By Robert Hart Critics of Gene Robinson's consecration have focused almost exclusively on his homosexuality—missing the deeper scandal. "They ought to have been furious that he was not defrocked simply for leaving his family." Robinson divorced his wife and abandoned his children—yet remained in active ministry. Only later did he enter a same-sex relationship. Hart argues: Homosexuality is just one part of a broader failure—the collapse of chastity and holy matrimony. By reacting only to the "gay" label, conservatives have played into the hands of activists framing this as a civil rights issue. "The homosexualists are attempting to sell their status as a matter of equality and rights. It helps their cause if opponents react out of prejudice, not principle." He contrasts today's Episcopalians with Anglicans in 1936—when King Edward VIII abdicated rather than violate Church teaching on marriage to a divorced woman. "The conservative Episcopalians of today do not measure up." Their silence on divorced and remarried bishops, priests who left their families, and the devaluation of fatherhood has paved the way for Robinson's elevation. True opposition must be consistent: Oppose Robinson not because he's gay, but because he is unrepentant in public sin—whether heterosexual or homosexual. Demand the resignation of all clergy living in notorious immorality. "Mr. Robinson ought to have been defrocked—not for his orientation, but for being an unrepentant, notorious sinner." "Otherwise, how can the seriousness of sin and potential damnation be taken seriously?" The alternative is Pharisaism: "I thank thee, God, I am not as other men…" (Luke 18:11)

By the Rev. Fleming Rutledge "In essentials, unity. In nonessentials, diversity. In all things, charity" This address—delivered December 2003—was shaped by a specific context: a parish where the majority held traditional views on sexuality, while a smaller, marginalized group favored openness to rethinking the issue. Some had already left; others wondered if they still belonged. Rutledge's aim was not to persuade one side or the other—but to enlarge the space for disagreement and help the congregation stay together amid deep pain. "My heart's desire and prayer is that this blessed congregation would stay together and bear witness by modeling endurance in struggle." She invokes St. Paul's call in Philippians 2:5: "Have this mind among yourselves, which you have in Christ Jesus…" This is, she says, "one of those times when we are going to have to wrestle through to a new understanding of the mind of Christ." We may arrive at the same conclusions the Church has long held—but we cannot simply cite precedent. "God is requiring us to think it through all over again." THE DANGER OF SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS—ON BOTH SIDES Rutledge warns: The majority must avoid charging ahead without regard for the minority's pain. The minority must resist the temptation to see themselves as morally superior—more "loving," more "inclusive." "It takes a lot of work on both sides to avoid these traps." Key questions she invites the congregation to ask: Can you ask, "Why does this issue bother you so much?"—and truly listen? Can you grant the other person holds their position with integrity? Are you willing to offer something of yourself to someone who has deeply offended you? When you overstep, can you apologize and ask forgiveness? "That is the way of the Cross." LINCOLN'S WISDOM FOR A DIVIDED CHURCH Quoting Abraham Lincoln's reflections on the Civil War—and divine judgment—Rutledge suggests: "God's purpose is probably something different from the purpose of either party." "It is not a good idea to act as though one side possesses absolute, unmitigated truth." She reminds the congregation that Christ's command "Do not judge" (Matt. 7:1) flows from His taking judgment upon Himself on the Cross—even as He also spoke words of sobering judgment. A WORD TO HETEROSEXUAL CHRISTIANS "Homosexual people deserve to be seen, understood, and taken seriously—not patronized, categorized, or spoken about in the third person." "We must bear the pain of this time in our own persons—not push it away as someone else's problem." Citing Philip Gourevitch's insight—"Power largely consists in the ability to make others inhabit your story of their reality"—she calls the Church to practice the way of the Cross: "Allowing others to tell their story in their own words." A WORD TO GAY CHRISTIANS AND ALLIES She addresses not only openly gay people—but also parents, friends, and those wrestling with hidden struggles: "I do not speak to you as a problem. I do not speak about you as if you were not present." "My sense of our Lord is that He always spoke to, not about." THEOLOGICAL GROUNDING—NOT SENTIMENT Rutledge insists the debate must be theological, not merely anthropological (i.e., based on experience or politics): "Much of the argument in the Episcopal Church is only vaguely theological." She critiques sentimentality on both sides: Romanticizing gay people as "innocent victims" Assuming women's ordination would automatically make the Church "better" A commonly used phrase—"We have an inclusive gospel"—is incomplete unless we ask: "On what basis is it inclusive? What is the role of judgment, correction, and purgation?" BIBLICAL FOUNDATIONS She notes how Scripture roots human sexuality in creation order: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." (Gen. 2:24) "From the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.'" (Mark 10:6) These are not cultural footnotes—they are theological touchstones, reaffirmed by Jesus Himself. Leviticus, she acknowledges, is often ridiculed—but read whole, it reveals a community called to holiness: justice, honesty, care for the poor. Its vision is earthy, material, and body-affirming—not gnostic or disembodied. Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 6 reinforces this: "Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit… You are not your own; you were bought with a price." And to the claim "Jesus never said anything about homosexuality", Rutledge replies: "This is disingenuous at best. Jesus condemned porneia—a term encompassing all illicit sexual behavior as defined in the Old Testament." PERSONAL CONVICTIONS—BASED ON DECADES OF REFLECTION Orientation is not chosen. Rutledge rejects the idea of a "gay gene" but affirms that male homosexuality often stems from early developmental disruption—particularly in the father-son bond. Most gay men, she believes, would not choose this path if given the option. Change is unlikely. She cites high-profile "reparative therapy" cases that ultimately failed over time. The Bible didn't know "orientation." She finds this argument somewhat persuasive—but provisional. Homosexuality is not a "normal variant." Anatomically, reproductively, and theologically, it falls outside the created order. But "disordered" does not mean "unlovable." Divorce, for instance, is also disordered—and yet we bless second marriages. "I would suggest the word adaptation—not perversion, not normality, but an adaptive response to complex circumstances." Thus, she supports blessings for faithful, monogamous same-sex couples—but not marriage, which sacramentally images Christ and the Church. "Gay unions should be conducted like second marriages: quiet, restrained, dignified." And she cautions traditionalists: "The mainline churches have been largely voiceless on premarital sex and divorce. Evangelicals show higher divorce rates than the national average. We cannot be toplofty about our 'Biblical standards.'" ON SCHISM "I do not believe there is such a thing as a pure church." "If we 'reconfigure' to exclude gay people, we lose the very image of God's mercy." A split in the Episcopal Church may warn other denominations—but it could also trigger more fractures (e.g., among Presbyterians). The cost, she warns, may be too high.

