Archives

19 February 2004 The Right Reverend John B. Lipscomb, Bishop The Diocese of Southwest Florida 7313 Merchant Court Sarasota, FL 34240 (A note to the reader: Bishop Lipscomb has invited Frank Griswold, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America [ECUSA] to speak to our Diocesan Convention in October of 2004. Bishop Griswold has accepted. Subsequently, Bishop Lipscomb has been encouraged to rescind that invitation because of the divisive pain his presence would precipitate. Bishop Lipscomb has resisted the withdrawal of the invitation and has instead justified it as something worthwhile. You may read about the invitation and the justification by accessing the diocesan website: www.dioceseswfla.org/ezine.htm) Dear Bishop, Greetings to you and yours in the unique, saving love of Christ Jesus. I pray for you regularly as I understand the godly weight of responsibility inherent in your ministry. In that atmosphere of prayerfulness, I own the words of our Savior as I say to you, "My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death." (Mark 14:22, NKJV) Spiritual anguish and torment would not be stating the case too strongly for my feelings as I consider your invitation to Bishop Griswold, and subsequent rationale for maintaining said invitation, to speak to our Diocesan convention. I believe your decision to be an error, wrought with gravely dangerous implications for the proclamation of the Gospel be that to those who are part of the church or not. Souls are at stake. Frank Griswold is in need of repentance and discipline, not a place at the t able of discussion. He is the single most recognizable symbol of disunity in the Anglican Communion. He is the point man who has precipitated a crisis in worldwide Anglicanism and caused 20 or more Archbishops, representing better than 50% of all Anglicans across the face of the globe to break communion with ECUSA. Griswold has rhetorically and practically repudiated Christianity. How can one such as he engage in "honest conversation," as you say, when he understands neither the Truth nor the truth? He has publicly denied the uniqueness of Christ by word and deed. He mocks the Truth. He has publicly deceived 37 Anglican primates and 70 plus million Anglicans by agreeing that a certain course of action should not be undertaken because of its disastrous implications. Then in a spate of ecclesial arrogance, less than a month later, proceeded to enthusiastically support and participate in said course of action. He mocks the truth! The Presiding Bishop's piously effusive words and pluriform ideology are non-Christian poison-why should anyone be subjected to more of such? If someone became ill because of unknowingly ingesting arsenic, would they then partake of it knowingly? You rightfully cite your episcopal vows to "guard the faith, unity and discipline of the Church." Allowing Mr. Griswold to speak to your flock would eviscerate the faith, further impair its unity and deny t he appropriate discipline of the Church. The New Testament model for dealing with a sinful brother is to point out his fault to him privately and secure repentance. Failing that, a small party of witnesses are to confront the unrepentant sinner to further explain the grave danger of his sinful ways. If such a one is still recalcitrant, then the matter is to be brought before the whole church in an effort to have him mend his ways. Failing that, he is to be treated as a pagan (Cf. Matthew 18:15-17). Frank Griswold has arrogantly spurned repeated calls for repentance-he is to be treated as an apostate, with no rightful place at the table. For too many years "protracted, civil discourse" has served to mitigate the "faith once delivered." We in the Episcopal Church have conveniently hidden behind the cultural and voguey facade of inclusivity and diversity, welcoming wolves in among the sheep. It has been a slaughter-in terms of the sheep and of the Gospel. The cloak of diversity has served as a convenient, guilt driven ruse to allow the wolves into the church. It has provided an environment in which they can even flourish. Diversity for the sake of pseudo- inclusivity mocks our own Baptismal Covenant. When we allows sin to reign (speak authoritatively) in ECUSA (or a diocesan convention) we bring a halt to our perseverance in resisting evil; we deny the Good News of God in Christ and in doing so disrespect the dignity of every human; we make a mockery of loving our neighbors as ourselves and striving for peace and justice among all as we officially enshrine and dialogue about those things that are plainly contrary to the Word of God. The Apostle Paul said, "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial (Satan)? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?"(2 Corinthians 6:14-15) None! Jesus shared the Truth with sinners, he did not engage in protracted, civil discourse. If they (we) repented and followed, great, welcome to eternal life. If not, our Lord did chase them down to dialogue a bout and dilute the Truth. Indeed, he allowed "many" to go their separate way when the Truth became too much to bear (cf. John 6:60-66). With all due respect, Right Reverend Sir, now is the time to stand squarely upon the Firm Foundation and do the godly righteous thing: rescind the invitation to our Primate. To do so would be a poignant, profound and widely recognized statement for the Truth of the Gospel. To do otherwise is to give tacit approval to all that he stands for and all that he has done. This may well be your moment in history-the single most important opportunity for the proclamation of the Good News you may ever have. Will it be a regrettable nadir for our diocese or a godly zenith? May God have mercy on us all. I will continue to uphold you in prayer. In Jesus' loving-kindness and faithfulness, Jim+ (The Reverend) James T. Murphy Pastor, Rector, Friend Church of the Nativity, Sarasota, Florida frmurf2@verizon.net ENGLAND: OPTIONS. WOMEN'S ORDINATION Options Geoffrey Kirk on which way to turn With the priests Ordination of Women Measure 19 and its attendant Act of Synod, the Church of England entered upon what its own documents describe as an open period of reception of the new ministry. Archdeacon Judith Roses motion, which was passed by the General Synod in July 2000 marked a milestone in that journey. It asked the House of Bishops to initiate further theological study on the episcopate, focussing on the issues that need to be addressed in preparation for the debate on women in the episcopate in the Church of England. The Commission which resulted from (often known as the Rochester Commission from its chairman, the Rt Revd Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester) will produce, in due time, the first official theological statement on the ordination of women since the House of Bishops Second Report (GS829) in 1982. With the final publication of the Report , which is already available to the Bishops in draft, a number of options will lie before the Church. In a series of articles over the next months, New Directions will look at those options one by one, assess them both theologically and politically, and encourage our readers to come to a conclusion for themselves. But first of all the options need to be stated in their naked simplicity, and the ground staked out for further analysis. The first option, of course, is to declare the open period of reception for women's ordination at an end and the experiment to have failed. This may be a little beyond the bounds of Anglican probability, but if the notion of reception is to be taken as anything more than empty rhetoric, it has to be conceded that the Rochester Commission could (as a result of further deep theological reflection) come to agree with the Vatican and the Phanar, that the Church has no authority to ordain women to the priesthood or the episcopate. Like the Lutheran Church of Latvia and the Presbyterian Church of Australia, it would then cease to ordain women to the