Archives

Special Report   By David W. Virtue   PONCE, PR (8/5/2004) -- An Anglo-Catholic priest and hospital chaplain in the Diocese of Puerto Rico of The Episcopal Church, has been fired by the bishop for holding to orthodox biblical views on the issue of homosexual practice.   The Rev Luis Morales, 55, a Forward in Faith priest in the Diocese, has been terminated by revisionist Bishop David A. Alvarez and relieved of his job as a chaplain to St Luke's II Episcopal Hospital in the city of Ponce, Puerto Rico. He has not been immediately inhibited or deposed but expects the bishop to proceed in that direction.   "I am not surprised at what this bishop has done. He is no lover of the gospel, and he hates people who are orthodox," he told Virtuosity. "I rejoice in my martyrdom." The priest said he was fired on July 23 and is now on vacation but will not return September 1.   Fr. Morales said the problems began after the Minneapolis General Convention and later with the Robinson consecration. "I met with Bishop Alvarez in private and told him I was going to distance myself from his positions on sexuality. I held a press conference with the knowledge of the bishop to state my position. We corresponded back and forth."   The priest was rector of Holy Trinity in Ponce, the island's first and oldest Episcopal Church. The parish church was built in 1869.   "I, along with the vestry resigned after one year because the bishop made a decision regarding the parochial school contrary to what the parish and vestry agreed upon with him. The bishop then offered me a position as hospital chaplain at St. Luke's Memorial Hospital 2."   Fr. Morales said that some 30 parishioners from Holy Trinity followed him and started attending the chapel at the hospital, but the bishop would not recognize them, so fearing they would have no spiritual oversight the priest decided to ask for spiritual help from the Anglican Mission in America.   "I have not personally joined the AMIA but when Bishop Alvarez found out that the group wanted to become part of the Anglican Mission, he sent two letters telling them they could not worship in the chapel. When I shared that information with the people they stopped going to the chapel and came together as a more structured group. I saw it as my pastoral responsibility to turn them over to a priest who would take care of them," he told Virtuosity.   Holy Trinity which once had about 100 members has since dropped to less than 35 active members, said Morales.   "The bishop is painting it all as personal and wants to portray himself as the victim and we are persecuting him, but it is not true."   Fr. Morales turned to his old friend the Rev. Dr. Dennis Paris and Dean Humberto Nieves. Dr. Paris had already been stripped of his priesthood and deposed by Bishop Alvarez for writing a book condemning the revisionist arguments supporting the ordination of practicing homosexuals.   The priest said that Dean Nieves had resigned to be part of the AMIA, but the bishop would not accept his resignation, but he decided to join and worship under the protection of the Anglican Mission anyway.   "I wrote to the bishop and told him that I had turned the 30 worshippers over to the AMIA and if you want to get rid of me you can get rid of me from the hospital."   "I had earlier asked the bishop for DEPO but he flatly refused and said these people could not apply because they were not an official congregation. He then said they could not use the Chapel anymore. I was devastated by the bishop's action. It was unnecessarily vindictive."   Fr. Morales said the group decided to leave and join the AMIA and made a formal request to Bishop Alexander M. Greene, who oversees their mission which is run by the Rev. Dr. Dennis Paris in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Dr Paris who was forcibly deposed is now with the Anglican Mission.   Bishop Greene then delegated the pastoral oversight of the group in Ponce to the Rev Paris, who is now pastoring the new Anglican Mission of St Peter & St Paul, with the Deacon Humberto Nieves.   "Bishop Alvarez has stated in meetings with his clergy that sexual intercourse between men and men and women with women must not be viewed as a sin. One of his more recent arguments for his revisionist positions is that no Ecumenical Council has ever censured homosexual practice."   Bishop Alvarez has also been very vocal through the media in Puerto Rico, promoting support for homosexual practices and has lobbied the local legislature to promote laws that will favor gay couples and civil unions, Paris told Virtuosity.   "To date he has deposed three priests, inhibited another, and will fire from work and pay any priest that does not bend to his 'hermeneutics'. In a nutshell his pastoral program can be described as promotion of the gay agenda and a heavy hand against the orthodox in his diocese," said Paris in a phone call to Virtuosity.   Bishop Alvarez was the only bishop in ECUSA's Province IX that voted in favor of the V. Gene Robinson consecration and confirmation.   Interviewed on the Morales firing, Dr. Paris, who is also a Psychologist and Professor at the University of Puerto Rico, told Virtuosity; "This is a clear picture of what is really going on in the ECUSA. On one side you have Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold and his assistants working hard to project an image of the Church that is struggling to promote reconciliation and understanding amongst its different groups; on the other hand, revisionists in ECUSA are discreetly suffocating any and all dissident points of view that tries to promote orthodox positions or any type of faith founded on Scripture."   Dr. Paris said there were many in the Anglican Communion, especially in Puerto Rico who are sincerely waiting on the Lambeth Commission to provide alternative communion structures to resolving their problem. "St. Paul addressed the issues when he talked about light and darkness not having fellowship with one other," said Paris.   The situation in The Episcopal Church cannot go on forever, there will be a day of reckoning, he said.   In October 2003, three priests including the Rev. Dr. Dennis Paris, the Rev. Dr. Manuel A. Rivera assistant priest of the Spanish speaking congregation at the cathedral church of St. John Baptist and the Rev. Pedro Balleste, a senior cleric in the diocese were all inhibited by the bishop. Dr. Paris and Rev. Balleste were deposed. Fr. Balleste is currently assisting Dr. Paris with the two AMIA missions.

