Archives

A rift between the only liberal province—Southern Africa—and the rest of Africa was patched over between Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane and Nigerian Primate Peter Akinola. Their statement (included in today’s digest) said: “We concluded to work together to strengthen the position of the Church in Africa on the issue of Human Sexuality. We uphold the Lambeth resolution on Human Sexuality as passed at the 1998 Lambeth Conference and subsequent Primates Meetings, which categorically say no to same-sex marriages or unions.” Is this a backdown by Ndungane from his earlier very pro-Western views on sexuality issues? There are two ways (at least) to interpret this event: 1. Ndungane has had a change of heart about sexuality issues and has repented of his positions—though the document does not specifically say so. 2. More importantly, the African Anglican provinces want to be totally united if and when a split comes in the Anglican Communion—and Akinola, its de facto leader, does not want a fifth-column province in his backyard beholden to ECUSA and working against him when the balloon goes up. Now it would be a major step toward healing if Ndungane fired the so-called Episcopal missionary Ted Karpf—who is being funded out of New York and who heads the AIDS war in Southern Africa. Karpf is an activist homosexual and an 815 plant, and he is there to keep Ndungane’s feet to the fire—and by doing so guarantees the monies keep flowing from ECUSA. It would be a major statement if Ndungane sent him packing back to the US, where he could practice his behavior in the comfort of NY or Washington, DC, with the blessing of Frank Griswold and a new job at 815. We shall see. Ndungane recently led a clergy retreat in the Diocese of Port Elizabeth where he pleaded the liberal line on homosexuality. So what has changed? He was a vigorous supporter of Griswold at the Primates Meeting, and at the HoB meeting in South Africa last year he argued for a study and a more liberal attitude on same-sex unions. If he has changed his mind, then this is a giant step forward—but the document both men signed does not exactly say that. Furthermore, at the CAPA meeting held last summer in Nairobi, the bishops decided not to hold Lambeth 2008 in Cape Town. Akinola is chairman of CAPA. So what is on Akinola’s mind? If he consulted his fellow African bishops, the document does not say so. The press release is not clear—more clarification is needed.

Dear Brothers and Sisters, The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Frank T. Griswold, has written a letter to Irish Primate Archbishop Robin Eames in an effort to put into perspective what he believes are the central issues facing the Anglican Communion from ECUSA’s standpoint as the commission pursues what could be a break-up or a new configuration of the whole communion. As ECUSA heads with Gadarene-like swiftness toward the cliff’s edge, Griswold wrote a letter rather than answer a questionnaire he had been asked to fill out—a typically individualistic thing to do, but typically Griswoldian—to explain his church’s position. Griswold opined that there were many interpretations of Scripture on a number of issues, including human sexuality, but then lit into what he called “other dynamics at work in creating the strains we feel.” One, he said, was electronic communication: “Events in one part of the world are instantly transmitted across the globe. Our contexts invade one another without explanation. Because our world has become very small, we need to remember that our day-to-day realities are vastly different.” Electronic communication also makes it easy for misinformation to be spread abroad and take on a life of its own. This is all the more reason for us to deal directly with one another when there are serious questions or concerns, and not rely on interpretations or reports that may be untrue or biased. So what Griswold is saying is that the Internet exists and Virtuosity can send stories that reveal the truth around the globe in nanoseconds—stories that might actually be true about the state of ECUSA. But Frank would like us all to move to “a deeper level” and ignore what I write and listen only to him and his liberal spinmeisters like Dan England, his foremost flak. With all the lies and half-truths he tells, anyone who can read English will never believe anything he says—or only about 25 percent of it. When you read words like “conversation,” “gracious,” “inclusivity,” “diversity,” and “Sufi Rumi,” et al., take a deep breath and pop two Valium. He has spun the truth so often he has no credibility left. He lied to the Lambeth Conference in October after signing a document that he wouldn’t participate in Robinson’s consecration—and then went right ahead and did it. If you read only Episcopal Life, ACNS, and ENS, you would never have learned that ‘truth.’ They spun it to look like Griswold had no option—that he had to participate in Robinson’s consecration because he is the head banana and couldn’t stay away. The truth is Griswold has been pro-gay for years, and this was the culmination of all his dreams, hopes, and aspirations—and he would have gone to New Hampshire even if he couldn’t have worn a bulletproof vest. With no absolute truth and “no one right way,” everything in his mind is up for grabs—everything. After all, if he wants us to go to a plain with the Sufi mystic Rumi to resolve our problems, then why bother with Scripture at all? In Britain, even the Tory Party wants to learn from a recent gay summit. The Tories have said they will take positive lessons from a conference on gay issues designed to help the party “represent all sections of society.” Wrote one Anglican vicar to me: “It is staggering to see all the fortifications being so quickly reduced by Satan to dust and rubble. Soon there will be nothing left of Western society, only round-the-clock fornication, fueled by free Viagra for everyone aged 10 upwards.” I have taken a hard look at Griswold’s letter to Eames in today’s digest. You may make up your own mind. But clearly the American Presiding Bishop is worried that some sort of discipline is in the works—and being taken out behind the woodshed could be publicly humiliating enough for him to actually feel some pain. But Griswold has a marvelous ability to spin even the worst situations into a positive view of how the church can move forward together “graciously,” and if he succeeds, it will only be because the Africans are too gracious to dump on him, preferring instead to find a way forward for the whole communion, helped along by the ever-unctuous Eames.

News Analysis By David W. Virtue The ECUSA Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold wrote to the Lambeth Commission and Irish Primate Robert H. A. Eames this week to explain to him and the Commission the mind of the ECUSA on human sexuality as it faces possible censure from the Primates for its actions in consecrating a known homosexual to the episcopacy. GRISWOLD: Rather than respond to the questionnaire I thought it would be more helpful were I to send to you to share with members of the Commission a description of some of the workings of the Episcopal Church, pertinent to your deliberations, and also to try to give some sense of how we have come to a point in our life where we find ourselves having given consent to the election and consecration of a man who shares his life with a member of the same sex. VIRTUOSITY: Here beginneth the softening process. Follow the dots and I will take you on a canonical journey of advice and consent. GRISWOLD: For at least 35 years the Episcopal Church has been engaged in a process of discernment about the question of homosexuality in the life of the church. This discernment began quite naturally on a local level as congregations began to be aware that certain faithful members of their worshipping communities were homosexual. VIRTUOSITY: For at least 35 years the Episcopal Church has been in steady decline because of its innovations both sexual and theological, beginning with Bishop James Pike, continuing with high-octane-grade fuel poured on by John Shelby Spong. This was not about “discernment” as Griswold would have you believe, but a deliberate turning of the ECUSA toward acceptance by a secularized culture. GRISWOLD: In some instances these persons shared their lives with a partner of the same sex. It also became obvious that the quality of such relationships on occasion matched the mutual care and self-giving that we associate with marriage. VIRTUOSITY: That was not grounds then or now for the Episcopal Church to roll over in the face of the Zeitgeist, but to challenge it. The church is to be a counter-culture and should not acquiesce to it. GRISWOLD: It is important to realize here that in many areas of our church, particularly urban areas, homosexuality is a very ordinary reality. The whole question of homosexuality is widely and openly discussed. And homosexual persons are quite public in areas of politics, sports and entertainment. VIRTUOSITY: It might be an “ordinary reality” for some, but not for everybody — especially for those families who have lost loved ones to the AIDS pandemic, including my own. GRISWOLD: I realize this is not the case around our Communion, but this fact of our culture must be taken into account given that none of us do our theology in a vacuum. In the gospel Jesus speaks about knowing a tree by the fruit it bears. In congregations where persons known to be homosexual became a part of congregational life, it became obvious that they possessed the fruit of the Spirit: generosity, kindness, and many of the other characteristics that we associate with Christian virtue. VIRTUOSITY: Nowhere in Holy Scripture is “culture” the deciding factor on the nature of the faith and truth or its transmission. The gospel was borne into a diverse Middle Eastern culture made up of Jew and Greek, Gentile, Scythian, slave, bond and free… and much more. The Apostle Paul did not water down his message or change it to satisfy some cultural peculiarity or sexual need of any one of these groups. As for the tree bearing fruit, the ECUSA has borne very little fruit since it started down this innovative trail and has in fact lost over one million members in its 35-year journey downwards. That’s a lot of missing fruit. In his note about homosexuals “possessed with the fruit of the Spirit,” Griswold confuses the “fruit of the Spirit” with ordinary personality traits. GRISWOLD: I think here of the experience of the church in Acts, having to deal with the fruit of the Spirit working in the lives of those outside the recognized community, in this case the Gentiles. The fact that in many instances good fruit appeared on trees that were condemned by the church obliged many clergy and others to ponder the scriptures afresh in the light of this reality. VIRTUOSITY: This statement is utter rubbish. Where exactly “outside the recognized community” were these fruits being demonstrated? ‘Meat being offered to idols’ and who should ‘wait on tables’, who had what gift — had nothing to do with the “fruit of the Spirit” (it is always singular, never plural)… but “the benefit you reap leads to holiness and life” (Rom. 6:22). Nothing about homosexuality leads to holiness or life. Nothing. GRISWOLD: If the fruit of the Spirit is discerned in the lives of homosexual men and women, is that not in some way an indication by God that these people are to be treated and seen as full members of the community and to be entrusted with ministry on behalf of the community? So, based on the reality around us of men and women who were part of our lives, we continued