Archives

By Mike Recht, Associated Press Writer The Episcopal Church of the Redeemer in Rochester, New Hampshire, endured a turbulent winter after opposing the consecration of Bishop V. Gene Robinson—cycling through five priests, losing members, and now negotiating to escape his oversight entirely. “We’re trying to respect his office as bishop,” said parishioner Lisa Ball. “On the other hand, we don’t want anything to do with him.” Following a recent meeting with Robinson, Ball reported he listened carefully and asked questions: “He said he’s willing to do what it takes to make this work.” Robinson has offered to allow visiting conservative bishops for pastoral support—but insists congregations must remain under his canonical authority. He proposed letting Redeemer help select a visiting bishop—though not replace him entirely. Ball confirmed the division remains deep: of roughly 80 pre-rebellion members, about 10 Robinson supporters have left; only four remain. Senior Warden Ann Elkins—voted out by conservatives—stayed: “Others just couldn’t stand the tension. It was terrible.” Tensions peaked in November when 30 conservatives walked out during a service after their priest was replaced. For months, many refused Communion. Two subsequent Robinson-aligned priests came and went—each time escalating conflict. One reportedly “threw the prayer book on the ground” and delivered a “fire and brimstone” sermon—prompting swift removal. Relief came four weeks ago, when Robinson appointed retired priest Gordon Allen—a traditionalist who views homosexual practice as sin. Worship has since stabilized. “They finally sent us someone we can work with,” Ball said. “They’re now taking Communion because they like the person,” Elkins observed. But if Robinson grants full alternative oversight, Elkins says she will leave: “At that point, I would have to go.” Ball insists no conservative wants to depart: “If we wanted to leave, we would have been up and gone by now.” End

By David W. Virtue A retired orthodox bishop and a liberal diocesan priest recently exchanged sharply worded letters concerning the crisis in The Episcopal Church (TEC). The Rev. Marek P. Zabriskie, rector of St. Thomas’ Church, Whitemarsh, PA—and a representative on multiple national and international TEC bodies—wrote to the Rt. Rev. C. FitzSimons Allison (ret., South Carolina), accusing him of undermining church unity by crossing diocesan boundaries and performing sacramental ministry without permission. Zabriskie acknowledged that “good Episcopalians can differ on theological and ethical matters”—but insisted that violating canonical jurisdiction is unacceptable. He concluded: “It is my deepest hope that the Communion will stand, the Church will flourish, and we will not be self-consumed and broken irrevocably.” Bishop Allison responded with a theological and historical rebuttal: “You see the denial of the Christian faith as an entitlement—but the biggest risk is the ‘destruction of polity.’” He cited figures like Bishop John Allin, who repented: “I loved the church more than I loved the Lord of the Church.” “I am thankful our Anglican forebears did not elevate polity over doctrine in the Reformation. I am thankful Irenaeus did not defer to Gnostic ‘polity.’ I am thankful Athanasius defied ecclesiastical order to defend Christ’s divinity against Arianism.” “Perhaps you can help reduce hypocrisy in TEC by substituting ‘We believe in our polity, Common Prayer, and the episcopate’ for the Nicene Creed.” “I thank you for your candor—and will share your letter with those who struggle to believe what has become the faith of many Episcopalians.” Both letters were copied to Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, and Anglican Consultative Council Secretary General John Peterson. End

By Anne Ruderman, Concord Monitor Staff | April 4, 2004 Conservative Episcopalians in New Hampshire—opposed to the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson—have begun organizing to place themselves under the oversight of a more orthodox bishop, possibly from outside the state or even from abroad, while remaining within the broader Anglican Communion. “We haven’t left the church. We’re still part of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire—and that’s the problem,” said Lisa Ball, vestry member at Rochester’s Church of the Redeemer. “We don’t want to follow Gene Robinson.” Robinson—the first openly gay bishop in Anglican history—has ignited global controversy since his election in 2003. The Rochester meeting (attended by 75 people) marked the first gathering of New Hampshire’s chapter of the Anglican Communion Network (ACN), a national orthodox coalition formed in January 2004. Though grassroots in origin, the ACN works closely with the American Anglican Council. Members hope the wider Communion may permit them to bypass Robinson and align with a like-minded bishop—from New York, Canada, Africa, or Latin America. While such a move would be unprecedented, a similar proposal was rejected by U.S. bishops in March. Bishop Robinson opposes organizing bishops by ideology rather than geography: “It begins to be completely chaotic… Entire Anglican history is organized by jurisdiction, not belief.” He insists he remains the canonical authority—but offers pastoral flexibility: “I’m willing to let another bishop come in for counseling and leadership—but he won’t have