Archives

COMMENTARY By David W. Virtue ECUSA’s Presiding Bishop, Frank T. Griswold has weighed in on the national same-sex marriage debate, condemning President George W. Bush’s endorsement of a proposed Federal Marriage Amendment banning same-sex marriage. Griswold says he is concerned about the advisability of a constitutional amendment being put forth for discussion at this time. “Questions of sexuality are far from settled, and a constitutional amendment which was perceived as settling this matter might make it more difficult to engage in civil discourse around this topic.” The Presiding Bishop and other [revisionist] Episcopal bishops want “restraint and continued conversation” they say, but Griswold exercised no such restraint when he signed a statement with the Primates at Lambeth saying that the election of a practicing homosexual as bishop would damage the Anglican Communion. Before the ink was dry he participated as chief consecrator at the ordination and consecration of V. Gene Robinson, a communion breaking act that has rippled around the Anglican communion resulting in him being declared anathema in more than a third of the communion’s provinces. Frank Griswold lied to every Anglican primate in the communion by doing what he did, and his notion of “restraint” and “conversation” are buzz words for brokering in sodomy at every turn in the Episcopal road while urging Episcopalians of orthodox faith to be patient while he blind sides them time and again. Their patience has run out. It would be laughable, if it wasn’t so tragic. Griswold’s theobabble has resulted in the spiritual death of tens of thousands of Episcopalians who have bought into his mystic paganism, at the same most Episcopalians have never heard a saving word emanating from their parish pulpits. The closest many of them have come to an understanding of the atonement is to see Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion, and even that movie is being condemned by Melcontents in a number of dioceses, most notably the Diocese of Maine. Revisionist bishops and clergy see the movie as a symbol of “hate” failing to uphold the wishy washy love and good feelings Jesus they have come to worship, the one who turns a blind eye to sin and who loves everybody inclusively regardless of how they behave. Above all Episcopalians don’t want a killjoy Jesus, preferring a pale Galilean who will bend to their will and not theirs to His. Around the world The Episcopal Church is slowly being anathematized, made unwelcome in one province after another, while Griswold blindly stumbles along with his theobabble blather and mystic pagan views, confounding the spiritually blind and shutting the ears of those crying out for a salvific word. An Episcopal News Service press release says the Episcopal Church…is presently engaged in conversations and debates about issues of human sexuality, and more particularly homosexuality and the public recognition of committed relationships between members of the same sex. Nonsense. The Episcopal Church ended that “conversation” and “debate” last August when the ECUSA passed rites for same-sex blessings at its General Convention and said that a non-celibate homosexual could wear a miter. Thousands of orthodox Episcopalians are no longer committed to continuing discussion and discernment around these questions because they know there is no “common mind” and there never will be one. Thousands said so at Plano and they are still saying it—the conversation is over. Equal protection under the law and full civil rights for homosexual persons is not the issue; it’s the behavior stupid. Griswold and the bulk of the Episcopal Church has made up its mind and said that homosexual activity is no longer a sin. They have decided and resolved this against all biblical, theological and 5,000 years of Judeo-Christian history. For ECUSA they are settled. The deed has been done and unless there is a full repentance then ostracism and isolation from the world communion awaits it. And all the signs are that ECUSA is heading like the Titanic at full speed towards the Anglican iceberg. Griswold drops this choice morsel. “As I support the honoring of differing perspectives within the Episcopal Church, equally, it is my strong hope that our national discourse during this political season will promote thoughtful and respectful conversation.” Rubbish. Griswold does not support “differing perspectives”. He totally supports the lesbi-gay agenda whose individuals he sees as persecuted, and he doesn’t give a damn if the three dwindling Anglo-Catholic diocesan bishops disappear off the face of the earth so long as they leave their parishes to revisionist priests to take over when they go. As for those narrow-minded Evangelicals, they can stay because they know how to make churches grow and they bring in the money which he needs to keep his revisionist pansexual agenda alive. Griswold wants sweet reasonableness to reign so long as the deliberations lead to his pre-determined conclusion that sodomy is good and right in the eyes of God. If perchance the long “deliberations” come up with the notion, God forbid, that sodomy is wrong and could lead to the death of your soul, he will gnash his teeth and stamp his little feet and yell foul. What Griswold wants more than anything else is for America (and the Episcopal Church will pass a resolution to that effect) to become one vast pansexual playground where anybody can screw anybody, so long as no one gets hurt. They should pursue this agenda, of course, with all due “deliberation” and “reasonable” reflection. But do it. Resolution C051 was the death knell on ECUSA and Robinson was the last nail in the coffin of a once proud denomination. All that remains is for someone to lower the coffin into the ground and pour dirt onto the theologically empty pine box.

By ANNE SAUNDERS ASSOCIATED PRESS CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — Days before he is to take over as the Episcopal church’s leader in New Hampshire, Bishop V. Gene Robinson said he’d marry his same-sex partner “in a minute” if he had the chance. Robinson, whose election as the church’s first openly gay bishop last year had divided Episcopalians, said Friday that the gay marriage issue is one of civil rights. “It is very irritating to me that Britney Spears, when she traipsed off to be married in Las Vegas, instantly had what my partner and I of 15 years do not have,” he told The Associated Press. Robinson takes over in a Sunday ceremony from retiring Bishop Douglas Theuner at a time when the debate over gay rights, including marriage, is making headlines nationwide. Robinson’s election has been denounced by conservatives in the United States and abroad who say the Episcopal church is operating in violation of Scripture. Robinson has testified at the New Hampshire statehouse in opposition to a proposed law that would prohibit the state from recognizing gay marriages approved by other states. He said he’ll continue to speak out in favor of civil unions for gays—something he says is entirely separate from whether any church chooses to bless the union. Robinson said the legal status of his own relationship with his longtime partner, Mark Andrew, especially worried him before Andrew’s family accepted him. “I had a great fear that if Mark was to be killed in a car accident that his family could come in and just take his body—that I would never have access to him either in the hospital or at the funeral home or at the grave,” Robinson said. “That’s an unnerving thing,” he said. “I’d be married in a minute if I was allowed to.” In the absence of marriage or civil union, Robinson and Andrew put together legal agreements to give each other power of attorney and to share their assets through trusts. But these cover only a fraction of the rights they’d have if their relationship was recognized by the state, he said.

