Archives

Ash Wednesday, 2004 Learning to Live with an Audience of One Rev. R. William Dickson St. John the Divine, Houston, TX Introduction: There's a quip about public speaking which I have always found quite startling and provocative. It goes this way – "The first thing an inexperienced novice speaker does upon being invited to speak somewhere is to inquire about the topic –"What is it I am to talk about?"; but the first thing a really expert speaker asks is 'Who is my audience?" It is simply impossible to communicate effectively without giving some serious consideration to the matter of your audience. You dare not address a group of fourth graders as you would a group of mature adults. It would be quite wrong-headed to address a gathering of scholars the same way you would speak to a group of blue-collar workers. You cannot communicate effectively without considering your audience. I doubt that anyone who has ever spoken publicly or anyone who has ever thought carefully about the task would dispute it. It is certainly true. But I wonder if we have given adequate consideration to the critical importance of the audience of our lives. Before whom are we really living our lives? Who is the true audience before whom our time on the stage of life is performed? In our gospel text for today Jesus suggests there are but two options, and only one is acceptable to those who would be his disciples. [Sermon continues with full theological reflection on living before God as our primary audience, including discussion of spiritual "gyroscopes" and concluding with an Ash Wednesday meditation] Amen.

Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our Church. We are fighting today for costly grace. Cheap grace means grace sold on the market like cheapjack's wares. The sacraments, the forgiveness of sin, and the consolations of religion are thrown away at cut prices. Grace is represented as the Church's inexhaustible treasury, from which she showers blessings with generous hands, without asking questions or fixing limits. Grace without price; grace without cost! Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the Cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate. Costly grace is the treasure hidden in the field; for the sake of it a man will gladly go and sell all that he has. It is the pearl of great price to buy which the merchant will sell all his goods… Costly grace is the Gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock. Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it costs God the life of His Son: "ye were bought at a price," and what has cost God much cannot be cheap for us. Above all, it is grace because God did not reckon His Son too dear a price to pay for our life, but delivered Him up for us. Costly grace is the Incarnation of God. Costly grace is the sanctuary of God; it has to be protected from the world, and not thrown to the dogs… — Dietrich Bonhoeffer (February 4, 1906-April 9, 1945)

"It is sometimes said that conduct is supremely important, and worship helps it. The truth is that worship is supremely important, and conduct tests it." Archbishop William Temple Dear Brothers and Sisters, If there is one lesson the revisionists have learned and learned well it is that if they win the bishoprics they not only control the direction of the church, they have the majority vote in the House of Bishops and who will eventually succeed Frank Griswold. They also know that a revisionist bishop can control who comes into the diocese, beat up on faithful Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics who disagree with them on the 'faith once delivered', control the money flow to 815 to keep the national church's agenda alive, intimidate faithful rectors and much more. They also know that the bishop is capable of ripping up parishes if need be, deposing the rector and turn a once thriving parish into a mission. Just ask the folk in Versailles, Kentucky. The revisionists will do whatever it takes to win. They will employ every sleazy tactic in the book to get their man or woman elected. Consider what they did in the Diocese of North Dakota, Rio Grande, Colorado and more. The worst case is currently going in the diocese of the Rio Grande, where the godly Terence Kelshaw retires in 2005 and a single revisionist priest got hold of the entire diocesan mailing list and used it to promote his revisionist cause. So the lesson is this. First of all control the process. Make sure that the Search Committee chosen to investigate the candidates has several homosexual or pansexual believers on it. Then make sure that every candidate answers a question or two about the limits (or non-limits) of inclusivity, diversity and the usual buzzwords about sexual orientation, support of 815, abiding by the canons and constitutions etc. and then weed out any orthodox contenders. Then make sure that whoever is elected, and it really doesn't matter at this point if he or she believes in the creeds or 39 Articles, prays regularly, reads the Bible regularly, if at all, but will they make the appropriate noises about God's promiscuous love for all peoples between whatever sheets are available at the moment, preferably Versace, as he had pretty good idea about the non-limits of homoerotic behavior. The most important thing is learning how to dress up, put on a good show when you go visiting a local parish, mouth platitudes, pat a few heads, baptize and confirm a few adults (while still remaining dressed up), sit in a fancy chair and look good. Whatever you do don't say too much if the congregation just happens to know what the Bible teaches, but breathe the air of inclusivity and God's promiscuous love for all peoples, and tell the rector (privately) that if he doesn't cough up more money to keep the diocese afloat he will remove him. Do it all with a smile, and then leave in your limousine. [Content continues with full editorial commentary by David W. Virtue about church politics and conflicts]

By the Rev. Dr. Joseph Murphy In Mel Gibson's new film, The Passion of the Christ, the Aramaic text of the account from the Gospel of Matthew is provided in English subtitles, except for Matthew 27:25. That verse is not included because of the potential for misunderstanding given the history of Jewish-Christian relations. The passage reads, "And all the people said, "His blood shall be on us and on our children!"(NASV). In one sense, its meaning is simple enough. Using a common biblical idiom, the crowd was taking responsibility for the execution of Jesus, just as a jury and a judge today take responsibility for the execution of a criminal guilty of capital offense. It is no trivial matter, in either case. What compounds the problem, of course, is that Jesus was no ordinary criminal; in fact, no ordinary man, and no criminal at all. At least, that is what we Christians believe. What's more, we believe it passionately, because the message of salvation through Christ goes deeper in us than any passion we have. "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free," Jesus said (John 8:32). His hearers, "the Jews" according to the Gospel of John, were incredulous at this statement, because they did not consider themselves anyone's slaves. Indeed, they were not. From the days of Judas Maccabeus, the Jews were a thorn in the side of the Roman Empire, a people most difficult to force into subjection. Freedom is dear to the heart of the Jews. It is part of their heritage. The freedom Jesus spoke of, though, was freedom from sin, freedom to live before God without being controlled by our passions, our hatreds, our vices--an inner freedom in and of the Spirit of God allowing us to love and serve others. In Jesus' ministry recounted in the four Gospels, we see again and again Jesus being misunderstood and the conflict it caused, as He spoke about a kingdom which is not of this world, in the midst of a kingdom very much in this world, which was very disagreeably held under the cruel thumb of Rome. In the account of Jesus' Passion, we see it come to a head as He stands before Pilate, the Roman ruler of the Jewish state whose ignorance of Jesus' true