Archives

Rev. David Short, rector of St. John’s, Shaughnessy, Vancouver—who led opposition to same-sex blessings in the Diocese of New Westminster—is to address Church of Ireland clergy in Portadown. His parish, with ten others, formed the Anglican Communion in New Westminster (ACiNW), recognized by successive Archbishops of Canterbury and representing ~25% of the diocese’s worshipers. Their chief concerns: departure from traditional Biblical Christian faith and morals, and threats to orthodox believers. Short stated: “I believe that we are in a Diocese that has unilaterally severed its connection with the global Anglican Communion by being the first to officially bless same-sex unions.” The ACiNW has drawn support from 358 Anglican clergy, bishops, and archbishops worldwide. The event—“Thinking for the Future”—was organized by the Evangelical Fellowship of Irish Clergy to help Irish clergy understand life in a “church structure hostile toward Biblical faith.” The Anglican Communion faces crisis: New Hampshire elected a practicing homosexual bishop; New Westminster pioneered same-sex blessings. Archbishop Robin Eames (Armagh) chairs a commission seeking ways to hold the Communion together. —Evangelical Fellowship of Irish Clergy (www.acinw.org ) END

Enemy-occupied territory—that is what the world is. —C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity A satirical “diabolical communiqué” from Tapeworm (Senior Tempter) to Dogwood (Junior Tempter), analyzing a flattering Vancouver Sun profile of an Anglican bishop (implied: Michael Ingham). The tone mimics The Screwtape Letters: witty, ironic, and theologically trenchant. Tapeworm scolds Dogwood for taking credit for the article’s fawning tone. He notes how skillfully the secular press portrays the bishop as strong, benevolent, golf-loving—while dismissing orthodox opponents as “pragmatists” and “architects of schism.” Key theological critiques: The bishop ranks togetherness before faithfulness. He describes golf as having “the spirituality, the Zen,” and teaches it as a course. He calls Jesus a “way-shower,” not Savior. Most damning: “A Christian is one who believes Jesus Christ to be the way, the truth and the life. This is not to say there are no others.” Tapeworm warns this universalism could alarm Rome, Constantinople, Geneva, and Canterbury—and urges strategies to keep them silent. Silence, he notes, is our best ally: “We like that river. It delivers many souls to our gates.” He instructs Dogwood to recommend: Encourage global Anglican silence, especially nationally. Let the “big river” of doctrinal erosion flow unchecked. Ensure the faithful remain confused, swimming until it’s too late. “If you can’t devise a plan,” Tapeworm concludes, “I—your adoring uncle—will fill in the gaps… and solidify an unbreakable hold over you through the rest of eternity.” END

VATICAN CITY — Pope John Paul II criticized the media, saying they often give a positive depiction of extramarital sex, contraception, abortion, and homosexuality that is harmful to society. His message for World Communications Day—“The Media and the Family: A Risk and a Richness”—stated: “All communication has a moral dimension. People grow or diminish in moral stature by the words they speak and the messages they choose to hear.” While some media portrayals of marriage celebrate love, fidelity, and self-giving, “infidelity, sexual activity outside marriage, and the absence of a moral and spiritual vision… are depicted uncritically. Positive support is at times given to divorce, contraception, abortion, and homosexuality. Such portrayals… are detrimental to the common good.” The Pope urged “responsible communicators” to resist commercial pressure and secular ideologies—without censorship. Parents, too, must guide children: “Even very young children can be taught… that media messages often urge behavior not in the child’s best interests or in accord with moral truth… children should not uncritically accept or imitate what they find.” Though critical, John Paul affirmed media’s potential—and has used it masterfully: launching the Vatican website (1995) and papal text alerts. END

Recently, I was asked to hold the funeral of a close friend and 83-year-old colleague, Glenn. As we sang “There is a Balm in Gilead,” his widow Marlys bent over his open casket, took his hands, and kissed him goodbye. Six hundred people wept—not just for the farewell, but for a marriage faithful over half a century. Such commitment is rare in a culture obsessed with romance and sex—where sex has displaced God. Encouragingly, students recently held a “Day of Purity,” wearing white T-shirts to promote saving sex for marriage. As 17-year-old Melissa said: “The way sex is talked about, it’s so casual… like going to McDonald’s.” Critics called them self-righteous—but communities like the Bruderhof applaud their courage. Sex, as God created it, is the foundation of human society—a physical, emotional, and spiritual union where “the two become one flesh.” It is sacred: the highest expression of love, capable of transforming a person wholly. But since Eden, we’ve turned away—replacing reverence with lust, pride, and greed. The serpent still whispers: “You can find happiness on your own terms.” Yet we never do. Today, sex is