I. Unity and Schism At the center of much that is being said and written today in ECUSA is the issue (for some, the supreme virtue) of “unity” and its perceived opposite, the charge of “division” or “schism”. We all agree that it would be better if we could rightly understand, agree, and embody what God would have us rightly understand, believe, and do; but the fact is, we don’t! Why not? That is the heart of the problem. I will concede that most of the discussants, as wrong as I think some of them are, sincerely believe what they say they believe. But I don’t think we get very far by trying to fix the blame for our current divisions on one group or the other. First, examples of rhetorical insult in lieu of theological insight have occurred (probably since Eden) and will recur (until Armageddon). We traditionalist Christians greatly tire of and become resentfully hardened by the continuous cry of “schism” from those who cannot abide or answer our positions. I’m sure others with different positions sometimes feel something similar. So how should we think about “unity” and “schism”? On one frequently heard subject, there are those who say, “Differences about sexuality should not divide the Episcopal Church,” or “Why now? Surely, this isn’t as big an issue as x or y or z”, and part of me understands that perspective. But to it might be responded: in one important sense, the Reformation began over indulgences. Surely, indulgences were not a significant enough issue to split Western Christendom. That division has now gone on for some 500 years. It has caused many wars, inquisitions, and human bonfires. But, others might say, the Reformation clearly was not about indulgences or some other minor aspect of sacramental theology. It was about sola scriptura, sola gratia, a wholly new truth that offered an essential and accurate soteriology and polity to a people of God long chained in Roman bondage. (To Luther and his successors, this new truth was, of course, a newly recovered old truth.) Are the issues of the summer and autumn of 2003 analogous to the traveling indulgence market of 1516? Do we have in both cases classic examples of straws and camels’ backs? To label an opponent as “schismatic,” as with the constant misuse of “homophobic” and “fundamentalist,” is insulting and meant to stop all debate in its tracks. To call the traditionalist, orthodox position “schismatic” is as absurd as calling the Catholic Fathers at Nicaea “schismatic” for opposing the Arian bishops’ innovations, or Protestants calling Roman Catholics “schismatic” in 1520. The traditionalist, orthodox view is in accord with: The vast majority of the Anglican Communion (and almost certainly of the ECUSA as well): probably more than 60,000,000 of the world’s 75,000,000 Anglicans, The Roman Catholic Church (1.7 billion Christians), The Orthodox Churches (400 million Christians), The Southern Baptists and other burgeoning Evangelical and Pentecostal churches around the world (hard to be precise, but multi-millions). To their opinion, self-identified “progressive” Christians can claim the accord of the Metropolitan Community Church, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the rapidly declining United Church of Christ, etc. It is not at all clear that any more of the tiny U.S. Mainline Protestant denominations will follow ECUSA; but even so, we would be counting negligible numbers. The very notion that traditionalist Anglicans/Episcopalians are causing schism is nonsensical. Not only is it the innovators who are triggering division as they preach a new doctrine, discover a new morality, and create new authorities; but, more importantly, the division is simply a fact. There is no unity, no matter how much some of our bishops, clergy, and laity want to pretend that things remain the same or will soon “get back to normal.” A bishop, whom I like personally, recently urged his diocese to “get over this, and get on with it”—“it” presumably being his concept of the mission of the Church. Well, okay. But the “mission of the Church” has always involved coherent, authoritative, defensible theology, ecclesiology, and moral life. If that is NOT part of the mission of the Church, then to what are we evangelizing? What specifically about the Episcopal Church can be said to be holy, Catholic or apostolic? Why don’t we just become a liberal consciousness-raising club with bishops who hold good same-sex mixers and committees who do occasional social work? Left-wing politicians, good fellowship, and doing charitable works is not all the Lord and the Apostles had in mind with the Crucifixion, Resurrection, Great Commission, and Pentecost. Of course, Our Lord preached, “If you love me, feed my sheep” (John 21:18). But he also said, “If you love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15). The two pillars stand together. The Episcopal Church/Anglican Communion (technically I was confirmed into the Church of England) has been my spiritual/ecclesial home for more than forty years. I have loved, and still love, its ethos; its two millennia witness to the Christian faith. I pray with all the fervor I can muster that an honest, viable, and most of all faithful, solution will emerge from the Archbishop’s Commission and from the plethora of gifted, inspired, committed minds and hearts now praying and thinking toward that solution. The theologian and church historian in me must insist, however, that “causing schism” is so much in the eye of the accuser that it is, at least in this case, linguistically meaningless since it is causally impossible to determine. Historically, “schism” often just is. Nicaea, or better Chalcedon, has never been “settled” within Christendom. It just slowly took shape, and then one day Christianity recognized it had happened. By 1053, the East-West division was a “done reality,” and it has never been resolved between Rome and the Orthodox. Historians still make careers arguing about how, and even when, the Reformation began; but, for good or ill, it is still an on-going reality. And there are many other smaller, but significant, intra- and inter-denominational divisions. All such divisions are in some ways regrettable and harmful to our credibility and witness to those of other faiths and to the world at large. Ecumenical dialogues (a growing part of Christianity since the 17th century) are important theological processes. But, in a sinful world, unity is an eschatological hope. And what is unity? Jesus indeed wished for unity among his followers (something even He couldn’t achieve with the twelve), but unity as “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). That seems to me to be a dogma, more than some soft tolerance. It bears doctrinal—yea, again, dogmatic—content. Theology, authority, obedience, and their implications, matter—especially when we talk about unity. It is not just “process”, not just being nice to each other. II. Cultural Differences & Local Options It has been suggested that one way of saving the “unity” of the Episcopal Church, at least in the short run, is to follow the policy of so-called “local-option”. “Provincial autonomy” is built into the polity of the Anglican Communion; and, in another sense, the USA is certainly very different in so many ways from Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, various Southeast Asian countries, etc. And despite Interstate 95, South Carolina is a pretty long way from New Hampshire; does what happens in the latter really affect the former? Is your local parish substantially different today than it was before August 5th or November 2nd? A lot of questions jostle in that paragraph, questions that I can imagine St. Paul and his co-workers pondering as they considered the different issues facing the nascent Christians in Corinth, Thessalonica, Galatia, Philippi, Rome, Ephesus, et al. What did any of these communities have to do with each other? How quickly we abandon even the ideal of “one Body.” Some of those who were given a lot of press as ECUSA leaders (I think of Jack Spong, Martin Smith, and many others) brought infamy on our church by their comments after the 1998 Lambeth Conference. They tried to cast intra-Anglican division, especially about the issue of homosexuality, as one between an educated, indeed civilized, progressive, prophetic