be very careful how you use words, be honest, don't rush to judgment be temperate, - don't buy more than you can use, don't bite off more than you can chew, have fun but don't get smashed. be courageous - say yes to life If you practice these virtues you will be preserved from the punishment which follows folly but we follow God's Word made flesh who prayed that the cup of suffering should pass him by and yet drank from that cup in his passion and crucifixion. God makes his appeal to us in the suffering of his human face Jesus Christ. Those sufferings reveal the injustice of the world as it is presently structured and those sufferings also reveal the depth of the divine love of a God who chooses to draw us to himself by weakness rather by a demonstration of overpowering power. God is at work loving the loveless into loving. Even then at the worst times when there are no glib explanations, prayer to God as we see him in Jesus and experience his presence is transforming. Resting in the presence of God, weeping, crying out at the injustice and waste of it all is transforming. The pain is not taken away but as we go beyond ourselves into God the pain does not turn into destructive passion that can do harm to ourselves and to others. It may even be that the brokenness that comes with grief shared with God can open us up to others at an altogether deeper level and enable us touch those who are themselves suffering at a level so deep that words fail. So finally my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. Take unto you the whole armour of God that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day and having done all to stand. END ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:10:27 -0400 From: David Virtue Subject: As Eye See It: Is This A Serious Theological Dispute? - by Neil G. Lebhar Is This A Serious Theological Dispute? by The Rev. Neil G. Lebhar 15. In order to protect the integrity and legitimate needs of groups in serious theological dispute with their diocesan bishop, or dioceses in dispute with their Provinces, we recommend that the Archbishop of Canterbury appoint, as a matter of urgency, a panel of reference to supervise the adequacy of pastoral provisions made by any churches for such members in line with the recommendation in the Primates' Statement of October 2003... (The Anglican Communion Primates' Meeting Communiqu=E9, February 2005) "We hereby request that you provide adequate alternative episcopal oversight for us so that we can continue with clear consciences in our ministries." Letter to the Rt. Rev. Dr. Samuel Johnson Howard from seven clergy representing six congregations in the diocese of Florida, delivered June 16, 2005. In conversation with seven of us clergy meeting with him on June 16, 2005, The Rt. Rev. Dr. Samuel Johnson Howard asked if our request for alternative episcopal oversight (appended) was the result of a "serious theological dispute." This question goes to the heart of the matter, and I will address it shortly. But there is a preliminary question to be addressed first. What integrity and legitimate needs of these congregations (see Communiqu=E9 above) are we seeking to have protected? We believe that congregations and their priests are mutually called to serve Christ together in partnerships in ministry. Actions that threaten to separate a priest from a congregation are generally injurious to a congregation and its ministry, unless these actions are related to new callings from God, illnesses or retirements. In the normal course of events, succeeding priests can be called for the good of those communities through processes rightly overseen by the diocesan bishop. In the current situation facing our congregations, both the diocesan bishop and his canon have made it clear in multiple conversations that both the vicars' and rectors' positions are at risk because the congregations are not pledging to the diocesan budget. Most of our churches have given to diocesan ministries nevertheless. It has been made clear by the bishop and his canon that a "clock is ticking" toward moments when vicars could be dismissed, and parishes could be reduced to mission status. Rectors would then become vicars and would likewise be subject to dismissal by the bishop. We believe that both priests and congregations need to be protected from these possibilities. What are the serious theological issues in our dispute? As mentioned in the letter, we have two immediate and crucial concerns. We believe that these concerns are directly related to larger questions of orthodoxy, biblical authority and morality within the Episcopal Church which for the purpose of brevity cannot be enumerated here. First of all, we regard the presence of V. G. Robinson at eucharist in the House of Bishops, and by extension the presence of those who consecrated him, as signs of the acceptance of immoral behavior by the majority of the bishops in the Episcopal Church. We base our concern largely on St. Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians concerning eucharistic discipline. Similar calls for leaders to rebuke and isolate notoriously immoral persons are found throughout the Scriptures and therefore appear in our Prayer Book rubrics as well. To us it seems to be a straightforward discipline issue. According to 1 Corinthians 5, Christians must not receive at table with someone who is not only publicly immoral, but who also publicly represents a teaching that is false.1 St. Paul says that the presence at the rail of an individual who promotes sexual license has a destructive impact on the body of Christ. Briefly outlined, the apostle argues: 1. there is the false teaching at Corinth that the practice of sexual lifestyles forbidden in the Torah is commendable and consistent with Christian liberty. 2. there is one immoral man who exemplifies the "boast" of these teachers that Christians can ignore clear Scriptural prohibitions, in this case against incest. 