By Stanley Kurtz NRO Contributing Editor   The Federal Marriage Amendment can win. Anyone who believes it can't simply hasn't thought through the complicated chess game that is the battle over gay marriage. I'm not saying the FMA is bound to pass. Marshaling the super majorities required to ratify a constitutional amendment is always an uphill battle.   But the FMA has a vastly greater chance of passage than most folks realize. We're only past stage one of the process. And the overwhelming victory in Missouri this week of a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman has ushered in stage two.   A federal constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress, and must be ratified by three quarters of the states. Impossible? Well, the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) received well over two thirds of the vote in both houses, and three quarters of the states now have DOMAs of their own. (The number of state DOMAs recently expanded from 37 to 38.)   Some say the country is more liberal on gay marriage than it was in 1996. And the public is always reluctant to amend the federal constitution. Yet Americans oppose gay marriage by large margins, and that opposition is easily enlarged by events. Above all, much of the sentiment against an amendment rests on the conviction that federal and state DOMAs will hold. Once the DOMAs come under attack, everything is going to change.   The gay-marriage contest is not like other political battles. It has its own rather peculiar political dynamic. Gay marriage is an issue most people prefer to avoid. The public may oppose gay marriage, but what it really wants is to avoid having to talk about it. This creates a false impression of apathy. Yet when court-imposed gay marriage looks inevitable, the public's stance flips. Once people decide that gay marriage is about to be forced on them against their will, they are galvanized into action.   It's happened again and again. Back in 1998, Hawaiians amended their state constitution to prevent their supreme court from imposing gay marriage. In 2000, Vermont's formerly quiescent conservatives were pushed into full rebellion by civil unions. The Republicans managed to take back the lower house of the Vermont state legislature for the first time in 14 years -- this in a state won in a walk by Gore (with a huge vote for Nader to boot).   For those with eyes to see, it was clear in the last session of the Massachusetts state legislature that the state's Supreme Judicial Court was about to legalize gay marriage. Yet given public reluctance to deal with the issue, the Democratic leadership managed to squelch an effort to call a constitutional convention.   After Goodridge, though, Massachusetts was turned upside down for months at a time, as session after deadlocked session of a constitutional convention bitterly debated gay marriage. There were angry public demonstrations, and the media was filled with the issue for weeks on end. Finally, a constitutional convention passed an amendment that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman -- and provided for civil unions.   Delaying the Inevitable   If all this can happen in one of the most liberal states in the union, we can expect an even greater battle once it becomes clear that gay marriage is headed for the U.S. Supreme Court. The public is reluctant to act on this issue until they absolutely have to, precisely because people fear the polarizing debate that inevitably follows. Yet time and again, when pushed to the wall by the courts, the public has been galvanized into action.   Sometime between now and the moment the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to take a gay-marriage case, the American public is going to experience its own galvanic moment. At that point, all illusions that federal or state DOMAs can hold will be swept aside, and the battle over the Federal Marriage Amendment will be well and truly joined. I can't tell you whether the FMA will pass at that moment, but I can tell you that it's going to get a whole lot more votes than it received in the Senate a few weeks ago.   Right now, the national battle over gay marriage is at the stage the state battle was in when the leaders of the Massachusetts legislature squelched concerted calls for a constitutional convention. While plenty of people are girding for the inevitable showdown, many others are doing what they can to delay and deny.   Yet the truth is, a major national showdown is inevitable. And when that moment comes, the FMA is going to get a whole lot closer to passage than anyone now realizes. A two-thirds vote in Congress is by no means out of the question.   Looking at the recent Senate FMA debate, you can see the signs. It was next to impossible to find a Democrat willing to defend gay marriage. Instead, the Democrats claimed that DOMA would hold, and dismissed the drive for an amendment as a distraction. Most Republicans, on the other hand, argued vigorously in favor of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.   There were plenty of references to the critical importance of marriage for children, and to Europe's experience of gay marriage. There was a time when gay-marriage advocates claimed that Republicans were afraid of this issue, and bereft of substantive arguments. Yet in the Senate, it was the Democrats who awkwardly ran from substantive debate. When the progress of this issue through the courts makes it clear that an up or down vote on substance is required, what are the Democrats going to do?   A couple of weeks ago, the House passed a bill that would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over gay marriage. That vote was a shot across the bow of every court in the country. The House put the judiciary on notice that their usurpation of the legislative role puts their powers at risk. Still, the vote on court stripping was prelude to a later showdown over the Federal Marriage Amendment. Even stripping the federal courts of their authority to rule on the constitutionality of DOMA would not prevent them from imposing gay marriage on equal protection or due-process grounds. Only a constitutional amendment can do that. But the House vote was clearly a warning to the courts that a major battle looms.   There is simply no issue on which media bias is greater than gay marriage. The New York Times buried news of the House's court-stripping vote on page 19. Yet after the Senate vote, the press played up the Republicans' failure to get close to a two-thirds vote, and touted the supposed split within Republican ranks. And of course, gay-marriage advocates did their best to portray the FMA campaign as nothing but an attempt to cater to religious conservatives.   