West, and an ignorant, indeed uncivilized, backward, morally-retrograde South. This unveiled racism is also factually unsupported: there are far more earned theology Ph.D.s among the “global South” traditionalist bishops than among their Western counterparts (not that Ph.D.s confer or connote virtue). In a disturbing way, especially to one who grew up in segregated Alabama in the 1950s, the “local option” solution to maintaining the unity of ECUSA, heavily endorsed by liberals (until they can impose their policy universally by fiat) has all-too-resonant echoes to the similarly-argued “local option” policies of “state’s rights” in George Wallace’s Alabama, Ross Barnett’s Mississippi, and Lester Maddox’s Georgia. What would/did a strong, morally heroic Presiding Bishop like John Hines, or indeed General Convention itself, say to that situation? III. Fundamentalists On another issue, aren’t those who are defending a close reading of the Bible about sexuality being “fundamentalists”? And Anglicans are not fundamentalists. Don’t we have our own way of interpreting the Bible? Biblical interpretation is an immensely demanding scholarly field, and one of great importance. I cannot here insert a whole tract on Biblical interpretation. Others can and have done that much better than I can; but I will mention a few points relevant to my thinking. Traditionalists are certainly being accused widely of being “fundamentalists” for accepting the divine revelation as normative. This accusation shows the historical and exegetical ignorance or duplicity of their critics. Those who call us “fundamentalists” often wrap themselves in some vague “Anglican way” of reading the Bible—again, seemingly wholly ignorant of the main Anglican tradition of valuing the authority of Scripture: from Colet and Erasmus through Cranmer, Hooker, the Caroline Divines, the Wesleys, the Evangelical and Catholic Revivals, Westcott, Hort, and Caird, to N. T. Wright in our own day. Who among that tradition would read the Bible the way they do and supply the interpretations they propose? Who, in fact, are the Anglicans in today’s debate? A fundamental distinction has been made, since the patristic and medieval periods, between “literal”, “allegorical”, “moral,” and other possible modes of interpretation. “Inerrant” was not even a possible category until fairly modern times. “Literal”, which goes back before St. Augustine, has simply meant that the Bible’s words mean what they say as their primary interpretation. Of course, we need to study the Bible (ordination vows require it), not just memorize “proof texts” or quote out of context. Those of us who read the Bible carefully know that study and interpretation have been fundamental duties from the Old Testament on. Take that profoundly important, prophetic interpretive passage in Nehemiah (8:2–8): “Accordingly, the priest Ezra brought the law before the assembly … He read from it facing the square before the Water Gate from early morning until midday, in the presence of the men and women and those who could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive to the book of the law… And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people, for he was standing above all the people; and when he opened it, all the people stood up. Then Ezra blessed the Lord, the great God, and all the people answered, ‘Amen, Amen,’ lifting up their hands. Then they bowed their heads and worshiped the Lord with their faces to the ground … the Levites helped the people to understand the law… So they read from the book, from the law of God, with interpretation. They gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading.” The Holy Scriptures are to be read in community, heard, taught, interpreted, and lived. If that is “fundamentalism,” then Jews and Christians (including Anglican Christians) have always been “fundamentalists.” There is all the difference in the world between “literal” and “inerrant.” In the process of translation, basic teachings of the Scriptures are re-expressed in words that may have different cultural nuances. Both linguistic complexities and historical contexts need explaining, so we can understand ancient meaning and see how it might inform our thinking now. One current tactic is to make the Bible “ridiculous” by citing one isolated, clearly human, historical, contextual suggestion, as if God or Christians mean it to be universally normative, while ignoring the plain sense of the theme throughout the whole of the Bible (this is why Robert Gagnon so expertly demolishes many facile rhetorical attempts at rewriting the Scriptures. See http://www.robgagnon.net ). Others obsess over “texts of terror,” rejecting whatever the words might really be trying to express. Or, a very wide-spread tactic, many today are busy scouring the Bible for what it doesn’t explicitly forbid, so they can see what they can “get away with.” I have been drawn to Biblical exegesis since I was what must have been an annoyingly precocious child. The long Baptist sermons I still remember were the month (or season) long series, galloping through one book or another. As simple as it now seems in retrospect, my vocation was essentially confirmed one afternoon in my freshman year at Princeton when a term-paper assignment led me to the Interpreter’s Bible for the first time, and I read (very unusually for me) straight through dinnertime. Had I been more linguistically gifted (or perhaps more hard-working) in languages, I am quite certain I would be a Biblical scholar and professor today. So I don’t take the work of anyone (of any faith tradition, or none) who has devoted his or her life to interpreting the Bible lightly or dismiss any of their arguments easily. Among the many, many other Biblical theologians I read (and use) regularly, Walter Brueggemann and David Ford, seem to me to have brought particularly convincing analyses and creative imaginations to their readings of the relevance of the Bible for us today. I do not always agree with either of them, but agreement is not prerequisite for respect (or even love—hence the survival of almost any marriage). Brueggemann once wrote about the spiritual paralysis caused by dualism in religions, one part of which “yields a religion of harsh conformity which crushes” and the other part which “yields… a religion of indulgent self-interest that harbors selfishness”. (Interpretation and Obedience: From Faithful Reading to Faithful Living, Minneapolis, 1991, p.23) This dichotomy has shaped and continues to shape my hermeneutic of most religious conflict ever since. The solution to the impasse that both Brueggemann and Ford (the Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge and an Anglican priest) suggest, in somewhat different ways, is a turn toward interpretations of the Bible based on faith-centered imaginations, both obedient and creative. Right now, sadly, most of us in the ECUSA debates seem to lack both qualities. Finding fruitful obedience and faithful creativity in the task of bishops, theologians, priests, and all other baptized Christians; not defeating opponents, not claiming victories, but accepting Christ’s Grace and the Bible’s revealed pattern of how to live into God’s Kingdom. Let me end this section with the most basic of pleas: we must get beyond hurling verbal insults as if they were theological doctrine. That seems, but is more complicated than it seems, a fairly basic requirement for those who would call us to engage in “civil discourse and reconciliation.” IV. Prophecy Another rhetorical device overused by the “progressives” is to claim the prophetic mantle and charge traditionalists with somehow being against prophecy and its fruits. Aren’t Christians always called by God to be “prophetic”, to be against the sinful status quo, to be against oppression and injustice in all forms, and for a glorious future—the coming, utopian reign of God? Biblical prophecy is another very complex subject, and scholars have produced a huge body of literature about it. Let me highlight several points that seem often overlooked in today’s liberal perspective. We seem to have lost the sense of what prophecy very often meant to the people of God in ancient Israel as revealed in the Bible. First, those called by God to be prophets seldom eagerly embraced that vocation. In