priesthood. A second option would be to maintain the status quo, where women can be priests but not bishops. Such an option would leave the period of reception open. It would frankly admit that to ordain women to the episcopate rendered women's ordination practically irreversible. It would allow for the theological uncertainties which still remain. It would preclude, for the foreseeable future, a female Archbishop of Canterbury (thus avoiding further destabilization of the Anglican Communion at a time of increasing unrest). Some might hold that there are fundamental theological reasons why women may be priests but not bishops reasons related to the role of bishops as instruments of unity within and between dioceses, not only at home, but across the world; reasons connected to the doctrine of male headship; and reasons related to the history of the origins and development of the two orders, which might be held to render them separate and distinct. To continue status quo would not, of course, end dispute about women in orders. Rather, it would be to allow space for the continuance of debate. It could not in the nature of things satisfy those for whom the ordination of women in 1992 was a tragic misjudgement. Nor those for whom the ordination of women in all three orders is an ethical a priori objective. It would do little if anything to improve relations with Rome and Constantinople. It would retain a major stumbling block to Methodist reunion. A third option would be single clause legislation with no provision for dissent. This option might be thought to follow logically from the General Synod vote in 1975 that there are no fundamental objections of the ordination of women to the priesthood. It would be attractive to those who view the whole matter as one of justice and human rights and who are already impatient with the Ac t of Synod. It would have the advantage of relative legislative simplicity. It would maintain the integrity of the bishops office and the geographical integrity of existing Church of England dioceses. Such an option, of course, would be radically unacceptable to opponents. It would force them into conscientious law-breaking on a scale hitherto unknown in the Church of England. It would place in an invidious position those bishops (the PEVs) whom the Church of England has ordained and commissioned especially to pastor and care for opponents. A fourth option would be that women could be admitted to the episcopate, but precluded from the office of Archbishop. This would not be immediately attractive to those who see the issue as one of human rights; but, in the way in which they put up with the schedules to the 19 Measure, they might see it as the least of all possible ills. It would gain them substantially what they wanted, until the prohibition could be overturned. The option might, moreover, prove attractive to those Evangelicals for whom headship is an infinitely receding principle. They could (just) argue that headship in the CofE was still male! It would possibly help sustain the unit y of the Anglican Communion in the short term if other gender- and s ex-related issues did not fracture it sooner. It is hard to see how it would help those opposed to the consecration of women in theological grounds. Nor are glass ceilings attractive to WATCH and GRAS. A fifth option would be to appoint women as suffragans, but not diocesans. Such an approach would have all the advantages and disadvantages of the fourth option, with the additional disadvantage that the glass ceiling for w omen would be set far lower. For Catholic Anglicans it would raise serious questions about the episcopal credentials of a new kind of minister one who acted like a bishop, but who could not in principle be preferred as a diocesan. A sixth option would be to restructure episcopacy in such a way that it would become a team activity, with both men and women in each diocesan team. The notion would be that parishes could set up a special relationship with those members of the team who fitted their theology or predilections. This radical idea derives from the world of ecumenical encounter, where episcope increasingly replaces episcopacy as the preferred term. It has the difficulty that it reverses the traditional monarchical view of the episcopate, with its origins in the first century, which sees the bishop (singular) as a n icon of God the Father. It would also, almost inevitably, create problems of primacy within the team should the lead bishop be male or female? Those for whom girl-power is the primary aim would be unlikely to find this version of co-operative ministry very attractive. For those opposed it might well be seen simply as a rejection of episcopacy as the Church has received it. A seventh option would be to adapt and expand the present provision of extended episcopal oversight. This might be done in a number of ways. Each diocese might maintain at least one male bishop opposed to the ordination of women who would minister to dissentients. If it was objected that such a bishop would necessarily be in unimpaired communion with a female diocesan, it might be arranged that he reported instead to a male Archbishop. Various arrangements of this kind have been proposed in Australia. Thus far they have proved singularly unpopular with the proponents of women bishops and little more in favour with those opposed. Their sole effect has been to slow down the process toward female consecrations. The question for the Church of England would be the extent to which such bishops would usurp the juridical rights and sacramental authority of diocesans. To satisfy opponents they would need to do so to a considerable extent (at t he very least to have rights to select and ordain candidates for the ministry and to have their own ecumenical priorities). Proponents would probably denounce such arrangements as a tantamount to a new Province. An eighth option would be the creation of a new Province of the Anglican Communion, parallel to the existing provinces of Scotland, Ireland and Wales, with orders separate and distinct from those of the Provinces of Canterbury and York. Such a province would have all the independence and autonomy presently allowed to Anglican provinces, together with its own Provincial Synod or Governing Body. It would be created by Measure. Parishes would enter and leave it by Schedules to the Measure not unlike those in the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 19. Parishes which so voted would be withdrawn, both sacramentally and juridically from the Church of England dioceses of which they had previously been part. This option would have the advantage of continuing the process of reception to which the Church of England is committed. It would allow time (on the Gamaliel principle) to decide which opinion would prosper. Such an arrangement would almost certainly prove extremely unpopular with proponents. But on further reflection they might begin to see that it had distinct advantages for them. It would remove dissentients from the life of the Church of England, which could then operate without the various degrees of discrimination against women priests and bishops which the other options would involve. It would remove from the General Synod the irritant of a sizeable p arty intractably opposed to further innovation. It would allow the Church of England to pursue the Methodist reunion programme and other ecumenical projects with out let or hindrance. A New Province, moreover, would involve no ecclesiological innovation which the Anglican Communion has not already embraced in order to facilitate the ordination of women as priests and bishops. Such a list of options may seem long, and the choices hard. But getting it right is imperative if legislation is to be passed with the required majorities, and women bishops are to have a fair chance of establishing them selves without acrimony. The fate of recent proposals in Australia provides a cautionary tale. Opposition (from both sides) to the provisions for dissent, ensured that the primary legislation itself fell. They shot themselves in the foot, said David Chislett, reviewing the days proceedings in Brisbane 2001. One cannot help thinking that things might have been organized better. END