Democratic Indecision   On just about every point, the truth is the reverse of the media's line. It's not just that the recent FMA vote was merely a prelude to what will surely be a more serious and closely fought showdown in the future. The truth is, it's the Democrats who are divided on gay marriage. Republicans oppose gay marriage by large margins. Democrats are almost evenly split.   That's why some Senate Democrats support the amendment. And that's why virtually no Senate Democrats dare argue in favor of gay marriage. The truth is, there simply aren't enough religious conservatives in the country to account for substantial majority of the public that opposes gay marriage. It's wasn't conservative Southern Baptists who prevented Senate Democrats from making an open defense of gay marriage. It was the many independents and moderate Democrats who think gay marriage is a bad idea.   If you want to get a truer picture of what's happening in the gay-marriage battle, look at Oregon. Oregon is a battleground state that could easily be tipped into the president's column by the issue of gay marriage.   Activist judges have been issuing marriage licenses in an Oregon county. And elected officials in Oregon have taken some truly outrageous actions to circumvent democratic procedures and impose gay marriage on the public. Outrage over all this has kicked off intense public debate. Petitions to place an amendment to the state constitution on the November ballot received more signatures than any other ballot measure in Oregon's history.   Oregon senator Gordon Smith's speech on the Senate floor did not fit the stereotype purveyed by gay-marriage advocates of those who support FMA. Smith spoke eloquently for the many Americans who happily approve of greater social tolerance for gays, yet who also believe that gay marriage would weaken the institution of marriage.   But the big news this week was the runaway victory of a state marriage amendment in Missouri. The measure passed with 71 percent of the vote.   That is a strikingly high number -- substantially higher than pre-vote polling. A pre-election poll by the Kansas City Star had found that 62 percent would favor the amendment, with 20 percent opposed and 8 percent undecided.   A St. Louis Post-Dispatch poll conducted a week before the vote had 56 percent of voters in support of the amendment, with 38 percent opposed and 6 percent undecided. While the final 71-percent margin might have indicated a last-minute surge, it's more likely that some voters were reluctant to tell pollsters that they favored the amendment. On this issue, polls often underplay voter support for one-man, one-woman marriage. This suggests that current polling substantially underestimates public support for a Federal Marriage Amendment as well.   Ah, but perhaps recognizing the depth of public sentiment on this issue, gay-marriage advocates and liberal judges alike will hold off on further attempts to transform the meaning of marriage. Don't bet on it. Just yesterday, a judge in Washington state ruled to legalize gay marriage. (The decision has been stayed pending final resolution by the Washington state Supreme Court.)   Since Washington is one of the 38 states with their own DOMA laws, explicitly defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, it's evident that neither fear of, nor respect for, democratically expressed public opinion have called this process to a halt. In his decision (which never truly confronted the key arguments against same-sex marriage), Judge William Downing explicitly stated that he could not allow the political ramifications of the issue to stop him from rendering a decision.   This, again, reflects the unique legal-political dynamic of the gay-marriage question. Although the analogy is seriously flawed, gay-marriage advocates see this issue as one of fundamental civil rights.   They cannot and will not hold back from moving gay marriage through the courts. Once faced with the issue, liberal judges recoil in horror from the prospect of going down in history as an opponent of civil rights. So despite the political risks of pressing forward, the process moves on of its own ineluctable weight. This is truly a case where an irresistible force is hurtling swiftly toward an immovable object. And when the clash comes, the political calculations in this dispute are going to change.   The media have continually stressed the supposed apathy of the American people on this issue. Yet the arousing of the public in Missouri, Oregon -- and a series of other states -- belies those claims. As soon as people believe that elites are about to impose gay marriage on them, they spring into action, however reluctantly. The electoral fate of senators who voted not to consider the FMA will give an early indication of how this campaign is going.   But the recent votes in the House and Senate are just the beginning of the dawning realization that, in the end, this is a national issue that requires a national solution. Sooner or later, the inevitable raft of lawsuits, the chaos of marriages that fall apart on the Interstate, and the untiring efforts of gay-marriage advocates and liberal judges to circumvent the democratic process, will force the issue nationally. When the final showdown comes -- and it will come -- victory for the FMA is a very real possibility.