jurisdiction.” Some conservatives have already acted. A southern New Hampshire group formed the Seacoast Missionary Fellowship, and Rochester’s Church of the Redeemer has publicly distanced itself from Robinson. “We thought there was no way Scripture and the vote for Gene could be reconciled,” said Joel Hansford, now with Seacoast. “Scriptural authority was more important than this new doctrine of inclusiveness.” While ACN leaders insist the goal is reform, not schism (“The language of leaving the Episcopal Church is not what this is about,” said Rev. William Murdoch), others disagree. Les Hanscom, 66, of Seacoast, called it “a minor revolution… You didn’t think there’d be conflict in the church.” Robinson plans to meet with Redeemer’s vestry to seek reconciliation: “We’ll bend over backwards to give them the care they need.” Yet parishioners remain hopeful others will soon join them: “There are many people and parishes in New Hampshire scared to stand up,” said Ball. “But they’re out there.” End

Commentary by David W. Virtue The Bishop of Western New York, J. Michael Garrison, simply doesn’t understand the crisis he has helped create. He assumes that, as diocesan bishop, he holds ultimate authority—and can therefore cajole, coerce, plead, bully, or threaten parishes that refuse to fund his agenda. The diocese faces a $200,000 deficit in a $1.1 million budget—not primarily due to economic hardship, but because numerous parishes are withholding financial support in protest of his theological stance. Bishop Garrison affirms homoerotic relationships as morally good and godly—and voted to elect, confirm, and consecrate V. Gene Robinson. Many in his diocese disagree—so strongly that they believe supporting his agenda risks their own spiritual integrity. That cost is too high. In response, he has launched a campaign of grievance—blaming parish layoffs and administrative strain on “protesters.” But the issue runs deeper than budgets: this is not political disagreement; it is a clash between truth and error, gospel fidelity and revisionism. Garrison expects orthodox parishes—often larger, more vibrant, and more generous—to subsidize a theological vision they deem unbiblical. He presumes dissenters should quietly comply. Yet Scripture warns: “Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse” (Galatians 1:8, NIV). Why should faithful clergy financially sustain a system that promotes what they believe is anathema—jeopardizing not only their own calling, but the eternal welfare of their flocks? Parish leaders like James Glownia, senior warden of St. Bartholomew’s, articulate the resolve clearly: “We didn’t believe that the national church was headed in the right direction. It was the only thing we could really do—to protest.” Indeed, money is leverage. History shows that even bishops who deny core doctrines (e.g., universalism, Christ’s sinlessness) may remain in office—until their financial stewardship falters. Consider Richard Shimpfky of El Camino Real: his diocese shrank from 30,000 to 12,000 communicants over years of doctrinal drift—yet he retained his seat until the endowment vanished. Money talks. Theology walks. The strategy is clear: in dioceses without substantial endowments, orthodox congregations can initiate structural change by legally withdrawing (or threatening to withdraw) and redirecting resources—forcing Standing Committees to confront unsustainable leadership. As the Jerusalem Council declared: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” (Acts 15:28). Perhaps it is time for a new consensus—one grounded not in institutional preservation, but in gospel faithfulness. End

Five Anglican Primates (senior Archbishops) from the global Anglican Communion have offered Temporary Adequate Episcopal Oversight (TAEO) to Anglican churches across Canada, citing an “emergency” triggered by clergy firings and parish closures. Four of eleven congregations affiliated with the Anglican Communion in New Westminster (ACiNW) have accepted the Primates’ offer and formally notified Bishop Michael Ingham of their decision. Contrary to media reports and diocesan website claims, these parishes have not joined the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA). Instead, they have formed the Anglican Communion in Canada (ACiC) under the oversight of the Primates of the Provinces of Congo, Rwanda, Central Africa, Kenya, and South East Asia—in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury and in alignment with the October 2003 Primates’ Statement. ACiC is a fellowship of Anglican congregations and ministries committed to upholding the historic faith, Scripture, and the Anglican Communion’s teaching on human sexuality—a stance they say has been abandoned by the Diocese of New Westminster. These actions, along with similar developments in The Episcopal Church (USA), have, according to ACiC, “torn the fabric of the Anglican Communion” and led to the suspension of ecumenical dialogue with major partner churches. The four congregations are now under the temporary pastoral care of the Right Reverend Thomas Johnston, Missionary Bishop of the Episcopal Province of Rwanda. Though in broken communion with Bishop Ingham and the Diocese of New Westminster, ACiC affirms its commitment to remain in communion with “all faithful and orthodox Christians in the Anglican Church.” This is not merely about clergy resignations, but about duly authorized parish decisions to realign under orthodox episcopal authority. ACiC invites all faithful Anglican clergy and congregations in Canada to consider the Primates’ offer—a pathway to remain in fellowship with the global Anglican majority under godly, orthodox oversight with full jurisdiction. For more information, contact: The Rev. Paul Carter, Network Coordinator, ACiC paulandlois@shaw.ca | 604-222-4486

