Archives

News Analysis   By David W. Virtue   Bishop Don Wimberly got his way at the recent Diocese of Texas convention. He managed to squelch four conservative resolutions affirming orthodox positions on human sexuality before they even came to the floor for a vote.   The convention delegates, representing 85,000 members from 160 churches in the 59,000-square-mile diocese, filled the Harvey Convention Center with standing-room-only crowd at nearby First Baptist Church.   It was a pyrrhic victory for the bishop.   Some 15 to 20 of his clergy walked out of the convention many of whom had supported him during his election, this included one delegation of four from Katy. They wanted a strong statement opposing the actions of General Convention. They never got it.   The liberal element in the diocese (which has grown much stronger and larger in the past several years) also wanted no vote taken, so they became staunch allies of Bishop Wimberly. Ironically these same liberals did not support Wimberly during the election for coadjutor.   Many of the liberals supported Archdeacon Dena Harrison in the election for coadjutor.   According to reports reaching Virtuosity, no one seemed particularly happy about the 90-minute discussion about "the sexuality issue" held the final morning of the convention. The conservatives spoke forcefully and passionately from Holy Scripture, and the liberals seemed smug and detached. In the end no votes were taken. It was all talk.   Bishop Wimberly gave a passionate address to Council saying that no resolution or canonical change ever brought a person to Christ or transformed a life. On that point he is absolutely right. What he did not mention was the fact that he got to vote himself on the issue at General Convention. The orthodox in the Diocese had nowhere else to vote but at their own convention -- and that vote was denied to them by a slick parliamentary maneuver.   What Virtuosity learned was this: The committee on the Bishop's address (which usually comes up with resolutions echoing whatever the bishop said) suddenly introduced a voice resolution to set aside all four of the conservative resolutions -- barring them from coming to the floor -- but also setting aside time for them to "have dialogue together, without voting."   This maneuver (from a heretofore innocuous committee) caught everyone by surprise. Several conservatives rose immediately to "table" that voice resolution, but that effort was ruled out of order. Another motion to "set aside" the committee's voice resolution was ruled to be in order, and it was voted down... meaning that the committee's voice resolution was immediately up for a vote. It passed, probably by a 60-40 percent standing vote.   The result: No votes were taken on the sexuality issue at this Convention.   The mainstream news media ignored the convention, for the most part -- with the exception of David Vara of the Houston Chronicle, Virtuosity was told.   As a result several long-time conservative priests are now angling for retirement Virtuosity has learned. A few congregations are looking closely at the NACDP, but Bishop Wimberly has already given his "godly counsel" that this diocese does not want anything to do with THAT group.   The Anglican Mission in America (AMiA), meanwhile, has put in place a fledgling church in Houston, and others will no doubt spring up under the oversight of Bishop T.J. Johnson in Little Rock.   "Where we the orthodox go from here is anyone's guess," said a source. A great many of them are waiting quietly to see what (if anything) comes out of the new Eames Commission.   Wimberly's appeal was successful for the most part and in his address he appealed for unity, ministry and commitment. "We are together in this... I share ministry with you, not to you," he said. "I've learned (over the years) that we are followers of Jesus Christ, not an institution."   He received a standing ovation at the end of his remarks, which were, he said, mostly "from the heart" and not found in his written address distributed to the delegates.   But Wimberly, an Episcopalian lifer of more than 40 years, and who was the bishop of the Diocese of Lexington for 15 years, before becoming bishop of the Diocese of Texas has only been at the job for eight months.   But his actions at this convention have made him a pariah among the orthodox and opens wide the door now for revisionists to walk in and take over the reins, filling whatever ecclesiastical posts surrounding the bishop that need filling.   Whether he wants to admit it or not Wimberly has made his bed with the revisionists and he will lie with them. And they know it.   The truth is, there has never been an occasion where a bishop has folded his cards on sexuality issues who can ever again gain the moral high ground on gospel imperatives. Never. The orthodox will never trust him, and they will begin to cut at his authority in small and large ways. One of them will be by withholding money.   Wimberly will be reluctantly allowed into orthodox parishes, but it will be made clear to him that he is not loved and only half-heartedly welcome. In time he may come to hate the job. He will also begin to make more and more threats to use his power to subjugate rising orthodox discontent. That too is part of the scenario.   The revisionists, through organizations like Via Media will begin to push him harder on same-sex issues, Robinson's consecration, the ordination of homoerotic priests and, with pressure he will, in time succumb.   It has always been that way and it will continue that way. Add to the mix the collegiality pressure from the Club of Purple (House of Bishops), and he will be Frank's man within a year.   The Diocese of Texas, which formerly had such great bishops as Ben Benitez, now a bitter opponent of ECUSA's revisionism, began its slide under Claude Payne, will now move it to completion under Don Wimberly.   And the issue while symbolized in sexuality issues is more deeply rooted in the bishops' failure to believe and accept the authority of Scripture.   The revisionists now have Wimberly on the ropes, and they will toy with him and pressure him before they deliver the knockout punch. When that moment comes he will be only too glad to surrender and acknowledge that he has become their man.   It is only a matter of time.   END

News Analysis   By David W. Virtue   The income dip of six percent recently reported by the Executive Council of the national Episcopal Church is closer to somewhere between10 to18 percent, says a financial expert and an alumnus of the Wharton Graduate School at the University of Pennsylvania who has looked at the figures.   There are two fundamental errors in the Florida news release: The first is that ECUSA says the National Church has pledges of $16 million from 51 dioceses, along with pledges of future support from another 33 dioceses totaling $8.1 million. These two figures total $24,100,000 not $26,446,000 as claimed. To this total is added "Other Income of $18,554,000 [Trust Funds, etc] to yield the total ECUSA budget of $42,654,000, said Oliver Conger, a former Philadelphia company president now resident in Florida.   Two dioceses - Pittsburgh and Dallas - have refused to send any money to the national church in protest,"   The more than 7,000 congregations of the Episcopal Church receive $2.14 billion in offerings a year, and forward a portion to the national church. Individual dioceses are asked to send 21% [up from 17% in 00-03] of their income to ECUSA, but about half of the dioceses who have already made their financial pledges to the national church fall below that threshold.   "ECUSA says revenues are down about $3,027,000 from the original budget projection of $48,000,000", but the real reduction truth is $5,373,000 using ECUSA's own figures, says Conger. This figure is calculated by adding the $24,100,000 with the estimated "Other Income" [Trust Funds, etc] of $18,554.000 to yield total projected income of $42,654.000 - not the original Budget of $48,000,000 or the spin version of $45,000,000.   "Income is down $3,027,000 to $5,373,000 from the original request $29,446,000 making the reduction at least 10-18% of ECUSA's diocesan asking, not 6%. It is far more honest and correct to compare changes in "asking" when measuring the actual decline than to use the total budget to yield the smaller number," said Conger.   Conger said his analysis was based on ECUSA's own statements from the Florida Meeting. However, no calculation was performed to estimate the millions of dollars wasted in legal fights to keep money and property under the control of the ECUSA revisionists.   Conger made several other comparisons: "Louis Crew's 01 analysis of total diocesan Income for 01 of $147,279,404 when compared with ECUSA's current diocesan estimate of $140,219,000 [x 21% to equal the original asking of $28,445,998], would indicate a decline in diocesan income over the past three years of $7,060,400 [about 4.8% decline when inflation was about 9% for the period]. Thus the actual decline to stay even with 01 figures is about 13.8%+/-.   "Another way to measure dissatisfaction within the pews, with revisionist Bishops and ECUSA would be to take 10% of the parishes' $2.14 Billion total income which would yield $214,000,000 to the dioceses - not the current estimated $140,219,000 [34.5% shortfall]. Then apply 21% of ECUSA's asking to the $214,000,000 which yields $44,940,000 versus the current estimated $24,100,000 [46.4% shortfall].   With many of the older pew sitters dying off in the next five years and not being replaced, there will be a smaller giving base and perhaps over half of the 7,000 parishes will fold.   The pruning will cut to the bone. Over the past twenty years, one study has shown that the evangelicals [who believe in the authority of the Bible and Christ] have grown from 25% of the population to about 47% in the United States.   It is thought that in another ten years this growth will surpass 57%. Revisionists, who have no gospel are heading down a slippery slope to oblivion, some might say Hell itself. Their type of religion just doesn't "sell", concluded Conger.   END

By David W. Virtue The Diocesan Council of the Rio Grande has slammed the local branch of Via Media for trying to block the election of a bishop coadjutor to replace the biblically orthodox Bishop Terence Kelshaw when he retires in 2005. Via Media, the growing nationwide revisionist group had sent a letter to all Episcopal Church bishops and diocesan standing committees protesting the canonical actions of the Council. Via Media called for the blocking of the election and withholding of consents, advocating an interim bishop be named instead. Via Media members are "posers" who say they represent the middle ground, said the Council. Posing as "middle grounders" they are trying to subvert the diocese's orthodox priests and laity and gain support for their revisionist causes. Via Media has formed branches in a number of dioceses where the bishops voted against the confirmation of the admitted homosexual Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire. In a letter sent to all members of the diocese, the Diocesan Council refuted claims by Via Media Rio Grande that the search was not following canons, and pointed out the Council is working closely with the Presiding Bishop's pastoral development staff, including Bishop Clay Matthews and Canon Carlson Gerdau. The letter laid out the timetable and process for the bishop-coadjutor's selection, including a survey to be sent to all members in the diocese The Council unanimously passed a resolution calling Via Media's action "reprehensible" and "destructive," and sent it to all members of the diocese: "The Diocesan Council and Standing Committee of the Diocese of the Rio Grande register their protest against the actions of the self designated group Via Media Rio Grande, specifically, letters sent to each bishop and standing committee in the ECUSA to subvert due process of the election of a bishop-coadjutor in the Diocese of the Rio Grande, and consider these actions reprehensible, destructive of the life in the diocese, and do not promote healing for the church." Via Media stole the list that contained private information said the bishop. The group was publicly cited earlier by Bishop Kelshaw for obtaining the official mailing list for the diocesan newsletter "without authorization." Via Media then used the list to mail out its own literature to all diocesan members and gave it the appearance of official diocesan mail. The list was closely held by the diocese for privacy reasons because it contained the home addresses of all the members of the diocese. "I have resolutely refused to permit home and parish addresses to be passed from this office to other people and bodies even within the diocese," wrote Kelshaw in a Pastoral letter to the diocese. The leader of Via Media Rio Grande is the Rev. Brian Taylor of St. Michael and All Angels in Albuquerque, N.M. Other Via Media Rio Grande leaders who signed the letter that went to all ECUSA bishops and standing committees were Rev. Gary Meade (St. John's Cathedral, Albuquerque), Diane Butler and Dr. Don Partridge (St. Thomas of Canterbury, Albuquerque), Rev. Richard Murphy (St. Bede's, Santa Fe), and Patricia Riggins and Dr. James Tryon (St. Michael and All Angels, Albuquerque). Bishop Kelshaw has said he intends to retire no later than July of 2005. END

19 February 2004 The Right Reverend John B. Lipscomb, Bishop The Diocese of Southwest Florida 7313 Merchant Court Sarasota, FL 34240 (A note to the reader: Bishop Lipscomb has invited Frank Griswold, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America [ECUSA] to speak to our Diocesan Convention in October of 2004. Bishop Griswold has accepted. Subsequently, Bishop Lipscomb has been encouraged to rescind that invitation because of the divisive pain his presence would precipitate. Bishop Lipscomb has resisted the withdrawal of the invitation and has instead justified it as something worthwhile. You may read about the invitation and the justification by accessing the diocesan website: www.dioceseswfla.org/ezine.htm ) Dear Bishop, Greetings to you and yours in the unique, saving love of Christ Jesus. I pray for you regularly as I understand the godly weight of responsibility inherent in your ministry. In that atmosphere of prayerfulness, I own the words of our Savior as I say to you, "My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death." (Mark 14:22, NKJV) Spiritual anguish and torment would not be stating the case too strongly for my feelings as I consider your invitation to Bishop Griswold, and subsequent rationale for maintaining said invitation, to speak to our Diocesan convention. I believe your decision to be an error, wrought with gravely dangerous implications for the proclamation of the Gospel be that to those who are part of the church or not. Souls are at stake. Frank Griswold is in need of repentance and discipline, not a place at the table of discussion. He is the single most recognizable symbol of disunity in the Anglican Communion. He is the point man who has precipitated a crisis in worldwide Anglicanism and caused 20 or more Archbishops, representing better than 50% of all Anglicans across the face of the globe to break communion with ECUSA. Griswold has rhetorically and practically