Archives

By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent THE TELEGRAPH 7/05/2004 A Church in Wales clergyman has become the first divorced person in Britain to be appointed an Anglican bishop. The Ven Anthony Crockett, the Archdeacon of Carmarthen, has been named as the next Bishop of Bangor following a protracted and controversial selection process. The Most Rev Barry Morgan, who succeeded Dr Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Wales, said that the 58-year-old archdeacon was the unanimous choice of the Church's Bench of Bishops. But a number of clergy in the diocese have expressed anger over the decision, saying that their wishes had been ignored, and the majority of canons at Bangor cathedral have protested to the Archbishop. For the first time in the Church in Wales's history, an electoral college failed to agree on a candidate by the necessary two-thirds majority when it met behind in March. The Rev Geraint ap Iorwerth, the rector of Pennal, said: "There will be some who will stay away from his consecration, very definitely." He said that Mr Crockett's marital history did not concern him personally, but it did worry many people in the diocese. Archdeacon Crockett, 58, who separated from his first wife in 1985 and remarried in 1999, said he was "shocked and amazed" when he was asked to take up the post. The Rev David Holloway, a leading evangelical, said the appointment was yet another example of the Church's liberal leadership being out of step with the vast majority of Anglicans across the world. Mr Holloway, the vicar of Jesmond, Newcastle upon Tyne, said: "To have a divorced and remarried bishop is, sadly, all of a piece with the move away from Biblical norms on sexual morality."

By Jean Torkelson Rocky Mountain News May 5, 2004 Episcopal Bishop Rob O'Neill said Tuesday he plans to meet this week with the Rev. Bonnie Spencer to find out what kind of same-sex event she celebrated with her partner two weeks ago. "Details are not clear to me," said O'Neill, who was out of town when the event took place at Good Shepherd Church in Centennial. The bishop has not authorized same-sex blessings in Colorado. Spencer, an assistant rector at the parish, has denied that's what took place. A regional church official, the Rev. Lou Blanchard, described it as a party to celebrate the couple's relationship. The Episcopal Church USA allows dioceses to develop same-sex blessings. While O'Neill supports same-sex issues, he promised conservatives he would not act while the issue is being studied by a diocesan task force. Nevertheless, conservatives see the event at Good Shepherd as another sign the Episcopal Church has broken from its traditional roots and are threatening to walk unless O'Neill takes action. The Rev. Don Armstrong, of Colorado Springs, said he predicts that about seven parishes will seek to reorganize under an alternative Episcopal bishop unless O'Neill clamps down on same-sex issues. Said O'Neill: "As I told Don (Armstrong) last week, what he can always expect is a measured and appropriate response. We will take it a step at a time." Whatever took place at Good Shepherd, O'Neill said the matter will be referred to the diocese's standing committee, the decision-making arm of the diocese, as well as the same-sex task force. O'Neill shrugged off the conservatives' charge that the diocese is in a precarious position, although he acknowledged that this year's budget has been adjusted to reflect a $350,000 shortfall. "People are not leaving the Episcopal Church in droves," he said. "Some parishes and dioceses are showing increases, and some are struggling."

