Muslim culture has contributed little for centuries, says Carey By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent THE TELEGRAPH 3/26/2004 Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, launched a trenchant attack on Islamic culture last night, saying it was authoritarian, inflexible and under-achieving. He attacked the “glaring absence” of democracy in Muslim countries, suggested that they had contributed little of major significance to world culture for centuries and criticised the Islamic faith. Dr. Carey’s comments, in a lecture in Rome, are the most forthright by a senior Church leader. He was speaking on the eve of a seminar of Christian and Muslim scholars in New York, led by his successor as archbishop, Dr. Rowan Williams. He acknowledged that most Muslims were peaceful people who should not be demonised. But he said that terrorist acts such as the September 11 attacks on America and the Madrid bombings raised difficult questions. Contrasting western democracy with Islamic societies, he said: “Throughout the Middle East and North Africa we find authoritarian regimes with deeply entrenched leadership, some of which rose to power at the point of a gun and are retained in power by massive investment in security forces. Whether they are military dictatorships or traditional sovereignties, each ruler seems committed to retaining power and privilege.” Dr. Carey said he was not convinced by arguments that Islam and democracy were incompatible, citing the example of Turkey. He urged Europeans and Americans to resist claims that Islamic states were morally, spiritually and culturally superior. “Although we owe much to Islam handing on to the West many of the treasures of Greek thought, the beginnings of calculus, Aristotelian thought during the period known in the West as the dark ages, it is sad to relate that no great invention has come for many hundred years from Muslim countries,” he said. “This is a puzzle, because Muslim peoples are not bereft of brilliant minds. They have much to contribute to the human family and we look forward to the close co-operation that might make this possible. Yes, the West has still much to be proud of and we should say so strongly. We should also encourage Muslims living in the West to be proud of it and say so to their brothers and sisters living elsewhere.” Dr. Carey said that, while Christianity and Judaism had a long history of often painful critical scholarship, Islamic theology was only now being challenged to become more open to examination. “In the case of Islam, Mohammed, acknowledged by all in spite of his religious greatness to be an illiterate man, is said to have received God’s word direct, word by word from angels, and scribes recorded them later. Thus believers are told, because they have come direct from Allah, they are not to be questioned or revised. In the first few centuries of the Islamic era, Islamic theologians sought to meet the challenge this implied, but during the past 500 years critical scholarship has declined, leading to strong resistance to modernity.” Dr. Carey said that moderate Muslims must “resist strongly” the taking over of Islam by radical activists “and to express strongly, on behalf of the many millions of their co-religionists, their abhorrence of violence done in the name of Allah”. He said: “We look to them to condemn suicide bombers and terrorists who use Islam as a weapon to destabilise and destroy innocent lives. Sadly, apart from a few courageous examples, very few Muslim leaders condemn clearly and unconditionally the evil of suicide bombers who kill innocent people. We need to hear outright condemnation of theologies that state that suicide bombers are martyrs and enter a martyr’s reward.” Christians, who shared many values with Muslims, such as respect for the family, must speak out against the persecution they often encountered in Muslim countries. “During my time as archbishop, this was my constant refrain: that the welcome we have given to Muslims in the West, with the accompanying freedom to worship freely and build their mosques, should be reciprocated in Muslim lands,” he said. Dr. Carey, who initiated several top-level meetings between Christian and Islamic leaders during his time at Lambeth Palace, urged the West to tackle the Palestinian problem and other inequalities in the Muslim world. “It will do us little good if the West simply believes that the answer is to put an end to Osama bin Laden. Rather, we must put an end to conditions, distortions and misinformation that create him and his many emulators.” Iqbal Sacranie, the secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said that Dr. Carey’s comments “saddened” him. “He should be well aware that mainstream Muslim organisations have consistently condemned terrorist acts but their statements are often ignored by the media,” he said. “Dr. Carey is trampling on a very sensitive area by referring to the Koran and the traditions of the Prophet.”