Kingship is complete, though he acts in effect as Jesus' judge. It is Pilate's authority that executes Jesus, since the Jews had no authority to do so apart from Rome. Who then is "all the people" who, in effect, comprise the jury that takes the responsibility for Pilate to kill Jesus? Through the history of the Church, it has been interpreted variously as being all the Jews at all times since that day, all the Jews alive at the time of Christ's death except those who believed, or all of that generation of Jews except those who believed in Jesus, since the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 by Rome would have fulfilled the reference to Jesus' blood coming upon "our children," the following generation. In the limited context of the meaning of Matthew's Gospel, the latter is probable: only those people capable of hearing and responding to Jesus during His life and ministry. But in the context of the entire message of the New Testament, to identify who is responsible for Jesus' death, the question we must first answer is, who speaks for us when we are identified corporately? Identity politics is the order of the day in these postmodern times. The Croatian theologian Miroslav Volf in Exclusion & Embrace describes the particularities of our human identity and the resulting differences between us, behind the current global problems of race, ethnicity, and culture, which are "tribal realities" brought to the foreground by the new global economy and technology. The question of who speaks for "us," as we are so identified, is, therefore, of the greatest importance. If you are "white," or "Christian," did Hitler speak for you? The question is germane, since it is exactly this kind of authority to speak for "all" by perpetrators of evil that is brought into question by Matthew's passage. Did those people there present at the crucifixion speak for all Jews when they took responsibility for Pilate to execute? It is the attribution of the murder of Jesus to "all the Jews" by Christians historically that has rightly concerned many Jews today in respect to Mel Gibson's movie. They fear fresh anti-Semitism, and history shows their fears to be rational. Hitler's unspeakable atrocities came at the end of centuries of mistreatment of the Jews in Christian Europe. Christians today who dismiss those fears do not serve the Jewish community well. And, for the Church now finally shorn of the corrupting power of rulership in this world, the only thing that demonstrates the love of Christ our King, if we listen to Jesus at the time of His Passion (John 13:1-17) and follow Him, is humble service. Had the Church been serving the Jewish community in the freedom of Christ all these years, refusing to do violence to them and seeking their well-being, we would hear no such fears expressed today. At one time, in the days of Jesus and His disciples, it was possible for believers in Christ, Jew or Gentile, and Jewish non-believers in Christ to discuss and argue the truth of Jesus' claims. Now, we have two thousand years of the Church's failure to act like Jesus toward the Jews that horribly complicates the relationship. We Christians must ask ourselves, who has the right to speak for us? The only credible person who claims the right to speak for us all, the Pope, is specifically not granted that right by all of us! How is it that those Jewish persons at the crucifixion had the right to speak for all Jews everywhere then and since? Some people might reply that the New Testament assigns the blame--that God has spoken through Matthew so that the Jews are all to blame. Without questioning that God has spoken through Matthew, we can and must ask if we have understood the New Testament correctly if we hear it assign blame to the Jewish people as a whole. The concept of corporate identity is not a postmodern phenomena, despite our preoccupation with it today in social politics. It is evident in the Hebrew Bible in the writings of the Jewish prophets, and particularly in the writings of Isaiah, which were of primary importance to the early Jewish Christians in arguing the claims of the Messiah Jesus to their fellow Jews (e.g. Acts 8:26-39). Isaiah describes the Servant of the Lord in chapters 40 to 53 of that book in a way that accentuates the corporate identity of Israel. Sometimes, the Servant is clearly the people of Israel. Sometimes, however, the Servant is an individual, but as an individual standing for the whole people, in the unity of their corporate identity. This is presented as God's work, not a definition of unity that we impose upon Israel. The suffering of Messiah, fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and graphically portrayed in The Passion of the Christ, is the suffering of the Servant of the Lord of Isaiah chapter 53. Jesus' fellow Jew and disciple Peter refers to that chapter in describing Jesus' suffering: "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed (I Peter 2:24)." Jesus died  for  us. This death for us is at the heart of the gospel, because Jesus died in our place, so that our sins were nailed to His cross. This makes the gospel the proclamation of a truth that brings inner freedom in a life of loving service to God, because we are freed from both the power of sin and from the fear of death—the greatest power that can be wielded against us in this world. But, isn't that what we heard Jesus say to His Jewish hearers, that the truth would set them free? Was Jesus Himself, then, being anti-Semitic? Or, to state it differently, is His death any different from His life, a stumbling-block Peter calls it, again citing Isaiah? Doesn't the charge of anti-Semitism in the New Testament reduce to the challenge of faith  in  Jesus that Jesus Himself put before His own people of Israel, distorted and obscured in the history of the Church by Gentile racial hatred of Jesus' own race? What the gospel of Christ tells us is that we, all, have sinned, and fallen short of what God has created us for, which is nothing less than His own glory in living union with Him. The death of Jesus, followed by His resurrection, offers us a way out of that dilemma, a way through faith in Christ in which His blood cleanses us from all of our sins. The blood of that Passover Lamb of God, according to the New Testament patterned after the Hebrew Testament, causes the judgment of God in His separation from us, to pass. All those who believe in Jesus, then,  want  to be washed in the blood of the Lamb, to have His blood upon us! The divine irony of His blood being upon us who believe in Him extends to those who killed Him that day, who cried out for His blood to be upon them. If Jesus' death is our life, is their killing Him not a service to us? In other words, did not Israel, the Servant of the Lord, act in unison that day, the One and the many, in a sacrifice to end all sacrifices? Who is guilty, then? Jesus bore it,  all.  Jesus makes that clear: "No one takes [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord" (John 10:18). The Jews did not kill Jesus. The Servant of the Lord laid down His life for us, at the hands of "the kings of the earth," as Psalm 2 puts it, or as we might say, "the powers that be." Christians, who believe the story of Jesus' Passion, are actually forever indebted to those Jewish men and women who acted on behalf of us all, in agreeing to put Jesus to death. Not that we commend their motives. No, in an ultimate sense we  share  their motives, every day, in every one of our lives. Failure to acknowledge that human unity in complicity simply reflects a lack of repentance on our part. In a very specific sense, any Christian that is angered at the Jews for killing Jesus falls into the very profile of the spiritually bankrupt religious leadership that were offended by Jesus, a portrait also given to us by Matthew: "And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. (Matt. 23:30-31)" The murder of Jesus is  our  story, man and woman against God, unwilling to accept Him as He presents Himself to us. God offers us all forgiveness through the life and death of Jesus. The people of Israel, the Servant of the