Testing the Faith: Christian churches running on empty? Research indicates number of Americans who don't attend services nearly doubling May 6, 2004 © 2004 WorldNetDaily.com Despite a 15 percent rise in the U.S. population, a new survey shows the number of Americans who don't go to church has nearly doubled in the past 13 years, rising from 39 million to 75 million. The report by the Barna Group, a California-based consulting firm following trends related to faith, culture and leadership in the country, says the percentage of adults that is "unchurched" has risen from 21 percent in 1991 to 34 percent today. The group defines "unchurched" as not having attended a Christian church service — other than for holiday services like Christmas or Easter, or for special events such as a wedding or funeral — at any time in the past six months. The annual church-attendance tracking survey is based on telephone interviews with a nationwide random sample of 1,014 adults conducted in late January and early February of this year with a margin of error of ±3 percentage points. In a demographic breakdown, the survey revealed four dimensions: Men dominate the ranks of the unchurched. Although they comprise slightly less than half of the national population, men constitute 55 percent of the unchurched, and they represent only 38 percent of the public which refers to itself as "born again." The unchurched are younger than the norm. The median age of U.S. adults is 43, but it's just 38 among the unchurched. Unchurched people are more likely than others to be single and to never have been married. Whereas one-quarter of American adults (26 percent) are single-never-married, nearly two-fifths of the unchurched fit that definition (37 percent). The unchurched are also attracted to the coastal regions of the country. Although just four out of ten adults (42 percent) live in the Northeast or West, more than half of the unchurched (51 percent) live there. In fact, the two most populous states in the nation — California and New York — contain 18 percent of the nation's residents, but one-quarter of its unchurched adults (23 percent). The study also found significant religious differences when comparing churchgoers to non-churchgoers. In a typical week, unchurched people are less likely than all adults to read the Bible (19 percent compared to 44 percent) and to pray (63 percent vs. 83 percent), and they are less likely to have embraced Jesus Christ as their savior. On a surprising note, while about half of the churched population has accepted Jesus as their savior, one of every six unchurched adults (17 percent) has done so as well. Interestingly, says the report, if the minority of unchurched adults who are born again were connected to a church, the resulting increase would be nearly 13 million new people — more than have joined the nation's churches in the past decade combined. Among the theological differences uncovered were that unchurched adults are less likely than others to believe the Bible is accurate, that Jesus was sinless, that Satan is real, that salvation is through the grace of God, and that God is the creator and present-day ruler of the universe. "The unchurched are more likely than others to be somewhat isolated from the mainstream activities of the society in which they live," explained author and researcher George Barna. "They see themselves as outsiders and often take refuge in that status. Evidence of this arms-length approach to life, beyond their refusal to participate in church life, includes lower levels of voter registration, less money donated to non-profit organizations, fewer non-profits supported, lower levels of media usage, and less engagement in community service activities." Additional distinguishing characteristics include the independence of the unchurched and what Barna calls their non-committal nature. "You can see this emotional and intellectual distancing of themselves through their more moderate ideology, their more ambiguous theological perspectives, a lower likelihood of embracing terms used to describe oneself (such as 'generous,' 'friendly' and 'deeply spiritual'), a substantially lower level of self-professed commitment to their faith of choice, and their rejection of the idea of responsibility for nurturing other people's faith," he said.

Inaugural Service Held at St. James Anglican Church 5/6/2004 A large part of the congregation from St. James Episcopal Church walked away from the parish property seeking to distance themselves from ECUSA, its movement away from Scripture and Tradition and the Oklahoma Bishop. The Bishop of Oklahoma, Robert Moody voted for the election of Gene Robinson, the option for individual diocese to initiate same sex blessings, and currently has as a deacon under his authority in the diocese that is a transexual from male to female. Over 100 faithful souls attended the first service held by St. James Anglican Church in South Oklahoma City on May 2nd. The congregation meets each Sunday at 11:45 a.m. in the chapel at Southern Hills Baptist Church, 8601 South Pennsylvania, in Oklahoma City. The service was Morning Prayer, Rite II, led by David Haener. Don Gumm and the youth group provided music. After the service, the entire congregation gathered for a group portrait. The congregation encompasses all age groups, from tiny babies to the '80s and above! "This whole endeavor has been a leap of faith by a church family that has been hurting for some time," said Don Gumm, St. James Anglican's senior warden. He continued, "But 116 faithful Anglicans gathered for worship and prayers to support each other and the whole Anglican Communion." Arrangements are in the works for visiting priests to celebrate the eucharist on a regular basis and a plan is being formulated to invite Episcopal oversight by an Anglican bishop. Morning Prayer will be held until clergy can be called to celebrate Eucharist and services are open to all.