degraded daily: Paris Hilton’s video, Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl stunt, political scandals. Children see through the pretense: sex is treated as a joke. This trauma leads to broken relationships, crime, instability, even suicide. We must recover the truth: every person is made in God’s image. Sexual being is holy ground—like Moses before the burning bush, we should remove our sandals. We are all weak—but it’s never too late to turn. Restore sex to its proper place—marriage—and perhaps sanity to our culture. On Valentine’s Day, David and Alissa were married. David, 26, faces life-threatening heart surgery. Many would postpone—but they saw uncertainty as a call to greater love and faithfulness, committing “until death parts us.” I reminded them: It doesn’t matter if their marriage lasts a week or fifty years—what matters is their commitment before God, for eternity. In His eyes, a day is like a thousand years. We need to honor people like Glenn and Marlys, David and Alissa, and the purity students. Let us thank God for their witness—and join them in starting a revolution of faithfulness. —Johann Christoph Arnold, pastor, Woodcrest Bruderhof

Speaking Out Institutionalizing homosexual marriage would be bad for marriage, bad for children, and bad for society. Now that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that marriage be open to gays and lesbians, it is time to consider the question that pops up more than mushrooms after a spring rain: How would the legalization of gay marriage harm current and future heterosexual marriages? At first glance, individual cases may seem harmless. But history shows that social trends—illegitimacy, cohabitation—once rare, now contribute to lower marriage rates, fatherless children, domestic violence, poverty, and soaring welfare costs. Three major harms follow: 1. Bad for Marriage Marriage has, for millennia, meant the lifelong union of one man and one woman—an analytic truth. Redefining it scrambles our fundamental understanding of human relations. Advocates admit gay marriage will change marriage more than it changes gays. Andrew Sullivan: “Among gay male relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to survive… there is more likely to be a greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets.” Troy Perry (Metropolitan Community Church): “Monogamy is not a word the gay community uses… fidelity means honesty, not exclusivity.” A Dutch study shows even “monogamous” gay male couples average eight outside partners per year. Redefinition also opens the door to polyamory. Law professor Martha Ertman seeks moral neutrality between marriage and group unions. David Chambers expects gay marriage to increase government receptivity to marital units of three or more. 2. Bad for Children Research shows: “Family structure matters… the structure that helps most is two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage.” Gay marriage encourages adoption by same-sex couples—and anonymous sperm donation, deliberately depriving children of a biological parent. Studies also indicate children raised by homosexuals report: greater gender dissatisfaction, higher rates of familial molestation, and more homosexual experience. It also encourages sexually uncertain teens (25% of 12-year-old boys) to embrace a lifestyle with elevated rates of suicide, depression, HIV, STDs, and drug abuse. Further, it reinforces the idea that marriage is about adult fulfillment, not raising children—making it easier to abandon vows when unmet. 3. Bad for Society These effects intensify existing instability in marriage and family—the bedrock of society. Also, gay marriage cannot be democratically enacted. It is being imposed by activist judges against the will of the majority. Like Roe v. Wade, this risks widespread contempt for law and courts—and deepens social division. Conclusion Some legal entitlements may be granted via non-sexually defined domestic partnerships. But marriage itself must retain its historic definition—and we must strengthen our capacity to live up to its ideals. —Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott, Roanoke College (Viewpoints do not necessarily represent Christianity Today.) END

The Passion of Mel Gibson In the history of modern evangelical enthusiasms, Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ seems to be joining WWJD bracelets and Promise Keepers’ conferences as cultural markers. At first it seemed like it might just be a quirky art film: a film about Jesus’ passion using only Aramaic and Latin—and with no subtitles. But what started as news of the weird has turned into a powerful and popular film likely to be a major milestone in cinematic history. Gibson filmed the Passion with trademark force—and added subtitles for those whose ancient-language skills are rusty. The film opened on nearly 3,000 screens, with endorsements from leaders like Donald Hodel, Greg Laurie, Bill Hybels, and Ricky Skaggs. Tyndale House published a companion coffee-table book; moving testimonies circulated widely online. This evangelical enthusiasm may surprise some: the film was shaped from start to finish by a devout pre–Vatican II Catholic and a medieval Catholic vision. Yet evangelicals embrace it because it articulates themes