our discernment. VIRTUOSITY: Known Christian homosexuals like Henri Nouwen, Dag Hammarskjöld and Stephen Neill demonstrated the fruit of the Spirit by living celibate lives — as indeed have such celibate and celebrated heterosexuals as Mother Teresa, Pope John Paul II, and countless Christians throughout the ages who have remained faithful to the gospel call to faithfulness in marriage and celibacy outside of marriage. GRISWOLD — so we continued our discernment VIRTUOSITY: — so ECUSA continued its long slide into congregational oblivion as it thought it could change God’s mind about sexual behavior. Those denominations like the Roman Catholic Church and countless Evangelical denominations and churches that hold fast to biblical morality grew in that period… and continue to do so. GRISWOLD: Over these years homosexual persons, lay and ordained, have gradually become a vital part of our church. And, as a logical development, congregations have extended a pastoral ministry to their gay and lesbian members. In some congregations there has been acknowledgment of same-sex commitments. VIRTUOSITY: Sexual sin was twisted and then abandoned in the name of a false god called “inclusion,” it was then fully brokered in by a group of whiny men and women who then got angrier and angrier at anyone who disagreed with their behavior — resulting, 35 years later, with orthodox Episcopalians being marginalized, sued, pilloried and tossed out of parishes across the country for their alleged disobedience. GRISWOLD: Then, as a logical consequence of the acceptance of gay and lesbian persons in the life of congregations and dioceses, the church as a whole has been engaging the question of homosexuality, including in the formal legislative context of the General Convention. At the General Convention in 1976 a resolution was passed stating: “that homosexual persons are children of God who have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church.” VIRTUOSITY: NO distinction was ever made between people who might be, for whatever reason, inclined toward sexual relations with their own sex, and homosexual behavior, which Scripture wholly proscribes. GRISWOLD: Ten years ago at the General Convention in 1994 a resolution was passed amending the canons such that “no one shall be denied access to the selection process for ordination in this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, disabilities or age…” Our engagement as a church with questions of homosexuality has led to a series of studies and dialogues which have been broadly undertaken and involved persons of a full range of opinion. VIRTUOSITY: Amending the canons is not on a par with Holy Scripture, which cannot be “amended” to suit someone’s particular sexual tastes, needs or preferences. The term “sexual orientation” came to mean and include sexual behavior. The endless “studies and dialogues” had only one aim in view — to broker in the lifestyle of sodomites in the name of a false inclusion that wholly disregarded biblical teaching. GRISWOLD: These conversations, which have been both very structured and unstructured, from settings such as parish halls to the floors of formal gatherings, have been concerned with the authority and interpretation of scripture, human sexuality as God’s gift, the place of homosexual Christians within the life of the church and the theological aspects of committed relationships of same-sex couples. VIRTUOSITY: “Conversations” is a buzzword which means we talk and talk till we all agree with Griswold that sodomy is acceptable to him, Louie Crew, Otis Charles and now V. Gene Robinson. GRISWOLD: As part of this work, in 1993 the House of Bishops commissioned from theologians representing diverse points of view a series of papers dealing with authority of scripture. The papers reflected different ways in which scripture may legitimately be approached within the context of the community of faith. VIRTUOSITY: This group was loaded with gay and pro-gay activists with a token person of orthodox persuasion to lend credence that they would be fair. The dice were loaded from the beginning — just like the Executive Council that is 99 percent revisionist and the PB’s Council of Advice that has 12 out of 13 members who are thorough-going revisionists. Objectivity and fairness is a lit candle in the wind. GRISWOLD: I realize that some provinces of our Communion have a dominant tradition for interpreting scripture. I would note here that it is part of the reality of the Episcopal Church that we live with divergent points of view regarding the interpretation of scripture and understandings of the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the church. Though we believe “the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation,” as it is stated in our ordination liturgy, there is no neutral reading of scripture, and we interpret various passages differently while seeking to be faithful to the mind of Christ. It is therefore important to recognize that people of genuine faith can and do differ in their understandings of what we agree is the “Word of God.” None of our work and prayerful discernment has produced a common mind, and we have managed to live with the tension of diverse opinions on these matters, agreeing to disagree. VIRTUOSITY: Nonsense. Every Scripture has one meaning and one meaning only. There are different styles and genres — like poetry, metaphor — and so on. When Jesus rose from the dead, He did so, literally. When in the gospels it says He is the “door” into life, nobody but a moron thinks He is a piece of wood swinging on hinges. That “dominant tradition” is the historical-grammatical method of interpreting Scripture, which has stood the test of time. Furthermore, there has never been “divergent points” on interpreting the Scriptures’ plain meaning on how we behave sexually. That’s been a done deal for 2,000 years. You cannot be “faithful to the mind of Christ” and believe Adam and Steve have a right to sexually lobotomize Holy Scripture. GRISWOLD: We were living in a very Anglican way with divergent views until the circumstances of our life, and the canons of our church, forced us into making an either/or decision in a very public way with the election of the bishop coadjutor of New Hampshire, and the canonical necessity for giving or withholding of consent. This either/or decision did not allow for the middle ground, which the report of the Theology Committee of the House of Bishops (which was submitted to the primates prior to our meeting in Brazil) had sought to establish. VIRTUOSITY: So he says the “circumstances of our lives” determine the truth of something. This is absurd. If my kids take drugs, do I say, there, there — “the circumstances of your life” mean I must change my mind about drug abuse! Enjoy. What nonsense. The “either/or” is precisely what Scripture says: either/or about sin and salvation, either/or about holy or unholy living, either/or about God or Satan, either/or about God’s Kingdom or Satan’s kingdom, either/or about heaven and hell… and a lot more besides. Griswold does not believe in either/or — he wants both/and: heterosexuality and homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality, heterosexuality and transsexual behavior. But Scripture says no — you can’t have it both ways. As the old Negro Spiritual puts it better than I could: “You gonna serve somebody… you gonna serve de devil or you gonna serve de Lord… but you gonna serve somebody.” GRISWOLD: The consent to the New Hampshire election has been a presenting issue in our present strains within the Communion. Therefore I think it is important to acknowledge that there is a diversity of practice in appointing or electing bishops around the Communion and to say something here about the nature of our election and consent process, which is open, democratic, and participatory — flowing out of the life of the community. The manner in which bishops are chosen in the Episcopal Church involves a protracted search process undertaken by the diocese, lasting usually a year or longer, in which a profile is developed by the people and clergy of the diocese. Names are put forward and a search committee composed of lay and clergy members reviews the names, checks backgrounds, addresses questions to potential nominees and then puts forward a list of names to be considered. The diocese then has an opportunity to meet and ask questions of all the nominees. This was the process followed in the Diocese of New Hampshire, and at the end of that process the diocesan convention elected the Rev. Canon Gene Robinson, someone who had ministered among them for 17 years. Once a person has been elected, the election must be consented to by a majority of Standing Committees of dioceses and a majority of bishops holding jurisdiction. When an election occurs within 120 days of the General Convention, the consent process takes place within the context of the General Convention, which is precisely what happened in the case of Gene Robinson and nine other bishops-elect. I think it is very important to be clear about this process. When we met at Lambeth the primates asked me if I couldn’t have intervened and stopped the consecration. I made it clear that I could not because of the canonical realities by which I am bound, and that it is my responsibility to uphold the decisions formally made by the church. VIRTUOSITY: So Griswold argues that the “process” is what determines truth — plus a majority vote in the HoB, which is loaded with revisionists who would sooner believe in fairies at the end of the Garden than the theological implications of Mel Gibson’s frightening film of Christ’s last hours on earth. It is not Holy Scripture that determined the truth or falsity of Robinson’s fitness to the office of bishop, but a bunch of bishops who not only don’t believe half of what the Bible says, they don’t even know what it contains. PA Bishop Charles E. Bennison was failed by examining chaplains when he sought to go into the priesthood, but mummy put pressure on her hubby bishop — and lo and behold, son Charles himself did rise up and become bishop, and then lo — announced that Jesus was a sinner — while the Standing Committee is so dumb it still can’t find a single reason to get rid of him. GRISWOLD: I think it is problematic that some view the bishops who participated in the ordination and consecration of Gene Robinson as having performed some unfaithful act. This is to overlook the fact that it was a formal decision made by a majority of bishops with jurisdiction and majority of clergy and laypeople representing the 100 domestic dioceses. VIRTUOSITY: It was an unfaithful act then — and the consequences are still reverberating around ECUSA and the whole Communion. Griswold argues that because a majority of bishops agreed that it was right, that automatically makes it right. Really? Hitler had a majority in his day, so did Stalin. They’re both dead now — and so are their worldviews. Majorities are generally wrong — that’s why we have prophets. GRISWOLD: I might say that the very public and open nature of our actions is a factor here. This is both healthy and problematic. Not long ago I was at a meeting in Spain which included Christians from a number of ecclesial communities, one of which had made strongly critical statements about the New Hampshire consecration. I had a long conversation with the bishop representing that church, who castigated me for having allowed the ordination of Gene Robinson to occur. Once he had delivered himself of his anger, he surprised me by saying that there were indeed homosexual clergy and bishops in his church, but that it was looked upon as “human