repudiated Christianity. How can one such as he engage in "honest conversation," as you say, when he understands neither the Truth nor the truth? He has publicly denied the uniqueness of Christ by word and deed. He mocks the Truth. He has publicly deceived 37 Anglican primates and 70 plus million Anglicans by agreeing that a certain course of action should not be undertaken because of its disastrous implications. Then in a spate of ecclesial arrogance, less than a month later, proceeded to enthusiastically support and participate in said course of action. He mocks the truth! The Presiding Bishop's piously effusive words and pluriform ideology are non-Christian poison-why should anyone be subjected to more of such? If someone became ill because of unknowingly ingesting arsenic, would they then partake of it knowingly? You rightfully cite your episcopal vows to "guard the faith, unity and discipline of the Church." Allowing Mr. Griswold to speak to your flock would eviscerate the faith, further impair its unity and deny the appropriate discipline of the Church. The New Testament model for dealing with a sinful brother is to point out his fault to him privately and secure repentance. Failing that, a small party of witnesses are to confront the unrepentant sinner to further explain the grave danger of his sinful ways. If such a one is still recalcitrant, then the matter is to be brought before the whole church in an effort to have him mend his ways. Failing that, he is to be treated as a pagan (Cf. Matthew 18:15-17). Frank Griswold has arrogantly spurned repeated calls for repentance-he is to be treated as an apostate, with no rightful place at the table. For too many years "protracted, civil discourse" has served to mitigate the "faith once delivered." We in the Episcopal Church have conveniently hidden behind the cultural and voguey facade of inclusivity and diversity, welcoming wolves in among the sheep. It has been a slaughter-in terms of the sheep and of the Gospel. The cloak of diversity has served as a convenient, guilt driven ruse to allow the wolves into the church. It has provided an environment in which they can even flourish. Diversity for the sake of pseudo-inclusivity mocks our own Baptismal Covenant. When we allows sin to reign (speak authoritatively) in ECUSA (or a diocesan convention) we bring a halt to our perseverance in resisting evil; we deny the Good News of God in Christ and in doing so disrespect the dignity of every human; we make a mockery of loving our neighbors as ourselves and striving for peace and justice among all as we officially enshrine and dialogue about those things that are plainly contrary to the Word of God. The Apostle Paul said, "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial (Satan)? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?"(2 Corinthians 6:14-15) None! Jesus shared the Truth with sinners, he did not engage in protracted, civil discourse. If they (we) repented and followed, great, welcome to eternal life. If not, our Lord did chase them down to dialogue about and dilute the Truth. Indeed, he allowed "many" to go their separate way when the Truth became too much to bear (cf. John 6:60-66). With all due respect, Right Reverend Sir, now is the time to stand squarely upon the Firm Foundation and do the godly righteous thing: rescind the invitation to our Primate. To do so would be a poignant, profound and widely recognized statement for the TruthRetryDVContinueof the Gospel. To do otherwise is to give tacit approval to all that he stands for and all that he has done. This may well be your moment in history-the single most important opportunity for the proclamation of the Good News you may ever have. Will it be a regrettable nadir for our diocese or a godly zenith? May God have mercy on us all. I will continue to uphold you in prayer. In Jesus' loving-kindness and faithfulness, Jim+ (The Reverend) James T. Murphy Pastor, Rector, Friend Church of the Nativity, Sarasota, Florida frmurf2@verizon.net

An Episcopal congregation leaving the church is being sued in the dispute. By Mark I. Pinsky | Sentinel Staff Writer Posted February 20, 2004 The Episcopal Diocese of Central Florida has filed suit to keep a Winter Springs church from leaving the denomination -- and taking its property with it -- over the confirmation of an openly gay man as a bishop. Members of the governing board of the Episcopal Church of the New Covenant voted Jan. 18 to leave the denomination. "Our vestry does not feel at this point that we can remain underneath the authority of an organization that we feel has departed from the historical Christian faith and order," said Scott Culp, secretary to the church's governing board. Since August, when the 2.3-million member Episcopal Church, USA, held its national convention in Minneapolis, the denomination has been in turmoil. In addition to confirming the Rev. Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire, the general convention voted to permit parishes to continue blessing same-sex unions. New Covenant is the second congregation to leave the Central Florida diocese in less than a month, but the first to try to keep its property. In January, nearly 300 members of St. John's Episcopal Church in Melbourne voted to abandon their old property and establish a new congregation, Prince of Peace Anglican Church, in Satellite Beach. More than 100 worshipers have remained with the Melbourne church. Unlike the group that left St. John's, which affiliated with the Anglican Mission in America, New Covenant has not yet decided where it will go after leaving the Episcopal Church, USA. The legal action filed Wednesday in Seminole County Circuit Court seeks to keep the Winter Springs congregation from transferring title of its property to a new corporation that is not affiliated with the Episcopal Church.The diocese argued in its filing that such a transfer would jeopardize the interests of congregants who wish to remain part of the Diocese of Central Florida. "It's clearly established that a parish cannot take property with them," said Joe Thoma, a spokesman for the diocese. "That's in the canons." At the same time, Thoma did not rule out an eventual settlement between the congregation and the diocese. "We're not taking any kind of confrontational stance," Thoma said. Culp agreed, saying members of the congregation still held out hope for an amicable settlement with the diocese, one that would enable the congregation to keep its property. Bishop John Howe and Council Wooten Jr., the diocese's attorney, met earlier this month with congregational leaders to try to work out a settlement. Howe has been outspoken in opposing the Robinson confirmation and the blessing of same-sex unions. "We respect Bishop Howe and his positions, and we recognize that his beliefs are consistent with ours," Culp said. "We desired to negotiate with the diocese for an amicable settlement that will allow us to come out from under the authority of the Episcopal Church, USA." Culp said the diocese purchased the property on Tuskawilla Road in the late 1970s for $37,500, and deeded it to the new congregation. Since then, he said, members have spent $2 million for construction. There is no debt on the property, Culp said. The departure of New Covenant is the latest example of "a denomination in chaos," said the Rev. Kendall Harmon, a leader of a conservative network within the Episcopal Church. Since the August general convention, Harmon said, five to 10 congregations in the nation have left the denomination, and at least one other church has initiated legal action. Harmon attributed the departures to frustration over the church's "theological deterioration."