vital to all classical Christians. The Vision Thing Gibson prefers the Tridentine Latin Mass and calls Mary co-redemptrix. He drew details from Anne Catherine Emmerich’s Dolorous Passion, a 19th-century mystic’s visions of Christ’s suffering. For example: Pilate’s wife sends linen to Mary; Mary and Magdalene kneel to wipe up Christ’s blood from the scourging pillar—giving Gibson a dramatic, compassionate visual. Evil Unmasked From Emmerich, Gibson took the scene of Satan tempting Jesus in Gethsemane—not as a roaring beast, but as a pale, hooded female whispering: “Takest thou even this sin upon thyself? Art thou willing to bear its penalty?” From her robe slithers a serpent—crushed under Jesus’ heel, echoing Genesis 3:15. Gibson told pastors: “Evil takes the form of beauty… It is the great ape of God. But the mask is askew.” He affirmed spiritual warfare: “The big realms are slugging it out. We’re just the meat in the sandwich. And for some reason, we’re worth it.” And “Complications happened… the closer you are to a breakthrough, the more vigorous [the opposition] gets.” Getting Personal Gibson stresses personal culpability: “For culpability, look to yourself. I look to myself.” In a powerful symbolic act, he—the director—grabbed the hammer and drove the nails into Christ’s hands on camera. The project rescued him from despair: “I found myself trapped with feelings of terrible, isolated emptiness.” He had neglected prayer for 18 years—since age 17—until chaos drove him back to God. Contemplating God’s Wounds Unlike typical Protestant prayer, Gibson’s Catholic spirituality includes contemplative devotion—meditating on each wound, each station of the Passion. The film mirrors the Five Sorrowful Mysteries: Agony, Scourging, Crowning, Carrying, Crucifixion. He writes: “I think of it as contemplative… compelling one to remember—in a spiritual way, which cannot be articulated, only experienced.” And: “I went to the wounds of Christ in order to cure my wounds… It was like giving birth: the story got inside me and started to grow… I had to tell it.” The Blood Sacrifice Gibson does not shy from blood. He affirms Leviticus 17:11: “The life of the flesh is in the blood… it makes atonement.” Unlike liberal Christians who downplay blood, Gibson presents it unflinchingly: “In the Old Covenant, blood was required. In the New Covenant, blood was required. Jesus could have pricked his finger, but he didn’t; he went all the way.” What rewards him is the audience’s silence, introspection, realization—and remembering. After one viewing, a person simply said: “I’m sorry. I forgot.” —David Neff, editor of Christianity Today

Cheryl H. White, Ph.D. "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church." We repeat those words every Sunday when we stand together to recite the Nicene Creed. What it means to be a part of the church catholic holds a renewed and special meaning for Anglicans today because of the crisis issues that face us. It is our unique Anglican heritage that allows us to lay claim to the historic faith we profess in that creed. So what does it really mean and why is it important? The early Christian church, by the end of the first century A.D., was called 'catholic' simply because the word means universal. It comes from the Greek, katas holos, which literally means 'according to the whole.' The second bishop of Antioch, St. Ignatius, said at the end of the first century: 'wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church.' Before the end of the fourth century, the church administration became centered in Rome; hence, the term developed – Roman Catholic Church. However, when speaking of the historic universal church that has always existed since the time of Christ, the term catholic is correct. By the historic office of bishop that has been preserved through the centuries since the time of the Apostles, we are also able to claim the apostolic church. When the Protestant Reformation emerged during the sixteenth century, scholars like Martin Luther and John Calvin sought to re-claim what early Christianity was like before corrupted during the Middle Ages at the hands of Rome. By the time of the late Middle Ages, the church in Rome was openly selling church offices, selling God's grace through 'indulgences,' and the legitimacy of the papacy was seriously in question. What reformers sought was a renewed catholicity; a return to the universal apostolic church of the first centuries. The word catholicity simply refers to unity and universality – the common bonds that tie Christians together. The exact meaning of catholicity is something that has been hotly debated among theologians and historians. However, it is clear that during the Protestant Reformation, some believed that the best way to re-claim the early Church was to abolish many practices and doctrines that had been embraced by the Roman church for centuries. In varying degrees, mainstream Protestant churches distanced themselves from the historic catholic faith by abandoning the historic sacraments of the church and the traditional liturgy, eliminating the office of bishop, and even carrying out more symbolic acts like doing away with clerical vestments and removing altars from churches. These reformers saw catholicity as an invisible unity