Archives

By James Murray The Australian April 1, 2004 Priests in Australia’s largest Anglican diocese (Sydney) must now complete an 8-page questionnaire about sexual history—including relationships outside marriage—as part of a child-abuse crackdown. Also asked: involvement in the occult, cruelty to animals, internet/porn use, driving offenses, gambling, homosexual relationships, or charges involving minors. Required for new priests, transfers, and license renewals. “Yes” answers could lead to rejection. Some bishops criticize it as too intimate—precluding repentance and healing—and fear it may encourage dishonesty. A national debate is planned in October to seek unified standards. Meanwhile, 60 leaders from 12 denominations recently met in Canberra to discuss abuse, aiming to “develop a positive culture in which abuse and misconduct will not take place.”

By Fred Barnes The Weekly Standard 3/26/2004 BAGHDAD, Iraq — Pastor Jule’s Pentecostal church is new and not easy to find. After Saddam’s fall, he opened an above-ground church in Karrada—different from state-sanctioned churches that flattered Saddam. His church, tied to the Assemblies of God, elevates faith in Christ as personal Savior over state loyalty. Services (in Arabic) mirror American evangelicalism: “praise” music, Bible teaching (Nehemiah), and intense prayer. Men and women share equal standing—his wife taught, a young woman led singing. He asked to remain anonymous. Though Iraq “has been an open country for the Gospel,” he fears post-sovereignty autonomy for regions hostile to Christianity—and a future Shiite-led constitution that might weaken minority protections. He refuses political questions—but expressed gratitude: “God used coalition forces to destroy Saddam and give us freedom. I thank God for the courage of American soldiers.” He wants U.S. forces to stay until an elected, freedom-protecting government is in place. “We have a big vision.” Christian missionaries find Muslim countries hardest to evangelize—but Pastor Jule works from within. That may make all the difference.

By Dennis Prager Townhall.com March 30, 2004 The United States is the only nation to define itself as Judeo-Christian—uniting secular government with a society based on religious values. What does it mean? 1. Early Americans identified strongly with the Jews and Hebrew Bible—not just the New Testament. o Jefferson wanted the U.S. seal to show Jews leaving Egypt. o Hebrew was compulsory at Harvard until 1787. Yale adopted a Hebrew insignia. o “Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land…” (Liberty Bell) is from the Torah. o Many took Hebrew names: Benjamin Franklin, Cotton Mather (kattan = “little one”). This fostered an Old Testament worldview: justice, law, a judging and loving God, and belief in chosenness—which America applied to itself. That sense of mission explains why America has died more for others’ liberty than any nation—and why it uniquely protects Israel and Taiwan. 2. Belief in the biblical God, the Ten Commandments, and universal (not relative) morality. o Those who affirm these lead opposition to redefining marriage, believing the man-woman ideal is irreplaceable for children. o They ask first what God and Scripture say—not what the UN or hostile nations say. o They believe war, while tragic, is sometimes a moral duty—as Prophet Joel said: “Beat your plowshares into swords… Let the weakling say, ‘I am strong!’” Those who want Judeo-Christian values removed affirm multiculturalism, erase God from public life, and privatize Christmas. The battle over whether America remains Judeo-Christian or becomes secular like Europe is what this, the Second American Civil War, is about.

By Steve Levin Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 3/28/2004 Rt. Rev. N. T. Wright, Bishop of Durham (Church of England), believes the crisis over gay ordination is linked to American unilateralism: “America has been screwing the world into the socket” for years—on land mines, debt, environment, trade… yet acts alone on Iraq—or on changing church law. “So why should the world listen to [Episcopalians] when changing Episcopal Church law? It is bound to be perceived as, ‘There you go again.’ It’s more of the same.” Wright, fourth in seniority in the C of E, speaks with global weight. He is on the 19-member Lambeth Commission tasked with preventing Anglican disintegration after Robinson’s consecration and Canada’s same-sex blessings. The primary question, he says, is communion—not homosexuality: “We’re looking at questions of how you hold the church together when that happens. Only secondarily is the question of homosexuality.” His well-known position: “It is inappropriate to ordain to regular ministries those who are active, practicing homosexuals.” The key? Dispense with rhetoric. “We need to claim the right and the duty to think through individual issues on a case-by-case basis… a lot of real listening—all around… not to rhetoric, but to what the real issues are: Scripture and the church’s creation doctrine.” He is less sanguine about the future: “The communion… simply could come apart at the seams. We really don’t know what that would look like.”