Approximately 130 people attended the 2004 Episcopal Urban Caucus meeting—including the Rt. Rev. Robert Ihloff of Maryland; several staff members from the Episcopal Church Center, such as the Rt. Rev. Arthur Williams and Maureen Shea, director of the Washington Office; and activists like the Rev. Susan Russell (Claiming the Blessing) and the Rev. Michael Hopkins (former president of Integrity USA). Once again, the Caucus's rhetoric on the war on terrorism—and especially the war in Iraq—was notably extreme. Among the registration materials was a February 9, 2004 article from the far-left magazine The Nation, titled "The New American Century" by Arundhati Roy. Roy's piece frames U.S. foreign policy as "neo-imperialist," driven by "the New Racism" and corporate greed. One particularly inflammatory passage—endorsed by the Rev. Canon Ed Rodman, Canon Missioner for the Diocese of Massachusetts and a Caucus coordinator—states: "To applaud the U.S. Army's capture of Saddam Hussein, and therefore in retrospect to justify its invasion and occupation of Iraq, is like deifying Jack the Ripper for disemboweling the Boston Strangler." Roy further compares Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to Thanksgiving's "pardoned turkey"—a rhetorical slight suggesting token inclusion amid systemic oppression: "A few carefully bred turkeys—the local elites of various countries, a community of wealthy immigrants, investment bankers, the occasional Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice…are given absolution…The remaining millions lose their jobs, are evicted from their homes, have their water and electricity cut, and die of AIDS." ECHOES AT THE EPISCOPAL PEACE FELLOWSHIP LUNCHEON Much of this critique resurfaced at the Episcopal Peace Fellowship luncheon—a longstanding side event to the Urban Caucus. The keynote speaker was Elizabeth McAlister, a longtime peace activist with over four years in prison for acts of civil disobedience (including trespass on U.S. military bases to protest nuclear weapons). Her speech painted a sweeping indictment of U.S. policy abroad: war, environmental destruction, and economic exploitation. She claimed the Iraq War stemmed from racism and greed, and asserted that U.S. actions—both military and through UN sanctions—had caused 1.5 to 2 million deaths in Iraq. She also delivered dire environmental warnings: "Degradation of the earth is nearly complete… We control the snows and rains and weather." Notably absent from her remarks was any acknowledgment of the 9/11 attacks—or the broader war on terrorism—as context for the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns. In fact, observers noted her speech closely resembled one she gave at a 2000 conference—two years before 9/11. KEYNOTE ADDRESS: RODMAN'S CALL TO ACTION In his keynote, Canon Ed Rodman voiced concern about the Caucus's future, urging attendees to identify new causes to pursue—or risk irrelevance: "If we don't continue to move forward… we might as well declare victory and shut ourselves down." He proposed globalization and American neo-imperialism as next-stage issues. His closing declaration—"Corrupt systems cannot be reformed. They must be replaced"—was stark, though he offered no specific alternative economic model. Small-group discussions revealed ambivalence: many participants acknowledged globalization's dual nature but hesitated to defend it. Some leaned toward economic protectionism and an "American-jobs-first" stance. HOSTILITY TOWARD ORTHODOX ANGLICANS Anger toward theologically orthodox Anglicans—particularly those opposing the consecration of Gene Robinson, the first openly gay, non-celibate bishop in the Episcopal Church—was palpable. Rodman articulated the prevailing sentiment: "It was right for Presiding Bishop Griswold to acknowledge the pain caused by General Convention—but I have a hard time recognizing that pain because it is self-inflicted by their misogyny and homophobia." He added he would "like to encourage a few people to move on from the church." Others were less restrained: one attendee, learning of a researcher's affiliation with the Institute on Religion and Democracy, responded with a vulgarity and the epithet "f***ing homophobe." A recurring refrain among attendees was: "They lost. They need to either leave or get over it." Yet, rather than engage the crisis head-on, most of the meeting followed the national church's lead: pretending the division did not exist. —Erik Nelson, Research Associate, Episcopal Action / Institute on Religion and Democracy

REFLECTIONS ON THE SAME SEX BLESSING CONTROVERSY by Robin Guinness A work in progress. 2nd March 2004 Commemoration Day of John Wesley, Preacher. 1791. Charles Wesley, Poet 1788 THE NATURE OF THE CONTROVERSY At heart the same sex blessing controversy is a theological issue, not an issue of life-style. It is an issue of belief before it is an issue of behaviour. The doctrine at issue is the doctrine of creation. In particular what is at issue is who and what God has created man / woman to be. In Genesis 1:26 God said "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." In Genesis 1:27 scripture states "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply." Man / Woman has been created in the image and likeness of God the creator. We bear the image of God in a variety of ways, as spiritual beings, rational beings, moral beings, aesthetic beings, etc. However the only elaboration in the creation narrative as to what "image of God" means is in terms of our sexuality. "Male and female created he them." And in terms of the expression of that sexuality "Be fruitful and multiply" There are two things about the nature of God that are suggested in the creation narrative. The first is that he creates, and the second is that within his being there is unity and diversity. "Let us make man in our image and after our likeness" "Image" and "likeness" are in the singular, "us" and "our" are in the plural. In the fullness of the Biblical revelation the clue that we are given here in the creation narrative is able to be seen as a reference to God's triune nature. The triune nature speaks of the unity and diversity, the complementarity, correspondence and completeness within the three persons of the Trinity. This understanding of two aspects of the nature of God as revealed in the creation narrative becomes the foundation for our understanding of human sexuality as created in the image of God. The fulfillment of our sexuality is in terms of the complementarity between male and female. This is reiterated in the command "Be fruitful and multiply" This command also confirms that God has made man / woman to be like him in terms of his ability to create. Male and Female together reflect the image of God. It is in the complementarity of male and female that God is reflected. Dr Glen Taylor calls this "A participation in the relationality of the triune God" Taylor also notes the essential connection between "the economies of difference and mutual dependence" and the blessing: heterosexuality is "the vehicle through which the blessing will come." The creation narrative thus gives us absolutely no foundation whatsoever to formulate any understanding of the fulfillment of our sexuality in terms of same sex unions. Such a suggestion runs directly counter to the complementarity and the the blessing of creativity at the heart of our sexual identity which is in the likeness of our triune creator God.. Genesis 2 builds on the foundation laid in Genesis 1. Genesis 2 introduces the institution of marriage, and thereby endorses the understanding of human sexuality quarried from Genesis 1.. John Stott has a very clear exposition of Genesis 2 in his book, "Same Sex Partnerships ? A Christian Perspective" Stott draws attention to three realities identified in Genesis 2: first the human need for companionship, secondly the divine provision to meet that need, and thirdly the resulting institution of marriage. Stott draws attention to the fact that Jesus endorsed the Old Testament definition of marriage (Matthew 19:6) By way of summary Stott identifies three truths that Jesus affirmed. 1) Heterosexual gender is a divine creation. 2) Heterosexual marriage is a divine institution 3) Heterosexual fidelity is the divine intention. In these two chapters of Genesis we have set forth with absolute clarity the Magna Charta of human sexuality. There is no suggestion that a man or a woman's ontological need for "the other"can in fact be fulfilled by sexual intimacy or union with another of his or her kind. Not only is such a suggestion never entertained, it is categorically ruled out by virtue of our created nature as beings made in the image of God. In the mystery of the Holy Trinity we do not have two fathers and a son, or two sons and a Holy Spirit, we have Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and therein lies the DNA of human sexuality. Into this Imago Dei framework fit all other Biblical references to human sexuality, and without it they can not be understood. Only in this context can the Biblical prohibition of homosexual activity as being contrary to man / woman's nature (Romans 1:26,27) be understood. A church that teaches that the fulfillment of our sexuality is to be found in same sex unions has either to deny the triune nature of God, or it has to deny that we are created in the image of God. It is difficult to imagine how any dialogue on this issue could be fruitful unless it grapples with this theological and doctrinal issue. To make such a forthright statement is not in any way to deny the struggle and agony of our homosexually oriented brothers and sisters. Their suffering is real and calls for continual compassionate sensitivity. It is however impossible to build a theology of sexuality on their or anyone else's experience. Theology, by definition, is the Word of God. It is with this that we have to start, and understand and interpret our experience in its light. A PRIMARY OR A SECONDARY ISSUE? Primary issues are to do with the person of Jesus Christ and His work of salvation. Secondary issues are all other issues. However, can we really separate sin and salvation? How can we either understand or enjoy the fullness of God's salvation in Jesus Christ if we do not know what the sin is for which Christ has died and from which he is able to set us free? Can we really separate salvation from sanctification? If we do not know what the life is to which God calls us to live, how can we seek his sanctifying power to live that life? Can we really separate salvation from creation, for if Christ died to restore us to what God has originally created us to be, how can we enter into that new creation if we do not understand who we are by virtue of that original creation? The same sex blessing issue might appear initially to be a secondary issue, but upon closer examination it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that by being tied so inextricably to primary issues it is in fact a primary issue. A FEW OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF BECOMING A SAME SEX BLESSING CHURCH. A church that teaches that the fulfillment of our sexuality is to be found in same sex unions has a lot of work to do. It will need to re-write large sections of its Christian education curriculum. Such a church would need to introduce to children before they enter their teen years the teaching that our sexuality can be fulfilled either through same sex or opposite sex life long unions, so as to help our children avoid growing up "prejudiced". Such a church would need to give some guidelines on same sex dating and to provide teaching to help young people discover whether they should be heading for a same sex or an opposite sex life long union. Funds would be needed at a national church level and at the diocesan level to provide for the creation of these new Christian education