By Ted Schroder "Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night." (John 3:1,2) Jesus never said anything about wanting admirers. He recruited followers or disciples — followers of his life and mission. These followers were not attracted by his prospects or his bandwagon. Jesus of Nazareth was a humble Galilean preacher, who had no great organization or backing or public relations skills. He came to the world for the purpose of saving the world, and for his life to be a pattern for those who would follow him. So the Son of God chose to be born in humble circumstances, and lived in relative poverty, despised and humiliated. Why this lowliness and humiliation? If Jesus came with earthly, worldly, and material advantages he would have attracted people for the wrong reasons. If he had been an object of admiration, then people could have discounted his message. They could have said that it is all right for him to make all the claims about God that he does because he is in possession of favorable circumstances. If only we had the advantages that he had, we could become as perfect as he was. He had everything going for him — he was the golden boy. So all we can do is admire him. He has qualifications for holiness that we do not have, and which he cannot give us. Therefore he should not require anything of us. If Jesus had come to the world in affluent and privileged conditions, he would have provided us with a universal excuse and pretext for evasion. He certainly would not have been put to death. The admirer of such a Jesus has an excellent cover — he could protest that nothing more could be required of him than that he admired Jesus as the truth, as a good man. But Jesus, coming as he did in humiliation, removed the excuse or the evasion that he was in possession of earthly and worldly advantages that others did not. In his actual life there was absolutely nothing to admire unless one could admire poverty, wretchedness, the suffering of contempt. He did not even escape the last degradation — that of being pitied, of being a pitiable object of commiseration. There was not the least thing to admire. These are the conditions which he has to offer to anyone who would join him: to become just as poor, as despised, as much scorned and mocked. What then is the distinction between "an admirer" and "a follower"? A follower is or strives to be what he admires; an admirer holds himself personally aloof, consciously or unconsciously — he does not discern that the object of his admiration makes a claim upon him to be or to strive to be the thing he admires. There are situations in which the attitude of admiration is the right one. I can admire beauty, wealth, extraordinary talents, distinguished achievements, success — because there is no claim upon me to become that person. Admiration is appropriate whenever it is true that through circumstances beyond my control I am prevented from being able to resemble the object of my admiration, even if I heartily wished it. If I did wish it, and want to resemble the object of my admiration, then admiration may well be transformed into envy. It is quite different with respect to the moral actions, the behavior and character which are within the capacity of every child of God. Here admiration is entirely out of place. If I know a person whom I respect for his unselfishness, devotedness, kindness, and relationship with God, I ought not to admire him — I ought to resemble him, and make an effort to improve myself. He has a claim upon my life, to become more like him. It is common in Christian circles for people to admire an enthusiast, a man of conviction. We approve and admire his mission and are indignant at those who oppose him — but only so far and no farther. We may choose a place and an environment where we can express ourselves without any danger of being implicated. But if the person we admire were to challenge us to speak out or do as he did — then everything is changed. We might cautiously withdraw from the admired man. We might even become angry with him for putting us on the spot. It is then that we discover that it is only through our imagination that we admire the man. To us he is an actor on the stage. We demand the same privilege we expect in the theatre: to sit safely and tranquilly without any real relationship to the danger. But we do not believe his life and cause should have any claim on us. If he challenges us to take a stand then our admiration slips away. We become offended in him because of his conviction. Judas was an admirer of Christ. At the beginning of his life Christ had many admirers. His life, however, was the unfolding of the truth. Everything around him became revealed in truth. And when the time of testing came there were barely to be found twelve followers among his one-time admirers. He who is merely an admirer will at the approach of danger become a traitor. Nicodemus initially was an admirer. The actual danger was too much for him. Personally he desired to keep aloof. Yet on the other hand, the truth of Christ attracted him so much that he sought to get closer to it. Secretly by night he stole out for a rendezvous with Christ. It was possible that he might have run into someone who promptly would have denounced him. One sees here what an admirer is. It is as if Nicodemus might have said to Christ: "In case we come to an understanding, I will accept your teaching in eternity — but not here in this world. Could you not make an exception of me? But by day I do not recognize you. By day I shall not know you." When a man says that he believes in something, and his life is not changed by it, that is a ludicrous self-contradiction. The follower is, or at least strives to be, what he admires. The admirer is not willing to make any sacrifices, to give up anything worldly, to reconstruct his life, to be what he admires or let his life express it. In words he is inexhaustible in affirming how highly he prizes Christianity. The follower, on the other hand, aspires to be what he admires — and will encounter the same danger as Christ. Admirers will become highly embittered against followers for showing them up by their lives. Admirers want to become honorary Christians in the same sense as honorary doctors who get their degrees without study. Nicodemus eventually became a "follower" who accompanied Joseph of Arimathea to the Cross and prepared Jesus for burial (John 19:38–42). He was not afraid to be with Jesus in his humiliation in the light of day. (Adapted from Training in Christianity, Part III.vi , Soren Kierkegaard)

News Analysis |  By Uwe Siemon-Netto, UPI Religious Affairs Editor PARIS, Sept. 2 (UPI) — There is little doubt Iranian-born Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Husaini Sistani, 73, is now the most powerful man in Iraq. But what is he? Some kind of a Shiite Muslim pope? Or perhaps a cleric-statesman comparable to French Prime Minister Cardinal Armand-Jean du Plessis, duke de Richelieu (1585–1642), or the famed Greek-Cypriot Archbishop Khristodoulou Makarios (1913–1977), or the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in Iran (for whose regime, by the way, Sistani had little time)? This much is certain: He is one of Prophet Mohammed's many descendants, as his title, sayyid, and his black turban indicate (other Shiite clerics wear white ones, though they can also attain the rank of grand ayatollah). "In a sense Sistani is like a pope to us," suggests Sheikh Mohammed Mohammad Ali, another senior cleric and politician who has returned to Baghdad from exile in London. Ali recently met with Sistani in the holy city of Najaf, where the grey-bearded Sistani persuaded the rebellious mullah Moqtada Sadr to stop fighting the U.S. and Iraqi government forces. "Then again," the sheikh mused, "he is not really a pope because he was not elected by a conclave of Muslim cardinals." And at any rate, no Shiite cleric is ever ordained in some splendid liturgy like a Catholic, Orthodox or Anglican priest. "Some of us give a party when we attain clerical rank," said Ali, "but that's a long shot from a consecration." True, the Shiites, who make up about 12 percent of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, do have a clergy of sorts. They can be distinguished by their black robes and their turbans, "which one puts not on one's head too early," cautioned Ali. "Imagine, somebody stops you in the street and asks you a theological question because of your turban, and you do not have an answer — how embarrassing!" Shiite clerics simply see themselves as vicars of the "hidden imam," a savior on whose return from the realm of the great concealment into the sphere of time and space Shiites focus their eschatological expectations. "Perhaps it's best to say that for us a grand ayatollah is like the dean of a great university," Ali went on. In the eyes of his coreligionists, a grand ayatollah is a scholar of immense learning and therefore more respected than any other living theologian. That's what makes Sistani so powerful, even politically, though he had always been known as a quietist who preferred to keep out of politics, unlike other leading ayatollahs, who were tortured and executed under Saddam Hussein. It took Sistani more than 20 years of formal studies — much more than any Jesuit — to attain his revered level of scholarship, to which he owes his current power. He has used it only sparingly so far, according to Ali. He is a soft-spoken, withdrawn, intensely pious theologian, jurist and philosopher, who has only now come to the fore politically for fear Shiites, making up 60 percent of Iraq's population, might squander their first opportunity for power since the 1920s, when British forces put down a revolt by Shiite tribes, marginalizing them for eight decades. So how does one get to be a grand ayatollah referred to as "his eminence" by his followers? A "talib" — one who desires instruction in Islam — must start out young. Sistani was 5 when he began studying the Koran under a renowned woman teacher in Iran. Any future mullah begins his education at a "maqtab," or place of writing, where he is instructed in classical Arabic and scripture. Then he moves on to a madrassa, which in Shiite Islam is a school of high theology. There his teacher and supervisor is usually a very senior mullah with the reputation of being a "mujtahid," who has the right to practice "ijtihad," or the independent interpretation of the Koran and the traditions. "Ijtihad" plays a huge part in Shiite thought, whereas most Sunni theologians have for centuries considered "the door to ijtihad closed." In the madrasa, a future mullah learns religious law, the tradition of Shiite imams, classical commentaries on the Koran and the hadith (tradition), Persian and Arabic grammar, rhetoric and poetry. Those who strive to attain the high ranks of "hujatulislam" (proof of Islam) or ayatollah (sign of God) are also thoroughly instructed in the sciences and philosophy, including the critique of metaphysics and Islamic Gnosticism mixing philosophical rationalism with mystical worldviews. One might suppose that such intensive education could lead to intellectual hubris. But with Sistani this is not the case, Sheikh Mohammed Mohammed Ali related. Quite to the contrary, Sistani insists that education must include training students in personal piety and love, and — quite unlike Khomeini — demands of his students respect for the opinions of others and courteous theological discourse. Grand ayatollahs are named by their peers, the ayatollahs. "Each cleric of this exalted rank has a huge following," said Ali. "Some have 10 million, others 20, 30, or 50 million. But Sistani is the spiritual head of at least 100 million in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Syria and even Pakistan."