Lord, have served us all, in corporate unity with Jesus Whom God appointed to speak for Him in an ultimate action of God's love toward us all. The unavoidable implication of Jesus' Passion is that humanity itself is united before God, and that Israel as God's Servant has served us all for His sake. If the Jews, represented in this story by Caiphas and the crowd, are one in the horrible, unjust execution of Christ, Gentile Christians, represented by Pilate in his abuse of power, are one in their horrible, unjust killing of the Jews through history. No, it was we, all humanity, who killed the Servant of the Lord, and God who has forgiven us of all through that very act of Jesus' Self-giving. If anti-Semitism increases as a result of Gibson's film, its viewers will have seen and not understood. In Jesus' words, "In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.' (Matthew 13:14)" Such is the blindness of Pilate, and all Christians who have stood in his place of power, executing the Servant of the Lord at any time in history. Any Christian like Pilate washing their hands of complicity in the death of Christ in order to blame the Jews, only proves that they do not understand what they see. It is not accidental that Pilate is the one who dismisses the possibility and value of knowing the truth: he did not see Jesus for Who He is. Miroslav Volf accurately describes the Victim of the incredible violence shown in The Passion of the Christ: "Jesus, who claimed to be the Truth, refused to use violence to "persuade" those who did not recognize his truth. The kingdom of truth he came to proclaim was the kingdom of freedom and therefore cannot rest on pillars of violence." If the graphic violence portrayed in this film inflames anyone's ire against the Jewish people, they have seen and not understood, nor has the truth freed them to love and serve. The violence is not the point of Jesus' story, not at least as it was written. Cinema, for all its visual splendor, is an ineffective medium for communicating the written word. As always, to appreciate the full story, one needs to read the book. © 2004 The Rev. Joseph P. Murphy, Ph.D.

It was the greatest miracle that ever happened to Brother Duan, and he would not have experienced it had his bus not broken down. En route from a northern to a southern province of China in December, he happened to be passing through Henan province when the engine of the bus expired in its futile battle with the cold. On a whim, Duan trudged off through the fields, leaving the other passengers huddled inside the bus. He was a house church leader in northern China. Now 77 years of age, he still had no home to call his own. Truth is, he was deeply depressed. He was on his way to mediate a dispute among some leaders and was weary of all the infighting that seemed to be harming the house churches. And he was lonely. As he crossed the frozen field, Duan though longingly of his beloved wife, who died long ago. He wished she were alive to listen to him and give her sweet counsel. And then the thought came into his tired mind of his little son, and an even darker cloud settled over his heart. He found a village and knocked on a door. A little cross was notched on the doorpost. "Is there anyone here who loves the Lord?" he asked. "I would love some fellowship tonight." The door was opened by a man in his fifties, and Duan was warmly welcomed. His feet were washed in a basin -- the custom of welcoming a stranger among the house church movement -- and was fed hot congee and steaming vegetables. He noticed that the people were all excited. It turned out that they would be traveling to a neighboring town to hear a dynamic Bible teacher from one of the bigger cities. "What's his name?" asked Duan. "Brother Wang." LIFE OF GIVING As they made their way to the meeting, they told him some of the stories about this mysterious Brother Wang. It was clear they loved him dearly, and one of the men explained why. "We were once holding a training seminar here and heard the police were coming. Brother Wang got everyone out, except our main pastor. When the police arrived, Wang dared to bargain with them. He would go to jail if our pastor -- whose wife was eight months pregnant - could go free. The policeman accepted his terms, and Brother Wang spent three years in prison." "How old is Brother Wang?" Duan asked. When told he was in his early 40s, Duan's face showed great pain. "What's the matter?" he was asked. "Are you ill from the cart trip?" "No, I'm not ill," he replied, "just very sad. I once had a son, whom I knew for just two months. He's dead now, but if alive he would have been 42 today. "My wife called him the 'Christmas Child,' since he was born at Christmas time. I called him 'Isaac,' because we had despaired for so long of having a child." There was silence as they rode in the open cart under the stars. Brother Duan told the incredible story of how he and his wife had been evangelists in the 1950s. They refused to join the Three Self church, and Wu, an old school bully, kept accusing them of political and criminal offenses. It was only a matter of time before they were jailed or killed, but what would happen to their boy? One night, Duan's wife heard a strong voice in a vision, saying, "Give your son to your enemy." Knowing nothing about this, Duan read Genesis 22:2 the following morning: "Go get Isaac, your only son, the one you dearly love and sacrifice him to me." Sharing their impressions, the couple decided on a course of action that caused Duan to wince in pain every day since. They gave their boy to Wu and his wife -- who were childless -- even as Wu arranged for the couple's arrest. It wasn't until 1978, when Duan was released from jail, that he learned what happened to his wife and son. She had died in the terrible famine of 1958, and his son had disappeared along with the Wu family under the rubble of a devastating earthquake in 1975. Said Duan sadly as the little cart approached the meeting place, "God judged me for being so irresponsible with my little son." INCREDIBLE MEETING As they arrived where the evangelist was to speak, a crowd of 200 people was already packed into the house. Like many others, Duan had to sit in the courtyard and listen to the teacher through the open window. When Brother Wang began preaching, Duan felt a terrible shock. It was like hearing himself! He began to tremble with fear. Was he dying? Even the phrases the teacher used sounded familiar. Confused, he staggered up to the window to see the preacher, causing a commotion as he fell over people. The preacher stopped and there was a moment of shocked silence as the men looked at each other. The crowd was hushed as they realized the amazing physical likeness. "I'm sorry for interrupting your excellent message," Duan began. "You see, I had a son who would be your age right now. If he had lived, he would have looked and sounded just like you." Brother Wang began to tremble violently. Suddenly, his legs buckled under him and he had to be caught before he fell. Clutching his pounding chest, he sobbed, "Are you Daddy Duan?" Everyone wept as father and son were reunited. The preacher told how he had indeed been brought up by Wu, who was so impressed by Duan's act of giving that he had become a strong Christian. "I'm not your real father," Wu used to say to him. "He's a great man of God, full of grace and love. He gave you to me, and I give you all my love and the encouragement to put God first, just like your real father." Wang's adopted parents had moved away from the earthquake zone before the tragedy, but both died of cancer in their 60s. Wang became an evangelist and tried to find his real father, but Duan had changed his name so many times to avoid arrest that he had proved untraceable. As father and son continued to hug and weep, the elder of the church stood up and declared, "It's December. We have seen our sermon tonight: Christ came into the world to save sinners -- that is Christmas. Just as Duan handed his only son to the care of his enemy, so God handed over His own Son to us sinners. Let us rejoice in their reconciliation and ours too."