Diocesan News The report from the Canadian House of Bishops’ Task Force on Adequate/Alternative Episcopal Oversight for Dissenting Minorities—which recommended a form of “flying bishops” for Anglicans opposed to same-sex blessings—received a skeptical response at the Diocesan Council last month. Archdeacon David Retter of St. James, Vancouver, remarked, “It seems as if they are recommending an alternate church.” The task force proposed that any parish opposing same-sex blessings could request an alternate bishop by an 80% congregational vote. This arrangement was envisioned as temporary—no longer than six years. Unlike the Episcopal Visitor appointed in New Westminster (a bishop invited by the diocesan to provide pastoral care), the proposed alternative bishop would be selected independently by one of five Archbishops (a provincial Metropolitan or the Primate) without the diocesan bishop’s involvement. Bishop Michael Ingham urged the council to consider the report prayerfully. It will be reviewed by the House of Bishops April 15–18 and may go forward—unchanged or amended—to the General Synod at the end of May. The task force recommended that if General Synod approves diocesan autonomy to authorize same-sex blessings, the alternative oversight model would apply nationwide; otherwise, it would apply only to New Westminster—with the diocese’s consent. Bishop Ingham voiced concern: “It seems to raise a great many questions which are not worked out… How will the temporary partition of dioceses along theological lines contribute to unity?” He warned of the risk of permanent “segregation” becoming a precedent for future disputes. The report calls for the “voluntary ceding of jurisdiction” by diocesan bishops—a step he noted goes “much further than the so-called flying bishops in England.” In England, the 1993 Alternative Episcopal Oversight (AEO) scheme—established for parishes opposing women’s ordination—allowed alternative bishops by invitation, without relinquishing the diocesan’s jurisdiction. Diocesan Chancellor George Cadman questioned the canonical feasibility of ceding jurisdiction: “Voluntary may be nice, but it may not be possible.” He intends to consult chancellors across the country. Two council members criticized the report as one-sided: alternative oversight was proposed only for conservatives in liberal dioceses, not for liberals in conservative ones. Archdeacon Andrew Pike of St. Anne’s, Richmond, noted the task force was charged with protecting all “dissenting minorities”—yet focused exclusively on opposition to same-sex blessings. The Rev. Paula Porter Leggett of St. Faith’s, Vancouver, observed: “It appears that if you are a liberal diocese you have to protect the conservatives, but if you are a conservative diocese you don’t have to protect the liberals.” Bishop Ingham emphasized that both the House of Bishops and General Synod retain full authority to accept, reject, or amend the report. The Diocesan Council—and possibly Diocesan Synod in mid-May—will assess national decisions and determine their local response. End

It’s not too late to register for the Anglican Communion Institute Conference, Anglicanism, History and Hope: The Future of Anglicanism in North America, to be held in Colorado Springs, Colorado, April 20–22, 2004. The Most Rev. Dr. George Carey, Professor Edith Humphrey, the Rev. Dr. John Karanja, the Rev. Dr. Robert Prichard, the Rev. Dr. Jeremie Begbie, the Rev. Dr. Christopher Seitz, the Very Rev. Dr. George Sumner, the Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner, and the Rev. Dr. Ashley Null will offer their perspectives, encouragement, and theological foundations for affirming that Anglicanism indeed has a future in North America. The Conference will be hosted at the first-class Antlers Hotel in downtown Colorado Springs—an area rich with restaurants, coffee shops, used bookstores, theaters, and nightlife. Registration is available online at AnglicanCommunionInstitute.org, by email reply to this address (providing your name, address, phone number, and parish affiliation), or by mailing the included registration form. The conference fee is $150.00 (payable by check or Visa/MasterCard), due either in advance or on-site. Hotel reservations may be made directly at the Antlers Hotel by calling 1-866-299-4602. CONFERENCE SCHEDULE Anglicanism: History and Hope — The Future of World Anglicanism in North America April 20–22, 2004 | Colorado Springs, CO Tuesday, April 20: 3:00–6:00 p.m. — Registration in Hotel Lobby Featured speakers include: Lord Carey The Rev. Dr. Christopher Seitz The Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner The Rev. Dr. John Karanja The Rev. Dr. Bill Attwood The Rev. Dr. Peter Walker The Rt. Rev. Alpha Mohamed Dr. David Virtue Dr. Edith Humphrey The Rev. Dr. Jeremie Begbie The Rev. Dr. Robert Prichard For more information, contact the Rev. Don Armstrong at gracerector@AOL.COM, or visit the Anglican Communion Institute website to register.

