By Ted Schroder   Ron Chernow, in his superb biography of Alexander Hamilton, recounts the final hours of the American founding father. After being fatally shot by vice president Aaron Burr in a duel, and transported back to Manhattan from Weehawken, N.J., he lay in an upstairs bedroom of William Bayard's mansion, slowly bleeding to death. When his wife and seven children (ranging in age from 2 to 20) had gathered around him, Chernow writes that Hamilton was preoccupied with spiritual matters and made it a matter of urgent concern to receive last rites from the Episcopal Church. He asked to see the Reverend Benjamin Moore, who was the rector of Trinity Church, the Episcopal bishop of New York, and the president of Columbia College. The eminent Moore balked at giving Hamilton holy communion as he wrestled with two nagging reservations. He thought duelling an impious practice and did not wish to sanction the confrontation with Burr. He also knew that Hamilton had not been a regular churchgoer. Hamilton's wife, Eliza, was the member of Trinity Church and very devout. Hamilton himself read the daily service from the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer to his family when they were at their country home on Sunday. He was a Christian believer but not a member of Trinity Church. In desperation, Hamilton turned to a dear friend, the Reverend John M. Mason, the pastor of the Scotch Presbyterian Church, which stood near the Hamilton home on Cedar Street. When Mason entered the chamber, he took Hamilton's hand. Hamilton asked if Mason would administer communion to him. The pastor said that it gave him "unutterable pain" to receive from Hamilton any request to which he could not accede, but in the present instance any compliance would be incompatible with his obligations. He explained that "it is a principle in our churches never to administer the Lord's Supper privately to any person under any circumstances." Hamilton respected Mason's candor and prodded him no further. Mason tried to console Hamilton by saying that all men had sinned and were equal in God's sight. "I perceive it to be so," Hamilton said. "I am a sinner. I look to His mercy." As Mason told how Christ's blood would wash away his sins, Hamilton grasped his hand, rolled his eyes heavenward, and exclaimed with fervor, "I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ." Rebuffed by Mason, Hamilton redirected his hopes of communion to the skittish Benjamin Moore. The bishop now faced considerable pressure to appease Hamilton, whose friends thought it heartless to refuse a dying man's last wish. Willing to reconsider, the stern prelate returned to the scene at one o'clock that afternoon. Hamilton roused himself for one last burst of persuasion. "My dear Sir," he told Moore, "you perceive my unfortunate situation and no doubt have been made acquainted with the circumstances which led to it. It is my desire to receive communion at your hands. I hope you will not conceive there is any impropriety in my request." Then he added, "It has for some time past been the wish of my heart and it was my intention to take an early opportunity of uniting myself to the church by the reception of that holy ordinance." Hamilton expressed faith in God's mercy. After renouncing dueling, he said that he had no ill will against Burr and he meant him no harm, and he forgave all that had happened. At that point Moore relented and gave holy communion to Hamilton, who then lay back serenely and declared that he was happy. Why was receiving holy communion so important to Hamilton, and why should it be important to us? In Luke 22 the account of the Last Supper indicates that it took place within the context of the Passover meal, which commemorated the deliverance of the people of Israel from judgment and slavery. The Passover lamb was sacrificed and eaten, as a reminder of God's salvation through the Red Sea, and his gift of the Promised Land. Jesus takes this imagery and provides in himself the sacrifice on the Cross, so that we might travel safely through death and resurrection into the kingdom of God. He inaugurated a new covenant in his blood, which is poured out for us in his death. The bread broken and the wine poured, stands for his sacrifice for our salvation. The Bread and the cup is the outward part, or sign, eaten and drunk physically, that witnesses to us of the inward part, or thing signified, which is the body broken and the blood shed, taken spiritually by faith to remind us of the reality of our salvation. To a dying man it is the tangible witness that God loves him so much that he would give his only Son, so that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. The benefits of receiving the elements of communion are the strengthening and refreshing of our souls by the Body and Blood of Christ, as our bodies are by the Bread and Wine. What is required to receive this assurance of salvation and eternal life? "To examine themselves, whether they repent them truly of their former sins, steadfastly purposing to lead a new life; have a lively faith in God's mercy through Christ, with a thankful remembrance of his death; and be in charity with all men." Alexander Hamilton knew those words because they were part of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer which was used at Trinity Church and he used at home to instruct his children. Therefore he prepared himself to receive holy communion with that in mind. After he had received communion he would have said with Benjamin Moore, what all who received communion would say, that they are assured of God's favor and goodness, that they are truly members incorporate in the mystical body of Christ, which is the blessed company of all faithful people; and are also heirs through hope of God's everlasting kingdom, by the merits of the most precious death and passion of God's dear Son. Receiving holy communion provides assurance of the truths of the Gospel and acts to strengthen one's faith in time of need. This is why Jesus said to the disciples in the upper room: "Do this in remembrance of me." Jesus did this on the eve of his death. Alexander Hamilton did this on the eve of his death. This is why it is important to us. The Rev. Ted Schroder is pastor of the chapel on Amelia Island Plantation in Florida. He is an ordained Episcopal priest. — END —