Canadian Catholic Bishops Warn Homosexual Hate Crime Bill Could Silence Church OTTAWA, March 26, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) — As the homosexual hate crime bill C-250, proposed by homosexual-activist Svend Robinson, readies for final debate and vote in the Senate, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) has issued another warning over the legislation. In a letter sent yesterday, CCCB General Secretary Msgr. Mario Paquette warned the Senate that: “Participation in the current public debate on marriage has demonstrated there are individuals who believe that Catholic Church teaching on homosexual behaviour is hatred. We remain concerned that this Bill as presently drafted could be used in an attempt to silence Church teaching in this regard.” The letter explained that the Catholic Church “teaches that hatred is a sin” but also teaches “that sexual conduct between people of the same sex is morally wrong.” The CCCB proposed an amendment to the bill. “We suggest that one way of doing this could be to add a section that clearly exempts, from the hate propaganda provisions, the communicating of statements about the morality of sexual conduct,” said the letter. “The Bill could also be used to preclude comment on homosexual behaviour by people who do not profess any particular religious faith,” but find homosexual conduct to be morally wrong. Recalling the failed governmental promise over previous legislation that homosexual benefits would not lead to a redefinition of marriage, the CCCB said, “It would be very helpful for Senators to take the time to make sure that the guaranteed rights of freedom of religion and freedom of expression are not overridden.” Janet Epp Buckingham, the director of law and public policy for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, said senators have told her they are “getting a ton of phone calls and e-mails opposing the bill,” but said there is also “quite a bit of momentum for the bill to pass.” The evangelical fellowship said that if C-250 is passed, it will endanger faith groups’ freedom to read, preach and distribute sacred texts, and to publicly discuss and comment on sexual morality. END

LIBERAL EPISCOPALIANS UNITE IN ATLANTA MEETING ATLANTA (3/28/2004)- Liberal Episcopalians from 11 dioceses across the United States have joined together to promote unity within the national church. The alliance, named Via Media USA, represents laypeople and clergy from grassroots organizations that hold diverse opinions about many issues facing the church but are solid in their desire to remain in communion with The Episcopal Church of the USA and the worldwide Anglican Communion. The name - "via media" means middle way - reflects the group's focus on preserving the church and its traditional openness to differing interpretations of scripture, tradition and reason. "There is room for everyone in the Episcopal Church," said The Rev. Michael Russell, Rector of All Souls' Episcopal Church in San Diego, CA, and a member of Episcopal Way of San Diego. "We believe that the Christian way is to love, work and worship together - to resolve disputes within the church without tearing it apart." The 12 groups, from California, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, New York, Illinois, Texas, South Carolina, and Florida, met for three days of worship and fellowship during which many members talked about specific concerns in their dioceses. Most of the groups are in the minority in the leadership of their dioceses, many of which have joined a newly formed network. Via Media USA has ongoing concerns that the network's actions may ultimately result in schism within the national church. "We learned about and from each other, drawn together in fellowship," said Dr. Joan Gundersen of Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh. "Some people who were feeling isolated now feel supported. This meeting has helped us move closer together and has given us a better working relationship." The organization of Via Media USA is in its preliminary stages and all of the represented groups will be consulting with their own members in coming weeks about how to move forward. Two observers from The Episcopal Church's Executive Council attended the meeting and Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold sent a letter that encouraged the group's efforts to promote unity. "The diverse center is the overwhelming reality of our church and its voice is urgently needed, both within the church and in our fractured and polarized world," Griswold wrote. END

The Sermon Was in Arabic A revitalized, if nervous, Christian church in Baghdad. BY FRED BARNES 3/26/2004 BAGHDAD, Iraq--Pastor Jule's church is new and not easy to find. For more than a decade after selling his business, he devoted his life to preaching about Jesus Christ, but not in public in overwhelmingly Islamic Iraq. In 1999, he started an underground Pentecostal Christian church in his home. And when Saddam Hussein was toppled a year ago, he opened an above-ground church in Karrada, a residential and retail district across the Tigris River from the heavily guarded "green zone" of the Coalition Provisional Authority. The surfacing of his church may not seem like much of a breakthrough. Iraq is 3% Christian at most, and Saddam used to brag about his tolerance of Christian churches. But they were mostly churches where tributes to Saddam crept into sermons; they were no threat to his regime. Pastor Jule's church is different. It elevates faith in Christ as one's personal savior over any worldly obligations to the state. The church has ties to the Assemblies of God in America. Services at the church, though conducted in Arabic, would be familiar to any American evangelical or Pentecostal. I went to the Wednesday evening youth service, which attracted about 250 young people. It began with "praise" music in which stanzas of worship songs were repeated over and over. That was followed by a Bible teaching from the Old Testament book of Nehemiah. Then came intense prayer. The joyful mood of the young people was familiar too. They sang enthusiastically. They hung around after the service, both in the sanctuary and outside on the sidewalk and street. Several sought advice from Pastor Jule. Men and women appeared to have equal standing. Not only did Pastor Jule's wife deliver the Bible teaching, but a young woman led the singing. You may wonder why I haven't used Pastor Jule's last name. He asked me not to. Since Saddam's fall, Iraq "has been an open country for the Gospel," Pastor Jules says. His church has grown to roughly 500 parishioners, and it has a new building, paid for by members who donated money and jewelry. But he's apprehensive about the future once Iraqis are handed sovereignty by the American-led coalition headed by L. Paul Bremer III. Freedom of religion is guaranteed in the interim Iraqi constitution signed three weeks ago. But it also gives considerable autonomy to regional districts that might frown on visible expressions of Christianity. And if Pastor Jule follows through on his plans to plant new churches around Iraq and start a small Bible college, the Christian presence in Iraq will grow in visibility. There's also a potential problem with the permanent constitution that will be drafted by an Iraqi government to be elected by the end of January 2005. Shiites, the majority in Iraq, may be in a position to shave back on the protection of minority religions such as Christianity. For now, Pastor Jule is happy. He met recently with an evangelical group from Atlanta called EQUIP, which wants to train pastors in Iraq and provide them with Christian books and tapes. But he had a bad experience when interviewed by phone on Christian radio in the U.S. Pastor Jule was asked what he considered to be awkward political questions. He eschews politics. When I spoke with him, he was reluctant to talk. He refused to be interviewed by an American reporter who attended a recent Sunday service at his church. Yet he has expressed his gratitude to America for the ouster of Saddam. "God used coalition forces to destroy Saddam and give us freedom," Pastor Jule told his American evangelical friends. "I thank God for the courage of the American soldiers who have paid a great price for our nation to be free." Now he wants American forces to stay until an elected government dedicated to ensuring religious freedom is in office. "We have a big vision," Pastor Jule says. It's bold as well. Christian missionaries from America and Europe have found Muslim countries the hardest to evangelize. Pastor Jule, however, is working from within. That may make all the difference. Mr. Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.