Orthodox Anglicans call for greater "clarity and honesty" in same-sex debate Essentials Canada says motion will be a "plain endorsement" of same-sex blessings May 5, 2004 TORONTO, CANADA — Canada's largest orthodox Anglican coalition is calling on church leaders to embrace "clarity and honesty" in the debate at the church's General Synod at the end of May regarding the blessing of same-sex unions. In a written statement, the governing council of Anglican Essentials Canada, a coalition of the nation's three main orthodox groups, says it believes that Anglican Church officials are trying to downplay the meaning and importance of a controversial motion surrounding the blessing of same-sex unions. "Our greatest concern lies with statements from our national church claiming that passage of this motion does not indicate an endorsement of the blessing of same-sex unions," the statement reads. The same-sex motion asks the governing body of the Anglican Church of Canada to state that individual dioceses have the power to create marriage-like blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples. "In our view, General Synod can only affirm that which it endorses. Accordingly, we expect Canadian Anglicans will rightly see passage of this motion as a plain endorsement of same-sex blessings. This is primarily a question of Christian ethics and morals. Efforts to reframe the issue as one of institutional jurisdiction are at best unhelpful, and could serve to deepen the disenfranchisement many Anglicans experience with their national church." "We call upon our national leaders to embrace a spirit of candor and transparency surrounding this issue and the debate, in plain and genuine language," adding that church leaders needed to acknowledge the "obvious and well-documented impact" on the future of the national church and the 77-million strong Anglican Communion. The worldwide Anglican Communion has been in turmoil since June 2002, when the governing body of the Vancouver-based Diocese of New Westminster voted by a 62-per-cent majority to become the first in the world to develop a blessing ceremony for same-sex unions. In August 2003, the U.S. branch of the church narrowly approved the ordination of an openly gay man as Bishop. Both decisions repudiated a 1998 resolution of all 700 bishops in the communion, who voted by a nine-to-one majority against same-sex blessing or ordinations. In October 2003, the world's 38 Anglican national leaders said the decision in New Westminster was contributing to a "tear the fabric of our communion at its deepest level." The Canadian and U.S. churches jointly represent about 4 percent of the worldwide communion. Contact: Chris Hawley, (604) 729-7557 media@anglicanessentials.org For more information, browse to: http://www.forsuchatime.ca/ http://www.anglicanessentials.org/ Statement from The Essentials Council of the Anglican Church of Canada May 5, 2004 Many members of our church have been voicing their views recently regarding the upcoming debate over the blessing of same-sex unions, to take place at this month's General Synod. Much of this discussion involves the motion drafted by the Council of General Synod, which, simply put, states that individual dioceses have the power to bless same-sex unions. The motion, and the General Synod process surrounding its debate, has generated considerable controversy in recent weeks. Some have criticized the motion because it appears vague and lacks substance. Others believe these blessings are de facto marriages and ought to be viewed as such. Others have expressed alarm that only two hours of open debate over the eight-day meeting have been allotted to consider the matter. These and other criticisms are indeed legitimate. But as a Council, our greatest concern lies with statements from our national church claiming that passage of this motion is not an endorsement of the blessing of same-sex unions. The intention seems to be to soften and minimize the implications of this decision and its obvious and well-documented impact on the future of our church, nationally and worldwide. In our view, and in the view of many Canadian Anglicans, General Synod can only affirm that which it endorses. Accordingly, we expect Canadian Anglicans will rightly see passage of this motion as a plain endorsement of same-sex blessings. It is also our view that this is primarily a question of Christian ethics and morals. Efforts to reframe the issue as one of institutional jurisdiction are at best unhelpful, and could serve to deepen the disenfranchisement many Anglicans experience with their national church. It is entirely possible that our national church has been preoccupied with this particular issue for decades precisely because it cannot bring itself to address the critical questions directly. We call upon our national leaders to embrace a spirit of candor and transparency surrounding this issue and the debate, in plain and genuine language. Whatever the outcome, let us not minimize the depth and seriousness of the issue, but face it with a renewed sense of faith and integrity. The Essentials Council, Anglican Church of Canada

