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"? Webster says conservative is "tending to oppose change." "Cautious and restrained." The church of Jesus Christ is militant, opposing the enemies of God in constant spiritual warfare. We are Christian soldiers who are not timid about carrying the cross of our Lord, Jesus Christ until He comes. And what about your frantic struggle to obtain "Alternate Oversight" so that you can remain in the Episcopal Church that has become exceedingly corrupt over the past years. 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, pleased with itself for celebrating and accepting that which God has clearly revealed is disgusting to His own heart. 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?" But in the Episcopal Church and yea, even revealed in the writings of Archbishop Rowan Williams, there is no toleration for the Word of God. Its "Inclusivity" has left TRUTH knocking at its door and it cannot get in. There is no celebration or joy over a loving and committed relationship with Scripture. There is no acceptance of the New Covenant, and Scripture is no longer exalted and extolled as being the absolute and unchanging Word of God. And to my beloved brethren, I say this: "Scramblers" — you make haste to negotiate a Delegated Episcopal Oversight (DEPO) but fail to see and perceive 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 and He is our oversight. You scramble for Alternate Oversight in order to keep your place in the Anglican Communion which has become as a "harlot." Your faith is misplaced. You are putting your trust in a DEPO Plan while you ignore what is already yours. And, again, when asked why you don't leave the Episcopal Church, you say: "Where would I go?" Don't you trust the same God that leads you each day? Cannot God bring you to another place? What about Abram when God called him out of the land of Ur to a place He would show him? What about Noah when he and his family closed the doors on the ark and they didn't know where they would be going? Can you identify with the souls that went before you and never lived to see the promise, but left their homes and families to follow Christ and the commandment of the Father? Do you trust Him who is able to deliver you and keep you? This is FAITH. (Action, based upon belief, sustained by confidence.) Shouldn't you be more terrified about where you would STAY? Don't be afraid of where you'll go. Be of good courage. Bonnie J. Fisco has attended Christ & The Epiphany Church in East Haven, CT since 1997. She recently left the church with a number of other Episcopalians two months ago and has formed a small group where they are studying the Scriptures discerning God's will for their future.

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. Kids were taught that the "Golden Rule" of treating others how you would want to be treated applies to all six religions. "The Islamic faith has respect for all religions," said Widad Akrayee, a Kurd whose family fled Northern Iraq in 1996. She was joined by her daughter-in-law, Hileen Akrayee, who showed the kids how to use a prayer rug and explained that Muslims stop to pray several times each day. Following dinner, adults attended a discussion led by Rob Nash, dean of the school of religion at Shorter College. "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." "It was a new experience," said Alexandra Carlton, 9. "It was fun hearing stories, singing songs and doing the crafts."

By Ephraim Radner As we await the Taskforce recommendations with their proposals for common life on the basis of some set of "principles," and anticipate our own diocesan convention, with its resolutions and legal articulations, the following may be of interest. I recently came across the declaration cited below. It is from the 1814 General Convention, Journal of the House of Bishops. Perhaps it is well known, and has been cited by others in the present debate, but it is the first time I have read it. Its substance seems to have some pertinence to our current discussions regarding the character of ecclesial authority within ECUSA, and the proper limits on our doctrinal and disciplinary self-understanding. It is interesting that this declaration precedes, by a long shot, the consciousness of an "Anglican Communion." It says nothing different than what is contained in our Prayer Book's 18th-century Preface; and what is recorded in the founding Conventions of our Church — that is, that the "independence" of (P)ECUSA as a church is focused solely within the realm of "civil concerns" and limits solely the imposition within the American church of the "civil" and "ecclesiastical will" of a "foreign country"; and the "independence" of the American church does not in any way touch upon the unity of "doctrine, worship, or discipline" between (P)ECUSA and the Church of England. No new argument, then; just a piece of justifying documentation for the question: are the actions of General Convention and of bishops and dioceses of this church at one with the doctrine, worship, and discipline of the Church of England? If they are not, we stand in violation of our legal identity. From the Journal of the House of Bishops, May 20th, 1814: "The following declaration was proposed and agreed to: It having been credibly stated to the House of Bishops, that on questions in reference to property devised before the Revolution, to congregations belonging to the Church of England, and to uses connected with that name, some doubts have been entertained in regard to the identity of the body to which the two names have been applied, the House think it expedient to make the declaration... that the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America is the same body heretofore known in these States by the name of the 'Church of England'; the change of name, although not in religious principle, in doctrine, or in worship, or in discipline, being induced by a characteristic of the Church of England, supposing the independence of Christian Churches, under the different sovereignties to which, respectively, their allegiance in civil concerns belongs."