What does 'Judeo-Christian' mean? By Dennis Prager Townhall.com March 30, 2004 The United States of America is the only country in history to have defined itself as Judeo-Christian. While the Western world has consisted of many Christian countries and consists today of many secular countries, only America has called itself Judeo-Christian. America is also unique in that it has always combined secular government with a society based on religious values. But what does "Judeo-Christian" mean? We need to know. Along with the belief in liberty -- as opposed to, for example, the European belief in equality, the Muslim belief in theocracy, and the Eastern belief in social conformity -- Judeo-Christian values are what distinguish America from all other countries. That is why American coins feature these two messages: "In God we trust" and "Liberty." Yet, for all its importance and its repeated mention, the term is not widely understood. It urgently needs to be because it is under ferocious assault, and if we do not understand it, we will be unable to defend it. And if we cannot defend it, America will become as amoral as France, Germany, Russia, et al. First, Judeo-Christian America has differed from Christian countries in Europe in at least two important ways. One is that the Christians who founded America saw themselves as heirs to the Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible, as much as to the New. And even more importantly, they strongly identified with the Jews. For example, Thomas Jefferson wanted the design of the seal of the United States to depict the Jews leaving Egypt. Just as the Hebrews left Egypt and its values, Americans left Europe and its values (if only those who admire Jefferson would continue to take his advice). Founders and other early Americans probably studied Hebrew, the language of the Old Testament, at least as much as Greek, the language of the New. Yale, founded in 1701, adopted a Hebrew insignia, and Hebrew was compulsory at Harvard until 1787. The words on the Liberty Bell, "Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land . . . ," are from the Torah. Vast numbers of Americans took Hebrew names -- like Benjamin Franklin and Cotton Mather (kattan in Hebrew means "little one" or "younger"). The consequences included a strong Old Testament view of the world -- meaning, in part, a strong sense of fighting for earthly justice, an emphasis on laws, a belief in a judging, as well as a loving and forgiving, God, and a belief in the chosenness of the Jews which America identified with. The significance of this belief in American chosenness cannot be overstated. It accounts for the mission that Americans have uniquely felt called to -- to spread liberty in the world. This sense of mission is why more Americans have died for the liberty of others than any other nation's soldiers. It is why those who today most identify with the Judeo-Christian essence of America are more likely to believe in the moral worthiness of dying to liberate countries -- not only Europe, but Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. That is why America stands alone in protecting two little countries threatened with extinction, Israel and Taiwan. That is why conservative Americans are more likely to believe in American exceptionalism -- in not seeking, as President Bush put it, a "permission slip" from the United Nations, let alone from Europe. The second meaning of Judeo-Christian is a belief in the biblical God of Israel, in His Ten Commandments and His biblical moral laws. It is a belief in universal, not relative, morality. It is a belief that America must answer morally to this God, not to the mortal, usually venal, governments of the world. That is why those who most affirm Judeo-Christian values lead the fight against redefining marriage. We believe that a pillar of Judeo-Christian values is to encourage the man-woman sexual and marital ideal, and to provide children with the opportunity to benefit from the unique gifts that a man and a woman give a child, gifts that are never replicable by two men alone or two women. That is why those who most affirm Judeo-Christian values are unmoved by the idea that the war in Iraq is moral if Germany, France, China and Russia say so, but immoral if they oppose it. We ask first what God and the Bible would say about liberating Iraq, not what Syria and other members of the U.N. Security Council say. That is why those who most affirm Judeo-Christian values believe that war, while always tragic, is on more than a few occasions a moral duty. Nothing "Judeo" ever sanctioned pacifism. Of course, the Hebrew Prophet Isaiah yearned for the day that nations will beat their swords into plowshares. But another Hebrew Prophet, Joel, who is never cited by those who wish to read the secular value of pacifism into the Bible, said precisely the opposite: "Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruning hooks into spears. Let the weakling say, 'I am strong!'" And that is why those who want Judeo-Christian values to disappear from American public life affirm multiculturalism, seek to remove mention of God from all public life, and make Christmas a private, not a national, holiday. The battle over whether America remains Judeo-Christian or becomes secular like Europe is what this, the Second American Civil War, is about. END

Visiting C of E bishop wants end to rhetoric on gay clergy By Steve Levin Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 3/28/2004 An influential Church of England bishop visiting Pittsburgh this week believes the crisis in the Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion over gay ordination is related to America's unilateralism. The Rt. Rev. N.T. Wright, bishop of Durham in the Church of England and former canon theologian of Westminster Abbey, said "America has been screwing the world into the socket" for years to reach agreements on land mines, global debt, the environment and trade. Yet when it came time to invade Iraq, the United States acted virtually alone, Wright said in a phone interview from England. He compared that action to the Episcopal Church's consecration of an openly gay bishop against existing church polity. "So why should the world listen to the [Episcopalians in the] United States when changing Episcopal Church law?" he asked. "It is bound to be perceived as, 'There you go again.' It's more of the same." Wright will be in Pittsburgh today through Thursday to speak at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary's Schaff Lectures and talk at churches in the region. As the fourth most important bishop in the Church of England after the bishops of Canterbury, York and London, Wright's comments carry weight beyond that province and throughout the 70-million-member Anglican Communion, which also includes the Episcopal Church, USA. Author of more than 30 books, he also is a member of the 19-member Lambeth Commission formed in October by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Its mission is to find ways of keeping the worldwide Anglican Communion from disintegrating in the wake of the Episcopal Church's ordination of an openly gay bishop and a Canadian diocese's sanctioning of same-sex blessings. Wright said the primary question to be answered by the Lambeth Commission