Statement from the Council of Church Society: We the Council of Church Society are shocked and appalled by the recent appointment of Canon Jeffrey John to be Dean of St. Albans. Mr John's open advocacy of same-sex sexual activity flies in the face of the clear teaching of the Bible and the Church of England and therefore ought to exclude him from ministerial office. We are astonished that Archbishop Rowan Williams has apparently failed to oppose the appointment of a clergyman who so shamelessly flouts the teaching of Scripture that sexual activity should be confined to a man and a woman in marriage. We therefore call on Archbishop Williams to urge Dr John to resign. The text of a letter sent to the Archbishop is attached. For further information please contact: Revd George Curry (0191-273-4680 / 0775-287-2550) Chairman of Council Mr Duncan Boyd (020-7289-62650) Council member and General Synod Representative for London Diocese Revd David Phillip (01923-235111 / 07801-265049) General Secretary and General Synod Representative for St. Alban's Diocese Church Society exists to uphold biblical teaching and to promote and defend the character of the Church of England as a reformed and national Church. TEXT OF LETTER TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY 4th May 2004 The Most Rev & Rt Hon The Archbishop of Canterbury Lambeth Palace London SE1 7JU Dear Dr Williams, We the Council of Church Society are profoundly shocked that you have permitted Dr Jeffrey John to be Dean of the Cathedral of St. Albans. We had understood that after the appointment of Gene Robinson you had called for a moratorium on such appointments until the Lambeth Commission has conducted its work. We therefore see it as deeply hypocritical that you and the Bishop of St. Albans have failed to oppose the appointment as Dean of a man who openly advocates same-sex sexual activity. The clear teaching of both Scripture and the Church of England is that sexual activity should be confined to a man and a woman within marriage. Anyone who teaches to the contrary is clearly unfit for ministerial office in this Church. We therefore call on you to urge Dr John to resign. Yours sincerely, David Phillips (Revd) on behalf of the Council of Church Society

ST BBC News Gay Church of England cleric Jeffrey John has been given the backing of St Albans Cathedral where he has been appointed as the new dean. A group of evangelicals had called for Dr John to withdraw his acceptance. But their hopes were dealt a blow on Tuesday when the cathedral's chapter said it welcomed the appointment and had received messages of support. Dr John was forced to withdraw his acceptance for the post of suffragan Bishop of Reading last year. Canon Stephen Lake, sub-dean and acting dean at St Albans, said: "Jeffrey John brings to the abbey a track record of scholarship and preaching, and a commitment to mission." Show of support "The support for Jeffrey John from the cathedral chapter and congregation is clear. The vast majority of the congregation have shown their support for the appointment and are looking forward to his installation and ministry here." Dr John, who is gay but celibate, is currently canon theologian at Southwark Cathedral. He will be installed as Dean of St Albans on 2 July. He withdrew his acceptance of the post of suffragan Bishop of Reading last summer after a storm of protest from conservatives in the Church of England. © BBC MMIV

May 3, 2004 On August 5, 2003, the Episcopal Church USA abandoned the clear teaching of Holy Scripture as well as the faith and order of Anglicanism. Since that time events have unfolded which prove that ECUSA has lost its moral compass. Recently we have seen a juxtaposition of significant incidents that illustrate ECUSA's continued slide into a secularized religion scarcely resembling the spiritual and moral foundation upon which Christ formed His Church. On April 25, 2004 the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) sponsored the "March for Women's Lives" on the Mall in Washington, DC. One of the primary purposes of RCRC outlined in its mission statement is support of the constitutional right to abortion, and participants carried signs with slogans demeaning the sanctity of life in a chilling fashion. Both the Episcopal Church USA and the Episcopal Women's Caucus are members of RCRC and were listed as co-sponsoring organizations for the event. Episcopal News Service (ENS) ran a story applauding participation by individual Episcopalians, "Also marching behind the Episcopal Church banner were the Rev. Margaret Rose, director of the Episcopal Church Office of Women's Ministries; Executive Council members Louie Crew and John Vanderstar; long-time women's rights activist and General Convention deputy Marge Christie; and Maureen Shea, director of the Government Relations Office." Under the banner of "justice", the Episcopal Church's official news service justifies, in fact blesses, participation in a blatant pro-abortion activist rally. Also over last weekend, Otis Charles, the 78-year old retired bishop of Utah and former president of the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Mass., "married" his