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

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

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

How defensive responses and controlling personal agendas lay the groundwork for a schism, in the church By David W. Virtue   What made five parishes and seven clergy leave the Diocese of the Central Gulf Coast and affiliate with the Anglican Mission in America in the year 2000? Was it simply a matter of bad theology, a mediocre bishop, a morally and theologically bankrupt Episcopal leadership? Or was it something more than that? The Rev. Dr. David McDowell-Fleming thinks he knows what the problems are and he may be right. The priest is no arm-chair systems management wonk. He's an active priest in the diocese and holds a Ph.D. on the whole subject of institutional management. He's also a deeply committed orthodox and Evangelical Catholic priest, a graduate of Duke University Divinity School and General Theological Seminary and he has been in the thick of things in that diocese for more than 17 years. He has written a book on the crisis that hit the Diocese of Central Gulf Coast and he offers this as his central thesis. "When members and leaders of a denomination react defensively and respond with controlling management styles to enthusiastic expressions of piety and worship styles, consistently over a period of time, they lay the groundwork for significant schismatic outbreaks in the life of that denomination." The priest cited three areas of concern: Firstly, leadership in the church fails the gospel if it is dominated by the norms of management. Secondly, the spiritual experiences of the people of God are a life force to be nourished and guided, not suppressed. That is, the spiritual life must be led, not managed. Thirdly, when the predominant theme is that of suppression and control, schism may be the most natural outcome and indeed, a forerunner of a form of reformation. For 20 years, he writes, the Diocese of the Central Gulf Coast was fueled by the inflammatory capacity for disharmony in the church community which led finally to the parishes and priests leaving. He cites four areas where the community added to the fuel of schism: the use of derogatory generalizations of Christian brothers and sisters; by controlling the information and presenting only that which compliments a corporate image; by manipulating data, events and people with public relations strategies and by allowing individuals to work their personal agendas for significant social change in ways that were not open to public discussion and challenge. "What is significant is that for 20 years in the Diocese there was a residue of animosity towards a large group of congregations and priests who were charismatic," writes McDowell-Fleming, who cited the actions of General Convention on voting for resolution D039 and the accusation of 'Neo-Fundamentalist' aimed at the AMIA as fueling the problems. The priest noted that Bishop Charles Duvall's predecessor, the Rt. Rev. George Murray urged the various diocesan factions to keep communications open. "We won't always agree, but we surely can try to understand one another. And we need one another's ideas and opinions," he wrote at the time. In the new Episcopal Diocese of the early 70s, a parallel dynamic took place. The bishop had a radical reputation for being a very active civil rights activist, trying to forge a diocesan identity amongst strong rectors who refused to relinquish theirs. Part of this power struggle involved opposition to renewal movements. The newly formed Diocese of the Central Gulf Coast saw a convergence of the Anglo-Catholic and Charismatic traditions, which became the story of one church, the Episcopal Church in Destin, Florida. But many of the rectors demonstrated an unwillingness to compromise their independence. "Structurally Anglican comprehensiveness became nothing more than obvious congregationalism. A significant Episcopal parish in Mobile had the nickname as the largest Presbyterian Church in Mobile." Labels like "fundamentalist"; "charismatic" thrown about along with the "authority of Holy Scripture" only polarized the diocese. The word "historical" became an insult conveying intolerance, rigidity and an unwillingness to buy into the "politically correct." In time the notion of, "In things essential, unity; in things doubtful, liberty; in all things charity," began to fade. There was, writes McDowell-Fleming, "little liberty in accepting either debate or difference and worst of all there was a major failure of charity." At the end, the cycle of renewal/consolidation/stagnation/deterioration became the norm. Bishop Duval tried to be a consolidator but he lacked an understanding or even an appreciation of the Charismatic Movement. Instead of a renewal cycle beginning in the diocese, five congregations pulled away. Thus began the long painful cycle of charismatic and anti-charismatic fighting, but the emphasis in time moved to the role Cursillo would now play in the diocese. Bishop Murray was not to be in office as the history of Cursillo evolved. He retired and it was Duvall who took up the cause. The diocesan office produced a form document that outlined the movement and how it was to be implemented. The new bishop Charles Duvall came in on the old style Evangelical tradition representing the Low Church party who saw themselves as safeguarding the causes of the Reformation. Yet he