is one of communion, not homosexuality. The consecration of the Rt. Rev. Gene Washington as bishop of New Hampshire was counter to several previous Anglican resolutions, he said. "We're looking at questions of how you hold the church together when that happens," Wright said. "Only secondarily is the question of homosexuality." The Lambeth Commission held its first meeting in February. A second is scheduled for North Carolina in June. Its final report to the archbishop is due in September. Wright was a logical choice for the commission. In addition to his senior position in the Church of England, he taught New Testament studies for 20 years at universities in England and Canada, and participated in numerous international debates on church doctrine. Commission members have agreed not to reveal details of their work. He has no plans during his stay to meet with Diocese of Pittsburgh Bishop Robert W. Duncan Jr. Duncan is moderator of the Anglican Communion Network, which seeks alternate Episcopal oversight for parishes and individuals who disagree with their diocese's stand on gay clergy and same-sex blessings. Wright's own opinion -- "It is inappropriate to ordain to regular ministries those who are active, practicing homosexuals" -- is well known. The key to any discussion, he said, is dispensing with rhetoric. "We need to claim the right and the duty to think through individual issues on a case-by-case basis instead of going with a knee-jerk reaction," he said. "The best case I can think of at this moment ... is for a lot of real listening all around. That has to be listening not to rhetoric but a real digging into what the real issues are," such as scripture and the church's creation doctrine. He is less sanguine about the future of the Anglican Communion should the debate not be resolved. The communion, he said, "simply could come apart at the seams." "We really don't know what that would look like." The topic of Wright's lectures is "Putting Paul Back Together Again." END

A Forward in Faith Response to the House of Bishops' Paper 'Caring for all the Churches' "I could not possibly be more proud of our bishops, who with great care and deliberation sought to articulate our shared ministry of reconciliation in ways that are generous toward those who feel themselves in some sense alienated from our common life," Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold said, commending the House of Bishops' paper 'Caring for all the Churches'. The paper itself lays equal stress on a doctrine of reconciliation and on the role of bishop as a focus of unity. It needs to be asked, therefore, what reconciliation the bishops envisage or expect as a result of their initiative. The Problem As the bishops admit, two conflicting opinions are held in the Episcopal Church about the moral admissibility of homosexual acts. Where is compromise between these positions to be sought? What issues are at stake and how might they be settled? In understanding of the Scriptures? Here there is a fundamental disagreement. On the one hand there are those who suppose the plain meaning of scripture in the matter of same sex relationships to be apparent to all and to be upheld by the consistent tradition of the Church throughout the ages. On the other hand there are those who suppose that scripture is unclear on this and other important matters, that the tradition is no certain guide to its interpretation, and that modern knowledge raises matters previously unknown and so unaddressed by its authors. Some of them believe that the scriptures are the possession of the Church (in the sense of the contemporary believing community) and that the Church (in that sense) can re-interpret or ignore them as it will. In attitudes to the authority and competence of the local Church? Here there are also radical differences of opinion. On the one hand there are those who hold that the local church (in the sense of the diocese or province) has plenary authority to order its own affairs. For them a democratic decision at the appropriate level settles the matter. (That level is held by some to be diocesan – "the people of New Hampshire have the right to call the bishop they want"; by some it is thought to be provincial – "this Church has the authority to order its ministry as it alone sees fit"). On the other hand there are those who cling tenaciously to the understanding that no province of the Anglican Communion (or even the Communion as a whole) is more than a small part of the Church Universal and that those parts are answerable for any wounds or divisions inflicted upon the wider Church. In particular they are directly answerable to other churches in the Anglican tradition and to the common inheritance. In sexual morality? Surely it is here that the deepest disagreements lie. On the one hand there are those who hold that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life, and that all relations of a sexual nature outside that bond fall short of the demands made by God of Christian people. They are consequently of the opinion that a man who cannot or will not conform himself to such standards of conduct (or remain celibate) is not a fit person to assume the role of bishop in the Church, - for the bishop is to be, in the words of St Ignatius of Antioch, 'a type of the Father'. On the other hand there are those who suppose that a man may separate himself from his wife and family, contract a new and openly carnal relationship with a person of the same sex, and still be regarded as an appropriate person to exercise the office of a bishop and the guardianship, in the diocese over which he is appointed, of the Church's doctrine and morals. In short there are presently represented, in the Episcopal Church, in its dioceses and in many of its parishes, two views which are diametrically opposed. They are, moreover, asymmetrically disposed. Those who reject the ordination of a non-celibate homosexual as bishop do so, at least in part, in order to sustain the unity of the Church in present time and its continuity with the past. Those who uphold the appointment of such a man as bishop express their opinion contra mundum. The Proposed Solution There are, moreover, obvious and serious problems with the mechanism – Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight – which the bishops have proposed as a means of dealing with these differences. The problems are of two kinds: of principle and of process. The principle underlying the bishops' statement is that the unity of the Church consists, not in shared belief, but in due canonical form. 'Sensitive pastoral care does not presuppose like-mindedness,' say the bishops. 