homosexual partner Felipe Sanchez Paris. The so called "wedding ceremony" was held before several hundred people at St. Gregory's of Nyssa Episcopal Church in San Francisco. Mr. Paris had been married and divorced four times previously. The bishop had been married 42 years and fathered five children before reaching the conclusion he was gay in 1976. He did not make a public announcement until after his retirement in 1993, and he and his wife divorced shortly after that. According to news accounts, the bishop was "guided by his belief that all human beings are called upon to live as fully as they can." These accounts also describe details of the 2 hour and 45 minute service, depicting theatrics in no way reminiscent of the sacramental nature of marriage. The news reports failed to note that marriage is a holy institution ordained by God, a sacramental union of a man and a woman. According to Scriptural standards, anything else is mockery. For several weeks, CLAIMING THE BLESSING has been publicizing a event entitled, "It's All About Love: A Celebration of Music, Faith and Equality" scheduled for May 2, 2004 at All Saints Episcopal Church, Pasadena. The event is billed as a benefit for CLAIMING THE BLESSING, "a national collaborative of organizations that advocate for gay rights in the church and same-sex marriage". "It's All About Love" also boasts a bevy of stars gathered to honor special guest V. Gene Robinson, and tickets range in price from a modest $100 - $200 for open seating to higher levels of reserved seating: Bronze ($1000), Silver ($2500) and Gold ($5000). For those willing to "benefit" CLAIMING THE BLESSING with a $10,000 donation, the prize is two tickets at a private dinner with V. Gene Robinson. The first and obvious problem is interaction with a bishop for sale—no matter how noble a cause might be, selling access to a bishop is reprehensible. A more subtle but perhaps more disturbing concern, however, is the fundraiser itself. Why does CLAIMING THE BLESSING need such massive funds? On their website, we read: "Our initial commitment was obtaining approval of a liturgical blessing of the faithful, monogamous relationship between two adults of any gender at General Convention 2003. The results were history making, and CLAIMING THE BLESSING was instrumental in making that history happen: Resolution C051 was passed, recognizing for the first time that "local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions." Gene Robinson was confirmed by General Convention and consecrated Bishop Coadjutor in the Diocese of New Hampshire: the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion. What CLAIMING THE BLESSING offers is an alternative to those presuming to speak for Christian values - an alternative desperately needed as the Religious Right responds not only to General Convention 2003 but to the recent decisions by the civil courts in Texas and Massachusetts and to President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage." from CLAIMING THE BLESSING website Note that this is CLAIM THE BLESSING's initial commitment. The word "initial" begs the question, "what's next?" Did the organization not succeed in its goals at General Convention 2003? Was not their very raison d'être fulfilled? We see a hint of the answer on the website: "There is much reason to rejoice - and much hard work left to do. Perhaps the greatest indicator of how much we have achieved is how mobilized our opposition has become: they are well financed, well organized and well focused. Never has CLAIMING THE BLESSING's organized, recognized progressive collaborative voice been more important." from CLAIMING THE BLESSING website Clearly the work of CLAIMING THE BLESSING has only begun, and it is essential that we understand that sexuality is only the presenting problem—the real issue is the authority of Scripture as the foundation of Christian theology and doctrine. For orthodox Christian Anglicans, these three events illustrate unequivocally that we face an unparalleled attack on the sacrament and sanctity of life and marriage in both civil and religious arenas. Those involved with these incidents would claim they uphold marriage, family and morality. The distinction lies in definition and interpretation. As Susan Russell, Executive Director of CLAIMING THE BLESSING, said about Scripture, there is a "crucial difference between contradicting God's revelation and expanding our understanding of God's revelation." From the AAC perspective, if revisionists succeed in altering or destroying the traditional theology of sexuality, marriage and family, we stand to lose all truth, for the final target will be the salvation message itself. As Bishop Ingham of Canada has predicted, the horizon holds a not too distant battleground centered on the exclusivity of Christianity—is Jesus truly the way, the truth and the life, or will He be reduced to "one of the ways" to fulfillment and self-actualization? We hope and pray that the Lambeth Commission and the Primates of the worldwide Anglican Communion will consider the often unseen and rarely spoken goals of revisionism and their threat to morality.