By Ted Schroder   "Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist." (NIV) "Stand, therefore, having girded your loins with truth..." (RSV) (Ephesians 6:14) The belt held together the loose tunic of the soldier. It gave him freedom and security to go into action. "Girded" is the same word as translated "buckled." Jesus said, "Let your loins be girded and your lamps burning..." (Luke 12:35) Jesus is saying, "Be ready for action. Be prepared for any eventuality that may come in life." A belt protects us from injuring ourselves. It gives us the support we need when we are bending over, or lifting heavy objects. It is worn by athletes in training, when they are lifting weights. A seat belt holds us within the zone of safety provided by the frame of our automobile. It prevents us from being thrown out of the vehicle and injured when we are involved in a collision or other kinds of accidents. Recently a woman driving on the Matthews Bridge in Jacksonville was not wearing a seat belt when she was involved in an accident. As a result she was thrown over the side of the bridge to her death. It was July 16, 1951 and I was 10 years old. That morning I woke to find my mother packing her suitcase. Normally a very self-possessed woman, that morning she was very emotionally distressed. She had reason to be. She had just received news that my father had been involved in an accident. With three of his best friends, he had driven to Christchurch, five hours away, to play in a golf tournament. Dad had just turned 40, the others were all in their thirties. One of them was our family attorney, Amos James, whose office was directly opposite the public library, and who let me read his National Geographic magazines when I went to return my books. After spending some time at the nineteenth hole, they returned in my father's car to the hotel. I was told by another friend that they were probably laughing at the jokes Ozzie Howat (34) was known to crack as they approached an unguarded railroad crossing. The driver was not paying attention and they were hit by a locomotive. My father's three closest friends were killed. He was found on the rear seat with the others on top of him. Despite it being his car, he had not been driving. The only survivor, he was to remain in hospital for many weeks recovering from his injuries. I will never forget the funeral of those three young men. The whole town turned out. There were truckloads of floral wreaths. It was an evil day. There were no seat belts. If they had been buckled up there is a possibility that my father's three friends would have survived. My contention is that we all need to be buckled up by the belt of truth if we are to survive when the locomotive of life comes barreling down on us and we are faced with the evil day of crisis. But what is this belt of truth? There are many who would say today that there is no truth, that we are surrounded by propaganda, with perception which distorts the truth, with facts which are seen from the viewers' perspective. Truth is increasingly seen as a dirty word, an attempt to manipulate and oppress others. There do not seem to be firm and reliable landmarks, no points that hold sure and unchanged in a sea of relativity. One person's view seems as good as any other, leaving the door open for people to believe in anything or nothing. But once truth is abandoned, the distinction between truth and falsity disappears. If we are tolerant of what anyone claims as truth we deny the possibility of contradiction. We wind up by saying that "all religions are the same," when they claim to be very different. Tolerance used to mean the respecting of real, hard differences. It has come to mean rejecting any claims to universal truth, and a belief in moral relativism — "you let me believe and behave what I think is true for me and I will not judge your beliefs and behavior." In other words tolerance has become a religious and moral libertarianism. We are all for openness, but when it is opposed to thinking that there is a right from wrong, it is hostile to being committed to any truth. The new dogmatism of the day teaches that a believer in compelling truth and who has convictions is dangerous and deluded. As a result life becomes a sea of meaninglessness where anything is morally permitted; where anyone's truth (opinion, belief) is as good as anyone else's, and there is no final word about who we are and what we are meant to become. All truth claims, including the denial that there is such a thing as truth, can be denied. There are no arguments that can prove one truth claim over another beyond any shadow of a doubt. All truth requires faith, the personal appropriation of the truth that is asserted. Each one of us has to buckle his own belt with the action of faith. Each of us has to commit ourselves to the truth of the claim that cannot be decisively proven, but to which we are willing to stake our lives on. We do it every day when we drive a car over a bridge, get on a plane or an elevator, write a check, deposit our money in a bank, buy something on the internet, sign a contract, take medication, undergo surgery, or marry someone. Each of us lives by the truth to which we have committed ourselves. Everyone is buckled up to one truth claim or another. The media bombards us with truth claims about the products and ideas it advertises. The entertainment industry promotes its own truth claims through stimulating excitement which usually comes through demeaning marriage in favor of extramarital sex, and portraying religion in critical ways. Family, tradition, church is seen to be repressive and individual amorality is championed. The central moral truth claim of Hollywood is to believe in yourself rather than anything outside of yourself. It is a belt of lies that leads to destructive lifestyles. We need a criterion of truth that will help us distinguish between truth and deceptive illusion. If we believe that all facts are subject to interpretation — which they are — how can we arrive at the truth that will guide us and be the rock on which we can build our lives? What is the belt of truth that gives us security and support in the evil day? We have to make a decision about the reality of God, about the existence of the spiritual, eternal world, and about the truth claims of the prophets, apostles, and, above all, Jesus. Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:31,32) The belt of truth for the Christian believer is the teaching of Jesus. The Christian has committed himself to Jesus, and wants to live out the implications of that commitment in his life. We believe that the more the presence of Jesus lives in us, the more we will know true freedom. The more we experience the truth and wisdom of his teaching, the more we will be set free from bondage to sin to live life in all its fullness. When we are set free from self-centeredness, from self-absorption, the more we can discover the freedom of serving Christ and his kingdom of love and justice, and making a difference in the world. Instead of the truth of Jesus being seen to be oppressive and limiting, it is seen to be liberating and fulfilling. Many people will not marry because they don't want to be tied down, or committed, or have their options closed. They want their love to be "liquid" rather than solid as Zygmunt Bauman has described western lifestyles. As a result they are enslaved by their self-centeredness and never discover the joy of caring more for another than themselves. Many people do not want to commit themselves to Jesus as the truth, because it would close out other options. As a result they are left without a belt to hold them steady and protect them in their lives. To put on the belt of truth is to support yourself with a belief in, and a knowledge of, the truth as it is in Jesus. It is to be mastered by that truth. It is to be held together by that truth. It binds you and holds you together. It puts you on your feet and gives you the security and support you need to stand in the evil day. The truth of Christ is the first piece of God's armor we put on. Without it we are completely lost. A person needs a knowledge of who he is and what he is for to have meaning and purpose in his life. So we need a settled conviction with regard to the truth. We need the security of a certain faith. Unless we believe in the truth of the cause for which we are fighting, we will not fight very well, if at all. Morale is affected by the degree to which we believe in the truth of the cause. Conviction of the truth can affect whether a battle is won or lost. The battle of life, is a spiritual war between the truth of Christ, and the lies of the forces of evil. The truth liberates, lies enslave. We are engaged in a war in which lives are at risk. If people follow the lies that masquerade as truth they will be destroyed. Those lies promise happiness and freedom from pain, but instead they produce despair and terrible suffering. "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death." (Proverbs 14:12) One of Satan's most effective lies is that people are at their most free when in pursuit of "free thought," "free expression" and "free love." In his book "The People of the Lie," Scott Peck gives case after case of people who have bought into the lies of the devil. These are people who attack others instead of facing their own failures. They construct layer upon layer of self-deception in order to avoid the pain of self-examination. They often succeed in deceiving others, and so are People of the Lie. When the day of evil comes in our lives we want to be sure and certain of what we believe. It is the truth that we have belted around our waists in better days that will hold us together and give us the support we need to get through the bad days. When we know the truth, and are sure and certain of what we believe, we experience the assurance of conviction. Confidence replaces anxiety, the security of faith drives out fear. This is what we see in Jesus. Before Pilate he says, "for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." Pilate asked, "What is truth?" (John 19:37,38) Jesus gave no reply to Pontius Pilate. Jesus claimed, not that he knew the truth, but that he was the truth. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." (John 14:6) Truth is not just a claim but a person who embodied those claims. He claimed to be God in the flesh. He claimed to live the truth. Why did Jesus not reply to Pontius Pilate? If Jesus was the truth and Pilate standing before him could not recognize it, then there was nothing Jesus could say that would persuade him of it. When we recognize that Jesus is the Truth and commit ourselves to follow him, and his teaching, we can be sure and secure. The powers of hell will not prevail against us. We will be able to stand firm against the devil's schemes. A postscript. Twenty years after my father's automobile accident, Antoinette and I were attending a function at the New Zealand High Commission (equivalent to embassy), in London. As we were circulating we met and introduced ourselves to another young couple. Immediately the wife heard my name she burst into tears and ran out of the room. Her husband explained. She was the daughter of Amos James, our family attorney who had been killed in the accident. She had learned that I and my parents, were in London, but couldn't get up the courage to meet us. Her brother had gone into the Catholic priesthood. Our lives had been impacted by that fatal accident so long ago. The three friends might have survived if they had been wearing seat belts. Life is fragile. When the evil day comes we need the belt of truth to hold us together. — END —