that was not necessarily found in the traditional practices of the Christian church. In the minds of many, the Roman Catholic Church was completely flawed and therefore, anything historically associated with that institution was also flawed. Therefore, some churches that emerged from the Protestant Reformation developed new models of administration and differing methods of worship. However, some defined catholicity in more visible and tangible terms. When the Reformation came to England, it was much more rooted at the national level than it had been on the continent of Europe and conditions there dictated that church reform be more moderate to ensure a legitimate link to the past. In England in the sixteenth century, it was important that the historic elements of Christian unity be absolutely defined in concrete terms -- the consecrated office of bishop, the sacraments, the authority of Holy Scripture, the Creeds, the orthodoxy of the Church Fathers, the traditional liturgy – all of which were historic ties to the early Church. Therefore, when the Church of England broke away from Rome in 1534, it could still claim to be a part of the church catholic and apostolic by virtue of history. All of the historical elements of catholicity remained intact yet purged of the corrupt errors of Rome. This is the unique Anglican identity – to be truly part of the one holy catholic and apostolic church. When the Episcopal Church of the United States broke away from the authority of Holy Scripture in consecrating Gene Robinson as bishop, it made the statement that our history is unimportant – that somehow, our tie to the rest of the Anglican Communion does not matter. Yet the Anglican Communion is our only tie to the historic past. Through our Anglican forebears of nearly five hundred years ago, we inherited a claim to the historic catholic church of the first century. There has perhaps never been a better time in recent centuries to review and embrace our history and heritage. Our legitimacy is anchored firmly in the past, therefore eliminating the need for any discussions about new theologies for the modern world. Even amid the doctrinal squabbles of the Reformation period, all learned and scholarly men agreed that there was only one true authority – God's Holy Word. Holy Scripture and the Creeds have defined for us the limits of our inclusiveness; they are our signposts, fixed and true. To remain a part of the church catholic means to cling fast to the history we know – the orthodox faith of centuries of Christians who have gone before us. Cheryl H. White, Ph.D. is a professor of history at Louisiana State University in Shreveport and she serves on the vestry of St. Paul's Episcopal Church. She is a frequent guest lecturer on topics related to church history and Reformation studies, and is a member of the Sixteenth Century Studies Conference. Her major fields of study and research are early Anglicanism and historical catholicity. END

AS EYE SEE IT. Tensions and threats abound at West Tennessee Convention by Jeff Marx The Diocese of West Tennessee had its convention this past weekend. Bishop Don E. Johnson, who voted against Robinson, continues to verbalize the theme of unity. In an emotionally powerful image he recounted a rabbinical story about Abraham's call. The point of the story was that Abraham responded to God with one request, "I will go where you send me if I can bring my family with me." Bishop Johnson then asked that he be allowed to bring his family, the diocesan family, with him into the unknown future. The call to unity and focus on togetherness permeated much of our time together. The question for many of us concerns the content of that unity. One major source of contention was the role of Bishop Chilton Knudsen of Maine. She had been invited last fall to be a speaker for the convention. Unfortunately, shortly after that invitation was accepted, she was a co-consecrator at V. Gene Robinson's elevation to the episcopacy. Although Bishop Johnson made it clear that he did not know she would participate in the consecration and it was not his intent to make a political statement through this invitation, several of the West Tennessee clergy told the bishop that we would be unable to attend the Eucharist if she concelebrated and preached. Bishop Johnson had extended the invitation prior to the Robinson consecration and decided not to withdraw it. Four priests met with him (ironically, the day after he issued his Pastoral Letter about the AAC). During a candid, but generally friendly exchange, we made it clear that we would be gathering elsewhere to pray. Bishop Johnson voiced respect for us and our position. We emphasized that we would not make any 'grand exit' which would disrupt the Eucharist. On Friday evening we did not attend the diocesan Eucharist and gathered instead at my parish. Friday at 6:00 PM St. Andrew's Church in Collierville was filled with some 1200 worshippers. We prayed Evening Prayer and a dozen folks prayed aloud for the needs of the church. At the end of the service all the priests present were asked to stand up and extend their hands in blessing. About nine clergy were there and the beauty and power of the moment was lost on no one. Several participants later commented that it was the