News Analysis By David W. Virtue PAOLI, PA--Doug, (that's not his real name) is now 17. He started taking drugs at the age of 12. He was quickly hooked, and was fast heading toward an early grave. Then he encountered some young Christians who took an interest in him and told him there was a way out. Desperate, Doug took it. Through an encounter with Jesus Christ at a Faith Alive weekend, Doug surrendered himself to Jesus, and thus began the long journey back to a drug-free life. He told his story before some 500 Episcopalians at the Church of the Good Samaritan in Paoli, Pennsylvania recently at a lay witness weekend put on by Faith Alive, a 100 percent Episcopal organization involved in renewing the church, changing people's lives from the inside out. Faith Alive is one of the still thriving (after 30 years) evangelical ministries within the Episcopal Church. A Faith Alive weekend program embraces adults, youth and children with a program of music and the telling of faith stories with a direct connection to the service of baptism: "I renounce the evil powers of this earth, the sinful desires that draw me from the love of God, and I put my whole trust in His grace and love..." said Tom Riley, President of Faith Alive who speaks glowingly of the organization he leads. "We continue to focus on the baptismal covenant while steering clear of church politics," said Riley. "It is a policy that has rewarded Faith Alive with registrations for its 'lay witness weekends' from a broad range of Episcopal Churches seeking spiritual refreshment," he told Virtuosity. How it works is this. A parish must invite Faith Alive into its life. Faith Alive never pushes itself on anyone, says Riley. After dinner there is a general session of music and introductions with sharing by the visiting team many from other parishes who come in with their own fresh testimonies to relate. People then break up into small groups where people tell their faith journey stories and personal testimonies of what God is doing in their lives. Clergy are asked not to participate in group discussions. Laity lead it. At the end of the weekend there is an altar call, a call to renewal, commitment to Christ and for some a recommitment to Christ. For Vincent Czepu Continue kaitis, a weekend coordinator for Faith Alive and an active Episcopal layman, its an opportunity for him to tell his story of how he was raised a strict Roman Catholic. "I knew all about control and since the church was the No. 1 control in my life I wanted to control all the other areas of my life." Barbara his wife picks up the story. "We had been married for 13 years. I met the Lord at a Marriage Encounter weekend even though I was raised an Episcopalian. Vince saw what I had received and wanted it for himself." Thus began a new chapter in their marriage relationship and a new ministry beckoned on the horizon. Vince was a lector in the Roman Catholic Church and Barbara sang in the choir of the local Episcopal Church. We found a godly Episcopal Church in Massachusetts, but later we moved to Yardley and then New Hope, PA. "Faith Alive was a natural place for us to use our gifts. We got into Scripture and this volunteer renewal movement naturally evolved into a ministry for us," he said. There are some 100 coordinators nationwide, and Faith Alive can be found almost every weekend of the year in one parish or another. Tony Walter, Diocesan Youth Coordinator for the Diocese of Milwaukee lends his support to Faith Alive weekends and travels around the country handling the youth side of these three-day Faith Alive weekends. At 58 he doesn't seem the right age group, but he gravitates to youth as they gravitate to him. His joy is leading young people to Christ. Barbara Czepukaitis describes a Faith Alive weekend as "close as it gets to heaven on earth. We are absolutely focused on Jesus not issues. In time issues pass away. We look for the perpetuation of the ministry through weekends like this." Lucia Englander and Heather Niedland Good Samaritan parish coordinators say that the parish has been blessed by the visit of the Faith Alive team who come at their own expense to share the love of Jesus. "We see people renewed in their faith, some coming to faith for the first time, marriages healed and restored, and much more," said Englander. Faith Alive was launched in 1970 by members of the Brotherhood of St. Andrew who had participated in a Methodist Lay Witness Mission. To date Faith Alive has held its weekend program in more than 2,400 churches nationwide. In addition to holding Faith Alive Weekends in Episcopal Churches - the ministry expects to hold 40 in Year 2004 -- while being active in Anglican churches in the Bahamas. Faith Alive has also held its program in other denominations, including Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian and Roman Catholic. Asked how the present controversy within the Episcopal Church, following last summer's action by the General Convention, has affected the ministry, President Tom Riley said, "Churches in virtually all dioceses of the Church continue to look to Faith Alive as a resource for spiritual refreshment. Already this year we have held Weekends in the dioceses of Central Florida, Eastern Carolina, Southwest Florida, Arizona, Western Louisiana, and Pennsylvania. In March, Faith Alive Weekends will be held in churches in the Diocese of New Jersey, Washington, South Carolina, San Joaquin, Chicago, West Virginia and Springfield. "In the early days of Faith Alive there was considerable pressure from parishes and from our own board members to take a stand on the Charismatic Movement that was sweeping through our Church. Our founder and longtime president, Fred Gore remained adamant, 'The mission of Faith Alive is to bring individuals into an encounter with Jesus Christ that results in their recognition of Jesus as their Savior and their commitment to Him as Lord of their lives. We cannot accomplish this if we take sides on this issue or any other." "On the contrary, we must be sensitive to the rector and parish we serve, which means that we respect the piety of that parish, watch our vocabulary, and probably avoid raising our hands in worship. In some churches, we may use songs exclusively from the Episcopal hymnal. We accept these people where they are, we provide a climate in which the Holy Spirit can move, we make ourselves available to be used by the Spirit, and we give God the glory for the great works accomplished." "That continues to be our policy," Riley said, "and it works! Literally thousands of Episcopalians each year discover on Faith Alive Weekends that they have not yet made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ as Lord of their lives - 'Wherever you would have me go, however you call me to serve, Lord, the