Archives

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

Associated Press 2/22/2004 CHARLESTON, S.C. - Theological differences over homosexuality are causing rifts in the Episcopal Church, but they do not have to be fatal to the church's unity, according to speakers at a forum here. Nearly 200 Episcopalians from around the state gathered Saturday to discuss ways of coping with conflicts over the 2003 confirmation of V. Gene Robinson, the denomination's first openly gay bishop. Clergy and laity, most from the Charleston-based Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, gathered for "Seeking Unity in Diversity," a conference set up by the Episcopal Forum of South Carolina. The Mount Pleasant-based group was formed to help members of the diocese try to find common ground despite differences over Robinson's confirmation. "Our goal today was to get some constructive conversation going within the Episcopal Church because there is so much polarization in the church and in our diocese," said Lynn Pagliaro of Mount Pleasant, one of the Forum's board members. "Members of the diocese want to learn about different opinions on these issues, and we see ourselves as an ongoing place for conversation within the Episcopal Church." The Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon, bishop of the Diocese of South Carolina, has been one of the most vocal opponents of Robinson's confirmation. In December, the diocese he leads became one of four charter members of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes. The network is for Episcopalians opposed to Robinson's confirmation. Network membership, as well as differences of opinion over Robinson, same-sex unions and other issues have caused distress among many lay members of the diocese. The only way to continue conversation between the two sides is to recognize the seriousness of the step the Episcopal Church took in affirming Robinson, said the Rev. Kendall Harmon, the diocese's canon theologian. "This is a debate about essentials," he said. Both Harmon and the Very Rev. William McKeachie, dean of the Cathedral Church of St. Luke and St. Paul, challenged Robinson's supporters to come up with a way to reconcile gay relationships with Scripture. "The biblical case for monogamous, heterosexual unions has not suddenly been proven wrong," McKeachie said. "... If schism and the breaking up of the Anglican Communion is incipient, it is not, in the view of the Diocese of South Carolina, we who caused the schism." McKeachie said both sides need to work out a theological compromise, such as the statement worked out at the 1988 General Convention that recognizes abortion as legal but also as a serious matter. The Very Rev. Samuel Candler, dean of the Cathedral of St. Philip in Atlanta, said he believes in "the possibility that certain same-sex relationships can offer the grace of God." Many members said they were encouraged after the daylong conference. "I think this is a step in the right direction," said Georgia Ann Porcher, a member of Grace Episcopal Church in Charleston. FAITH UNDER FIRE - HUGE CHRISTIAN GROWTH SHOCKS CHINA'S LEADERS - CRACKDOWN REPORTEDLY SPARKED BY NEW VIDEO, BOOKS RELEASED IN U.S. February 20, 2004 Christianity Today More than 50 Chinese Christians, including three prominent Protestant leaders have been arrested in a new crackdown that follows the release of a video and book in the United States documenting the massive growth of the unregistered, or "underground" church. A report by the evangelical magazine Christianity Today said the crackdown began during a meeting of China's top officials in charge of regulating religion. "They will especially hunt those in Beijing," a Hong Kong source told CT. "It took them by surprise that there were so many Christians in China. Every week pastors are arrested and thrown in jail. The communists see Christians as a threat because there are [more] Christians than party members." China has more than 15 million Christians in government-sanction churches but as many as 80 million in unregistered congregations branded by the communist regime as "illegal cults," though estimates vary widely. Fifty or more Christians were arrested in January after communist leaders viewed a new video, "The Cross: Jesus in China," produced by a California-based group, China Soul for Christ Foundation, CT said. The Chinese officials also were briefed on a new book that shows the extraordinary growth of the church in China and its potential to transform the nation in coming decades, "Jesus in Beijing," by former Time magazine Beijing bureau chief David Aikman. The digitally formatted video, which has been widely distributed across China, has been classified as "political matter" and confiscated by police along with other Christian literature, the CT report said. In January police arrested three prominent Protestant leaders from Henan province, Qiao Chunling, 41, Deborah Xu Yongling, 58, and Zeng Guangbo, 35. Guangbo escaped two days after his arrest and remains in hiding, CT said. The crackdown, which began at China's annual National Religious Working Conference, could last for 30 days and become as brutal as the repression of the Falun Gong sect, which has resulted in hundreds of deaths, according to a watchdog group. Liu Zhenying a Chinese Christian leader imprisoned many times who now lives in Germany, told CT China's communist officials are trying to split unofficial groups any way they can. "They tried to isolate one house-church group, now to single them out. By doing that, they can divide house-church unity," he said in an interview at the recent National Prayer Breakfast in Washington. "This purpose is very obvious, very evil. We really prayed the eyesight, the insight, the discernment of the eagle to really clearly see this trap of Satan." Liu, better known as Brother Yun, said China uses "international propaganda" to deceive Westerners and promote China's policy stance toward religion. Top Christian leaders are invited to travel through China to see first-hand how the government allows churches to operate openly, but this does not present the full picture, he told CT. The Chinese government considers all Protestant churches outside the official government-controlled Three-Self Patriotic Movement to be subversive. The official churches are restricted, to varying degrees around the country, in their doctrine and practice. Catholics also are restricted to a government-controlled church, which is not allowed to recognize the authority of the pope. As WorldNetDaily reported, a video recently was smuggled out of China documenting the destruction of an unregistered church in Zhejiang Province, according to Voice of the Martyrs. In November, Chinese Continue officials closed 125 places of worship, affected 3,000 Christians.