high point of the convention weekend. The atmosphere at the evening prayer had been affected by the threats uttered just a few hours before. Just prior to the evening prayer, beginning at 3:30, we had gathered for hearings on several resolutions. Three resolutions had been submitted by a traditionalist priest. One called for a renunciation of General Convention resolutions that have caused such an uproar in the church, another affirmed that marriage was between one man and one woman and that sex outside of marriage was a sin. A third asked for diocesan support of the Network as an effort to make a place for those who want to remain in the Episcopal Church but remained committed to the orthodox faith. In the midst of those discussions at the hearings a statement was made by the rector of the host parish that he would bring up on presentment any priest who was associated with the AAC or the Network. A short time after that I asked if I had correctly heard that this priest intended to present me for my membership in AAC. At that point Fr. Joe Davis asked, "And me?" I think that one or two other priests also asked the same question. Both publicly and privately afterward this priest made it clear that he would bring us up on presentment if need be. Although this threat was rather unnerving, later that night and the next day three other priests who are in opposition to our position came to offer support. I do not believe at this point that any charges will be filed. I think many of the opposition here still view us with respect and love and do not want us brought up on charges. Unfortunately, the resolutions committee decided to not bring the three resolutions made by the Traditionalists to the house floor. Instead they claimed to roll them into another "unity" resolution which called for further dialogue.(Several of the Traditionalists had supported this resolution with the understanding that we wanted to remain in the church and work together). We were deeply saddened when this resolution was foisted upon us as a compromise to avoid conflict. The attempt to silence us failed as on the house floor the resolutions were resubmitted as amendments and the very discussion that they had tried to prevent occurred any way. During the closing floor debate Fr. Joe Davis set out a reasoned argument for the orthodox claims. Fr. Colenzo Hubbard pointed out that we had heard only the liberal voice and needed to also hear the Traditionalists, and Fr. Samson Giteau asked for the delegates to give us some reason for hope. The discussions were neither contentious or highly emotional. They also did not sway the delegates to vote affirmatively for any of the amendments. I addressed the assembly and tried to explain our plight. I called on them to realize that many folks in our parishes were barely hanging on in the church. I explained that they needed some sign of hope. I asked them, "besides Vicky Gene Robinson himself, who could you have possibly placed at this altar to send a clearer message of where we stand than the person who consecrated him?" I turned to Bishop Knudsen and told her that had she spoken at any other time or circumstance we would have listened to her. I told her that I understood we missed out on a fine talk. I also explained that we are committed to the Church universal and the Anglican Communion. Bishop Knudsen had ignored the united voice of the Anglican Primates, had engaged in an act which tore at the fabric of the communion and that she was the schismatic. I also stated that the disregard for Africa and the Southern Hemisphere was an act of racism and that Liberal racism is the most insidious type because they cannot believe they are capable of racism. Our diocese failed to renounce the Robinson ordination. We did not confirm that we believe marriage is between one man and one woman (i.e., we rejected the Prayer Book definition). We did not confirm sex outside of marriage is a sin. We did not allow for parishes in West Tennessee to be part of the Network. We did commit to further discussions and dialogue. Many of the orthodox are not hopeful. They believe dialogue means "talk until you get on board with the new and improved Christianity." The days ahead are uncertain but we remain committed to faithful discipleship. We ask the Primates to hear that we did not attend the Eucharist and do not want to be in broken or impaired communion. We want our ecumenical partners to hear we witnessed to the faith within this convention. We want the readers of this to hold us and our bishop in prayer. Jeff Marx is the rector St. Andrews Episcopal Church in Collierville in the Diocese of West Tennessee