By Todd H. Wetzel One week ago, I challenged ECUSA’s House of Bishops to commit to a plan for Adequate Episcopal Oversight showing compassion for those who disagreed with GC 2003. Their March 24 procedure is seriously flawed. It grants sole decision-making power to the diocesan bishop—not to the aggrieved. That, by definition, is not adequate oversight. The Archbishop of Canterbury made clear: the aggrieved party has the right to determine what constitutes adequate oversight—not the adjudicating bishop. This report shows no sign the House of Bishops will even read, let alone heed, the Eames Commission report or the Primates’ October 2004 decision. The crisis deepens. The meeting points squarely to the necessity of intervention by the Anglican Communion—because ECUSA is past self-healing. It lacks both the resources and the will. This institution, long claiming to champion the oppressed, finds not a shred of compassion for those marginalized by its own decisions. The House of Bishops’ stubborn refusal to consider they may be in error has brought this church to crisis. They were warned repeatedly by global leaders: blessing homosexuality would do immeasurable harm—and still, they proceeded. Why is it so hard for ECUSA’s power structure to acknowledge the rights of dissenters? The only hope of avoiding ecclesiastical war is for moderates in the House to find courage and act. This report offers little hope. We must wait for the October decision of the Eames Commission and the next Primates’ Meeting. Only then will the orthodox in ECUSA know if there is any hope for this sinking ship. The Rev. Todd H. Wetzel is Executive Director of Anglicans United & Latimer Press.

By Lee Buck “Do it our way or get out!” David Virtue recently published an article concerning Walter Righter—the thrice-married bishop who left his first wife for his secretary—saying: “How can the Bishops ‘allow’ what the canons and constitution do not allow? How can the Bishops ‘cede control’ that is not theirs to cede? Even if they wanted to, they cannot.” Here is a bishop who blatantly and arrogantly violated the canons and constitution—yet in his mind, how you violate those documents makes a difference: heresy and anti-scriptural behavior are admissible—but an orthodox, biblical stand is sinful. This is not new. For 30+ years, faithful believers have been labeled “fundamentalist,” “Bible basher,” “bigot”—simply because they believe Scripture means what it says about homosexuality. Language has been perverted: the Homosexual Lobby in ECUSA calls itself “Integrity.” In the Catholic Church, it calls itself “Dignity.” Yet Holy Scripture condemns homosexual practice plainly—and anyone who can read knows it. The ploy: “We believe the Bible—but it can be interpreted differently.” True in some cases—but not on this. For 2,000 years, scholars of every tradition have translated these passages consistently. Unless one denies Scripture is God’s Word, biblical argument is futile. Language, used carefully, can turn hearts—for good or evil. Hitler and Goebbels used it to sway a nation into committing atrocities. Today, men line up in San Francisco to marry men—unthinkable 50 years ago. Enrique Rueda’s 1982 research book The Homosexual Network stated: “There is little question that the homosexual movement is part and parcel of American liberalism.” Yes—the ECUSA has been kidnapped by liberals: religiously, socially, politically, educationally. They “own” the church. My conclusion: There is no possibility for ECUSA to remain a Christian Church or part of the Anglican Communion. It will be run out on a rail by global Anglicans who love Scripture and have suffered for their faith. I say to my brothers and sisters still under the “liberal curtain”: you must now make a choice. Compromise with evil never works. Hitler was not defeated from within—he was defeated by external Allied Forces. Liberalism in ECUSA has taken such deep root that the only remedy is excision and extirpation. Excommunication is coming. For those still paying allegiance to ECUSA: do what you must—do it quickly. Lee Buck was a lay evangelist for over 30 years in the Episcopal Church. His Atlanta congregation recently came under the spiritual authority of the Province of the Southern Cone.