By Terry Mattingly Feb 17, 2004 WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (BP)--The ancient rabbinic text is clear about the punishment for those who twisted sacred law and misled the people of Israel. Offenders would be stoned and then hung by their hands from two pieces of wood connected to form a "T." The Talmud once included this example from the Sanhedrin: "On the eve of Passover they hung Jesus of Nazareth," said the passage, which was censored in the 16th century to evade the wrath of Christians. "The herald went out before him for 40 days saying, 'Jesus goes forth to be stoned, because he has practiced magic, enticed and led astray Israel. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and declare concerning him.' And they found nothing in his favor." If armies of Jewish and Christian scholars insist on arguing about Mel Gibson's explosive movie "The Passion of The Christ," it would help if they were candid and started dealing with the hard passages in Jewish texts as well as the Christian scriptures. At least, that's what David Klinghoffer thinks. The Orthodox Jewish writer -- whose forthcoming book is titled "Why the Jews Rejected Christ" -- believes these lines from the Talmud are as troubling as any included in the Christian Gospels. They are as disturbing as any image Gibson might include in his controversial epic. The Talmudic text seems clear. Jesus clashed with Jewish leaders, debating them on the meaning of their laws. They hated him. Many wanted him dead. It is possible, Klinghoffer said, to interpret these documents as saying that Jesus' fate rested entirely with the Jewish court. The use of language such as "enticed and led astray" indicated that Jesus may have been charged with leading His fellow Jews to worship false gods. There are more details in this confusing drama. Writing in 12th-century Egypt, the great Jewish sage Maimonides summed up the ancient texts. "Jesus of Nazareth," he proclaims, in his Letter to Yemen, "... impelled people to believe that he was a prophet sent by God to clarify perplexities in the Torah, and that he was the Messiah that was predicted by each and every seer. He interpreted the Torah and its precepts in such a fashion as to lead to their total annulment, to the abolition of all its commandments and to the violation of its prohibitions. "The sages, of blessed memory, having become aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people, meted out fitting punishment to him." Is that it? What role did the Romans play? In terms of historic fact, Klinghoffer emphasized, it's almost impossible to find definitive answers for such questions. But the purpose of the Jewish oral traditions that led to the Talmud was to convey religious belief, not necessarily historical facts. "If you really must ask, 'Who is responsible for the death of Jesus?' then you can only conclude that both the Gospels and the Talmud agree that the Jewish leaders did not have the power to execute Him," Klinghoffer said. "Did they influence the event? The religious texts suggest that they did, the historic texts suggest that they did not. It's hard to know. ... But if Gibson is an anti-Semite, then to be consistent you would have to say that so was Maimonides." Obviously, Klinghoffer is not spreading this information in order to fan the flames of hatred. His goal, he said, is to provoke Jewish leaders in cities such as New York and Los Angeles to strive harder to understand the views of traditional Protestants and Catholics. And it's time for liberal Christians to spend as much time talking with Orthodox Jews as with liberal Jews. It's time for everyone to be more honest, he said. "I don't see anything that is to be gained for Judaism by going out of our way to antagonize a Mel Gibson or to antagonize as many traditional Christians as we possibly can. I think we have been yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater," Klinghoffer said. "To put it another way, I don't think it's very wise for a few Jewish leaders to try to tell millions of Christians what they are supposed to believe. Would we want some Christians to try to edit our scriptures and to tell us what we should believe?" Terry Mattingly ( www.tmatt.net ) teaches at Palm Beach Atlantic University in West Palm Beach, Fla., and is senior fellow for journalism at the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities. He writes this weekly column for the Scripps Howard News Service. Used by permission.