this respect today’s self-proclaimed prophets bear little resemblance to our prophetic forbears. Old Testament prophets proclaimed the coming of the Messiah and the coming of His Kingdom of true justice and peace of which we will joyfully be a part. But the overwhelming tone and content of the Old Testament prophets’ messages, the path they directed God’s Covenanted Chosen Ones to follow to reach that Kingdom, most often recalled the people of Israel to their previously revealed right-relationship with God. Again and again the Israelites abandoned that right relationship and the structure of life God had established for them. The prophets did not rejoice that God was “doing a new thing in their day.” No, the prophets pointed out, usually rather sharply, how the people had gone astray, following the devices and desires of their own hearts, or how they had turned to more attractive and less demanding false idols. The only hope for the people of God was to repent and return to the Lord, to affect true metanoia and follow the ways He had revealed in His Laws. Has God changed? No! Rather, “prophecy,” as it is used rhetorically today, has become the tool which some now brandish hegemonically against those who are still trying to be the people of God. Maybe we need to proclaim with joy that God is “doing an old thing” and recalling us to that blessed right-relationship, now confirmed in Jesus the Christ. While this is by no means the whole interpretation of Biblical prophecy, I believe it is a perspective that is largely missing from current discussion. V. Paradigms What seems to underlie these two conflicting views of prophecy (and so much else in the current disputes) is that there are at least two major, conflicting ways of interpreting our world right now (what philosophers, historians, and sociologists call “paradigms”), and that these paradigms are largely incompatible. Is that the problem? Basically, yes. The narcissism of most so-called “post-modernist interpretation”, beyond its long known and obvious teachings that interpretation occurs in contexts (not all of which are intellectually or otherwise equal), is largely the justification of aggressive agendas, self-aggrandizing and self-pleading attempts to co-opt revealed truths for other, all-too-sinfully-human, purposes. If Christian Truth is not knowable and more compelling than human paradigms, if it does not transcend our own limited visions, then why bother? That is obviously the view from within my paradigm, as will become clear below. But it does not come from an ignorance of the secularist, post-modern paradigm (as Ricoeur and others would understand), but from my considered rejection of its claims. What is, I think, self-evident is that there are, in essence, two powerful, coherent paradigms effective structurally in our culture today: One is what some might call the “classic Christian” paradigm (what I call elsewhere the “Transcendent anti-paradigm”), based on the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, Church Traditions (including Roman Catholic, Orthodox, classic Protestant, Anglican, and many other varieties), and a fairly generally agreed sense of what it means to be a Christian (though certainly with some internal disagreements about theology and the meanings of symbols and rituals). The other is a secular, liberationist, modernist/post-modernist, scientist, hedonist paradigm, one that can be said to have been developing in western society and culture since the 18th century (and in some ways since the Renaissance), greatly accelerating its characteristics in the latter half of the 20th century. Traditionalists, though not unaffected by the second paradigm, are fairly well ensconced in the first and continue to try to articulate its ideas, values, and behavior in a way that is consistent with its foundations and traditions; still, they/we believe, relevant to the current age, and explicitly hostile to most of the latter paradigm. The second paradigm is also fully articulated by a cultural, academic, and media/advertising elite, people who largely control the artistic, informational, and in many ways the commerce levers of our external lives. Each paradigm operates in fundamental and conscious opposition to the other. Those who identify themselves as “liberal” or “progressive” Christians are often somewhat betwixt and between. They want, for whatever—often worthy and noble—reasons, to hold onto some traits of the traditional Judeo-Christian paradigm, to co-opt and redefine its texts, traditions, and institutions, to baptize the secularist, post-modern paradigm and call it “Christian.” To a Southerner steeped in the bizarre images and fervid religious imaginations that produced and inhabit the world that is Flannery O’Connor’s Wise Blood, with its repellant, compelling central character Haze Motes, we are indeed in a place of “the Church of Christ without Christ.” Traditional Christians are not willing any longer passively to cede to holders of the “progressivist” paradigm the right to the Christian identity without serious qualifications or metanoia. Some, very wrong-headedly I think, try to claim such a mental and behavioral hybrid as “Anglican,” since they seem to believe “Anglicanism” is a wide, seemingly infinite, diversity of opinion and action in which there are no boundaries to the “left” and little recognition of the possible validity of anything that the secular paradigmists find disagreeable to the “right.” (I use these “directional signals reluctantly as “shorthand” in an already overlong note.) No earlier Anglican, nor the great majority of Anglicans today, would recognize such a claim. The via media, or Newman’s “third way,” is simply not that elastic. So, and this is the heart of the matter for me, revisionists/post-modernists are faced with a choice, a classic choice repeatedly posed in the Bible and in Christian history. They can accept the secularist paradigm, try to inject some mostly incompatible Christianity, and live their lives accordingly. Perhaps they can justify this change fully to themselves. God still loves them; Christ died for their sins because of His inestimable love. But it is, I think, utterly delusional, just wrong, to insist on labeling their resulting lifeform “Christian,” and “evangelizing” others to follow their way. In Jesus the Incarnate Christ, God has shown us “the way, the truth, and the life” and has called us, and recalled us time and again, to that saving way, that way to live in true freedom, to the utter, liberating joy to be Christ’s Holy Body and Church. Whatever sociobiology and behaviorist psychology may tell us, we have been endowed with sufficient free will to make the choice. That choice is what this conflict is all about! What is needed is to accept the Grace that will allow one to understand that this is where the joy will be found, and then to accept that further Grace which is the will to respond to that understanding. This discussion has just scratched the surface of a few topics. Perhaps you have thought all these thoughts, and many more, and are way beyond them. Actually, I hope you are. Let’s keep at it. Circulate the results. God gave us minds to think, and thoughts can often be the mind at prayer. We must not neglect to pray in all ways, alone and in community. We will not solve these problems in prayer’s absence. One final note: Although this essay clearly was not intended, in any way, to be an essay in systematic theology, several colleagues who have seen it in draft have asked me for a theological comment on the Cambridge “Radical Orthodoxy” group of theologians, and indeed Archbishop Williams himself, who have been dealing with aspects of post-modernism and Christianity, and with this paradigm conflict; others have asked how “Scripture, Tradition, and Reason”—plus the misleading category of “Experience”—fit together and deal with our present conflicts. An essay now in draft form will soon try to shed some light on these questions. May God bless us all, These words are mine alone, and are not published with any additional authority or representation. The Rev’d Guy Fitch Lytle III, Ph.D., D.D. Dr. Lytle is an Episcopal priest. He holds a Ph.D. in Church History. His areas of specialization are the history of Anglicanism and the theology of priesthood.