Ethics & Religion   By Michael J. McManus   Forty-six evangelical Christian leaders have signed a letter to President Bush urging him to send "massive humanitarian aid" to the Darfur region of the Sudan where Congress charges a genocide is going on, and to consider "sending troops...to stop the killing."   This is a distinct shift of emphasis for the National Association of Evangelicals, who represent 30 million Americans most likely to support the President.   In the past, the NAE successfully pushed the Administration into ground-breaking human rights initiatives such as $15 billion of AIDS relief, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and to halt violence between Muslims and Christians in southern Sudan.   However, the victims in Darfur are Muslim. "We view this as an opportunity to reach out to Muslims in the name of Jesus," said the Rev. Ted Haggard, NAE president.   Secretary of State Colin Powell visited Sudan recently to urge the Khartoum regime to halt its arming of a civilian militia called Janjaweed who have destroyed Darfur villages, raped tens of thousands of women and slaughtered 30,000 men, women and children. The terrorism has so frightened residents that 1.2 million have fled their homes to isolated tent refugee camps on the Sudan-Chad border.   The U.S. Agency for International Development characterizes the crisis in Darfur as the "worst humanitarian crisis in the world today" that could lead to the deaths of 300,000 Sudanese refugees due to starvation, disease or ethnic cleansing violence. So far, few aid agencies have been able to penetrate the region due to continuing violence.   The few groups who are there -- CARE, World Vision, AID -- have sent back alarming reports of impending starvation and mass death.   Evangelicals wrote to the President, "We agree with the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum which has named the Darfur crisis a 'full-fledged genocide emergency,' the first such warning in the museum's history.   "Your Administration's goal -- to redefine our national interest not as power but as values and to identify one supreme value, what John Kennedy called 'the success of liberty' could be jeopardized by not taking a strong enough position on Sudan's genocidal behavior. The World Health Organization estimates that ten thousand people are dying each month and that a catastrophe equivalent to what occurred in Rwanda a decade ago could unfold within weeks."   What has been the Administration's response? It has increased its relief assistance to $146 million, but has failed to enlist other nations to help. The entire European Union has pledged a niggardly $13 million. Last week prodded by America, the UN Security Council sent Sudan a warning that it might face sanctions if it did not stop the Janjaweed militia within 30 days.   Golly. Khartoum sneered at that failure to take serious action by mobilizing 100,000 Muslim demonstrators on Sunday against the "Crusaders" threatening their holy land.   That action galvanized the evangelicals to demand that the U.S. government take a more decisive role to prevent further "slaughter and death."   NAE urged "massive humanitarian aid," of at least $100 million more, if the Europeans won't pony up. More important, NAE urged "active exploration of all available interventions options -- including sending troops to Darfur as has been proposed by the United Kingdom and Australia." It noted one option short of military intervention "would be dramatic expansion of the efforts of the African Union Protection Force by providing its soldiers and monitors with much-needed equipment and resources, toward the goal of securing humanitarian relief corridors." Today those troops lack walkie talkies, let alone significant troops or arms.   The heads of such denominations as the Assemblies of God, the Christian Reformed Church, Free Methodists and the Evangelical Free Church joined seminary and college presidents and the editor of Christianity Today in demanding that Sudan be kicked off the UN Human Rights Commission, that Sudan grant visas to aid workers, and that it arrest and prosecute Sheif Musa Hilel, a former bank robber and killer who leads the Janjaweed militia.   NAE concluded, "If...the United States government cannot end all evil in a large and complex world, it can nonetheless immediately adopt policies that limit today's persecutions and ensure greater fulfillment of inalienable and internationally recognized rights to freedom of belief and conscience....We vow never to commit the sin of silence whenever we learn of persecution."   America could earn new respect among the world's Muslims by standing up to a bully who is slaughtering them.   Copyright 2004 Michael J. McManus

By Alan Hamilton The Times   August 4, 2004   AN EVANGELIST who considers homosexuality an "abomination" has been arrested after police and passers-by in Salisbury, Wiltshire, objected to the tone and the volume of his preaching.   John Holme, 44, a computer software salesman, was released without charge on police bail pending further inquiries, after his car and trailer were seized as he bellowed his divine message through the streets of the cathedral city at the weekend.   Mr Holme, who is married with two children, was asked to tone down the volume of his sermon as he drove through busy streets in his car and trailer berating homosexuality as a wicked perversion.   He declined, pleading his human rights, but was arrested when a police officer noticed that his trailer bore the slogan: "God says; if you reject Him you may become homosexual."   Wiltshire police confirmed yesterday they had stopped a man after complaints from the public about his method of preaching, and about a sign on his trailer which many found offensive.   He had declined to withdraw the sign and was arrested under the Public Order Act. He continued preaching in his cell at Salisbury police station.   Yesterday Mr Holme, free but fuming at his arrest, continued to preach his message. "The Bible teaches that any form of sex outside of the marriage bed between a male man and his female wife is an abomination to God."   He said he wished people "delivered from the bondage of sexual perversion", but emphasised that he did not intend any violence or evil towards homosexuals.   Last month Mr Holme incurred the wrath of shopkeepers and customers in a Salisbury shopping centre who presented him with a formal request to curb the excessive noise of his oratory, which they claimed could be heard half a mile away.   Six years ago Salisbury magistrates fined Mr Holme £1,050, plus £250 costs, for attempting to preach to a local housing estate from a motorised hang-glider equipped with a megaphone. The case was brought by the Civil Aviation Authority, who claimed he had been flying too close to a populated area, even though his ill-starred flight was at times barely 6ft off the ground.   After his 1998 flight, which narrowly missed bird tables, trees and an electrified fence, Mr Holme said: "I thought that maybe if they heard this voice booming out from the sky, they would think it was God. I wanted to get through to kids on council estates, and I needed some cred."   Mr Holme, who is an elder at his parish church in Coombe Bissett, Wiltshire, said yesterday: "The purpose of my preaching is to see people come to believe in God and put their trust in Jesus Christ for salvation. We are not born homosexual; that is logically impossible."