By Rabbi Daniel Lapin Feb 17, 2004 SEATTLE (BP)--As Mel Gibson's "The Passion of The Christ" heads toward screens nationwide Feb. 25, online ticket merchants are reporting that up to half their total sales are for advance purchases for The Passion. One Dallas multiplex has reserved all 20 of its screens for The Passion. I am neither a prophet nor a movie critic. I am merely an Orthodox rabbi using ancient Jewish wisdom to make three predictions about The Passion. One, Mel Gibson and Icon Productions will make a great deal of money. Those distributors who surrendered to pressure from Jewish organizations and passed on The Passion will be kicking themselves, while Newmarket Films will laugh all the way to the bank. Theater owners are going to love this film. Two, The Passion will become famous as the most serious and substantive biblical movie ever made. It will be one of the most talked-about entertainment events in history; it already has been on the cover of Newsweek and Vanity Fair. My third prediction is that the faith of millions of Christians will become more fervent as The Passion uplifts and inspires them. It will propel vast numbers of unreligious Americans to embrace Christianity. The movie will one day be seen as a harbinger of America's third great religious reawakening. Those Jewish organizations that have squandered both time and money futilely protesting The Passion, ostensibly in order to prevent pogroms in Pittsburgh, can hardly be proud of their performance. They failed at everything they attempted. They were hoping to ruin Gibson rather than enrich him. They were hoping to suppress The Passion rather than promote it. Finally, they were hoping to help Jews rather than harm them. Here I digress slightly to exercise the Jewish value of "giving the benefit of the doubt" by discounting cynical suggestions growing in popularity that the very public nature of their attack on Gibson exposed their real purpose -- fundraising. Apparently, frightening wealthy widows in Florida about anti-Semitic thugs prowling the streets of America causes them to open their pocketbooks and refill the coffers of groups with little other raison d'etre. But let's assume they were hoping to help Jews. However, instead of helping the Jewish community, they have inflicted lasting harm. By selectively unleashing their fury only on wholesome entertainment that depicts Christianity in a positive light, they have triggered anger, hurt and resentment. Hosting the "Toward Tradition Radio Show" and speaking before many audiences nationwide, I enjoy extensive communication with Christian America and what I hear is troubling. Fearful of attracting the ire of Jewish groups that are so quick to hurl the "anti-Semite" epithet, some Christians are reluctant to speak out. Although one can bludgeon resentful people into silence, behind closed doors emotions continue to simmer. I consider it crucially important for Christians to know that not all Jews are in agreement with their self-appointed spokesmen. Most American Jews, experiencing warm and gracious interactions each day with their Christian fellow-citizens, would feel awkward trying to explain why so many Jewish organizations seem focused on an agenda hostile to Judeo-Christian values. Many individual Jews have shared with me their embarrassment that groups, ostensibly representing them, attack The Passion but are silent about depraved entertainment that encourages killing cops and brutalizing women. Citing artistic freedom, Jewish groups helped protect sacrilegious exhibits such as the anti-Christian feces extravaganza presented by the Brooklyn Museum four years ago. One can hardly blame Christians for assuming that Jews feel artistic freedom is important only when exercised by those hostile toward Christianity. However, this is not how all Jews feel. From audiences around America, I am encountering bitterness at Jewish organizations insisting that belief in the New Testament is de facto evidence of anti-Semitism. Christians heard Jewish leaders denouncing Gibson for making a movie that follows Gospel accounts of the crucifixion long before any of them had even seen the movie. Furthermore, Christians are hurt that Jewish groups are presuming to teach them what Christian Scripture "really means." Listen to a rabbi whom I debated on the Fox television show hosted by Bill O'Reilly last September. This is what he said, "We have a responsibility as Jews, as thinking Jews, as people of theology, to respond to our Christian brothers and to engage them, be it Protestants, be it Catholics, and say, look, this is not your history, this is not your theology, this does not represent what you believe in." He happens to be a respected rabbi and a good one, but he too has bought into the preposterous proposition that Jews will re-educate Christians about Christian theology and history. Is it any wonder that this breathtaking arrogance spurs bitterness? Many Christians who, with good reason, have considered themselves to be Jews' best (and perhaps only) friends also feel bitter at Jews believing that The Passion is revealing startling new information about the crucifixion. They are incredulous at Jews thinking that exposure to the Gospels in visual form will instantly transform the most philo-Semitic gentiles of history into snarling, Jew-hating predators. Christians are baffled by Jews who don't understand that President George Washington, who knew and revered every word of the Gospels, was still able to write that oft-quoted beautiful letter to the Touro Synagogue in Newport offering friendship and full participation in America to the Jewish community. One of the directors of the American Jewish Committee recently warned that The Passion "could undermine the sense of community between Christians and Jews that's going on in this country. We're not allowing the film to do that." No sir, it isn't the film that threatens the sense of community; it is the arrogant and intemperate response of Jewish organizations that does so. Jewish organizations, hoping to help but failing so spectacularly, refute all myths of Jewish intelligence. How could their plans have been so misguided and the execution so inept? Ancient Jewish wisdom teaches that nothing confuses one's thinking more than being in the grip of the two powerful emotions, love and hate. The actions of these Jewish organizations sadly suggest that they are in the grip of a hatred for Christianity that is only harming Jews. Today, peril threatens all Americans, both Jews and Christians. Many of the men and women in the front lines find great support in their Christian faith. It is strange that Jewish organizations, purporting to protect Jews, think that insulting allies is the preferred way to carry out that mandate. A ferocious Rottweiler dog in your suburban home will quickly estrange your family from the neighborhood. For those of us in the Jewish community who cherish friendship with our neighbors, some Jewish organizations have become our Rottweilers. God help us. Rabbi Daniel Lapin is a radio talk show host and president of Toward Tradition, a bridge-building organization providing a voice for Americans who defend Judeo-Christian values as vital for our nation's survival.

Besieged Kenyan bishop back from US. Primate Nzimbi says HOB will decide his fate By NATION Correspondent NAIROBI--Cash-for-prayers bishop Peter Njoka has returned from the United States but declined to answer questions from journalists. Bishop Njoka, who is at the centre of a Nairobi City Council payments scandal involving Sh1.7 million payment as the Mayor's chaplain, arrived at his Imani house office in Nairobi at 9am. Sources told the Nation the controversial cleric was driven straight to his office from Jomo Kenyatta International Airport. The bishop held lengthy meetings and later left his office at 3pm for an unknown destination. Attempts by waiting journalists to interview him failed when he only answered "No, No" to questions from fielded by the Press as he walked to his office. He later told the Press - through his secretary - to "seek any clarification" from the ACK chancellor (the legal adviser of the church). Bishop Njoka was reported by a probe team appointed by Local Government minister Karisa Maitha as receiving Sh54,000 a month for giving spiritual services to the authority while council workers went without pay for lack of cash. He was ordered by the team to pay back a total of Sh1.7 million he had received or face an investigation by the Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission. Last week, Anglican prelate Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi announced that the highest Anglican Church of Kenya organ - the House of Bishops - would decide the fate of Bishop Njoka. He said the church was waiting for the bishop's return from the US so that they could discuss "all matters affecting the Nairobi diocese", which he heads. While in the US, Bishop Njoka was stopped at the last minute from attending the ordination of a Kenyan deacon by clergymen allied to the controversial American gay bishop, Gene Robinson. A message from Archbishop Nzimbi forced him to cancel plans to attend the ordination of Mr Johnson Muchira by churchmen in California blacklisted by the Kenyan church for supporting the ordination of Bishop Robinson, which split the Anglican Church worldwide. A stiff letter also went to Mr Muchira, who later cancelled the ceremony, after being reminded of the Kenyan church's opposition to homosexuality and its decision to break links with bishop Robinson's diocese and priests who had backed his ordination. END