audio visual resources. There would be funds needed for the salaries of appropriately qualified children and youth program co-ordinators, and doubtless there would be travelling expenses. Of course funds from our parish apportionment are already being used to re-educate us into being a Same Sex Blessing Church, not least in financing a diocesan synod where the Archbishop makes it very clear in which direction he wants the church to be moving. When writing to the Church in Ephesus the Apostle Paul instructed "Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them." (Ephesians 5:11) It is hard to avoid the conclusion that by paying our full diocesan apportionment, under the present circumstances, we are in fact taking a very significant part in the unfruitful works of darkness. Even if provision were made for Alternate Episcopal Oversight, churches that opted to take advantage of that provision would still have to grapple with how to be obedient to the injunction of Ephesians 5:11. THE SEARCH FOR BIBLICAL PRECEDENTS IN DETERMINING OUR FUTURE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DIOCESE AND THE NATIONAL CHURCH. As soon as we begin to search the scriptures for guidance and precedents that might give us instruction as to how to respond to contemporary issues, we are face to face with two tasks. The first is the task of exegesis and the second is the task of hermeneutics. Exegesis comes from a Greek word and means "to lead out". It has to do with discovering the original intended meaning of a passage of scripture for the original recipients. Hermeneutics is a Greek word and means "to interpret." It has to do with "seeking contemporary relevance of ancient texts" (Fee and Stuart "How To Read the Bible for All Its Worth" published by Scripture Union 1994. p.25.) Fee and Stuart continue (p.26) "A text cannot mean what it never meant (to the original readers). Or to put it in a positive way, the true meaning of the biblical text for us is what God originally intended it to mean when it was first spoken." In understanding the meaning of a text of scripture we have to understand its historical and literary context. In seeking to apply the text to our own situation today we have to ask the question "In what ways is our situation like, and in what ways is our situation unlike the situation of the original recipients?" Another important hermenutical principle is that we can never so interpret a passage of Scripture as to answer the kind of questions that it had never occurred to the people of the original context to ask. Whatever passages of scripture are deemed to have a bearing on any aspect of the Same Sex Blessing controversy, these passages have to be examined using the exegetical and hermeneutical tools and questions that have been referred to above. We do this in conjunction with prayer that the Holy Spirit will show us what bearing (if any) they have on our situation today. One passage that might have a bearing on the issue of "splitting the church" is 1 Kings chapters 11 and 12, (and chapter 9:1-9) the account of how God divided the united kingdom of Solomon after Rehaboam had succeeded him as king, and split it between Rehaboam who was left with two tribes, and Jeroboam who was given ten tribes. This was essentially a judgement on Soloman "who did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, and did not wholly follow the Lord, as David his father had done" (1 Kings 11:6) It was the arrogant and foolish response of the newly enthroned king Rehaboam to the people, that precipitated the revolt that led to the division of the kingdom. Scripture states at this point "It was a turn of affairs brought about by the Lord that he might fulfill his word." (12:15) It is interesting that God promised to bless Jeroboam who had instigated the rebellion against the lawful king and seized the ten tribes, on condition that he walk in the ways of the Lord. "If you will harken to all that I command you, and will walk in my ways, and do what is right in my eyes by keeping my statutes and my commandments, as David my servant did, I will be with you and I will build you a sure house, as I built for David, and I will give Israel to you." (11:38) The tragedy was that Jeroboam did not thereafter walk in the ways of the Lord. It would seem at the very least, from this passage, that organisational unity among the people of God is not a particularly high priority on God's agenda. An Old Testament passage that may or may not have a bearing on the issue of continuing to pay our full diocesan apportionment is the book of Malachi, particularly the statement in chapter three verse ten "bring the full tithes into the storehouse." The issue here was the fear and lack of trust by the people of God in a time of poor harvests and scarcity of food, that if they gave away a tenth of their food supplies to the temple priests and Levites as the law required, they would not have enough left for themselves. In response to this fear God commanded "bring the full tithe into my storehouse, that there may be food in my house." God added His promise "I will ... open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you an overwhelming blessing. I will rebuke the devourer for you, so that it will not destroy the fruits of your soil." (v. 11) At that time God in his graciousness did not want the priests and Levites to starve even though they were acting corruptly. Incidentally, the issue at stake never was "We should not give our tithe because the priests and Levites are corrupt." The issue was rather "If we give our tithe we won't have enough for ourselves." The issue before us is "If the time comes when the money that we give to the diocese for the maintenance of ministry and mission in our churches is used to spread false teaching and to promote false practice, should we with hold a portion of that funding?" The hermeneutical question that arises is "Is there sufficient congruence between our situation and the situation addressed by the prophet Malachi for us to apply the injunction of Malachi 3:10 to ourselves today?" I am not convinced that there is. There are of course questions relating to the consequences of our withholding funds, and to the alternate use to which those funds might be put that may have to be addressed. The prayer of Jesus recorded in John 17, particularly verses 20-23, addresses the issue of unity among the disciples of Jesus with him in his earthly ministry and among those disciples "who believe in me through their word". This prayer included the petition " that they may all be one, even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." It is difficult to find anything to do with the organisational unity of the church in this passage. The nature of the unity that Jesus has in and with the Father is a relational unity of truth and love. It could even be argued that three or four smaller churches that did not have organisational unity, but which did have a unity of truth and love with each other and with the Lord, would be closer to Jesus' ideal than one large church that did have organisational unity but did not have a unity of truth and love. It is also salutary to ask the question as to whether the world is more likely to come to believe that the Father has sent the Son into the world when faced by the organisational unity of the church or by a unity of truth and love. Another New Testament passage that warrants the most careful study is 1 Corinthians 5:9-13.with special reference to verse 11, "I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber – not even to eat with such a one." This is one of the passages on which the argument advocating separation because of "broken communion", is based. This argument affirms that we are forbidden to break the bread of Communion with one who has put himself out of fellowship with the Lord, until there is repentance. If this "one" is a bishop then the consequences for those "under his authority" are very serious. This passage has added pertinence to us as we reflect that the Same Sex Union Blessing controversy is essentially an issue of idolatry. It is an instance of the Church falling down before the contemporary idols of political correctness, the privatization of values, and undifferentiated tolerance. In the letters to the seven churches in Revelation there are words of warning and judgement. Ephesus (2:5) "I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place unless you repent". Pergamum (2:16) "Repent then. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth.". Thyatira (2:21) "I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her immorality. Behold, I will throw her on a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her doings; and I will strike her children dead.." Sardis (3:3) "Repent. If you will not awake, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come to you." Philadelphia (3:9) "Behold, I will make those of the Synagogue of Satan who say they are Jews and are not, but lie – behold I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and learn that I have loved you." Laodicea (3:16) "Because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth." Lot was warned to flee from Sodom as it came under God's judgement (Genesis 19:12-29), God warned Noah and his family to flee from the judgement that he was bringing on the world (Genesis 6), Jesus warned his disciples to flee from Jerusalem as it came under God's judgement (Luke 21:20-24) Could the time come when God will call his people to flee from an institution that may have ceased to be a church, whose lamp stand God has removed from its place, and which has come under the judgement of God? THE SEARCH FOR HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS IN DETERMINING OUR FUTURE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DIOCESE AND THE NATIONAL CHURCH. In the Reformation the emergence of the Protestant church took place in different ways in different countries. In Germany Martin Luther was expelled from the Church of Rome. In England Thomas Cranmer found himself independent of the Church of Rome in large part because of a political decision by King Henry VIII. With John Calvin it was different again. "His final break with the Roman Catholic Church appears to have taken place in 1533 after a religious experience in which he believed he had received a mission to restore the Church to its original purity." (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church: Calvin, John.) On May 19th 1662 a Parliament of Charles II in England passed the Act of Uniformity. This Act required all ministers of religion to use only the Book of Common Prayer in worship, to be ordained by a bishop, and to subscribe to the thirty-nine articles. One fifth of all the Christian Ministers in the country declined to conform. . On August 24th Bartholomew's Day two thousand men left their churches their livelihood and their homes "going forth on a high enterprise of faith rather than violate conscience by denying their conviction as to the true nature of the Church and the ministry." (Dr G Campbell Morgan : The Westminster Pulpit 1912) This was the beginning of the Non-Conformist movement and Non-Conformist churches in England from which came such an abundant harvest in the centuries that followed. In 1668 in England eight bishops and 400 clergy declined to take the Oath of Allegiance to William and Mary. They were all deprived of their livings. Within a hundred years their separate identity had all but vanished. John and Charles Wesley remained members of the Church of England until their lives end. However in 1768 a Methodist Chapel was opened in New York. The needs of this new field induced John Wesley to ordain Dr Thomas Coke a Welshman as Superintendent or Bishop, and also instructed Coke to ordain Francis Asbury in the Americas as his colleague. Within five years of the death of John Wesley