Area churches will use 'Passion' for outreach By Judith Person and Jon Ward THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published February 19, 2004 Area church leaders say the opening of filmmaker Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" next week could be the evangelical tool of a lifetime -- and they are poised to take advantage of it. McLean Bible Church, an 8,500-member Fairfax County congregation, bought more than 11,000 tickets for private screenings of the film next week. Other pastors have canceled or scaled back services, encouraging their flocks to see the R-rated movie instead. A Fairfax resident has plunked down $2,675 to rent out a theater for himself and his friends for a showing. This appears to be a nationwide phenomenon. "Pastors have awakened to the fact that this is a major cultural phenomenon that will present many opportunities to share the Gospel," said Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. Denny Harris, director of ministry operations at McLean Bible Church, said special showings of "Passion" for members of the church and their guests begin Monday, two days before the film opens in 2,000 theaters nationwide. Members are encouraged to bring non-Christian friends to one of the 40 screenings scheduled over four days in 10 area theaters. Mr. Harris called the event "the most significant outreach we have ever done." Church leaders hope to turn the cinematic experience into teaching moments by handing out books containing the Gospel of St. Luke to attendees at each show. One of the church's nine pastors also will be on hand after each screening to discuss the film and answer questions, and church officials also plan follow-up workshops. The film, criticized by some Jewish leaders for graphic depiction of the Crucifixion of Christ, which they say could spark an anti-Semitic backlash, has been staunchly defended by its creator, Academy Award-winning director Mr. Gibson. Mr. Gibson, a member of a conservative branch of the Roman Catholic Church, has said he wanted the film to be difficult to watch, to dramatize the magnitude of Christ's sacrifice. He also created enormous interest in Christian communities nationwide by crisscrossing the country in past weeks, screening the film for select audiences of religious leaders and film buffs. If the anticipation in the Washington area is any indication, "Passion" could be a blockbuster -- on several levels. Fairfax resident Dan O'Brien has invested $2,675 to rent out the Multiplex Theater in Centerville on opening night. He also sent 800 invitations for people to attend and bring friends. Those who join Mr. O'Brien's party also will hear a short message after the film. And the groundswell isn't happening just in big churches. In Maryland, 600-member Mount Airy Bible Church plans to rent out a theater. The Rev. Wallace Webster said his Howard County congregation wants to use the showings to introduce non-Christians to its faith. "This is not just for our people," he said. "We've read the story." He said he hopes that those interested in Christ after seeing the film will join services at his church. "If only one person comes to Christ from this, it is worth it," he said. One Arlington church is especially well-positioned to take advantage of the interest in the film. National Community Church, which meets in the Theaters at Ballston Common Mall, is replacing its Feb. 29 services with free viewings of "Passion." "We feel that we are perfectly positioned at a theater to take advantage of it," said the Rev. Mark Batterson, lead pastor at the church. Churchgoers will have their pick of two showings, 9:30 and 10:30 a.m. "I think this will bring people face to face with the Crucifixion," Mr. Batterson said. But he added that parents should realize that the movie is not for everyone. "This is violent and the truth is, the Crucifixion was violent," he said. Children under 13, he cautioned, probably should not see the film. Some area religious leaders are less enthusiastic about the two-hour, subtitled epic. "I think the film has potential to be positive and negative," said Rabbi Barry Rubin, who leads a messianic Jewish congregation in Ellicott City, Md. As a believer in Jesus, he said, he appreciates what Christ went through. But as a Jew, he is concerned about the film's potential for fueling anti-Semitism. In local Jewish synagogues, the movie is a hot topic. "They want to know what to think," said Rabbi Jack Moline of the Agudas Achim Congregation in Alexandria. "I've been telling them, 'Let's see the movie.' But there's been so much written and said about it that I want to at least frame the issues for them so we can look at this intelligently and not just viscerally." Mr. Moline, who has bought a ticket online to see the movie on opening night with a Christian friend, said he is not concerned that filmgoers might be inspired to violence by "Passion." "I really object to the way motives have been imputed to Gibson by Jews and non-Jews alike. This is a spiritual quest for Gibson, and I think it's been of ultimate importance for him," the rabbi said. "Clearly, this is his expression of his own conversionary experience. If you and I had $30 million, we might do something similar. ... He's an artist, and he used his art to express his own spiritual yearnings." In a sermon Sunday, the Rev. Mark Dever told his Capitol Hill Baptist Church congregation in Northeast that his church will not plan special outings to see the film. "If this movie is so emotionally engaging, I'm going to be very careful before I give it an entree into my mind about the most important thing in my life," he said from the pulpit. "Because I have a question of whether it's sin, I probably shouldn't go see it." Copyright © 2004 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved. END

Report/Analysis By The Rev. Samuel L. Edwards The traditionalist Forward in Faith, United Kingdom, has developed a strong case for it recent years, and now a third or "free" province for those who uphold historic holy order looks like a distinct possibility if the Church of England decides (as expected) to approve women bishops. Along with several other Anglican provinces, the CofE currently ordains women to the diaconate and priesthood. But when it began contemplating the consecration of women to the episcopate, traditionalists most notably FIF made clear that that change would render inadequate the current provisions for women priest opponents, which include a system of "flying" bishops (provincial episcopal visitors). With the advent of women bishops, they said, those theologically opposed to female ordination would be unable to remain even in impaired communion with the state Church as currently constituted. In response to such concerns, then-Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey appointed Rochester Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali to lead a working party to stud y the theological and ecclesiastical implications of such a change and to make recommendations on how to deal with it so as to maintain the CofE's institutional unity. In early January, following three years of study, the Rochester Commission issued its draft report. It does not recommend one solution, but instead gives a menu of possibilities ranging from making no provision for those who uphold the Church's traditional order, to the creation of a third province within t he CofE which would overlay the existing provinces of Canterbury and York, while having its own seminaries, parishes, dioceses, bishops and archbishop. NATURALLY, the separate province option is drawing mixed reviews from across the theological and ideological spectrum of the English Church. That revisionists should