By David W. Virtue ABUJA, NIGERIA — 7/30/2004 The Primate of the Anglican Church of Nigeria has written a scathing letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury blasting the appointment of the new general secretary for the Anglican Consultative Council, Irish-born Canon Kenneth Kearon. In a stiffly worded letter to Dr. Rowan Williams and all the Primates and Moderators of the Anglican Communion, The Most Revd. Peter Akinola wrote saying he was "disappointed at the action that fails to take cognizance of the feelings and yearnings of those of us in the global south." "You will recall that when the Primates met in a private session at the Primates' Meeting, Gramado, Brazil, I expressed the view of many of us with regards to how the ACC secretariat was staffed." The Primates have been deeply suspicious of outgoing general secretary Canon John Peterson for his liberal views. The Global South Primates have wanted an orthodox leader of the Anglican Communion Office that reflected more their views. In his letter to Williams, Akinola said that he asked the Archbishop of Canterbury why the staff at the new global headquarters so poorly represented the wider Anglican Communion of the South. "Anytime you see any non-Western face at the Secretariat, he is either an intern or an office errand boy or a copy typist! It is vital that we have staff, at the most senior as well as junior levels, which represent the viewpoint of the Global South of the church," he wrote. "We see in this latest appointment that nothing has changed and that what we thought and believe to be a world-wide Communion is actually now being portrayed to be no more than 'western section communion.'" The Nigerian Primate said he had nothing against the person of the man so appointed. "My grouse is with the system that continues to fail to reckon with the fact that this Church and its structure is no longer the exclusive preserve of any section of the western world. You cannot continue to marginalize and treat as irrelevant a very large section of the Anglican Communion and continue to expect that section for which you have no regard to be happy in the fellowship." Virtuosity has learned that the new ACC general secretary's views on homosexuality more closely parallel those of outgoing Canon John Peterson than those of the Global South bishops and Primates. In an interview with the BBC in Northern Ireland, Canon Kearon refused to commit himself when pressed for his views on homosexuality. "They wanted me to commit myself on the issue of sexuality, but I refused," he said. "People thought there were simple yes-and-no answers about it, but the deeper you get into it, the more complex the issues are. It really is a painful issue on all sides of the debate." He did not publicly repudiate homosexual behavior, a failure that could rebound on both him and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Dr. Williams has said publicly that he is delighted with the appointment: "Canon Kearon will bring to this post a superb knowledge of the worldwide church and invaluable experience, especially in the field of church and community relationships and in mediation and conflict resolution."

By David W. Virtue News Analysis — HARTFORD, CT — 7/30/2004 Four orthodox clergy in the Diocese of Connecticut whose parishes have taken part in a 6-parish joint request for DEPO have appeared before Bishop Andrew Smith in response to a "pastoral directive." Three have been told that "canonical initiatives" will be forthcoming unless some resolution is achieved with respect to their differences with the bishop. The three who received implied threats from the bishop are the Revds. Christopher Leighton, rector of St. Paul's, Darien, one of the largest charismatic churches in the Episcopal Church USA, Allyn Benedict, rector of Christ Church, Watertown, and Dr. Mark Hansen, rector of St. John's Church, Bristol. The rectors of two other parishes taking part in the joint DEPO request are also under potential discipline from the bishop, having received the same pastoral directive from Bishop Smith via certified letter. The Rev. Christopher Leighton met one-on-one with the bishop for 35 minutes and described their talk as "frank." "He wanted to make sure I understood that the relationship of the six churches to him cannot continue at the 'impasse'. He sees only three possibilities for us. The first is that we will leave. The second is that we will stay, and accept his form of DEPO. And the third is that we do nothing, thinking that nothing will happen, but that he will take canonical initiatives against the clergy and their churches." Fr. Leighton said he listened and then responded, making clear that St. Paul's had no intention of leaving the Diocese or the Episcopal Church. Fr. Allyn Benedict of Christ Church Watertown also met with the bishop. "Bishop Smith began by saying that he has heard our process described as an impasse and it must not stay that way. Something's got to give. We can't go on with no relationship at all. He said he wants DEPO to work but he cannot meet our demands within the Constitution and Canons of the Church." The bishop emphasized that he will not in any way deal with AAC because they have a theological and global agenda. The Rev. Mark Hansen, the last rector to meet with Bishop Smith, expressed concern over the bishop's "precisely worded invocation of the phrase 'canonical initiatives' in connection with the consequences of a continued failure to resolve the current impasse." In a phone call to Virtuosity, Hansen said he was not hopeful that anything could ultimately be worked out with the bishop, as "there are too many crucial issues in our joint DEPO request that the bishop simply is not willing to consider for discussion." "Our real hope comes from the Lord," Hansen concluded. "We are looking forward to what the Lambeth Commission comes up with in October to provide real and lasting assurances that our freedom of conscience to obey scripture will remain intact, not only for us, but for all biblically orthodox parishes in North America. I see no possibility outside of a major realignment." NOTE: If you are not receiving this from VIRTUOSITY, the Anglican Communion's largest biblically orthodox Episcopal/Anglican Online News Service, then you may subscribe FREE by going to: www.virtuosityonline.org .

By Uwe Siemon-Netto, UPI Religious Affairs Editor News Analysis — PARIS, July 30 (UPI) For all the talk about the Americans' descent into secularism and postmodern confusion, their Judeo-Christian values in key areas seem to be rock-solid, a new survey showed. Only 18 percent of all adults favor the removal of signs listing the Ten Commandments from public buildings, as recently happened at the Alabama Supreme Court, according to a poll taken by the Barna Research Group in Ventura, CA. This seems to run counter the "breathtakingly uniform universalist" worldview of leading media personalities, a uniformity recently bemoaned by Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., during a recent Pew Forum event in religion and public life in Washington. Souder defined this worldview as one considering "all the great religions of the world equally true and good," as opposed to the "particularist" position such as his own, which affirms Christianity as the one true faith. "Universalists often intimidate, mock and condescend to particularists," he went on. The Ten Commandments are of course part of the Judeo-Christian scriptures. Yet even 32 percent of non-Christians and even 45 percent of atheists and agnostics oppose their removal from public buildings, the Barna Group reported. The groups most supportive of their removal were Asian immigrants (48 percent), adults under the age of 35 and college graduates (25 percent each), men (23) and Hispanics (21 percent). Amazingly, the figure for Roman Catholics opposed to the public display of the Commandments is identical to that of the adult population at large — 18 percent — and thus considerably higher than that of Protestants (6 percent) and higher even than that of "notional Christians" (16 percent). The Rev. Gerald E. Murray, pastor of St. Vincent de Paul Catholic parish in Manhattan and a prominent canon lawyer, finds this result "troubling." He told United Press International, "This shows that a lot of Catholics have bought into the fallacious notion that one must not give offense to anyone." Other results of the Barna survey seem to confirm this impression, at least in part. On the issue of whether the words "In God We Trust" should be taken off the U.S. currency, 15 percent of Catholics polled said "yes," compared with only 13 percent of the national average, 12 percent of the notional Christians, four percent of the Protestants and a mere 1 percent of evangelicals. "On balance," commented pollster George Barna, "the research shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans want Christian values and symbols to prevail, although most people stop short of declaring the U.S. to be a Christian society." Uwe Siemon-Netto, Ph.D., DLitt is UPI Religious Affairs Editor.