News Analysis By Uwe Siemon-Netto UPI Religious Affairs Editor WASHINGTON, March 4 (UPI) — A considerable increase of religious activity over the last 10 years may indicate a start of a spiritual revival in the United States, according to pollster George Barna. He termed it significant “that we are witnessing a slow but steady development of more traditional religious behavior in the Western states.” Trends, “usually start in the West, take hold in the Northeast, then infiltrate the interior of the nation,” he explained. A recent poll by the Barna Research Group showed marked jumps in private, rather than public, religious activity, such as prayers, Bible study and participation in worship groups. This might suggest that groups within mainline denominations “are taking the cue from the para-church movement,” said Thomas C. Oden, a professor of theology and a leader of the confessional movement within the United Methodist Church. According to Barna’s survey, the share of adults reporting they had read from the Bible during the past week—not including Sunday service—rose from 37 percent in 1994 to 44 percent this year. It was in this category that the increase was most noteworthy in California, Oregon and Washington state, where Bible study among residents almost doubled from 29 to 44 percent in the last decade. Similarly, participation in small groups for prayer, Bible study and fellowship shot up from 11 to 26 percent in the West, Barna reported. Nationwide, it rose from 12 to 20 percent. In this context, Barna noted a phenomenon that has been observed overseas as well: Men, traditionally less religiously engaged, are becoming more involved. In the United States, their participation in prayer and other groups doubled to 18 percent in the last decade. Western European ministers and sociologists of religion attribute a similar development on their side of the Atlantic to feminism and divorces, most of which are initiated by women, which swelled the ranks of single—and often lonely—middle-aged men. “Isn’t it ironic that while men stop smoking, women take it up, and while women stop being religious, men take it up?” quipped the Rev. Michael Stollwerk, dean of Wetzlar Cathedral north of Frankfurt. Another piece of evidence for a possible religious revival is the rise in the number of people who said they had prayed to God in the past week from 77 percent in 1999 to 83 percent in 2004; no data for 1994 are available in this category. Curiously, Barna found the steepest increase in prayer activity among those who identified themselves as atheists or agnostics, where it doubled to 20 percent in the last five years. Atheists praying to God seem an oxymoron. Yet this phenomenon has been around for almost as long as such polls have been taken, lending credence to the claim that true atheists are a rare species. In the final analysis, they may just be agnostics who don’t know if there is a God but still call on him “on spec.” This newest Barna survey has a potentially troubling aspect for the churches. It shows that while religiosity in private or in small groups is clearly intensifying, it seems to be stagnating in the public domain. Weekly church attendance, while still high compared with other Western nations, remained at 43 percent, only one point more than 10 years ago. A mere quarter of the sample group of 1,014 adults did volunteer work in their congregations. The share of those who explained their faith to non-Christians—actually a duty for believers according to Christ’s Great Commission (Matthew 28:19)—declined between 1999 and 2004 from 58 to 55 percent. Thomas Oden attributes this stagnation to the “disastrous developments in the mainline churches in the last 40 years,” especially the “loss of theological substance” in their seminaries, most of which he accused of succumbing to a liberal academic elitism that is detrimental to faith. Mark Tooley of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, a Washington-based think tank, also warns of the danger of a privatization of religiosity but considers the influence of para-church activities on mainline Christians a blessing. Remarkably, Oden, a Protestant, sounds like Catholic Church leaders in Europe when he counsels patience. It could take a century for the Christian church to overcome the theological catastrophe of the last four decades. But there is one hopeful sign pastors are observing throughout the Western world—a general “thirst for God” to which the latest Barna survey attests and the instant success of Mel Gibson’s film, The Passion of the Christ, attest.

By Mary Maraghy Clay County Line staff writer Two Episcopalian churches in Clay County, opposed to the national church’s vote to ordain a gay bishop and allow gay marriages, are withholding funds from the national church in revolt. “We’re not going to pay anymore for a crooked card game,” said the Rev. Sam Pascoe. The parish fulfilled its obligation for 2003, Pascoe said. But in 2004, it will redirect that money—about $75,000—to other missions. At the recent Florida convention in January, leaders empowered parishes to decide individually whether to donate to the national church in 2004. Parishes traditionally give 10 percent of their income to the national church. Pascoe, who has been at Grace for nearly 19 years, said it’s embarrassing to be an Episcopalian and he admits he strongly considered taking a job at an out-of-state Presbyterian church. “I hate controversy. I was ready to bail. This is a very painful and difficult time for me,” said Pascoe. “The Episcopal Church has taken a deep step into heresy.” Pascoe said his 1,380-member church needs to expand its facilities, but in the Episcopalian tradition, anything the church builds the denomination will own, so he’s holding off for now. “It’s hard to get pumped about a $5 million sanctuary expansion,” Pascoe said. “It’s hard to raise money right now.” St. Margaret’s Episcopal Church in Fleming Island also is withholding funds from the national church but the church is forging ahead with plans to build a new sanctuary. Groundbreaking is slated for April. “The gospel calls us to spread the word, not to remain stagnant,” said the rector, the Rev. Ken Hartsog. “We need to make more room. All of our services are maxed out. We’re growing like crazy.” The Rev. Hall Hunt at Church of the Good Samaritan said he and his church leaders have not yet officially decided what to do. “We’re struggling with how to express that dissatisfaction. We’re hurt and even alarmed,” he said. “We consider ourselves no better than homosexuals. We are all sinners but we are all called to repent of our sins and to struggle against whatever sin we have in our lives.” Hunt said he’s inclined to redirect the parish’s funds earmarked for the national church toward Anglican missions in Africa, Asia and South America.