A pastoral and theological perspective on the dilemma in ECUSA from the point of view of a parish priest.   A submission to the Lambeth/Eames Commission   By the Rev. Ian Montgomery   August 3, 2004   I write as a parish priest, ordained in 1975 in England. I was a curate in London from 1975 - 1978 and moved to the USA in 1978. (I have been rector of three congregations in different parts of the USA and a college chaplain.) I wish to focus on what has happened and what may happen to the congregation that I currently serve.   Following the passing of the General Convention 2003 votes related to human sexuality it was as if a knife had been stabbed in the heart of our congregation. A choice between "yes" and "no" was forced upon us. No longer could pastoral discretion make some sense of our sexual confusions. No longer could we as a more evangelical/catholic congregation ignore the theological innovations and actions of our national leadership. The issues in relation to our own bishop were not in doubt as he has consistently and bravely resisted these innovations. His passion is mission and ministry, to lead people to a transforming relationship with Jesus Christ.   I issued a pastoral letter to the congregation stating my grief and opposition to the actions of the convention. This had the effect of stemming some significant departures from our congregation and ECUSA. I begged the congregation to await the October meeting of the primates.   Following the meeting of the primates I distributed copies of their statement and gave a personal address, followed by a forum after services. The congregation was divided into four components.   First, there were a few who were adamantly in favor of the actions of the convention. Several others favored ignoring the whole matter as not that important. Several more were opposed on grounds of traditional morality. But the majority was opposed because of the violation of Scriptural teaching reinforced by the resolution of Lambeth 1998.   It was noted how the majority of the Anglican Communion had begged ECUSA to pull back from its resolutions and intentions. The Primates warned of dire consequences should ECUSA continue with the consecration on November 2. Our Diocese (Fond du Lac), by a narrow vote decided to reject the General Convention decisions concerning sexuality while seeking to affirm unity and mission. The consecration service on November 2 took place the next day.   The effect on our congregation was the loss of some parishioners to either more liberal or more non-involved ECUSA congregations. One family left for a more conservative and Biblical denomination. We gained several families from another more liberal congregation. By springtime this year our average Sunday attendance had grown from 245 to 285. Our budget had increased by over 8%. However about 60% of our income is restricted by its givers from the "National Church." In many ways we are thriving.   Our relationship with the Presiding Bishop and those who either voted for the consecration, or participated in it, is functionally and irretrievably lost. We are betrayed in our trust in these bishops. The Presiding Bishop has proven himself duplicitous in signing the Primates statement and then being the chief consecrator on November 2. The presiding Bishop has been the chief advocate of these innovations and offenses.   Under the surface and in our ecumenical relations things are still difficult and we are in a temporary "holding pattern."   Several churches have come to our aid in prayer support. We are partnered in a feeding ministry with a large Bible Church that considered severing its links with us because of the convention votes. Once our and my stance was made clear they have become even more supportive.   On a local level the name "Episcopal" has become an embarrassment and a point of disgusted comment from outsiders. Though our signs include the word "Episcopal," this designation has been quietly dropped in conversation.   Within our congregation there are at least 52 families patiently awaiting the decisions of the Lambeth Commission in October and the Primates in February. They are determined to leave ECUSA but would prefer to be Anglican. In fact they and I have already left, in our minds. Communion is effectively broken within the USA, not simply impaired.   What are we hoping for?   We hope for a complete restructuring of the Anglican Communion in the USA. ECUSA must be declared no longer Anglican (with the hope of repentance and restoration). We seek recognition and support as we seek to continue to be loyal to Christ, the Scriptures, the Creeds and the Anglican formularies as they are adhered to by most of the rest of the Anglican Communion.   Ideally our congregation would affiliate with some continuing Anglican community such as the Anglican Communion Network. It would then remain largely intact, stay in its buildings and continue its ministry in the local and larger community. We would hope to continue to be in communion with our bishop whom we support and love.   In the absence of such a solution the 52 families above mentioned are likely to leave. They are likely either simply to disperse to other denominations and churches or to leave and form a new church entity. That new church would seek to be in communion with some part of what may be left of the Anglican Communion. I say the latter because it is clear to me that a numerical majority of the Anglican Communion has clearly indicated that they would not tolerate continued communion with ECUSA's leadership. ECUSA's disdain of the rest of the Communion is legendary. The likelihood of the breakup of the Anglican Communion is clear if no action is taken to discipline ECUSA. Certainly this congregation's future would be in doubt.   Why not reconciliation?   For the last twenty years in which I have been involved in dialog on either a local or national level there has been one goal. That goal has been the conversion from a biblical, orthodox and traditional view into a more liberal and revisionist one. Coupled with this we have seen increasingly intolerant and totalitarian rule by bishops who bring all their canonical authority to intimidate and force out clergy and congregations whose only "sin" is to conform to the doctrine and teachings of Scripture and the Anglican Communion at large. Dialog effectively ended on November 2, 2003.   ECUSA has not simply made decisions that separate it from the Anglican Communion, but ECUSA has steadily been moving away from doctrines of apostolic and biblical salvation in favor of a gospel of affirmation that is married to the spirit of the age and enforced by a type of canonical fundamentalism and tyranny. Those clergy who seek with diligence "to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's Word" risk discipline deposition if they speak or act contrary to the will of their tyrannical and monarchical bishop. Many have already left ECUSA for alternate Anglican communities - often at great personal cost.   Those of us who remain have one hope left. It is to be given a choice, to remove to another church entity, preferably in communion with Canterbury. We desire to keep our churches intact because we are a local manifestation of the body of Christ and we do not wish it "by schisms rent asunder."   This has nothing to do simply with property. It is because to leave our church building would be an impossible wrench for many in the flock. The connections are not simply theological or doctrinal they are family connections. In our congregation it is not unusual to see four generations of one family in the pew. Not to both discipline ECUSA (always with the hope of repentance and restoration) and to give our people a choice as to where to go will be to abandon us.   So far as ECUSA goes it is as fragmented as Humpty Dumpty. So far as this priest and this congregation is concerned we are first Christian and second Anglican. The leadership of ECUSA has abandoned us. I know that this congregation is but a tiny part of the Anglican Communion. We treasure it and beg you not to abandon our hopes or us.   The Rev'd Ian Montgomery, FCA, LLB, DMin is Rector, St. Thomas, Menasha, Wisconsin.