oppose it is not surprising: They worked long and hard to capture the institution and are loathe to see a significant part of it slipping from their grasp, particularly as there would be financial consequences to such an outcome. Most revisionists would echo the judgment of Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement Communications Director Martin Reynolds, who deemed the separate province "a schism in all but name....Would it have the right to change it structures or its legal framework? We believe it would lead to a real and lasting division." What is more surprising, on the surface at least, is the disfavor of the Church Society, one of the oldest and best known of the CofE Evangelical associations. The group opposes women in the episcopate, but also opposes the third province option as too radical. In the words of the Society's general secretary, David Phillips, it "looks like a halfway house to leaving altogether...We do not want to be marginalized in this separate organization." It is likely that the anxiety here stems from the fact that a very large percentage of the potential membership of this province would be drawn from the Catholic wing of the English Church, with whom the Church Society shares little apart from its convictions on moral issues. The proposal is not likely to garner much support from the bench of bishops. However, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has indicated he could live with a third province arrangement, and the bishops would likely choose it over the prospect of an actual mass exodus from the institution which would include many of the C of E's most articulate and effective clerics. (When it first ordained women priests in 1994, the CofE lost over 400 clergy, mostly to Rome. A recent survey suggested that up to a quarter of current CofE clergy remain implacably opposed to women becoming bishops.) There appears to be little enthusiasm for a re-tooling of the current system of flying bishops, since it is already disliked by the revisionist wing and, as noted, has already been declared by FIF to be unworkable as soon as women become bishops. It is likely, then, that if the separate province option is adopted, it will be done reluctantly and grudgingly, to prevent an outward and visible fissure within the institution. Sources included Anglican Communion News Service, The Guardian The Daily Telegraph (London) END

Archbishop tells commission that Church must draw limits By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent THE TIMES THE Archbishop of Canterbury has criticised fundamentalists and extremists on both sides of the Anglican Church for distorting the message of the Bible in the debate over homosexuality. Rowan Williams told members of the Lambeth Commission on homosexuality that a church faithful to the biblical revelation has to exercise discipline and draw boundaries if it is to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus and not its own concerns. Dr Williams said the problem was not simply about biblical faithful ness versus fashionable relativism. He said that there were pro found biblical principles involved and criticised those at both extremes of the de bate. The Archbishop was addressing the first meeting of the commission set up to avert rifts in the Anglican Communion over the ordination of homosexuals and the blessings of same-sex marriage. The commission was set up after an emergency meeting of the primates of the Anglican church to debate the crisis caused by the election of the openly gay father of two, Gene Robinson, as Bishop of New Hampshire. The commission, chaired by the Primate of Ireland, Dr Robin Eames, includes members from all sides of the debate. It aims to produce a report early next year. In a statement, commission members said they were saddened that tensions in the Church, exacerbated by the use of strident language, had continued to rise. The crisis has already prompted the establishment of a new network of conservative Anglicans in the Episcopal Church of the US. The network, which some sources claim intends to supersede the mainstream church, is supported by 13 primates from the Global South. Dr Williams warned the commission: You will need to be aware of the danger of those doctrines of the Church which, by isolating one element of the Bible's teaching, produce distortions a Church of the perfect or the perfectly unanimous on one side, a Church of general human inspiration or liberation on the other. The Archbishop, commissioning members for their task, advised them that the primates have repeatedly asserted that they wish to remain a Communion, rather than becoming a federation of churches. He continued: The difficult balance in our Communion as it presently exists is between the deep conviction that we should not look for a single executive authority and the equally deep anxiety about the way in which a single local decision can step beyond what the communion as whole is committed to, and create division, embarrassment and evangelistic difficulties in other churches. The consultation was opened with prayers by Dr Williams who charged the members to be diligent in discharging this weighty task and to work together for the good of our communion. He also urged them to present a model of cooperation in love and charity so that Anglicans worldwide could take heart. Mary Tanner, a leading theologian, compared the debate over homosexuality to that over women priests and said that agreement from the Lambeth Conference and the Anglican Consultative Council had been sought before women were first ordained. By comparison, the Episcopal Church of the US went ahead and ordained an openly gay bishop in spite of a resolution to the contrary from the 1998 Lambeth Conference and pleas from the Church's primates worldwide not to do so. Dr Tanner said that the crisis was one of authority and decision-ma king in communion. She gave warning that it was clear that the issue of homosexuality will not go away. She acknowledged that it will be hard to find a man for the future to unite the presently warring groups, some of whom hardly seem able to hear one another, or to want to hear one another. Dr Paul Avis, General Secretary of the Council for Christian Unity, said it was possible for Anglicans to passionately and bitterly disagree with one another without breaking communion. Dr Chris Sugden, director of the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies, gave warning that the Anglican Communion could be in danger of becoming an expression of the ethics of western liberal elites. He said: The Anglican Communion is at a crossroads. For some the current crisis has been precipitated by heterodox leadership in the communion in an economically powerful province. In the view of some, the US was over-influential in the central structure and bureaucracy of the Church, he said. Referring to declarations by several provinces that they are formally out of communion with the American church, Dr Sugden called for the US church to be suspended from the communion, with the goal of eventual reconciliation. Advocating the evangelical view, he said: We have to note that the liberal strand in the Anglican tradition is practically absent in the regions where the Church is growing. END

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

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

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

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

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