weakness” and a private matter between themselves and their spiritual fathers. Only if their homosexuality became public was the church obliged to intervene. I said to him that though I could appreciate capitulation to “human weakness,” I was concerned that he was describing a climate of secrecy, and a practice that was tolerated that stood at variance with the public position of the church. Was that not a dishonest stance? Would it not be far more helpful and truthful, albeit difficult, to deal openly with the reality which heretofore has remained hidden? Is not secrecy the Devil’s playground? It has been extremely difficult for the Episcopal Church to deal honestly with this issue, but that is the course we have taken — and, as I said, the decision of which course to take — openness or secrecy — was one that was forced upon us. VIRTUOSITY: So if we bring it all out into the open — like Janet Jackson’s breast — that makes it right. The great “sin” is hiddenness or “secrecy.” But sin is always done in secret — it is the very nature of sin. What is tragic and blasphemous is that the Episcopal Church is publicly recognizing and practicing sin — and not calling it that anymore. GRISWOLD: I believe that part of the strain within the Communion, and the reaction to a decision taken within the Episcopal Church, is the disproportionate influence that the United States has in other parts of the world, leading to the fear that whatever happens in the United States will be imposed in some way on other parts of the world. I am well aware of the negative effects of globalization. I need to make plain that because something may appear to be an unfoldment of the Spirit in the life of the Episcopal Church, that does not mean that it should or ought to become normative elsewhere. Never would our church wish to impose patterns that may be appropriate within the life of the Episcopal Church on other provinces of the Anglican Communion. I remember vividly when I visited the Church in Nigeria and was asked if I was coming to tell them they must ordain women. I told them I firmly believed that is a decision they will have to make within the reality of their own context. There is not one right way. Immediately, there was relief on the part of the bishops. VIRTUOSITY: Then perhaps Griswold can explain why ECUSA’s pansexual organization Integrity sought for years to get a foothold for sodomy on African soil and almost succeeded in the Province of Uganda — and only got blown away when their handpicked bishop pulled the plug on the whole operation. Griswold might also try and explain why Ted Karpf, an avowed Episcopal sodomite, is working with Archbishop Ndungane in Southern Africa… if that isn’t sneaking in by the back door, I don’t know what is. GRISWOLD: This raises the very important notion of context, to which I alluded earlier. We must ask: Are our understandings and applications of the gospel conditioned by the historical and cultural circumstances in which we live our lives and seek to articulate our faithful discipleship? I believe the answer is yes. VIRTUOSITY: The content of the gospel has never changed in 2,000 years, regardless of space, time, culture, history or nationality. When the first Church of England missionaries went to Africa, they probably committed all kinds of cultural blunders — but they got the word out: that Jesus is Lord, that He came to save them from their sin — and then they died, usually very quickly of some disease. Tribal Africans — wearing funny clothes, with different colored skin, speaking multiple languages and dialects — somehow got the message, and today Nigeria has 20 million evangelical, washed-in-the-blood, saved-by-grace, repentant, Jesus-praisin’ Anglican Christians who actually use a Cranmer-written Prayer Book. Go figure. GRISWOLD: As well, the speed of communication can oblige us to react to situations and events in other parts of our Communion without the benefit of knowing how brother and sister Anglicans were led to a particular decision. Electronic communication also makes it easy for misinformation to be spread abroad and take on a life of its own. This is all the more reason for us to deal directly with one another when there are serious questions or concerns, and not rely on interpretations or reports that may be untrue or biased. VIRTUOSITY: Yes — the REAL problem is Virtuosity. Why can’t he just shut up and go away? If not, ignore him. And then invite me to your province or diocese for a face-to-face — and I will charm your miter off and probably leave a check behind as well. GRISWOLD: Another dynamic is the role members of my own church with a particular point of view have played in shaping opinions, shall we say, since before the last Lambeth Conference. We must openly acknowledge the fact that part of the reason issues of homosexuality have so overtaken the Anglican Communion is because a number of the members of the Episcopal Church — along with individuals and groups motivated by political ideologies rather than theological convictions — have, by virtue of their connections and resources, been able to garner the consciousness of bishops around the world. Their unstinting efforts have made this issue more central to our life than the spreading of the gospel and the living of the Good News of Jesus Christ. We must ask ourselves if this preoccupation with sexuality is truly of God. VIRTUOSITY: This is a crock. It is precisely about theology — not “political ideology.” Virtuosity cannot, by its constitution, make any political statements. It is precisely about theology — or the lack of it — that ECUSA has lost its way. GRISWOLD: A closing thought: Communion, as Archbishop Rowan has made clear, exists on many levels; it is not simply a formal, ecclesial relationship. Therefore, I ask myself and the members of my own church, in the midst of this profound and straining disagreement, if there is not some invitation or opportunity to live the mystery of communion at a deeper level, as difficult and costly as it may be. VIRTUOSITY: (Interpretation) Please don’t throw me out of the club. Let’s go to a deeper level with Sufi Rumi or some other idiot — but let us stay together: schism and heresy, truth and falsity… living together. And if you go to Hell, Bishop Griswold — should I follow you there? END

By Ellen Rossini, Correspondent National Catholic Register WASHINGTON — It has been called the "elephant in the sacristy." In the Catholic clergy abuse scandal, most of the activity was homosexual in nature, and yet this central fact of the abuse has been treated as almost unmentionable in the Church’s internal discussions. But now that the abuse picture has been thoroughly studied, the elephant is making a racket. The John Jay study and National Review Board reports released in February on the scope and causes of the crisis confirm what preliminary findings had suggested and many observers suspected: A large majority of the 4% of priests who reportedly offended against one or more minors since 1950 did so against post-pubescent males. The average age of the victims was 13, and 81% of all the victims were boys. “It’s become clear we have a problem with homosexuality,” said Pennsylvania-based psychiatrist Richard Fitzgibbons, who has written on the abuse crisis and worked with clergy struggling with homosexuality. The lay review board report was similarly direct: “There are, no doubt, many outstanding priests of a homosexual orientation who live chaste, celibate lives, but any evaluation of the causes and context of the current crisis must be cognizant of the fact that more than 80% of the abuse at issue was of a homosexual nature.” Despite the profile of the homosexual offender, the bishops’ lay review board and Bishop Wilton Gregory, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops president, have refrained from declaring that homosexuals should be automatically excluded from seminary or the possibility of priestly ministry. Some Catholic health professionals, including those who conduct psychotherapy to help heal men and women of same-sex attraction, say they should. According to the review board report, released February 27 in Washington, D.C.: “Such decisions are the prerogative of a bishop, although it seems clear to the board that the paramount question in this area must be whether a candidate for priesthood is capable of living a chaste, celibate life, not what that candidate’s sexual orientation might be.” However, the report added: “Given the nature of the problem of clergy sexual abuse of minors, the realities of the culture today and the male-oriented atmosphere of the seminary, a more searching inquiry is necessary for a homosexually oriented man by those who decide whether he is suitable for the seminary and for ministry. For those bishops who choose to ordain homosexuals there appears to be a need for additional scrutiny and perhaps additional or specialized formation to help them with the challenge of chaste celibacy.” Still Room As for the homosexual priest question, Bishop Gregory left room for the continued ordination of homosexuals: “We as bishops should not simply be examining those who may have a homosexual orientation. Our screening should look at all unhealthy psychological behaviors,” he said at a press conference the day the reports were released. “We as bishops will not fulfill our responsibility simply by focusing on one dimension that may have need for greater scrutiny and ignore all the others. I don’t want anyone in the seminary who is selfish… I don’t want anyone in the seminary who has a distorted view of himself, the narcissistic personality. If we are to do a credible job as bishops in reviewing and screening our candidates, we should look for those that demonstrate sound, moral, psychological and spiritual health… and not focus exclusively on any one potential difficulty.” Some bishops reported to the board that they do exclude homosexuals from their seminaries, and a 1961 Vatican directive to superiors of men’s religious orders specifically advises exclusion of “those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.” In his 2002 meeting with U.S. cardinals, Pope John Paul II said that the lay faithful must know that there is no place in the priesthood for those who would harm the young. Then he added: “They must know that bishops and priests are totally committed to the fullness of Catholic truth on matters of sexual morality, a truth as essential to the renewal of the priesthood and the episcopate as it is to the renewal of marriage and family life.” Likely to Act Out Fitzgibbons, who co-wrote a Catholic Medical Association article titled “Homosexuality and Hope,” said he fears the Church could be putting young people at risk by accepting what he considers an unscientific idea: Homosexuality is genetically determined and cannot be helped. “If you’re just thinking it’s genetic — you’re born that way — you’re highly vulnerable. There are some who are committed to celibacy, but there are some who are profoundly influenced by this culture and are highly likely to act out,” he said. There are no studies that show a genetic cause for same-sex attraction, Fitzgibbons said, but there are studies to show that therapy has helped people change from being homosexual to heterosexual. Philip Mango, a psychotherapist for 30 years who directs the St. Michael’s Institute for the Psychological Sciences in New York, said he would recommend homosexuals be screened from seminaries because it’s not enough for priests to be celibate — they also need to be masculine. The problem is deeper than whether someone will “act or not act out,” he said. “It’s about being men who know what leadership is. A man who is homosexual can’t do it. It’s not his fault. He can be very nice, he can be very good, but he can’t do those things that Christ did because he wants to be liked. He hasn’t been affirmed. If you want to be loved, you cannot lead.” Fitzgibbons said this dynamic only feeds the vicious circle of abuse: “The reality is those with same-sex attraction have a vulnerability toward adolescent males because during their own adolescence they felt woefully inadequate. The major psychological dynamic for those who have sex with minors is weak masculine identity and a profound sense of isolation and loneliness. When this is present, these individuals become a potential risk to adolescents — under stress they’re likely to act out in that manner.” “Those priests with same-sex attraction have a responsibility to protect the Church from further shame and sorrow by resolving emotional conflicts,” he said. END