An exclusive interview with the Most Rev. Gregory Venables, Primate of the Southern ConeBy David W. Virtue — Ottawa The Most Rev. Gregory Venables, 54, is the primate of the Southern Cone that includes the countries of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay. He is one of the youngest Primates in the Anglican Communion. English-born, he served as a missionary priest in Paraguay and was headmaster (principal) of St. Andrew's College in Asuncion for 12 years before serving a curacy in Essex. He was elected bishop of Bolivia and Peru in 1993, Bishop of Argentina in 2000 and at the Provincial Synod of 2001 he was elected Primate of the Southern Cone. He is multi-lingual and speaks fluent Spanish. He has been married to his wife Sylvia for 34 years and they have three grown children. The archbishop was at the ESSENTIALS 2004 conference in Ottawa recently where Virtuosity interviewed him at length about the Anglican Communion and what might emerge from the Lambeth/Eames Commission and the discipline of Frank Griswold, the Episcopal Church's Presiding Bishop, for his consecration of an openly homoerotic bishop to the US episcopacy. VIRTUOSITY:  In May of this year you were very critical of Frank Griswold and in a letter to him said: "ECUSA's actions have caused a great and unnecessary crisis in the Anglican Communion that has spilled over into culture, ecumenical affairs, and even interfaith relations. It is tragic and painful indeed. It is the result of your actions and it is also reversible." Do you still believe that? VENABLES:  Yes, and I am saddened that nothing has been taken seriously of the pain and damage that he has caused to the gospel that is ongoing. VIRTUOSITY:  You also called on Griswold to repent. "May I urge you either to live as an Anglican conforming to Anglican norms or admit that you have left us and closed the door behind you." Is it all too late for Griswold? VENABLES:  While we are alive in this world it is never too late, but I sense it would require a work of the Holy Spirit to open Frank Griswold's eyes not only to the damage that has been done but to the spiritual danger he is in. VIRTUOSITY:  Griswold has not backed down nor does he seem to give any indication that he will repent of his action in consecrating Gene Robinson, nor has he asked Robinson to repent or step down. There now seems little evidence that he will change his mind. Where does that leave you and the rest of the orthodox primates? VENABLES:  It reinforces our conviction that their revisionist agenda is not a part of true Christianity, but a new version which uses similar language but has got a completely different message. It is a false gospel. VIRTUOSITY:  In the eventuality that there is no change in the direction of the ECUSA, will you and the orthodox Primates be prepared to tell Griswold that he is no longer welcome at Primatial gatherings? VENABLES:  The orthodox leaders are praying for a work of God in this situation, but if things continue as they are, we will face that at the appropriate time. VIRTUOSITY:  If the Lambeth/Eames Commission delivers little more than a slap on the wrist — 'no voice, no vote' for Griswold — how will this benefit hundreds of orthodox priests presently under siege in the US and Canada? VENABLES:  We are looking for discipline but if it doesn't happen... VIRTUOSITY:  Orthodox priests in The Episcopal Church are enormously vulnerable and under siege almost weekly by revisionist bishops, the latest being three Evangelical parishes in the Diocese of Los Angeles. What can you Primates do to help them? VENABLES:  It is clear that the true Christian Church cannot be restricted if things continue as they are by human boundaries, and we can't have patchwork quilt solutions; a radical way of redoing things must be sought. VIRTUOSITY:  You have taken several ECUSA parishes under your ecclesiastical wing in the Dioceses of Atlanta and Oklahoma. Would you be prepared to come to the US and to defend those under you over property issues? VENABLES:  I am totally supportive of them in their legal battles but I think it would be inappropriate for me to appear in any court action at this time. VIRTUOSITY:  Can you see the inevitable break up of the Anglican Communion? VENABLES:  I rather fear it is already broken and now we are trying to find out how to move ahead with that reality. VIRTUOSITY:  Primate Akinola has said "we don't need to go through Canterbury to get to Jesus." If we interpret that to mean that he might be prepared to split from Dr. Rowan Williams, if he perceives him as theologically too liberal, could you see a new Anglican Communion being born with say headquarters in Alexandria, Egypt? VENABLES:  It is a possibility that some of us have talked about. A new global structure might emerge but the process is not complete. We are engaged with many possible scenarios, but the main thing is that the gospel be preserved. VIRTUOSITY:  Considering the ongoing breakdown and intransigency of revisionist bishops and clergy in the West and the enormous strides forward evangelistically in the Global South, why would the African (CAPA) bishops, Nassau and Southeast Asian Primates bother to stay in the Anglican Communion as it is now structured if the gospel is seriously compromised? VENABLES:  At the present moment we consider ourselves inheritors of true Anglicanism which is both biblical and Christian. If the Anglican Church remains true to its historic biblical roots all will be well. If it is rewritten in the light of modern culture we would have to leave and form an alternative communion. VIRTUOSITY:  Do you see the emerging Anglican Communion Network in the ECUSA, the new Network and Federation in Canada as the authentic voice of Anglicanism on this continent? Would you give it your full support? VENABLES:  We already see it as the authentic voice of Anglicanism. It is precisely for that reason so many provinces have recognized the Network and why many are in broken or impaired communion with Frank Griswold and The Episcopal Church. There are so many concrete expressions of solidarity with this meeting in Canada that the Western World needs to understand that Global South Primates see the decisions of ECUSA and Canada being utterly out of bounds, hence we see ourselves in cooperation with the Network. VIRTUOSITY:  Is the situation irretrievably lost for historic Anglicanism? VENABLES:  My personal concern at this moment is that all true Anglican Christians recognize in this situation what is already true, that the enemy of Christianity is always seeking to discredit it, and one way he does this is to create a counterfeit religion. But that should remind us that we are not fighting flesh and blood and that God's injunction to us is to stand firm. VIRTUOSITY:  Thank you, Archbishop. END

By Mike McManus According to the Census, about 30 percent of Americans are not even registered to vote — 55 million Americans. In 2000 only 53 percent of eligible Americans voted. That figure fell to only 39 percent in 2002 mid-term elections. Karl Rove, President Bush's top political strategist, has lamented that four million evangelicals who he expected to vote for Bush in 2000 did not vote at all. These numbers were in my mind as I watched the Republican Convention during its first three days. Were the speakers persuasive to those who oppose abortion or favor a Constitutional Amendment limiting marriage to a man and a woman? The most prominent speakers on Monday and Tuesday — former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Sen. John McCain and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger — did not mention either issue. Why? They support gay marriage and abortion. All three were passionately enthusiastic about President Bush because of his handling of terrorism, and as a strong and decisive leader. In fact, their prominence as liberals on social issues may have the benefit of attracting moderates who disagree with Bush on abortion or same-sex marriage, but agree with Schwarzenegger that the President is "a man of inner strength, a leader who doesn't flinch, doesn't waver, does not back down." However, will this be persuasive with evangelicals who did not bother to vote in 2000? That's questionable. True, Sen. Elizabeth Dole did speak about her faith at 8 p.m. (Eastern time) on Tuesday: "Two thousand years ago, a man said, 'I have come to give life and to give it in full.' In America I have the freedom to call that man Lord, and I do," citing John 10:10. "The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion," she said to applause. However, her remarks were not part of the tiny one hour of network broadcast time allotted to Convention coverage. And the much smaller audiences watching cable TV could not have seen her in the West where it was only 5 p.m. Similarly, Sen. Brownback, a recent Catholic convert, recalled that "A fundamental principle of our democracy and our Republican Party is respect for the inherent dignity, equality and sanctity of every human life...At our party's convention in 1860, we...nominated Abraham Lincoln, and we denounced and ultimately defeated the scourge of slavery." He then noted that "President Bush has committed record levels of support" to fight AIDS which has already killed 20 million people. His plan to fight AIDS, malaria and TB with $15 billion "will treat 2 million people, prevent 7 million new infections and care for 10 million orphans." Brownback added, "From the child in the womb to the mother carrying her, this nation and this president will fight for you. Why? Because each is wonderfully made, and what we do for the so-called 'least of these' we do for our creator. We are leading the world in a heroic rescue of human life. This is the essence of compassionate conservatism. It is the mettle of George Bush." However, his remarks were not broadcast by network TV either. Few of those 4 million non-voting evangelicals heard him. What ABC, CBS and NBC did air were powerful attacks on Sen. John Kerry by Georgia Democratic Senator Zell Miller and by the Vice President. Partisans loved hearing a Senator who was the 1992 Democratic Convention's Keynoter deliver the Republican's Keynote, attacking his own party as well as John Kerry: "For more than 20 years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure...While young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief." On the other hand, 40 liberal Christian leaders and 40,000 citizens signed a petition declaring that "God is not a Republican...or a Democrat." It urged Americans to consider a wider range of moral issues on www.takebackourfaith.org . "When poverty has risen each of the past three years — that's a religious issue," said spokesman Rev. Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourners magazine. "The war in Iraq — that's a religious issue. Taking care of the environment — that's a religious issue...How did the faith of Jesus come to be known as pro-rich and pro-war?" I predict a higher-than-usual voter turnout. Copyright 2004 Michael J. McManus