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

By the Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner Dr. Ephraim Radner responds to Mark Harris's article Contending with Anglican Realignment As Paul Zahl, the Dean of Advent Cathedral in Birmingham recently said, the accusation of "homophobia" when once leveled within our church at a Christian interlocutor, has the effect of stopping conversation cold and, with a little manipulation, tainting reputations and spoiling careers. It is also grossly unfair when used, in the present debate over the proper Christian teaching regarding sexual behavior, as a way to characterize most conservative parties to the discussion, whose theological concerns go far deeper then reactive emotions of insecurity. For a long time something similar could have been said about the charge of "fascism". Fortunately, times have changed, and the unstinting dispersal of absurd misapplications of this accusation has rendered it more a tool of simple rhetorical gesticulation than a serious description of anybody's real convictions. The same evolution, we may hope, will unfold – at least in the context of illuminating argument -- with respect to the epithet of "homophobe". As an example of "fascism's" devolving powers of vilifying explication, consider "Contending with Anglican Alignment" by Mark Harris (and published recently by The Witness magazine), a highly confused and inaccurate attack upon, among others, those associated with the emerging Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes. While happily demonstrating how otiose the charge of "fascism" has become, the article also serves a clarifying function in contrasting the worldviews of one sector of the Episcopal Church that supports recent decisions at General Convention with those, like the Network, that oppose them. In brief, Harris' essay argues that the Network is informed by a "pre-modern", "un-useful", and "appalling" vision, whose commitment to the "bundling of Faith and Order into a unified whole" – the use of the term "bundling" is a nice subliminal reference to Mussolini's aspirations -- is in fact "fascist" in its attempt to "force" some kind of uniform belief upon unwilling "free-thinkers"(like Harris) through a "take-over" of the Episcopal Church. Over against this is the purportedly more rational and acceptable world-view of the author (and General Convention), that is attuned to and accepting of the "complexity" of the new "plurality of Anglican cultures and Anglican churches", within a plural world, and is willing (and presumably courageous enough) to be "discomfited" by the reality that empires and despotisms no longer control our lives, in church or elsewhere. This last, we are told, is an appropriately "post-modern" view – appropriate, that is, to the "times" that have now left behind the old world-view of the "complainers". It is a view that is leading to some as yet unknown destination, but that is at least engaged with the "faithful pilgrimage in Jesus Christ" whose "telling" is multiple and diverse. On its face, this is the standard contrast between an out-dated vision of religious and political establishment on the one hand, and a robust pluralism on the other. Still, as two views supposedly held within a (once) common religious framework, the contrast needs some further explicating. Initially, it would seem that Harris is accepting the modern liberal redefinition of "church" as a kind of "voluntary religious organization" within a society that has many such organizations. Thus, no citizen has the right to "enforce" their religious viewpoint upon another; they have, rather, the duty to choose to associate with like-minded religious persons, and leave others alone. The Network doesn't want to do this. Rather, it appears to want to erect "structures of control" and return to an era when consciences are "constrained" coercively. The problem with this initial interpretation of the contrast is that it is egregiously incongruent with the actual situation the author is trying to address: that is, the Episcopal Church is itself a "voluntary religious organization", one among many in the nation. Therefore it is not really possible to import into its structures the moral dynamics of politically enforced establishment or pluralistic diversity. It is precisely because individual religious organizations within a pluralist society exist through and indeed because of their self-defined character that they can maintain their particular and civically regulated places within an ordered and non-tyrannical commonwealth as a whole. In what possible way could voluntary organizations be "fascistic" in the proper sense of the term, simply by having members work for a common vision? The internal struggles for a unified identity within voluntary organizations is, in fact, often a necessary aspect of their continued vitality as participating elements within a specifically pluralist landscape. Thus, members of organizations like the Boy Scouts, or the YMCA or the Elks Club and so on will often engage in debates, disputes, and sometimes acrimonious struggles to maintain or change the self-articulated statements of mission or of policy that define these groups. Boards will be formed, will be challenged, will be re-invented in these struggles; votes will be taken and reversed; directorships will be promoted that redirect or retain strategies and commitments. As with publicly and privately held companies, revolts and "coups" take place among stock-holders. Sometimes these struggles spill over into the civil (and occasionally even criminal) courts. However, the struggles themselves constitute the necessary means by which voluntary groups represent the aspirations and visions of their members through resolving or refashioning cohesive group identities. Which, of course, stand side by side a host of alternative identities embodied in a multiplicity of co-existing groups. A truly post-modern pluralistic attitude would see this process – in churches as much as any other voluntary social group – as simply part of the reality of a robustly diverse society. And indeed the body politic has no interest in intervening in this process; quite the opposite. Applying qualities like "pre-modern" and "unhistorical" and "controlling" in a moral way to individual groups simply makes no sense in a pluralistic context: as part of the bustling supermarket of shifting small-scale social arrangements that create the vigorous pluralist society, Mormonism and Santeria, Alien-seekers and Episcopalians, do not each (nor should they) represent microcosms of some larger democratic pluralism, but individually they are separately interesting and sometimes arresting possibilities of the always surprising diversity of the human spirit, whose juggling of the set as a whole mimics social health. This, at least, is an aspect of post-modernism's celebration of pluralism. But Harris seems to want the players to represent the whole play, and so Anglicanism and Episcopalianism stand for all of society, in a funny and universalized manner. It is an ethically strange, culturally hegemonic (because it wants the internal dynamics of the Episcopal Church itself to reflect the shape of Harris' post-modern democratic theory and society as a whole) and ultimately anti-pluralistic exercise. Applied to the inner-workings of a single church, the vision is some kind of odd amalgam of Enlightenment civil-Christian establishmentarianism: the Episcopal Church should function like an appointed civic review panel that has representatives of every perspective. Church and society are to be mirror images of each other. Thus, all the fussy anxieties over the Network's purported conspiring machinations to overthrow the "structures" of the Episcopal Church secretly and nefariously, worries which consistently sound more like the paranoia of an absolutist continental royal court, than the open relativism of the true religious pluralist. A liberal pluralist body politic has no interest in whether the Chassidim are in turmoil over a rabbinic succession or whether Episcopalians are grappling in the mud over gay bishops; the more they do it within their own courtyards, the less they will disturb the public square. This is where the accusations of "fascism" leveled at the Network appear so silly. Fascists are interested in controlling – among other things – the inner workings of voluntary organizations from the outside, so as to make them conform to a standard of "usefulness" to be applied to society as a whole: i.e. individual churches, in a fascist state, must cohere to the outlooks and policies of the state and its interests as a whole. The last thing fascists want is for individual voluntary organizations to engage in internal struggles over their particular group identities, in ways unrelated or even contrary to defined larger social goals. It doesn't take much scrutiny to realize that what Harris calls the Network's "fascism" is in fact what makes it part of a truly liberal pluralistic religious "post-modern" society, and that the basis upon which he castigates the internal struggle in which the Network is engaged is something that is aligned itself with a certain kind of distaste for religiously plural groups flourishing within a religiously indifferent society. Of course, there is a certain amount of understandable and acceptable posturing in all this. Harris himself is engaged in just the sort of internal struggle voluntary religious organizations are meant to have (in a pluralist society). The charges and counter-charges of things like "fascism", "precisely" because they are so flatulent, are part of the rhetorical jouissance of the exercise. We can note the playful irony of the fact that, in an article that is extravagantly scornful of the Network's impudent assertion to be representative of the Anglican Communion in some fashion – "by whose authority, or by what measure?" Harris wonders (although little imagination is required to realize that the assertion is a hope, a commitment, and a calculated prediction based on rapidly gathering facts) is itself published by an organization that calls itself "The Episcopal Church Publishing Company", although it has nothing officially to do with the Episcopal Church. The inflated "nomenclature" is hardly disturbing in this kind of dispute. It goes with the territory. And in any case, from the perspective of The Witness, calling people "fascists" represents the expected kind of political sloganeering that has long characterized its theological twelve-tone system by which it has hoped to charm the sensibilities of its readers. "Fascism" in its negative