Commentary By David W. Virtue The Anglican Communion is at a cross roads, some say it is in the process of an international ecclesiastical meltdown. The liberal Western provinces largely dominated by post-modern, pluriform thinking — loose on doctrine and morals — face a vastly outnumbered Global South Anglicanism that is at once orthodox in faith and morals with a high view of the authority of Holy Scripture. It is an unbridgeable divide. But what is truly tragic is that the leader of the Communion’s 70 plus million Anglicans is squarely on the side of the Western mindset. That is not opinion, it is fact. And almost weekly, the utterances of Dr. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, lend credence to that fact. His latest gaffe was to welcome and affirm the writings of a certain Mr. Pullman whose books have been condemned by The Catholic Herald as being 'fit for the bonfire'; whilst the Association of Christian Teachers argues that they are 'shamelessly blasphemous'. The reason for such condemnation is Pullman's portrayal of the Church as a repressive organization, and his blurring of the boundaries of good and evil. Dr. Williams, on the other hand, used an address on Religious Education in schools to advocate the study of Pullman's books as part of the RE curriculum. He also warned: 'I only hope that teachers are equipped to tease out what in Pullman's world is and is not reflective of Christian teaching as Christians understand it'. What is going on here? In England recently I asked a knowledgeable insider why Williams would side with an atheist, even an erudite one, and not see the implications of his words. His reply was enlightening and instructive. “Dr. Williams has spent most of his life at high table in Oxford conversing with atheists and skeptics, and he went straight from there to being a bishop and Archbishop. He has never gotten his hands dirty in the messy world of the pastorate so he hasn’t a clue how ordinary people think or function. He has lived all his life in the rarified world of academe and as a result he is a poor judge of character.” Ironically C. S. Lewis also spent his life at high table but came up against his cultured despisers and skeptics with a vigorous Christian apologetic. So Williams says things that you can get away with as a scholar but you can’t get away with as the leader of millions of Anglicans, because they are watching you like a hawk and listening to every word you are saying. “He has no perception of how his words will be received in Abuja, Lagos, Nairobi, Kampala or Singapore. He assumes people will understand what he is saying and wisely nod their heads,” said the source. But that is not true. People are more literal and far less nuanced than the brainy Welshman, and they frankly don’t understand what he is talking about most of the time, and when he sides with an atheist and recommends teachers use his books, this grows out of Williams’ total confidence that people can discern what is going on and perhaps counter it. But that is a fiction — most people can’t. In fact most people are having difficulty trying to interpret the Bible in the 21st century and not discard it as a lot of myths. Tragically, because of what the majority of Episcopal seminaries turn out, most Episcopalians barely have a grasp of the essentials, as most newly minted rectors coming out of the major liberal seminaries barely know what the Bible contains, being more comfortable with the Op-Ed page of the New York Times, talking up social issues where they feel more comfortable. So Williams has an enormous credibility gap that widens by the day. He has not repudiated his stance on homosexual behavior (The Body’s Grace) because he has an ‘academic’ or scholarly view of the whole business. Had he been a vicar and visited men dying of AIDS in hospices because they had had anal sex with multiple partners, and seen the effects of sexual sin, he might have thought otherwise. Also his biblical hermeneutics is questionable and his exegesis of certain texts is equally debatable. His stance on Islam has Evangelical Anglicans cringing. Dr. Williams recently said: "Muslims and Christians share the conviction that the God who creates so generously also communicates with his creation, and they see the sending of prophets as a crucial part of that communication. So it's an exciting prospect for Christian and Muslim scholars to spend three days together studying the different ways in which our scriptures understand prophecy." This is a wonderfully ecumenical statement, irenic and hopeful, but it flies in the face of the facts about Islam. The truth is Muslims and Christians share very little in common. Muslims claim to believe that Jesus is only a prophet and not even the greatest one. Christians happen to think he is the Son of God, the Savior of the world who came to earth to die for the sin of the world. The Muslim understanding of god is vengeful, bloodthirsty and tyrannical, with many Christians believing that if Islam ever got the upper hand in Western countries they would happily go to war to destroy us. The Koran (which I have read) is full of texts about death to the infidel — Christian and Jew. Christianity has a God of infinite love; Islam has absolutely no notion of a loving God. Therefore the idea of a moderate Islam is an oxymoron. Williams either doesn’t see that, or he doesn’t want to wrestle with those truths. He has taken a line on Islam that is in complete opposition with what the Anglican Province is doing in Nigeria, for example. There, Anglican evangelists are converting whole Muslim villages to Christ and turning them around. This writer has seen these villages. This flies in the face of what Williams articulates in cozy huddles with leading Islamic figures in universities and mosques. What would Dr. Williams say if he learned that my evangelical Episcopal parish has sent several missionary couples to Islamic countries to preach the gospel, make disciples and start Christian (Anglican) churches? What would be his word to them? One doubts that he would have a word — just an embarrassed silence. And on this subject, what does Williams have to say now to his predecessor, George Carey, who recently attacked Islam, saying it was authoritarian, inflexible and under-achieving? Carey went on to denounce moderate Muslims for failing unequivocally to condemn the "evil" of suicide bombers. He also attacked the "glaring absence" of democracy in Muslim countries, suggested that they had contributed little of major significance to world culture for centuries, and criticized the Islamic faith! His statements must be acutely embarrassing to Williams, who is busy making nice with Islamic leaders in the Middle East — many of whom might be laughing at him privately even as they plot to destroy the last vestiges of Christianity in the UK. The latest figures show that there are more Islamic worshippers — 1.2 million — versus about 800,000 practicing Anglicans. There is a mosque in Regent’s Park, London, not more than a quarter mile from where I studied theology in the '60s. The college has gone, sold to make way for a hospital for wealthy Arab Sheikhs. And there is growing evidence that Islam is making inroads into Britain’s upper classes as well, according to well-publicized newspaper reports. And Williams’ dealings with the American Episcopal Church show he just doesn’t get it. He still makes nice with bishops like Griswold and Shaw, whom he regards as friends — totally oblivious to the fact that these bishops hate orthodoxy, with Shaw himself getting rid of orthodox rectors in his diocese like the Rev. Dr. Judith Gentle Hardy, and preventing an evangelical clergyman, the Rev. Simon Barnes, from being ordained — even though the man had done all his theological training in that diocese with a promise of ordination at the end of the process. It never happened. Either Williams doesn’t know or doesn’t want to know. If he does know, he is simply being naive and is a poor judge of character; and if he doesn’t want to know, it is because information is either being kept from him about the true nature of American Episcopal revisionism, or he is turning a blind eye, hoping against hope it will all resolve itself. He said as much in a recent statement: “I have to admit that over the past twelve months I’m not sure what God has in mind for the Church of England or the Anglican Communion. Half the time I haven’t any idea. But in the end, I believe it will work itself out.” That is not the language of leadership. It is the language of capitulation. Can you imagine Athanasius saying that in the face of Arius, or Luther in the face of a morally and theologically bankrupt Catholicism, or Wesley in the face of a weak institutional Anglicanism more concerned with its own entrenched power than with the gospel? No. What the Anglican Communion needs is someone with passionate biblical convictions coupled with the backbone of an Athanasius to lead us through this crisis. But we don’t have that, and probably never will again. If there is going to be a new leader, it will probably come from Africa — in the person of Peter Akinola, Primate of Nigeria. But if that happens, the shape of Anglicanism will change forever, and if that occurs, a lot of people are going to be very unhappy — mostly, and including, archbishops like Rowan Williams. END