News Analysis   By David W. Virtue   Voters in Missouri have given a resounding thumbs up to an amendment (2) to the state constitution banning gay marriage. By doing so they served notice that similar proposed bans in other states could be difficult to defeat.   The Missouri Constitution will now state that "to be valid and recognized in this state a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman." The vote was over 70% in favor. The Christian voters turned out in record numbers, said a Virtuosity subscriber.   Vicky Hartzler, a spokeswoman for the Coalition to Protect Marriage in Missouri. "This is a message of the heart, and here in the Heartland, we value marriage. I'm very gratified and encouraged and thankful that the people of this state understand our current policy's a wise public policy and they want to see it protected from a legal challenge," she said.   The wide margin is especially noteworthy given that the Democrats outnumbered the Republicans at the polls Tuesday, as a result of the hotly contested Democratic gubernatorial primary, opined the Post-Dispatch.   In an ironic twist, pro-gay rights forces spent nearly $400,000 in donations, most of it gathered through house parties in St. Louis and Kansas City while supporters of the gay marriage ban raised little less than $10,000 -- relying instead on dozens of church congregations to carry the message via newsletters and announcements from the pulpit.   But the Episcopal Bishop of Missouri, George Wayne Smith urged voters to vote against Amendment 2 in an Op-Ed article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, saying it would continue to marginalize gays and lesbians and make them unwelcome in their neighborhoods. "I ask you with equal fervor to eschew hatred."   He wrote: "The body politic receives no good fortune in the opportunity to cast a vote on this divisive issue. Human sexuality has become a wedge issue in American society, used deftly at times by those on both sides of the issue. Forcing a 'yes' or 'no' vote divides even further an already polarized electorate. I write as someone whose Church has faced divisions in the aftermath of a vote on human sexuality one year ago. I am not eager to vote one more time on this matter, but I am even less eager to give into the power of a wedge issue.   "Second, there is the witness from gay and lesbian persons in our communities, and from gay and lesbian believers in my own Church. The prospect of Amendment 2 leaves them with an ill foreboding. It gives them a message of unwelcome in their own neighborhoods. It makes them feel marginally less safe; some even feel considerably less safe."   Smith said they hear that the Amendment is supposed somehow to protect marriage; they know, however, that it is really about them.   Bishop Smith has it all wrong. The notion that gay safety or "hatred" is an issue, is a complete fiction.   There are gays in most every neighborhood in America and they live at peace with their neighbors.   It is as much a fiction as orthodox rabbis who screamed that Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ" would result in violent anti-Semitic outbreaks in America and Jews being killed. It never happened.   It is as much a fiction that Episcopal sodomites constantly scream "they are trying to kill us," whenever some orthodox rector timidly stands up and says gay behavior is wrong and gets yelled at for being homophobic. It's a fiction. It has never happened. No one has ever tried to kill Louie Crew, or Otis Charles, or Gene Robinson or Kim Byham or Michael Hopkins.   It is the same fiction that led V. Gene Robinson and Frank Griswold to wear flak jackets at Robinson's consecration - the fear being that some right wing "fundamentalist" Episcopal rector was waiting in the bleachers with a high-powered rifle to kill them. It never happened. It was a fiction. In fact in three known cases, orthodox priests including a Nigerian priest was attacked by pro-sodomite gangs following the consecration.   No. All the citizens of the State of Missouri wanted to do was say something that is as old as Western Civilization itself, and that is that marriage shall be confined to a man and a woman, no exceptions.   The feel-your-pain nonsense of Bishop Smith, based on absolutely no scientific or empirical evidence is precisely why the Episcopal Church is in trouble.   And it is why the bishop has one parish in his diocese, The Church of the Good Shepherd with its feisty Evangelical rector the Rev. Paul Walter, willing to go all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States to test the Dennis Canon, to keep his people and property from his revisionist clutches. He and his parish eschew the Robinson consecration and same-sex blessings.   Now that the people of the state have spoken, let's hope the local courts have the good sense, to heed the priest's pleas, "to go in peace to love and serve the Lord."

By Matt Franck Of the Post-Dispatch   Tuesday, Aug. 03 2004   Missouri voters gave resounding approval to an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage, putting the nation on notice that similar proposed bans in other states could be difficult to defeat.   The Missouri Constitution will now state that "to be valid and recognized in this state a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman."   They're words that gay marriage opponents like Vicky Hartzler have wanted for years -- but particularly after judges in Massachusetts ruled to legalize same-sex unions.   "I think that Missouri values have spoken," said Hartzler, a spokeswoman for the Coalition to Protect Marriage in Missouri. "This is a message of the heart, and here in the Heartland, we value marriage."   Early returns showed the ban winning by a ratio of more than 2-to-1. Missouri's vote on the amendment has attracted nationwide interest from people on both sides of the issue. The state is the first to vote on the matter this election season, with seven set to follow suit by November.   State constitutions have become the battleground of the gay marriage debate, after an anti-gay marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution failed in the Senate last month. Hartzler said Missouri -- which has a reputation as a bellwether state -- had sent a message with its vote.   The wide margin may be especially noteworthy given that the Democrats outnumbered the Republicans at the polls Tuesday, as a result of the hotly contested Democratic gubernatorial primary.   Opponents of the gay marriage ban said they were discouraged by the results but proud of their campaign.   "We stepped up to the challenge and organized ourselves," said Doug Gray, who headed an anti-amendment campaign for the Constitution Defense League. "We moved this debate forward."   