(1816-1900) The following Sermon was preached in England, in August, 1859. "Give yourself wholly to them" (1 Timothy 4:15) I need hardly to remind you, that the Greek expression which we have translated, "give yourself wholly to them," is somewhat remarkable. It would be more literally rendered, "Be in these things." We have nothing exactly corresponding to the expression in our language, and the words which our translators have chosen are perhaps as well calculated as any to convey the idea which was put by the Holy Spirit in Paul's mind. When the Apostle says, "Give yourself wholly to these things," he seems to look at the "things" of which he had been speaking in the preceding verses, beginning with the words "Set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity." We have here a target set before the ministers of the New Testament, at which we are all to aim, and of which we must all feel we fall short. Yet it is an old saying, "He that aims high is the most likely to strike high; and he that shoots at the moon will shoot further than the man who shoots at the bush." The Apostle appears to me to suggest that the minister must be a man of one thing: to use his own words, a "man of God." We hear of men of business, and men of pleasure, and men of science. The aim of the minister should be, to be "a man of God;" or to employ a phrase used in some heathen countries, to be "Jesus Christ's man." An expression is sometimes used with reference to the army, which we may apply to the soldiers of the Great Captain of our salvation. Some men are said to be "carpet knights." They are said to have entered the army for the sake of the uniform, and for no other cause. But there are many of whom public opinion says, such a man is "every inch a soldier." This should be the aim which we should place before us; we should seek to be "every inch the minister of Jesus Christ." We should aim to be the same men at all times, in all positions, and places; not on Sunday only, but on week days also; not merely in the pulpit, but everywhere--in our living rooms, and in the house of the poor man. There are those, of whom their congregations have said, that when they were in the pulpit they never wished them to come out, and when they went out they never wished them to go in. May God give us all grace to take that to heart! May we seek so to live, so to preach, so to work, so to give ourselves wholly to the business of our calling, that this bitter remark may never be made about us. Our profession is a very special one. Others have their seasons of relaxation, when they can completely lay aside their work. This can never be done by the faithful minister of Jesus Christ. Once put on, his office must never be put off. At home, abroad, relaxing, going to the sea side, he must always carry his business with him. A great lawyer could say of his official robes, "Lie there, Lord Chancellor." Such ought never to be the mind of the minister of Christ. There are some things which the high demand of this text suggests, as needful to be followed after and practiced. 1. First, it demands entire devotion to the great work to which we are ordained. When one was commanded by the Savior to follow Him, he replied, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father;" but then there came that solemn saying, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God." Still another said, "I will follow you, Lord; but first let me go back and say good-by to my family" and to him there came the remarkable sentence, "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God." "Do not greet anyone on the road," was Christ's charge to the seventy disciples. Surely these Scriptural expressions teach us, that in all our dealings in our ministry, we must have a high standard. We must strive to be men of one thing--that thing being the work of Jesus Christ. 2. Secondly, it demands a thorough separation from the things of the world. I hold it to be of the greatest importance to keep the ministerial office, so far as we can, distinct and separate from everything that is secular. I trust we shall hear every year of fewer and fewer ministers of the Gospel who are magistrates, and fewer and fewer ministers who take part in agricultural meetings, and win prizes for fat pigs, enormous bulls, and large crops of turnips. There is no apostolical succession in such occupations. Nor yet is this all. We should be separated from the pleasures of the world, as well as from its business. There are many innocent and indifferent amusements, for which the minister of Christ ought to have no time. He ought to say, "I have no time for these things. I am doing a great work, and I cannot come down." 3. Thirdly, it demands a jealous watchfulness over our own social conduct. We ought not to be always paying morning calls of courtesy and dining out, as others do. It will not do to say, that our Lord went to a marriage feast, and sat at supper in the Pharisee's house, and therefore we may do the same. I only reply, Let us go in His spirit, with His faithfulness and boldness, to say a word in season, and to give the conversation a profitable turn, and then we may go with safety. Unless we do this, we should be careful where we go, with whom we sit down, and where we spend our evenings. There was a quaint saying of John Wesley to his ministers, which Cecil quotes, as containing the germ of much truth. "Don't aim at being thought gentlemen; you have no more to do with being gentlemen than with being masters at dancing." Our aim should be not to be regarded as agreeable persons at the dinner table, but to be known everywhere as faithful, consistent ministers of Jesus Christ. 4. Fourthly, it demands a diligent redemption of time. We should give attention to reading, every day that we live. We should strive to bring all our reading to bear on our work. We ought to keep our eyes open continually, and be ever picking up ideas for our sermons--as we travel by the way, as we sit by the fireside, as we are standing on the platform at the railway station. We should be keeping in our mind's eye our Master's business--observing, noting, looking out, gathering up something that will throw fresh light on our work, and enable us to put the truth in a more striking way. He that looks out for something to learn will always be able to learn something. Having suggested these things, I will next proceed to ask, What will be the consequence of our giving ourselves wholly to these things? Remember, we shall not receive the praise of men. We shall be thought extreme, and ascetic, and righteous. Those who want to serve God and serve money at the same time, will think our standard too high, our practice too stringent. They will say, that we are going too far and too fast for a world such as that in which we live. May we never care what men say of us, so long as we walk in the light of God's Word! May we strive and pray to be wholly independent of, and indifferent to man's opinion, so long as we please God! May we remember the woe pronounced by our Master, when He said, "Woe to you when all men speak well of you," and the words of Paul, "If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ." But though "giving ourselves wholly to these things" we shall not win the praise of men, we shall attain the far more important end of usefulness to souls. I completely acknowledge the doctrine of the sovereignty of God in the salvation of sinners. I acknowledge that those who preach best, and live nearest to God, have not always been honored in their lives to the saving of many souls. But still, the man who is most entirely and wholly Jesus Christ's man--a man of one thing, who lives Sunday and weekday, everywhere, at home and abroad, as a man whose single endeavor is to give himself to the work of Jesus Christ--this is the man, this is the minister, who will generally, in the long run, do the most good. The case of Mr. Simeon will apply here. You all know how he was persecuted when he began to testify for Christ, in Cambridge. You know how many there were who would not speak to him, how the finger of scorn was pointed at him continually. But we know how he went on persevering in the work, and how, when he died, all Cambridge came forth to give him honor, and how heads of houses, and fellows of colleges, and men who had scoffed at him while he lived, honored him at his death. They testified, that the life he had lived had had its effect, and