answer will always be yes.' Rectors are thrilled at the large number of parishioners participating in a Weekend -- generally two-thirds of the average Sunday attendance -- as well as the numbers of parishioners on the periphery of parish life. The altar ministry on Sunday, and the small-group ministry in homes of parishioners continue to make lasting impressions. Follow-up is an integral part of the Faith Alive program, spawning men's ministry, house churches, youth programs, a refreshed children's ministry, varied music ministries, mission and outreach. And with personal commitment to Jesus Christ comes a whole new approach to giving. Tithing becomes the norm, the starting point of Christian stewardship. The church's annual financial report a year after a Faith Alive Weekend is a tangible example of the program's impact on a parish!" NOTE: Anyone interested in having a Faith Alive team come to their parish should drop a line to Tom Riley at  FAweekend@AOL.COM Faith Alive is on the Internet at  www.faithalive.org

Episcopal clergy at odds over vote on gay bishop BY VALERIE ZEHL AND WILLIAM MOYER Press & Sun-Bulletin [Binghamton, NY in the diocese of CNY] While two local Episcopal priests have pulled away from the church hierarchy over the consecration of an openly gay bishop, other Southern Tier rectors remain solidly behind the decision. In the balcony overlooking his congregation, the Rev. Mark Giroux accompanies the St. Mark's Episcopal Church choir Sunday in Epiphany Carol, the offertory during the Chenango Bridge church's service. The Rev. Mark Giroux serves Communion during Sunday worship at St. Mark's Episcopal Church, on River Road in Chenango Bridge. As his congregation looks on, the Rev. Mark Giroux holds the Gospel Procession during Sunday worship at St. Mark's Episcopal Church. Now, months after the General Convention voted to make the Rev. Gene Robinson the church's first homosexual bishop, those rectors say it's time for healing within the worldwide Anglican community. "The way the decision was made was the way all our decisions are made in the Episcopal Church, in a democratic way," said the Rev. Mark Giroux, rector of St. Mark's Episcopal Church in Chenango Bridge. "I'm personally supportive of the decision," he added. "I feel as though the arguments being used by those who oppose this decision are similar to those used against women, or going back earlier still, against those of color." The church's top governing body consecrated Robinson last November as New Hampshire bishop. He is a divorced father who lives with a same-sex partner. The action ignited a firestorm of controversy within the worldwide Anglican church, which has 77 million members. About 22,500 members are on the rolls at 100 Episcopal churches in the Central New York Diocese, which covers an area from Alexandria Bay near Canada, south to the New York-Pennsylvania border, east to Utica and west to Waterloo. But the consecration isn't a volatile issue for some local Episcopalians. "Some think this issue is critical, others think it's less critical," said Don Carlin, who has been a member of St. Andrew's in Vestal for 30 years. "For me right now, it's not critical." Others said the decision just shows the Episcopal Church's diversity. "About 13 years ago I made a conscious choice to begin attending the Episcopal Church," said Karen Van Kleeck, who goes to St. Mark's in Chenango Bridge and sits on its vestry. "Part of my reasoning is that the belief system is based on tradition, Scripture and reason," she said. "People who are black, white, evangelistic, gay, straight -- we are all welcome in that church." Van Kleeck said she has no problem with Robinson being a bishop. But she believes the church did things backward. By Anglican tradition, she said, an unmarried person who has a sexual partner wouldn't be welcome to live in the rectory and lead a parish. "So until they change tradition, we're speaking out of both sides of our mouth," she said. But some local rectors remain upset by Robinson's consecration. The Rev. Anthony Seel resigned as dean of the 10-parish Binghamton district. He remains pastor of St. Andrew's, while the Very Rev. Noreen Suriner of Trinity Memorial Church in Binghamton now serves as dean. And the Rev. Anne Kennedy, assistant rector at the Church of the Good Shepherd, has asked Central New York Diocese Bishop Gladstone B. "Skip" Adams III to stop paying her salary. Kennedy works with her husband, the Rev. Matthew Kennedy, who is Good Shepherd's rector. But she said the diocese paid her for work in the Binghamton parish and for other Episcopal ministries. "Fundamentally, I resigned because of the bishop's position on this issue," Anne Kennedy said. "Part of my trouble with the bishop is he voted directly for (the consecration)." Seel and Anne Kennedy have sent letters to Adams indicating their position. Neither the bishop nor his assistant were available for comment last week. Local parishes of many denominations often show their dissent with higher church decisions by withholding the money they are expected to give for regional or national ministries. Episcopal parishes are required to give an assessment and a pledge that represent about 15 percent of the church's income, Matthew Kennedy said. He doesn't intend to pay Good Shepherd's full assessment to the diocese. Kennedy has given church members the choice of using their money to pay the assessment or keeping their offerings within the parish. Many have chosen to keep their pledges in the parish, he said. Seel said St. Andrew's vestry voted to send a portion of its assessment to the diocese. But some parishioners indicated they want their offerings to remain in the parish, he said. Seel and the Kennedys intend to stay in the Episcopal Church. But the rectors don't attend the monthly meeting of the Episcopal clergy group in the area. St. Andrew's joined the American Anglican Council, which has declared itself in "impaired communion" -- a broken relationship -- with the Episcopal Church in the United States. "(After) the bishop's vote at general convention, I felt like I didn't want to be getting money directly from him and I felt he didn't really want to be giving it to me," Anne Kennedy said. "I feel he has walked away from historic orthodox Christianity, and I find that really grievous." Added Matthew Kennedy: "We have not made the decision to leave the institutional framework of the Episcopal Church or this diocese. We're not ready to leave the institution yet, but we feel the institution has left us." He won't predict the denomination's future. "We don't really know what the Episcopal Church, what the diocese will look like five years down the road," he said. "But it seems increasingly clear to me the two positions are irreconcilable.