The Conference authorized Methodist preachers in their Preaching Houses (later "chapels") to administer the sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion. The subsequent mission and ministry of the Methodist Church throughout the world has had an enormous influence for good throughout the ensuing centuries. The call of Dr Martin Lloyd Jones from Westminster Chapel in 1966 to evangelicals within the Church of England to join him and other evangelicals in forming a separate evangelical Church in England needs to be studied. This call was graciously declined by Dr John Stott, Dr J.I. Packer, and others. In the approximately 40 years since this historic decision the evangelical movement in the Church of England has had a transforming influence within that church. The above examples are only a very small sampling of historical research that needs to be done as we continue to seek God's wisdom through the way that he has led his people in past centuries. . Three observations could be made in the light of these historical precedents. The first is that God, in his infinite mercy and grace continued working, albeit gradually, slowly and partially in the corrupt institutions that groups and individuals felt compelled to leave. The second observation is that the new life that was birthed in the new institutions that came into existence through the costly obedience of those who followed the leading of God's Spirit in the historical circumstances of their own day, could not have come forth within the old institutions. This new life can be seen in terms of holy living, reaching the lost, and the transformation of society. In the third place it is salutary to recognize that in time the new institutions wrestled with some of the same and similar challenges to Biblical faithfulness and vibrant Spirit filled life that had plagued the institutions from which they had come. One of the principal differences between the more distant historical precedents and the situation that pertains today is the existence now of a self conscious, vocal, active, global Anglican Communion with an increasingly influential leadership from the global south. This was in part anticipated by those who framed the foundation document of the Anglican Church of Canada, the Solemn Declaration of 1893. This declaration, found in the front of the Book of Common Prayer, affirms: "We declare this church to be, and desire that it shall continue, in full communion with the Church of England throughout the world, as an integral portion of the One Body of Christ composed of Churches which, united under the One Divine Head and in the fellowship of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, hold the One Faith revealed in Holy Writ, and defined in the Creeds as maintained in the undivided primitive Church and in the undisputed Ecumenical Councils". "And we are determined by the help of God to hold and maintain the Doctrine, Sacraments, and Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded in his Holy Word, and as the Church of England hath received and set forth the same in The Book of Common Prayer." The founding fathers of the Anglican Church of Canada affirmed first and foremost "We declare this church to be, and desire it to continue, in full communion with the Church of England throughout the world." Little did the bishops, clergy and laity realize, gathered at Trinity College, Toronto in September1893 for the first national synod, what massive significance these words would have for orthodox Canadian Anglicans nearly one and a quarter centuries later. How immensely reassuring to know that God the Holy Spirit, by so guiding our founding fathers, has built into the very definition of what the Anglican Church of Canada is, a commitment to remain in "full communion" with the world-wide Anglican Communion. Would this not mean that any parish or diocese that chooses to step out of fellowship with the global Anglican Communion, has forfeited its right to be a part of the Anglican Church of Canada.? Parishes and dioceses, as vessels of the church of God, must chose their direction and determine how to set their sails, as we head across uncharted waters into the gathering storm. Our compass is surely the glorious and Solemn Declaration, pointing as it does to "Christ as the Lord" and to the "Word of God" " As containing all things necessary to salvation." Our continued faithfulness to it is therefore our highest priority and our greatest safeguard in the Anglican Church of Canada today. DEDICATION This article is dedicated to Paul Carter, Simon Chin, Dan Gifford, Ed Hird, Stephen Leung, Neil Mancor, Barclay Mayo, Dawn McDonald, Silas Ng, Felix Orji, Jim Packer, David Short, James Wagner, Trevor Walters, Mike Stewart, and others in recognition of their costly and courageous witness. . The Rev. Robin Guinness is Associate Pastor of Little Trinity Church in Toronto, Ontario.

Special Report By David W. Virtue SEWANEE,TN--Sewanee Purple, the March 2 issue student newspaper of the University of the South, College of Arts and Sciences is devoted almost entirely to affirming sex outside of marriage with articles on condom use and 'how to' photographs for the sexually backward. The top ten titles in the issue include an 'Idiot's Guide to Using Condoms,' 'condoms for dummies', 'Have a Threesome with Trojan Man', 'The Lowdown on the Uphigh', Sex Protection 101/Safe Sex 101', 'No Glove, No Love,' 'Condoms: The Slippery Truth', 'Hot Lovin' Loves Laytex', 'Let the Good Times Role...but with protection', 'Sticking It Up for Sewanee.' There is a photo of a hand holding an artificial penis with instructions on how to roll a condom. An article, covering the entire top half of one page instructs students on the use of condoms. The article not only urges students to "be safe" but includes instructions of the most graphic and detailed nature about how they should be put on, information comparing various brands and styles, and advice about what to do if they 'failed'. The University of the South is the Episcopal Church's only university and is ostensibly a Christian institution with a seminary that trains men and women for the priesthood. A Virtuosity reader and rector who spotted the outrage wrote saying; "I found it doubly outrageous coming from the student newspaper of a church-owned institution, which was founded, with the stated objective of fostering Christian virtue." The rest of the newspaper is extremely lewd. There is a section entitled 'Purple Personals' which includes ads that are solicitous and crude. On other pages there is a 'man on the street' poll with the headline "The Day the Porn Died" (aka: went limp in the night). A photograph of a woman is captioned, "Well, sometimes I get it through my cell phone...so I'm pretty much covered. Hey, Patrick, is The Purple Cow delivered like that too these days???" Another photo features Elenor saying, "I think without porn my brother would be very upset...very violent...and he'd have lashed out without porn." A third photo features a young man doing bizarre things with his hands and eyes with the caption, "If you can **** on WUTS, you should be able to look at porn without techies and networking guys usurping my birthright." Another article titled, "Flaccid Sewanee" by Madame X reveals that Sewanee had briefly shut down porn access, but a call by the Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper to Dr. Vicki Sells, Head of the ATC quickly rectified the situation with what was tantamount to an apology by Sells, who said, that the porn was "accidentally" turned off due to a glitch in the system. "Sewanee was taking no internal efforts to monitor our Internet access," noted the newspaper editor." The briefly absconded porn privileges were quickly restored. It turned out that the erogenous, or rather erroneous action was device of the ATC lab installing a Net Cache file. In computer talk, that file allegedly makes your computer faster for browsing, wrote the editor. "At around 8:03 the next morning, all systems were alert and ready to go. So the problem was aborted, and now we know the truth: Sewanee really isn't so flaccid…" There is also an interview entitled "Atheism on the Mountain". Some of the boy seeks girl and vise versa ads include such choice lines as: Tall blonde, Sophomore TKP. I have something of yours that I know you'll like to have (back). Meet me in the KZ at 9pm - The Colonel." And this: "Wanna improve your fluency? I am a cunning German linguist. Seeking American fraulin to spend "cool" Sewanee nights with. Let me conquer your heart! #2403" The editor of the newspaper explained on the editorial page that the changes had been made in response to a number of complaints from readers who said they found the paper in its previous state "vanilla. . . bland". "The publication had undergone a radical overhaul in terms of design and layout since the last time I had seen it," said a former student. NOTE: If you are not receiving this from VIRTUOSITY, the Anglican Communion's largest biblically orthodox Episcopal/Anglican Online News Service, then you may subscribe FREE by going to: www.virtuosityonline.org. Virtuosity's website has been accessed by more than 1.2 million readers in 45 countries on six continents. This story is copyrighted but may be forwarded electronically with reference to VIRTUOSITY and the author. No changes are permitted in the text. END

Associated Press CHEYENNE - The bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Wyoming wants the license of a local priest revoked in an unusual case involving two churches in two countries. Wyoming Bishop Bruce Caldwell has filed a complaint against the bishop of Canada's Anglican Church, who reached across international borders to license a Cheyenne priest who left the Episcopal Church last year. The unprecedented move violates the church's territorial jurisdiction and "flies in the face of the whole structure of the church," Caldwell told the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle. Pressure from church leaders on both sides of the border may force Canadian Bishop William Anderson to withdraw the license of the Rev. Skip Reeves. Anderson could also face censure from his country's church. Territorial jurisdiction - the rules that maintain the separation of different ecclesiastical provinces - ensures that the church of Canada will not start a church here and is the glue that keeps the church together, Caldwell said. "It's a critical component to how we live our lives together," he said. Reeves left the Episcopal Church in December after disagreeing with its decision to confirm an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire. In January, he established the Church of St. Peter, Apostle and Confessor, which meets at Laramie County Community College and has about 100 members. The church is listed as a parish of the Anglican Diocese of Caledonia in northern British Columbia. According to the complaint, Anderson overstepped his bounds in offering to oversee the new congregation in Wyoming, especially since Reeves renounced his orders as an Episcopal priest. Caldwell attributes the infringement to Anderson's relative inexperience as a bishop. "He's probably just ignorant of these things," Caldwell said. "I hope that he's not actively doing this to create conflict." Reeves said the Canadian bishop has justified his actions. He said he was drawn to Anderson because both men share conservative views. The conflict, Reeves claimed, is more about money and politics than stepping on the toes of another jurisdiction. "It's very political, and a lot of it has to do with money," he said. "This controversy is hurting contributions around the diocese." If his license is revoked, Reeves pledged to find another international bishop to take up his cause. "There's a bishop in Uganda that will pick me up and make me part of his diocese," he said.