that they had seen and known that God was with him. I once saw in Dundee one who had known much of that godly man, Robert Murray McCheyne. She told me that those who read his letters and sermons had a very faint idea of what he was. She said to me, "If you have read all his works, you just know nothing at all about him. You must have seen the man, and heard him, and known him, and have been in company with him, to know what a man of God he was." Furthermore, giving ourselves wholly to these things will bring happiness and peace to our consciences. I speak now among friends, and not among worldly people, where I should need to fence and guard and explain what I mean. I shall not be suspected of holding justification by works by those I see before me. I speak of such a clear conscience as the Apostle refers to: We trust we have a "clear conscience" (Hebrews 13:18). To have this clear conscience is clearly bound up with high aims, high motives, a high standard of ministerial life, and practice. I am quite sure, that the more we give ourselves wholly to the work of the ministry, the more inward happiness, the greater sense of the light of God's countenance, are we likely to enjoy. The subject is a deeply humbling one. Who does not feel, "My weakness, my weakness! my unprofitableness! How far short I come of this high standard?" What reason have we, having received mercy, not to faint! What reason have we, having been spared by God's great patience, to abound in the work of the Lord, and to give ourselves wholly to our business! The great secret is, to be always looking to Jesus, and living a life of close communion with Him. At Cambridge, the other day, I saw a picture of Henry Martyn, bequeathed by Mr. Simeon to the public library. A friend informed me that that picture used to hang in Mr. Simeon's room, and that when he was disposed to trifle in the work of the ministry, he used to stand before it and say, "It seems to say to me, Charles Simeon, don't trifle, don't trifle; Charles Simeon, remember whose you are, and whom you serve." And then the worthy man, in his own strange way, would bow respectfully, and say, "I will not trifle, I will not trifle; I will not forget." May we, in conclusion, look to a far higher pattern than any man--Martyn, McCheyne, or any other. May we look to the Great Chief Shepherd, the great pattern, in whose steps we are to walk! May we abide in Him, and never trifle! May we hold on our way, looking to Jesus, keeping clear of the world, its pleasures, and its follies--caring nothing for the world's frowns, and not much moved by the world's smiles--looking forward to that day when the Great Shepherd shall give to all who have done His work, and preached His Gospel, a crown of glory that does not fade away! The more we have the mind of Christ, the more we shall understand what it is to "give ourselves wholly to these things." END

COMMENTARY   By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org October 28, 2025   ACNA Archbishop Steve Wood, 62, has come out fighting. Following fulsome disclosure of his alleged misdeeds in the Washington Post, that includes sexual misconduct, plagiarism, abuse of power and more, the staunchly orthodox leader said in a letter to his parish, that “I unequivocally, categorically, and emphatically deny in their entirety the accusations made against me by Ms. Claire Buxton, who was employed at St. Andrew’s,” Wood said in an Oct. 24 letter to St. Andrew’s congregants.   Them’s fightin’ words.   In June 2024, two months after Buxton alleged that Wood tried to kiss her, the College of Bishops met in conclave and elected him as the Anglican Church in North America’s third archbishop.   Archbishop Wood is either calling her bluff, has giant sized cajónes, or genuinely believes he is innocent and can explain it away to his and everyone’s satisfaction. We shall see.   A formal presentment accuses Wood of violating his ordination vows, committing sexual immorality, and bringing "scandal and offense" upon his office. Additionally, Wood faces separate complaints from priests alleging that he plagiarized sermons and bullied church staff members in the years preceding his election as archbishop. The presentment accuses Wood of violating his ordination vows, committing sexual immorality and bringing “scandal and offense” upon his office.   That’s a lot to explain away. Even if he is cleared of the ‘he said/she said’ Buxton charges, there are other charges to explain or explain away.   Anglican Blogger David Roseberry had this to say: if an archbishop or any pastor has acted in a way that crosses moral or physical boundaries with another person, he should step down. Period. The Church must be a place of integrity and safety. He is right.   Accountability is the word for this moment. Wood must be held to the highest standard. He is the leader of a church, albeit small, but he must be fully accountable not just to his House of Bishops but to his clergy and laity.   There are some serious questions that must be asked and answered which looked at in the cold light of day raise issues of how he got so far into the process of being elected when so much about his past that should have given the House of Bishops pause.   According to the Post story a lot was known about Wood before he got the nod to be the next archbishop but swept under the table.   The issue of Ms. Buxton’s charges of putting his hand against the back of her head and trying to kiss her occurred two months before he was elected to the helm, according to the presentment. Why was this not a red flag to the bishops? The Post, also accused Wood of giving her thousands of dollars in unexpected payments from church coffers before the alleged advance. Why was this not challenged at the time?   Wood also faced complaints from priests that he plagiarized sermons and bullied and disparaged church staffers in the years before he became archbishop. Why were these charges not raised by the examining bishops?   In September 2019, seven years into his tenure running both St. Andrew’s and the Diocese of the Carolinas, Wood confronted pushback. In a letter to Wood, which was private until now, the Rev. Hamilton Smith, the rector of St. Thomas’ Church in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, wrote: “I do not feel you have moral authority required to hold the office of Bishop.”   Wood preached sermons he did not write and tried to pass them off as his own work, Smith alleged. During staff meetings, Wood publicly shamed and cursed at colleagues, the letter said. Smith also questioned a $60,000 truck provided by the diocese for Wood’s church visits, noting that Wood mentioned the vehicle to him only in the context of Wood’s hunting trips.   “Is a $60,000 truck the most cost-efficient vehicle to accomplish this task?” Smith asked in the letter. “There are clergy in the Diocese that do not have any or have poor health insurance or retirement plans. … You have told me numerous times that you are a sinner who had ‘a really bad year’/‘a horrible season’ in which you did things you now regret. While I rejoice in this self-understanding, grace and forgiveness have limits.”   The next day, Wood offered a short reply, according to correspondence Smith shared with The Post. But Smith could not overcome his frustrations with Wood, and soon led his parishioners to leave Wood’s diocese. “This was the most difficult decision of my ministry,” Smith told his church at the time.   Did the bishops ask any questions about Wood’s behavior?   Wood has declined to answer specific questions about the accusations in the presentment.   In South Carolina, Wood’s elevation rattled a group of his former colleagues, most of them now priests. For years, they said in interviews, they privately shared stories that Wood demeaned them or others when they worked at St. Andrew’s. But it was Claire Buxton’s fresh accusations that spurred them to action. By early 2025, the group drafted formal church charges based on six affidavits that accuse Wood of abusive behavior. In September, the group quietly secured the support of at least 10 Anglican priests and parishioners to sign and swear to the presentment, a prerequisite for its submission.   