News Analysis By David W. Virtue Jesus once said to would be disciples that whoever would follow him must take up his cross daily, lose himself, forget about his own personal fulfillment, and, if necessary, lay down his life. The former Episcopal Bishop of Utah and Episcopal Divinity School president Otis Charles, at 78, believes in the exact opposite. At his recent "wedding" to a four times married man, Charles said his actions were "guided by his belief that all human beings are called upon to live as fully as they can." For the believer, to live "fully" is to live fully into Christ, but that is not what Charles meant. He meant that to live "fully" was to personally fulfill oneself sexually, in this case with another man, despite the fact that neither the Christian Church, 2,000 years of church history nor Holy Scripture gives him that right to do so. Furthermore, one must ask oneself just how much fulfillment does Mr. Charles have in mind for he and Sanchez? Between the two of them they have had five marriages, double digit kids and in Charles case grand kids. When or where does personal fulfillment end, does it ever? Mother Teresa lived "fully". She spent herself in the service of others, she understood what Jesus said and meant. She, like millions of Americans, daily sacrifice their lives for others, their own personal "fulfillment" often runs a distant second. Take one Episcopal lady I know whose husband left her after a number of years, denying her children, and then one day he announces he is gay and is "in love" with Guido. He leaves, she cries, then she gets off the floor and takes care of her parents, one has Alzheimer's, the other MS. Where is the fulfillment for her? She's 44. Her chances of finding an understanding single man who is not in recovery from something are less than zero. She has better odds of being hit by a mack truck. The greatest commandment is to love God and then your neighbor as yourself. We are not told to specifically love ourselves presumably because that comes naturally to most people who can find a mirror. The Good News of the gospel is the greatest news the world has ever known. To embrace it and proclaim it in whatever form God has called you is the noblest cause of all. It is not amassing great fortunes, looking to be CEO of Disney, embracing the culture of celebrity, joining Integrity or having sex at 78 with someone of your own sex! Those things are not worth laying down your life for, nor is the pursuit of them worth endangering the destiny of your eternal soul. He that loses His life for my sake and the gospel will find it, said Jesus. Otis Charles has it all wrong. In reversing Jesus' command he endangers his own soul and those of others, especially his 7-year old grandson who was obliged to watch a farce of a "wedding" take place, and may well be permanently scarred as a result. The Episcopal Church may well be in its death throes, the Global South ready to pull the plug on the whole stinking mess of Griswoldian pluriformity and pansexuality. The Otis Charles "marriage" is just another example of the gadarene slide towards the abyss. God save us all.

By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent THE TELEGRAPH 04/05/2004 An all-powerful "star chamber", headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, is expected to be created under proposals to avert the collapse of worldwide Anglicanism over homosexuality. As part of a blueprint drawn up by advisers, Dr. Rowan Williams will be granted significant new powers, though not sufficient to transform him into an Anglican "pope". The archbishop would preside over a final court of appeal, allowing him to exercise the "judgment of Solomon" over warring factions in the 70-million strong Church. This would be resisted by liberals keen to preserve the autonomy of their provinces, the 38 individual churches of the Anglican communion. But it could help appease conservatives furious that liberals defied the will of the majority by endorsing Anglicanism's first openly homosexual bishop in America. The proposals are still under consideration by the Lambeth Commission, the body appointed by Dr. Williams to try to avert schism following the consecration of Canon Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire in November. But senior churchmen are confident that they will form a central part of the commission's final report in October. The initiative emerged as the chairman of the commission, the Primate of All Ireland, Archbishop Robin Eames, made a plea for restraint. In a letter issued yesterday, Dr. Eames said: "I do not underestimate the complexities of our tasks nor the difficulties." Conservative African archbishops last month demanded urgent action against the liberal leadership of the American Episcopal Church, which backed Bishop Robinson. They want the Americans disciplined for ignoring the decisions of the 1998 Lambeth Conference and the primates to uphold the Church's ban on the ordination of active homosexuals and gay "marriages". Meanwhile, the liberal Canadian church is preparing to vote next month on a motion which would pave the way for same-sex blessings in a further breach of policy. In his letter, Dr. Eames said that if any groups "initiated definitive breaks from their parent Church" before the publication of the final report, the commission would "regard such decisions as a serious development". Under the blueprint, drawn up by Prof Norman Doe, a commission member and the director of the Centre for Law and Religion at Cardiff University, provinces are prevented from acting unilaterally against the greater good of the communion as a whole. If disputes arise, a final appeal could be made to the Archbishop of Canterbury, possibly assisted by a "bench" of senior churchmen and theologians. Ultimately, a province defying the archbishop's judgment could be expelled. Plans to transform the Church from a communion into a confederation of loosely connected churches is also to be considered by the commission if unity is impossible. Conservatives and liberals would remain linked to the Archbishop of Canterbury, but would not recognise each other's priests or bishops.