by David E. Sumner, Ph.D. How ironic that the ecumenical officer of the Episcopal Church wrote a column condoning an action that has done more to damage the ecumenical relations of the Episcopal Church than any other in its history. The suspension of cooperation with the Episcopal Church by the Russian Orthodox Church, the postponement of dialogue by other Orthodox bodies, and the replacement of the presiding bishop on the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission all reveal our deteriorating relations with other Christians. Add to that the suspension of relations with the Episcopal Church by Anglican bishops and provinces worldwide. Church leaders such as the presiding bishop who have accused George Bush of being the “lone ranger” in foreign policy have themselves formed a small band of “lone rangers” in acting unilaterally against the other 67 million members of the Anglican Communion and 1.3 billion Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians. Our 2.3 million members represent one-tenth of one percent of the world’s 2.1 billion Christians. Has God told us something new? In discussing those difficult biblical passages that condemn homosexual behavior, Bishop Epting assumes—like so many—that these passages form the only reason for opposing the ordination of homosexuals. Tradition is the neglected “leg” of the Anglican three-legged stool of scripture, tradition, and reason. The reason that gay rights advocates don’t talk about tradition in this debate is that they would definitely lose this argument. Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, which represent 64 percent of the world’s 2.1 billion Christians, reject homosexual behavior as inconsistent with both scripture and tradition. Neither of these two faith traditions are fundamentalist—a term many Episcopalians use to describe Christian denominations that interpret scripture literally. The Roman Catholic catechism says, “The manner of interpreting scripture is ultimately subject to the judgment of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God.” (p. 39) In The Orthodox Church, Orthodox bishop Timothy Ware writes, “It is from the Church that the Bible ultimately derives its authority for it was the Church which originally decided which books form a part of Holy Scripture; and it is the Church alone which can interpret Holy Scripture with authority.” Yet both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches arrive at the same conclusion about homosexuality as the fundamentalist churches. “The Orthodox Christian teaching on marriage and sexuality, firmly grounded in Holy Scripture, 2000 years of church tradition and canon law, holds that marriage consists in the conjugal union of a man and a woman, and that authentic marriage is blessed by God as a sacrament of the Church,” wrote the Standing Committee of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas in an Aug. 23 statement issued three weeks after our General Convention. Their statement, signed by nine archbishops, went on to say, “The Orthodox Church cannot and will not bless same-sex unions. Whereas marriage between a man and a woman is a sacred institution ordained by God, homosexual union is not.” The Roman Catholic catechism says of homosexuals: “They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity.” Yet, the Catechism continues, “Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedoms…by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.” (p. 626) Bishop Epting and other Episcopalians who defend the consecration of Gene Robinson have replaced “scripture, tradition and reason” with “experience, reason, and General Convention.” While they may argue that scripture doesn’t mean what it seems to mean, they can’t argue that scripture or tradition supports the ordination of homosexuals. Those who do not recognize the weight of tradition nor the continuing consensus of Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant churches are naïve, I believe. When I hear you say, “God is doing a new thing,” you remind me of the Mormons and other sects who have argued throughout history for their “new revelations.” The rest of Christendom is unconvinced and isn’t yielding. David E. Sumner holds a master’s degree in church history from the University of the South, is a Ball State University journalism professor and member of Trinity Church, Anderson, Indiana, in the Diocese of Indianapolis.

By Frank Stirk Canadianchristianity.com & BC Christian News 2/4/2004 Four Anglican primates in Africa and one in Asia have offered “alternative episcopal oversight” to Canadian Anglicans disillusioned over the way their bishops have addressed the longstanding controversy over same-sex blessings. So far, four parishes and eight priests in the diocese of New Westminster, as well as one priest in Calgary, have accepted the offer. Recently, Archbishop David Crawley, the Anglican Church of Canada’s acting primate, spoke with CC.com—and left no doubt what he thinks of their offer. Archbishop David Crawley: The offer that the primates have made is improper within the understanding of the Anglican Communion… And so they’re acting improperly and inappropriately. They know perfectly well that we have entered a process, at the request of that meeting of the primates last fall, to provide alternate episcopal oversight internally for dissenting groups. At this juncture they’re behaving very badly. And I have, as acting primate, written them to tell them so. CC.com : One of the issues from among those who have accepted this offer is that they have been waiting for — ADC: That’s rubbish. They have a bishop—Michael Ingham is their bishop. Anglican parishes do not have the freedom to disassociate themselves from dioceses. We are not a congregationalist church. Right from the very time that this motion was passed by [the New Westminster] synod [in June 2002], the synod itself agreed that they would provide alternate episcopal oversight. The national House of Bishops provided a retired bishop for them from eastern Canada who would have the same position as their alternative episcopal overseer, and they’re not prepared to accept it, because they ‘want a bishop with full jurisdiction.’ Well, that can’t happen. I mean, it’s not part of our structure to do that. In England, where they talk about ‘flying bishops’—and these people use that as an example—they have less authority than the bishop who was appointed by the House of Bishops to provide episcopal oversight for these dissenting parishes has. They say they’ve been without a bishop, but they have simply refused alternate episcopal oversight when it was offered to them. CC.com : And there is that commission [of four bishops studying adequate/alternative episcopal oversight] that has yet to report. ADC: Yes. It’s reporting to the House of Bishops in April. CC.com : So there is a process underway to try to resolve this internally. ADC: It’s inappropriate for those foreign primates to intervene at any time, but it’s particularly unhealthy at this juncture. CC.com : And so what can the Anglican Church of Canada do about it? ADC: We cannot of course stop them from coming in. I mean, we don’t have any legal power. Anything they do here is unlawful, according to our canons. The only way that any action can be taken would be the diocese of New Westminster might choose to act against the priests, the clergy. But the diocese can’t deal with the primates. All they can deal with is clergy. The Anglican Communion, uncharacteristically, does not operate on a written constitution. We are bound by common traditions and by a common understanding of how we treat one another. And when people choose to break the common understanding, we have no way of enforcing it. There is no authority in the Anglican church that can kick a province out of the Anglican Communion. CC.com : As I understand it, the offer that the primates have made is not just for member-parishes of the Anglican Communion in New Westminster, but could extend to other parishes, perhaps even dioceses, across Canada. ADC: Yes, I expect they’d be prepared to do that. They just have—well, I won’t say it. They have no business doing what they’re doing. They just have absolutely no business doing it, and it’s appalling that they’re doing it. CC.com : Are you concerned that with the offer out there, that other priests, other parishes, perhaps even dioceses, could take up the offer? ADC: I don’t know about that. There may be other places where they would think of doing that. But what they have to understand is that by doing so, parishes are reading themselves out of the Anglican Communion. CC.com : Well, they would say that this offer allows them to remain part of the Anglican Communion. ADC: No, because those bishops have no jurisdiction here. Anything those bishops and those primates do here is unlawful and improper. They have no jurisdiction. So these parishes are becoming outlaws. They fondly think that this keeps them part of it, but it doesn’t. CC.com : So you object obviously strongly to what has happened, but there isn’t much you can do about it. ADC: We don’t have a centralized authority, like the Roman Church. And so there’s not much we can do about it, except express our unhappiness to these people. I think the whole thing’s a bit silly myself. I think the primates from the global south who are doing this are—well, I’m not sure of their reasons. I think they just fail to understand how our church works. CC.com : Is this a subject that you could bring before the primates as a whole? Are there any avenues of dealing with this? ADC: Yes, it could be brought before a primates’ meeting, but there’s nothing a primates’ meeting can do. They’ve already said they shouldn’t do it…

Solange De Santis, Staff Writer Anglican Journal BURLINGTON, ONT—(3/3/2004)—Conservative Canadian Anglicans opposed to liberal views on homosexuality attracted a nationwide audience on Saturday, Feb. 28 for a four-hour video conference entitled For Such A Time as This. Hosted by Bishop Tony Burton of the diocese of Saskatchewan and television personality Lorna Dueck, the conference was broadcast from the studios of a religious cable channel in Burlington, Ont., about 50 km west of Toronto. The video conference was beamed nationwide by satellite to 22 churches and other locations and was also available in private homes on satellite channels. The event, said Bishop Burton in his opening remarks, was intended to “prayerfully consider the future of our church” and was not intended “to promote the establishment of another church or a structure within our church.” It was produced by Essentials, a coalition of conservative Anglican groups, at an approximate cost of $70,000, said producer Doug McKenzie. Traditionalists, who believe the Bible condemns homosexuality as sinful, have voiced concern for years about more liberal church attitudes toward gays. The concern became more vocal since the diocese of New Westminster in 2002 voted to permit the blessing of gay relationships and since the Episcopal Church in the United States last August confirmed the election of an openly-gay bishop. The conference also featured Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, who is leading a dissident coalition of churches in the U.S. opposed to Bishop Gene Robinson’s election. Also appearing was Rev. David Short, a leader within the Anglican Communion in New Westminster, a group of parishes opposed to gay blessings. “The New Testament warns us that there are limits to our communion,” he said, addressing the question of whether this issue will split the Anglican Church. (Based in England, the Anglican Communion is a federation of 38 national or regional churches.) Also appearing were Rev. C. Dawn McDonald and Michel Schnob of Montreal, who said they were formerly homosexuals. A member of the studio audience, Margaret Willoughby, of St. George’s church in Lowville, Ont., said she found the conference interesting. “I appreciate the Anglican Church and it is helpful to know it is intellectually sound to believe in the accuracy of the Scriptures. I hope the Anglican Church carries on,” she said in an interview. Bishop Burton said one of the purposes of the conference was to “ignite a holy hope” that the Anglican Church would “return to the authority of Scripture.” He also said that “part of what we are doing today is we are forming a network” of traditionalist Anglicans. The conference broadcast a telephone number for supporters to call and register their names and/or donate to Essentials. Looking ahead to General Synod 04, Bishop Burton said that if the triennial governing convention approves the blessing of same-sex relationships, the network will form a way that “Anglicans across the nation can demarcate themselves publicly and say ‘(General Synod) may agree with that but we do not.’” Mr. Short said such an action would “affect all of us across the country... the same as the blessing of any other sin like idolatry.”