By Alan Jones The culture wars are now concentrating on the polarizing issue of "gay marriage" and we're all caught up in it. The President has declared his support to amend the Constitution specifically to exclude gay people. For some, gay marriage rocks the very foundations of our culture and way of life. The question not only of gay marriage but even gay rights has already become one of the wedge issues of the upcoming presidential election. It has also become the occasion of opportunistic polarization and protest. Meanwhile thousands of gay couples with their families and friends have gone to City Hall to be married. The leadership of Grace Cathedral unanimously supports gay couples and their families. At the same time, we acknowledge this is a significant and historical departure from tradition. We take very seriously some people's misgivings. Breaking the law is no small matter. But what's done is done. Meanwhile, our concern and conviction is that the time is long overdue for gay and lesbian people to have the support and protection of the law for their faithful relationships and for their families. It is time for the United States to look honestly at the actual state of the American family and to give social, legal and spiritual support to all those who seek stable and caring relationships. Some years ago I was interviewed for BBC television about the AIDS crisis. I was asked two questions. The first was, "Does Grace Cathedral tolerate gay people?" The second was, "Do you believe in the wrath of God?" The interviewer was surprised when I answered "No!" to the first question and "Yes!" to the second. Grace Cathedral does not tolerate gay people. We embrace them. They are us. As for God's anger, I believe it's reserved for the frozen and closed hearted. So, it should come as no surprise that the cathedral is clear in its support of gay people, and we are in favor of blessing the covenants between same sex couples. We are also an institution committed to conversation. Our slogan is "Reconnect your spirit without disconnecting your mind." There's a wide spectrum of opinion in the cathedral leadership as how best to support gay people. For example, some of us are more comfortable with the word "marriage" than others. If I am asked by the media, "Are you in favor of gay marriage?" I say "Yes". Because of the culture's addiction to polarization, we are forced to take sides. I would have preferred to work for another word, and I regret that our society doesn't allow for serious debate and nuanced discussion. My friends and colleagues tell me that this isn't where the battle is, and besides (as the person closest to me says) "the train has already left the station". I would like to believe that we could have something that was "separate but equal," but history teaches us that separate never means equal. The word "marriage" means many things, but the bottom line has to do with simple justice in affording rights and protections for all our citizens. People who invoked the "long history of marriage" don't know either their history or their Bible. Marriage, as an institution, has had a checkered history and its trivialization and banalization (thank you Britney!) makes the waters even muddier. Where are we now? We at Grace Cathedral are not yet ready to "marry" a gay couple. The Episcopal Church (and the whole Anglican Communion) is in the middle of a great struggle with the issue. The cathedral does, however, on occasion bless same sex unions. In fact we had a wonderful celebration recently of a couple who are long-time members of the cathedral and have been together for over twenty years. They went to City Hall first and had their relationship blessed at the cathedral right afterwards. It was a joyful occasion. I wish the president and the governor could have been there. The world did not fall apart. What makes things confusing is that in this country ministers of religion act as functionaries of the state (unlike in France for example where the legal ceremony is secular usually performed in the Town Hall. The couple then go, if they so wish, to a place of worship for a blessing.) Some of us would prefer not to be officers of the state. Let people get married at City Hall and be free to go to the church, synagogue, temple of their choice for whatever support and blessing their tradition provides. Meanwhile, any couple (straight or gay) seeking a blessing at the Cathedral must go through interview and counseling procedures before we may consent to blessing their relationship. Stay tuned: the culture is very confused, and we are all feeling our way. We are, however, unequivocal in supporting gay couples and their families. For us, the issue has a human face. Gays and lesbians are our friends and colleagues. And like our heterosexual friends and colleagues, they support families and struggle to have loving relationships. It's time to honor and celebrate all those who seek to strengthen the human family. Alan Jones is Dean of Grace Cathedral in San Francisco, California