reference has become a musical style, attractive to a particular taste. No, there is something else at work in Harris' superficially pluralist, but more fundamentally intransigent insistence on ruling the Network's religious struggle for the Episcopal Church's identity out of order. And that something seems to be religion itself. For clearly, from the Network's side, the issue is not the integrity of the dynamics of voluntary religious organizations within a pluralist society (however mixed up about this The Witness may be). Nor is it about modern, pre-modern, or post-modern world-views. The issue for the Network is the religious character of the Episcopal Church as a faithful Christian body fulfilling its divine vocation. Harris notes that the Network's "Theological Charter" refers extensively and almost exclusively to Scripture. His own article, however, refers to nary a verse. Indeed, it is scrupulously a-theological (perhaps even anti-theological) in its content and argument. There is one mention of the "faithful pilgrimage in Jesus Christ", to be sure, but that is the extent of the matter, literally. As a whole, the essay ranges over matters of social evolution, generalizations about social-political attitudes, historical glances upon cultural variations in something called "Anglicanism", and finally flirtations with misty legal details. There is nothing, however, about the Church of Jesus Christ, expressed in the language of Scripture, prayer, and theological tradition (or even anti-tradition). This is all fine, as a piece of personal testimony. But let's be clear that it does not really gel with the general sense that I would think most reflective Episcopalians have that a struggle for their church's identity ought at least to engage some kind of explicit and even explicitly Christian dimension. The image offered instead by Harris – again, in stark contrast to the Network's own "un-useful" vision – is one of a radical secularism, in the technical sense: a cognitive attitude wherein the intellectual scaffolding of the present age, devoid of religious claims, provides the truest representation of reality by which to organize one's life. Secularism, in its modern forms, has no interest in any particular epistemological framework, as long as it excludes essential religious elements. Hence, secularism can take its forms from Revolutionary France to National Socialism or Communism to American liberalism. Secularism is in fact indifferent to fascism as a moral (or immoral) absolute. And hence, in secularist discourse, the charge of "fascism" has become increasingly weak and beside the point. It is the anti-religious character of secularism that gives it its impetus. Some of secularism's original drive comes from the realization that religious commitment, when imposed upon a social whole, has proven socially divisive and even destructive, as Harris rightly observes. But just as secularism itself is a clothing adapted to many a political form, so too religion is by no means necessarily a stick of social dynamite. That has been the political insight of the American constitutional system: religious organizations are free to define themselves religiously as long as they do not disturb the larger commonwealth; and the vital religious character of these definitions actually adds to the vigor of the Republic. The "bundling together of Faith and Order into a unified whole" is exactly what religious groups do. What is odd in Harris' argument is the way that he inserts a secularist set of values into a particular church's proposed self-definition so that "faith" itself – that is, religious content – is effectively banished. This move is politically unnecessary and, from within the life of a given church, logically contradictory. To define as religiously "un-useful" (useless?) and "fascistic" those whose sense of divine vocation leads them to engage and submit to the vision of "one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all" (Eph. 4:4-6); to define as "fascistic" those who struggle, according to their lights, to maintain their church "upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Eph. 2:20); to define as "fascistic" those whose sense of moral obligation presses them to action, within a church that has always accepted these and other irreducibly theologically specific articulations as parameters of its self-definition; to define as "fascistic" those who (with all uncertainty and difficulty) attempt to order this struggle according to outlooks shared with a host of other "Anglicans" around the world in a bond generally recognized as substantive by most American Episcopalians until recently (because shaped "precisely" by a shared reception and common commitment to the religiously particularized demands of Scriptural revelation among other things)… to define all this as religiously "un-useful" and "fascistic" sounds like Humpty-Dumpty inventing his own meanings and references and scattering them about the nave, more than anything else ("When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean"). However varied Anglicanism may be culturally, we all know that in the present dispute the vying commitments are rather narrowly defined among two or three groups at best, and that the vast majority of those who call themselves "Anglicans" actually do agree on what they believe about sexuality and are clear on the Scriptural, semantic, and historical basis of their agreement. If history is "passing" anybody by in this discussion it is those who cannot hear the concordance of voices speaking at this particular time. It is perhaps this false presupposition of moral cacophony that leads Harris to assume that a mention of the Barmen Declaration in the Network's Theological Charter "really" means that Network theologians think ECUSA Conventioneers are Nazis, something that might rightly "offend" him were it true. (Although, since the charge is no more than a dramatic turn of phrase, so too is probably the sense of affront.) In a world (and thereby church, since church is meant to reflect the world in this secularist perspective) that is intrinsically diverse and "complexly" textured in its moral compass, anybody who affirms clear and possibly harmonious ideas as informative of a historical vocation must harbor a well-refined hatred towards others – and "Nazis" represent the purest contemporary object of such hatred. Thereby, of course, they must want to kill everybody else who disagrees with them as well. Which would imply that those who hate Nazis are really Nazis themselves (eviscerated invective is logically confused). But all this, it must be noted, is purely an intuition on Harris' part, since the Charter says nothing of the sort. His is an intuition perhaps understandable in one who appears habituated in the practice of charging others with "fascistic" tendencies. The intuition, however, misleads. The Charter refers, in passing, to the Barmen Declaration's opening paragraph only to emphasize, with the Declaration's famous clarity, the coherent, well-known, and limited authorities by which the Church discerns God's will and lives, primarily the authority of Scripture. ("In this way the authorities, which the church needs for her mission, are defined and limited" is the quote.) If such a citation is "really" about calling everybody else Nazis, and if this occult and mysteriously discerned (and unspoken) charge against ECUSA is itself a pose masking its own fascistic intent, it is better to avoid citing theological heroes at all: the one who quotes Augustine will be mistaken as accusing others of Manichaeism and Donatism, the one who quotes Luther will be seen as eyeing neighbors as corrupt papists or raving charismatic anarchists, and so on. Although, come to think of it, the dangers of "acquiescing to the prevailing culture" that Harris thinks is being targeted by this quote are certainly worth exposing. In fact, however, it was none other than that well-known fascist Rowan Williams who suggested that those within ECUSA who would organize a resistance to General Convention's decisions, including the leaders of what became the "Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes", take as their model the Confessing Church of Barth and Bonhoeffer. I suppose he was offering an overly grandiose examplar, morally speaking, to this rag-tag group of American grousers; but his hope, I think, was that a "principled" and structured form of protest, bound by a theologically articulate and centered purpose and founded on commitments to communal formation would provide an appropriate and authentic framework within which to be faithful to conscience, to an apprehended and specific Gospel, and finally to some sort of ecclesial order. There have, of course, been "Anglican" fascists of a sort once defined a little more strictly. Some belonged to Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists in the 1930's; several were affiliated with Frank Buchman's so-called Oxford Group; not a few were confused enough by their desire to avoid war and oppose communism to support Hitler (bishops among them, no less). But this has not been the general orientation of this conglomeration of churches, unless Archbishop Laud is viewed as somehow both a retrojection of National Socialism and a font of developing totalitarian history as it has swept through Prayer Book congregations. The Network's existence, in the context of American separation of Church and State and of a topsy-turvy fashioning of an international Anglicanism even as we speak, would appear, in any case, to be located in another sphere altogether. Not that it matters: we are in an ecclesiastical theater. Though there is, to be sure, the point of view that asserts that when moral distinctions fade in favor of rhetorical gesture, moral conscience itself is progressively blunted. Meanwhile as we ponder this possibility, we should not flinch from responding to questions of the moment: Is it morally legitimate and historically relevant to struggle for the soul of one's church, and even for the direction of its teaching as we have received it in Christ Jesus? Is it politically sensitive to have religious commitments? Is it intellectually honest to claim Scriptural adherence, to seek ethical faithfulness according to purportedly "revealed" standards, and to mold a vocational identity within this outlook? To all of these questions I would respond, freely and without coercion, "Yes!". The Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner is Rector Church of the Ascension, Pueblo, Colorado. He holds a Ph.D. in theology from Yale University and is an accomplished violinist and scholar.