By Peter May Church of England Newspaper The recent discussion document, Some Issues in Human Sexuality, which was debated in General Synod, raises questions about the significance of bisexuality. It highlights, for instance, that Ancient Greek & Roman cultures did not have gay/straight terminology in their language. They viewed people as being simply 'sexual', expressing their sexuality in a variety of different ways. Sexual Behaviour in Britain, published by Penguin Books in 1994, remains the most comprehensive study of national sexual attitudes and lifestyle. This was the survey that the Thatcher government refused to finance and was rescued by the Wellcome Trust. And a welcome report it was! Until that study was done, the best data available was the Kinsey Report of 1953. That report estimated that some 10% of the population was homosexual. That figure never rang true in medical practice and the Wellcome Report explained why. Surveying nearly 20,000 randomly selected Britons, the Wellcome researchers concluded that only 6.1% of men and 3.4% of women had had any homosexual experience at any stage in their lifetime. These statistics may be an underestimate, given people's reluctance to be honest in these matters, though great care was taken in the research method. The figures may also have changed in the past 10 years, presumably due to changing cultural mores, rather than changes in biological or genetic causes. The incidence of bisexuality reported by them was huge. They concluded that 90.3% of that 6.1% of men had also had a female sexual partner, which would leave 0.6% of men being exclusively homosexual. 95.8% of the 3.4% of women had claimed also to have had a male partner, which would leave 0.14% of women being exclusively homosexual. Barely 1% of men and less than 0.25% of women described their sexual experience as either mostly or exclusively homosexual. The Report concluded that exclusively homosexual behaviour is rare. They also noted that for many, homosexual experience was youthful and transitory, and unlikely to lead to a permanent behaviour pattern and that the high prevalence of bisexual behaviour among homosexuals was well-documented. A recent article in the Times, written by a lesbian, said, "Thousands of gay women have had relationships with men and some may not rule out the possibility of falling in love with a man in the future. But ask a gay woman to define herself as lesbian or bisexual is difficult. To opt for what may be the more honest answer of 'bisexual' could be viewed as some kind of betrayal, a refusal to stand up and be counted." Genetic studies, for all their ambiguity, have ruled out the idea of a gay gene determining orientation. The report before Synod did not mention the significance of twin studies. Identical twins are genetically "clones" of one another, having an identical genetic make up. If sexual orientation were genetically determined, they would both exhibit the same orientation. But studies have shown that they do not. There may be a genetic or other biological disposition towards homosexual relationships in some people. We don't know. But homosexuality is clearly not genetically determined. We may therefore be very mistaken to speak of sexual orientations rather than sexual behaviours. When we start talking about behaviour, we might then note that some sexual behaviours can be deeply addictive. While some people seem to move from one type of sexual experience to another, others get hooked in a serious way. For some, the use of pornography may come to dominate their lives. It may be a preference for violent pornography, which grips their imagination and drives the person to fulfil their desires. Promiscuity, sado-masochism, and the use of prostitutes can all become addictive behaviours. The chemistry of falling in love is a sort of addiction. Many of us are happily addicted to our spouses, though the addiction needs to be constantly fuelled to be kept alive. Adultery is addictive. Few people embarking on an adulterous relationship find it is a 'take or leave' matter that they can easily walk away from. You cannot sit down with these people and have a sensible chat about the damage they will do, such that they say, "You are quite right. I will stop it at once." They are hooked and get an intense thrill from the encounter. The more they see the person, the more their desires are stirred up. Then there is that powerfully addictive and disturbing preference for sexual intimacy with children. Having engaged in sexual acts with children, paedophiles always remain vulnerable to repeating such behaviour. We engage in addictive activities at our peril. Yet no one considers any of these behaviours to be 'orientations'. The language of preference, of learned behaviour patterns and addiction makes much more sense of the observed realities of sexual behaviour than talk about orientation.

News Analysis By David W. Virtue Dan England the communications director for the Episcopal Church said at the recent meeting of the church's Executive Council in Tampa, Florida that "some people seem to want to start a war, but we're not going to show up." He was parroting the Very Rev. George Werner, president of the House of Deputies who first coined the phrase after the last General Convention. It is in the same category of foolishness and naivete that convinced the American people that they could remain neutral in World War II before Pearl Harbor. Mr. England wants you to believe that either no war is going on, or if there is one, he and his leftist pals aren't going to show up. The truth is there IS a war, it has been going on for some time now and sooner or later there will be a winner and a loser. A draw, it seems, is not on the cards. The Eames Commission may try and make it look like a draw with everyone winning, but it is doubtful the Global South will buy anything less than a complete repudiation of sexual behavior outside of heterosexual marriage and the public disciplining of Frank Griswold for his participation in the consecration of V. Gene Robinson. Or to put it another way, a split will occur that will leave the two sides looking at each other across an irreconcilable divide. The revisionists in ECUSA started this war back with Bishop James Pike, then Jack Spong set about making theological nuclear bombs with his 12 theses, then there followed the ripping of the fabric of the church over the illegal ordination of women, later sodomy was affirmed by ordaining openly homoerotic priests (the first one died of AIDS), then followed the promotion of same-sex unions, capping it off with the consecration of a non-celibate homosexual priest to the episcopacy. And England wants you to believe that this is all an orthodox illusion and the Holocaust never happened either. If you believe Mr. England, the orthodox are simply making it all up. It is a fiction of their imagination. If they just stopped believing there was a problem it would go away. Right. So the church can't even affirm Bishop Keith Ackerman's Resolution B001 on a couple of basic doctrines of the faith once delivered and this is okay? The church consecrates a divorced homoeroticist living with another man, and this is not declaring war? Fourteen Primates representing some 50 million Anglicans declare themselves either in impaired or out of communion with Griswold and ECUSA, and this is not war? You reduce the Bible to myths and stories and remove the ancient Prayer Book and tell them all they have left are the church's canons and constitutions and this is not war? And when you have stripped the orthodox of all their cherished beliefs, called them 'fundamentalists' and 'homophobic' for even suggesting that anal sex may actually be bad