By Robert Seitz To witness the descent of the ECUSA mindset to the parish level is a painful experience. The divisiveness that at first was distantly abstract quickly became up close and personal. Suddenly one finds that the parish is composed of “them” and “us”—and one of the two is no longer welcome. This occurred recently at Grace Episcopal Church in Tampa, Florida—a relatively small parish (≈300 communicants), proud of its family atmosphere and friendliness, and proud to have attained parish status. It became subtly obvious not long after General Convention that there are two emotionally incompatible sides to this debate (the exception: the apathetic and parochial—“What’s a presiding bishop?”). We initially engaged in a series of “conversations,” largely focused on homosexuality—the symptom—rather than the real question of orthodoxy and its spiritual foundation. Our bishop (John Lipscomb, Southwest Florida) was of the mind that “it is a time for conversation, not action.” After half a dozen essentially worthless sessions, divisiveness had crept in, quietly but palpably. Life moved along comfortably as the elephant in the room was largely ignored—until pledge time. A serious number of former pledgers abstained or cut pledges to a pittance. The 2004 budget was short many thousands. The elephant was gaining mass. In December, a small group of conservatives met to discuss moving the parish toward becoming a Confessing Parish of the AAC—thus defining it as scriptural, orthodox, and traditional. The rector was present, and they agreed to present the idea at the February vestry meeting. Meanwhile, in January, pre-service meetings were held to discuss Grace’s future. All were invited, but attendees were largely pro-AAC. At this point, the liberal contingent became quietly active—and the elephant took visible shape. A parish leadership edict—read from the pulpit—prohibited any AAC discussion on church grounds. The backlash was bitter and vocal—and the ban was lifted the next Sunday. The February vestry presentation was received neutrally, and the vestry agreed to study the idea, possibly voting in March. To inform the congregation, three evening open meetings were scheduled—but the liberal, anti-AAC contingent became publicly vocal: suspicion, accusations of misguided activity, and serious acrimony. The elephant’s presence was now unmistakable. At the March 16 vestry meeting, eleven individuals (three opposed) addressed the vestry. Then a spokeswoman for the opposition delivered a fifteen-minute “theses”-style rebuttal: AAC supporters were dividing the church, forcing unwanted alliances, attempting a takeover. Joining the AAC would accomplish nothing but schism. The rector (a member of AAC, soon to retire) abstained. The vote was 6–6. The tie defeated the motion. Then the senior warden produced a pre-written motion: all AAC individual members be listed and sent yearly to the diocese—to show “unhappiness” with ECUSA. This “Schindler’s List in reverse” was the last straw: most AAC supporters walked out, never to return. Fifteen+ faithful families resigned—large contributors of time, talent, and treasure. Many now attend a local AMiA parish. A priest hoping to retire in a blaze of glory instead went down in flames. It is easy for a priest (or bishop) to intimidate—it is very difficult to repair the resulting damage. Bob Seitz has been a member of the Diocese of SWFLA since 1962, serving on numerous vestries, and a longtime member and lay reader at Grace Episcopal Church in Tampa, FL. He recently left.