Why was this not raised by the presenting bishops?  Did they ask any questions? Did they challenge any of this? Did they confront Wood?   The day after the presentment was submitted, the denomination threw up what its authors regard as a roadblock: The denomination asked that all 11 endorsers re-sign the presentment under a statement attesting to the allegations’ truth “under penalties of perjury.” In an email to the lead signatory, a denomination official said this was “common practice” noting that prior presentments have been resubmitted for the same reason.   The Rev. Rob Sturdy, an Anglican priest who wrote one of the presentment’s affidavits, said in an interview that his group will not comply. He said they followed the denomination’s canons, which do not contain a “perjury” standard.   An affidavit alleges, among other things, that Wood frequently bragged about a woman from another church whom he said “he could have … anytime he wanted.”   This was not a red flag?   One wonders who was really pulling the strings that they wanted Wood so badly to be the next archbishop that other names were barely considered. There were other names in the ring including Bishop Julian Dobbs of the Anglican Diocese of the Living Word and Bishop Clark Lowenfield, of the Anglican Diocese of The Western Gulf Coast who had his eye on the job. Wood beat them all. One thing this reporter learned is that no one wanted someone as reformed as the former Archbishop Foley Beach. The mood was and is to push the ACNA in a more catholic direction, the position of the former archbishop of ACNA Robert Duncan. The issue of the ordination of women however, remains a sticking point to whatever the future holds for the ACNA. If the presentment triggers an ecclesiastical trial, Wood could be defrocked and forced to step down.   An Anglican priest, the Rev Dr. Ronald Moore had this to say; The test of a church is how the ACNA handles its own judgment will define its future. Will this Church handle its own judgment better than the institutions it left behind, he asks? That clearly remains to be seen.   END

Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage (SSM) Top 10 Social Scientific Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage (SSM). A large and growing body of social scientific evidence indicates that the intact, married family is best for children. In particular, see work by David Popenoe, Linda Waite, Maggie Gallagher, Sara McLanahan, David Blankenhorn, Paul Amato, and Alan Booth. This statement from Sara McLahanan, a sociologist at Princeton University, is representative: "If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children's basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent ideal. Such a design, in theory, would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money of two adults, it also would provide a system of checks and balances that promoted quality parenting. The fact that both parents have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child, and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child." McLanahan and family scholars like her are not arguing that parents in other family forms are necessarily bad. But she is making the point, backed up by countless studies, that the ideal place for children to grow up—on average—is in a married, intact family where children have access to a mother and a father who share a biological tie (and, hence, a deep sense of kinship) to them. This empirical reality lends support to the idea that our society should do more to reinforce the norm that every child should have the opportunity to grow up in an intact, married family and, failing that, an adoptive family headed by a married couple that offers a child the benefit of a mother and a father (see below). Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur. 1994. Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps. Harvard University Press. p. 38. 1. CHILDREN HUNGER FOR THEIR BIOLOGICAL PARENTS SS couples using IVF or surrogate mothers deliberately create a class of children who will live apart from their mother or father. Yale Child Study Center psychiatrist Kyle Pruett reports that children of IVF often ask their single or lesbian mothers about their fathers, asking their mothers questions like the following: "Mommy, what did you do with my daddy?" "Can I write him a letter?" "Has he ever seen me?" "Didn't you like him? Didn't he like me?" Elizabeth Marquardt reports that children of divorce often report similar feelings about their non-custodial parent, usually the father. The work of these scholars suggest that children hunger for their biological parents and that we should not deliberately create a class of children, through IVF or surrogacy, who live apart from their mother or father. (Adoption is a different matter insofar as adoptive children have already come into the world and need to live apart from their biological parents, usually because they are unable to care for them or because they are no longer living.) Kyle Pruett. 2000. Fatherneed. Broadway. p. 204. Elizabeth Marquardt. 2004. The Moral and Spiritual Lives of Children of Divorce. Forthcoming. 2. CHILDREN NEED FATHERS If SSM becomes common, the majority of SS couples with children would probably be lesbians. This means that we would have yet more children being raised apart from fathers. Among other things, we know that fathers excel in reducing antisocial behavior/delinquency in boys and sexual activity in girls. What is fascinating is that fathers exercise a unique social and biological influence on their children. For instance, a recent study of father absence on girls found that girls who grew up apart from their biological father were much more likely to experience early puberty and a teen pregnancy than girls who spent their entire childhood in an intact family. This study, along with David Popenoe's work, suggests that a father's pheromones influence the biological development of his daughter, that a strong marriage provides a model for girls of what to look for in a man, and gives them the confidence to resist the sexual entreaties of their boyfriends. Ellis, Bruce J., Bates, John E., Dodge, Kenneth A., Fergusson, David M., Horwood, L. John, Pettit, Gregory S., & Woodward, Lianne. Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy?. Child Development, 74, 801-821. David Popenoe. 1996. Life Without Father. Harvard. 3. CHILDREN NEED MOTHERS Although gay men are less likely to have children than lesbians, there will be and are gay men raising children. There will be even more if SSM is legalized. These households deny children a mother. Among other things, mothers excel in providing children with emotional security and in reading the physical and emotional cues of infants. Obviously, they also give their daughters unique counsel as they confront the physical, emotional, and social challenges associated with puberty and adolescence. Stanford psychologist Eleanor Maccoby summarizes much of this literature in her book The Two Sexes. See also Steven Rhoads' book, which comes out in the fall. Eleanor Maccoby. 1998. The Two Sexes. Harvard. Steven Rhoads. 2004. Taking Sex Differences Seriously. Encounter. 4. INADEQUATE EVIDENCE ON SS COUPLE PARENTING A number of leading professional associations have asserted that there are "no effects" of SS couple parenting on children. But the research in this area is quite preliminary; most of the studies are done by advocates and most suffer from serious methodological problems. Sociologist Steven Nock of the University of Virginia, who is agnostic on SSM, offered this review of the literature on gay parenting as an expert witness for a Canadian Court considering SSM: "Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that 1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and 2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research." This is not exactly the kind of social scientific evidence you would want to launch a major family experiment. *Steven Nock. 2001. Affidavit to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice regarding Hedy Halpern et al. University of Virginia Sociology Department. 