By Wolfhart Pannenberg Good News Magazine   Can love ever be sinful? The entire tradition of Christian doctrine teaches that there is such a thing as inverted, perverted love. Human beings are created for love, as creatures of the God who is Love. And yet that divine appointment is corrupted whenever people turn away from God or love other things more than God.   Jesus said, "Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me..." (Matt. 10:37, NRSV). Love for God must take precedence over love for our parents, even though love for parents is commanded by the fourth commandment.   The will of God—Jesus' proclamation of God's lordship over our lives—must be the guiding star of our identity and self-determination. What this means for sexual behavior can be seen in Jesus' teaching about divorce. In order to answer the Pharisees' question about the admissibility of divorce, Jesus refers to the creation of human beings. Here he sees God expressing his purpose for his creatures: Creation confirms that God has created human beings as male and female. Thus, a man leaves his father and mother to be united with his wife, and the two become one flesh.   Jesus concludes from this that the unbreakable permanence of fellowship between husband and wife is the Creator's will for human beings. The indissoluble fellowship of marriage, therefore, is the goal of our creation as sexual beings (Mark 10:2-9).   Since on this principle the Bible is not time bound, Jesus' word is the foundation and criterion for all Christian pronouncement on sexuality, not just marriage in particular, but our entire creaturely identities as sexual beings. According to Jesus' teaching, human sexuality as male and as female is intended for the indissoluble fellowship of marriage.   This standard informs Christian teaching about the entire domain of sexual behavior.   Jesus' perspective, by and large, corresponds to Jewish tradition, even though his stress on the indissolubility of marriage goes beyond the provision for divorce within Jewish law (Deut. 24:1). It was a shared Jewish conviction that men and women in their sexual identity are intended for the community of marriage. This also accounts for the Old Testament assessment of sexual behaviors that depart from this norm, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual relations.   The biblical assessments of homosexual practice are unambiguous in their rejection, and all its statements on this subject agree without exception. The Holiness Code of Leviticus incontrovertibly affirms, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Lev. 18:22 NRSV). Leviticus 20 includes homosexual behavior among the crimes meriting capital punishment (Lev. 20:13; it is significant that the same applies to adultery in verse 10). On these matters, Judaism always knew itself to be distinct from other nations.   This same distinctiveness continued to determine the New Testament statement about homosexuality, in contrast to the Hellenistic culture that took no offense at homosexual relations. In Romans, Paul includes homosexual behavior among the consequences of turning away from God (1:27). In 1 Corinthians, homosexual practice belongs with fornication, adultery, idolatry, greed, drunkenness, theft, and robbery as behaviors that preclude participation in the kingdom of God (6:9-10); Paul affirms that through baptism Christians have become free from their entanglement in all these practices (6:11).   The New Testament contains not a single passage that might indicate a more positive assessment of homosexual activity to counterbalance these Pauline statements. Thus, the entire biblical witness includes practicing homosexuality, without exception among the kinds of behavior that give particularly striking expression to humanity's turning away from God. This exegetical result places very narrow boundaries around the view of homosexuality in any church that is under the authority of Scripture.   What is more, the biblical statements on this subject merely represent the negative corollary to the Bible's positive views on the creational purpose of men and women in their sexuality.   These texts that are negative toward homosexual behavior are not merely dealing with marginal opinions that could be neglected without detriment to the Christian message as a whole.   Moreover, the biblical statements about homosexuality cannot be relativized as the expressions of a cultural situation that today is simply outdated. The biblical witness from the outset deliberately opposed the assumptions of their cultural environment in the name of faith in the God of Israel, who in Creation appointed men and women for a particular identity.   Contemporary advocates for a change in the church's view of homosexuality commonly point out that the biblical statements were unaware of important modern anthropological evidence. This new evidence, it is said, suggests that homosexuality must be regarded as a given constituent of the psychosomatic identity of homosexual persons, entirely prior to any corresponding sexual expression. (For the sake of clarity it is better to speak here of a homophile inclination as distant from homosexual practice.) Such phenomena occur not only in people who are homosexually active.   But inclination need not dictate practice. It is characteristic of human beings that our sexual impulses are not confined to a separate realm of behavior; they permeate our behavior in every area of life. This, of course, includes relationships with persons of the same sex. However, precisely because erotic motives are involved in all aspects of human behavior, we are faced with the task of integrating them into the whole of our life and conduct.   The mere existence of homophile inclinations does not automatically lead to homosexual practice. Rather, these inclinations can be integrated into a life in which they are subordinated to the relationship with the opposite sex where, in fact, the subject of sexual activity should not be the all-determining center of human life and vocation. As the sociologist Helmut Schelsky has rightly pointed out, one of the primary achievements of marriage as an institution is its enrollment of human sexuality in the service of ulterior tasks and goals.   The reality of homophile inclinations, therefore, need not be denied and must not be condemned. The question, however, is how to handle such inclinations within the human task of responsibly directing our behavior. This is the real problem; and it is here that we must deal with the conclusion that homosexual activity is a departure from the norm for sexual behavior that has been given to men and women as creatures of God. For the church this is the case not only for homosexual, but for any sexual activity that does not intend the goal of marriage between man and wife—in particular, adultery.   The church has to live with the fact that, in this area of life as in others, departures from the norm are not exceptional but rather common and widespread. The church must encounter all those concerned with tolerance and understanding but also call them to repentance. It cannot surrender the distinction between the norm and behavior that departs from that norm.   Here lies the boundary of a Christian church that knows itself to be bound by the authority of Scripture. Those who urge the church to change the norm of its teaching on this matter must know that they are promoting schism. If a church were to let itself be pushed to the point where it ceased to treat homosexual activity as a departure from the biblical norm, and recognized homosexual unions as a personal partnership of love equivalent to marriage, such a church would stand no longer on biblical ground but against the unequivocal witness of Scripture. A church that took this step would cease to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.   Wolfhart Pannenberg, arguably the preeminent contemporary theologian, recently retired after 27 years as professor of systematic theology at the University of Munich, Germany, and director of the Institute of Ecumenical Theology. Translated by Markus Bockmuehl for publication in the Church Times; copyright Wolfhart Pannenberg.   END

Evangelical Drift Outsiders say we're the status quo. Our call is to prove them wrong. By Charles Colson with Anne Morse 3/29/2004 Have evangelicals come full circle in just 50 years—from fundamentalist isolation to mainstream acceptance? Have we embraced a national creed that values personal growth over doctrinal orthodoxy? Unhappily, one of America's most insightful observers says that's precisely what we've done. Conservative columnist David Brooks of The New York Times argues that Americans no longer take religious doctrines seriously. We assume religious differences are temporary, that denominational distinctions will fade away, and "We will all be united in God's embrace." This comforting assumption means that millions feel free to try on different denominations (as several presidential candidates have done), and we're inclined to think all people of goodwill are "basically on the same side," Brooks writes. As evidence, he cites President Bush's comment that Christians and Muslims pray to the same God—an assertion that is "theologically controversial, but ... faithful to the national creed." The result, says Brooks, is a religion that is easygoing and experiential rather than rigorous and intellectual. To fill their pews, Brooks writes, pastors "emphasize the upbeat and the encouraging and play down the business of God's wrath. In modern "seeker sensitive" churches, "the technology is cutting edge, the music is modern, the language is therapeutic, the dress is casual." This easygoing attitude, combined with a belief in holy homogenization, is why Christians have difficulty sustaining culture war efforts, Brooks maintains—and why fire-and-brimstone groups like the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition are now "husks of their former selves." Evangelicals are, he concludes, quoting sociologist Alan Wolfe, "part of mainstream culture, not dissenters from it." Brooks's column set me back on my heels. If he's right, it's a devastating indictment of the church. Is it really possible that we've become mainstream? I didn't want to believe it, but after discussing the column with friends, and studying the latest and most depressing data from George Barna, I realized that Brooks—standing on the outside peering into our high-tech sanctuaries—may see evangelicals more realistically than we see ourselves. At least two evangelical luminaries have written articles with a whiff of resignation, explaining that, after all, we shouldn't expect to transform the surrounding culture; it has always been hostile to evangelicals and always will be, so we should just hunker down. While they didn't intend it, their words can be read as an acknowledgement that we should no longer engage the culture. This is an attractive proposition to battle-scarred cultural warriors. Just give us our lovely sanctuaries, our padded pews, and our upbeat music, and we'll no longer worry about society disintegrating around us. The culture will ignore us, and we'll ignore the culture, which will be nice when we socialize with nonbelievers who will no longer consider us backwoods fundamentalists trying to impose our morality on them. That's the definition of "mainstream": To get along. To get there, all we have to do is abandon biblical responsibility. God forbid. Christians are called to be countercultural, a force for moral change in a sinful world. But if we surrender that role, we should be forewarned: If we stop attempting to change the culture, the culture will have already changed us. Two Christian families recently—and tragically—discovered this. Both were deeply involved in the church, and homeschooled their children. Then one day, the husband from one family ran off with the wife from the other family. When shocked friends questioned her, the wife defiantly replied: "Don't I have a right to be happy?" It could have been a line from the postmodern film, The Hours, in which the central character leaves her family to find happiness. Clearly this woman, like so many, had compartmentalized her faith. God was for Sundays; secular culture shaped her worldview the rest of the week. We must fight the temptation to treat our faith the way we treat our careers—as a source of entertainment, fulfillment, and happiness. Remember the warning of C. S. Lewis: If you're seeking happiness, don't choose Christianity, choose port wine. When it comes to the culture, there's no such thing as peaceful coexistence. If we're not defending truth, fighting for Christian values in all of life, the truth will be sacrificed on the altar of mainstream secularism. Does this sound like a militant call to arms? I hope so. I can think of nothing more important than proving David Brooks wrong. God will judge us harshly if we stand around enjoying the warm glow of our culture's approval—while the culture crumbles. Copyright © 2004 Christianity Today.