By Jacinthia Jones February 22, 2004 Promoting the themes of unity and reconciliation, Episcopalians from across West Tennessee refused Saturday to back efforts that would have distanced the local diocese from actions taken by the national church. On the final day of the diocese's annual convention meeting here, clergy and lay delegates passed a resolution supporting Bishop Don Johnson "in his leadership and commitment to unity." The church vote calls for Johnson to formulate a pastoral response for church members who disagree with gay ordinations and same-sex unions both of which were approved during last year's General Convention and to work with a commission to study the issues of marriage, human sexuality and the blessing of same-sex unions. The single resolution was crafted as a substitute for several others, angering church conservatives. They had pushed measures that would have repudiated the confirmation of Bishop V. Gene Robinson, a gay man who lives with a male partner, and would have proclaimed Christian marriage as being between one man and one woman. Episcopal dioceses in Pennsylvania, Texas and elsewhere had passed similar measures expressing their displeasure with the national church. "We didn't ask for this conflict, but we don't flee from it either," said Rev. Joe Davis, pastor of St. Philip Church in Lakeland. Davis co-authored another resolution that would have allowed dissident church members to join with conservative groups and still remain in the Episcopal Church. A majority of church members, however, objected to the plan calling it schismatic and an attempt to subvert the local bishop's authority. During the 1 1/2-hour debate, other conservative church members expressed frustration that their views were being ignored. "We've already embraced the voice of the liberal view," said Rev. Colenzo Hubbard, executive director of Emmanuel Episcopal Center in Memphis. "We cannot get to a place of unity unless all of our voices are heard." Others objected to the consolidated "watered-down" version of their resolutions. "This is a let's go study thing and people are going to depart (from the church) one at a time," said Joe Davenport of St. Luke's Episcopal Church in Jackson. Several priests who supported the substitute measure said the church needed more time to explore scripture as it pertains to human sexuality. "I consider myself a traditionalist and Orthodox, but what I've learned over the years is that Scripture is not clear at all," said Rev. Don White, pastor at St. George's Episcopal Church in Germantown. Others supporting the resolution said it gives both sides more time to sit down and talk out their differences. "Democracy may be a great way to run a country, but it's a terrible way to run a church," said Rev. C. B. Baker, Dean of St. Mary's Episcopal Church in Memphis. "To try to discern the Holy Spirit through a vote seems to be ludicrous." In a separate matter, the convention passed its 2004 budget, which cuts financial support to the national church by almost $60,000 over last year when the West Tennessee diocese gave more than $158,000. In approving the $1.2 million budget, church members said the decrease in funding to the national body was due to economic reasons and not intended to send a message of discontent. The West Tennessee diocese includes more than 11,300 baptized members.

By Rachel Harden CHURCH TIMES ANGLICAN leaders across the world were warned this week to stop taking "precipitate action or legal proceedings" because of conflicting views over homosexuality. The warning came from the Eames Commission, also known as the Lambeth Commission, which met for the first time last week, under the chairmanship of the Archbishop of Armagh, Dr Robin Eames. It is considering how divisions over this and other issues will affect the Anglican Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury set up the Commission in October at the emergency Primates' meeting after the Episcopal Church of the United States (ECUSA) elected an openly homosexual bishop, the Rt Revd Gene Robinson. The Commission issued a strongly worded statement on Monday, addressed to the warring factions within the Communion. It condemned the use of "strident language" by both conservatives and liberals. Its 19 members gathered in Windsor for a short rite of commissioning by Dr Williams on the eve of the first session. He said: "The Primates of the Communion have repeatedly asserted that they wish to remain a Communion rather than becoming a federation of Churches; and the task of this Commission is to help make this more of a reality, at a time when many pressures seem to be pushing in another direction." Dr Williams said that the Commission was "not dealing with a problem that is simply about biblical faithfulness versus fashionable relativism". After the meeting, the statement released by the Commission said that it was saddened that tensions within the Communion, "exacerbated by the use of strident language", have continued to rise in recent months. "The Commission 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 while it completes its work. Mission and ministry, including prayer for unity, remain the priorities." Earlier this month, 14 Primates of the global South offered their support to a new network of conservative Anglicans in ECUSA. They included the Most Revd Drexel Gomez, Archbishop of the West Indies, who is a member of the Commission. The Commission set up small working groups to study five key topics: issues of process in the Anglican Communion; the nature and purposes of communion; the obligations of communion; authority; and the role of the instruments of unity in preserving fellowship. It also considered the work of previous commissions, including that chaired by Dr Eames on women bishops. The Commission is to report back by the end of September after two further meetings.

By Staff Reporter Belfast Telegraph 20 February 2004 THE major Anglican Commission chaired by Archbishop Robin Eames in the aftermath of the controversy involving homosexual bishops has called for a period of calm. The Commission on Anglican Structures, which met for the first time at St George's, Windsor, for three full days last week, has issued a statement requesting all members of the worldwide Anglican Communion "to refrain from any precipitate action, or legal proceedings, which would further harm the bonds of communion in the period while it completes its work". Members of the 17-strong Commission said that that they were saddened, however, that "tensions within the Communion, exacerbated by the use of strident language, have continued to rise in recent months". The Commission was set up last October by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, in the midst of the controversy over the appointment of Dr Gene Robinson, a practising homosexual as a Bishop in New Hampshire in the USA. From the outset Archbishop Eames outlined the Commission's role. He said: "Our job is not to discuss sexuality as such but to find guidelines which will allow us to live together in communion while facing disagreement." An Anglican Church spokesman told the Belfast Telegraph last night that the Commission had been encouraged by its first formal session. He said: "Everyone worked flat out to try find a way forward." He confirmed that the Commission was still on schedule to present its report to Dr Williams in September but that the worldwide Anglican Primates would not have a chance to discuss it together until at least the New Year.