2/17/2004 By Paul Majendie LONDON (Reuters) - Anglican leaders have castigated warring Church factions locked in a bitter row over gay bishops, telling them to calm down and stop using such strident language. The ordination in the United States of openly gay bishop Gene Robinson has sharply divided the Anglican church's 70 million faithful and sparked fears of a schism after 450 years of unity. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, facing the church's worst crisis since the ordination of women priests, has set up a special commission to study the thorny issue of gay clergy. After its first full plenary meeting under the chairmanship of Archbishop of Ireland Robin Eames, the Lambeth Commission sought to cool tempers. "The commission is saddened that tensions within the Communion, exacerbated by the use of strident language, have continued to rise in recent months," it said in a statement. "It requests all members of the Anglican communion to refrain from any precipitate action or legal proceedings which would further harm the bonds of communion in the period whilst it completes its work," it added. But the wounds may already be beyond healing in a broad church run by consensus across 164 countries, in contrast to the rigid hierarchy of the far larger Roman Catholic Church governed under strict papal authority. "This statement is a signal of alarm, a sign of desperation that things could be getting out of control," said religious commentator Clifford Longley. "People are already taking precipitate action," he told Reuters. "The attempt to say 'hold everything while we think about it' doesn't hold much water. A third of the Anglican church is thinking of itself as being out of communion with the American church," he added. The Lambeth Commission is holding two more meetings before reporting to Williams, the spiritual leader of the Anglican church. Next stop in June for the commission is the United States where deep divisions have torn the faithful apart. "If you have two churches side by side in the United States, you have real problems," Longley said. Conservative Episcopalians, angered by the consecration of New Hampshire Bishop Robinson, set up a new network within their own church in January. Any split would pose major legal headaches over everything from church property to clerical pensions. "This will really matter if it becomes an internal schism," Longley said. END

John Richardson looks at the arguments of Jeffrey John In the run-up to its February session, members of the Church of England's General Synod will have received complementary copies of Permanent, Faithful, Stable by Canon Jeffrey John. This little booklet is described on the back as 'one of the most powerful arguments for the acceptance and blessing of homosexual relationships by the Church'. However, as any dictionary will tell you, 'argument' in this sense is not just the presentation of a viewpoint but the setting forth of reasons. And reasoning must stand up to scrutiny. Doubtless there will be many for whom John's case seems 'reasonable' in the sense that what he asks for seems fair or right. But in the sense of being 'in accordance with reason', there are serious flaws in his work, particularly in the logic of his arguments but also in his handling of scripture. Unless I am mistaken, therefore, it would be a serious error for those who would revise the Church's current understanding to take their stand on this work or the arguments it sets forward. There may be a case for John's position, but this booklet for the most part fails to make it. Logic John summarizes his aim on page 1: Homosexual relationships should be accepted and blessed by the Church, provided that the quality and commitment of the relationship are the same as those expected of a Christian marriage. Unfortunately, on page 3 he immediately saws off the branch on which he is sitting. John recognizes that he must first answer those who take their stand on the Bible. Hence he argues that, 'a faithful homosexual relationship is not "incompatible with scripture", (certainly no more so than the remarriage of the divorced, or the leadership of women).' The logic is straightforward enough: Some things which are incompatible with the plainest sense of scripture are already accepted by the Church. A faithful homosexual relationship is no more incompatible with scripture than these other things. Therefore scripture provides no necessary grounds on which the Church should reject such relationships. But there are problems. First, a logically true argument may lead to a factually false conclusion. The proposition that 'All cats have tails' logically means my cat must have a tail. However (as any first year Philosophy student knows), what matters is not just the logic of an argument but the truth of its propositions. There are, in fact, tailless cats (of which my hypothetical cat may be one). And hence John cannot assume from the mere fact that the Church accepts things which are incompatible with scripture that it is necessarily right to do so. To build an argument on this basis could simply lead us into greater error. Indeed that is (arguably) why we had the Reformation! Secondly, John's appeal to the Church's revised attitude to divorce actually undermines his definition of an acceptable gay relationship. If the qualities of such relationships should be 'the same as those expected of a Christian marriage' (see above), the word 'permanent' becomes superfluous. It may be more appealing to talk about 'permanent, faithful, stable' relationships, but John's argument relies on a decision by the Synod that permanence is no longer a requirement of marriage. Thus the most that could be required is that such relationships be faithful and stable, and even that requirement cannot be regarded as fixed on this line of reasoning. Similarly, John argues on page 4 that his proposals will uphold 'the traditional, biblical theology of sex and marriage'. But since his argument rests precisely on a partial rejection of the 'traditional, biblical theology', a further step in the same direction would scarcely 'uphold' it! On the contrary, it is surely those who remain faithful in difficult marriages or who, feeling an erotic desire for members of the same sex, nevertheless resist it, who truly uphold 'traditional' theology and practice. Scripture. These weaknesses continue when John addresses the question 'Is it scriptural?' Thus after acknowledging that Jesus plainly condemns the remarriage of divorced people, John asks how it is that Anglican bishops 'in the case of the great majority, are willing to bless remarried couples, and in some cases are divorced and remarried themselves?' (p8). We must be grateful for the candidness of John's challenge. But to conclude, as he does, that we should therefore embrace same-sex relationships is like arguing that because I speed down the motorway I may speed up a residential side street. The argument is simply fallacious. A similar problem affects John's handling of the biblical material on women. It is true that even in some Conservative Evangelical contexts, women without hats may be found conducting meetings. But John falls into the well-known 'tuquoque' fallacy - 'You do as I do, hence I can't be wrong.' Thus on page 9 he claims that 'biblical conservatives will employ exactly the sort of arguments [on this issue] which on other matters they condemn as "getting round the plain meaning of Scripture".' But just as two wrongs don't make a right, so one misuse of scripture (if that is what is involved) doesn't make for