was not closed to ritual when it would compliment the cause of the gospel. Duvall's main opposition was to a sacerdotal understanding of ministry in which bishop and priest overvalued their self-importance. But Duvall inherited the whirlwind, and it was left to him to initiate the major structural shift in the power structure of the diocese. In his involvement with Cursillo the new Bishop chose to participate only at the level of being the celebrant and preacher at the Closing of each and every Cursillo weekend. Duval attempted to move the participants away from Roman Catholic and Charismatic extremes. The truth is Duvall was straight Low Church, mild evangelical emphasis, of the Virginian Seminary and South Carolina school. He became less and less interested in the charismatic movement in his clergy and expressed over time, a certain repulsion towards it. What happened to these clergy? Because of the climate of control, their presence and passion was no longer acceptable to the Diocese. Staff was appointed who were compliant but also added the bishop's negative reactions to individuals who were in any shape or form extreme in their desire for renewal or were public in their conservative orthodox expression of the faith. These clergy who thus were marginalized in the process became the nucleus of the later movement that led to the deconstruction of the Diocese. A bishop who had come in as a moderate now began to display tendencies towards a more liberal line, which would, in time, manifest itself in very illiberal forms. But what gave the orthodox clergy initial heart was the revelation that Bishop Duvall had signed onto the Irenaeus Fellowship. A group was formed and began discussing the issues and spending time praying for each other's ministries. Then a surprise came when Duvall withdrew from this Fellowship saying they were "mean-spirited." Because of a personal setback, from that point on he no longer wanted to be identified with the conservative fellowship of bishops. Duvall went a stage further. He made sure that any priest associated with the Irenaeus Fellowship would never get a diocesan appointment to offices of leadership. He had turned. The diocese's finances proved the point. The diocese and the bishop maintained the status quo even as the Florida Panhandle was busting at the seams economically as people were discovering it as a plum retirement area. Visionary leadership completely disappeared. The Diocese of the Central Gulf Coast that was highly resistant to the Bishop Murray, under Bishop Duvall proved no more successful than his predecessor. At the end of Duvall's reign the constituency was ready to elect a maintainer without any conscious reflection as to the disaster that had resulted from similar decisions more than 20 years prior. He made sure that no resolutions were ever put forward that involved dissenting points of view. Stick with issues about HIV/AIDS where no one would dissent and all would be well. It was a foolish mistake. The diocese which should have embraced leadership through constructive or adaptive change had chosen instead, management. Duvall had chosen to live with "ambiguity," but seven of his priests and large parts of five congregations decided they could not. The bishops, who once had the confidence of conservative clergy, now publicly took a position that seemed to be in compromise with culture. By the time a new bishop was to be chosen, any effort to choose a person of orthodox persuasion was not even on the playing field. A case in point was the deconstruction of Canon Bill Atwood, EKKELSIA president and an out and out Evangelical who said he would, if elected bishop, immediately lift the sentences of deposition pronounced upon those who had departed. Atwood was classified by one diocesan liberal as one of "those fundamentalist schismatics" who had left the church (it was a lie), adding of the departing AMIA clergy, "these people should be defrocked!" The national church got in on the act when Bishop Clayton Matthews, the Presiding Bishop's man for pastoral development charged that Atwood had considerable credit card debt. Atwood said he had four times the amount to pay for it (he buys plane tickets on the points), but the damage was done. Atwood never had a prayer. The job went to the moderate Rt. Rev. Philip M. Duncan II. But the history of "moderate" bishops is always the same. Without a clear fix on the gospel and the authority of Scripture, such moderate men become liberals and quickly turn into revisionists. It has never been otherwise. Never. McDowell-Fleming concludes his book by saying that "history only will confirm if the AMIA in any way turns out to be a Coast Guard Cutter!" Can American Anglicanism as expressed in the Episcopal Church, rediscover a true sense of comprehensiveness? The old analogies of churchmanship of High, Low and Broad are now blurred and belong to an earlier age. Yet there seems to be a dividing line between those who are comfortable with an effective engagement of their faith and those who would prefer to keep it at an intellectual level. Both are needed says the priest. The question at this 11th hour of the Episcopal Church is whether the two will still be together after February 2005. The Rev. Dr. David H. McDowell-Fleming is rector of St. Monica's Episcopal Church in Cantonment, Florida in the Diocese of the Central Gulf Coast. His book may be purchased by going to www.iUniverse.com (122pp. $13.95).