By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent THE TELEGRAPH (2/24/2004) Women could be barred from becoming Archbishops, and may not even be allowed to run dioceses, under official plans to consecrate them as bishops. An unpublished Church of England report will suggest the reform may be acceptable to conservatives only if women are merely allowed to climb on to the first rung of the ladder by becoming "junior" bishops. The proposal will spark fury among campaigners for women clergy, who will regard it as a fresh example of the "stained glass ceiling" they face in the male-dominated Church. Hard-line traditionalists will also be unimpressed with the compromise, though many in the Church's powerful evangelical wing may find it attractive. With a General Synod debate likely in the autumn, the row threatens to engulf the Church 10 years after the ordination of women provoked one of the greatest crises in its 450-year history. Though it is not expected to be as bitter as that over women priests, it comes as the worldwide Church tears itself apart over the issue of homosexuality. The confidential draft report, drawn up by a working party chaired by the Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, will set out the options if the Church decides to consecrate women. As the Telegraph disclosed last month, one possibility is to split the Church, one half with female clergy and one without. At the other extreme, all posts could be opened to women without the conservatives receiving any protection, risking another damaging exodus of traditionalist clergy. But the draft report also proposes a number of options designed to placate those who are not fundamentally opposed to the reform but who nevertheless have serious qualms. Under one, women could be given one of the 43 diocesan bishoprics but not that of the Archbishop of Canterbury or York. This might be enough to persuade moderate pro-women campaigners that they have got almost all they want. It might also satisfy conservative evangelicals worried about "headship", the belief that the Bible, particularly St Paul, bars women from roles in which they are in authority over men. The issue is expected to be debated by the Synod next November or February, after the report, which has taken three years to complete, has been finally approved by the House of Bishops. If approved, legislation will be drawn up to allow women bishops, and the first consecrations could take place within five years. END

It declares homosexuality 'may well not be a condition to be regretted but to have divinely ordered and positive qualities.' By Victoria Combe Religion Correspondent The Telegraph A radical rethink of Church teaching on homosexuality that declares it to be "divinely ordered" is revealed this week in a catechism commissioned by the Archbishop of York. The second most senior churchman in the Church of England, the Most Rev David Hope, has given the new catechism his imprimatur and describes it in his foreword as "a celebration of Christian living." Written by Canon Edward Norman, canon and treasurer of York Minster, the catechism seeks to define Anglicanism for the first time since Thomas Cranmer wrote The Book of Common Prayer in 1662. The Prayer Book version was a brief inquisitorial text intended for use in a pre-literate age. Canon Norman's is the first attempt fully to define Anglican teaching. In the section on sexuality, he contradicts official teaching and the views of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr George Carey. "Homosexuality," says the catechism, "may well not be a condition to be regretted but to have divinely ordered and positive qualities." "Homosexual Christian believers," it continues, "should be encouraged to find in their sexual preferences such elements of moral beauty as may enhance their general understanding of Christ's calling." The Anglican Church is deeply divided over its teaching on homosexuality and at the last Lambeth Conference bishops rowed openly about the issue. In the end, Dr Carey, supported by African and Asian bishops, passed a resolution saying homosexual acts were "incompatible with Scripture." The resolution said "abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage." A discussion document by the House of Bishops called Issues in Human Sexuality, published in 1991, forbade clergy from entering into homosexual relationships. Canon Norman, a highly respected theologian who writes "meditations" in The Daily Telegraph, was asked to write the catechism by Dr Hope to provide a tool in training for ministry. An "official" catechism is being written and published by Church House but the project will take several years. Called An Anglican Catechism, the text is praised by Dr Hope for managing to "explore the relevant issues for today" in the context of "an unchanging doctrinal basis of faith." Dr Hope was targeted by the homosexual rights group, Outrage!. After a night of prayer in Notre Dame Cathedral, Paris, he said his sexuality was "a grey area" and that he was celibate. Canon Norman addresses the contradictions in what the Church teaches and practises, saying: "The Church continues to classify homosexuality as an intrinsically disordered condition, yet significant numbers of Christians are and always have been homosexual." The catechism declares that homosexuality "is not in general chosen: it is an expression of sexuality which derives from conditions of inherited impulsions or of early infant experience." Richard Kirker, general secretary of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, welcomed the text as a "refreshing statement which the Church is crying out for." END