Opponents of the amendment had hoped that a blitz of television ads in the days before the primary would change public opinion.   The campaign was fueled by nearly $400,000 in donations, most of it gathered through house parties in St. Louis and Kansas City. Supporters of the gay marriage ban raised little for their cause -- less than $10,000 -- relying instead on dozens of church congregations to carry the message via newsletters and announcements from the pulpit.   But values appeared to beat dollars at the ballot box. The success of the gay marriage ban may have been tied to the failed amendment to approve a casino in Rockaway Beach. There, too, voters rejected a well-funded advertising campaign. At the polls, many voters like St. Louis firefighter Steve Pappageorge said they turned out specifically to make a statement against both gay marriage and gambling.   "I guess I'm a little old-fashioned on that kind of thing," said Pappageorge, who voted for the gay marriage ban.   Amendment opponents like Gray said he believed Missourians would have defeated the ban if the advertising campaign had more time. The television spots emphasized that Missouri already had a law banning same-sex marriage. Some voters said they looked at the ballot and didn't see a need for the marriage ban.   "They have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us married people," said Brian Diehl, of Robertsville, who has been married 43 years and has five children. "My wife's going to be unhappy with me saying that."   Four other states -- Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska and Nevada -- have passed constitutional bans on same-sex marriage.   Now that voters have added such a ban to Missouri's Constitution, leaders from national gay rights organizations say they have their work cut out for them fighting similar ballot initiatives this fall.   "I think we'll definitely have an uphill battle," said Seth Kilbourn, national field coordinator for Human Rights Watch, which spent $60,000 attempting to defeat the Missouri amendment. "But I do think we'll have more time in other states to educate voters and talk about what the amendments are really about."   Florence Shinkle and Michelle Munz contributed to this report.   Reporter Matthew Franck E-mail: mfranck@post-dispatch.com Phone: 573-635-6178

By Terry Mattingly   EDITOR'S NOTE: The first of two columns.   No Tony Campolo sermon would be complete without his pulpit-shaking gestures of inspiration and exasperation, punctuating litanies of not-so-subtle digs at U.S. foreign policy, Hollywood, Wall Street and the Religious Right.   As he ended one recent oration, the sociologist, urban activist and evangelical gadfly fell to his knees, hands raised to heaven.   "I believe Americans must heed this call and turn away from our wicked ways," said Campolo, who made headlines counseling President Bill Clinton. "We need to turn away from sexual promiscuity, turn away from the consumeristic materialism, turn away from our failure to pay attention to what we have done collectively to poor and weak peoples around the world..."   "Then, let our prayer be that God will hear from heaven, forgive our sins and heal our land."   Many of the faithful said "amen," lifted their hands or made the sign of the cross.   Then Campolo froze for a moment, as an hourglass icon hovered in the Romanesque arches of the Church of Fools, the world's first 3D, interactive, virtual church.   This kind of thing happens when traffic jams the Internet.   The computer-generated "avatar" looked like Campolo and he was delivering a Campolo sermon entitled "Why Many People in the World Hate America." But Campolo was not controlling his own computer image, since the site's webmasters were not sure he could master the technology needed to preach online -- line by line, gesture by gesture.   Actually, Campolo was at a clergy conference in St. Simons Island, Ga. But he stayed on the telephone with his Philadelphia office staff, which communicated with the Church of Fools in Liverpool, England, through an online instant-messaging program, while one of the site's creators controlled the "pixilated preacher." The question-and-answer session was especially tricky.   "I wanted Tony to be animated, because that's the way he is -- live," said Stephen Goddard. "I have known him for years and I know his gestures and style. I was sure I could get our Tony to preach like the real Tony."   The experimental site -- www.ChurchofFools.com -- opened its doors on May 11, with help from the Methodist Church of Great Britain and others. The pilot project ends this weekend (Aug. 8) and the future is uncertain. Goddard said he is confident they can keep the doors open -- but not as often. The Church of England is also poised to open a digital church of some kind.   So far, volunteers have donated the time and expertise needed to create and run Church of Fools, with most of its $30,000 budget being used to purchase the bandwidth needed for interactive services. Goddard said the goal is to raise $300,000 to cover the next three years and to expand -- hopefully including churches in America, China and elsewhere.   It is hard to picture what happens in a "virtual church" without images on a screen. At any one time, 35 worshippers can sign in and create characters that stand, sit or kneel. They can whisper or talk to nearby worshippers, slip into the church crypt for discussions or linger at icons in prayer. Another 1,500 can take part as silent ghosts. Campolo packed the pews.   Participants sang along as the organ played through their speakers, typing phrases from the hymns that seemed meaningful. During the July 28th service, one warden led the global flock in prayer, giving thanks for computers, satellites, bloggers, online friendships and their virtual church.   "Help us to use our networks to do good things," she said, "to act justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with you, our God, and to be good neighbors online and off."   One thing visitors cannot do is jump the virtual altar rail. Early on, an avatar called "Satan" stormed the pulpit and cursed the Anglican bishop of London. That wasn't cricket. Wardens now have the power to smite the rowdy.   "It only took a day or two to discover that there are lots of people who could not resist the chance to scream 'wanker!' in a church sanctuary," said Goddard. "Actually, all that cursing was a good sign. It told us that we didn't have the usual holy club in the pews. This wasn't going to be just another safe Christian crowd."   NEXT WEEK: Is an online church a "real" church?   Terry Mattingly ( www.tmatt.net ) teaches at Palm Beach Atlantic University and is senior fellow for journalism at the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities. He writes this weekly column for the Scripps Howard News Service.