By Ephraim Radner A short comment and prayer after first reading the Colorado Taskforce Report set up by Colorado Bishop Rob O'Neill. The Taskforce has labored valiantly, like Atlas, to bear the weight of a broken diocese, fractured church, and disintegrating Communion upon its shoulders. Theirs is a mighty and praise-worthy effort. It is informed by an evident love for the Church, a genuine desire for a life of mutual charity, and a hope that we can all agree on how and why. They have — as I know from speaking to several of the Taskforce's members personally — modeled the call they have made to all of us to sacrifice, to forbear, to be patient. But I fear that the burden of this church's travail is too great for a restrained endurance and, as with an unwitting Samson, there are sounds of cracking overhead (Judges 16). Was it ever really possible to structure a common life within the diocese upon a firm and compelling spiritual basis, when that basis itself — the substance and authority of the Church's proclamation and teaching of the revealed truth of Christ — is what is in rancorous dispute? Can there be an accountability for common life, when the accounting reference itself — the character of Christ's own teaching — has become the seeming source of our divisions? The Taskforce has met this insurmountable logical challenge by simply defining the Church apart from this teaching, wishing thereby, perhaps, to disarm the dissension's cause. Let not the Scriptures speak, that we might have peace (cf. Jeremiah 36:23; 38:4). There is no doubt that the Scriptures are contested in their meaning and application; there is no denying that their demands cut against many a preconception and prejudice we hold dear in this debate; there is no question but that a considered and unflinching encounter with their call would make us all, in different ways, squirm and even tremble. The Scriptures foment turmoil, it seems; by definition, then, the Taskforce must question how they can be the actual basis for a Rule of Common Life. Thus, although the Taskforce affirms that they have made use of the "best of Scripture" (TFR, p. 7) — what portions are "not so good", I wonder? — and that their rules are "grounded in Scripture" (a deliberately vague description, TFR, p. 9), Scripture itself rarely makes an appearance as an authoritative framework to the church's common life. It is referred to only in passing and in unexplicated footnotes. The Taskforce instead tells us explicitly that the sources of our Episcopal Church's identity and authority are, not the Scriptures themselves, but the "[binding] decisions of the first seven Ecumenical councils" (TFR, Principle 1), and the various doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation to which these councils gave definition. And, again, we are told the bishop's "authority" is accountable, not to the Scriptures and their teaching, but to networks of mutual and personal relationships (TFR, 3A-E; 4:A-C). And, again, we are told that theological "teaching" is to be oriented towards, not the explication of Scriptural truth and directive, but to the equipping of diverse "journeys of faith" (TFR, 9C; cf. p. 7; 5A). Nothing in this report speaks to the final, essential, necessary, and sovereign authority of God's Word for the life of the Church. But how could it? To do so would be to open Colorado to the further divisions of two against three, brother against sister, parent against children, mother against father (Luke 12:51ff.; cf. TFR, pp. 5, 7). I am sympathetic to the dilemma the Taskforce has faced in this matter; but I am not encouraged that we are in fact being turned towards the speaking of our Lord. And if not that, then what? The exiling of the Word, in fact, leads to a number of odd characterizations that the Taskforce gives to the very church we are called to build in common; odd, because no one has ever quite seen Anglicanism this way: 1. The Seven Ecumenical Councils? Anglicans have only rarely and then idiosyncratically referred to the "binding" authority of the "seven Ecumenical councils". The last, for instance, speaks primarily in defense of the veneration of images. Now while this may seem innocuous and even attractive to some, it was a practice the English Reformation, led by Thomas Cranmer no less, strongly condemned (cf. Article 22 of the Thirty-Nine Articles). The same council affirmed as "inspired by the Holy Spirit" canons that condemn "sodomy" and "fornication" by clergy and laity alike, and demand for such transgressions extreme penance. Is this what the Taskforce had in mind by commending the "binding decisions" of these councils, or the "received norms of the Great Tradition" (TFR, p. 9)? We are puzzled. 2. And even if Anglicanism has more generally preferred to receive only the first four councils (this was Hooker's view, long reiterated, and taken up by the first Lambeth Conferences), these were always subjected to another and far higher standard as their test, simply because all councils are inherently fallible and have in fact proven so. Articles 19, 20, 21, and 24 of the Thirty-Nine Articles make clear that even General Councils may "err in matters pertaining unto God". This has always been an Anglican admission and even assertion. And are these councils now, in Colorado for some geographically peculiar and providential reason, to become our main articulated foundation in common life? 3. Of course, the same Articles — and the many Anglican divines who have granted solemn respect for General Councils (as would I, and I hope all persons) — have made clear that only conformance with God's Word and "holy Scripture" assures conciliar authority on a given matter. All teaching and practice, order and discipline, is to be tested directly and definitively by the words of Scripture. Article 19 of The Thirty-Nine Articles defines the visible Church as that congregation "in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments duly administered according to Christ's ordinance". How is it that this most traditional and central element of Anglican self-understanding — the Church as Scripture-bound even in its sacramental life — has disappeared in the Taskforce's call to accountability? Does the church's discipline lie in being subject to all rules of restraint except those of Scripture (TFR, p. 19)? Whether or not one uses the Articles as canonically demanded doctrinal tests, no one can deny the fact that, in this matter, they express the consistent claim of Anglican identity: the Scriptures of Christ stand at our center; they render Christ to us (they are His word!) and they form the "foundation" (with "Christ as its 'cornerstone'") of the Church itself that makes us "no longer strangers" but "fellow citizens and members of the household of God" (Eph. 2:19f.). How might we have a "rule of life" that would lead us back together in bonds of mutual charity and respect without the "rule of the Scriptures"? And how might the very foundational doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation have meaning apart from their basis in and expression of God's self-revelation in the Word? Without the Scriptures, how are we to know what is the "historic faith and order" we are to "uphold and propagate", as our Constitution demands? (The Taskforce leaves this phrase out in quoting from our Preamble, preferring instead to speak only of "communion with Canterbury" [TFR, Principle 4]; but the lacuna is deeply significant and disheartening.) Without the Scriptures, a document like The Virginia Report provides controlling direction to common life uninformed by the very "council" (Lambeth 1998) which granted the Report a measure of commendation (even while that council defined clearly the definitive authority of the Scriptures within the Anglican Communion, including on matters of sexual self-expression). Without the Scripture, a General Convention in 2006 becomes the arbiter of our future life and Christian discipline (TFR, 2B) as a diocese, in the face of and contrary to teaching that is already established within a Communion the Virginia Report is designed to protect. "Restraint" and "waiting" easily become a form of evasion of subjection to the Communion and the Scriptural teaching and authority it expresses. Without the Scriptures, what faith exactly is the bishop to "guard", and what is he to "teach", and we in faithful subjection to him (TFR, p. 15)? (Bishop and clergy have all vowed their commitment to the "Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments" as "the Word of God", but this vow, the only written subscription demanded of those ordained, is not even explicitly mentioned as informing the demands of ordination or of the "rule of life" we hold in common.) Without the Scriptures, we assert diverse authorities as they serve our cause, and discard them as they prove unhelpful (The Report's lack of clarity about "grounding", "norms", and "touchstones" is a clear opening to such confusion.) Without the Scriptures, the Church has nothing to teach but a fading wish. Oddly enough, the one concrete thing we do have in common as followers of Jesus — the Word that witnesses to Him and that springs from Him and that is opened to us by His Spirit (John 14:15-27) — this seems to have no necessary or demanded place among our "rules" of common living and offers no discipline of understanding and subjection. Subjection to bishops, we are told (TFR, pp. 15, 16, 20); not to the Scriptures! Where have the Scriptures gone? They seem to have been banished by a church that fears their disruptive power. If ever there were a time for an Irenaeus, Athanasius or an Augustine, for a Luther or a Calvin, a Barth or a Delbrel, even for a Ridley or a Latimer (of blessed death and witness), who, for all their weaknesses and even within this mean corner of Christ's Kingdom, might yet stare welcomingly into the "word of God, living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Heb. 4:12), it is surely now. It is time again to be gathered, just as Our Lord has prayed for our unity, "sanctified in the truth which is thy Word" (John 17:17). I would join the Taskforce and the diocese in such a prayer as this. That in it, we might be joined to Christ. 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.