A Forward in Faith Response to the House of Bishops’ Paper “Caring for All the Churches” “I could not possibly be more proud of our bishops, who with great care and deliberation sought to articulate our shared ministry of reconciliation in ways that are generous toward those who feel themselves in some sense alienated from our common life,” Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold said, commending the House of Bishops’ paper. The paper itself lays equal stress on a doctrine of reconciliation and on the role of bishop as a focus of unity. It needs to be asked, therefore, what reconciliation the bishops envisage or expect as a result of their initiative. The Problem As the bishops admit, two conflicting opinions are held in the Episcopal Church about the moral admissibility of homosexual acts. Where is compromise between these positions to be sought? What issues are at stake, and how might they be settled? In understanding of the Scriptures? Here there is a fundamental disagreement. Some suppose the plain meaning to be apparent and upheld by Church tradition. Others suppose Scripture is unclear, tradition unreliable, and assert the Church can reinterpret or ignore texts as it will. In attitudes to the authority of the local Church? Some hold the local church (diocese or province) has full autonomy. Others cling to the view that no province is more than a part of the wider Church Universal—and is answerable to the Anglican Communion and historic inheritance. In sexual morality? Surely the deepest disagreements lie here. One side holds marriage is lifelong union of one man and one woman; all sexual relations outside that fall short. The bishop, as “a type of the Father” (St Ignatius), must embody this discipline. The other side holds a man may leave his wife and family, enter a carnal same-sex relationship, and yet remain fit to be bishop. In short, two diametrically opposed views exist in ECUSA—asymmetrically disposed. Those rejecting non-celibate gay ordination do so to sustain unity and continuity with the past. Those upholding it do so contra mundum. The Proposed Solution The bishops propose Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO)—but it suffers serious problems of principle and process. The underlying principle is that unity consists not in shared belief, but in canonical form: “Sensitive pastoral care does not presuppose like-mindedness… bishops and congregations have frequently disagreed about interpretations of scripture and the Creeds while being able to transcend their differences…” This is partially true—but bishops are entrusted with guarding the faith, not free to hold any opinion they choose. The failure of ECUSA’s House of Bishops to exercise collegial restraint is glaring—evident in accepting bishops who deny Nicene tenets and rejecting fraternal counsel from Lambeth and the Primates. Where the House is dysfunctional, responsibility devolves to clergy and laity. DEPO, as defined, is: a) Not oversight—contrary to the Primates’ call for episcopal oversight with jurisdiction. ECUSA redefines episcope to evade the requirement. b) Minimal—affects no existing rights of the diocesan bishop; adds nothing new. c) Concessionary, not conciliatory—makes no admission of wrongdoing. d) Temporary—designed to eliminate dissent. Plans are explicitly for “reconciliation” over a “stated period.” Conclusion We reject the proposals—both premises and provisions. DEPO will not provide what we need. We trust the Lambeth Commission and Primates Meeting will reject it as insubstantial and cosmetic. Let no one be in any doubt: DEPO will not and cannot bring about the reconciliation promised. The self-congratulatory language of its framers is, moreover, a further offense.

News Analysis By David W. Virtue PITTSBURGH, PA — (3/30/2004) The former Bishop of Iowa, Walter Righter—who publicly condemned five dissenting retired bishops for participating in a confirmation service in the Diocese of Ohio, saying they should leave the Episcopal Church—has been performing sacramentally, without permission or a license, in the orthodox Diocese of Pittsburgh under Bishop Robert Duncan. The revisionist bishop—who walked away from charges that he violated the canons for ordaining a non-celibate homosexual man to the deaconate in 1990—has been caught red-handed in the Pittsburgh Diocese without ever obtaining the approval of Bishop Duncan. Righter had argued: “How can the Bishops ‘allow’ what the canons and constitution do not allow? How can the Bishops ‘cede control’ that is not theirs to cede? Even if they wanted to, they cannot.” Apparently Righter has been doing “what the canons and constitution do not allow” for more than six months in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. According to a source, he has been “supplying” at Calvary Church while the ultra-liberal rector Harold Lewis is on sabbatical. Righter moved back from Maine because his third wife is from Pittsburgh. Reached at Calvary Church, the Rev. Leslie G. Reimer, associate rector for Pastoral Care, initially refused to answer questions about Righter’s activities—but then admitted that “he was helping us out liturgically.” Pressed on whether he was performing full sacramental functions, Reimer did not deny it—but said a letter the church sent to Bishop Duncan about Righter’s presence went unanswered. “The Canons require we ask—we did—but we never got an answer. We never received an answer one way or the other.” According to a spokesman in the bishop’s office, Righter should not have performed any functions at the parish without the bishop’s permission—and by crossing into another diocese without permission and preaching and celebrating, he was in violation of the Canons after 90 days. Does this mean there could be a second Righter Trial? Diocesan officials would not say. Clearly, Righter—who has been an outspoken critic of orthodox bishops and an outright proponent of pansexual behavior (he functioned as an assistant bishop under Jack Spong in the Diocese of Newark)—may finally get his own comeuppance. So the rules only apply to others, not to Mr. Righter, said a source to Virtuosity. While the Pittsburgh Diocese was holding hearings on resolutions to come before special convention, the Righters were both very vocal at the open hearing in Fox Chapel. “Isn’t it interesting that this is the man who says conservatives ought to leave ECUSA? Perhaps he sees himself stepping into a geographically convenient Diocesan opening?” The resolution that the revisionists pushed through the HoB condemning the Ohio confirmations said that the next time this happened there would be disciplinary action. Now it has—and Righter, the hypocrite, should be put on trial and tossed out of the church.