'Bishops and congregations have frequently disagreed about particular articulations and interpretations of scripture and the Creeds while being able to transcend their differences through common prayer and celebration of the sacraments of the new covenant.' Some of this, of course, is true - to a limited extent. But it is not true that bishops may, with impunity, entertain whatever theological or ethical opinions they think fit. On the contrary, the Church entrusts to them the task of guarding the faith, so that it may be passed on, in its integrity, to future generations. The college of bishops, both provincial and world-wide, should be a fellowship in which restraint and discipline are exercised in charity. The failure of the House of Bishops of ECUSA to exercise, or even to acknowledge, that collegial restraint has, in the recent past, been apparent by their willingness to accept among their number bishops who have denied the principal tenets of the Nicene Faith. It is similarly manifest in their deliberate rejection of the fraternal guidance offered them by successive Lambeth Conferences, and by the recent meeting of the Primates. Where the House of Bishops of a province is dysfunctional in this way, the responsibility to guard the faith and perpetuate its doctrines inevitably devolves to groups of clergy and laity. Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight, as the bishops define it, is a proposal which gives plenary authority to those who have precipitated the present crisis to administer provision for those alienated by their actions. It gives to those at variance with the majority in the Episcopal Church no rights in the matter whatsoever. All discretion is in the hands of the innovators. Where it counts, the protocol of proposals invariably uses the word 'may'; where the interests of the minority are at stake the word 'shall' never appears. It will come as no surprise to those who drafted it, that this is wholly unacceptable to those to whom it is addressed. Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (as the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church has defined it) is: a) precisely, not oversight – that is to say it does not provide what the Primates of the Communion called for. They asked for 'provinces concerned to make adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates'. Elsewhere in the Communion, 'oversight' (episcope) involves responsibility for the care, governance and supervision of part of the Church; in short, it necessarily involves jurisdiction. Not so, it seems, in the Episcopal Church, where the bishops assert the opposite to be the case: 'In our Episcopal Church polity,' they claim, "oversight" does not confer "jurisdiction."' By this sleight of hand, redefining episcope to mean what they want it to mean, the bishops of the Episcopal Church have sought to evade the very provision demanded of them b) In any case, minimal – that is to say it affects the existing rights and jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop in no way. Nor does the provision include anything new, or even extend what already exists. As the bishops themselves say: 'We believe that the present Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church are sufficient for dealing with questions of episcopal oversight, supplemental episcopal pastoral care, and disputes that may arise between the bishop and a congregation. We encourage that their provisions be used wisely and in the spirit of charity.' The problem that, in some quarters, those provisions have not been applied (with or without 'charity') is simply not addressed. c) concessionary, rather than conciliatory – that is to say that it makes no admission or acknowledgement that there has been, or might have been, conduct prejudicial to the unity and well-being of the Church on the part of the bishops who have framed it. d) temporary – that is to say that its clear intention is to eliminate dissent. 'When an agreement is reached with respect to a plan, it shall be for the purpose of reconciliation... The plan shall be for a stated period of time with regular reviews.' These 'plans' will be temporary; they are simply to allow time for the parish concerned to brought to 'reconciliation' with the views of its bishop. In any case, no one who has observed the fate of those opposed to the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate (reduced now to three bishops whose dioceses will be unable to secure the required consents for like-minded successors) can expect a body of bishops opposed the recent innovation to survive for any length of time. A future in which there are no bishops who could be invited to offer DEPO is already in sight. Conclusion We reject the proposals of the House of Bishops, both as to their premises and their provisions. Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight will not provide what we need. We trust that the Lambeth Commission and the Primates Meeting will reject it as an insubstantial and merely cosmetic response to a deepening crisis of both Faith and Order. Let no one be in any doubt: DEPO will not and cannot bring about the reconciliation promised. The self-congratulatory language of those who have framed these proposals is, moreover, a further offence in itself. END

News Analysis By David W. Virtue PITTSBURGH, PA-(3/30/2004) The former Bishop of Iowa, Walter Righter, who publicly condemned five dissenting retired bishops for participating in a confirmation service in the Diocese of Ohio, saying that they should leave the Episcopal Church, has been performing sacramentally, without permission or a license in the orthodox Diocese of Pittsburgh bishop Robert Duncan. The revisionist bishop, who walked away from charges that he violated the canons for ordaining a non-celibate homosexual man to the deaconate in 1990, has been caught red-handed in the Pittsburgh Diocese without ever obtaining the approval of Bishop Duncan. Righter had argued, "How can the Bishops 'allow' what the canons and constitution do not allow? How can the Bishops 'cede control' that is not theirs to cede? Even if they wanted to, they cannot." Apparently Righter has been doing "what the canons and constitution do not allow" for more than six months in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. According to a source he has been "supplying" at Calvary Church while the ultra-liberal rector Harold Lewis is on sabbatical. Righter moved back from Maine because his third wife is from Pittsburgh. Reached at Calvary Church, the Rev. Leslie G. Reimer associate rector for Pastoral Care, refused at first to answer any questions about Righter's activities at the church, but then admitted that "he was helping us out liturgically." Pressed on whether he was performing full sacramental functions, Reimer did not deny it, but said that a letter the church sent to Bishop Duncan about Righter's presence and activities in the church went unanswered. "The Canons require we ask, we did, but we never got an answer. We never received an answer one way or the other," she said. According to a spokesman in the bishop's office, Righter should not have performed any functions at the parish without the bishop's permission, and by crossing into another diocese without permission and preaching and celebrating; he was in violation of the Canons after 90 days. Does this mean that there could be a second Righter Trial? Diocesan officials would not say. Clearly Righter, who has been an outspoken critic of orthodox bishops and an outright proponent of pansexual behavior (he functioned as an assistant bishop under Jack Spong in the Diocese of Newark) may finally get his own comeuppance. So the rules only apply to others, not to Mr. Righter, said a source to Virtuosity. While the Pittsburgh Diocese was holding hearings on resolutions to come before special convention, the Righters were both very vocal at the open hearing in Fox Chapel. "Isn't it interesting that this is the man who says conservatives ought to leave ECUSA? Perhaps he sees himself stepping into a geographically convenient Diocesan opening?" The resolution that the revisionists pushed through the HoB condemning the Ohio confirmations, said that the next time this happened there would be disciplinary action. Now it has and Righter, the hypocrite, should be put on trial and tossed out of the church. END