By Uwe Siemon-Netto UPI Religious Affairs Editor WASHINGTON, March 30 (UPI) -- Editor's note: This is part two of the UPI series on the new schism running horizontally through most Christian denominations. In this installment, theologians argue that the rift constitutes the Church's Third Gnostic Crisis, which is as menacing as were its predecessors 1,000 and almost 2,000 years ago. When Don Westblade, a religion professor, tries to explain the Gnostic crisis of the early church to his students at Hillsdale College in Michigan he points to a stunning parallel in modern times. The moral dilemma plaguing most denominations in modernity and postmodernity, he says, is rooted in the same heresy that almost destroyed the Church in its infancy. Westblade describes it as "a perspective on God that divides deities into two levels." Gnostics came into prominence within Christianity in the second century. They distinguished between the Demiurge, or creator God, and the supreme remote and unknowable Divine Being. In the 12th and 13th centuries, a related theology of the Cathars in Germany and France was perceived as a major threat to Catholicism and therefore brutally suppressed. Some of the early Gnostic sects, such as the Nicolaitans and the Ophites, did not bother much with the Demiurge, whom they thought was in charge of matter. Since matter was sharply opposed to spirit, the property of the higher deity, bodily actions were indifferent. Therefore licentiousness was wholly admissible. As Westblade sees it, contemporary Gnosticism, including Jungian psychology, feminism and the homosexual lobby within the church, operate along these lines. "They don't like to associate with the Demiurge. They like to be with the God who is overhead." More concretely, while Scripture says that homosexual practices are an abomination, an "allegedly more enlightened view puts us in touch with the true God and not with the 'patriarchal and bigoted position' of the Demiurge," according to Westblade. To William H. Lazareth, a former Lutheran bishop of New York and currently professor at Cathage College in Kenosha, Wis., this "Gnostic apparition of hedonism" is of course "an ontological absurdity." The Rev. Gerald E. Murray, a canon lawyer and parish priest in New York, believes that the moral crisis in the Roman Catholic Church in the United States is very much part of this neo-Gnostic phenomenon. The discovery that 4,292 deacons and priests were implicated in 10,667 cases of abuse over the last 50 years suggests to him that "people have taken to objectify their bodies, using their bodies as entities separate from themselves. Their rationale is, 'My intentions are not evil, therefore I can do what I want.'" Christian anthropology holds of course that "body and soul are a composite making up a whole person who will have to act in accord with God's law," says Murray. But this anthropology is as embattled in the Church's current Gnostic Crisis as it was 1,000 and 2,000 years ago. Don Westblade even goes as far as to say, that while Gnosticism appears to be peaking once again, "Gnostics have been with us throughout church history." Churchgoers, he believes, "often take a more Platonic than Biblical view of things." With Plato, and like the Gnostics, they think that the body doesn't matter much and can be dealt with at will, even though they say every Sunday in church when they speak the Apostles' or Nicene Creeds that it will be resurrected. In other words, differences over the importance of the body are the wedge that drives most denominations apart -- with the result that traditional Roman Catholics have more in common with Southern Baptists than with their Gnostic brethren and evangelical Anglicans are closer to the Eastern Orthodox than to their "revisionist" coreligionists. The moral issues of the Gnostic crises today as almost 2,000 years ago contain a fascinating theological twist, however. In the very first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, the apostle Paul reveals that the abuse of the body is the consequence of God's wrath against idolatrous mankind. "Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another," writes Paul (Romans 1:24). The exegetes of the early church commented this in terms sounding strangely familiar to postmodern ears. "Paul tells us... that a woman should lust after another woman because God was angry at the human race because of its idolatry," wrote the mysterious 4th-century exegete Ambrosiaster, whose real identity remains unknown. "When God abandons a person to his own devices, then everything is turned upside down," mused St. John Chrysostom (ca. 347-407 A.D.). "Men with frenzied lusts rush against men. Things are done which cannot even give pleasure to those who do them," remarked St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage (died 258 A.D.). And Origen (185-254 A.D.), the famed though controversial Alexandrian Bible scholar, preached on the Epistle to the Romans in words that send chills down the spine of those deploring today's gender war: "The normal desire for sexual intercourse united the sexes to one another. But by taking this away and turning it into something else, the devil divided the sexes from each other and forced what was one to become two, in opposition to the law of God ... The devil was bent on destroying the human race, not only by preventing them from copulating lawfully but by stirring them up to war against each other." Origen concluded from this: "Paul goes straight to the source of sexual evil: ungodliness which comes from twisted teaching and lawlessness which is its reward." Twisted teaching, traditionalist theologians such as Thomas C. Oden of the United Methodist say, has contributed greatly to the current crisis in the church. Worse still, it has lethal results. "You are literally killing us," archbishop Peter Akinola, primate of the 18 million-member Anglican Church of Nigeria chided his North American Episcopalians, who have succumbed to the Gnostic temptation. What he meant was this: When photographs are flashed around the world of a homosexual bishop's consecration with his male lover holding his miter; when churches, such as the Episcopal diocese of Washington, develop liturgies for same-sex weddings, then Muslim extremists feel confirmed in their view that Christianity is moribund. Hence their conclusion: Why not give Christianity a coup de grace and slaughter its faithful wherever they are? Next installment: North-South schism.