Our Vows and the Protection of the Flock Demand it, they say By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org November 16, 2025 Some 150 concerned laity have written an open letter to the ACNA College of Bishops saying Archbishop Steve Wood must be inhibited. “We suggest that the archbishop be inhibited until the conclusion of the trial that will determine his guilt or innocence,” they argue. Vows are not small matters in the Anglican tradition, they contend. The exhortation tells clergy of our duties: I now exhort you, in the Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, to be a messenger, watchman, and steward of the Lord. Remember how great is this treasure committed to your charge. They are the sheep of Christ for whom he shed his blood. The Church and Congregation whom you will serve is his bride, his body. If the Church, or any of her members, is hurt or hindered by your negligence, you must know both the gravity of your fault, and the grievous judgment that will result (BCP 488–489 emphasis added). As clergy in the ACNA, attending to the matter of Archbishop Wood's accusation is part of our pastoral duties and the care of our local congregations. There is much that would be presumptuous to comment on at this early stage. We do not write this letter with any presumption about what this investigation will reveal or what its final outcome will be. We will limit our focus to a single salient issue: Given the seriousness of the charges against our Archbishop (sexual harassment and abuse of power), we believe that a voluntary leave of absence is insufficient. Canonically, a voluntary leave of absence allows the Archbishop to return to office when he sees fit. Instead, we suggest that the Archbishop be inhibited until the conclusion of the trial that will determine his guilt or innocence. If such a request is not granted we believe that we as clergy deserve to hear from the College of Bishops why they believe that such a step is not warranted. We understand the weight of this request and do not make it flippantly. In the Anglican tradition, an inhibition is not a statement about the guilt or innocence of the accused. According to our canons, “An Inhibition is a temporary suspension of a Bishop (including the Archbishop), a Presbyter, or a Deacon from the exercise of ministry (Canon 9, section 1). ” It is by its very nature “temporary.” There are two requirements for an inhibition. First, there must be “ reasonable grounds” to believe that the accused has engaged in conduct upon which they may be presented. The Archbishop has already been presented. Since the litigation of that presentation is a matter for our court systems, it does not appear to be the job of those in authority to determine Archbishop Wood’s guilt or innocence before an inhibition. That would require those in authority to engage in an investigation not required by canon. Therefore, in a case where there has already been a presentment, an inhibition may be deemed “reasonable” based upon the sworn testimony of the presentment itself. Stated differently, our canons suggest that if the charges are of sufficient seriousness and of initial viability then the accused may be inhibited until the truthfulness of said charges can be discerned. We believe this case meets that standard. The second requirement is that “it is in the best interests of the church to do so, pending an accusation, canonical investigation, presentment, trial, or voluntary submission to discipline (Canon 9,section 1).” We believe that given these charges, this case also meets that standard. Again our goal is not to presume guilt, but to give space to investigate and discern guilt or innocence with all possible protections in place. We know that inhibition is not a matter for the entire College of Bishops. Instead, “In the case of the presentment of a Bishop of this Church (including the Archbishop), three of the five senior active diocesan members of the College of Bishops by date of consecration (exclusive of any bishop involved in the presentment or trial) may, by their affirmative vote, temporarily inhibit the Bishop from the exercise of ministry. Such inhibition shall be in writing, signed by those consenting to it.” Nonetheless, we believe that in this circumstance it would be prudent for the college as a whole to meet in council with those tasked to make this decision and inform them of your opinion on the matter to aid in their discernment. We then would respectfully request to hear from house on this matter because we believe that you are tasked with the care of the flock of God which includes the clergy and laity under your care. You have been given the weighty charism and task of leadership and protection. You can be assured of our prayers. Clergy interested in supporting this call can add their names here. We plan to submit this letter along with its signatures to the College of Bishops on the Feast of Christ the King, the last Sunday of Ordinary Time. Feast of St. Martin of Tours, 2025 Authors Esau McCaulley+ Amanda Rosengren+ Tish Harrison Warren+ Jonathan Warren Pagán+ Signees Jordan Kologe Diocese of The Rocky Mountains Kara Griffith Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others Elizabeth Elmers Diocese of the Rocky Mountains Kathryn Watkins Diocese of the Rocky Mountains Chris Lugo Diocese of the Mid Atlantic Kyle Holtzhower Anglican Diocese of South Carolina Heather Ghormley Diocese of the Great Lakes Rob Sorensen Diocese of the Rocky Mountains Jacob Hootman Diocese of Fort Worth Aaron Harrison Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others Heather Matthews Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others Jamie Afshari Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others Jesse Martin Diocese of Cascadia Jeremiah Webster Diocese of the Rocky Mountains John Haralson Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others Ryan Landes Anglican Diocese of South Carolina Drew Billups Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others Nelson Hall Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others Joshua Fink Anglican Diocese of the Carolinas Jeremy Shelton Anglican Diocese of South Carolina Nathan Hale Diocese of the Rocky Mountains Jeanne Higgins Diocese of the Gulf Atlantic Brian C. Morgan Diocese of Christ our Hope Bill Haley Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic Patrick Schlabs Anglican Diocese of South Carolina Newman Lawrence Anglican Diocese of South Carolina Emily Hunter McGowin Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others Mary Amendolia Gardner Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic Matthew Wilkins Diocese of the Carolinas David D Wilson Diocese of Pittsburgh Mike Juday Anglican Diocese of the Carolinas Tim Melton Diocese of the Carolinas Corey Prescott Anglican Diocese of South Carolina John Gibson Special Jurisdiction for Armed Forces and Chaplaincy Brian Pape Diocese of Christ Our Hope Allan Theobald Anglican Diocese of Canada Juliet San Nicolas de Bradley Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others Ryan Bradley Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others Brian Goodwin Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others Ben Acone Diocese of the Rocky Mountains Amy Rowe Diocese of the Mid Atlantic David Rowe Anglican Diocese of South Carolina Zachary Miller Anglican Diocese of South Carolina Nancy Nethercott Rund Anglican Diocese of the Great Lakes Katie Hamlin Diocese of the Mid Atlantic Cameron Crickenberger Diocese of the Carolinas Joshua Samuels Diocese of Canada Elizabeth Stewart Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh Tim Clayton Anglican Diocese of New England Ryan Brotherton Diocese of Cascadia Christopher H. Brown Diocese of the Gulf Atlantic Steven Tompkins Diocese of Cascadia Nate Kellogg Diocese of the Rocky Mountains Joe McCulley Diocese of Cascadia Eric Henningfeld Special Jurisdiction for Armed Forces and Chaplaincy Sheryll Qualls Diocese of the Carolinas John Gullett Anglican Diocese of the Carolinas Luke Deman Anglican Diocese of South Carolina Will Klauber Anglican Diocese of South Carolina Ross Wagner Diocese of Christ Our Hope Louise Weld Anglican Diocese of South Carolina Janet Roberts Echols Anglican Diocese of South Carolina Hank Tarlton Diocese of Christ our Hope Zach Barton Anglican Diocese of South Carolina Peet Dickinson Anglican Diocese of South Carolina Hunter Myers Anglican Diocese of South Carolina Isaac Bradshaw Diocese of New England Hunter Jordan Anglican Diocese of South Carolina Virginia Musselman Anglican Diocese of the Carolinas Ricky McCarl REC NEMA Leah Wall Anglican Diocese of Canada Nelson Weaver Anglican Diocese of South Carolina Rob Patterson Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others Robert Lawrence Anglican Diocese of South Carolina Bree Snow Anglican Diocese of the Carolinas Matthew Aughtry Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others Jordan Warner Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others Jeremy Goebel Anglican Diocese of the South Kyle Logan Diocese of Cascadia Eric Fesmire Diocese of Christ our Hope Kester Smith Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others Erin Bair Diocese of the Mid Atlantic Krista Vossler Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others Ron McGowin Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others Taylor Daniel Anglican Diocese of South Carolina Charles A. Collins, Jr. Southeast (REC) Drew Miller Anglican Diocese of South Carolina Peter White Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others Teesha Hadra Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others Allison Lewis Diocese of the Carolinas Brad Lindsay Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others Donald Shepson Diocese of Pittsburgh Anson Ann Diocese of Canada Allan Tan Diocese of Canada Jason Varnadore Anglican Diocese of South Carolina Anna Spray Diocese of Canada Erin Chin Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others Daniel N. Gullotta Diocese of All Nations Hamilton Smith Anglican Diocese of South Carolina Daniel Wolf Anglican Diocese of New England Elizabeth Bumpas Anglican Diocese of South Carolina Gina Roes Anglican Diocese of the Carolinas Collin Reed Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh Shannon