"Christianity and Islam" Collison or convergence? Address given by Lord Carey at the Gregorian University March 25th 2004. I would like to begin this lecture by thanking Dr. Eugene McCarthy for the privilege of being a McCarthy Visiting Professor this year at the Gregorian University. I have enjoyed the experience immensely and am grateful to the Dean, Dr. Franco Imoda, for his kindness and Fr.Bill Henn for his considerable helpfulness in so many ways. We have been housed in a delightful cottage at the Irish College and I do want to express our gratitude also to the Dean, the staff and students of the College for way they have welcomed us so warmly. It is a great example of Irish/English relationships at their best! The theme of my course at the Gregorian has been 'Unity and Mission'. My desire to offer a lecture on Christian-Muslim relations tonight has not only been fired by the course I have given, but also because for the last ten years or so it has been an important strand in my ministry as a Christian leader. I need to make it plain, however, that I am not, in a technical sense, an expert on Islam or someone who is a specialist in one of its disciplines. What I can claim is that for many years I have spent a great deal of time with some of the most important names in Islam – Dr Tantawi, Hassan al-Turabi, King Hussein, Prince Hassan, King Abdullah, Professor Akbar Ahmed and many other Muslim leaders and scholars – seeking to build bridges of understanding between two great faiths. In retirement I continue to engage in dialogue through the Alexander Declaration Process which attempts to bring Muslim, Jewish and Christian leaders together in Israel and Palestine. A second project I am involved in is a business driven initiative founded by the World Economic Forum. Together with Prince Turki of Saudi Arabia, I co-Chair the Council of 100 leaders from different professions and disciplines which has, as its aim, to strengthen links between the West and Islam. My wife and I have also been to many Muslim countries and appreciate the strength and depth of Islam. I think I can say with some confidence that I have a reasonable idea of the challenges that Islam presents to Christianity and the West and the challenges that Islam faces today. Whether colliding faiths and cultures can find ways of living together in harmony and peace is one of the most urgent questions of our time. To say we live in dangerous and unstable times is perhaps the understatement of the year. '911', the emergency telephone number in the United States similar to '999' in the United Kingdom or 113 here in Italy, has become the shorthand for the terror unleashed on America in 2001. Since 911 terrorist violence has shown no sign of abating. The attempt to dismantle the Al-Qaeda network and hunt down its leader, Osama bin Laden; the Iraq war and the ongoing conflict in the country; the tragedy of the bitter conflict in a land called 'holy' by three world faiths; the oft repeated statements by leaders of many countries that violence on the scale of the Madrid atrocity must be expected by all western nations – all this and more make the subject of the lecture deeply relevant. And at the heart of our concern is Islam; a faith, a civilisation and a culture. A faith, that is growing fast in every part of the world; a civilisation, that has contributed greatly the human family and still has much to offer; a culture, with a unique texture that appeals to millions. However, wherever we look, Islam seems to be embroiled in conflict with other faiths and other cultures. It is in opposition to practically every other world religion- to Judaism in the Middle East; to Christianity in the West, in Nigeria, and in the Middle East; to Hinduism in India; to Buddhism, especially since the destruction of the Temples in Afghanistan. We are presented therefore with a huge puzzle concerning Islam. Why is it associated with violence throughout the world? Is extremism so ineluctably bound up with its faith that we are at last seeing its true character? Or could it be that a fight for the soul of Islam is going on that requires another great faith, Christianity, to support and encourage the vast majority of Muslims who resist this identification of their faith with terrorism? Undoubtedly, Islam's association with terrorism presents an enormous challenge for all seeking a peaceful, prosperous world. Listen to Samuel Huntington, one of the most important voices in these matters in recent days. In 1993 he published a controversial essay entitled 'The Clash of Civilisations'. His thesis was that the collapse of communism signalled the end of ideological battles of the political kind. Western capitalism was now dominant. The next battle he claimed will be the clash of cultures, with Islamic and Christian civilisations separating the world. Scholars, writers, religious thinkers and politicians rejected this idea as flawed for historical, theological and intellectual reasons. But Huntington was unrepentant. In 1997 he published a book of the same name, modifying the thesis but retaining the underlying argument that a clash between two great cultures was inevitable. In an extraordinary claim he insisted: "Islam's borders are bloody and so are its innards. The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilisation whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power." Penetrating and disturbing - even shocking- words. Are they true to the facts? Certainly Sept 11th seemed to confirm his thesis that in our own day we are witnessing a clash of cultures and are dealing with two quite different world-views. In order to go deeper into the issue allow me to ask four questions: What are the reasons for Islam's association with terrorism and death? What challenges does Islam itself face? What is Islam's challenge to the West in general and Christianity in particular? How may we move from collision to convergence in mutual understanding and respect? ISLAM AND TERROR. To begin with, it is crucial to stress the positive before we get to the negative. Islam is the second largest religion in the world and the name means 'submission to God'. There are over one billion Muslims in the world and the vast majority are peaceful and good people just as anxious as we are to bring up their children to live in harmony with others. And, like Christianity, Islam is far from monochrome in its make-up. It too is composed of many groups and sects and its people include secular as well as religious Muslims. Yes, they too have people who are Muslim in name only. As J.A. Williams points out in his book 'The World of Islam', there has always been a secular side to Islam even though the resurgence of the faith since 1970 has tended to mask this aspect. Whether religious or nominal, it is important to recognise that the vast majority of Muslims, like Christians, are honourable and good people who hate violence and are distressed to note that they are lumped together with evil and misguided people. We should never seek to demonise them or their faith. But a fight for the soul of Islam is going on. Why is it now associated with violence and terrorism? Let me, for the sake of brevity, approach this from a historical perspective. Although Christians and Muslims have got on very well in countries where both have settled, along with their Jewish neighbours, there have periods when both faiths have sought to expand territorially and have clashed in bloody and bitter conflict. The Crusades are a clear example of this where attempts were made to regain former Christian lands with unfortunate consequences for both faiths. In the 16th and 17th centuries militant Islam invaded Hungary, Poland, Ukraine and even reached the gates of Vienna. Such facts contradict the assertion by Mohammed Madhi Shams Ed-Din in an International Conference hosted by the Gregorian University in May 2000 that: 'Aggression has been Christian in all (most) great encounters and Islam's stance has always been defensive in all (most) cases' (p.45) No. That both Christianity as well as Islam have had such episodes of militarism should not surprise us. The facts insist that neither faith can take the high moral ground and accuse the other of using weapons of destruction. Apart from such well-known clashes, adherents of all three world religions were able to live in peace, even though the cost of it for many Christians and Jews in some lands was to accept the position as 'protected' (Dhimmi) citizens and pay a corresponding tax. From the 18th through to the 20th centuries the fortunes of Muslim countries took a dip for the worst. Whilst Christian countries benefited from the fruits of the Industrial Revolution much of the Middle East has lagged behind ever since. As a young man doing my National Service in Iraq in the 50's it was understandable why so many people of my generation, looking at such societies superficially, considered Islam to be a backward looking faith, associated with backward societies, with massive problems of illiteracy and corruption. 1967, however, is viewed by many as a turning point in the minds of many Muslims. In that year the Arab nations- Syria, Egypt and Jordan – mounted a surprise attack against Israel and were humiliated in battle. Great swathes of Arab land were taken, Sinai, Gaza and the Golan Heights in particular. From 1967 onwards Muslims began to analyse the reasons for their defeat at the hands of the Israelis. That event, scorched in their memories proved to be a turning point. Many concluded that a return to the simplicity of Islamic faith and wholehearted adherence to the Koran was necessary. To follow the West and to emulate its ways seemed to be the road to decadence and moral decline. From this period on reform and renewal movements begin to appear in Islam which in spite of different emphases have one common aim, that is, to restore greatness to Islam. Despising the political passivity of conservative Islam on the one hand, and the eagerness of modernist Muslims to embrace aspects of secularism on the other, radical movements are one in their desire to re-Islamise Muslim societies and fight the encroaching secularism and materialism that they see coming from the West. Although it is understandable to call such groups 'fundamentalist', the term, borrowed from the Christian world where it means a literal interpretation of the Bible, is inappropriate when applied to radical groups in Islam. J.A.Williams makes a distinction between 'revivalists' whose aim is to help Muslims return to the fundamentals of Islamic faith and 'radical activists', who encourage a fight against infidels. It is more accurate to call radical activists, whose creed calls them to bring about revolution through violence, what they are – terrorists. But that is to anticipate; and we must continue to explore the reasons why such groups came into being. If 1967 represents a real politicising of Islam in the hearts and minds of many Muslims we have to look to Saudi Arabia, the heartland of Islam, to trace one of the major sources of radical Islamic thought. Two hundred years ago a Reform movement had swept through Saudi Arabia through the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Uniting with Muhammad Ibn Saud, a powerful chief, Mohammed ibn Abd al-Wahhab subdued other tribes and imposed what Prof. John Esposito has described ' a puritanical form of Islam' on the people. We should note that Wahhabi puritanism deemed it belonged to the purity of faith to destroy the sacred tombs of Mohammed and his companions in Mecca and Medina. Today, it is the Wahhabi form of Islam that is being exported to other countries and communities in Muslim lands. Its intolerant and tyrannical beliefs lend themselves to young impressionable minds searching for certainties. The politicisation of young Saudi Muslims was completed in our own day when the impotence of Muslim countries was compared with what they regard the decadence of the West with its materialistic power. As Saudis became rich with oil, they had, to hand, financial resources to beat the West at its own game. It wasn't to be long before some of them tried. If 1967 represented humiliation for many Muslims, 1979 is of major significance for Islam as militant forms appeared, giving some dubious credibility to the thought that violence is a tool to be used. The first provocation was the invasion of Afghanistan by Russia. Muslims world-wide were outraged. As one Muslim friend put it to me 'Russians were not merely infidels, they were worse- they were unbelieving infidels!' Atheists and a 'house of war' was now a reality. A jihad was called and mujahidin – warriors- were called to fight a war to the death. It was, as we know, a turning point in the life of a rich, very tall young Saudi, Osama bin Laden, who used his wealth to set up camps in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. The invasion of Afghanistan represents the radicalisation of the elite of Saudi youth. The irony was that the Americans saw leadership qualities in Osama bin Laden to undermine the Russian invasion and the United States supplied him and his comrades, now in the Al Qaeda network, with training, money, ammunition and supplies. 