By Cyntha Brust, AAC Communications Director Two stories have surfaced in the last two weeks about the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA). On the surface, they may appear unrelated, but closer examination raises a number of questions about the future of ECUSA. On July 19, 2004, the Rt. Rev. John Lipscomb, Bishop of Southwest Florida, announced in a letter posted to the diocesan website that he had been invited to be part of a "team" visiting several provinces in East Africa. He will be joined by the Rt. Rev. Ted Daniels, assistant bishop of the Diocese of Texas and the Very Rev. Titus Presler, Dean of the Seminary of the Southwest. The letter does not define who issued the invitation, but does note that they are traveling with "the full knowledge and support of our Presiding Bishop." According to Bishop Lipscomb's letter, the trip is scheduled for July 19 — August 2, 2004. The focus of the trip appears to center on attempts toward reconciliation with African provinces and dioceses that have decried the decisions of General Convention 2003 and subsequent actions of ECUSA. To date, twenty-one Anglican provinces have declared either impaired or broken communion with ECUSA. The letter from Bishop Lipscomb reads in part: "Why are we making this journey? There can be no question that we are at a crossroads as members of the Anglican Communion. Sustained conversation between the leaders of our various provinces is critical. Our decisions and actions in the United States have created a situation in which we struggle with what it means to live in strained or impaired communion with many of those who have been our partners in mission." The timing of this trip — just 2 months before the Lambeth Commission is expected to issue its report to the Archbishop of Canterbury — is significant. It seems ECUSA's leadership has suddenly backed away from its position that the worldwide Anglican Communion's outrage does not matter. For years, orthodox leaders have sought the counsel of the Global South and nurtured relationships with leaders in those regions. Is ECUSA now willing to acknowledge that their unilateral actions have gravely damaged the Anglican Communion? Have they accepted the fact that the autonomy argument they have used for a year is invalid at best? Will their attempts at reconciliation include repentance? Who planned this trip, and who is funding it? In a surprising development, the Chief Operating Officer of the Episcopal Church Center announced the resignation, effective immediately, of Daniel B. England as Director of Communication. The announcement was not only unexpected and abrupt, but also offered few details. The first and most obvious question is, "Why?" ECUSA is in the midst of a dire crisis, and the Director of Communication suddenly resigns for undefined "personal reasons." It is always significant when an organization in crisis loses staff in key leadership positions, but this case is particularly curious. In March of this year, Dan England unveiled a new communications strategy to ECUSA's Executive Council. The clear, strong and consistent message crafted by Mr. England since then has been two-fold: "All is well" within ECUSA and the reaction of orthodox Episcopalians as well as the Global South should be disregarded. Does Mr. England's resignation signal an acknowledgement that the approach chosen by ECUSA has proven ineffective, unsuccessful or even a complete failure? In other words, is the Episcopal Church leadership actually in serious disarray, and can ECUSA no longer afford to denigrate the voice of the Communion? As these two situations are considered together, once again questions must be asked: What is going on behind the scenes in ECUSA? Is the leadership divided? Do they expect a decidedly unfavorable report from the Lambeth Commission and are attempting damage control at the eleventh hour? Time will tell.

By Cheryl H. White, Ph.D. "He that holds not the unity of the Church, does he believe that he holds the faith? He who strives against and resists the Church, is he confident that he is in the Church?" — St. Cyprian of Carthage, Third Century In the above text, St. Cyprian is writing about the episcopal office — the bishop — and his duty to represent the unity of the Body of Christ. I have been reminded of these words repeatedly in the past months, and today, when the latest discussions arising from the divisiveness within the Episcopal Church reverberates again, not surprisingly, with a lack of understanding or appreciation for history. In addition to those who have attempted to justify the consecration of the first openly gay bishop, we now have among us those who are questioning if the office of bishop is really even necessary. After all, the office represents an outdated hierarchy, or so a current argument suggests. So here is issued yet another call upon history and tradition to shed light on our present circumstance. The early Church insisted upon the episcopacy as a means of administering the growing church catholic and preserving a common orthodoxy. St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing at the end of the first century, told the faithful that no Eucharist or Baptism could be performed if the bishop was not present. Therefore, the bishop was constitutive of the Church itself — the visible Body of Christ was represented in that consecrated office, as guardians of the Apostolic teaching. St. Ignatius urged bishops to be "inseparable from Jesus Christ and the ordinance of the Apostles." Interestingly, St. Ignatius also observed that to impair the unity of the Church by false teaching and separatism was to cut oneself off from the Passion and the sacramental life of the Church. Is there a modern lesson to be found among the Fathers? We should take note of the emphasis that the early Church placed on the seemingly simple concept of unity. By the second century, there apparently were concerns about the spiritual condition necessary to hold the office, as we find more emphasis among the Fathers on the conduct of bishops. St. Cyprian wrote that the bishop, his sacrifices and prayers, were effectual only as long as "he remains faithful and leads a holy life." The bishop, according to St. Cyprian, was the successor of the Apostles, and hence a legitimate teacher of that tradition, and he stressed again that the bishops themselves represent the unity to be enjoyed within the whole Body of Christ. Notably, St. Cyprian points out that the unity of the Church rests upon the divine election which bishops have in common as successors of the Apostles, and illuminated that