The Church of Ireland could see the introduction of same-sex blessings within two years, an international Anglican leader from Vancouver, Canada has warned. The Rev. Dr David Short, whose parish St. John’s Shaughnessy, along with ten others in the Canadian diocese of New Westminster, broke fellowship with their bishop Michael Ingham after same-sex rites were introduced there. Addressing Church of Ireland clergy and lay leaders on Wednesday at a lunchtime meeting in St Mark’s Church Hall, Portadown, Short’s warning came after reading the Irish bishops’ recent pastoral letter on human sexuality. Such sentiments, he said, had been published by his Diocesan authorities about two years before they allowed gay ‘marriages’ to be blessed in churches. He feared that the Church of Ireland might be following a similar trend, he told the forty church leaders organised by the Evangelical Fellowship of Irish Clergy. Dr Short said the Diocese of New Westminster was the first diocese in the Anglican Communion to authorise same-sex blessings, forcing conservative parishes to formally separate themselves and establish a network — the Anglican Communion in New Westminster (ACiNW). It is they, and not the bishop, who are maintaining the biblical principles of Anglicanism within the diocese, he said. The ACiNW has been recognised by five Anglican primates and numerous bishops worldwide, including the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. George Carey. He also emphasised that Scripture and not experience must govern the debate within the church. “The listening process must be about listening to the Bible first, ahead of the experiences of church members,” he said. Outlining the biblical view on sexuality, Short denounced homophobia as a sin alongside homosexual activity. The problem in New Westminster, he said, was that a lifestyle that St. Paul prohibits in 1 Corinthians 6:9 as a hindrance to God’s kingdom, is now seen as positive, good and blessed by God. He also discussed the nature of ‘communion’, a topic currently being examined by the Lambeth Commission, chaired by Archbishop Robin Eames. In the Bible, communion is not only that living bond we share in God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it is also a sharing together in the work of the gospel. How then can the ACiNW have structural fellowship with the bishop and diocese of New Westminster, when that agreement in the gospel is not present? he asked. Short said that fundamentally the issue was not about same-sex unions, but about the place and function of Scripture in the life of the Church. FOOTNOTE: The Evangelical Fellowship of Irish Clergy (www.efic.org.uk ) exists to provide its members with encouragement, refreshment and teaching from the Bible. We want to see the clergy of the Church of Ireland equipped in biblical ministry, that Jesus Christ may be better known. Please contact Clive West (028) 90419317 (048 from RoI) for further details. END

Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes Structure and Strategy The Steering Committee of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes (commonly referred to as the “Anglican Communion Network”) met March 2–4, 2004 in Pittsburgh, PA for strategic planning. The committee is comprised of one representative from each of the 12 original dioceses who signed the Anglican Communion Network’s structural Charter, as well as Moderator, the Rt. Rev. Robert W. Duncan, and Secretary, the Rev. Canon David C. Anderson. The Committee was joined by acting Convocation Deans, representatives of Global Mission Partners and the American Anglican Council’s Strategy Group. “We accomplished an enormous amount of organizational work and are committed to rapid forward movement,” said Bishop Duncan, Moderator. “This is an action-oriented group focused on addressing the urgent crisis of the men, women and children in the pews who feel disenfranchised and abandoned by ECUSA, many of whom are experiencing intimidation and harassment in revisionist dioceses.” Defining the Anglican Communion Network as a “biblically driven missionary movement”, the Steering Committee developed Mission and Vision Statements as well as Core Values based upon the structural and theological charters. A centerpiece of Steering Committee actions was the election of Convocation Deans who had previously served provisionally. Convocation Deans are: The Rev. John Guernsey, Mid-Atlantic Convocation The Rev. James McCaslin, Southeast Convocation The Rev. Ron McCrary, Mid-Continental Convocation The Rev. William Thompson, Western Convocation The Rev. David Moyer, Forward in Faith North America Convocation Appointment of Dean for the New England Convocation is pending. These Deans established Convocation structures and developed procedures for association with the Anglican Communion Network, procedures which will be available in mid-March. In addition, they are developing a framework to provide organizational, spiritual and pastoral care in the Convocations. The Steering Committee also began a funding and budgeting process and approved formation of an Anglican Communion Network Missionary Society. This Missionary Society’s primary purpose will be to bring into fellowship groups of people who have left ECUSA and those who are seeking to explore the tradition and worship of Anglican orthodoxy. In addition, the Committee unanimously voted to appoint the American Anglican Council as provisional Secretariat for the Anglican Communion Network, providing the necessary infrastructure to implement plans and strategies during this time of transition and growth. The Committee also discussed relationships between the Anglican Communion Network and other organizations and coalitions such as the Anglican Communion Institute, Ekklesia and Global Mission Partners. In addition, various committees were formed to define and implement tiered priority goals and action plans. “The American Anglican Council is delighted to continue to serve the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes,” said Canon Anderson, AAC President. “We have pledged the resources and staff necessary to meet the demands and fulfill the realignment goals established by the Steering Committee.” The Anglican Communion Network held their Organizing Convocation in January 2004 during which they adopted both structural and theological Charters. Twelve dioceses voted to provisionally associate with the Network and to date six dioceses — Central Florida, Ft. Worth, Pittsburgh, Rio Grande, San Joaquin, Springfield — as well as the Forward in Faith North America (FiFNA) Convocation have ratified association. The American Anglican Council is a network of individuals, parishes, specialized ministries and Episcopal Bishops who affirm Biblical authority and mainstream Anglican orthodoxy within the Episcopal Church. For more information on the AAC, please visit http://www.americananglican.org Contact: Cynthia P. Brust 202-296-5360 (cell), 202-412-8721 END