THE ARMOR OF GOD: THE SHIELD OF FAITH   by Ted Schroder   August 29, 2004   "Take up the shield of faith with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one." (Eph.6:16)   One of the most feared forms of attack in warfare up to the invention of gunpowder was the use of arrows. They could be loosed from a safe distance where the archers were protected from retaliation, and they would penetrate the chinks in the armor.   The Battle of Hastings on October 14, 1066 was one of the most famous battles fought in England. Upon the death of King Edward the Confessor, the royal council, following the dying king's request, named Harold, earl of Wessex, king. William, Duke of Normandy had been designated Edward's successor, and had secured Harold's agreement to his accession to the throne of England. On hearing of Harold's action he gathered an army of 15,000 men to enforce his rival claim.   Tostig, Harold's disenfranchised older brother who had been passed over for the earldom and now the kingship, joined forces with Harold III of Norway to attack from the north. Harold soundly defeated this force at Stamford Bridge, in the north of England, on September 25, 1066, but had to march south immediately to meet William's army at Hastings. In the battle Harold was defeated and killed. John Richard Green tells the story of the last moments.   "At three the hill seemed won, at six the fight still raged around the royal standard, where Harold's huscarls stood stubbornly at bay on a spot marked afterward by the high altar of Battle Abbey. An order from the duke at last brought his archers to the front, and their arrows flight told heavily on the dense masses crowded around the king. As the sun went down a shaft pierced Harold's right eye; he fell between the royal ensigns, and the battle closed with a desperate melee over his corpse."   Retired U.S. Army General John McGiffert, a member of my congregation in San Antonio, was a descendant of Walter Giffard the Younger, one of the four Norman knights who slew the dying king.   The use of pitch-covered arrows, ignited before flight, increased their destructive nature, as fire terrified horses as well as frightening soldiers. The possession of a shield made all the difference in protecting oneself against such a weapon.   St. Paul speaks about the flaming arrows of the evil one, to remind us of the danger of being under attack. It is a vivid image of the destructive way in which we can be assaulted. These arrows can come out of nowhere when we least expect them. We can feel ambushed as they burst into flame around us, and threaten to pierce our souls. Unexpected events that happen to us may be used by the forces of evil to wound us. We never know when it is going to happen. The devil wants to sow confusion and consternation in our ranks so that we cannot defend ourselves and fight back.   St. Paul is reminding us again that this attack comes from an external enemy. The arrows originate in the evil one. We must not believe that they originate in ourselves. Too often, when we are tempted to doubt, and despair, and fear, because of these attacks, we blame ourselves. These attacks will come upon us no matter how strong in the Lord we may be.   Sometimes these attacks are concentrated in a particular time frame, on individuals or groups, in an attempt to destroy the work of God. Jesus experienced an intense attack at the beginning of his ministry. Then, Luke records, "When the devil had finished all this tempting, he left him until an opportune time." (Luke 4:13) The devil planned to come back and attack Jesus at an opportune time, a time of weakness or stress, such as he experienced in the garden of Gethsemane. The devil waits in ambush for us to attack when the opportunity comes.   Arrows were most dangerous when they found the chink in the armor, the vulnerable spot, like King Harold's eye. The attacks that are most dangerous to us are those that find our weakness, where we are most vulnerable. It behooves us to identify where that chink is to be found, where our weakest point is, so that we can apply the shield of faith. Is it memories of painful episodes, or difficult people, or unhappy childhoods, or disappointments, a sense of failure or regret? Is it that which commands our greatest attention, our highest priority, so that it distracts us from what God wants us to focus on? Is it that which feeds our self-esteem, our ego, our pride, so that there is no room for worship of the living God? Is it that which ministers to our comfort level so that we are not willing to venture forth on what God is calling us to do and to become? Are we so concentrating on protecting ourselves from misadventure, from possibilities, from fears, from rejection, that we leave ourselves vulnerable to being attacked by inertia, by cowardice, by self-indulgence? Where is the chink in our armor as a culture, as a nation, as a society? Where can the forces of evil terrorize us by finding where we are most vulnerable? What is being attacked in our day? Where are we being attacked?   Bill McKibben gathered 2,400 hours of videotape - all the programs offered on TV during one day - and after spending a year studying them asked, "What would the world look like if this was your main source of information? His distillation of "all those thousands of game shows and talk shows and sitcoms and commercials" was the single notion, "You are the most important thing on the face of the earth. Your immediate desires are all that count. Do It Your Way. This Bud's for You." Consequently, he concludes, "We are led daily, hourly, into temptation." (McKibben, "Returning God to the Center," p.47)   What are we to do to protect ourselves? Take up the shield of faith. My seminary motto was taken from 1 John 5:4, "This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith."   Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones writes, "Faith here means the ability to apply quickly what we believe so as to repel everything the devil does or attempts to do to us... So I define faith in 'the shield of faith' as meaning the quick application of what we believe as an answer to everything that the devil hurls at us." Therefore we must know what we believe if our shield is to be effective. See the use of "know" in 1 John 5:13-20.   The victory claimed by faith is that achieved by Christ on the cross. "And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross." (Colossians 2:15) Christ defeated the hostile supernatural powers, the hierarchy of spiritual forces that are in rebellion against God. Christ has 'disarmed' these forces of evil. He has stripped the powers and authorities just as a conquered antagonist was stripped of his weapons and armor and put to public shame. God in Christ 'made a public spectacle of them.' That is to say, he exposed them to public disgrace by exhibiting them to the universe as his captives. The added words, 'triumphing over them by the cross,' expands this idea. The picture, quite familiar in the Roman world, is that of a triumphant general leading a parade of victory. The conqueror, riding at the front in his chariot, leads his troops through the streets of the city. Behind them trails a wretched company of vanquished kings, officers, and soldiers - the spoils of battle. Christ, in this picture, is the conquering general; the powers and authorities are the vanquished enemy displayed as the spoils of battle before the entire universe. To the casual observer the cross appears to be only an instrument of death, the symbol of Christ's defeat. Paul sees it as Christ's chariot of victory. There is no earthly or spiritual power which hasn't been defeated by Christ.   Faith is subjective and points to its object - God. Hebrews 11 lists the great heroes of the faith. They believed in God, they accounted him able to do what he had promised. That was their secret. Faith points to God, not to our abilities, to resist the devil. To try to rely upon ourselves, apart from God, to protect ourselves from our spiritual enemies, would be foolish.   Abraham is the man who, above all others, characterized faith, because God had revealed himself in a vision: "Do not be afraid, Abram, I am your shield, and your very great reward." (Genesis 15:1) "For the Lord God is a sun and shield." (Ps.84:11)   Dr Victor Matthews has written a Daily Affirmation of Faith, and a Warfare Prayer, which I am making available for use as a shield when you feel that you are under attack.   When Paul exhorts us to "take up the shield of faith", he is reminding us that we need to get hold of it, and not take it for granted. It is too late to scramble around for the shield after the arrows have started raining around us. We would be dead in the ambush. We need to take up our shield of faith daily. We protect ourselves by taking it up, and training ourselves how to hold it up.   In science fiction the intergalactic travelers use protective shields to protect their space-craft. They activate their magnetic or electrostatic shields in order to deflect the enemy's attack. We must activate our shields of faith if we are to protect ourselves against the forces of darkness. We activate our shield of faith, we take it up, when we pray, affirming our faith, claiming what we believe.   "Grant me faith, O Lord God; more than acknowledgment of your being, more than a deep veneration for Jesus of Nazareth, more than an honest repetition of Creeds, more than convinced assent to Catholic doctrine; But a faith like Christ's faith undiscourageable, invincible, glowing, and complete. A faith in my Father, who made me and all the world, who loves me and has redeemed me by his own Son; a faith in my Savior, who loved me more than his own life and imparts to me his own Spirit; a faith in the Holy Spirit, breath of faith, giver of faith, life of faith; a faith creative and abounding in good works, not in word but in prayer, indefatigable, indomitable, moving mountains; faith all from you, in you, and unto you, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, my Lord and my God." (Eric Milner-White)   END