By David W. Virtue LONDON (8/6/2004) The widely read British broadsheet newspaper The Telegraph, has come out slamming the possible appointment of Pakistani-born Bishop of Rochester, the Rt. Rev. Dr. Michael Nazir Ali as a successor to Dr. David Hope who retires shortly as Archbishop of York. In a scathing editorial this week, the Telegraph said the Crown Appointments Commission and Downing Street must find one, and that convention suggests that the job should go to an evangelical, but that no suitable candidate was available. The Telegraph opined that Michael Nazir-Ali of Rochester, an Evangelical, was singularly unsuitable because he "made a fool of himself by pushing himself forward for Canterbury." This statement by the Telegraph is simply untrue. At the time of a successor being sought for Dr. George Carey, the name of Michael Nazir-Ali emerged as did many others, including other evangelicals, and the press, along with this writer speculated as to who might succeed the Evangelical Carey. One possibility was Bishop Nazir-Ali. During that period Dr. Nazir-Ali was hounded and accused of being both homophobic by the overtly loud-mouthed and ugly British gay community, with press reports accusing him of plagiarism in one of his several doctoral dissertations. These charges were unfounded and never proven to be true. But the accusations stuck and Bishop Nazir-Ali's chances of becoming the next Archbishop of Canterbury were dead on arrival. Now this writer had the opportunity to spend several breakfasts with the Bishop of Rochester at a hotel in Minneapolis at the time of the ECUSA General Convention and he talked hesitantly but with a good deal of pain about the personal vilification he had suffered at the hands of the British Press and the Church of England's gay community. Dr. Nazir-Ali is a gentle soul and the personal attacks hurt him terribly, and he was still feeling the after affects as we talked about it over coffee, now many months later. The attacks were doubly strange to him because he was the one person who, having been born in a predominantly Islamic nation would have best understood how to speak to the growing Islamic threat in the world today, and he would have been far more outright in public declarations of the gospel and the irreconcilable differences between Islam and Christianity. The present incumbent, Dr. Rowan Williams seems more bent on appeasing Islam and finding common ground between the Abrahamic religions, rather than facing head on the possibility that Islam, an evangelistic religion itself, is bent on either converting or destroying Christian believers. How much better to have had a Pakistani born bishop from the Global South who could talk to Primate Peter Akinola, than a wifty Affirming Catholic that no one seems to understand to lead the Anglican Communion! Hindsight tells us that Dr. Nazir-Ali might have been a far better choice as Archbishop of Canterbury. That, however, is history. The choice now is who would best succeed the High Churchman, Dr. David Hope as the next Archbishop of York. If no other candidate emerges who has the credentials that Dr. Nazir-Ali has, then thoughtful people might rightly assume that the growing, and increasingly angry British Evangelical Anglican community could best be suited by having an Evangelical like Nazir-Ali for all the reasons stated. Certainly some balance is needed to offset the Affirming Catholic Rowan Williams. An Anglo-Catholic replacement would not be suitable as one would not speak for the majority of British Anglicans, and they are busy looking for a Third Province to get out from under the liberalizing trends in the Church of England, especially, and because of, women's ordination. If Nazir-Ali is given the job, he might be the one person who could rescue the Anglican Communion as it heads towards the cliff edge. His evangelicalism and scholarship would be hailed in the Global South. Being a person of color would be a considerable plus as well. That he would have a strong voice in the corridors of ecclesiastical power and be close to Canterbury wouldn't hurt either. He could also keep the Anglican Communion Office in its place. They could not ignore him. He would balance them out on trips to Africa. The Telegraph editorial opined that The Church of England (COE) was "finished" as an "Anglican" entity during the tenure of Archbishop of Canterbury Carey; the final dissolution of the COE as an Anglican entity will be accomplished under Archbishop of Canterbury Williams. They may well be right. If a "new" Anglican Communion, centered in Africa, South East Asia and the Southern Cone emerges later this year or early next year (2005) then Nazir-Ali might well be the person that English Evangelicals could turn to as they watch the last remnants of the Church of England head with gadarene like swiftness over the cliff's edge. The Anglo-Catholics will head to Rome or demand a "His and Hers" church. But a new generation of ALPHA-driven English evangelical Anglicans will need a leader and there is, quite possibly, none better than the Bishop of Rochester, the Rt. Rev. Dr. Michael Nazir-Ali. — END —