Reed Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh Kevin Miller Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others Edmond Ragland Coxe Anglican Diocese of South Carolina MaryEllen Doran Anglican Diocese of South Carolina Carter Smith-Stepper Diocese of Cascadia Richard Sandlin Diocese of Canada Joseph Calandra, Jr. Special Jurisdiction for the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy Tyler Prescott Anglican Diocese of South Carolina Stefan Taylor Diocese of Carolinas Jason Fry Diocese of the Mid Atlantic Kendall Harmon Anglican Diocese of South Carolina Justin Lokey Diocese of Christ our Hope Ben Edstrom Yellowstone Missionary District/DWA. Claudia Carucci Anglican Diocese of South Carolina Jennifer Keifer Anglican Diocese of New England Dawn Lundgren Diocese of Pittsburgh Noel Collins Diocese of Southwest Kurt Hein Diocese of Forth Worth Justin Clemente Diocese of the South Colby Truesdell Diocese of the Carolinas Jennifer L. Hughes Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others Jonathan Bennett Anglican Diocese of South Carolina Maryanna Stumbaugh Anglican Diocese of the Great Lakes Megan Greto Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others Chris Hill Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh Carol Brooks Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others Charles Echols Anglican Diocese of South Carolina Stefan Taylor Diocese of the Carolinas Will Henry Lawrence (postulant) Diocese of the Gulf Atlantic Sarah Lindsey Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others Nancy Scammacca Lewis Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others Aaron White Anglican Diocese of the Carolinas Becki Neumann Diocese of the Mid Atlantic Summer Gross Anglican Diocese of the Great Lakes

CAMBRIDGE, USA, February 27 (CNA) - A Catholic Harvard University law professor says all U.S. citizens should welcome President George W. Bush's endorsement of a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, based on the implications of same-sex marriage. In an article on same-sex marriage released Feb. 25, Mary Ann Glendon argues that same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue, but a movement for special preference. She states that it will impair children's rights and jeopardize religious freedom. Furthermore, the decision to legalize same-sex marriage belongs to the people, not to the courts, and should be made according to the democratic process, she says. Such an important decision should only be made after full public debate, she says. "What same-sex marriage advocates have tried to present as a civil rights issue is really a bid for special preferences of the type our society gives to married couples for the very good reason that most of them are raising or have raised children," says Glendon. "There is a real problem of distributive justice," said the former Vatican representative to the Summit on Women at Beijing. "How can one justify treating same-sex households like married couples when such benefits are denied to all the people in our society who are caring for elderly or disabled relatives whom they cannot claim as family members for tax or insurance purposes? Shouldn't citizens have a chance to vote on whether they want to give homosexual unions, most of which are childless, the same benefits that society gives to married couples, most of whom have raised or are raising children?" The financial implications of same-sex marriage must also be given consideration, she says, adding that the media has not reported the financial costs to American citizens for this "new special preference" in terms of taxes and insurance premiums. Children's rights Same-sex marriage will also impair children's rights, since it will endorse the view that marriage is for the benefit of adults and that children do not need both a mother and a father, argues the law professor. It will suggest that "alternative family forms are just as good as a husband and wife raising kids together," she says. School programs will also be affected. Children will be taught about homosexual sex in marriage-preparation and sex-education classes. "Parents who complain will be branded as homophobes and their children will suffer," she warns. Religious freedom at stake Glendon predicts that same-sex marriage will also jeopardize religious freedom and "usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination the likes of which we have rarely seen before." "Every person and every religion that disagrees with same-sex marriage will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against," warns Glendon. "The axe will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don't go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles." END OF BATCH 31D

News Analysis By David W. Virtue The new bishop of New Hampshire V. Gene Robinson said in a sermon in Chicago honoring the 200-year old ordination of Absalom Jones the first African-American priest ordained in the Episcopal Church, that his own oppression as a gay man is equal to that of "people of color." "The real sin, of course, of any oppression is making an object out of another human being. Treating people as if they were a commodity, an it. Slavery, of course, being the ultimate," said Robinson. "People of color. Women. Gay and lesbian folk. The physically disabled. The aged. All oppressed and all are offered liberation by this great God of ours, declaring the humanity and not the objectification of those people." Robinson pointed to the Prophet Isaiah and the 61st chapter. "It talks about the kinds of oppressions that we are all dealing with, and what you and I are called to do, along with saints like Absalom Jones, in our own ministries." "We're having a bit of a controversy in the Episcopal Church right now. I think you probably noticed. It seems to have something to do with an election in New Hampshire, and a consent given by the General Assembly," said a cynical Robinson. "Could it be, could it be that God is inviting us to go deeper? Could it be that God is asking us to pull our boat out into deeper waters so that we might get to know God better?" "As surely as Jesus was inviting Peter to stretch his notion of God's will, as surely as Absalom Jones was stretched to believe in his own humanity in a culture poisoned by the sin of slavery, so you and I are called to stretch our notion of God's love to all people, especially and always to those on the margins." Robinson's invitation to go to a "deeper place" is much favored by Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold. But Robinson's mixing of race and sexuality issues outraged several leading Black leaders including Philadelphia Black Anglican priest the Rev. James Johnson. "I was saddened to read V. Gene Robinson's sermon on Isaiah 61:1-3ff. This passage is one of the great Jubilee passages of Scripture. It declares that now is the season of reprieve and rest, of pardon and deliverance for penitent sinners and yet it also warns of a final coming day of God's vengeance upon those who let this season of Jubilee pass by." "What is tragically ironic is that this very passage which Mr. Robinson uses to argue explicitly for gay liberation and implicitly for the wholesomeness of at least some homosexual relations, in actuality calls upon him and us all, to repent of our sinful ways while God has let open the floodgates of His mercy. Far from being a rallying cry for homosexual rights, this passage calls for the homosexual to repent of his homosexuality." Johnson said he found Robinson's contrast of Absalom Jones's being black with his (Robinson's) being gay outrageous. "This offensive ploy used by Robinson to sway the biblically illiterate, is the equation of being Black (or white) with being gay (or straight); that homosexuality is as non-morally relevant as skin pigmentation in the consideration of justice for all human beings. This is pure sophistry! Skin pigmentation is a small part of the beautiful diversity of the good created order and is to be celebrated as such. Racial prejudice and oppression demean God's created order and as such are part of the effects of the Fall. The error of Mr. Robinson is to consider homosexuality as part of the beautiful diversity of creation and not of the effects of Fall. The false parallel is between the struggle for racial justice and homosexual liberation. The true parallel is between racial oppression and homosexual practice and desires, as both are effects of the Fall which demeans the crowning glory of God's created order - man and woman." Johnson said that St. Paul in Ephesians 5:31-32 records that from the beginning, manhood and womanhood were created to represent or dramatize God's relation with his people and to Christ's relation to his bride, the Church. "In this drama, the man represents God or Christ and is to love his wife as Christ loved the Church. The woman represents God's people or the Church. And sexual union in the covenant of marriage represents pure, undefiled, intense heart-worship. That is, God means for the beauty of worship to be dramatized in the right ordering of our sexual lives." Johnson said that as a result of The Fall, "we have exchanged the glory of God for images, especially of ourselves. The beauty of heart-worship has been destroyed. Therefore, in judgment, God decrees that this disordering of our relation to him be dramatized in the disordering of our sexual relations with each other. And since the right ordering of our relationship to God in heart-worship was dramatized by heterosexual union in the covenant of marriage, the disordering of our relationship to God is dramatized by the breakdown of that heterosexual union." Johnson said that homosexuality was the most vivid form of that breakdown. "God and man in covenant worship are represented by male and female in covenant sexual union. Therefore, when man turns from God to images of himself, God hands us over to what we have chosen and dramatizes it by male and female turning to images of themselves for sexual union, namely their own sex. Homosexuality is the judgment of God dramatizing the exchange of the glory of God for images of ourselves." Isaiah 61 is calling upon us all to repent while there is still time, he said. Dr. Michael Howell a cradle Episcopalian who says he is proud of his black Caribbean ...