for your health, not to mention God's disapproval, and then tell them you are not going to show up for war, while you hurl 16inch rounds from 500 or 3,000 miles away, is fatuous beyond all belief. And then when you have finished beating them up on Omaha Beach, tell the orthodox that if they even think about leaving with their properties because they don't want to jeopardize the souls of the faithful, they will see a side of the bishop they never knew existed. He will "shoot" the rector, invoking Canon 4 or 10 and bury the poor parish priest with more law suits than there are 39 Articles, and then sit back using Diocesan Trust Funds to obtain the best legal counsel he can find and hammer the poor bastards into the ground. Talk to Fr. Eddy Rix or Fr. David Ousley in the Diocese of Pennsylvania. They have stories to tell about the way Bishop Charles Bennison has treated them. Bennison is at war with orthodoxy in his diocese. New Westminster Bishop Michael Ingham is at war with 11 parishes in his diocese. Ed Salmon (South Carolina) is at war with one parish in his diocese, and John W. Howe (Central Florida) has filed suit against a parish in his diocese. The list could go on and on. And what about individual orthodox bishops who are at war with revisionist clergy and laity in their own dioceses. Ask Bishop Terence Kelshaw about what Via Media, the leftist group in his diocese is doing to promote a pro-sodomite candidate of their own to succeed him. They literally stole the whole Diocesan mailing list and used it to promote their pansexual agenda. Or talk to Bishop Bertram Herlong in the Diocese of Tennessee about how the Episcopalfreespeech.com crowd is using anonymous names to stoke up a presentment against him on some phony charge or other about his lack of inclusivity. Or why Florida Bishop Steve Jecko and San Diego Bishop Gethin Hughes retired early because they couldn't stand the political pressure any more and wanted out. And this is not the effect of a war? Or the sneaky way revisionists in the Diocese of North Dakota tried to push one of their own by dumping five candidates on the unsuspecting diocese without ever asking them the "S" questions. The orthodox put up one of their own in at the last minute, but he didn't have a prayer, judging by the final statistics reported in The Living Church. That the Episcopal Church is at war with itself is painfully obvious to even the most unenlightened. Across the country biblically orthodox parishes and their rectors are waging courageous battles against revisionist bishops. From New Westminster, to North Dakota, from Montana to Tennessee, from Southern Virginia, to Albany and even in New Hampshire, the battle rages. No diocese is unaffected. And the result? The loss of millions of dollars in revenues as Episcopalians close their check books. Funds are being withheld at record levels. And this is not war? (And this while the stock market is roaring upwards.) And England says, "I think that message (convincing the press that the church is not going to split) and our focus on reconciliation is starting to get through." What reconciliation? The American Anglican Council, the new Network, (NACDP), two Plano gatherings, endless diocesan dogfights between Left and the Right, the relentless growth of the AMiA, and he smells reconciliation in the air? This is fiction of the highest order. England again: "We are not going to strike back at anybody." Really. Pray tell me what David Booth Beers, Griswold's personal attorney is doing running around the country putting the fear of God (or Frank) into diocesan chancellors instructing them not to let parishes walk away from ECUSA or he will invoke the Denis Canon if they do. This is not striking back? This is not, at the very least coercion? This is not war? It's time for a novel, "My life with Frank…the untold story". The national church is losing funds left and right from dioceses both orthodox and heterodox and by all accounts it is going to get worse. And there would seem to be no way back unless legal threats of coercion are made and ecclesiastical action is taken by revisionist bishops whose final recourse is the Canons and Constitutions. And this is reconciliation? ECUSA's biblically orthodox are under siege from one end of the country to the other. The Anglo-Catholics have almost been wiped out and Evangelicals who are growing like crazy are only tolerated because they bring in much needed cash to keep revisionist bishops in travel to HOB meetings where they mock them and call them homophobic for not getting in line behind Vickie Gene. But you had better write out the checks or we will come after you. "We think the controversy is beginning to die down," says England. In his dreams. If it is tell that to Pittsburgh Bishop Bob Duncan who would love to hear that news. Or maybe Griswold should send a note to Canon David Anderson of the AAC and tell him that he is really on the right side of the angels after all, and we love you and want your perspective on things. Then he should send a telegram to Fr. David L. Moyer in Philadelphia and apologize to him for all the nonsense he has had to put up with from Bishop Bennison and if he [Bennison] gives him any more trouble, he'll refer Bennison to the Title IV Review Committee. All this will happen when the proverbial hell freezes over. Then to cap off his spin, England writes, "But even if it doesn't, we intend to use the bad press to get our message across. If it goes well, that will be like free publicity." Oh my Lord. England, desperate for any shred of dignity he and his boss can salvage from Vickie Gene's consecration says he plans to use the bad press to get the national church's message across. And what message is that? Inclusivity of bizarre sexual behaviors like ordaining a transsexual deacon! Diversity that DOESN'T include biblically orthodox folk because they have narrow uninclusive views about the limits of sexual expression, and believe sin and salvation have been rubbished by the deep thinkers at 815 or twisted beyond all Biblical recognition? Or perhaps ECUSA can convince the world that our new found Doctrine of Inclusivity means that the Rev. Elizabeth Kaeton (Newark) can regularize "holy one night stands" and include them in The Book of Occasional Services, Lesser Feasts and Fasts, how to Enrich Our Worship. Or perhaps Oklahoma Bishop Robert Moody can elevate history's first ordained transsexual deacon (Paul to Paula Schonauer) and offer her/him to be the next bishop suffragan of Newark, NJ. They'd love to have him/her. Louie will cast the first vote. Croneberger and Schonauer perfect together. No, there is a war and it is ongoing, and to drive the point home, some 13-revisionist ECUSA bodies are meeting next month in Atlanta to find a way forward (or strategy) to defeat the AAC and NACDP. The national church will send three representatives. They hope to get 40. Plano got nearly 4,000. Whatever "free publicity" England hopes to salvage from this negative publicity defies all human logic. The Apostle Paul said, "we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against the principalities and powers", he just never figured that the latter would be inside The Episcopal Church, and that the world, the flesh and the devil were making nice in the majority of ECUSA's dioceses, and that the barbarians were now firmly within the gates being enabled by nine of the church's 11 seminaries. Every day in every way, from the loss of millions of dollars to parishes leaving and thousands of Episcopalians walking away from the denomination, the Episcopal Church is slowly dying. The ECUSA hulk is on a sandbank, flopping about like a dying whale. The only question is can it be rescued in time.