thought by saying this unity was manifested in "united conferences and mutual recognition." If the unity of the Church is expressed, as St. Cyprian suggests, in the idea of "united conferences and mutual recognition," then what of a bishop who stands apart from that? Does that bishop truly embrace his episcopal office in its fullest and most historic sense? A survey of the early Church demonstrates that the office of bishop was never intended to be a forum for the expression of individualism, since unity always logically depends on being in concert with others. In light of these patristic teachings, the communion of bishops, not individual bishops alone, constitute the authority of the whole Church. With this logic in mind, St. Cyprian is clearly saying that there is no place for autonomy among bishops of the church catholic and apostolic, because ignoring the greater need of unity is incongruous with the very essence of the episcopacy. If the very essence of Christian unity requires the common consent of the greater communion of the faithful, then we indeed face troubles today of historic and epic proportions. Clearly, the Episcopal Church and the greater Anglican Communion has been divided, not united, over recent developments. Our church has grown only more polarized and more sharply defined into camps of "conservatives" or "revisionists." To end our division requires identifying the issue that precipitated our crisis and resolving that issue in light of the responsibilities of the episcopal office. Yes, the bishops of Africa, Asia and Australia definitely have a voice in the recent developments within the Episcopal Church of the United States — any provincial political autonomy we might enjoy does not imply independence from other bishops who represent the majority of the worldwide communion. In the broader sense, the argument could be made that not only do Anglican bishops of the world have a voice in our affairs, so do Roman Catholic bishops and Eastern Orthodox bishops, as claimants of the same historic and consecrated office now in question. The question begs: how can one legitimately claim to be a bishop if he pursues a modern agenda that so clearly divides us? Surely any bishop who does not embrace the core belief of the historic episcopal tradition has assumed his authority at the expense of unity. Whatever form future rhetoric in this debate may take, there is one logical conclusion that surely all can agree upon — what divides us cannot unite us. It is only logical that we now look to the bishops of the greater communion to resolve our crisis — for they are indeed the historic guardians of comprehensive Christian unity. Dr. Cheryl White is a professor of history at Louisiana State University in Shreveport. Her major fields of study are church history and the history of dogmatic theology. Dr. White's research focuses on the unique historical aspects of early Anglicanism. She currently serves on the Vestry of St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Shreveport.

By Bert Herlong From the Jul/Aug 2004 issue of the Cross and Crozier It is not news to anyone that there continues to be significant fallout and disruption in the Episcopal Church from the actions of the 74th General Convention. Laity and clergy are continuing to react in ways that demonstrate their dissatisfaction. Then, of course, there is an equal and opposite reaction by those who disagree with them, contributing to the continuing unrest. We do have a basic theological split in the church and the convention decisions have produced a polarization that leaves no middle ground. There seems to be an ever-widening gap between the two positions. No matter which side you are on, one cannot deny the crisis in our church. I have frequently been asked if there are any good things happening in the church these days in light of the General Convention actions. I see four distinct things happening in the Diocese of Tennessee and from my conversations with other bishops, I have reason to believe that they are happening all over our church. These are things that give me hope for the future. They are not what other parts of the Anglican Communion can or may do but what is happening right here within the American Episcopal Church. First, there is an enormous amount of energy and concern among our laity. Never in my whole life have I seen such interest, care and concern for the church. This has increased exponentially the interest, and activity of the laity in our congregations and in our diocese. Second, more and more people are reading the bible. New bible study groups are being formed and existing groups are expanding. Several of our churches have declared this "The year of the Bible." Then at what seems like just the right moment, the movie, "The Passion of the Christ" was released and brought about additional interest in the biblical story. Third, many, many people are questioning what they truly do believe. This "teachable moment" is opening new and deeper understanding of the Christian faith in our churches. Fourth, most important of all is the fact more people than ever before are praying for the church, for the clergy and people and our common mission. We hold the power to change the world and the church in our hands when they are folded in prayer. Now I am sure that there are other signs of health and vitality abroad and that many good things are happening in spite of and because of, the deep concern and anguish over the actions of the General Convention. But these four clearly and easily identified actions of our church members are enough to convince me that God is still working in our church and that there will be a resolution to the crisis that afflicts us all. If we have an energized, active and committed laity, seriously reading the Bible, studying their faith and deeply involved in prayer, there is good reason to look to the future in confidence. Ultimately, of course, I believe that God will win in the end and our job is to be faithful in the meantime. That means working and praying and giving for the work of the church in proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ. It means making disciples who make disciples, witnessing to our faith and reaching out in service to those in need. A woman here in Tennessee prayed to God, "O God, the church is hopeless, the situation is impossible." God answered, "Good, that is when I do my best work!" We all need to remember that it is God's church and God is still in charge and with God, all things are possible. The Rt. Rev. Bert Herlong is the Episcopal Bishop of the Diocese of Tennessee.