5. CHILDREN RAISED IN SS HOMES EXPERIENCE GENDER AND SEXUAL DISORDERS Although the evidence on child outcomes is sketchy (see above), what evidence is available does raise two red flags. Specifically, a number of studies suggest children raised in lesbian homes are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders. Judith Stacey—an advocate for SSM and a sociologist—reviewed the literature on child outcomes and found the following: "lesbian parenting may free daughters and sons from a broad but uneven range of traditional gender prescriptions." Her conclusion here is based on studies that show that sons of lesbians are less masculine and that daughters of lesbians are more masculine. She also found that a "significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers…reported having a homoerotic relationship." Stacey also observes that children of lesbians are more likely to report homoerotic attractions. Her review must be view judiciously, given the methodological flaws detailed by Professor Nock in the literature as a whole. Nevertheless, these studies give some credence to conservative concerns about the effects of SS couple parenting. *Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz. 2001. "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" American Sociological Review 66: 159-183. See especially pp. 168-171. 6. VIVE LA DIFFERENCE If SSM is institutionalized, our society would take yet another step down the road of de-gendering marriage. There would me more use of gender-neutral language like "partners" and—more importantly—more social/cultural pressures to neuter our thinking and our behaviors in marriage. But marriages typically thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical ways and are attentive to the gendered needs and aspirations of their husband or wife. For instance, women are happier when their husband earns the lion's share of the household income. Likewise, couples are less likely to divorce when the wife concentrates on childrearing and the husband concentrates on breadwinning, as University of Virginia Psychologist Mavis Hetherington admits. E. Mavis Hetherington & John Kelly. 2002. For Better of For Worse. Norton. p. 31. Steven Rhoads. 2004. Taking Sex Differences Seriously. Encounter. 7. SEXUAL FIDELITY One of the biggest threats that SSM poses to marriage is that it would probably undercut the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage. In the first edition of his book in defense of marriage, Virtually Normal, Andrew Sullivan wrote: "There is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." This line of thinking, of course, were it incorporated into marriage and telegraphed to the public in sitcoms, magazines, and other mass media, would do enormous harm to the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage. One recent study of civil unions and marriages in Vermont suggests this is a very real concern. More than 79 percent of heterosexual married men and women, along with lesbians in civil unions, reported that they strongly valued sexual fidelity. Only about 50 percent of gay men in civil unions valued sexual fidelity. Esther Rothblum and Sondra Solomon. 2003. Civil Unions in the State of Vermont: A Report on the First Year. University of Vermont Department of Psychology. David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison. 1984. The Male Couple. Prentice Hall. p. 252. 8. MARRIAGE, PROCREATION, AND THE FERTILITY IMPLOSION Traditionally, marriage and procreation have been tightly connected to one another. Indeed, from a sociological perspective, the primary purpose that marriage serves is to secure a mother and father for each child who is born into a society. Now, however, many Westerners see marriage in primarily emotional terms. Among other things, the danger with this mentality is that it fosters an anti-natalist mindset that fuels population decline, which in turn puts tremendous social, political, and economic strains on the larger society. SSM would only further undercut the procreative norm long associated with marriage insofar as it establishes that there is no necessary link between procreation and marriage. This was spelled out in the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts, where the majority opinion dismissed the procreative meaning of marriage. It is no accident that the countries that have legalized or are considering legalizing SSM have some of the lowest fertility rates in the world. For instance, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Canada have birthrates that hover around 1.6 children per woman—well below the replacement fertility rate of 2.1. For national fertility rates, see: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html For the growing disconnect between marriage and procreation, see http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/SOOU2003.pdf 9. FOR THE SAKE OF THE CHILDREN The divorce and sexual revolutions of the last four decades has seriously undercut the norm that couples should get and stay married if they intend to have children, are expecting a child, or already have children. Political scientist James Q. Wilson reports that the introduction of no-fault divorce further destabilized marriage by weakening the legal and cultural meaning of the marriage contract. George Akerlof, a Nobel laureate and an economist, found that the widespread availability of contraception and abortion in the 1960s and 1970s, and the sexual revolution they enabled, made it easier for men to abandon women they got pregnant, since they could always blame their girlfriends for not using contraception or procuring an abortion. It is plausible to suspect that SSM would have similar consequences for marriage, that is, it would further destabilize the norm that adults should sacrifice to get and stay married for the sake of their children. Why? SSM would institutionalize the idea that children do not need both their mother and their father. This would be particularly important for men, who are more likely to abandon their children. SSM would make it even easier than it already is for men to rationalize their abandonment of their children. After all, they could tell themselves, our society, which affirms lesbian couples raising children, believes that children do not need a father. So, they might tell themselves, I do not need to marry or stay married to the mother of my children. James Q. Wilson. 2002. The Marriage Problem. Basic. pp. 175-177. George A. Akerlof, Janet L. Yellen, and Michael L. Katz. 1996. "An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the United States." Quarterly Journal of Economics CXI: 277-317. 10. WOMEN & MARRIAGE DOMESTICATE MEN Men who are married earn more, work harder, drink less, live longer, spend more time attending religious services, and are more sexually faithful. They also see their testosterone levels drop, especially when they have children in the home. If the distinctive sexual patterns of "committed" gay couples are any indication (see above), it is unlikely that SSM would domesticate men in the way that heterosexual marriage does. It is also extremely unlikely that the biological effects of heterosexual marriage on men would also be found in SSM. Thus, gay activists like Andrew Sullivan who argue that gay marriage will domesticate gay men are—in all likelihood—clinging to a foolish hope. This foolish hope does not justify yet another effort to meddle with marriage. Steve Nock. 1998. Marriage in Men's Lives. Oxford. Institute for American Values. 2003. Hardwired to Connect. p. 17. http://www.winst.org/toptenlists.htm