By Wayne H. Thompson 3/8/2004 OKLAHOMA CITY--At a congregational meeting after Sunday's worship service, 30 members of the Christ's Ambassadors Anglican Church approved the final documents in the incorporation of the church in the state of Oklahoma. Christ's Ambassadors Anglican Church is an independent Anglican Church formed in response to the recent unscriptural decisions of the Episcopal Church, USA at their August General Convention. The Mission of the church is "To Proclaim The Uncompromised Gospel Of Christ." The group had its first worship service on the 4th of January 2004 at the Midwest City community center, located at the corner of Midwest Blvd. and Reno Street in Midwest City, Oklahoma. The first service was attended by about fifty who are committed to the course of the new mission. Subsequent services have been described as uplifting, powerful, and reassuring. New members have been adding to this exciting happening weekly. Services begin with Sunday bible study at 9am. The church is in close relationship with the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) and hopes to be a part of any group that the World Wide Anglican Communion will recognize in the American Church. Their pastor, the Rev. Nathan C.O. Kanu, as well as the members, is highly optimistic about the future of the church. The formation of Christ's Ambassadors Anglican Church is called the birth of a "Rescue Mission" in Oklahoma. As a result of the recent unfortunate events resounding throughout the world-wide Anglican Communion, which has been fueled by the unscriptural and anti-Anglican actions of the leaders of the Episcopal Church, USA (ECUSA), a "rescue mission" has been born to provide a Church home for the innocent Anglicans in Oklahoma who have been caught in the midst of this personal, senseless, immoral, and ungodly agenda pushed by the majority revisionist bishops of ECUSA. Members of Christ's Ambassadors Church are focused on pursuing their scriptural mission, and putting the current controversy behind them. They are presently searching for an adequate facility to rent on a long-term basis from which to follow Christ's charge to "... preach the Gospel to the nations ..."

Mar. 8, 2004 -- MISSISSAUGA, Ont. The Anglican Church of Canada's chief governing body will be asked to affirm that the blessing of same-sex unions is within the authority of a diocesan synod and that any Canadian Anglican diocese, if the bishop agrees, has the authority to perform such blessings. At a meeting March 4-7, the Council of General Synod (CoGS) approved the wording of two motions that will be placed before the General Synod when it meets at the end of May. General Synod, made up of delegates from each of the church's 30 dioceses, is the church's main legislative and governing body. It meets every three years. The blessing of same-sex unions has been a matter of controversy in the Canadian church since 2002, when the bishop of the British Columbia diocese of New Westminster agreed, after being asked three times by his diocesan synod, to authorize such blessings. The New Westminster decision has had repercussions throughout the worldwide Anglican Communion, which is badly divided on the issue. The motion approved by CoGS at its spring meeting also invited General Synod to state that despite different deeply held convictions on the issue, Anglicans commit themselves "to strive for that communion into which Christ continually calls us." The task before CoGS at its spring meeting was not to decide the issue, but simply to agree to the wording of motions to be sent to General Synod. Despite the controversy over the issue, CoGS had no difficulty agreeing that General Synod should be asked to make a ruling at its 2004 meeting, rather than delay until 2007. Full text of the motions: A. Be it resolved that the Council of General Synod place the following motions before General Synod: Blessing of Same-Sex Unions Be it resolved that this General Synod: Affirm that even in the face of deeply held convictions about whether the blessing of committed same-sex unions is contrary to the doctrine and teaching of the Anglican Church of Canada, we recognize that through our baptism we are members one of another in Christ Jesus, and we commit ourselves to strive for that communion into which Christ continually calls us. Affirm the authority and jurisdiction of any diocesan synod, with the concurrence of its bishop, to authorize the blessing of committed same sex unions; Affirm the crucial value of continued respectful dialogue and study of biblical, theological, liturgical, pastoral and social aspects of human sexuality; and call upon all bishops, clergy and lay leaders to be instrumental in seeing that dialogue and study continue; Affirm the principle of respect for the way in which the dialogue and study may be taking place, or might take place, in indigenous and various other communities within our church in a manner consistent with their cultures and traditions; and Affirm that the Anglican Church is a church for all the baptized and is committed to taking such actions as are necessary to maintain and serve our fellowship and unity in Christ, including provision of adequate episcopal oversight and pastoral care for all, regardless of the perspective from which they view the blessing of committed same sex relationships. Resources regarding Same Sex Unions Be it resolved that this General Synod requests the Faith Worship and Ministry Committee in the next triennium to assist the church in implementing the resolution on same sex unions and to prepare resources for the church to use in addressing issues relating human sexuality, including the blessing of same-sex unions and the changing definition of marriage in society. B. Be it resolved that the Council of General Synod affirm in principle the process for presentation of the resolutions to General Synod outlined in 006-27-04-03 and invite the General Secretary and the Prolocutor to work with Faith Worship and Ministry in preparing General Synod to address these resolutions.

By Steve Levin Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 3/9/2004 Bishop Robert W. Duncan Jr. missed last week's meeting of the Pittsburgh diocesan council, but not because he was out of town. Duncan was at St. Stephen's Church in Sewickley, attending a three-day meeting of the nascent Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes. He is moderator of the group, which was established in January for Episcopalians who oppose gay ordination and same-sex blessings as contrary to biblical tradition. The bishop is a nonvoting member of the council, and while several others among the council's 30 current members also were absent, Duncan has missed numerous diocesan-related meetings during the past several months because of his involvement with the new network. "We are concerned that Bishop Duncan is putting his efforts to change the nature of the Episcopal Church ahead of his responsibilities as a diocesan bishop," said Lionel E. Deimel, president of Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh, an organization of clergy and laity that opposes the diocese's participation in the network. "Parishioners of this diocese have a right to expect that Bishop Duncan's voluntary obligations to the network not cause him to disregard his vows to participate in church governance." Duncan, who was traveling yesterday, said in a brief interview that since he convened the national meeting in Pittsburgh, he chose to attend it instead of the diocesan council's regular monthly meeting. The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh is one of seven across the country that has voted to associate with the group, which is also known as the Anglican Communion Network. Another five dioceses have voted to associate provisionally with it. There are 110 total dioceses in the Episcopal Church with an estimated 2.3 million members. The three dozen people attending the Anglican Communion Network meeting in Pittsburgh included representatives from all 12 participating dioceses, plus several members from the American Anglican Council, which is providing financial and organizational help. Four "convocation deans" were elected to develop procedures by which biblically conservative parishes and individuals in more liberal dioceses can associate with the network. In addition, mission and vision statements were completed, and a missionary arm formed to attract more people to Anglican orthodoxy. At last week's diocesan council meeting, members of Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh challenged the diocese's February decision to join the Anglican Communion Network. A letter titled "A Call for Unity" signed by 149 parishioners from 20 churches requested the council rescind its earlier vote to join the network pending a national church ruling on its legality. The issue was not brought to a vote.