By John J. Shaughnessy The IndyStar February 21, 2004 Distressed by the ordination of an openly gay bishop, nearly 60 parishioners have left the Episcopal Diocese of Indianapolis and will hold services in their new church today. The move represents the first break from the Episcopal Diocese of Indianapolis since Bishop Catherine Waynick voted in August to confirm the Rev. V. Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire. Members of the newly formed Faithful Anglicans in the Heartland also object to Waynick allowing gay couples in the Indianapolis diocese, which includes the lower two-thirds of the state, to have same-sex blessing ceremonies -- another issue that has caused division within the Episcopal Church. "They are a group of very faithful people who feel that, in good conscience, they could not worship (as part of the diocese), given Bishop Waynick's position on the confirmation of Bishop Robinson," said the Rev. Robert Giffin, the priest leading the new congregation in Evansville. "A number of us felt that if we sat in the pews, we were giving tacit approval to the way the Episcopal Church is going," said member Andy Ward. "My wife and I felt we couldn't do that to our children." Instead of criticizing the move, Waynick offered a conciliatory gesture and comments Friday toward the members of the new church, who still consider themselves Episcopalians. "We have some extraordinary circumstances where we have people who are terribly unhappy and terribly hurt," said Waynick, who leads about 12,000 members in the diocese. "We're trying to find ways to make a pastoral response that keeps our diocesan structure intact." Waynick licensed Giffin to serve weekly Eucharist at the new church, whose members left churches in Evansville, New Harmony and Mount Vernon. Giffin is a priest in the Episcopal Diocese of Springfield, Ill. -- a neighboring diocese led by Bishop Peter Beckwith, who voted against Robinson's confirmation as bishop. "It was gracious of her," Ward said. Similar to many faiths, the issue of homosexuality has been a controversial and divisive one for the Episcopal Church in the United States, which accounts for 2.3 million members of the 77 million-member worldwide Anglican Communion. "I believe it's inappropriate that Gene Robinson be a bishop, a priest or a deacon," Beckwith said. "The largest majority of Anglicans say they dissent from a decision that is incompatible with Scripture. The choice is, 'Are we going to accept Christ's values or are we going to co-opt the values of the world?' " Waynick said she is grateful to the vast majority of people in the diocese of Indianapolis who have stayed together during this difficult time. "While it is clear there is a wide variety of response to Bishop Robinson's confirmation, there's also a firm determination to stay together and to go about serving the world in God's name," Waynick said. Dissent has spread across the country. Several thousand members of the church met in Virginia in January to protest Robinson's ordination. Members in Mississippi have debated repudiating the bishops' actions to confirm Robinson. And leaders in southwest Florida told members upset over the ordination that they could protest by withholding funds from the national church. Beckwith and Waynick agree that the issue won't be resolved soon. "I don't think this will go away," Beckwith said. "It needs to be resolved. For me, it's a salvation issue." "It's very clear a number of bishops and several dioceses weren't very happy," Waynick said. "How all this will develop and find resolution, we're still not clear." END

Ash Wednesday, 2004 Learning to Live with an Audience of One Rev. R. William Dickson St. John the Divine, Houston, TX Introduction: There's a quip about public speaking which I have always found quite startling and provocative. It goes this way – "The first thing an inexperienced novice speaker does upon being invited to speak somewhere is to inquire about the topic –"What is it I am to talk about?"; but the first thing a really expert speaker asks is 'Who is my audience?" It is simply impossible to communicate effectively without giving some serious consideration to the matter of your audience. You dare not address a group of fourth graders as you would a group of mature adults. It would be quite wrong-headed to address a gathering of scholars the same way you would speak to a group of blue-collar workers. You cannot communicate effectively without considering your audience. I doubt that anyone who has ever spoken publicly or anyone who has ever thought carefully about the task would dispute it. It is certainly true. But I wonder if we have given adequate consideration to the critical importance of the audience of our lives. Before whom are we really living our lives? Who is the true audience before whom our time on the stage of life is performed? In our gospel text for today Jesus suggests there are but two options, and only one is acceptable to those who would be his disciples. But before we consider Jesus' teaching about the true audience of the life of a disciple, we must consider the apparent contradiction between our gospel text and a few verses which occurred just moments earlier in this very same sermon of Jesus – his famous sermon on the Mount. Doesn't it just drive you nuts when you're listening closely to your preacher and he or she says one thing at one point in the sermon and then at another point in the same sermon seems to directly contradict the earlier point? Which is it? Is it this or that? Is it yes or no? Has Jesus truly contradicted Himself? Moments earlier, those listening to this remarkable exploration of life in the kingdom heard Jesus say this, 14 "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. 