By Dennis Prager May 4, 2004 Of all the arguments against same-sex marriage, the most immediately compelling is that it hurts children. If children have a right to anything, it is to begin life with a mother and father. Death, divorce, abandonment, a single-parent's mistakes—any one of these deprives children of a mother or father. But only same-sex marriage would legally ensure children are deprived from birth of either a mother or a father. Why, then, doesn't a child's right to begin life with a mother and father have any impact on the millions of people who either advocate same-sex marriage or can't make up their minds on the issue? Among gay activists, the reason is narcissism. Though gays already have the right to raise children without an opposite-sex parent, and the right to adopt children, gay activists want society to enshrine one-sex parenting with its highest seal of approval—marriage. For gay activists, the fact that a child does best with a good mother and good father is of no significance (or worse, denied). All that matters is what is good for gays. And what about the heterosexuals who support same-sex marriage? They ignore the issue of its effects on children because they either do not want to confront the issue or because they are so intimidated by the liberation trinity—"equality," "rights" and "tolerance"—that even children's welfare becomes a non-issue. Advocates of same-sex marriage have, therefore, many good reasons not to talk about issue of children. Even the most passionate advocate does not argue that it is better for a child to have two mothers and no father or two fathers and no mother. But, the same-sex marriage advocates will respond, while children may not be better off, they will be just as well off, with two fathers and no mother or two mothers and no father. This claim, however, is dishonest. So dishonest that it leads to a certain cognitive dissonance among many of those who make it. On the one hand, they don't really believe mothers (or fathers) are useless, and they do not wish to lie. On the other hand, they know they have to say a mother and father are no better for children than two same-sex parents or they will lose the public's support for same-sex marriage. Were they to admit the obvious truth—that same-sex marriage means society will legally and deliberately deprive increasing numbers of children of either a mother or a father—few Americans would support the legal redefinition of marriage and family. So, same-sex marriage advocates now argue that children do not do better with a mother and a father. To buttress this absurdity, they repeatedly ask, "Where are the studies" that prove children do better with a father and a mother? Not only are there no such studies, they claim, but in fact, "studies show" that children raised with parents of the same sex do just as well as children raised by a father and a mother. But this claim, too, is dishonest. As Professor Don Browning of the University of Chicago recently wrote in the New York Times, "We know next to nothing" about the effects of same-sex parenting on children." "The body of sociological knowledge about same-sex parenting," he and his co-author wrote, "is scant at best. There are no rigorous, large-scale studies on the effect of same-sex marriage on the couples' children." "Steven Nock, a leading scholar of marriage at the University of Virginia, wrote in March 2001 after a thorough review that every study on this question 'contained at least one fatal flaw' and 'not a single one was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research.'" So the statement that "studies show" that children don't do better with a mother and father is as factually mendacious as it is morally repugnant. Why then are so many fooled by it? Because "studies show" has become the refuge of those who do not wish to think. I hear this lack of thought regularly from college-educated callers to my radio show who refuse to think an issue through, or to make a moral judgment, without first having seen what "studies show." But does anyone who thinks, rather than awaits "studies" to affirm their biases, really believe a mother is useless if a child has two fathers, or a father is unnecessary if a child has two mothers? The idea that men and women do not have entirely distinctive contributions to make to the rearing of a child is so absurd that it is frightening that many well-educated—and only the well-educated—people believe it. There are many powerful arguments against same-sex marriage, and in subsequent columns I will offer them. But if you have to offer only one, know that those who push for same-sex marriage base their case on something factually indefensible—that children do not benefit from having a father and a mother; and on something morally indefensible—ignoring what is best for children. Dennis Prager, one of America's most respected and popular nationally syndicated radio talk-show hosts, is the author of several books and a frequent guest on television shows such as Larry King Live, Politically Incorrect, The Late Late Show on CBS, Rivera Live, The Early Show on CBS, Fox Family Network, The O'Reilly Factor and Hannity & Colmes. © 2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