To all Virtuosity readers. Please read the following statement which came unsolicited from a long time Virtuosity subscriber.   Fellow Virtuosity Readers around the World,   How important is it to you to keep the lights on, the telephone service working, and your other household or church utilities in good working order? Such support services are essential, aren't they? When you think about your mission and ministry budget, support services don't generally inspire a lot of excitement for the spread of the Gospel. All too often we take them for granted, but as you well know, they're essential.   So it is with the cyber journal Virtuosity. I for one think it's essential, especially in these days of great turmoil, reformation, and realignment in the Anglican Communion. I am guilty of taking Virtuosity for granted. I expect to receive the Virtuosity Digest in my inbox every few days now because David has been giving us increased coverage and analysis with so much happening in the Church on a daily basis. In fact I usually check the website daily to be sure I haven't missed something. Frankly, our impassioned cyber journalist has been working overtime to keep us informed.   I e-mailed him yesterday telling him how critical I thought the upcoming African Bishops Conference in late October will be since it comes shortly after the release of the Lambeth (Eames) Report, and to a large degree the future of the Anglican Communion is in the hands of the Global South Primates. I asked David if he'd be there to cover it for us. I frankly expected him to be there since he's traveled to so many important events to give us reliable and timely coverage and analysis. Some have said David's a bit fiery, but, for my money, he's the most accurate and comprehensive reporter we have. I do believe that God has raised him up for a time such as this. David had to tell me that he doubted that he would be able to travel to the conference since, frankly, he is extremely short on the minimum funds needed to keep his service up and running.   Friends, this is not just a "we're running a bit behind" message. This is a serious "not sure if I can continue" situation. I've supported David from time to time in the past, but not on a regular basis. My wife Ginny and I are going to dig into our reserves for now, and we're going to put him in our 2005 monthly budget. As Dean of the Network's Southeastern Convocation, I need current information and analysis on the Anglican Communion. Other than my weekly conversations with the Network leadership, I rely on David as my primary news source over all the other excellent websites, listservs, and blogs.   I know that thousands of you rely on David as well. I encourage those of you who do to keep the lights on and the service working. Check your personal offerings budget and your discretionary funds to get Virtuosity through 2004, and when you're setting your parish and personal budgets this fall for 2005, prayerfully consider adding Virtuosity to your monthly giving.   Your brother in Christ,   Rev. James K. McCaslin, Jr.+ Dean, Southeastern Convocation Anglican Communion Network Rector, All Souls Church Jacksonville, FL 32257   You can send your tax deductible donation to: VIRTUOSITY 1236 Waterford Rd., West Chester, PA 19380   OR through PAYPAL at the Virtuosity website. www.virtuosityonline.org   Your donation will be responded to promptly.   Thank you   David W. Virtue DD