4/25/2004 I was going to analyze Frank Griswold's letter, dated December 19, 2003, to the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church. But as I read it, something gradually occurred to me. I'd read it before. Frank to the Patriarch: I write to you with a heavy heart, having reviewed the November 17 press release from the Department for External Church Relations of the Russian Orthodox Church and having pondered it in my prayers for many weeks. I know that our bonds of fraternal affection and respect have been strained by an action of our General Convention: namely the consent to the election of the bishop-elect of the Diocese of New Hampshire and his subsequent Consecration. I am keenly aware that for you this is clearly contrary to a plain reading of Scripture and Holy Tradition. According to the DECR's press release, the Biblical texts about the condemnation of homosexualism are clear and unequivocal. Therefore our actions seem to say to you that the Episcopal Church has gone beyond the bounds of what is morally acceptable. Frank to the Primates of the Anglican Communion, in a letter dated August 19, 03: I write to you with a heavy heart, knowing that, in some instances, our bonds of fraternal affection and respect have been strained by an action of our General Convention: namely the consent to the election of the bishop-elect of the Diocese of New Hampshire. I am keenly aware that for many of you this is clearly contrary to a plain reading of Scripture, and in the contexts in which you live, it is unthinkable. Should you be of that view, our action would say to you that the Episcopal Church has gone beyond the bounds of what is morally acceptable. Frank to the Patriarch: I see my ministry now as helping our church to find a way forward that both preserves the unity of the church and honors the deeply held divergent points of view among us. Frank to the Primates: I see my ministry now as helping our church to find a way forward that both preserves the unity of the church and honors the deeply held divergent points of view among us. Frank to the Patriarch: I am now obliged to ask what potential gift is buried beneath the surface of this present situation. One of Metropolitan Philaret's prayers, which I say daily, contains the phrase: "I am ready for all, I accept all." Therefore, I find myself asking God to show me how this occasion might be used for the good and to build up the life we share in Christ. Frank to the Primates: As much as I would have preferred that the attention of the Convention, and indeed the media, be focused elsewhere, I am now obliged to ask what potential gift is buried beneath the surface of this present situation. One of the prayers I say daily contains the phrase: I am ready for all, I accept all. Therefore, I find myself asking God to show me how this occasion might be used for the good and to build up the life we share in Christ. Frank to the Patriarch: I write now in the hope of answering some questions raised in the press release which, I note, was released by the DECR and not by you personally. First, I must say in the strongest possible terms that if I believed in any part of my being that the consent to this election was unfaithful to an authentic way of reading Scripture and contrary to the leading of the Holy Spirit, I could no longer serve as the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. I pray that you know I firmly believe, as you do, that the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God and contain all things necessary to salvation. That is the oath I took at my ordination and my life is rooted and grounded in this understanding. Frank to the Primates: I write now in the hope of answering some questions a number of you have raised. First, I must say in strongest possible terms that if I believed in any part of my being that the consent to this election was unfaithful to an authentic way of reading Scripture and contrary to the leading of the Holy Spirit, I could no longer serve as the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. I pray that as most of you have come to know me over these years you know I firmly believe, as you do, that the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God and contain all things necessary to salvation. My life is rooted and grounded in this understanding. Frank to the Patriarch: The difficulty before us is not about some of us believing that Scripture is the inspired Word of God and others not believing it is. How we have been shaped and formed as Christians and the context in which we live have a great deal to do with how we interpret various passages in the Bible and the weight we give them in making moral decisions. Frank to the Primates: Unfortunately, the difficulty before us is not about some of us believing that Scripture is the inspired Word of God and others not believing it is. How we have been shaped and formed as Christians and the context in which we live have a great deal to do with how we interpret various passages in the Bible and the weight we give them in making moral decisions. Frank to the Patriarch: I have said on more than one occasion that, to my mind, consent to this particular election does not mean we now have concluded discussion about the matter of homosexuality which is of such concern in the life of our church and many others. The matter is far from resolved and there are strong opinions on every side. Frank to the Primates: Second, and very important, to my mind consent does not mean we now have clarity about the matter of homosexuality in the life of our church, and a vote to consent is not about this larger question. The matter is far from resolved and there are strong opinions on every side. Frank to the Patriarch: There are also questions about the resolution passed by our Convention concerning "Rites: blessing of committed same gender relationships." The original form of the resolution called for the authorization of the development of rites for the blessing of same sex unions. This was rejected. Here I, and many others, were mindful of the Primates' letter following our meeting in Brazil. The resolution Convention passed recognizes the reality of a variety of local pastoral practices, without either endorsing or condemning the same, and calls for "continued prayer, study and discernment" under my direction. Frank to the Primates: There have also been questions about the resolution passed by our Convention concerning Rites: blessing of committed same gender relationships. The original form of the resolution called for the authorization of the development of rites for the blessing of same sex unions, which would then have been considered by the General Convention in 06. This was rejected. Here I and many others were mindful of the Primates letter following our meeting in Brazil. The resolution Convention passed recognizes the reality of a variety of local pastoral practices, without either endorsing or condemning the same, and calls for continued prayer, study and discernment under my direction. Frank to the Patriarch: It is important to note that this in no way relates to Holy Matrimony, about which our teachings are clear. I say this because some reports following Convention falsely indicated we had departed from the teachings on marriage. I see the question on blessing same gender relationships as a quite separate matter from that of consenting to the New Hampshire election. Frank to the Primates: It is important to note that this in no way relates to Holy Matrimony, about which our teachings are clear. I say this because some reports following Convention falsely indicated we had departed from the teachings on marriage. I see the question on blessing same gender relationships as a quite separate matter from that of consenting to the New Hampshire election. Frank to the Patriarch: St. Paul once wrote: "Glory to God whose power working in us can do infinitely more than we can ask or imagine." These words give me strength and courage and open me continually to the mystery of God's ever-unfolding ways. May they sustain us all in the ministry we share, which is none other than Christ's continuing ministry of reconciling love. Frank to the Primates: Glory to God whose power working in us can do infinitely more than we can ask or imagine. These words of St. Paul give me strength and courage and open me continually to the mystery of God's ever-unfolding ways. May they sustain us all in the ministry we share, which is none other than Christ's continuing ministry of reconciling love.