two misuses. In point of fact, I believe John oversimplifies the biblical material. But if the Bible actually did teach that women should wear hats in church, then we should surely do likewise, not use our failure in this regard to justify abandoning other aspects of biblical teaching. Meanwhile, the fact that John takes this approach suggests he realizes the Bible actually opposes what he himself advocates. Law Space precludes addressing John's handling of the story of Sodom. I can only draw the diligent reader's attention to the relevant cautions in Robert Gagnon's The Bible and Homosexual Practice. John's treatment of the Old Testament law, however, is woeful, in particular his infamous comment on page 12: The next time you see a clean-shaven fundamentalist wearing a poly-cotton shirt and eating a shrimp, remember to shout 'Abomination'.! If John really believes this is an adequate response to those who quote the Old Testament on moral issues, he should give up his title as Canon Theologian. For my own part, I believe I have addressed this adequately in my own What God has Made Clean (Good Book Company, 2003), and would refer readers who are still unclear to that publication. Paul John is just as weak, however, in his handling of Paul, resting his case largely on unsustainable and unprovable assumptions. John asserts that 'the model of Paul's condemnation was . [male] prostitution or pederasty.' Yet Paul begins his own condemnation of homosexual acts in Romans 1.26 with a reference to women, which demonstrates an entirely different starting point to the one John proposes. Again, John claims that 'neither Paul nor his Jewish antecedents considered the case of a homosexually oriented person', yet such persons were known in the Gentile culture with which Paul was familiar.1 Ultimately, therefore, although John rejects Paul's 'assumptions' as 'quite false' (p16), it his own assumptions which are questionable. John is similarly cavalier with Paul's arguments from nature, preferring to focus on the difficulties he perceives in applying Paul's teaching on women, rather than engaging with his comments on sexuality. John is quite happy to affirm Paul when it suits (pp18, 37 etc), but where it does not, he adopts his own line, justifying this by claiming he is only doing what others do. Yet there is a vast difference between those who ultimately sit under the authority of Paul's writings as scripture, and those who really do 'cherry pick', treating as scripture only those teachings which accord with their own viewpoint. John's position can thus only be called 'scriptural' in a sense that depends on demolishing what the Church traditionally understands by this. Morality John's discomfort with Paul's view of 'nature' is understandable, however, considering his approach to the question 'Is it Moral?' Over against the objection based on the 'natural' complementarity of male and female bodies and personalities, John simply asserts that same-sex relationships can be fulfilling in every comparable regard bar that of bearing children. Moreover, there cannot be anything morally reprehensible about homosexual acts per se: Those who claim to be repelled and disgusted by homosexual forms of intercourse might ask why they are not disgusted by a painter who expresses his creativity by painting with his feet (p21). But John plays down the fact that something is nevertheless clearly wrong if someone has to paint with their feet. And he similarly fails to acknowledge that the 'make do' of homosexual acts shows homosexuality to be technically a form of sexual dis-orientation. John's problems, however, do not stop there, for he also wants to refute calls within the gay community for a radicalizing of sexual relationships. But in the face of this, John can only fall back on a position he has already subverted: Christian theology is an attempt to understand 'what happens' in relation to profound truths about human nature revealed in Scripture and Christian tradition (pp35-36, emphasis added). However, that revelation, and even John's own understanding of 'acceptable' relationships, would (for example) create great difficulties for bisexuals who want their relationships blessed by the Church. Yet it is surely only a real traditionalist who can resist such demands, whereas John (who oddly says nothing about bisexuality - see p59) will ultimately appear to be just as 'selective' as the conservatives he so often attacks. John wishes to show both traditionalists and radicals that 'human sexuality is intended to express a covenant commitment between two people which is holy because it reflects God's covenanted love for us, and gives us a framework for learning to love in his image' (p4). But there is already far too much reliance on scripture and revelation in these ideas for them to find an expression outside the scriptural context of marriage - namely between one man and one woman for life. Sacrifice the latter, as John does, and eventually you will inevitably lose the former. Achievable This brings us, finally, to John's third question, 'Is it Achievable?' by which he means 'Could lifelong, monogamous homosexual relationships become normalized within the Church?' Here, John must face first the question of homosexual 'promiscuity' (his term) - an area of considerable controversy. Stephen Goldstone, himself a gay doctor, admits candidly in The Ins and Outs of Gay Sex, 'Even under the shadow of AIDS, many of us still have sexual histories numbering in the hundreds or even thousands' (p 212). By contrast, John claims, 'There is no reason to believe that homosexual men are naturally more inclined to promiscuity than heterosexual men' (p40), though the fact that he devotes six of his own fifty-five pages to this issue may suggest 'he doth protest too much'. John suggests that whatever promiscuity exists amongst gay men would diminish if only they were allowed to enter into recognized stable relationships. But this can only be conjecture, especially since promiscuity has measurably and dramatically increased amongst heterosexuals (who can, of course, marry) in the last ten years (see the National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles). Standing in the way of John's programme, however, is the Church of England generally and her bishops in particular for their inconsistency and failure to fulfil their teaching office (pp47-48). Not surprisingly, John vents considerable spleen on them: They continue to supply the ideology which undergirds prejudice, and continue to bear the heaviest responsibility for it (p55). Yet once again we must ask whether the course John urges on the bishops indeed follows from their current failures. Would they best redeem themselves by standing up to '"difficult" conservative Evangelicals', or by recovering the biblical and traditionalist theology John has attacked? Trinity John cannot, however, avoid one final error before he finishes. Marriage is, he concludes, 'a "mystery" or sacrament of God because it potentially reflects the mystery of self-giving love which is at the heart of the Trinity' (p 52). Thus 'because homosexual people are no less made in God's image than heterosexuals' they too can (in words quoted from Eugene Rogers), 'represent the Trinity' (p53). Yet of course marriage is not a reflection of the love within the Trinity, but a model of the love between Creator and creation, between Redeemer and redeemed. It is the love between Christ and the Church, not the love between the Father, the Son and the Spirit. It is, that is to say, love within a framework of difference rather than of likeness, of heteros rather than homoios. Of course, love for that which is 'the same' exists and is legitimate. But sexuality, by its very nature, has no place in that love. Sexuality remains, literally, 'wedded' to the male-female paradigm. That has, until now, been the Church's understanding, and John has yet to prove it should be otherwise. John P Richardson See BS Thornton, Eros: The Myth of Ancient Greek Sexuality (Boulder: Westview Press, 1997) especially 99-101 John cannot assume from the mere fact that the Church accepts things which are incompatible with scripture that it is necessarily right to do so. Marriage is not a reflection of the love within the Trinity, but a model of the love between Creator and creation, between Redeemer and redeemed. John Richardson is Senior Assistant Minster at St John's Stratford, in the diocese of Chelmsford. This story was taken From New Directions, a magazine serving Evangelicals and Catholics seeking to renew the Church in the historic faith.