By Robert Seitz To witness the descent of the ECUSA mindset to the parish level is a painful experience. The divisiveness that at first was distantly abstract quickly became up close and personal. Suddenly one finds that the parish is composed of the "them" and the "us", and one of the two is no longer welcome. This has occurred recently at Grace Episcopal Church in Tampa, Florida. Here was a relatively small parish (300 communicants, more or less), proud of its family atmosphere, proud of its friendliness, and proud to have recently attained parish status. It became subtly obvious not long after the General Convention that there are two sides to this debate, and they are emotionally incompatible. (The exception, of course, is the larger group of the apathetic and purely parochial in outlook -- the "what's a presiding bishop?" crowd.) We initially engaged in a series of "conversations", largely focused on homosexuality, the symptom, rather than the real question of orthodoxy and its spiritual foundation. Our bishop (John Lipscomb, Southwest Florida) was of the mind that "it is a time for conversation, not action". After a half dozen essentially worthless sessions it had become clear that divisiveness had crept in on us, however quietly, yet palpable. Life moved along comfortably as the elephant in the room was largely ignored until it came time for pledges to be gathered. A serious number of former pledgers abstained or cut their pledge to a reluctant pittance. The budget for 2004, as a result, is short many thousands. The elephant in the sanctuary was beginning to take form, though still transparent. In December a small group of conservatives met to discuss the possibility of moving the parish toward becoming a Confessing Parish of the AAC, thus defining it as a scriptural, orthodox, traditional parish. The rector was present as we formulated the idea of bringing such a recommendation to the vestry, and it was decided that during the February vestry meeting a presentation would be made to that effect. Meanwhile, in January, a number of pre-service (9:00 am) meetings were held to openly discuss the future of Grace relative to the current dilemma. All were invited but the few who attended were largely pro-AAC. It is during this period that the liberal contingent began to become quietly active, and the elephant began to take on visible mass. A couple weeks after the sessions began, for example, an edict was published by the parish leadership and read from the pulpit one Sunday. Included therein was the prohibition of any discussion of the AAC question on church grounds and at any official church function. The backlash was bitter and vocal, and the prohibition was lifted the next Sunday by the rector. The February vestry presentation was made by two members of the pro-AAC group who are both articulate and of strong conviction. From what I gather, it was received in a neutral fashion, and the vestry agreed to study the idea and possibly vote on the matter, in the form of a binding motion, yea or nay, at the March meeting. Much was made during this time that the congregation (much less the vestry) remained uninformed of the true nature of such a move. In an attempt to remedy that shortcoming a series of three evening meetings, open to all, was scheduled to present the facts and to discuss at length the ramifications of a move to Confessing Parish status with the AAC. It is here that the liberal, anti-AAC contingent became publicly visible and vocal. The movement was met with suspicion, assertions of misguided activities, and some serious acrimony The elephant's presence was now unmistakable, and who it would trample was, to some, becoming predictable. The March vestry meeting, Tuesday the 16th, was organized with great care. Individuals wishing to address the vestry (presumably in favor of AAC) were allowed three minutes each to present their thoughts. Eleven persons did so, including three opposed. No questions or comments from the 30 or 40 other persons in attendance were allowed. No statement from the opposition had ever been made formally to the vestry. In remedy a fifteen minute presentation from a spokeswoman for the opposition was forthcoming. She reduced Martin Luther to amateur status as she forcefully nailed the vestry with her theses. The AAC supporters were dividing the formerly happy church, forcing unwanted alliances down the congregation's throat, and attempting an unbearable takeover. Joining the AAC would accomplish nothing, change nothing, but create a schism within Grace. It must be stopped. (She fell short of proposing we be burned at the stake, but we got the message.) It had been decided that the vote that evening was either to support or defeat the AAC motion that was on the table -- no putting it off. The rector announced that the vote of the vestry would be by secret ballot. The previously well-behaved audience erupted in protest, and a vestryman moved to vote by a show of hands instead. That motion was defeated, and the vote proceeded by secret ballot. The rector abstained (for reasons explained below) and the vote was tied at 6-6. Before one could take a breath it was announced that the tie defeated the motion. No AAC. Then the senior warden whipped out a motion prepared for this situation that was designed to patronize the AAC supporters. Within the motion was the idea that a list of all persons who are personally members of AAC be sent to the diocese each year to indicate their unhappiness with the ECUSA position. Once again we were labeled as outsiders and separatists -- just the thing to enhance unity! This Schindler's List in reverse was the last straw, and most of the AAC group walked out, never to return. During the next few days numerous letters of resignation were received by the rector. The parish that evening lost a considerable number of faithful, longtime members (at least 15 families). The quantity is not as important as the fact that those who left were large contributors of time, talent, and treasure. This may have been a factor contributing to the ease with which the AAC group was characterized as a dire threat, in that the group largely was comprised of the active, the highly visible, the doers, the movers and shakers. Many of these true-believers are now attending a local AMiA parish. This case study, if nothing else, points out the perils of a failure of leadership, yet in some ways it is understandable. The rector himself is a member of AAC, and is soon to retire. Thus he abstained from the vote, and thus there existed a newly appointed search committee. Two vestry members have resigned, and two members of the search committee did likewise. Whether Grace will survive as a parish, and whether it will be permitted to proceed with the calling may be in question. All this could not have happened at a worse time. A priest who had hoped to retire in a blaze of glory has, instead, gone down in flames. It is easy for a priest (or a bishop) to intimidate; it is very difficult to repair the resulting damage. Bob Seitz has been a member of the Diocese of SWFLA since 1962, serving on numerous vestries, and a longtime member of Grace as a lay reader. He recently left Grace Episcopal Church in Tampa, FL. END