15 Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven. So one question we must ask and answer immediately is this – Is it good or is it bad for our good works to be seen by men? And from the verses in chapter 5, verse 16 in particular – "16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven." ... we simply have to conclude that it is good for our good works to be seen by men. In fact, rendering our good works entirely invisible before the world is about as misdirected as lighting a lamp and then immediately placing it under a bushel. We cannot conclude that Jesus' meaning is that a truly Christian piety is an invisible piety, completely hidden away from the sight of others. And yet, we want to take his other language seriously too. So what could it mean when he states, 1 "Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. If we have ruled out the possibility that Jesus is commending an entirely invisible piety, then we are left with no other possibility than to see a problem in the intended result of a certain self-consciously, deliberately public piety, a piety we might call "theatrical piety." The problem is not in our piety being seen by men, rather the problem is in intentionally doing those pious things in order to be seen by men. Are we speaking in riddles, or does this in fact make sense? It seems to me Jesus is telling those of us who wish to follow as his disciples and live within the power and values of the kingdom of God even now, even right here, right now -- that we need to think of our lives as lived before an audience of one – God alone. But lives lived with that kind of intentionality, that kind of sharply focused vision, will be lives which cannot help but shine out brightly in a dark and godless culture desperate for some light. To whom are we answerable? To whom must we ultimately give an account? Who is it that we truly serve? There is but one answer if we would be followers of Jesus – "It is the Lord and the Lord alone whom we serve." And to live otherwise is to invite a certain spiritual vertigo into our souls. Elab. Some of you know, many of you don't that my wife, Ginger, has been sick recently. She has had a viral infection of the throat, sinuses and ears which has made it hard for her to stand up. She has been profoundly debilitated now for several days with a horrible sense of the world teetering and tottering unpredictably this way and that. She has been experiencing intense vertigo. She did the only reasonable thing, she went to the doctor. She paid Dick Stassney a visit. Dr. Stassney of course treated Ginger very thoroughly, very carefully and as she was leaving gave her a little booklet entitled "Dizziness or Vertigo? Understanding Balance Problems." Right here on the front you see a picture of a man experiencing dizziness or vertigo, and interestingly there is a picture of a little gyro-scope within his head. Apparently his inner ear, our biological gyro-scope is malfunctioning. Well we have a spiritual gyro-scope too. And we can make it malfunction if we forget before whom we are really living our lives. Os Guinness, in his wonderful book The Call: Finding and Fulfilling the Central Purpose of Your Life, in the chapter entitled "The Audience of One" says this about our spiritual gyro-scope, "The Puritans lived as if they had swallowed gyroscopes; we modern Christians live as if we have swallowed Gallup polls. Or as Martin Luther King wrote in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, "in those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society." Leaders or panderers? Gyroscope or Gallup poll? Thermostat or thermometer? Only those who practice the presence of the Audience of One can hope to attain the former and escape the latter." Conclusion: In moments, most of you will come forward to receive the imposition of ashes. A few of you will opt out, and that is perfectly fine, a perfectly proper thing to do if for any reason that is your preference. But for those receiving ashes upon the head, in fact, even those remaining seated and observing others receiving the mark of the cross upon the head, I wish to present before your imagination a challenge, a vision, an image of what we should be doing. Perhaps you and I must confess that we have not been entirely single-hearted in our view of our lives and the proper audience of our lives. Perhaps we have allowed from time to time the clamoring voices of the world and its countless special interest lobby groups to confuse us about our real audience. Our spiritual gyroscope has quit functioning rightly. As that cross is being marked upon our heads, let us pray to God that our spiritual gyroscopes planted deep within our hearts might be set right again. We would be God-pleasers, rather than men-pleasers. We would be those who acknowledge but One God, but one audience of our lives. We would be those so enthralled with a vision of our Lord and God that "Before others we have nothing to prove, nothing to gain, nothing whatsoever to lose." God, let it be so! Amen