American Anglican Council Washington, DC May 3, 2004 For Immediate Release On March 14, 2004, Bishops C. FitzSimons Allison, retired Bishop of South Carolina; Maurice Benitez, retired Bishop of Texas; William Cox, retired Assistant Bishop of Oklahoma; Alex Dickson, retired Bishop of West Tennessee, and William Wantland, retired Bishop of Eau Claire confirmed 110 individuals at a multi-congregational Service of Confirmation and Holy Eucharist in Akron, Ohio. Subsequently at the March 2004 House of Bishops Meeting, those Bishops gathered noted that they "repudiate and deplore the unilateral actions" of the five but decided not to seek disciplinary action against them. In a statement released March 24, the House of Bishops accused the five of using confirmation "as an instrument of division and defiance." "Secretive in its planning, their action was discourteous, disruptive and a willful violation of our Constitution and Canons," the statement continued. The Bishops also emphasized that further "infractions" would result in unspecified "consequences." "At the same time, we hold these five bishops, and one another, accountable for the good order of the Church, the Body of Christ," the statement said. "Therefore, in the future any bishop performing Episcopal acts without the permission of the diocesan bishop will be subject to discipline under our canons." Recently, the five senior bishops received a letter dated April 16, 2004 from the Rt. Rev. Charles E. Jenkins, Bishop of Louisiana and President of the Presiding Bishop's Council of Advice. In the letter Bishop Jenkins wrote, "The House of Bishops invites you to meet with the members of the Presiding Bishop's Council of Advice to discuss the reasons for your actions, and, to share information with you about the work we continue to do as Bishops to embrace the ministry of reconciliation for the mission of the whole church. I therefore invite you to meet with the Council of Advice in Atlanta, GA on Thursday May 27 at All Saints Church. We will begin at 9:00 AM and work until the late afternoon. The cost of travel will be your own responsibility but I will provide lunch for you on this day." Referencing the crisis situation in which the Church is immersed, Bishop Jenkins wrote, "As a pastor, it is my hope that each priest that is in disagreement with his or her Bishop will continue to share personal views with the diocesan Bishop. I am convinced the Bishops of this Church are committed to responding generously to requests made in accordance with our plan for Caring for All the Churches." Emerging incidents in several dioceses suggest this often is not the case, however. Bishops Jenkins's letter repeated warnings against further actions, saying, "The House of Bishops also stated clearly that in the future, now that we approved a plan of pastoral care, any Bishop performing Episcopal acts without permission of the bishop diocesan will be subject to discipline under the canons of this church." The five bishops today released a letter to Bishop Jenkins in response to the request. The letter in its entirety appears below: May 3, 2004 Dear Charles: We thank you for the invitation to meet with the Council of Advice. Each of us has sworn to uphold the faith of the Church, the same faith that gave birth to and provides the unity of our Church. Only secondarily and derivatively do territory and canons hold us together. Since we believe this faith should be the first priority of the Episcopal Church we would be glad to meet with the Council of Advice with this as the first and foremost topic of discussion. These are our concerns: Does the House of Bishops intend to hold responsible those bishops who have publicly denied or attempted to rewrite the faith? Is there any intention to hold accountable those 84 bishops who voted against the House of Bishops Resolution B001? For in so doing, they refused to affirm the authority of Scripture, the Creeds, the Sacraments, and the Apostolic Ministry, thereby denying the vows they made at their consecration as bishops. Does the House of Bishops seek restoration of full communion with the 21 Provinces of the Anglican Communion by responding to their request to repent? Does the House of Bishops seek to reclaim our broken ecumenical relations with Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and other Christian bodies? Issues of polity cannot be resolved until we are unified in the faith which we have sworn to guard and pass to future generations. We believe it necessary for any meeting to be an open one so that nothing will be regarded as done in secret. Not all of us are available on May 27 as you suggest, but if you agree that our first priority for discussion is the need of the House of Bishops to treat the essential issue of faith and doctrine before we move to the derivative issue of polity and territory, we will seek with you a suitable date to meet. In His Name, The Rt. Reverend C. FitzSimons Allison The Rt. Reverend Maurice M. Benitez The Rt. Reverend William J. Cox The Rt. Reverend Alex D. Dickson The Rt. Reverend William C. Wantland Cc: The Most Rev. Frank T. Griswold ECUSA House of Bishops Anglican Communion Primates The American Anglican Council 1110 Vermont Avenue, NW Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 800-914-2000 or 202-296-5360 Fax: 202-296-5361 E-mail: info@americananglican.org God Changes Lives for Good! http://www.americananglican.org