ANGLICAN COMMUNION NETWORK DEAN CALLS FOR ACTION NOW   By David W. Virtue in Ottawa   OTTAWA, ON-(8/31/2004)--A dean of the U.S. Anglican Communion Network told more than 700 orthodox Canadian Anglicans at the 2004 ESSENTIALS conference that they need to get out of their foxholes and start taking some of the hills in front of them.   Referencing the spiritual and moral chaos in the American Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, the Rev. Bill Murdoch, Dean of the New England Network, said that the time for reflection, analysis and self-criticism is over and overcoming needs to begin.   "When that time does come, we will begin to shape our message and dominate our proclamations with what we are for, not what we are against."   "We can do a better job of articulating our message to a lost world. Can we exercise enough faith to articulate and believe in a vision for what the Anglican Church in North America might look like? Can we see a biblically orthodox Anglican church, a Great Commission Church, a church planting church, Spirit filled, Holy Spirit empowered church, a church where the people are starving for a real experience of Christ's love."   Fr. Murdoch, who is rector of All Saints' Episcopal Church in West Newbury, Massachusetts, told the orthodox gathering of bishops, clergy and laity, that it was a time for orthodox Anglicans in the US and Canada to work together and support one another.   "If they [revisionist bishops] come after you to take and close your churches and inhibit your priests call us; we will come. When that happens, we need to show up in numbers in voice and stature and stand together. You cannot do this alone. If we have a future together, we need to take first steps together."   Murdoch said it was a new day. "It is time to turn the battle around and contend for the faith and no longer talk about it."   "The definition of renewal is a recovery of apostolic life in both doctrine and practice."   Murdoch apologized for any imperialism that Americans had shown towards their Canadian Anglican brothers and sisters.   The dean then issued a thundering call for Anglican unity across geographic lines, and blasted idolatry in the church.   "We need to get over that Jesus died for church buildings. He didn't. We stand for orthodoxy and we worry that people say mean things about us. Get over it. We need to overcome our idolatry of the bishop. They can't without the help and exhortation of clergy and laity who love and respect the office and the people. But right now we need leadership not maintenance. We need apostles not bureaucrats. We need to recognize the cultural and bureaucratic captivity of the office of the Bishop."   "We don't want it to be said of us, 'here I am Lord send my wife.' We need to stay in the fight till we win the war and it is not just in the church; it is a cultural war for the very soul of our nations."   Murdoch said that Gene Robinson lived less than 10 miles from his parish and when he was becoming a bishop he knew there had to be a faithful remnant. "Our church has sullied the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and our church has dishonored the gospel. But when I went to pastors in three other denominations, I found 24 pastors who tore up their own agendas and stepped up to offer their churches to us. We chose Durham Evangelical Church as witness of Holy Eucharist and preaching. 500 Anglicans showed up. Some 600 Baptist, Methodist and Congregationalist clergy and laity stood outside and prayed for us."   "We need to get out of our fox holes and take back the hills. This is a conflict. And in a conflict you are going to take some hits. We are biblically orthodox Anglicans. I want to see an Anglican Church like that in every community. It can be done. To do it we need you and one another, together we are smarter than anyone alone; as dean stand with us."   END   BREAKING NEWS: Orthodox Canadian Anglicans announce formation of new Federation and Network for impaired Anglicans at ESSENTIALS 2004 conference.... *

PITTSBURGH: "Progressive Episcopalians" laud Bruno. Orthodox rector responds   August 20, 2004   The Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles Cathedral Center of St. Paul 840 Echo Park Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90026   Dear Bishop Bruno:   Greetings to you in the name of Jesus Christ from the Diocese of Pittsburgh.   News of recent developments involving St. James', Newport Beach, and All Saints', Long Beach, has been greeted by many of us here with distress, though not with surprise. After all, we are merely seeing the implementation of the strategy so chillingly laid out months ago for the American Anglican Council by Pittsburgh priest Geoff Chapman.   How strange that the Anglican Communion has been turned into the Wild West, where rustlers, with crosiers and miters, rather than lariats and horses, steal parishes from their erstwhile colleagues! How ironic that, almost simultaneously with the defection of the Los Angeles parishes, the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes (NACDAP) should release publicly the testimony it recently offered to the Lambeth Commission, in which Hugo Blankenship could say: "We believe the Network is worthy of your trust and that of the whole Communion."! With equal sincerity, Bishop Robert Duncan spoke of the Episcopal Church as the burning, fatally wounded, World Trade Center towers, neglecting to include, in his analogy, the role of himself and of his supporters in piloting the airplanes! I can only imagine how difficult it is to maintain episcopal collegiality at a time when an Episcopal bishop regularly makes such destructive statements.   I do not write to commiserate, however, but to congratulate you on your wise and timely pastoral letter, and to offer whatever tangible assistance Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh (PEP) might be able to offer in the present circumstances. You have, I believe, labeled disloyalty, betrayal, and theological error for what they are, and, in so doing, you are helping to awaken and rally the majority of Episcopalians who have hitherto been ignorant of the threat to our church or who have mistakenly viewed that threat as insignificant. Your swift action to discipline the clergy involved and your resolution to protect the property that is our common heritage represents a turning point at which the Episcopal Church has now declared that it will not longer tolerate that which is intolerable.   PEP members feel a special sadness over these events because, as often seems to be the case, the breakaway parishes have multiple connections to our diocese and to organizations with which our bishop is associated: we have no doubt that the actions of the clergy of these parishes are part of the NACDAP strategy. In fact, beginning with the David Moyer incident two years ago, the transferring of clergy to dioceses outside the Episcopal Church to evade church canons seems to have become something of a Bishop Duncan specialty, and, judging by his Lambeth Commission testimony, a source of satisfaction for him.   The diocese of Pittsburgh is indeed dominated by the so-called "orthodox." Nonetheless, more than a quarter of the people of this diocese support the PEP vision of a united and tolerant church, and disapprove of the NACDAP and its actions.   Know that our prayers are with you, as, in coming days, will be the prayers of increasing numbers of Episcopalians.   Yours in Christ, Lionel Deimel President, Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh, A Via Media USA Alliance Member   cc: The Most Rev. Frank T. Griswold   828 Rockwood Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15234 - (412) 343-5337 - (412) 343-6816 Fax   ********************************   ORTHODOX PITTSBURGH RECTOR REBUTS DIEMEL'S CLAIMS   - Churches that have formally distanced themselves from the diocese and in some sense aligned with PEP's goals = 7 (or 9.9 percent of the 71 churches in the diocese)   - Average Sunday attendance at those seven churches = 826 or just under 10 percent of Diocesan total. Be kind and include two more churches that have made their position known but haven't done anything formal, = 1287, or 15.5 percent. of average Sunday attendance.   - PEP's pathetic attempt to rally grassroots support for their Duncan bashing fest through "unity petition" = 149 or less than three quarters of 1 percent.   - However you slice it, nothing here that even begins to approximate the 25 percent they're claiming. Just a shrinking group of old angry liberals with lousy math skills.   Here's the long version   1. This Spring, PEP tried to get a diocesan petition drive put together of parishioners from all over the diocese who objected to the Diocese joining the Network. They could only get 149 signatures from people in 20 churches, again with a vast majority of those coming from a half dozen churches. For a diocese with 20,335 members, 153 is exactly three quarters of one percent of the Diocese - 25 percent support? Hah, they can't even clear 1 percent when they tried. (source: http://www.geocities.com/pephomepage/html/peptalk-2004-03.pdf )   2. Only seven churches in the Diocese have formally distanced themselves from the Network (PEP itself only records six http://www.geocities.com/pephomepage/html/peptalk-2004-03.pdf p. 6), but there is at least one more that has publicized such a decision http://www.stpauls-mtlebanon.org/news.htm ). Two other churches might as well be included. As a group, these nine churches have an average Sunday attendance of 1,287 (2002 numbers) available online here: http://www.pgh.anglican.org/clientImages/25239/712002parochialvitalstatistics.pdf ). This works out to be 15.5 percent of the Diocese's Sunday attendance of 8,283. Even more fun, several of these churches are far from unified in their stand. Counting all of their members as committed PEP supporters is an exercise in wishful thinking.   3. The friendliest way to run the numbers for them is to count Total Active Baptized Members. If that's the case and you count the two "informally aligned churches", you can get them all the way up to their claimed 25 percent. However, there is a lot of number padding going on here. The three largest liberal churches, all with a membership between 1000 - and 1500 have an average attendance between a third and a fifth of that, so I think the most accurate number is to count folks in the pews. Moreover, as I mentioned above several of these churches are hardly of one mind on this issue.   The rector who wrote this has asked to remain anonymous fearing personal recriminations to his ministry.   END