A large and growing body of social scientific evidence indicates that the intact, married family is best for children. Scholars such as David Popenoe, Linda Waite, Maggie Gallagher, Sara McLanahan, David Blankenhorn, Paul Amato, and Alan Booth support this view. Sara McLanahan, a sociologist at Princeton University, states:   “If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children’s basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent ideal. Such a design… would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money of two adults, it also would provide a system of checks and balances that promoted quality parenting. The fact that both parents have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child, and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child.”   This empirical reality supports the norm that every child should have the opportunity to grow up in an intact, married family—or, failing that, an adoptive family headed by a married couple offering both a mother and a father.   1. Children hunger for their biological parents Same-sex couples using IVF or surrogacy deliberately create children who live apart from one biological parent. Yale psychiatrist Kyle Pruett reports that children of IVF often ask their mothers: “Mommy, what did you do with my daddy? Can I write him a letter? Has he ever seen me?”   2. Children need fathers Fathers uniquely reduce antisocial behavior in boys and early sexual activity in girls. Studies show girls raised without their biological father are more likely to experience early puberty and teen pregnancy—suggesting fathers influence biological development through pheromones and modeling.   3. Children need mothers Mothers excel in providing emotional security and reading infant cues. They also offer daughters unique guidance through puberty and adolescence.   4. Inadequate evidence on same-sex couple parenting Leading professional associations claim “no effects” on children raised by same-sex couples, but the research is preliminary, often methodologically flawed, and frequently conducted by advocates. Sociologist Steven Nock, agnostic on same-sex marriage, concluded: “All of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution… not a single one was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research.”   5. Children raised in same-sex homes experience gender and sexual disorders Some studies suggest children of lesbians are more likely to exhibit gender nonconformity and report same-sex attraction. Sociologist Judith Stacey found “a significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers… reported having a homoerotic relationship.”   6. Vive la différence Marriage thrives when spouses specialize in gender-typical roles. Women are happier when their husband is the primary earner; couples are less likely to divorce when the wife focuses on childrearing and the husband on breadwinning.   7. Sexual fidelity Same-sex marriage could undermine the norm of sexual fidelity. In Vermont, over 79% of heterosexual married couples value sexual fidelity, compared to only about 50% of gay men in civil unions.   8. Marriage, procreation, and the fertility implosion Marriage historically secured a mother and father for every child. Same-sex marriage severs this link. Countries legalizing same-sex unions (e.g., Netherlands, Sweden, Canada) have fertility rates well below replacement (1.6 vs. 2.1).   9. For the sake of the children The divorce and sexual revolutions weakened the norm that couples should marry and stay married for their children. Same-sex marriage may further normalize fatherlessness, making it easier for men to rationalize abandoning their children.   10. Women and marriage domesticate men Married men earn more, drink less, live longer, and are more faithful. Their testosterone levels drop—especially with children at home. There’s little evidence same-sex marriage produces similar effects.   END

NPR – ALL THINGS CONSIDERED MELISSA BLOCK, host: From NPR News, this is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. I'm Melissa Block. MICHELE NORRIS, host: And I'm Michele Norris. It’s been six months since Gene Robinson was confirmed as the first openly gay bishop of the Episcopal Church. Since then, conservatives have threatened to punish the national church by withholding their money. Today, the treasurer of the church told officials that was an empty threat. Pledges for next year are only slightly down from last year, yet conservatives say the church has no idea of the problems that it may face. NPR’s Barbara Bradley Hagerty reports. Kurt Barnes, the treasurer of the Episcopal Church, describes himself as a conservative man, not one prone to “gilding the lily.” He’s keenly aware of the controversy roiling the church since it recognized gay unions and consecrated Gene Robinson, a gay priest, as bishop of New Hampshire. Given all this, Barnes says he’s pleased that he’s received commitments from more than three-quarters of the bishops, and so far, their pledges to the national church are down only 7 percent. “The impact is what I would describe as insignificant,” Barnes said. He recommends dioceses cut spending by 5 to 10 percent. Jim Naughton, a spokesman for the Diocese of Washington, DC, says this isn’t cause for rejoicing but it’s not the predicted apocalypse either. “The narrative line since General Convention has been, ‘Oh, watch out. The Episcopal Church is taking in water. The Episcopal Church is going down.’ And that’s definitely not happening.” Reverend Don Armstrong, rector of the 2,400-member Grace Episcopal Church in Colorado Springs, says the bishops are spinning the narrative. Angry conservative parishioners in Colorado have withheld some $350,000 from their diocese, he says, but the bishop is covering the loss locally and maintaining national contributions. “As we move into 2004 and their monthly income decreases, they’re going to be faced with the reality that they don’t have the money in the bank to write the checks.” Kendall Harmon of the Diocese of South Carolina adds that the situation will grow more acute. Entire churches are leaving the denomination to join conservative offshoots like the Anglican Mission in America. “Basically, the vast majority of a parish just left from St. John’s, Melbourne, and went to the Anglican Mission in America. So in that diocese, most of the pledge… is going to go down.” But Naughton notes a counter-trend: parishioners supportive of gay inclusion are making up shortfalls. “Many people in those parishes have said, ‘Fine. If you’re not going to give to the diocese, we’re going to give directly.’ So this idea that people are voting with their pocketbooks goes both ways.” And so in this war of words and finances, with too much smoke to see clearly, both sides are claiming victory. Barbara Bradley Hagerty, NPR News, Washington. Copyright © 1990–2003 National Public Radio. All rights reserved. END