by Michael J. McManus   Ron Reagan Jr. was delighted to appear at the Democratic National Convention this week to argue for "the greatest medical breakthrough in our or in any lifetime: the use of embryonic stem cells -- cells created using the material of our own bodies to cure a wide range of fatal and debilitating illnesses: Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, lymphoma, spinal cord injuries.." "Millions are afflicted. Now, we may be able to put an end to this suffering." As he spoke, many thought of his father, President Reagan who died of Alzheimer's, a terrible debilitating illness. Assume ten years from now Reagan said, "You are diagnosed with Parkinson's disease." Your doctors "takes a few skin cells from your arm" the nucleus of which is "placed in a donor egg whose own nucleus has been removed. A bit of chemical or electrical stimulation will encourage your cell's nucleus to begin dividing, creating new cells which will then be placed into a tissue culture. Those cells will generate embryonic stem cells containing only your DNA, thereby eliminating the risk of tissue rejection.... "Those cells - with your DNA - are injected into your brain where they will replace the faulty cells...In other words, you are cured. And another thing, these embryonic stems cells could continue to replicate indefinitely and, theoretically, can be induced to recreate virtually any tissue in your body. How would you like to have your own personal biological repair kit standing by?" There are three major problems with this deceptively sunny picture. First, the "personal biological repair kit" does not exist. There is not one disease that embryonic stem cells have cured. Not one patient who has been helped. Not any success with animals. Not even embryo cells turned into adult cells. Testifying before the Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space last month, Dr. Jean Peduzzi-Nelson said, "Embryonic/fetal stem cells have the problems of overgrowth, rejection, possible disease transmission and ethical issues. Tumors have been found in experimental animals and disastrous results have been reported in two separate clinical trials using embryonic/fetal tissue/cells." You'd never know those facts from listening to Ron Reagan. The second problem is moral or ethical. What Reagan perfectly described is the way human beings can be cloned. If those cells were planted in a womb, they could develop into a baby -- likely one with grotesque deformities. Further, harvesting embryonic stem cells from human embryos causes their death. "Cloning creates new human beings who are destroyed to harvest their cells like a crop," said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. It also poses "a tremendous health hazard for women who undergo the procedure." Finally, Reagan's web of half truths intentionally neglected to note that many of diseases he mentioned HAVE been successfully treated with adult stem cells. Dr. Michel Levesque told the Senate subcommittee how he took such cells via a needle biopsy of a man's brain with advanced Parkinson's disease, treated them and injected them back into the patient. Furthermore, the patient involved, Dennis Turner, personally told the committee that in 1991 he suffered from "extreme shaking of the right side of my body and stiffness in my gait and movements." After treatment his trembling has virtually disappeared. Last month as a big game photographer, he shot cheetahs and leopards in the wild and in 2001 scrambled up a tree to avoid being run over by a Rhino. Literally hundreds of patients have already benefitted from adult stem cell treatments for multiple sclerosis whose symptoms stopped, cancer patients in remission and a person spinal cord patients who have gotten out of their wheelchairs. Laura Dominquez, 19, who was paralyzed from the neck down after an auto accident, was treated and can now walk 1,400 feet with braces. Why isn't Ron Reagan excited about this progress? It would not get him a prime time speech before the Democratic Convention. Furthermore, as Dr. Peduzzi-Nelson put it, "The best way to honor the memory and work of President Reagan is to NOT provide Federal funding for something that President Reagan, if alive today, would vehemently oppose." He testified, "The government should not finance an area of research that is not only dangerous but also viewed by many people as unethical." Ron Reagan spun myths and half truths that mislead the nation into thinking that embryonic stem cell research is a miracle around the corner. The facts point in an opposite direction. Copyright 2004 Michael J. McManus http://www.marriagesavers.org *

Submission to the Lambeth Commission from The Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) 7/29/2004   The Church of England Evangelical Council is the democratically constituted voice of Evangelical Anglicanism in England, which last autumn held a major National Evangelical Anglican Congress. CEEC is also part of the Evangelical Fellowship of the Anglican Communion and EFAC's conference in Kenya last summer made a lengthy statement on the issue before the Commission. Bishops from around the world were present at both conferences. This submission, then, has active knowledge of the thinking of national and international Anglican Evangelicalism behind it. 1. Our understanding is that this submission should be brief and focussed, and it thus runs the risk of appearing trite, uninformed or uncaring. In particular, we have not rehearsed our position on biblical interpretation, nor of appropriate pastoral guidelines for local congregations. If the Commission sees fit, we would happily expand our arguments. 2. The current crisis has been provoked particularly by the election and consecration of Gene Robinson to the Diocese of New Hampshire, but it is not limited to that. We have in mind the actions of the Diocese of New Westminster, and the decision of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada to "affirm the integrity and sanctity of committed adult same sex relationships." We also most recently have in mind the extraordinary appointment of the Reverend Canon Jeffrey John as Dean of St. Albans. In our own country this highlights the particular concerns because it was made in direct opposition to the Archbishop's request that no controversial appointments be made until the Commission has reported. It becomes another clear example of provocation by a liberal and revisionist elite on an orthodox and unsuspecting Church. It raises the problem of how the solution the Commission arrives at ought to be workable at a Diocesan as well as a Provincial level. Thus every reference to ECUSA and a Province below could and should be read as having relevance to other referents, albeit outside the strict terms of the Commission. 3. In itself this restricts the options open to the Commission, for the issue is not merely Gene Robinson, and will not be resolved by his resignation, or the declaration of his election or consecration as invalid. Whatever the merits of those actions in that case (and while the first is simply improbable, the last two are open to substantial legal challenge), they only provide a temporary solution to one aspect of the crisis. The consecration of Gene Robinson is likely to be a precedent, as the crisis in Oxford Diocese last summer showed. 