1979 was also of importance for the Muslim world as Shiites in Iran overturned the secular regime in a spectacular coup and formed the Iranian Islamic Republic. In 1989 another coup took place in Sudan when Col Omar al-Bashir took over control of that impoverished country and enlisted the aid of a formidable intellectual Hassan al-Turabi. Dr Turabi, a Sorbonne-educated lawyer, a polite and polished intellectual, has a clear and unambiguous vision to impose Islam on the whole world and make Sharia law mandatory- an imposition achieved, more or less, in Sudan. In 1994, seemingly from nowhere, a group of students living on the borders of Pakistan called the Taliban took control of Afghanistan claiming moral leadership and imposing an ultra-conservative form of Wahhabism on an impoverished country that needed an open, enlightened vision not the myopic, self-contained world of the Taliban. In the year 2000, Osama bin Laden, now fully alienated from America and the west, announced the formation of a World Islamic Front for a Jihad against Americans and Crusaders (a euphemism for Christians). This action may have been taken in part because of a strong sense of betrayal, as it seemed to the Afghans that the Americans had abandoned them after their sacrifices fighting the Soviets. However, the world-wide implications were very serious. For the minority of Muslims in such movements as the World Islamic Front and the Muslim Brotherhood, the world was now divided into a veritable 'house of Islam' and 'house of war'. For bin Laden and militants 'Jihad' now had only one meaning- a struggle to death for the soul of Islam. The alternative and basic sense of 'jihad' as a word denoting a struggle to be good and peaceful Muslims through moral and religious ways was now in danger of being lost. On Sept 11th 2001 the World Islamic Front struck through dedicated young men who were prepared to die with the Koran at their side shouting 'Allah is great!' guiding huge planes to destroy the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. With them died many hundreds of others who were going about their lawful and good business. Further atrocities were to follow. A few days after Sept 11th, in Indonesia, 120 Muslim troops struck at a village of Chinese and Christian people at dawn shouting 'Allah is great!' killing the men and raping any women they could find. A year after September 11th 2001 came the murder of many hundreds of innocent, fun loving people in Bali, Indonesia. Madrid is but another awful episode in the unfolding drama of Islamic terrorism. The question comes with greater insistence: Is not Islam being manipulated by evil and misguided men, not only destabilising our world, but also discrediting Islam itself? Therefore, to my second question. What are the Challenges facing Islam? Last January I was at the World Economic Forum and appeared on the same platform as the former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dr. Mohamed Mahathir who on the brink of retirement gave his sober estimate of Islam, saying that unless Islam was prepared to change it would degenerate still further: 'I find it very hard to be optimistic about Muslims in the 21st century' he said, 'Very few Muslims understand reality and they do not understand that coming to terms with globalisation is one of the greatest challenges facing them'. They cannot run away' he said. Former President Wahid of Indonesia who chaired a conference in Amman when I was speaker at the Conference on Religion and Peace expressed similar worries: 'The Muslim world is at a cross-roads. It may pursue a traditional static Islam or refashion it into a more dynamic and pluralistic world-view'. The challenges in the opinion of such Muslim thinkers are many and varied but perhaps we might pick out four specific challenges. The first in my opinion is for Muslim societies to integrate their faith and practice in democratic institutions. Indeed, democracy will be increasingly a major challenge as more Muslim youth are educated and demand a say in the running of their countries. Why the glaring absence of democratic governments in Muslim lands, particularly in the Middle East, we might wonder? It is said that modern Muslim experience suggests that Islam and democracy are incompatible. I see no fundamental reason why this should be so. Indeed, Turkey is an example that confirms that there is no contradiction in the idea. However, it is uncommon. Throughout the Middle East and North Africa we find authoritarian regimes with deeply entrenched leadership, some of whom rose to power at the point of a gun and are retained in power by massive investment in security forces. Whether they are military dictatorships or traditional sovereignties each ruler seems committed to retaining power and privilege. When forms of democracy are introduced, as in Qatar and Bahrain, they are modest in the extreme and power remains in the hands of the Emirs. A second challenge lies in the disturbing social conditions that militate against stable civil society and undermine the values and ethics of a great faith. Demographic factors indicate that Muslim countries will be increasingly under question as time goes on unless actions are taken to deal with chronic illiteracy, spiralling population figures leading to dire unemployment and social unrest. Giving power to the people in democratic governance is not sufficient if economic stability, universal education and human rights are not available and accessible. The absence of such conditions are factors that may precipitate revolution or fan greater resentment at Western resources and excesses. My third observation is that theological Islam is being challenged too, to become more open to examination and criticism. Christianity and Judaism have had a long history of critical scholarship which, we must admit and acknowledge, has not been without its pain, but there have been great gains also. In the case of Islam, Mohammed, acknowledged by all in spite of his religious greatness, to be illiterate man, is said to have received God's word direct, word by word, from angels and scribes who recorded them later. Thus, believers are told, because they have come direct from Allah they are not to be questioned or revised. As it happens, in the first few centuries of the Islamic era, Islamic theologians sought to meet the challenge this implied, but during the past five hundred years critical scholarship has declined leading to strong resistance to modernity. Christian theologians and teachers, I suggest, have two important roles to play with respect to Islamic thought. First, we should encourage theological dialogue between Christianity and Islam. In this respect may I salute the great contribution that the Inter-religious Council of the Vatican makes and in particular the work of Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald. Second, without interfering in the workings of another faith to encourage the development of rigorous scholarship in the formation of the education of Imams. A greater openness will benefit us all. A fourth challenge facing moderate Muslims is to resist strongly the taking over of Islam by radical activists and to express strongly, on behalf of the many millions of their co-religionists, their abhorrence of violence done in the name of Allah. We look to them to condemn suicide bombers and terrorists who use Islam as a weapon to destabilise and destroy innocent lives. Sadly, apart from a few courageous examples, very few Muslim leaders condemn, clearly and unconditionally, the evil of suicide bombers who kill innocent people. We need to hear outright condemnation of theologies that state that suicide bombers are 'martyrs' and enter a martyrs reward. We need to hear Muslims expressing their outrage and condemning such evil. To be sure, the stand-off between Israel and Palestine continues to be the political arena where so many of our current unrests are focussed. Having just returned a few days ago from Jerusalem I can sympathise with those who, at best, are pessimistic of any improvement in the situation and, at worst, conclude that the polarisation is so deep that ongoing violence and many lost lives will be the bleak future of the region for many years to come. Yet, we are talking of two great peoples who have lived together in the past; we are talking of a situation where it seems possible to arrive at a political solution if we could find a way to end the violence; we are talking about a situation where both Jew and Arab deserve justice and peace. If Palestinians should refrain from suicide tactics, as I believe they must as a moral duty; then Jews must refrain from using their power in unjustified ways, for the same reason. It is impossible to go through the road blocks and security checks as we did this past week-end, and on so many other previous occasions, without such experiences making outsiders realise what this does to further resentment among Palestinians who consider themselves prisoners in their own land. The tactics that the IDF are using in state killings of suspected terrorists and Palestinian leaders like Sheikh Ahmed Yassin are unworthy of a civilised society and shames Israel. The enormous wall, now being built, may give some temporary relief to Israelis but only alienates decent Palestinians still further. I saw graffiti on part of the wall separating Jerusalem from the West Bank which read; 'This is our Warsaw ghetto'. Wherever power lies – whether it is state power or the power that comes from an individual targeting another with a rifle or a bomb – is, to quote Reinhold Niebuhr, 'a poison which blinds the eye of moral insight and lames the will of moral purpose'. My third question is: What then is the challenge to the West and to Christians in particular? There is surely a glimmer of truth in the telling remark of President Khatami of Iran who remarked that 'today's world democracies are suffering from a major vacuum which is the vacuum of spirituality'. It is difficult to point an accusing finger at what we regard as the weaknesses of Muslim governments when spectacular economic abuse such as Enron, Worldcom and Paamalat reveal that greed, exploitation and corruption lurk in our advanced societies and shame our claim to conduct our communities in moral and wise ways. The degree of crime and delinquency, going hand in hand with a decline in moral standards and the collapse of such institutions as marriage and the family, are reasons why the West must be reticent in claiming the high moral ground. Yes, we must own up to our shortcomings and failings and from the riches of our faith and traditions reinforce what we most value. A second obligation is for us to strengthen western values, founded as undoubtedly they are on the Christian moral tradition and culture. In spite of our shortcomings at least European and American civilisations are repositories of fairness and liberal values. Democracy, as an element of these, is a beautiful and fragile flower and we should support it, value it and protect it. It allows for dissent, for freedom of expression and for rights for all. We should not give in to claims that Islamic countries are morally, spiritually and culturally superior to other civilisations and great cultures. To give credit where credit is due, although we owe much to Islam handing on to the West many of the treasures of Greek thought, the beginnings of calculus, Aristotelian thought during the period known in the West as 'the dark ages', it is sad to relate that no great invention has come for many hundreds of years from Muslim countries. This is a puzzle, because Muslim peoples are not bereft of brilliant minds. They have much to contribute to the human family and we look forward to the close co-operation that might make this possible. Yes, the West has still much to be proud of and we should say so strongly. We should also encourage Muslims living in the West to be proud of it to and to say so to their brothers and sisters living elsewhere. We should also point to the enormous contribution the West continues to make to poor Muslim countries and we should endeavour to make this better known. Recently a survey in Egypt revealed that only 6% of Egyptians viewed American favourably despite being the second largest recipient of US aid after Israel. Most of them are unaware that American and British aid built Cairo's sewers, water supply and electrical system. Nevertheless, we should also acknowledge that the West has much to learn from Islam and value in that great tradition of faith. But What of the relationship between church and mosque? It is important to know what Islam stands for – its strengths and weakness. But it far more important to know some Muslims and befriend them. We shall find them that they have the same fears about us as we have of them. Most of them are good people who simply wish to be good citizens. There is much we can admire in Islam- the simplicity of faith and devotion of worship. Islam is not a complicated faith and perhaps we have made Christianity too complicated. We can admire the devotion of the people and their desire to promote their faith. We can admire their commitment to traditional values, the family, children and peace. But Islam is not to be feared. Muslims respect integrity and devotion too. They have no respect for Christians who take the view that all religions are the same. They know they are not. They will always respect people who stand up for their faith and are prepared to talk about it naturally. Christians need to be more confident and argue their corner for reciprocity throughout the world. During