LETTER: To The Clergy and Faithful Diocese of Ruvuma   THE STATEMENT OF THE BISHOP OF RUVUMA CONFIRMING THE PLACE OF THE DIOCESE OF RUVUMA IN THE ANGLICAN CHURCH OF TANZANIA IN THE GLOBAL ANGLICAN COMMUNION   Friends of the Diocese of Ruvuma have drawn to the attention of the Bishop of Ruvuma during his stay abroad pursuing theological study, a newspaper report in which the Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion is reported to have claimed that the Diocese of Ruvuma has entered into full communion with that Communion. While the Bishop of Ruvuma has already assured Friends of the Diocese who enquired about the matter, that nothing to that effect has taken place, this is his Official Statement confirming that, as it has always been, so the Diocese of Ruvuma remains a Diocese in the Anglican Church of Tanzania, in the Global Anglican Communion.   At no time has the Synod of the Diocese of Ruvuma considered joining the Traditional Anglican Communion. Only the Synod of the Diocese of Ruvuma could decide to take such a step.   The Bishop of Ruvuma, who is an Associate Bishop (Member) of Forward in Faith North America (FIFNA) was encouraged by the faith he saw when at the FIFNA 2002 Annual Assembly. At that meeting FIFNA entered into full Sacramental Communion with the Traditional Anglican Communion.   The Bishop witnessed the event at the Belleville, St Louis Assembly. Subsequently he initiated correspondence with the then TAC Primate, Archbishop Louis Falk exploring possibilities of a link with him and the TAC Bishops especially those who are in Africa cooperating in the ministry of the Church for the salvation of souls and to the glory of God. The Bishop of Ruvuma already maintains such links with FIFNA, a constituency of FIF/UK and FIF/Australia, which have recently initiated such a link with him. He also maintains such links with Bishops in the Anglican Continuum.   It was at the June 2003 FIFNA Annual Assembly at Rosemont Pennsylvania, that the Bishop of Ruvuma met the new TAC Primate, Archbishop John Hepworth and continued exploring the possibilities of cooperation in the ministry of the Gospel. When asked, he told the Primate specifically that he was pursuing this as a Bishop of the Church and that it did not involve the status quo of his Diocese. It was at the Rosemont FIFNA Annual Assembly that the Bishop of Ruvuma calling for unity among orthodox Anglicans (and other orthodox Christians) proclaimed the axiom: "One Faith, One Team, One Game".   When, in May 2004 the TAC Primate en route to his apostolate in Central Africa made a flying one-day visit to the Bishop of Ruvuma, he was made welcome. The Bishop introduced him to his Clergy and Faithful as a brother in the Faith, stating that his visit stemmed from the unity in the faith that we share, the unity in Our Lord and Saviour, the unity that we celebrate in the Eternal Sacrifice.   It was during the celebration of the Eternal Sacrifice that the Clergy and Faithful presented him with a gift of the Ciborium and the Bishop presented him with a Kiswahili copy of the Bible challenging him to return to the Diocese in the future and to preach the Gospel in Kiswahili. The Bishop of Ruvuma reiterated his call for unity among orthodox Anglicans and orthodox Christians in the "One Faith, One Team, One Game" axiom. Never, during the TAC Primate's visit (or at any other time at all) was the idea of the Diocese of Ruvuma 'joining' the TAC ever thought of, let alone discussed.   The Bishop of Ruvuma wishes to reiterate in this Statement, his commitment to continue defending the faith of the Church once delivered to the saints and the catholic order of the Church. He reiterates his commitment to the pursuit of unity among orthodox Christians as a divine mission to which he believes he has been called by Our Lord and Saviour. He blesses the Lord for the full support that the Clergy and Faithful of the Diocese of Ruvuma lend him in his apostolic labours both in the Diocese and in the wider Church.   The Statement which the Canons of the Cathedral Chapter and the Committee of Rural Deans of the Diocese of Ruvuma issued on 09.06.2004, a copy of which is being sent to you, is a clear testimony to this support.   As the Diocesan of that part of the Vineyard of the Lord which is the Diocese of Ruvuma, in the Anglican Church of Tanzania in the Global Anglican Communion, the Bishop of Ruvuma reiterates his commitment to carrying out those apostolic labours which the Lord of the Vineyard which is His Church will thrust on his shoulders for the Salvation of Souls et Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam. He begs your prayers, that the Lord Our Merciful God, will remember his episcopate and his apostolic labours in His Kingdom-always.   Sincerely In Him,   His slave,   Rt Rev Dr Maternus K Kapinga Bishop of ACT-Ruvuma

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

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

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

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

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

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

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