4. We want the Commission to note, first, that the seriousness of this debate should not be underestimated. We are aware that for both sides the issue is salvation, and that the two understandings of the meaning of salvation are incompatible and mutually exclusive. Our concern on this issue is therefore not fundamentally ecclesiological, sacramental, doctrinal, nor biblical, (critical though all those issues are) but pastoral, for in classic Christian teaching, homosexual actions leave the actors facing God's judgement without Christ's mediating work. Teaching which encourages such behaviour is profoundly cruel, as it encourages people to sin and, in defiance of the gospel, to call that sin an act of grace. Toleration of such teaching is equally cruel, and makes one complicit in the sins of both the actor and the teacher. This issue matters to us because people matter to us, and both heaven and hell are genuine alternative destinies. 5. A NOTE ON QUESTIONS OF JURISDICTION 5.1 Our starting-point is that the Provinces of the Anglican Communion are part of the one universal apostolic Church whose head is Jesus Christ, and that accordingly neither the Communion as a whole nor any Province within it has any power or jurisdiction either to ordain or to permit anything contrary to the will of God. 5.2 This entails that any rules, laws or practices amongst the Communion or by its constituent Provinces must be in accordance with the will of God expressed in Holy Scripture. 5.3 As part of the apostolic Church, ECUSA has no jurisdiction or power to institute the practices it has, for God has forbidden this throughout Scripture. 5.4 As part of the apostolic Church, the rest of the Communion not only has no jurisdiction or power to permit these practices, but rather has a positive duty to discipline ECUSA for the purpose of restoring it to a loving obedience her head. 5.5 Some deny that explicit legal instruments exist amongst the members of the Communion to regulate the exercise of this disciplinary jurisdiction. However, this must be challenged. First, a formal jurisdiction is necessarily implicit in the position given to Holy Scripture by the Lambeth Quadrilateral, even if it is not legally expressed. Further, any legal instruments of the separate Provinces of the Communion are subordinate only, designed to further our common life to the glory of God. They must therefore be set against the background primarily of Holy Scripture and secondly of the traditions of the Church on earth. 5.6 Such legal instruments as exist are thus a partial expression of a wider range of formal instruments, such as invitations to the Lambeth Conference, and those are in turn an expression of the authority and duty of the Church to govern itself under God's authority. 5.7 Holy Scripture and the tradition of the Church on earth alike testify to a residual jurisdiction to discipline those in error even without any explicit subordinate legal mechanism. In the case of Holy Scripture, St. Paul both rebukes his fellow apostle, and also corrects churches of which he is no longer a member. In the case of the tradition of the Church on earth, discipline has been consistently exercised even against erring bishops by those outside their sees. This is evidenced in the case of Paul of Samosata, Origen's role in the Dialogue with Heraclides, the Arian controversy, but most strikingly in Cyprian's Letter 67. Cyprian is frequently cited as upholding Diocesan or Provincial autonomy, but there he and others subordinate that consideration to the need for a wider discipline. 5.8 This residual jurisdiction cannot be revoked by desuetude, for the Church has no authority to revoke it at all. Nor can it be repudiated by the Provinces of the Communion without an implicit repudiation of their apostolic inheritance. If the objection that there are no secondary legal mechanisms for the exercise of this jurisdiction be accepted, this only entails that a range of mechanisms be forthwith be created for the purpose of the proper pastoral care of ECUSA by discipline. These may or may not include legal mechanisms. 5.9 The objection that this amounts to retrospective legislation is fallacious since the Scriptural prohibition on homosexual genital practice is clear and express, as is the historical submission of Christ's church on earth to this injunction. Similarly the existence of both Scriptural and traditional residual jurisdictions for the exercise of discipline is well-attested. Both substantive law and residual jurisdiction are therefore not being retrospectively created. ECUSA can only claim to have been either ignorant of these things, or to have disregarded them. Neither ignorance nor disregard abolish either law or jurisdiction, but go only to challenge ECUSA's claim to be authentically part of the Communion. UNWORKABLE SOLUTIONS 6. Following from point 4, those churches that have broken or suspended communion with ECUSA are therefore simply insisting on the maintenance of Biblical standards of discipline that they would apply equally to any individual within their dioceses, or to any church seeking communion with them. This is done for the eternal security of the individuals concerned. 7. We submit that tensions on this subject are running so strong internationally that either ECUSA will split further, or the Communion will split entire. Indeed we can see no alternative to that choice, and foresee that any solution which fails to take the seriousness of the charge made against ECUSA with full force, will be anything other than temporary. 8. Furthermore, we question any model which seeks to resolve the problem of two Provinces being in impaired or non-Communion by means of seeing them as only being indirectly related via their primary Communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. It would be appealing, but the logic of the orthodox means it will fail. They will be out of Communion with anyone who is in Communion with Gene Robinson, and that must include the Archbishop of Canterbury himself if the logic of Communion is followed. The only route out of that dilemma is for the Archbishop to declare himself in at least impaired Communion with ECUSA. 9. We are in frequent contact with a range of traditionalists in ECUSA, and they report considerable irritation with the rhetorical technique of being provided with a form of words to which a number of (mutually contradictory) meanings can be given or where loopholes can be found. The Commission must take pains to express itself unambiguously if it is to win the traditionalists' confidence. This is not a case where a quasi-balanced attempt to hold everyone together will succeed. 10. The rhetoric of liberalisation needs careful unpacking as well, for too often it implies that the traditionalist case is of its essence thoughtless and unreflective, a product of naive and inadequate theological depth. A good example here is the comments made by the Bishop of St Alban's in his Presidential address to his Diocesan Synod, 12th June 2004. Commenting on the response to the appointment of Jeffrey John he said, "One of the saddening features of my postbag, over the past few weeks, has been the way in which biblical texts have been used. It is not that they are quoted -- that is not the issue -- but it is as though all the thinking and study that has gone on in the Church during the twentieth century concerning the Bible has simply not been recognised." Granted that there are thoughtless and unreflective people on all sides of this argument, and we cannot comment on the Bishop's postbag, it is matter of record that at its best, the traditionalist case has been made, on numerous occasions, with considerable academic rigour and theological sophistication. 