my time as Archbishop this was my constant refrain- that the welcome we have given to Muslims in the West with the accompanying freedom to worship freely and build their mosques should be reciprocated in Muslim lands. However, that freedom is uneven. In some Muslim lands there are strong and cordial relationships but in some others Christians have little freedom, are sometimes persecuted, are not able build their churches, or only do so after much difficulty. Saudi Arabia will not allow Christian worship and Christian priests and ministers are not allowed to function as such in that land. Muslim leaders often tell Christians and Jews that 'there is no compulsion in religion'. This sadly is only half true. If non-Muslims are not compelled to become Muslim, Muslims are not free to choose another faith. There is, we find, some compulsion, after all. This, then, prompts my final question 'How may we move from collision to convergence on things we most value and share? Professor Akbar Ahmed, one of Islam's leading scholars and Professor of Anthropology at the American University, Washington, in his most recent book: 'Islam Under Siege: Living dangerously in a Post-Honor World' concludes by saying: 'The events of Sept 11th appeared to push the world toward the idea of a clash of civilisations, but they also conveyed the urgency of the call for dialogue. The creative participation in the dialogue of civilisations, to find an internal balance between the needs and traditions of local communities and a world increasingly dominated by international corporations and political concerns, the committed search for global solutions confronting human society and the quest for a just, compassionate, and peaceful order will be the challenge human civilisation faces in the 21st century. To meet the challenge is to fulfil God's vision; to embrace all humanity in doing so is to know God's compassion'. Heartening words indeed. I for one do not accept that the future is one of escalating violence, deepening bitterness and a grudging dialogue between 'incompatible faiths' and cultures. Let me proffer some pointers for discussion and reflection: We must deepen inter-faith co-operation and understanding. Religion is not going to go away. We may talk of a post-modern world but certainly not post-religious. But religion may be used for bad as well as good purposes. In the hands of evil people religion is sometimes used as a weapon to kill and to suppress as it has been, from time to time, in the long history of Christianity. But religious leaders have an important role to play alongside political leaders. There is still too little comprehension in political circle of the power of authentic faith and the possibilities of harnessing the religious imagination and energy for peace. We must focus on root causes of unrest where religions clash and seek to heal the wounds of the past. We must confront the deep sense of injustice felt by ordinary Muslims in much of the developing world where people see the tyranny of their own leaders, the growing gap between rich and poor and what they see as the massive support of the West to regimes inimical to Islam. Israel, as I have already said, is a serious flashpoint of unrest and America has a key role to play in healing the wounds of a land beloved to adherents of three world religions. However, Muslims do not perceive even-handedness in America's treatment of Palestinians and the Palestinian cause. Of course, Israel has a right to a homeland and above all to peace. There can be no serious argument about that. Christians, of all people, should honour the special religious ties they have with Jewish people. That should not restrain us from recognising that Palestine, no less, demands and deserves a viable State with secure borders and an independent Government. Resolve this urgent issue and a great deal of Muslim bitterness and antagonism towards the West will in time be replaced by understanding. This longest-running conflict in modern times deserves the West's urgent attention. Compassion and understanding are the only tools to handle hatred and violence. It will do us little good if the West simply believes the answer is to put an end to Osama bin Laden. Rather we must put an end to conditions, distortions and misinformation that create Osama bin Laden and his many emulators. It is the battle of ideas we must win, not to show the many bruised and aggrieved Muslims that we are stronger and more powerful than they are. In this task Christian theologians, teachers, priests, pastors and people have a significant role to play. Christianity has much in common with Islam and working from common moral demands, our joint commitment to family life and religious values, our agreement concerning the importance of worshipping God and teaching all people to build their lives on eternal and abiding values should give us confidence to create relationships between us that endure. If we do not, the future will remain hazardous and threatening. As Christopher Coker says in 'Twilight of the West' as he contemplates the threat of terrorism in the modern world: 'What makes Islamic fundamentalism so dangerous ..is the appeal of science and technology in the modern Islamic imagination…there has been no smashing of machines, no repudiation of the Western sciences'. Indeed, 911 has taught us as much. Yes, we live in dangerous times. But we live, no less, in times where good will, understanding, frankness based on respect and tolerance may yield offer an exciting future. Let us look forward to the day when we shall not talk about faiths colliding, but Islam and Christianity converging in a common desire to create a world of tolerance and peace and building communities on those shared values that make us human and capable of giving and receiving God's gift of love. END

Bill could criminalize Scriptures say Bishops Bob Harvey CanWest News Service March 27, 2004 Portions of the Bible are in danger of being condemned as hate literature, say religious groups opposed to changes in the Criminal Code to be debated next week by the Senate. In a letter to Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops said Friday that Bill C-250 proposes changes that could lead to the church being prosecuted for its teaching that "sexual conduct between people of the same sex is morally wrong." "Participation in the current public debate on marriage has demonstrated there are individuals who believe that Catholic Church teaching on homosexual behaviour is hatred. We remain concerned that this bill as presently drafted could be used in an attempt to silence Church teaching in this regard," they said. The Catholic bishops urged senators to change Svend Robinson's private member's bill, which includes sexual orientation in the hate propaganda sections of the Criminal Code, so that no one could be prosecuted under the hate crimes provisions for publicly commenting on sexual morality. The bishops said they have seen the impact of including sexual orientation in previous legislation and suggested they have little confidence in reassurances that the changes in the Criminal Code will not affect freedom of religion. "For example, when the question was about social benefits, reassurances were given that the traditional concepts of marriage and family were not at risk," they said. Janet Epp Buckingham, the director of law and public policy for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, said senators have told her they are "getting a ton of phone calls and e-mails opposing the bill," but said there is also "quite a bit of momentum for the bill to pass." The evangelical fellowship said that if C-250 is passed, it will endanger faith groups' freedom to read, preach and distribute sacred texts, and to publicly discuss and comment on sexual morality. © The Calgary Herald 2004

Setting the Record Straight: What Really Happened at the House of Bishops March 26, 2004 THE AMERICAN ANGLICAN COUNCIL: SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT What Really Happened at the House of Bishops? 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!" To read the complete article, visit the following URL: http://www.americananglican.org/News/News.cfm?ID=1012&c=21

The Most Rev. Drexel Gomez, Anglican Primate of the Province of the Bahamas and West Indies, and the Most Rev. Gregory Venables, new Archbishop of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, have invited the Presiding Bishop of the Reformed Episcopal Church, the Most Rev. Leonard Riches, and the Presiding Bishop of the Anglican Province of America, the Most Rev. Walter Grundorf, to Nassau this week to meet with other primates and bishops of the Anglican Communion who are in broken or impaired communion with ECUSA. He has also invited three other R.E. Bishops: West, Grote, and Sutton, and, I think, one or two other APA Bishops. Archbishops Gomez and Venables are in constant contact with Anglican Archbishops from Africa and Southeast Asia. The Invitation came about when Archbishop Gomez was in Charleston, SC, in early January, 2004, to address the Anglican Communion Institute (formerly SEAD) conference held in St. Philip's Church. At the conference, he continued his outspoken criticism of the illegal acts of the Episcopal Church USA and the Diocese of Westminster, Anglican Church of Canada, in the last two years. During that conference he met with Bishops Riches, Sutton and West; and, out of that meeting came this extraordinary invitation to forge a link with other Anglican Churches in America outside of ECUSA! Archbishop Gomez had also 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 year. Bishops, clergy and laity of the REC and APA, along with representatives from other continuing Anglican churches, were prominent signers of the Federation document. (Go to: www.anglicansunited.com or call 1-800-553-3645 for further information.) All of the visiting bishops traveled to the Bahamas last week, in order to preach in various Anglican parishes in Nassau yesterday, March 28th. They had been invited to preach by Archbishop Gomez, who carefully guards who will preach in his parishes. This is an important courtesy - given only to those who are orthodox - extended to the REC and APA bishops. Today, Monday, is a day off for relaxing and refreshment. The meetings with other archbishops and bishops will begin on Tuesday, and conclude on Friday, April 2nd, with most of the time spent in prayer, Bible study, worship and simple discussion about the Gospel and Mission. Anglicans United and The Ekklesia Society are are assisting in the costs of this meeting. Pray for our bishops as they travel and that a renewing of the Holy Spirit may move through our Anglican/Episcopal churches in America to re-form and maintain that biblical and apostolic faith of our fathers. END

The Most Rev. Drexel Gomez, Anglican Primate of the Province of the Bahamas and West Indies, and the Most Rev. Gregory Venables, new Archbishop of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, have invited the Presiding Bishop of the Reformed Episcopal Church, the Most Rev. Leonard Riches, and the Presiding Bishop of the Anglican Province of America, the Most Rev. Walter Grundorf, to Nassau this week to meet with other primates and bishops of the Anglican Communion who are in broken or impaired communion with ECUSA. He has also invited three other R.E. Bishops: West, Grote, and Sutton, and, I think, one or two other APA Bishops. Archbishops Gomez and Venables are in constant contact with Anglican Archbishops from Africa and Southeast Asia. The Invitation came about when Archbishop Gomez was in Charleston, SC, in early January, 2004, to address the Anglican Communion Institute (formerly SEAD) conference held in St. Philip's Church. At the conference, he continued his outspoken criticism of the illegal acts of the Episcopal Church USA and the Diocese of Westminster, Anglican Church of Canada, in the last two years. During that conference he met with Bishops Riches, Sutton and West; and, out of that meeting came this extraordinary invitation to forge a link with other Anglican Churches in America outside of ECUSA! Archbishop Gomez had also 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 year. Bishops, clergy and laity of the REC and APA, along with representatives from other continuing Anglican churches, were prominent signers of the Federation document. (Go to: www.anglicansunited.com or call 1-800-553-3645 for further information.) All of the visiting bishops traveled to the Bahamas last week, in order to preach in various Anglican parishes in Nassau yesterday, March 28th. They had been invited to preach by Archbishop Gomez, who carefully guards who will preach in his parishes. This is an important courtesy - given only to those who are orthodox - extended to the REC and APA bishops. Today, Monday, is a day off for relaxing and refreshment. The meetings with other archbishops and bishops will begin on Tuesday, and conclude on Friday, April 2nd, with most of the time spent in prayer, Bible study, worship and simple discussion about the Gospel and Mission. Anglicans United and The Ekklesia Society are are assisting in the costs of this meeting. Pray for our bishops as they travel and that a renewing of the Holy Spirit may move through our Anglican/Episcopal churches in America to re-form and maintain that biblical and apostolic faith of our fathers. END