Episcopal Diocese Demands Property   By Larry B. Stammer Los Angeles Times Staff Writer   8/28/2004   Attorneys for the Episcopal bishop of Los Angeles on Friday gave three breakaway parishes until Monday to either surrender their church properties, even their prayer books, or to stop using them until the church or civil courts decide who is the rightful owner.   The parishes were also given five days to deliver financial statements, copies of all bank accounts and investment portfolios, and their registers of members.   Over the last two weeks, the three conservative parishes - All Saints in Long Beach, St. James in Newport Beach and St. David's in North Hollywood - declared that they had pulled out of the national Episcopal Church and no longer considered Los Angeles Episcopal Bishop J. Jon Bruno their leader. The parishes placed themselves under the jurisdiction of an Anglican diocese in Uganda run by a conservative bishop who agrees with their more orthodox biblical interpretations and views on homosexuality.   On Friday, in hand-delivered letters to the three parishes, Los Angeles diocesan attorney John R. Shiner of Morrison & Foerster said the congregations were in violation of church canons and California civil law and could face a lawsuit.   Church buildings and all property were "irrevocably dedicated to the church and the diocese under the jurisdiction of the bishop," according to the statement.   The letter sought to prohibit the secessionist parishes from using not only the church buildings but also the hymnals and the Book of Common Prayer, which is central to Episcopal and Anglican worship.   Father Praveen Bunyan, rector of St. James, called the ultimatum by the diocese unfortunate.   "We're just worshiping in our own property," he said. "We're doing what is legally our right. We will continue to have worship services here. We have peace about it."   Bunyan said parish attorneys would review the letter over the weekend before any further comment. The Rev. William Thompson, rector at All Saints, issued a similar statement.   Leaders of St. David's could not be reached, but they had previously said that they held title to the property and were confident they would win in any possible legal tussle.   In the last week, the parishes said they had amended their articles of incorporation to delete all references to the 2.3-million-member Episcopal Church, which is the American arm of the worldwide Anglican Communion.   The decision by the three parishes to break away followed similar steps over the last year by an estimated seven other parishes nationwide and was further evidence of deep divisions within the denomination, which has more than 7,300 parishes in the United States.   Several of the breakaway priests in Southern California cited the Episcopal Church's approval last year of an openly gay priest as bishop of New Hampshire, and the Los Angeles bishop's decision to officiate at the same-sex blessing of one of his priests and the priest's partner of 20 years in May.   Bruno, who oversees 147 parishes in six counties, has warned the clergy at the three parishes not to serve as priests or deacons and said they have six months to return to the fold or they will be defrocked. They have said they would ignore Bruno's directives.   While the Los Angeles diocese was preparing for a likely lawsuit, Bruno was expected to preach about reconciliation Sunday at St. John's Episcopal Church on West Adams Boulevard, near downtown.   "I never heard of Jesus closing a door on anyone," Bruno said Thursday, "and I believe that I try to pattern my life after the Christ himself, who did not judge, who did not reject."   Meanwhile, lay leaders at a parish that has remained within the church said they have begun raising funds to help the diocese defray legal costs to fight the three breakaway parishes, or to help make up for the cutoff of offerings from the conservative parishes to the diocese.   "I was very concerned that our bishop was out there hanging out on his own," said Peter Juzwiak, senior warden of St. Michael and All Angels Episcopal Church in Studio City. He said his vestry had raised $2,500 toward a $5,000 goal and hopes to enlist other parishes in the effort.   Another vestry member at the Studio City parish, Jim Holmes, said, "We have allowed the religious right to hijack the word and name of Christian, and they are poisoning, in our minds, the vast majority of the faithful with a bunch of radical, fundamentalist ideas that do not represent us as Christians."   END

Hope for a New Church still can Prevail says leading U.S. Rector   By David C. Roseberry   The following lecture was delivered at St. John the Divine Church   August 28, 2004   I am thankful to be with you today and have the opportunity to speak to you directly about the issues and the struggles we face. We know that this main subject of the church is taking a great deal of time and energy. The events of last fall have caused significant disruption in our life...and we will continue to struggle until some kind of resolution is achieved.   For my part, I offer a snapshot of why and what is happening and what might be hoped for. As you know, no one can predict what may come of this crisis...but no one can doubt at this time that it is a crisis.   So allow me to summarize where we are today:   1. "The Vote" at the General Convention in Minneapolis in August 2003 has rocked the church to its core. The Primates have met in emergency session and dispatched the "Lambeth Commission", commonly called "Eames Commission" (named for its chairman, Robin Eames, archbishop of Ireland) to help find a way forward. Three "Plano-style" conferences have been held around the country. The Anglican Communion Network has been formed and has developed a theological charter. The House of Bishops have met and presented an oversight plan called "Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight". Nearly every diocese and/or congregation has had special meetings, resolutions, votes, and or discussions on these significant issues.   2. It is hard to measure the impact of this year, but it is clear that most dioceses and parishes have put these issues at center stage. It is the flash point for our culture and it forces every Christian and every church to answer a fundamental question: who or what is the source of my authority for making decisions and choices in the world today? The Episcopal Church, once priding itself on being the "roomiest church" in Christianity, now finds itself hopelessly split from within. On the one side are the modernists who believe that new information about human sexuality along with new academic thinking about authority and Scripture should bring the church to new conclusions about lifestyle decisions. On the other hand, those who hold a traditional point of view believe that there are no new decisions to be made. The church should uphold and defend the traditional doctrine of marriage and morality.   At a societal level, it is an issue of authority. Can anyone or anything make me do what I don't want to do...or tell me not to do what I want and feel inclined and desirous to do? The Western pop culture is crazed with self-fulfillment, sexual pleasure, youth, materialism, and self-rule. This is the perfect environment for a 'morals-free' lifestyle choice that many people make.   At a personal level, the issues have to do with a new understand of the self. In the modern view, the self cannot be suppressed. It cannot be changed. We are born with certain instincts and attitudes...or they are developed over time. Either way, we cannot suppress them. They must be expressed and celebrated to by wholly and fully human. Set against this view of the person, is the biblical and traditional Christian perspective that we should not express every feature of our desire. Human beings are fallen creatures capable of gross violations of the Creator's intention. We should not follow our appetites and impulses. Rather, we should channel them into only two styles of life that are defined as God's will (God's best) for us: monogamous heterosexual marriage or celibate singleness.   With the decision to consecrate a man in an active gay relationship and permit the blessing of same-sex unions, the roomiest church in the faith just got really small. There is no middle ground on these issues. Either you believe that sexual practice is a matter of the human nature and right, or you believe that God has revealed his will for us finally and completely in the Scriptures. Where is the middle ground?   This is where we are today. Some are still looking for middle ground. Some are looking for a way of holding the two sides in conversation and dialogue. Some call for church unity while, at the same time, developing and authorizing the use of same sex blessing liturgies. For others, myself among them, the violation of Scripture is clear enough. It is important to emphasize that the Primates have said about this issue what they have said about no other issue: that it will tear the fabric of our common life. It is a communion breaker! Church unity is superficial if it is not unity in the truth of the Gospel and the teaching of the apostles.   3. Another aspect of the crisis concerns the catholic order. We are a hierarchical church with a pattern of governance and accountability that is two millennia old. The catholic order has been violated. The teaching of the apostles has been ignored. Dialogue with our ecumenical partners around the world is in disarray and some have been suspended. The General Convention has not only violated the clear teaching of Scripture, it has also ignored the opinions and decisions of many other Christian brothers and sisters around the world. Witness to this was the letter to the first Plano conference from Cardinal Ratzinger of the Vatican sharing with us the deep concern of the Pope.   4. One clear casualty of the last year was the last and best hope of growth and revitalization of the Episcopal Church: the 20/20 Vision. You may remember that the 20/20 Vision was a program or movement by the Episcopal Church to energize and invigorate every aspect of the church toward mission and growth. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent, as were thousands and thousands of hours in meetings and meetings. Great promises were made, dozens of resolutions passed, and committees and task forces were charged. It was very important...and it is over. Done. There is no evidence (one year later) that any efforts of the movement are carrying on. I recently went to the Episcopal Church's new website...no mention whatsoever of the effort to double the size of the church by the year 2020.   Church shrinkage is more what is in store. Numbers are hard to get hold of today, but nearly every congregation is affected by the actions of the General Convention and the ensuing conflict. Why would people join a church in conflict? Why will people stay in a church in crisis? What compelling cause are we about beside a church fight about sex? The paltry attendance of our church by members and visitors, now barely over 800,000 each week, seems likely to slip more and more. Simple math indicates that the average size Sunday School in the Episcopal Church is a shameful 37 pupils. Where is our future?   5. One huge potential loss for ECUSA is a connection with the worldwide Anglican Communion. Upwards of 20 plus different provinces have announced impaired or broken communion with our small but wealthy province. Once the Eames Commission gives a report, the status of the strained relationships may actually fracture. The growing and lively branch of the Anglican Communion, the Global South, is very clear on matters of human sexuality and biblical morality. The fuzzy nuances of Western-minded theologians do not exist. The Bible teaches chastity: faithfulness in marriage and abstinence in singleness. Any other innovation is unbiblical and will lead their people to spiritual confusion and possible eternal death.   