11. Similarly, traditionalists in ECUSA -- and we -- are familiar with committees which claim a theologically neutral (or theologically superior) stance from which it can see that both sides are equally at fault. We strongly repudiate that this double and equivalent fault is the case, and deny the claimed theological superiority that sees it. 12. Evidence of that technique already being in place is the equivalence being placed on (alleged) toleration of polygamy in some African Provinces, and homosexual expression in (some) Western Provinces. We urge the Commission to study the Constitutions of those African Provinces with great care before such toleration of polygamy is assumed or described. The Anglican Church of Kenya, for instance, has a lengthy description of the disciplinary procedures to be followed for a polygamist, and they are deeply offended to see their pastorally nuanced discipline wrongly described as toleration. 13. This is itself evidence of the continued bureaucratic domination in the Communion by the white West and North, despite the numerical domination of the global South. So high are feelings running over this, that we fear many think that if the Communion will not adhere to orthodoxy, and discipline members in line with its stated position, then its raison d'etre has ceased beyond being a remnant of the British Empire, and will be sloughed off with as little concern. 14. We also suggest that the technique of dealing with the two views as equivalents, imparts a spurious equality between two views which are disparate in the strength of their claims to tradition, catholicity, unity, and Scriptural interpretation. The novelty and self-consciously communion-breaking nature of the consecration of Gene Robinson must be recorded, as must its distortion of the Lambeth Quadrilateral in pitting one element, episcopacy, against the others. We note the disdain with which the Diocese of New Westminster treated the Primates' Statement. Equally, the Bishop of St Alban's has shown similar contempt for the Archbishop of Canterbury's call for calm. It is breathtaking that the Bishop can make this appointment and simultaneously expect those who oppose it to submit to his Episcopal authority as a mark of authentic Anglicanism. 15. In that some people have manipulated rightful authority to their own ends, and are enforcing those ends on others, the consecration of Gene Robinson was also an abuse of power, albeit under a democratic form, and therefore an act of ecclesiastical tyranny. By the same token, however, the refusal to offer adequate oversight for orthodox Christians thus marginalized is equally an abuse of power by the non-exercising of rightful authority. 16. The matter of justifiable Scriptural interpretation is especially critical at this point, because, as the recent report Some Issues in Human Sexuality from the English House of Bishops notes, and notwithstanding the few caveats the Report itself lists, 'the consensus of biblical scholarship still points us in the direction of the traditional reading of the biblical material' (4.4.71). 17. There is therefore no parallel with the debate over women's ordination where there are significant texts which can be used by both sides. The liberalizing case has consistently been judged a misinterpretation, by General Synod, the Lambeth Conference and the Primates' meeting in Brazil, to name but three. Therefore the means to resolve, or at least to live with the tensions caused by, women's ordination cannot be used to solve our crisis. We therefore reject any model based on a process of reception, development, emergence, or of the provision of a Second Province, and the Commission should think beyond such suggestions. 18. For all that the traditionalist case has been on occasion overstated, misstated, or expressed unlovingly or untheologically, such should not be confused with the case in itself, nor have such occasions been the normal or desired self-expression of the case. We ask the Commission to avoid caricaturing both sides by their worst expressions (or by the other side's caricatures), but instead deal with them in their most consistent and authentic forms. This will inevitably mean that the traditionalist case is described as the overwhelmingly majority voice of Anglicanism, past and present, and indeed the overwhelmingly majority voice of Christianity, past and present. We do not discern the need for a new Word from God on this subject, as we do not find any theological confusion or pastoral inadequacy in the scriptural provision. 19. Finally, we submit that a proposal based on the loosening of provincial ties and giving greater autonomy will not work. It is necessary to recognize the theological and ecclesial maturity of churches across the communion, and that they are no longer client states, but the problem is too complex for that alone to be adequate. On one level, it is simply the issue of one Province or Diocese flouting of the mind of the Communion, but it is simultaneously the question of the responsibility of the wider Communion for those within that Province or Diocese who repudiate that flouting. PROPOSAL 20. Our suggestion is that there be a reversible suspension of representatives of ECUSA from being invited to the Lambeth Conference, the Primates meeting, ACC or indeed any event where the Archbishop of Canterbury is acting in the chair. A clear exception should be made for all those who have publicly distanced themselves from the consecration of Gene Robinson, and who can rightly claim to be in communion with the majority mind of the most recent Lambeth Conference. 21. At the same moment, there should be provision of sanctioned oversight for the marginalised orthodox, and it is necessary that such oversight should be provided without the primates feeling the necessity of obtaining the permission of the Province or Diocese in question. This action is legitimate precisely because the abuse of power that has led to this crisis is illegitimate, and Provincial or Diocesan consent is unnecessary, and to a great extent undesirable, because it serves to legitimate the abusers. 22. These sanctions should come from the Primates' meeting rather than residing in the office or person of the Archbishop, since mutual discipline is a collegial matter. 23. The Primates who meet to enact this should simultaneously discuss whether there are other Provinces or Dioceses where such oversight must also be needed, with particular reference to ACC, the Diocese of New Westminster and the Diocese of St Alban's. 24. The essentially reversible nature of this is a reflection of the theology of the discipline exercised in 2 Corinthians, where the final goal is neither marginalisation nor exclusion but reconciliation. The proximate means to full reconciliation, however, is neither dialogue nor creative tension but reversible expulsion. This is consistent with Paul's expressed goal of love (2 Cor 2:8) and avoids the divisive consequences either of disobediently refusing to confront error or of denying the salvific and reconciling goal of discipline. (c) The Church of England Evangelical Council 2004 *