By Uwe Siemon-Netto UPI Religious Affairs Editor WASHINGTON, March 25 (UPI) -- Editor's note: The Christian Church is in the process of a new schism running horizontally across the denominations. The dividing issue is truth -- is truth eternal or is it temporal? What follows is the first installment of an open-ended UPI series on the many ramifications of this religious phenomenon. In Canada, a medical student, who is a devout Christian, will not be allowed to graduate because he refused to perform abortions, according to LifeSiteNews.com, a Toronto-based Web site. Meanwhile, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, has appointed the Rev. Ignacio Castuera of Los Angeles communicator of a "theological justification for choice," reports Agape Press. Castuera, a Methodist, stated that the Jesus of the Bible "would indeed support a woman's right to choose." This begs the question: Since both men claim to be Christians, which of the two is authentic? Nothing illustrates more clearly the new division within the "Body of Christ" as the difference between the student and the pastor. It is a schism that runs horizontally across all Protestant denominations and even Catholicism, a divide infinitely more severe than all previous splits in church history. In the past, antagonists battled over truth, to be sure, but still upheld the ancient faith statements of the Church -- the Apostolic, the Nicene and the Athanasian creeds. Today, on one side of the battle lines are the faithful, chiefly laity, affirming the authority of the Bible. On the other side are those bishops and theology professors who say that truth cannot be eternal but is always subject to continuing revelation, shifting with the spirit of the time. Both sides celebrate the same liturgies, sing the same hymns, and are often held together by the same administrative structures. Beyond that, however, they have little in common. Indeed, growing numbers of orthodox Christians believe that their kind is, or will soon be, persecuted -- with the help of their "revisionist" brethren. This has happened before in totalitarian times, and may already be taking place in democratic societies. The Rev. Raymond J. de Souza, a Catholic priest of the Archdiocese of Kingston, Ontario, warned in the monthly magazine, First Things, of the danger of tyranny in his country. "As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism," wrote de Souza, quoting pope John Paul II. De Souza then cited examples: British Columbia denied Trinity Western University, an evangelical institution, the license to certify teachers because it prohibits homosexual behavior among its students. (Canada's Supreme Court ultimately overturned the provincial government's decision.) The Ontario Human Rights Commission fined Scott Brockie, owner of a printing business, $5,000 for refusing to print the letterheads and cards for the Canadian Gay and Lesbian Archives; Brockie stated that promoting homosexuality was against his Christian conscience. In some Scandinavian countries, legislation is being prepared proscribing anti-homosexual sermons from the pulpit. According to de Souza, a similar state intrusion into matters of faith may be in the offing in Canada, where the government has asked the Supreme Court whether a proposed exemption of clergymen from the duty of having to solemnize same-sex union was compatible with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. "The fact that the question is even being asked is an ominous portent," wrote de Souza in First Things. "So advanced is the totalitarian impulse in Canada that advocates of the federal redefinition of marriage positively boast of how broadminded they are in allowing churches to administer their own sacraments as they see fit." De Souza then developed a "worst-case scenario of state expansion": "First it will be churches forced to rent out their halls and basements for a same-sex couple's wedding reception. Then it will be religious charities forced to recognize employees in same-sex relationships as legally married. ... Then it will be a hierarchical or synodal church not being allowed to discipline an errant priest or minister who performs a civilly legal but canonically illicit same-sex marriage." In a related context, the Rev. Thomas C. Oden, a theology professor and leader of the Confessional Movement within the United Methodist Church was asked how long he thought he could remain in a denomination where a jury of pastors has just found a Lesbian colleague not guilty of "practices declared ... to be incompatible with Christian teachings." Having "married" her partner in a civil ceremony, this minister, the Rev. Karen Dammann, is sharing her parsonage with her in Ellensburg, Wash. "This is extremely embarrassing to most Methodists -- but not to the point of calling on them to leave the church that baptized them," Oden told United Press International. "We have decided to stay and struggle even under highly ambiguous circumstances. We are ashamed of our church -- ashamed because it cannot enforce its own church law." But then Oden went on, "It is still a church as long as sacraments are duly administered and the word gets to be preached, ... I can still preach