6. Many of us feel that a connection with the Anglican Communion is the source of new life and hope for Anglicanism in North America. Without them, we become a small sect-sized church, a boutique style church specializing in fine liturgy, modern theology, and nice music. But with them, we maintain a missionary drive to reach our culture with the saving love of Jesus Christ. This desire for connection with the rest of the Anglican Communion is what drives the Network of Anglican Communion Diocese and Parishes (The Network). Chartered only eight months ago, the purpose of the Network is to maintain and grow Anglicanism in North America. Its goals are to create a community of churches and dioceses that are unified (among all Anglican groups, ECUSA and beyond), orthodox, and missionary. The Network has achieved remarkable status in only eight months. Nine dioceses have ratified its charter and two more are set to do so within months. These dioceses represent nearly 800 parishes and missions and close to 200,000 souls. In addition, 148 congregations and clergy have joined the Network from non-Network dioceses, with 54 pending. Add to this the 68 Forward in Faith congregations, and the Network is already larger that 13 provinces in the Anglican Communion. The Network is strong enough, and representative enough of the orthodox and conservative movement, that when the Eames Commission wanted to hear from members of the Episcopal Church USA at their recent meeting in Kanuga, they asked to hear from Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold and Network Moderator Bob Duncan.   The Network has assigned retired bishops to each of the convocations to provide pastoral care for church and clergy that request it. There is an ordination track for seminarians who are unable to get through the ECUSA process that may be overseen by several primates of the global church.   At the first Plano conference, much was said about a coming re-alignment...a shift of key relationships within the constellation of the Anglican Communion that would in essence, by-pass the American Church. This is it. The Network is a by-pass around the erroneous and damaging teaching and leadership core of ECUSA. This is why it is being vilified and acted upon with hostility by US bishops. (Some bishops have issued godly admonitions and other threats to keep their clergy from joining the Network.) However, as important as the Network is to maintaining relationships and communion with the wider Anglican Communion, the Network still (and must) operate within the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church.   How can we think of it? Think of the Network as an "order" within a "structure". The structure defines the legal and canonical relationships and the enforceable constitutional governance. An "order" defines the spiritual and theological and moral life of a ministry and a mission. The structure is concerned with property...the order is concerned with mission. One is a shell...and the other is a seed. This is the way we will maintain our spiritual integrity and still function as priests with a structure. This is the new alignment.   7. There has been substantial fall out from the vote with regard to the missionary and relief enterprises in the Episcopal Church. To that end, several new ministries of the Network are in place. The Anglican Relief and Development fund will have over a million dollars for dispersal by the end of September. Why so much? Because money that had come from 815 Second Ave. is either being refused by global south primates are redirected by Episcopal agencies. The same is true of the Anglican Global Mission Partners. Part of the their charter is to help find funding for missionaries that have been supported by the Episcopal Church.   A positive development in the Network has also been the establishment of the Common Cause...an understanding that dispersed Anglican groups can and should come together for reunion. To date, the Reformed Episcopal Church, Anglican Province in America, Anglican Mission in America, Forward in Faith North American, American Anglican Council, and the Network are now working together for orthodox Anglicanism in North America.   After the Eames report and any additional fallout from around the Anglican Communion, the Network may be the only entity that many non-Western Anglicans recognize and accept. And after the Eames report, the Network will be our principal means of connection to the rest of the Anglican Communion.   8. The Eames Report is what is next in line. It is to be published in mid October of this year. What it will say and how it will read is anyone's guess. However, most observers feel that if it issues a strong rebuke of the American Church, it will be ignored by the ECUSA. If it issues a mild acceptance of each province's right to decide their individual practices, it will be embraced by ECUSA. This latter position might well trigger a complete meltdown of the Anglican Communion across the globe. If each is left to decide what is right in their own eyes, then all that is left of ECUSA will be property disputes.   There is an all-Africa bishops meeting scheduled at the end of October in Lagos, Nigeria. The unprecedented gathering of over 300 bishops from the global south (1/3 of the Anglican Communion at least) might well preempt the regularly scheduled Primates meeting in February where they are set to consider the findings of the Eames Commission.   It should be noted that the Eames Commission will not consider sexuality issues...only communion issues. The Primates (in October of 2003) have endorsed and reaffirmed the Lambeth 1998 statement that homosexuality is incompatible with the teaching of Holy Scripture. The Eames Commission will consider only how and to what degree communion can be maintained when individual provinces act on the own accord against the common teaching.   Rumors abound as to what the Eames Commission will recommend and any real speculation is pointless at this time. However, it is important to note that, once the Eames Commission has rendered their opinion and it has been received and digested by the Archbishop of Canterbury, there are no more structural solutions to the crisis. The first Plano conference was held to rally the support and send a clear message to the Primates of the Anglican Communion: "Help us...come and intervene in our life." The statement of the primates in October was a substantial intervention, if not also opaque. The Eames Commission is working on behalf of the Primates and the Archbishop. Once the 'verdict is in', all the cards will be on the table.   9. Where we go from here...what will we do? While speculation is pointless, planning is critical. The strength of the Network is growing. Scores of young men and women are coming forward for ordained ministry. Clergy are finding their voice. Lay people are realizing the gravity of the situation and are demanding action...and taking action themselves. While we are waiting of the Eames Commission to give their report, we cannot rely on the Eames Commission to solve our problems. They can only validate what is known to all of us: the fabric of our common life is horribly and irreparable torn, to paraphrase the primates' warning.   We need to realize that we are at a great moment in history. Something very significant is taking place in our lifetime...and we get to be part of it. We can define the problem quite easily: authority, Biblical integrity, catholicity, and obedience. But also, by the Grace of our God, we can take part in defining the outcome...the shaping and building of a new and renewed future church. Many of us grieve for what has been lost...and yet at the same time there is hope. There is hope for a new church that is free and unashamed of the gospel we are charged to proclaim and good news we are empowered to declare. There is hope for an Anglicanism that is once again deeply rooted in the Scriptures and deeply connected to worldwide brothers and sisters who share our passion and our mission in Christ. Imagine this kind of church! We get to be the builders of what God is doing anew in Anglicanism all around the world...and in North America.   -The Rev. David Roseberry is rector, Christ Church, Plano Texas

Dear Brothers and Sisters,   The news takes no vacation. While hoping for a brief break with my wife before the Lambeth/Eames Commission hands down its report, word came out of the DIOCESE OF LOS ANGELES that three parishes had upped and left the diocese, the Episcopal Church and linked themselves ecclesiastically with a Bishop in Uganda, ultimately coming under the authority of the Archbishop of Uganda, Henry Luke Orombi.   The reasons for their departure were the usual ones - the authority of Scripture, same sex blessings and the consecration of an avowed sodomist to the episcopacy.   The timing could not be worse for Frank Griswold, ECUSA's Presiding Bishop who is doing his best to persuade the Lambeth/Eames Commission that all is well in ECUSA, and that dissent is merely sporadic and inconsequential.   Such is not the case however. One of the three parishes - St. James in Newport Beach has 1,200 members and is one of the largest parishes on the West Coast with several powerful and well-heeled Episcopal families. A second parish, All Saints' has 400 members, making them both wealthy and influential beyond the ordinary run of the mill Episcopal parishes. The Rev. David C. Anderson, former rector of St. James now heads the powerful American Anglican Council that wants to see Griswold toppled from power and replaced with an orthodox ECUSA leader.   Bearing in mind that of the 7,500 parishes in the US, some 3,500 have 37 members or less, the departure of these and other large well-established biblically orthodox parishes cannot be taken lightly. Two other parishes in the diocese are also weighing their options and are waiting the outcome of the Lambeth/Eames Commission.   When Bishop Jon Bruno, the portly liberal bishop of Los Angeles got news of the departing parishes, he blew his stack and fired off letters in all directions, in a rare display of personal whine and thwarted ambition, telling the world that the Episcopal Church is orthodox, and so is he, and why are they doing this to a nice inclusive guy like me.   The truth is, his diocese is riddled with sodomite and lesbian priests who constantly bend his ear, making sure that orthodox rectors never get a serious say in diocesan decision making that would compromise their right to behave as they please.   The other truth is the Episcopal Church is about as orthodox as Jack Spong, and Bruno himself has voted for every sexual innovation in the Episcopal Church at the last two general conventions, putting himself well beyond the pale of orthodoxy and well inside the pit of heterodoxy.   