News Analysis By David W. Virtue   DENVER, CO. (7/28/2004)   A heated debate has erupted in the Diocese of Colorado between an orthodox priest and the head of the Diocesan Standing Committee, with charges being traded about the cause for the potential closure of two parishes reported in the secular press. According to a newspaper article in the Rocky Mountain News written by Jean Torkelson, an Episcopal parish in Jefferson County may close in January because pledges to the Episcopal Diocese of Colorado have plunged 25 percent, totaling nearly $500,000. Traditionalists say the drop in donations is meant to send a message to the bishop that he must repent of his support of same-sex blessings and practicing gay clergy in the diocese. "New Life Church has no money in the budget from the diocese for next year - zero," said the Rev. Chuck Reischman, pastor of New Life Episcopal Church on Belleview Ave. New Life stands to lose $147,000 in funding in 2005, according to an overview of the proposed budget sent last week to the diocese's standing committee by its chief financial officer, Bob Leaman. New Life is one of two "start-up" churches. The other, Briargate in Colorado Springs, faces an equal loss. Leaman laid out details of a slimmed-down $1.2 million budget last week for the Standing Committee. But Laura Schaffer, a lay woman from the Mountain Region and President of the Diocesan Standing Committee, disputed these facts and blasted the Rev. Don Armstrong, rector of Grace Church and St. Stephen's in Colorado Springs for e-mailing the article to members of the Standing Committee. Schaffer accused Torkelson's article of being full of mistakes. "If you are her contact please make sure she is at least correct in her facts," she told Armstrong. Tired of distortions by Diocesan leadership (the bishop two weeks ago denied the $500,000 short fall to the press the same day the Standing Committee received a letter from the Treasurer warning of precisely such a deficit), Armstrong shot back a note to Schaffer saying that what needs explanation is why the Standing Committee sits quietly by while failing to correct the nose dive into which the bishops have put the diocese. "You also need to get the order right here--New Life and Briargate are on the block because of the diocesan position on sexuality, not because conservatives are redirecting money in response," said Armstrong. "Alarmingly," Armstrong continued, "This short fall is not only the result of redirected funds, but also a general downturn in giving to our churches. The Episcopal Church is diminishing in size and dollars to the point that you just have to wonder--how much Bishop O'Neill is willing to sacrifice in program and ministry for practicing gay clergy and blessed homoerotic relationships?" "It looks to me from his lack of response to this question at Standing Committee that the answer is: everything, the whole church, the historic Communion, the faithful witness and sacrifice of generations, the revealed truth delivered to our children and grand children." "The question I have for Laura is: because these funds are redirected at the parishioner level, and it is not just a matter of demanding parishes to belly up in support the bishop's revisionist policies---what are you as President of the Standing Committee going to do to get O'Neill to reverse his policies and permitted practices that the diocese might recapture those redirected funds from parishioners who simply will not support these innovations?" "This is the Standing Committee's responsibility--and to date we seem to be neglectful in protecting the program and ministry of our diocese from the bishop's unpopular stances and actions." Schaffer responded to Armstrong saying, "I am praying that the Holy Spirit guide all of us to open our hearts and minds to what God wants us to do. It certainly isn't my place to tell the Bishop what to do as it is not yours. I don't need to remind you that he is your BISHOP. Several months ago you told the press your donation to the Diocese would be $100,000 if it had not been for the election of V Gene. If that is correct ask your members that are withholding their $ to send them to New Life that will be plenty to help them over the next year." Retorted Armstrong: "Long before New Life and Briargate became political hot potatoes, my parishioners, in response to the Bishop's stated position on human sexuality, redirected their money away from the Diocese and National Church for the specific purpose of being good stewards, to support orthodox ministries that protect rather than undermine the faith and witness of our church, and to make their voices heard in these debates." "So, now their voices are apparently being heard. Is the Standing Committee; is the Bishop ready to change their/his position on practicing gay clergy and same sex blessings? That is what it will take to make these funds available from parishioners around the diocese who are redirecting their funds." "Regarding the bishop's authority, he is about to have a little problem saying he is a bishop in good standing as he is likely to be under some sort of censure or discipline for his heretical teaching when the Lambeth Commission report comes out in October. He is also in direct violation of the constitution and canons of ECUSA for not upholding the faith and witness of the Communion--which has been clearly stated and commended by the Primates, the Lambeth Conference, and the ABC on this very subject." "In addition, given the lack of punishment for the Rev. Bonnie Spencer for her extreme misbehavior (taking a parishioner into the church for prayers and simulating a marriage to convince her that it was all right to have a relationship) discipline and order have fallen apart in the diocese and the bishop has undermined his own authority--and on the scale of crime and punishment, proportionally there is not much of a punishment that can be administered." Armstrong then took issue with Schaffer over her use of the Holy Spirit: "The Holy Spirit has done everything but hit us over the head about the direction we should take regarding human sexuality. In fact, I think the current financial crisis in our diocese could be considered a direct hit on the head!" "The Holy Spirit works through the body of Christ--the whole church. And the whole church, the whole Communion which is our understanding of the body, has been exceedingly clear: homoerotic behavior is contrary to the mind of the Church and the mind of Christ. Period! So, no same sex blessings and no practicing gay clergy." "New Life and Briargate are on the block because of the diocesan position on sexuality, not because conservatives are redirecting money in response. I think it is also important to know that conservatives are not going to undermine their own determination and witness on this issue by solving the Standing Committee's problem, your problem as its President, and the Bishop's problem." "We believe the financial crisis is God's judgment on the liberal position in the diocese, not a judgment on conservatives who are determined to be good stewards, not contributing to the pan-sexual teachings of [Bishop] Rob O'Neill, and helping fund Bonnie Spencer's paid vacation as her reward for misbehavior." *