in Methodist pulpits Christian doctrine and sexual morality." But what if, as in the Rev. de Souza's Canadian scenario, the state coerced ministers to act against their Christian conscience? "In such a situation one would have to be willing to go to prison. It's possible we'll see Canadian pastors in jail. Their witness would be tremendously important for world Christianity." Oden is known to be one of the most courageous defenders of orthodox faith in U.S. Protestantism. But his choice not to quit his denomination where he has watched "radical secularists take over the seminaries" is controversial in other Christian quarters. For example, the statement by Peter Lee, Episcopal bishop of Virginia, that "schism is worse than heresy," prompted this outburst by Auburn Faber Traycik, editor of The Christian Challenge, a feisty conservative Anglican journal: "What a ridiculous notion! Shall we be proud for having chosen heresy over schism?" Throughout Western Protestantism the dispute rages over whether the de facto split between orthodox and revisionist Christianity has not already long occurred. David Virtue, the inveterate chronicler of the travails of world Anglicanism, believes it has. "Anglicanism in North America is in the toilet," he said. "Of the world's 38 Anglican primates, 21 have either broken communion with the Episcopal Church USA or called the communion impaired" (after the consecration of the openly homosexual Canon Vicki Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire). While bishop Lee seemingly downgraded the significance of heresy, the Rev. William T. Kump, a pastor of the breakaway Reformed Episcopal Church in Newport News, Va., told United Press International how the regular church folk feel about this. "It eats them up. It sucks them up. It drags them down. They feel deeply hurt. They feel burned. They flee to our church and require a lot of pastoral work. "My impression is that there is no room for compromise with heresy. You have to get completely away from it in order to feel safe." Next installment: "You are literally killing us."

Declaration of the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church of the Central American Region (IARCA) Peace and hope to the Churches of Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama and the Provinces of the Anglican Communion. We, the Bishops that make up The Anglican Church of the Central American Region (IARCA) gathered in Managua, Nicaragua have made a space for reflection and biblical analysis and shared our individual concerns and experiences of our ministry as pastors and spiritual leaders of our clergy and people. We are convinced that the Holy Spirit has taken over and manifested a presence in this meeting and has guided us on the search for the necessary process that will help us improve our relationship and to identify the guidelines that will support our common ministry. During this Lenten Season and in preparation to celebrate the resurrection on Easter, we reflected seriously regarding the future of our relationship as bishops and ministers of God. We are united by the common purpose of providing guidance for our people in the midst of difficult times in which we live: violence and incomprehension, disintegration in the family structure and the lack of interest in seeking God's Kingdom; all of which challenges the systems that shape our destinies as societies. The reflection has led us to understand that the central emphasis of Lent and of our lives during this season is forgiveness and reconciliation. These two primary values and teachings, which were given to us by Christ, along with his Message, are still relevant and basic for the understanding of the love of God and his justice. As living testimonies of Christ we should be role models of His actions and message; we wish to give testimony of his love and of his message of reconciliation as we accept as our principal goal the restoring of the good relationship that has been the characteristic with which we began together the project of the Anglican Church in the Central American Region and for which we are and will continue to be united for the development of the mission that God had given to us to serve his people. Moreover we will try to be a channel for reconciliation and forgiveness. We thank our Primate his Grace Martin J. Barahona, for the leadership he has provided during this process. We have encouraged one another to be one in Christ so that the actions that we take and the decisions that we make on a personal level or in the representation of our churches will not affect the life or development of the mission in the Province, or at the Diocesan level and/or at the personal level. We have established guidelines that will permit us to make decisions in the framework for the consensus of the group. We take this opportunity to reaffirm the declaration given by us to the Primate and presented to the Primates and other Provinces of the Anglican Communion in relation with the election and consecration of the Rev. Canon V. Gene Robinson as Bishop Coadjutor of the Diocese of New Hampshire. In that document we resume and make known our feelings and thoughts on the decision of The Episcopal Church in