His letter to the diocese is a study in whine, self-pity, straight out self-righteousness, and distortions, and I have examined it at length in today's digest. The part about not letting "the Holy Scriptures be compromised by those who seek to make their literalist and simplistic interpretation the only legitimate one", (about sex, of course), must have Cardinal Ratzinger wincing in Rome, not to mention the vast majority of ECUSA's and the Church of England's Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics.   The pathetic appeal, "why don't they want me at the table" by the Rev. Susan Russell, the diocese's arch-lesbian priest is more whine than anyone should have to read. The answer to her query is obvious even to the most theologically unenlightened. Why would six orthodox clergy (one of which incidentally includes a woman deacon) continue to share a table with an unrepentant, activist lesbian who is incapable of bringing forth either biological or spiritual life? Her good news is Bad News, and someone has to stand up and scream that blasphemy and apostasy will never be tolerated at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, so why continue to sit at table with these people in California, the land of assorted spiritual fruits and nuts, a good many of whom reside in the Diocese of Los Angeles!   While the central issue for these fleeing parishes is theological and moral, the bishop sees it as one of disobedience to his authority, the Episcopal Church and the subversion of the canons and constitutions. For him the issue comes down to property, (never the content of the faith), as it always is with revisionist bishops. So of course it will come as no surprise that he will go to court to try and grab them.   But here he could be in for a big surprise. In one case, St. James, Newport Beach, parish leaders say they have held title to the parish before the Dennis Canon and he hasn't a prayer of getting his hands on it. Furthermore, Virtuosity has been informed that the parishes are prepared to fight all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary, and with the number of parishes fleeing and with more to follow, Bruno will need a bottomless pit of money for legal fees to fight them all. And to double his pain the California State Supreme Court recently held in favor of a local Methodist congregation that broke free from the United Methodist Church, so it will not be a cake walk for the bishop to do a snatch and grab of these parishes. And even if he is successful, he will have zip members in one parish and less than a dozen in each of the other two. At the end of the day that is no victory, unless you believe that God is vitally interested in real estate.   While the national church is spinning that these departures are rare and few and do not represent Frank Griswold's "diverse center", the more than 50 priests and their parishes who have fled to the Anglican Mission in America, with other parishes fleeing to at least three overseas Anglican Primates - the cumulative effect can hardly be missed by Dr. Rowan Williams and the Lambeth Commission.   For anyone to believe that the Episcopal Church is remotely orthodox in faith and morals requires a stretch of the imagination along the lines of believing Hitler invaded Poland to embrace the Jews there as fellow citizens.   It isn't, and now it is up to Dr. William's appointed Commission to say so and to bring the requisite punishment down on the head of Frank Griswold, because if it doesn't, the shift in power might well move to Abuja, Nigeria where Primate Peter Akinola and his CAPA bishops could engage in a power exercise that might, at the end of the day, prove far more fatal to the cohesion of the Anglican Communion.   You can read all the correspondence on this major development in today's digest, including Bruno's letter, two letters from Archbishop Orombi, a letter from Frank Griswold and more.   I am also posting a number of other stories, including an astute article written by the Rev Tad de Bordenave, an Episcopal missiologist and hands on Director of Anglican Frontier Mission on why the revisionists just don't get it.   THE NEXT TIME I WRITE TO YOU it will be from Canada and the ESSENTIALS conference being held in Ottawa. Stay tuned.   Please keep this ministry in your prayers and please consider making a tax deductible donation. You can make out your tax deductible donation to:   VIRTUOSITY 1236 Waterford Rd., West Chester, PA 19380   Or you can make a donation through PAYPAL at the website: www.virtuosityonline.org . Your gift will be acknowledged promptly.   If you are in England, Virtuosity is a registered charity and you can send your donation to:   VIRTUOSITY c/- Brycedale 105 Ridgeway Northaw Herts EN6 4BG   Thank you for your support.   All blessings,   David W. Virtue DD

We'd like you to understand us   By Rev. Tad de Bordenave   As one deeply opposed to the consecration of Gene Robinson, I find a disturbing response from those on the other side. They cannot fathom the position of those of us opposed. I listen to how they explain why we feel the way we do, and I find they simply don't get it. They regularly misread, misinterpret, and misunderstand those who don't agree with them. The thing is, I do not think this is mischievous or intentional on their part. I simply think they cannot comprehend our reasons.   Sadly, this leaves them entirely unprepared and surprised by the unfolding events. I find this alarming for their own sakes. Their spin on events leads in the wrong direction, their concept of the division is flawed, their hopes for reconciliation are based on fabrication.   Let me try to explain this failure to understand us. I do this not to change any minds but to help them see what is coming.   What is missing is nothing less that a conceptual category of our position. Because of that void, they must resort to ideas that they think ought to fit. They assume we liken the consecration to the US pre-emptive strike in Iraq or the issue of women's ordination. They explain us as being right wing, fundamentalists, literalists, homophobic, reactionary, or Jerry Falwell types. Wrong on all counts.   The most blatant expose of this naivete and error, which I have experienced, was listening to the debate in the House of Bishops at Minneapolis. Bishop after bishop claimed that the opposition at home would disappear and the negative reactions overseas would never materialize. The most recent expose was the headline in ENS about the recent meeting of the bishops in Nairobi. There, about 20 conservative bishops asked the Lambeth Commission to give ECUSA three months to repent. The headline in ENS was "Mixed message from Nairobi."   Let me give an analogy. Let's say that I see a mad elephant coming to our camp. I cry out the warning. Unfortunately, no one else in the camp has ever seen an elephant. Instead, they make the assumption that an elephant must be a skunk, so the severity of the warning is not taken up. Those in the camp reached wrong conclusions with dreaded consequences. Preparing for the stench of a skunk is a lot easier than for the devastation of a mad elephant - but misguided thinking doesn't stop the oncoming elephant.   What is the elephant and what is the missing concept? This is easier to see if we look through others' eyes. Let me give two examples, the first a frequently heard statement from overseas leaders: "You gave us the Bible and that has brought the truth and power and love of Jesus Christ to us. But now you have abandoned the Bible you gave us."   The other comes from the underground church of China and tells of the sacrifice taken for God's Word. Four pastors were arrested and the congregation's Bibles confiscated. The authorities brought them out to a public place with many from the congregation present. The Bibles were on a table, where there were also four bowls of offal - disgusting and debasing things in a gruel. The authorities said to the pastors that the Bibles would be returned to the congregation if the pastors would risk their lives and drink what was in the bowls. With little hesitation all four pastors stepped forward and drank. Then they said, "Now return the Bibles to the congregation."   Can we see what is missing in the ethos of ECUSA today? We as a whole in ECUSA have a void when it comes to living with the Bible as the infallible authoritative Word of God, full of love and truth, judgment and direction. For the most part that is simply absent. Moreover, that kind of statement makes many very nervous.   How did this happen? In my seminary classes some of my teachers presented the Bible in a way that deliberately undermined its authority and its intended sense. For many the beginning point was the need to make the Bible's message palatable to the current culture. Our challenge was to wheedle and adjust to get it in line with the Washington Post. That needed no apology.   The story that best captures this attitude is when David brought the ark into Jerusalem. At one point the bullocks pulled the cart over a rock and the ark started to fall. The priest Uzza stuck out his hand to steady it and was rebuked and struck down for thinking that God's ark needed the steadying hand of a mortal!   This issue undergirds all others. On several occasions I have said that whatever is wrong on the issues of sexuality is not as wrong as the church leaving 1.5 billion people in today's world unreached, without the knowledge of Jesus Christ. I still believe that. Alongside that I must add that for the church to find sources for truth other than the words that proceed from the mouth of the Lord would give another Gospel to the unreached world. That must not happen.   What separates the Church on the issue of Gene Robinson's consecration is Scripture. We who are opposed do not believe that new information has surfaced in the 21st century that contradicts God's revelation. We do believe that a careful and regular reading of the Bible brings God's power and His wise direction. To inwardly digest His Word brings grace for sinful people and correction for our culture - as it has for all people, all cultures, and all times.   If the other side really wants to know where we are coming from, start here. Listen to us - and then you can see what is coming.   Then you can understand why two dozen Primates would break communion with us on this issue, why the Anglican Communion Network of Parishes and Dioceses continues to draw leaders and allegiance, why biblically-minded congregations are willing to walk away from their property, why faithful members refuse to let their money fund another Gospel, etc., etc.   Yes, this issue is alarming and serious, all the more so if the other side does not understand us.   The Rev. Tad de Bordenave is the Director of Anglican Frontier Missions, based in Richmond, VA.