By J. Michael Parker Express-News Religion Writer 2/22/2004 The Episcopal Diocese of West Texas ended its annual council Saturday by consecrating a popular 47-year-old San Antonio priest as its newest bishop. The Rev. Gary Richard Lillibridge, former rector of St. David's Parish, became coadjutor bishop, which means he has the automatic right to succeed Bishop James E. Folts as head of the diocese when Folts retires or dies. Folts, 63, has announced no retirement plans and may continue in office until he turns 72. Lillibridge then will become the ninth bishop to head the West Texas diocese, which celebrates its centennial this year. An estimated 1,500 to 2,000 Episcopalians from 92 congregations in 60 counties attended Saturday's two-hour liturgy in Municipal Auditorium. "My ministry is going to be one of encouraging people who are hurting," the new prelate said after the ceremony. "We can't get so discouraged that we're diverted from our mission. "Each generation has faced its own challenges, and I'm proud of the way this diocese has dealt with the issues facing it. And any time is a great time to serve the Lord," Lillibridge said. It was a joyful ending for a council that on the previous two days had passed resolutions expressing displeasure at Episcopal Church actions. One resolution criticized the approval of a noncelibate gay bishop in New Hampshire. The other affirmed the sanctity of Christian marriage as a lifelong covenant between a man and a woman. The council also decided to let each congregation decide this year how to spend mission and ministry funds it usually sends to the Episcopal Church. The 2004 budget provides for $569,000 to be sent to the national church if all parishes and missions send their share. Some will still send it there, while others will divert it directly to a variety of mission causes. Debate was spirited but not rancorous. Delegates acknowledged the tension but said they were committed to staying in the Episcopal Church and continuing dialogue. Retired Bishop John MacNaughton, in his consecration sermon Saturday, said Episcopalians are "at war with each other" over church authority and the Bible. But he said Lillibridge must minister to all people in need "whether they agree with you or not" and serve "a world that's dying for lack of moral leadership." Lillibridge received a Bible, a cross, a ring, a stole and a crozier (shepherd's staff) as symbols of his office, and the assembled Episcopal bishops prayed in a circle around him as he knelt before the altar. Congregants applauded him enthusiastically when the Most Rev. Frank T. Griswold, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, presented Lillibridge to the congregation in his new red and white bishop vestments. "Members of Gary's congregation all feel very sad to lose him as our rector," said Owens Crowley, a St. David's parishioner who attended the event. "But he has many gifts to offer, and we're happy that he can share them with the whole diocese. Others said he's a strong leader who will bring vitality to diocesan leadership and will enable the church to grow. "We hope he'll be able to lead us for a long time," Rawley McCoy of St. Francis Parish in Victoria said.

Associated Press 2/22/2004 CHARLESTON, S.C. - Theological differences over homosexuality are causing rifts in the Episcopal Church, but they do not have to be fatal to the church's unity, according to speakers at a forum here. Nearly 200 Episcopalians from around the state gathered Saturday to discuss ways of coping with conflicts over the 2003 confirmation of V. Gene Robinson, the denomination's first openly gay bishop. Clergy and laity, most from the Charleston-based Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, gathered for "Seeking Unity in Diversity," a conference set up by the Episcopal Forum of South Carolina. The Mount Pleasant-based group was formed to help members of the diocese try to find common ground despite differences over Robinson's confirmation. "Our goal today was to get some constructive conversation going within the Episcopal Church because there is so much polarization in the church and in our diocese," said Lynn Pagliaro of Mount Pleasant, one of the Forum's board members. "Members of the diocese want to learn about different opinions on these issues, and we see ourselves as an ongoing place for conversation within the Episcopal Church." The Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon, bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina, has been one of the most vocal opponents of Robinson's confirmation. In December, the diocese he leads became one of four charter members of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes. The network is for Episcopalians opposed to Robinson's confirmation. Network membership, as well as differences of opinion over Robinson, same-sex unions and other issues have caused distress among many lay members of the diocese. The only way to continue conversation between the two sides is to recognize the seriousness of the step the Episcopal Church took in affirming Robinson, said the Rev. Kendall Harmon, the diocese's canon theologian. "This is a debate about essentials," he said. Both Harmon and the Very Rev. William McKeachie, dean of the Cathedral Church of St. Luke and St. Paul, challenged Robinson's supporters to come up with a way to reconcile gay relationships with Scripture. "The biblical case for monogamous, heterosexual unions has not suddenly been proven wrong," McKeachie said. "... If schism and the breaking up of the Anglican Communion is incipient, it is not, in the view of the Diocese of South Carolina, we who caused the schism." McKeachie said both sides need to work out a theological compromise, such as the statement worked out at the 1988 General Convention that recognizes abortion as legal but also as a serious matter. The Very Rev. Samuel Candler, dean of the Cathedral of St. Philip in Atlanta, said he believes in "the possibility that certain same-sex relationships can offer the grace of God." Many members said they were encouraged after the daylong conference. "I think this is a step in the right direction," said Georgia Ann Porcher, a member of Grace Episcopal Church in Charleston.

From the Church Times THE CHOIR of St Andrew's Cathedral in Sydney will not proceed with a planned tour of churches in the United States, in response to the consecration of Canon Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. The tour, which had been scheduled for April, was to have been in conjunction with a tour by the St Andrew's Cathedral School orchestra, and was to have included engagements in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Washington DC. Phillip Heath, the head of the Cathedral School, where the 24 choristers are educated on school scholarships, confirmed that the choir tour, but not the orchestra tour, had been cancelled by a decision of the school council. The choir represented the cathedral, the church of the diocese, but the orchestra represented only the school, he said; the orchestra would continue to offer concerts in school-based institutions in the US. The decision to cancel the choir's involvement, while difficult, was a "prudent" one, given the current uncertainty about the nature of the Anglican Communion, Mr Heath said. Although he had been involved in planning the tour, he said he supported the decision the school council had made. Contrary to some press reports, the Archbishop of Sydney, Dr Peter Jensen, had not been consulted directly about the decision. Mr Heath said the cathedral choir, which includes 12 lay clerks, was one of only three choirs outside the United Kingdom to belong to the Choir Schools Association. The choir was "a very high priority" for the Cathedral School, he said.