Five orthodox churches in the Diocese are gathering for prayer and a show of solidarity on Friday, April 2, 2004, at 7 p.m. They are at odds with their bishop, J. Michael Garrison, and many of them are wondering how they should proceed. Withholding funds might just be not enough for some of them. The bishop has threatened five parishes with ecclesiastical action if they don’t come into line. We await the outcome. THE VIA MEDIA GROUPS MET IN ATLANTA THIS WEEK And emerged pleading their case of why can’t we all just get along. “There is room for everyone in the Episcopal Church,” said the Rev. Michael Russell, Rector of All Souls’ Episcopal Church in San Diego, CA, and a member of Episcopal Way of San Diego. “We believe that the Christian way is to love, work, and worship together—to resolve disputes within the church without tearing it apart.” Right—and the Via Media groups exist only in orthodox dioceses, not in revisionist ones. They recently opened a chapter in the Diocese of Southwest Florida, where Bishop John Lipscomb resides—and he said publicly he was not happy at this development. The truth is there is not one vestige of via media in this group; it is a complete fiction. They are squarely in the opposing camp, and when push comes to shove, they will shove—with lawsuits—against anybody who doesn’t fall in line. Griswold weighed in with this statement about the meeting: “Our divergent points of view find their place of meeting and reconciliation in word and sacrament and a life shared in the service of the Gospel. The diverse center is the overwhelming reality of our church and its voice is urgently needed, both within the church and in our fractured and polarized world.” VIRTUOSITY LEARNED THIS WEEK THAT WALTER RIGHTER The former Bishop of Iowa who recently told the five Ohio “dissenters” they should just leave ECUSA has been functioning without permission in the Diocese of Pittsburgh.

The American Anglican Council says it knows. Here is what they say really happened at the HoB meeting in Navasota, Texas: “The House of Bishops meeting was tightly controlled and ‘process oriented.’ The Presiding Bishop stated in his opening address that V. Gene Robinson has borne all the pain over the last several months. The House neither acknowledged nor dealt with the severe level of crisis in the church. The Presiding Bishop’s mantra continues to be, ‘More unites us than divides us.’” His Assistant for Communications, Barbara Braver, flippantly underscored this in a posting on Episcopal Communicators Discussion Group: “We can all be proud of our bishops. Of course, we know they don’t all agree—but by and large they care much more about the total life and mission of the community and our life in Christ for the sake of the world than they do about what divides. And, by and large, they are able to live in the tension of agreeing that they don’t agree about everything. GEE WHIZ—how Anglican!”

This week it was announced that two Primates, Drexel Gomez (Nassau) and Greg Venables (Southern Cone), have invited the Presiding Bishop and leadership of the US-based Reformed Episcopal Church to a gabfest in Nassau. This is important because ECUSA has been trying to rope in the REC with talks of unity—but the REC is now in impaired communion with ECUSA over the Robinson consecration. In the announcement, Archbishop Gomez said he had been impressed and delighted by the new “Federation for Anglican Ministry in America” that emerged from the December 2003 meetings of Anglicans United in Orlando, Florida. This document drew from the “Federation” concept worked out by the REC/APA Unity Committee earlier that year.