2/24/2004 Canon Edward Norman has written a scathing attack on the Church of England and is converting to Catholicism. Damian Thompson meets him "My new book is not actually a criticism of the Church of England," says Canon Edward Norman, chancellor of York Minster, choosing his words with donnish precision. Edward Norman: 'men are interested in truth, ideas, sin, wickedness and virtue'. Is he serious? Two minutes later, he declares: "There is a big hole at the centre of Anglicanism - its authority. I don't think it's a Church; it's more of a religious society." This is the most hurtful criticism that one can make of any Church: to say that it is not a Church. In fact, his book, Anglican Difficulties: A New Syllabus of Errors, is one of the most ferocious assaults ever launched on the Church of England. It is all the more deadly because its author is not a traditionalist quote-merchant, but a leading Church intellectual. A former Reith lecturer and Dean of Peterhouse, Canon Norman is an ecclesiastical historian with the long face and high cheekbones of a Tudor churchman. He speaks fast and quietly, polishing his dry words as he speaks, so that his prose and conversation are almost indistinguishable. He commits thoughts to paper that colleagues might let slip only in the senior common room after dinner. In Anglican Difficulties, Norman blazes away impartially at all the Church's factions. About the General Synod, he writes: "Every disagreement, in seemingly every board or committee, proceeds by avoidance of principled debate. Ordinary moral cowardice is represented as wise judgment; equivocation in the construction of compromise formulae is second nature to leaders." Evangelical bishops who trumpet their adherence to Biblical orthodoxy are accused of selling their principles in return for preferment. "Discreetly, behind the twitching curtains of the evangelical bishops' houses, the playing pieces are being set out on the board," writes Norman. So how can someone who believes that the Church of England is collapsing belong to it? The answer is that Edward Norman will leave the Church of England when he retires as a member of York Minster's chapter in May. Later this year, he will be received into the Roman Catholic Church by a Cambridge contemporary, Fr Dermot Fenlon, at the Birmingham Oratory. He has started attending Mass in Catholic churches, unobserved in collar and tie. But there is no mention of conversion to Rome in Anglican Difficulties. Norman stresses that leaving the C of E and becoming a Catholic are "quite independent developments". Like his insistence that his new book is not a criticism of Anglicanism, this point is not easy to grasp, but Norman is insistent. "Just because the Anglican tub is leaking is not in itself an argument for jumping into another one," he explains. His conversation drips with these aquatic metaphors. Over lunch in an Italian restaurant near the Minster, he announces: "Anglicanism is going to tip into the sea." He reaches for the bread with a thin smile. "But it will all come out in the wash." Norman eats a plate of pasta here every lunchtime. "It is my only meal of the day," he says, which is not hard to believe: he is rake-thin and ascetic, a convert in the mould of John Henry Newman rather than GK Chesterton. This is not an obvious candidate for "Poping". Like Newman, Norman has always been Low Church; when he arrived at York Minister, he had to be helped through the rituals. And didn't he once support women priests? "I was originally in favour, on rationalist liberal grounds," he says, apologetically. "Now, I'm against it - on the evidence. We were told that a whole dimension to humanity was missing from the ministry, but that enrichment hasn't happened." What follows is a typical Edward Norman argument, either perverse or original, depending on your point of view. "Women emphasise caring, relationships, suffering, healing and love. Men are interested in truth, ideas, conflict, sin, wickedness and virtue. Those are caricatures, but there was wisdom in Our Lord entrusting the office of the priesthood to men. "The priesthood is about teaching, not just conveyance of the sacraments. If you think Christianity is all about love and relationships, then it will disappear in the flood." He catches my surprised look and shrugs. "I can't think of a way of putting this into words that is acceptable to contemporary culture," he says. Not that he tries. There is something in Norman's world view to offend everyone: liberals, who imagine that "caring" is an adequate substitute for the rigours of the Gospel; lovers of art and music, who mistake aesthetic sensations for spirituality; Tory-voting country types who enjoy a jolly good sing-song at Matins. "The number of people who respond to the teaching of the truth is extremely small," he says. "I have friends who come to York Minster who are very good people, even godly, but it's a very conventional, class-based observance." Class runs through Norman's writings, a legacy of his youthful Marxism. His reputation now is that of a maverick Right-winger, but he says that is wrong: "I have no politics. My only ideology is classical Christianity, without reservation." In the late 1970s, Norman's broadsides against the trendy Left earned him the label of Margaret Thatcher's favourite clergyman; she even invited him to Chequers. "But there wasn't any meeting of minds," he says firmly. "Mrs T wasn't - isn't - a very deep thinker. She was the daughter of an alderman who was a Gladstonian liberal, and that was what she was, too. She was looking for an intellectual to give a pedigree to those liberal values. I have admiration for her, and found her personally kind. But I have been appalled by the results of naked capitalism." His own sympathies are unpredictable. One wonders if Lady Thatcher would still admire him if she had heard his final lecture at York Minster - an appreciation of the oeuvre of gay atheist filmmaker Derek Jarman. The lecture was extraordinary, not least for the Jarman quotes that Norman included. Jarman on Dr George Carey: "Moon-faced and pudgy, a clerical Bunter, the school bully in a lurex mitre." And on Carey's enthronement as Archbishop of Canterbury: "This is where crap takes you." The canon chancellor of York Minster quoted these lines as if he approved of them. Perhaps his failure to reach high office in the established Church is not that mysterious. Norman spent 17 years at Peterhouse, where one of his students was Michael Portillo. "A very hard-working pupil," he recalls. "I never noticed any sexual irregularity in his life." Most of Norman's time as a Cambridge don was given over to writing studies of (among others) the Victorian Christian socialists and modern Ireland. He was also a participant in one of the most vigorous High Table feuds in recent history, which began when he fell out with the Master of Peterhouse, the late Lord Dacre, over a memorial service for a don who had been caught shoplifting. Norman thought the man deserved a Cambridge memorial service. Dacre disagreed. As Norman recounts it, Dacre's views do indeed sound unreasonable. (Years ago, when working on a newspaper diary column, I sought Dacre's side of the story. He would only say: "Dr Norman is a s--t.") After lunch, Norman shows me around the cathedral. "This is a very poor example of the late-Gothic style," he says, his thin arm sweeping dismissively across the widest medieval nave in England. "It was put up on the cheap - the decorative devices are straight out of a stonemason's catalogue." But doesn't the miraculous, vaulted ceiling help worshippers concentrate their thoughts? "Cathedrals can be a hindrance as well as an aid to faith," says Norman. "They can lead people to luxuriate in emotion. I'd rather they were convicted of their sins." We pass a statue of the Minster's patron saint, St Peter, holding a key. It's an appropriate image. Soon, Canon Norman will be free of "the ideological chaos of Anglicanism" and in full communion with (as he believes) the successor of Peter. Then will come retirement in Brighton - "And I shall be properly retired," he says. The reaction of his critics is not hard to predict: "Well, there's one Anglican difficulty out of the way," they will smirk. But others will regret the loss of one of the most profound and unsettling thinkers that the Church of England has produced in decades. "Catholicism is what I have always believed, though I did not have the wit to realise it," says Canon Norman, gathering his coat around him. "You might call it a shaft of light before the sun sets." © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2004.