the United States of America. At this time, this is the stand we take on this matter. We will also state that in the midst of the ill-feelings and division that we are experiencing in our Anglican Communion, we reaffirm the Love of God toward all humanity and that this love represents the symbol of unity for all human beings that are called to be in union with God and for whom Jesus gave his life. This is the love that moves us and helps us to understand that sin is what separates us from God and does not allow us to have a full relationship with him or with others. This is our task: to fight against sin and proclaim life. We are committed to give the House of Bishops in IARCA the place that it deserves in the pastoral mission of our church. We have established at least two times in the year to meet as a collegial body, one time during Lent and another during Pentecost, so that we can give some continuity to our lives as bishops and our mission in the Anglican Church of Central America. We will also begin a process of continuing education for ourselves and to keep updated on the most important issues that affect and/or challenge the mission of the Church, directly or indirectly. We encourage all people and the Clergy to pray fervently without ceasing, and to journey with us in the search for new experiences in the mission of Christ, the mission that he has given to each of us through his passion, but also through his resurrection. It's our hope, that by getting to know God better and getting to know each other better, as we begin and maintain a joint process of continued education, of interrelation, of common prayer and of seeking a closer relationship with each other; these efforts will help to restore the unity which has been part of the foundation that gave birth to the conformation of the Anglican Church of the Central American Region. Given on the sixteenth day of the month of March in the year of Our Lord two thousand four. The Rt Revd Martin J. Barahona Episcopal Church of El Salvador, Primate of IARCA The Rt Revd Julio E. Murray Episcopal Church of Panama The Rt Revd Sturdie W. Downs Episcopal Church of Nicaragua The Rt Revd Armando R. Guerra Episcopal Church of Guatemala The Rt Revd Hector F. Monterroso Episcopal Church of Costa Rica

By James Murray, Religious Affairs Editor THE AUSTRALIAN April 01, 2004 Priests in Australia's largest Anglican diocese are being forced to fill out a detailed and highly personal questionnaire about their sexual history, including relationships outside marriage, as part of a crackdown on child abusers in the church. The Sydney diocese questionnaire also asks about any involvement in the occult, whether priests have been cruel to animals, their attitudes to alcohol and any convictions for driving offences. The use of internet chat rooms and pornography comes under scrutiny in the eight-page document approved by the diocese's professional standards committee, a copy of which has been obtained by The Australian. Under a section called child protection and criminal conduct, priests are asked whether they have ever been charged with an offence or been the subject of an investigation, faced a traffic offence in court, had their driver's licence revoked or suspended or been the subject of an apprehended violence order. Other questions include any history of gambling, homosexual relationships or charges of sexual misconduct with persons under the age of consent. Compulsory for prospective priests and those transferring to the diocese, the questionnaire, introduced in recent weeks, will also be given to priests and deacons wanting to renew their licences to preach and administer the sacraments. Applicants answering yes to some of the questions could be rejected. The questionnaire has been criticised by some bishops as being too intimate and precluding any thought of repentance, forgiveness and healing, as well as fears it could lead to dishonesty rather than frankness. Philip Gerber, of the child protection committee of the Anglican General Synod, said the Sydney diocese thought it best to introduce the questionnaire "sooner rather than later". But he said not all of the 23 Anglican dioceses in Australia would follow suit. A police check of prospective priests is common practice even in states where the law does not make it obligatory, especially if they will be working with children. A debate on the recommendations of the General Synod's working group will take place in October, and an attempt made to have a unified national approach. It is expected some dioceses will want modifications, but general agreement is expected. The questionnaire comes after the National Council of Churches called 60 representatives together in Canberra recently from the Anglican, Catholic, Uniting, Lutheran, Salvation Army, Greek Orthodox, Quaker, Churches of Christ, Coptic Orthodox, Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist and Presbyterian churches to discuss sexual abuse. Council general secretary John Henderson said the churches were "now ready to come together around the table and tell their stories, listen more intently to victims, and to develop a positive culture in which abuse and misconduct will not take place".