Two brief ecclesiological reflections By John H. Rodgers A bishop comments on the Church and on the present state of things in the Anglican Communion, ECUSA, AAC and AMIA. I find myself asking whether we do not err when we put the question in terms of staying in or leaving ECUSA. I believe the issue before us is more accurately understood when viewed in terms of the excommunication of false teachers, that is of godly ecclesiastical discipline, and in terms of the marks of a visible Church, of being the Church. Let me begin with the perspective of excommunication of false teachers. This, as far as I see it, is what AMIA has sought to help take place by its early and continuing appeal to the Primates of the Anglican Communion. In this connection, I find myself in full agreement with Fr. Sam Edwards' earlier essay on "Being in Communion" and with Dr. Rob Sanders' recent article that views the actions of the orthodox as necessitating excommunication, as requiring a clear and public break in sacramental communion. What sets AAC and AMIA apart from other orthodox Anglican bodies that have protested the state of things in ECUSA is that they have both sought to remain within the Anglican Communion and as part of the Communion to seek to encourage the Primates of the Communion to take action. AMIA in its Petitions from the beginning asked the Primates to excommunicate from the Communion false teachers and notorious public sinners in ECUSA, as viewed from a biblical and historic Anglican perspective. In that sense it is not really a question of staying or leaving but of expelling, of ecclesiastical discipline. What is odd in the case of ECUSA is that many of those who have seats of authority in the institutional structures of ECUSA who should be doing the excommunication are in no position to do so, rather they themselves need to be excommunicated. It is this painful oddity that gives the mistaken appearance that the issue is one of staying or leaving. When we view the situation in the light of the marks of a visible Church once again the issue is not one of staying or leaving. The issue is the nature of ECUSA. Can we hold ECUSA, seen from historic Anglican perspective, to be a true visible Church at all? Article 19 "Of the Church" states: "The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same". Article 35 "of the Homilies" commends the Homilies to be read in the Church as containing "godly and wholesome doctrine". The Homily on Whitsunday states expressly that the third mark of a visible Church of Christ is proper ecclesiastical discipline. Ecclesiastical discipline is clearly implied in Article 19, for without the exercise of ecclesiastical discipline faithful proclamation and faithful sacramental administration will soon be lost. Surely we have all seen that documented before our very eyes. Note also that the Articles do not say that it is sufficient to have right teaching and sacramental practice on the books or in the canons, rather they but speak of actual practice, "is preached", duly ministered". Now, can anyone have any doubt that ECUSA as an institutional Province has long failed in the practice of all three of these marks. We need not rehearse the well known, manifold departures from biblical and historic Anglican teaching and practice in ECUSA over the past 40 or so years. And can it be doubted that with the consecration of V. G. Robinson which has contradicted the Word of God written ECUSA has now entered the level of apostasy. ECUSA has done this publicly in an official and undeniable fashion thereby changing the official teaching of the institution, i.e. the doctrines and practice of the authority of Scripture, human nature, marriage, sin, etc. And what of proper ecclesiastical oversight and discipline? Where is there responsible ecclesiastical discipline in ECUSA? As far as I can see the vast bulk of discipline being presently exercised is launched against those who would affirm the historic and biblical teachings of the Church, as Anglicans have received and confessed them and as clergy have vowed to uphold them. We find the same regarding the sacraments. How can we hold that the sacraments are rightly administered when non-Christians and those living openly and unrepentantly in sin are invited to the table in the name of a "love and inclusiveness" which is contrary to the true love of Christ. Christ was willing to let the rich young ruler depart sadly rather than change the need for repentance on the young ruler's part. Wide spread in ECUSA is an inclusiveness, which considers everyone to be saved regardless of whether the Gospel or the graces of repentance and faith are present. The conclusion concerning ECUSA seems unavoidable: given this break with right doctrine, with faithful celebration of the sacraments and given the lack of and abuse of ecclesiastical discipline, it is hard to see how we as Anglicans, can in good conscience, hold institutional ECUSA to be a visible expression of Christ's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. If that is the case with ECUSA, then the Network sponsored by AAC is right in claiming that the institution of ECUSA has left the Church and that the Network is a continuing form of the true and faithful expression of what ECUSA once was; for to enter the Network requires conformity to right doctrine, faithful celebration of the sacraments and submission to the exercise of ecclesiastical discipline. Of course, I am assuming that these things are being carefully required and that a public break in sacramental communion has taken place with those who have endorsed and followed the path that institutional ECUSA has taken. Here again it is not a matter of leaving or staying; it is a matter of being, of being a visible expression of Christ's Church and of no longer being such. It would seem that at least 13 Primates who have broken communion with ECUSA and who have publicly affirmed the Network would agree with that assessment and undoubtedly more will join them in days to come. Seen in this manner both AAC and AMIA, while daily carrying on their God-given mission, have been and are seeking to help bring about the formation and recognition of an Orthodox Province recognized by the Primates of the Anglican Communion. Needed as well is a declaration by the Primates and their Provinces that ECUSA as an institutional Province has ceased to be a part of the Anglican Communion and for that matter can no longer be regarded by faithful Anglicans as a visible Church of Christ. It would be good if this could be done with the full agreement, consent and cooperation of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Lest someone think these reflections to be narrow and harsh, I can only plead that excommunication and telling the truth regarding the nature of the visible Church are regarded in Scripture and in the Articles of Religion as acts of love done not only to protect the faithful, and to make clear the Church's message but also to warn and awaken those in heresy and those living openly in notorious sin to their need for repentance and to the welcome in the Gospel that awaits them upon true repentance. John H. Rodgers Jr. Retired Bishop, Anglican Mission in America

by Russell E. Saltzman This is very serious, very messy and potentially very, very costly to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). We are speaking of the lawsuit against Trinity Lutheran Seminary, Columbus, OH and the ELCA. We have mentioned it before (FL:33:1). The suit was instigated by the families of the teenage boys who fell victim to sexual molestation by Gerald Patrick Thomas. Thomas is the 1997 Trinity graduate who, at the time of his arrest, was serving an ELCA congregation in Marshall, TX. His 2002 conviction on multiple counts of sexual abuse resulted in a prison sentence of 397 years, reputed to be the most severe penalty ever meted out in such a case by any criminal court. The only comparable sentence we have heard about is 270 years given to a Catholic priest. The lawsuit is seeking more than $300 million from the ELCA and will be heard before Judge Bonnie Leggat in her Harrison County, TX district courtroom - the same judge, incidentally, who presided over Thomas' criminal trial. Were you to visit http://www.co.harrison.tx.us/ and click under the district court's jury docket schedule, you will find John Alfred Doe, et al vs. Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, et al scheduled for April 5, provided no settlement is reached in the meanwhile. We know that negotiations were held early February. We know, too, that the plaintiffs are confident, very confident, of going to trial. Given the materials related to the case that we have in hand, we can understand why. Depositions and memos Forum Letter is in possession of the deposition of James M. Childs, one of the defendants named in the suit. At the time Thomas was a seminarian, Childs was Trinity's academic dean and is now director of the ELCA's sexuality task force. We also have several other depositions given by ELCA officials during discovery, including that of ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark S. Hanson, made in Chicago at the Lutheran Center last September 22. Additionally, we have copies of numerous internal seminary memos related to Thomas' internship and behavior while a student at the seminary, and we have memos from Bp. Kevin Kanouse, bishop of the ELCA Northern Texas/Northern Louisiana Synod related to the arrest of Gerald Thomas. Bp. Kanouse within days of Thomas' arrest specifically alerted a seminary official to a possible lawsuit. From these items we now know that at least some Trinity officials were well aware of Thomas' problematic behavior with adolescent boys, and they were aware of it prior to his certification for call. They knew that while on his internship Thomas provided alcohol to adolescent boys in his apartment and allowed them to watch a same-sex male pornographic video. There was police involvement at the time, but no charges were filed. Question in dispute This incident did not end his internship, which concluded in the normal fashion. He returned to Trinity Seminary for his final year. The incident did merit an "incident report" by his internship supervisor, Pr. Melvin Swoyer, which is also in our possession. Seminary officials never shared the report with Thomas' synodical candidacy committee, though at least one memo speculates about the impact such a report might have upon a candidacy committee. Further, seminary officials knew that a pastor in charge of an after-school youth program in Columbus, OH, where Thomas worked during his senior year, had also raised concerns about Thomas over the manner of his involvement with male youth in the program. To be clear, the seminary faculty did not specifically vote to approve Thomas' candidacy. Instead, of three recommendations available to the seminary - approve, deny, postpone - the faculty took no action. None of the appropriate blanks were checked. In effect, the faculty rendered a "no comment" on the fitness of his candidacy for certification. We do not know what questions, if any, the candidacy committee may have raised given Trinity's lack of recommendation. The issues around Thomas' behavior on internship and with the after-school program were addressed with Thomas. How thoroughly and how seriously the seminary addressed those questions is the subject in litigation. He was urged to seek therapy because of his unstable "boundaries" with teenage male youth. He never did, nor did anyone at the seminary insist. Moreover, they claim they could not. In the depositions we have seen, all plead a lack of authority to compel or require any student to seek therapy. That is probably so, absent a threat of dismissal. But there was not, in the seminary's opinion, reason to make therapy an absolute requirement before certification. Thomas' inaction in seeking therapy did raise concern with at least one seminary official, but by that time Thomas was certified with a call in hand to Marshall, TX. Casting a wide net Among those named as ELCA defendants from Trinity Seminary are: Brad Binau (who conducted several sessions with Thomas post-internship), Allan Sager (internship director), Dennis A. Anderson (seminary president at the time), Leland Elhard (then on faculty, now retired), Don Luck (faculty), Mark Ramseth (current president). Defendants from the Northern Texas/Northern Louisiana ELCA Synod include: Mark Herbener (synod bishop when Thomas was called to Marshall, TX), Kevin Kanouse (Herbener's successor and bishop at the time of Thomas' arrest), Earl Eliason (an assistant to Herbener, of whom more in a moment). Named as ELCA defendants are: H. George Anderson (presiding bishop during that period) and Mark S. Hanson (the present presiding bishop). The plaintiffs, of course, cast as wide a net as possible hoping to haul in a big catch. Our opinion, the only names of merit in the lawsuit are the synodical and seminary officials. Disingenuous discipline Nonetheless, the deposition of Bp. Hanson reveals the plaintiff's interest, keen interest, in ascertaining just exactly how rigorously ELCA disciplinary policies on sexual misconduct are actually enforced. Any pattern of non-enforcement common throughout the ELCA arguably strengthens the plaintiff's case for negligence regarding Thomas. In this respect, Hanson is asked about his period of service as a synod bishop. He is questioned, "When you were synod bishop, did you have a lesbian minister in your synod?" Hanson: "I literally would have to take time to think through who was in the synod." Next, "Did you have a lesbian minister in the synod while you were bishop that was engaged in a committed sexual relationship with another lesbian and would not take a vow of celibacy?" Hanson: "I was never given allegations of that kind of behavior about one of the rostered persons in my synod by anyone." This may seem more than a little disingenuous. It is not, as some might suspect, a reference to the illicitly ordained Anita Hill who was never on the synod roster. Instead it refers to another pastor presently on the clergy roster of the St. Paul MN Area Synod. Zipper troubles What is evident is that some synod bishops construe an absence of formal allegations - never mind how well-known the problem may be - to mean it does not exist and therefore does not merit intervention by a church authority. The crisis of the Roman Catholic scandal, we point out, isn't just that some pastors acted badly, but that so many bishops failed in their responsibilities to enforce policies in existence. The similar factor here - which admittedly is an oversimplification - is the "old church" culture that would not directly confront rumored heterosexual misconduct, in the hope it could be dealt with "pastorally" among "old boys" in a "friendly" and "paternal" way. That often amounted to nothing more than allowing the pastor to receive another call. The egregious problem of pastors with multiple incidents of "zipper trouble" is one the ELCA has been forced to face. Meanwhile, though, since the ELCA does not know what to teach about homosexuality, the "paternal," "pastoral" approach, disgraced as a way of dealing with heterosexual predator offenses, seems to be alive and well when the context is homosexuality. In short, the once "tolerated" list of "acceptable" kinds of sexual misconduct has been replaced by another one. Little distinction Questions surrounding disciplinary enforcement grew much sharper as the plaintiff's attorney raised in one deposition the instance of former Bp. Mark Herbener's assistant, Earl Eliason. Eliason installed Thomas at Marshall, TX in June 1997. Just four months earlier, Eliason had pled guilty to misdemeanor charges of lewd behavior with several men in a public restroom. No public action was taken by the synod bishop; what private action may have been taken is unknown. Eliason remained on Herbener's staff until Herbener's term expired. He took retirement shortly afterward and then resigned from the ELCA clergy roster in early June 02, four months after the Marshall, TX lawsuit was filed. It must be said the plaintiff's attorney makes little distinction between gay men attracted to teenage boys and gay men content with more age-appropriate partners. Yet the suggestion here is that in cases involving homosexual men and women, ELCA discipline amounts to a wink and a nod whatever risks exist, even when the risk is posed to adolescents and children. When standards for pastors - said to be devised in part to limit potential liability arising from misconduct - are not enforced, a liability insurer conceivably is let off the hook. The insurance against liability is good only so long as the disciplinary policy, upon which the guarantee is based, is in fact put into effect. This is what Trinity Seminary officials are accused of doing - winking, nodding, going along, failing to enforce church policy. Is that what happened? As we said earlier, and we wish to stress it again, the issues around Thomas' behavior as an intern and as a student were addressed. At litigation is, were they adequately addressed? Testimony from the seminary officials involved asserts that the answer is clearly yes. As best they could view things at the time, there was not enough evidence to warrant Thomas' dismissal. But this isn't to say a Texas civil court jury will not view matters differently. Russell E. Saltzman is the editor, Forum Letter Restoring credibility to the task force Forum Letter April 2004 by American Lutheran Publicity Bureau A victims' rights group has made hay off the Trinity Lutheran Seminary lawsuit. Survivors' Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) has busily laid out a wide swath of blame leveled at Trinity and the ELCA. Last November SNAP laid a good deal of it at the doorstep of Dr. James M. Childs, the ELCA director of the sexuality study, who was Trinity's academic dean when Gerald Thomas was a student. The sexuality task force had just completed a study unit on the subject of preventing child and adolescent molestation. SNAP went ballistic. To have Childs in charge of a sexuality task force studying child molestation, so they suggested none too gently, was putting an enabler in charge of prevention. SNAP called for Childs to resign as director of the sexuality study, claiming he participated in a cover-up, or at the very least knew about Thomas and did nothing. While the former is in our estimation clearly false, certainly the latter is true. Dr. Childs did know of the situation. In fairness to him, however, it is also our impression that, as academic dean, he claims he would have had no direct responsibility in dismissing or retaining Thomas as a student. A small portion of his deposition was released to the Associated Press by SNAP. Childs admits receiving memos raising questions about Thomas when he was at the seminary, but that there was not enough information to justify alerting an ordination candidacy committee. When this became public, Childs not unreasonably asserted that six pages lifted from a 200-plus-page deposition failed to give an adequate picture of his testimony. We agree. We also agreed at the time with the ELCA spokesman, that SNAP did not accurately portray the facts (FL:33:1). That remains our assessment. SNAP's description of Childs' involvement is lurid and without nuance. Naturally, it is in their interest to present it that way, but it is not a full picture. SNAP also gives every impression of being in a relationship with several law firms in the business of litigating