3. this man and the teaching are to be rejected by discipline ("expel him") and also by a refusal to associate or eat with him. 4. that not to enact discipline exposes the body of Christ to serious moral infection and allows for the spread of the yeast of immorality. St. Paul also warns those who wrongly think they may partake of the cup with the notorious, undisciplined, sexually immoral ones without being infected themselves.3 Our desire to see discipline at the rail regarding Mr. Robinson and his supporters has nothing to do with Donatism, nor likewise with Article XXVI, where the primary issue is the evil lifestyle of a particular minister, not heretical teaching (it is worth noting that the Article does commands discipline of such ministers.)2 We do not question the validity of the sacrament at the House of Bishops. Instead we question why any orthodox bishop representing his diocese at the House of Bishops would visibly link his diocese to immorality by receiving at a eucharist which manifests no Scriptural discipline. Many other archbishops throughout the Communion clearly understood this principle when they refused to be at eucharist with Bishop Griswold. But instead our bishop has publicly committed himself to remain at table with Mr. Robinson. We believe this action contradicts St. Paul's apostolic commands aimed at stemming the spread of immorality and false teaching. We continue to ask our bishop to cease receiving eucharist at the House of Bishops for the sake of his soul and ours. Our second dispute concerns the insistence that we give to a diocesan budget that funds the national ministry of ECUSA which in turn regularly promotes false teaching. As recently as last month, our Presiding Bishop and others, funded by the giving of our diocese and others, made a case at the Anglican Consultative Council against the accepted Scriptural teaching of the Communion. We believe that Ephesians 5:5-7 prohibits us from partnering with such teachers, and that funding is a form of partnership. The principle that breaking partnership means not giving or receiving funds was recently acted upon by the Anglican Church of Kenya 4 at great cost. Several other Anglican Provinces have already acted similarly. We concur with their actions. In conclusion, we deeply regret that we have had to request alternative episcopal oversight, but for the sake of Scriptural faithfulness, for solidarity with the majority of Anglicans, and for the protection of our congregations' ministries, we believe we cannot do otherwise. 1. 1 Cor 6:9-10 "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." 2. Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments. Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men. Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty, by just judgment be deposed. 3. 1 Cor 10:12 "So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall!" 4 "Anglicans Spurn Gay Church Cash," Derek Otieno, The Nation, LONDON (6/9/2005), "The Anglican Church of Kenya has rejected funding from the American Episcopal Church, the Anglican Communion reported in London yesterday...Lambeth Palace, the headquarters of the church, said in its website that Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi was willing "to do without the money" to remind the Episcopal Church of its mission "to preach the Great Commission"...What kind of Gospel are they preaching now, saying there should be unions of people of the same sex?" the Archbishop asked. LETTER TO BISHOP HOWARD June 12, 2005 The Rt. Rev. Samuel Johnson Howard Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Florida 325 Market Street Jacksonville, FL 32202 Dear Bishop Howard, Grace and peace to you in Christ Jesus. We as clergy and leaders of several congregations have made a difficult decision in this difficult time. We hereby request that you provide adequate alternative episcopal oversight for us so that we can continue with clear consciences in our ministries. Our diocesan convention strongly endorsed the recommendations of the Windsor Report, among which was one for alternative oversight (Sections 150 & 151). The Primates' Communiqu=E9 likewise recognizes the principle of alternative oversight (Paragraph 15). We base our request on these two documents. We have two concerns that provide the basis of our request. First, as we have shared with you in the past, we concur with the many Primates who believe that Scripture prohibits believers being at table with V. Gene Robinson and Bishop Griswold. This is based on our obedience to St. Paul's admonition in 1 Corinthians 5 and, as such, is consistent with the ordination vows. We believe that your public commitment to remain at the Holy Table with them ties us as priests and congregations to the "yeast" of immorality and false teaching in an unacceptable way. We are convinced that this is a salvation issue, for we believe the consecration and ministry of V. Gene Robinson repudiates traditional teachings about repentance, grace, sanctification, holiness and discipline regarding the sacraments. We also represent congregations whose leadership bodies have decided that they cannot financially pledge to this diocese at this time because the diocesan budget, with your encouragement, includes support of the programs of our national church, especially those connected to the office of the Presiding Bishop. We believe that it is poor stewardship to give resources to national ministries that have been exercised in ways that directly damage our bonds of affection with the Anglican Communion. Not only did Bishop Griswold consecrate V. Gene Robinson, but he has hired staff personally committed to an agenda opposed to the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10 including at least one staff member who is a self-declared lesbian priest. Scripture commands us not to partner in such ministries. (Ephesians 5:7) For our diocese to provide for ECUSA programs that have drifted away from the Scriptures and sometimes the gospel itself (for example, a pagan liturgy was hosted on the Episcopal Church website), we perceive to be disobedient to St. Paul's command. Many of our Anglican Communion partners are now likewise demonstrating the state of impaired fellowship by refusing to receive funds from our national church. The oversight we request, again in the words of the Windsor Report, "must be sufficient to provide a credible degree of security on the part of the alienated community" (Section 151). We assume this security would include assurances that non-pledging parishes would not face a change in their parish status, nor vicars in their employment. None of the applicable canons appear to be mandatory in their application. Based on the above, we ask that you grant to another bishop oversight over us which in addition to confirmation includes clergy discipline, employment and succession. Needless to say, we ask for a bishop who is not at table with Mr. Robinson and Bishop Griswold, and whose diocesan budget does not include giving to the national programs. We ask that this episcopal oversight be in place until after this diocese has a chance to make decisions for its future in the Anglican Communion following Lambeth 2008. If the Episcopal Church leadership truly repents as you and we hope, we can then move forward again together. We wish to both remain in the Anglican Communion and continue our ministries in good conscience. We believe that adequate alternative episcopal oversight makes both possible. We commit ourselves to attempt reconciliation