On Thursday, August 5, lay leaders in the Episcopal Church will launch an initiative geared to and for Anglican laity in North America. SPEAK OUT! is designed to mobilize, encourage and equip laity to communicate their deep concerns regarding the crisis in the Church in the US and Canada.   Fueled primarily through a new website -- www.anglicanlaity.net , the initiative asks laity to commit to pray, write letters to primates of the Anglican communion, register online and recruit at least two other individuals to participate in the endeavor. The website is being launched on the first anniversary of the August 5, 2003 Episcopal General Convention vote confirming the election of an actively homosexual bishop.   SPEAK OUT! is being coordinated by Diane L. Knippers, President of the Institute on Religion and Democracy and Cynthia P. Brust, Director of Communications for the American Anglican Council; they are joined by an advisory team of lay leaders from across the country.   "We lay people must find our voice and speak out," said Diane Knippers. "We have been excluded from important discussions, such as when the bishops went behind closed doors to craft their Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO) plan. The laity must not abdicate their great responsibility to hold their priests and bishops accountable to church teaching. Now is the time," Knippers said.   Despite faithful and bold stances by some orthodox clergy, they have been limited by pressure from their bishops, fear of legal action and intimidation tactics. "Unlike clergy, laity can speak to these issues without fear of reprisals," explained Cynthia Brust. "We are encouraging Anglicans to break the virtual silence that has gripped us. To my knowledge, this is the first effort to organize Anglican laity in North America, and I anticipate a significant response."   The website text first and foremost focuses on "speaking out": "At a time when God's people should be speaking forthrightly, creatively, courageously and openly to one another, the discussion has been muted, hidden and fearful....It is time for laity to insist that the future of our churches not be determined by clergy behind closed doors....Ultimately, it is the laity who will decide whether or not to assent to or reject novel doctrines and practices."   In addition, the website will offer resources such as sample prayers and letters, speeches and a calendar of events as well as recommendations on how laity can take action. SPEAK OUT! is particularly interested in targeting students and young adults.   For more information, please visit the website ( www.anglicanlaity.net ) or contact Mrs. Knippers or Mrs. Brust.

By David W. Virtue | Special Report ALEXANDRIA — The first ALPHA conference to be held on Arab soil took place in March with more than 300 church leaders participating from numerous countries across the region, according to Alpha News, the official news organ of Alpha. The occasion was hosted by the Anglican Bishop of Egypt and North Africa, Dr. Mouneer Anis, who told the conference, "This Alpha course is a tool in the hand of the Holy Spirit to transform lives — many, many lives." "The Alpha course can reach nominal Christians who don't go to any church in Egypt. Try it, and it will bear fruit." The Anglican bishop warned church leaders that welcoming newcomers may lead to tough choices for existing congregations. "When you start Alpha, youth will come to your church. They will come with their problems. They will come with clapping and noise." The bishop said it was worth it. "If you have new people, we have to open our arms to them. We need to leave space for them in our worship." A Christian youth leader in Alexandria, Mikhail Farid Wahby, said he was greatly encouraged by Bishop Mouneer three years ago to implement Alpha. "I can say that every time we ran an Alpha course, it's a real blessing. Don't put obstacles in your way before you start — just start and you will learn from that point." A team from Holy Trinity, Brompton, the home of Alpha, included Nicky Gumbel and assistant pastor Archie Coates.

By Bonnie J. Fisco You scramble to agree on an Oversight Plan that will enable you to stay in the Episcopal Church. You have identified yourself as "conservative." Well, I ask you this — would Jesus or Paul or Peter or any one of the apostles describe themselves as "conservative"? The church of Jesus Christ is militant, opposing the enemies of God in constant spiritual warfare. The sin of the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church far exceeds the single issue of ordaining a homosexual Bishop. This is a manifestation of its most egregious sin, which is its lack of faith. The Church is willing to revise the truth for the sake of unity. The Episcopal Church is puffed up and proud about what it is doing. It is lifted up by tolerance, prideful about its inclusivity. The Church has revised and interpreted scripture that has sustained us and fed us for thousands of years. She has arrogantly challenged His word with as much deceit and cunning as Satan when he said to Adam and Eve, "Yea, Hath God said ye shall not?" And to my beloved brethren, I say this: you make haste to negotiate a Delegated Episcopal Oversight (DEPO) but fail to see that you already have the most excellent and perfect oversight — He is among you now. The one who shed His blood on Calvary's hill is the Bishop and Shepherd of our souls. Cannot the same God that called you to belong to Him lead you onward to your eternal home? This is FAITH: action, based upon belief, sustained by confidence. It is my most heartfelt prayer that you will quickly acknowledge the oversight that you already have in Christ Jesus, trust Him with your whole being and let Him lead you out from among them. Bonnie J. Fisco has attended Christ & The Epiphany Church in East Haven, CT since 1997. — END —

By Bucky Chapman | Rome News-Tribune Staff Writer | 07/30/04 Imagine walking into an Episcopal Church and seeing kids learning how to pray to Allah. Kids and adults got the chance to learn about different faiths this week at St. Peter's Episcopal Church in Rome during Vacation Bible School with a twist. This year the church taught their members, and members of other congregations, about other faiths and how they relate to Christianity. The World Peace Village looked at Islam on Thursday night. The week-long event also investigated Buddhism, Native American beliefs, Hinduism, Judaism and briefly touched on Christianity. "It's a study to promote peace and understanding and tolerance of other beliefs," said Wanda Hodges, coordinator of the event. Widad Akrayee, a Kurd whose family fled Northern Iraq in 1996, spoke about how many of the differences between religions are man-made. "We are all created by one God, and only one belief," she said. Rob Nash, dean of the school of religion at Shorter College, led an adult discussion. "It's been a meaningful experience for a congregation to open to other religions," said Nash, "simply for what they are, and not evangelizing but understanding." — END —