Bishop Terence Kelshaw’s message to the Diocese of the Rio Grande From the Diocesan newsletter “Together,” February 2004 Plano is passed! The gathering of a group of over 150 clergy and lay people of the Episcopal Church met in Plano, Texas, in January 2004 to formulate details of a Network of individuals, parishes, and dioceses in response to an idea from the Archbishop of Canterbury that such a network be established as a way of expressing a way forward for those who share a common unity which is seen to be at variance from where the Episcopal Church is at present. It is not a group dedicated to break away from the Episcopal Church, as some have portrayed it, and neither is it an attempt to take the Diocese out of the Episcopal Church, as has also been charged. It is an attempt to remain within the Episcopal Church and make a voice heard which is largely at variance with decisions made at the last General Convention in August 2003. So, the response might be “Why not live with the decision of the majority?” Because the majority is not always right, and in matters of faith and doctrine, the majority is not the arbiter. We have differences about the way we view things, certainly — and there are different appreciations of the role of Scripture in discussions — but in matter of faith and doctrine, let us always have in mind that the majority vote is not the end of the story and that others have a position which needs expression also — especially when that expression is contrary to the vote. Thirteen million Anglicans around the Communion signed their disapproval of the actions at the last General Convention which led to the consent of Consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire, a man living in a sexual relationship other than in marriage and also the recognition of local option for the blessing of same-sex relationships. In response to that the Archbishop of Canterbury, meeting with a team of bishops from the United States, suggested the idea of a network. Now I realize this debate is all over the country and that the politicians are presently making hay with it all (not to mention the media and the press), but there are those in the church who are not so easily convinced, and they have been told in no uncertain terms by Bishop Barbara Harris and others to “leave the church.” Well, in the words of Bishop John McNaughton (retired bishop of West Texas), we are not going to leave the Episcopal Church, and we are not going anywhere other than to make our congregation the best it can possibly be for the proclamation of the Scripture and for newness of life in Jesus Christ. And that seems to some to be a crime! The next objection might be that Doctrine divides! To which I respond it is bad doctrine which divides, and that it what we are seeing, surely. It has been bad doctrine which for many years has divided our church and made us weak and often irrelevant. It is bad doctrine that has turned us into a caricature of the political circus which has captured our television networks from Iowa and New Hampshire and will soon impact us in New Mexico. It is bad doctrine which hinders our working together and drives our constant temptation to maintain our churches rather than get deeply into mission of the gospel. It is bad doctrine that leads so many Episcopalians to work within their churches as if the churches were local political offices rather than Christian centers for mission and ministry. And, finally, as we have seen in our own diocese, the next objection is the bishop polarizes us. Let it be said not only of this bishop but of many others in the Church that this is a common complaint! The Standing Committee at its recent meeting voted unanimously to be joined with the Network of parishes and dioceses, because it sees this as a way forward to work within the Episcopal Church and also to work with the wider church for a way forward to continue in ministry and membership. Now I know some will say, “I don’t want to be high jacked by the Network!” (as the Via Media contact in the Diocese of Fort Worth has said of the situation there) so don’t worry, you are not being high jacked. If you want to be a part of the Network you can sign on, and so can your parish. If you don’t want to be part of the Network then don’t sign on. The Standing Committee has signed on and will convey to the Diocese such information or actions as are deemed necessary. They will also be sending out information concerning the Bishop Coadjutor Search and the steps they propose to follow so that everyone has a chance to be involved and make his/her voice heard. Because there are already dissident voices making people very nervous, it is time for us to be daily in prayer for this search and election process and to cease second guessing what is happening or what will happen. These are rumors and often lies which do no one any good. What is the Network? It is a group of individuals and parishes who will seek to provide encouragement and ministry in places where there is a punitive culture, and it is also a group of people who will try to work with the Archbishop of Canterbury and also with our own Presiding Bishop to find ways forward through the disagreements and pain which currently beset us. Let us pray for peace rather than assume peace would come if we would all go away! Let us pray for a unity in which the Gospel is not compromised and in which churches can grow and flourish. +Terence Kelshaw Bishop of the Rio Grande END

Lagos, 2 March 2004 The head of the world’s largest Anglican Communion, Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria, has turned down an invitation to a meeting of church leaders in protest at the presence of US clerics who supported the ordination of an openly homosexual bishop, his office said yesterday. As primate of Nigeria’s 17 million Anglicans, Akinola led opposition from the churches — especially those in the developing world — which condemned last year’s decision by the US Episcopal Church (ECUSA) to name Canon Gene Robinson, an avowed homosexual, as Bishop of New Hampshire. In a letter to Canon John Peterson, General Secretary of the Anglican Communion Office, Bishop Oluranti Odubogun, General Secretary of the Church of Nigeria, said Akinola would not attend this week’s meeting of the Anglican Consultative Committee in London, which began yesterday. “Archbishop Akinola is baffled that ACO continues to act as if what ECUSA did does not really matter,” said the letter. The letter said Akinola felt he “could not sit down with ECUSA at any meeting of the Global Communion,” saying it would “undermine the position” of the developing world church leaders who opposed Robinson’s confirmation and have since dropped links with their US colleagues. In September last year, African church leaders warned that if the US bishops did not rescind their decision to recognise Robinson’s ministry then “they would have removed themselves from the fellowship of the Communion,” the letter recalled. “I believe that you can understand Archbishop Akinola’s position better from the foregoing. It is a situation that is most painful to him,” it concluded. The Anglican Consultative Committee oversees the running of world Anglicanism’s central secretariat, and is meeting all week in London. It comprises a large number of the church’s leading bishops, including Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and spiritual head of the church, and Frank Griswold, the Presiding Bishop of the US Episcopal Church. Disagreements over the issue of homosexuality, most notably over Robinson’s nomination, have threatened to permanently tear apart the church — a loose congregation of autonomous national and regional provinces around the world. END