A Forward in Faith Response to the House of Bishops' Paper 'Caring for all the Churches' "I could not possibly be more proud of our bishops, who with great care and deliberation sought to articulate our shared ministry of reconciliation in ways that are generous toward those who feel themselves in some sense alienated from our common life," Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold said, commending the House of Bishops' paper 'Caring for all the Churches'. The paper itself lays equal stress on a doctrine of reconciliation and on the role of bishop as a focus of unity. It needs to be asked, therefore, what reconciliation the bishops envisage or expect as a result of their initiative. The Problem As the bishops admit, two conflicting opinions are held in the Episcopal Church about the moral admissibility of homosexual acts. Where is compromise between these positions to be sought? What issues are at stake and how might they be settled? In understanding of the Scriptures? Here there is a fundamental disagreement. On the one hand there are those who suppose the plain meaning of scripture in the matter of same sex relationships to be apparent to all and to be upheld by the consistent tradition of the Church throughout the ages. On the other hand there are those who suppose that scripture is unclear on this and other important matters, that the tradition is no certain guide to its interpretation, and that modern knowledge raises matters previously unknown and so unaddressed by its authors. Some of them believe that the scriptures are the possession of the Church (in the sense of the contemporary believing community) and that the Church (in that sense) can re-interpret or ignore them as it will. In attitudes to the authority and competence of the local Church? Here there are also radical differences of opinion. On the one hand there are those who hold that the local church (in the sense of the diocese or province) has plenary authority to order its own affairs. For them a democratic decision at the appropriate level settles the matter. (That level is held by some to be diocesan – "the people of New Hampshire have the right to call the bishop they want"; by some it is thought to be provincial – "this Church has the authority to order its ministry as it alone sees fit"). On the other hand there are those who cling tenaciously to the understanding that no province of the Anglican Communion (or even the Communion as a whole) is more than a small part of the Church Universal and that those parts are answerable for any wounds or divisions inflicted upon the wider Church. In particular they are directly answerable to other churches in the Anglican tradition and to the common inheritance. In sexual morality? Surely it is here that the deepest disagreements lie. On the one hand there are those who hold that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life, and that all relations of a sexual nature outside that bond fall short of the demands made by God of Christian people. They are consequently of the opinion that a man who cannot or will not conform himself to such standards of conduct (or remain celibate) is not a fit person to assume the role of bishop in the Church, - for the bishop is to be, in the words of St Ignatius of Antioch, 'a type of the Father'. On the other hand there are those who suppose that a man may separate himself from his wife and family, contract a new and openly carnal relationship with a person of the same sex, and still be regarded as an appropriate person to exercise the office of a bishop and the guardianship, in the diocese over which he is appointed, of the Church's doctrine and morals. In short there are presently represented, in the Episcopal Church, in its dioceses and in many of its parishes, two views which are diametrically opposed. They are, moreover, asymmetrically disposed. Those who reject the ordination of a non-celibate homosexual as bishop do so, at least in part, in order to sustain the unity of the Church in present time and its continuity with the past. Those who uphold the appointment of such a man as bishop express their opinion contra mundum. The Proposed Solution There are, moreover, obvious and serious problems with the mechanism – Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight – which the bishops have proposed as a means of dealing with these differences. The problems are of two kinds: of principle and of process. The principle underlying the bishops' statement is that the unity of the Church consists, not in shared belief, but in due canonical form. 'Sensitive pastoral care does not presuppose like-mindedness,' say the bishops. 'Bishops and congregations have frequently disagreed about particular articulations and interpretations of scripture and the Creeds while being able to transcend their differences through common prayer and celebration of the sacraments of the new covenant.' Some of this, of course, is true - to a limited extent. But it is not true that bishops may, with impunity, entertain whatever theological or ethical opinions they think fit. On the contrary, the Church entrusts to them the task of guarding the faith, so that it may be passed on, in its integrity, to future generations. The college of bishops, both provincial and world-wide, should be a fellowship in which restraint and discipline are exercised in charity. The failure of the House of Bishops of ECUSA to exercise, or even to acknowledge, that collegial restraint has, in the recent past, been apparent by their willingness to accept among their number bishops who have denied the principal tenets of the Nicene Faith. It is similarly manifest in their deliberate rejection of the fraternal guidance offered them by successive Lambeth Conferences, and by the recent meeting of the Primates. Where the House of Bishops of a province is dysfunctional in this way, the responsibility to guard the faith and perpetuate its doctrines inevitably devolves to groups of clergy and laity. Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight, as the bishops define it, is a proposal which gives plenary authority to those who have precipitated the present crisis to administer provision for those alienated by their actions. It gives to those at variance with the majority in the Episcopal Church no rights in the matter whatsoever. All discretion is in the hands of the innovators. Where it counts, the protocol of proposals invariably uses the word 'may'; where the interests of the minority are at stake the word 'shall' never appears. It will come as no surprise to those who drafted it, that this is wholly unacceptable to those to whom it is addressed. Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (as the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church has defined it) is: a) precisely, not oversight – that is to say it does not provide what the Primates of the Communion called for. They asked for 'provinces concerned to make adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates'. Elsewhere in the Communion, 'oversight' (episcope) involves responsibility for the care, governance and supervision of part of the Church; in short, it necessarily involves jurisdiction. Not so, it seems, in the Episcopal Church, where the bishops assert the opposite to be the case: 'In our Episcopal Church polity,' they claim, "oversight" does not confer "jurisdiction."' By this sleight of hand, redefining episcope to mean what they want it to mean, the bishops of the Episcopal Church have sought to evade the very provision demanded of them b) In any case, minimal – that is to say it affects the existing rights and jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop in no way. Nor does the provision include anything new, or even extend what already exists. As the bishops themselves say: 'We believe that the present Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church are sufficient for dealing with questions of episcopal oversight, supplemental episcopal pastoral care, and disputes that may arise between the bishop and a congregation. We encourage that their provisions be used wisely and in the spirit of charity.' The problem that, in some quarters, those provisions have not been applied (with or without 'charity') is simply not addressed. c) concessionary, rather than conciliatory – that is to say that it makes no admission or acknowledgement that there has been, or might have been, conduct prejudicial to the unity and well-being of the Church on the part of the bishops who have framed it. d) temporary – that is to say that its clear intention is to eliminate dissent. 'When an agreement is reached with respect to a plan, it shall be for the purpose of reconciliation... The plan shall be for a stated period of time with regular reviews.' These 'plans' will be temporary; they are simply to allow time for the parish concerned to brought to 'reconciliation' with the views of its bishop. In any case, no one who has observed the fate of those opposed to the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate (reduced now to three bishops whose dioceses will be unable to secure the required consents for like-minded successors) can expect a body of bishops opposed the recent innovation to survive for any length of time. A future in which there are no bishops who could be invited to offer DEPO is already in sight. Conclusion We reject the proposals of the House of Bishops, both as to their premises and their provisions. Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight will not provide what we need. We trust that the Lambeth Commission and the Primates Meeting will reject it as an insubstantial and merely cosmetic response to a deepening crisis of both Faith and Order. Let no one be in any doubt: DEPO will not and cannot bring about the reconciliation promised. The self-congratulatory language of those who have framed these proposals is, moreover, a further offence in itself. END

News Analysis By David W. Virtue PITTSBURGH, PA-(3/30/2004) The former Bishop of Iowa, Walter Righter, who publicly condemned five dissenting retired bishops for participating in a confirmation service in the Diocese of Ohio, saying that they should leave the Episcopal Church, has been performing sacramentally, without permission or a license in the orthodox Diocese of Pittsburgh bishop Robert Duncan. The revisionist bishop, who walked away from charges that he violated the canons for ordaining a non-celibate homosexual man to the deaconate in 1990, has been caught red-handed in the Pittsburgh Diocese without ever obtaining the approval of Bishop Duncan. Righter had argued, "How can the Bishops 'allow' what the canons and constitution do not allow? How can the Bishops 'cede control' that is not theirs to cede? Even if they wanted to, they cannot." Apparently Righter has been doing "what the canons and constitution do not allow" for more than six months in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. According to a source he has been "supplying" at Calvary Church while the ultra-liberal rector Harold Lewis is on sabbatical. Righter moved back from Maine because his third wife is from Pittsburgh. Reached at Calvary Church, the Rev. Leslie G. Reimer associate rector for Pastoral Care, refused at first to answer any questions about Righter's activities at the church, but then admitted that "he was helping us out liturgically." Pressed on whether he was performing full sacramental functions, Reimer did not deny it, but said that a letter the church sent to Bishop Duncan about Righter's presence and activities in the church went unanswered. "The Canons require we ask, we did, but we never got an answer. We never received an answer one way or the other," she said. According to a spokesman in the bishop's office, Righter should not have performed any functions at the parish without the bishop's permission, and by crossing into another diocese without permission and preaching and celebrating; he was in violation of the Canons after 90 days. Does this mean that there could be a second Righter Trial? Diocesan officials would not say. Clearly Righter, who has been an outspoken critic of orthodox bishops and an outright proponent of pansexual behavior (he functioned as an assistant bishop under Jack Spong in the Diocese of Newark) may finally get his own comeuppance. So the rules only apply to others, not to Mr. Righter, said a source to Virtuosity. While the Pittsburgh Diocese was holding hearings on resolutions to come before special convention, the Righters were both very vocal at the open hearing in Fox Chapel. "Isn't it interesting that this is the man who says conservatives ought to leave ECUSA? Perhaps he sees himself stepping into a geographically convenient Diocesan opening?" The resolution that the revisionists pushed through the HoB condemning the Ohio confirmations, said that the next time this happened there would be disciplinary action. Now it has and Righter, the hypocrite, should be put on trial and tossed out of the church. END

Quoting Scriptures against homosexual behavior say Catholic bishops and leading evangelicals in that country. Portions of the Bible are in danger of being condemned as hate literature, say religious groups opposed to changes in the Criminal Code to be debated next week by the Senate. In a letter to Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops said Friday that Bill C-250 proposes changes that could lead to the church being prosecuted for its teaching that "sexual conduct between people of the same sex is morally wrong." Janet Epp Buckingham, the director of law and public policy for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, said senators have told her they are "getting a ton of phone calls and e-mails opposing the bill," but said there is also "quite a bit of momentum for the bill to pass." The evangelical fellowship said that if C-250 is passed, it will endanger faith groups' freedom to read, preach and distribute sacred texts, and to publicly discuss and comment on sexual morality. A Canadian Virtuosity reader said that Virtuosity itself could be classified as hate literature….and I should try crossing the border sometime for tea and biscuits.