suits of this sort. All that said, nonetheless we believe that Dr. Childs should resign as director of the ELCA sexuality task force. We believe he should do so immediately, simply to preserve whatever creditability the task force may have throughout the ELCA. Granted, we are not among those who hold the task force in very high regard. We have been a steady critic of it and its work. Still, we have also said it is our belief that Dr. Childs - whatever his personal feelings on the acceptance of gay ordination - was determined to produce a fair study. We believe, however, the lawsuit in Texas calls all that into question, merely by inference. We would not regard his resignation as in any way an admission of responsibility in the Thomas case. To the contrary, we would regard it as a forthright effort on his part to restore to the task force's leadership, and to the ELCA, some of the credibility that has been considerably damaged by the Marshall, TX lawsuit, whatever its final outcome. And if he will not resign for the good of the task force, then, perhaps, the task force should resign for the good of the ELCA. -- by the editor More from Texas Forum Letter April 2004 Back to Texas, again. The following are snippets of comment, just our impressions based on materials we have in hand related to the case: Based on much of what we have, the ELCA has not been well served by its general counsel, Phil Harris. It is of course handy to have an attack dog attorney around when things like this arise, but maybe the leash should have been shorter. There is early correspondence from Harris on the case suggesting the victims of Gerald Thomas were merely violating the commandment against bearing false witness. In failed negotiations in early February this year, the plaintiffs sought, among other things, an apology from Harris for his remark as part of an acceptable settlement. What we said about SNAP earlier, the impression we have that it has a relationship of sorts with some law firms specializing in victims' lawsuits? Well, the settlement the attorneys for the plaintiffs wanted included a demand that the ELCA donate of $100,000 to SNAP. There is a gag order in place. The order was imposed upon the principals in the case April 4, 2002 following some local media accounts in, among other places, the Marshall, TX News-Messenger. The order was sought by the ELCA. The plaintiffs represent this as a hypocritical suppression of information, given the ELCA's public support of full disclosure in these matters. The gag order has made it very difficult to piece this story together. No one directly associated with the case is able to speak on or off the record. None of our calls to the plaintiffs' attorneys were returned, nor was our inquiry to SNAP ever returned. Flashback to The Lutheran's June 02 issue. An article by Laurel Johnson outlines the Marshall, TX case. "[Northern Texas/Northern Louisiana ELCA Synod Bp. Kevin] Kanouse and Jennifer Parker Ainsworth of Tyler, Texas, the ELCA's [local] legal counsel in the case, said neither Kanouse nor the ELCA knew of Thomas' alleged criminal activities until his arrest." If this is what Bp. Kanouse in fact said to The Lutheran, it is technically true, but he misses the point. One memo from Bp. Kanouse in our possession clearly notes the incident from Thomas' internship involving alcohol and a same-sex pornographic video. Kanouse is of the opinion, however, the information should have remained with the seminary. Kanouse learned of the internship affair as Thomas was seeking a call in the NT/NL synod. Giving alcohol to minors in Texas is a misdemeanor offence, but perhaps the bishop didn't know that. Continuing with the story, in fact, the next sentence from the June 2002 Lutheran: "Kanouse said the synod has a zero-tolerance policy for any form of sexual misconduct on the part of its clergy." Which explains why his predecessor, Mark Herbener, retained an assistant to the bishop on his staff convicted of a sexually-related misdemeanor? By The Lutheran's account in the June 2002 issue, the plaintiffs in the case simply went to court instead of first approaching the ELCA. Material we have directly contradicts The Lutheran. As part of an early settlement attempt, the plaintiffs demanded a retraction. A final note. I have never covered anything in Forum Letter that has created such personal distress. I personally know most of the principal defendants in the lawsuit; know, like and respect them. For that reason I have taken extra care in presenting the facts as I know them, and I have deliberately avoided mention of things that I count as mere rumor. This account is as accurate as I can possibly make it. Any omissions of fact or failures in this are of course entirely my responsibility. -- by the editor Copyright 2004 by American Lutheran Publicity Bureau Russell E. Saltzman is pastor of Ruskin Heights Lutheran Church, 10801 Ruskin Way, Kansas City, MO 64138 (www.rhlc.org 816.761.6815) and editor of Forum Letter, published by the American Lutheran Publicity Bureau (www.alpb.org). Permission to reprint in whole or in part is expressly granted with proper credit.

Ethics & Religion by Michael J. McManus "Obligatory celibacy and the church's official teaching on human sexuality are at the root of the worst crisis the Catholic Church has faced since the time of the Reformation," writes Father Richard McBrien, professor of theology at Notre Dame in the Foreword of a new landmark book "Celibacy in Crisis," by A.W. Richard Sipe. In an interview, Father McBrien explained, "The Eastern Orthodox do not have celibate clergy, and they have no sexual abuse crisis. When you require celibacy as a life-long commitment from any control group, you are inevitably, automatically and infallibly limiting your pool of potential recruits to one of the thinnest slices of the population. "There are some healthy people who practice celibacy. But that requirement of the priesthood will attract a disproportionately high percentage of men who are sexually dysfunctional, sexually immature, or whose orientation will raise the question - are they attracted to the priesthood because of the ministry, or because it is a profession that forbids one to be married?" The issue goes far beyond the sexual molestation of minors. Sipe writes in his new book, "I estimate that at any one time 50 percent of priests are practicing celibacy". He makes these shocking estimates: "Thirty percent of priests are involved in heterosexual relationships, associations, experimentation or patterns of behavior. Fifteen percent of priests are involved with homosexual relationships...Six percent of priests involve themselves with minors." (In a new study commissioned by Catholic bishops, the John Jay College of Criminal Justice calculated that 4,392 priests - 4 percent of those serving over the last 50 years - sexually abused minors. In Boston where the court forced the archdiocese to disclose internal records, 7 percent of priests were molesters.) Sipe's numbers are not casual estimates, made in the wake of the current crisis, but were actual counts of the sexual practices of 1,500 priests and were originally published in Sipe's 1990 book, "A Secret World." Sipe himself was a monk for 18 years and a priest for 11 of them. He left the priesthood, married and became a therapist who interviewed hundreds of priests. He taught in seminaries from 1967 through 1996, and even wrote a book on how to be celibate: "Celibacy: A Way of Living, Loving and Serving." However, he gathered 1,500 case studies: 497 involving priests who were in therapy, 512 who were priests not in therapy and another 504 from sexual partners of priests. As a social scientist, Sipe takes no position on whether the celibacy rule should be changed. Others are not so silent. Last August 166 Catholic priests in the Diocese of Milwaukee signed a letter to Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, asking that the priesthood "be open to married men as well as to celibate men...The primary motive for our urging this change is our pastoral concern that the Catholic Church needs more candidates for the priesthood, so that the Church's sacramental life might continue to flourish." In 1960 there were 53,796 priests to serve 42 million Catholics. Today there are only 43,000 to serve 66 million. Only 479 new priests were ordained in 2002. The average priest has ten times as many parishioners as the average Protestant pastor. The Milwaukee letter was the first time in 25 years that a group of priests has spoken out on celibacy, according to Dean Hoge, a prominent Catholic University sociologist. He said, "I do think it's impressive because it's a risky thing, and any priest would think twice before signing his name." Bishop Gregory did not respond to them directly, but wrote to Milwaukee Archbishop Timothy Dolan, who had a cordial meeting with the three organizing priests, though he disagreed with them. With half of Milwaukee's active priests signing the letter, they have taken a second step to organize an independent Milwaukee Archdiocesan Priests Alliance. Their major concerns are being overworked and having low morale over the fact that the number of parishes has shrunk from 265 to 219 and the diocese wants to shrink further to 175 due to declining numbers of priests, although the Catholic population is growing. "We should be moving to 275 churches, and expanding the pool of people allowed to be priests," said Father Dave Cooper. Hundreds of priests from Chicago, Minneapolis-St. Paul, New York and other dioceses have written letters to Gregory supporting optional celibacy. The bishops are opposed, but a national organization of priests pressing for reform will be organized next month. The demand for change has only begun. Copyright 2004 Michael J. McManus