(NOTE: Virtuosity contacted Mainstream Coalition and learned that a number of Episcopalians are actively monitoring conservative churches) OVERLAND PARK, Kan. (AP)   A recent Sunday found Tina Kolm changing her morning routine. Instead of attending a Unitarian Universalist service, she was at the Lenexa Christian Center, paying close attention to a conservative minister's sermon about the importance of amending the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage. Kolm is one of about 100 volunteers for the Mainstream Coalition, a group monitoring the political activities of local pastors and churches. The coalition, based in suburban Kansas City, Kan., says it wants to make sure clergy adhere to federal tax guidelines restricting political activity by nonprofit groups, and it's taking such efforts to a new level. The 47-year-old Kolm, from Prairie Village, Kan., said keeping church and state separate is important to her. She doesn't want a few religious denominations defining marriage -- or setting other social policy -- for everyone. "What it's all about to me is denying some people's rights," she said. But some local clergy think the Mainstream Coalition is using scare tactics designed to unfairly keep them out of the political process. "Somebody is trying to act like Big Brother when there's no need for Big Brother," said the Rev. James Conard, assistant pastor at the First Baptist Church of Shawnee. "It's obviously an intent to intimidate." Kansas isn't the only place in this election year where church-state separation has become a hot issue, but the Mainstream Coalition's efforts are more intense than most. Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed a complaint this month with the Internal Revenue Service against the Rev. Jerry Falwell over a column endorsing President Bush on his ministries' Web site. Falwell said the group was waging a "scare-the-churches campaign." Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United, said local chapters have sent volunteers to church services the Sunday before an election, but he said the Mainstream Coalition's efforts are more sustained. Some conservatives are upset. "These people will stop at nothing to silence churches," said Andrea Lafferty, of the Washington-based Traditional Values Coalition, which says it represents 43,000 churches. The catalyst for the Mainstream Coalition's campaign in Kansas was the debate over gay marriage. In May, the Kansas House rejected a proposed amendment to the Kansas Constitution to ban gay marriage. Dozens of pastors then joined a statewide effort to register 100,000 new voters and elect more sympathetic candidates -- a move similar to one in Washington state, where an Assembly of God pastor is leading an effort to register 60,000 new voters and re-elect Bush. Charles Haynes, a senior scholar with the nonpartisan First Amendment Center in Arlington, Va., said Mainstream's tactics only added to the tension in Kansas. "If we want to escalate a cultural war, this is a good way to do it," he said. But Mainstream's executive director, Caroline McKnight, said her organization is only trying to make sure that churches follow federal law. The group has not yet filed any complaints, she said. McKnight said Mainstream Coalition volunteers visit houses of worship of all types. Said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the conservative American Center for Law and Justice, of Virginia Beach, Va.: "Who deputized this group and its members to be thought police in Kansas -- or elsewhere?"

By Terry Mattingly   George Gallup Jr. has been studying the numbers for a half century and nobody knows better than he does that they just don't add up. Most of the familiar, comforting statistics that describe public religion remain remarkably stable from poll to poll. Somewhere around 86 percent of Americans say they believe in God and another 8 percent or so in a "higher power" of some kind. Sixty percent say faith is "very important" in daily life and another 15 percent say it's "fairly important." In the typical poll, around 80 percent identify themselves as some brand of Christian and claim membership in a congregation. Somewhere between 41 and 46 percent of Americans say they attended church or synagogue in the previous week. Can religious faith answer all of today's problems? Six in 10 say "yes." Throughout the 1990s, nearly two in three affirmed that "God really exists and I have no doubt about it." But there is another side of this religion equation, said Gallup, during a recent address at Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary outside Boston. "Sadly, our society continues to be wracked by domestic problems," he said. "Four in 10 American children go to bed without a father in the home. One-third of teens have been physically abused in the home. One-fourth of all Americans say that drinking is a problem in their home and half of all marriages this year will end in divorce." "What lies ahead? Will democracy remain viable? How can our faith make a difference? How can it sustain us?" That final leap of logic -- linking morality, politics and faith -- may seem strange to those who have followed his meticulous work as America's most trusted brand name in public information and the author of 16 books. But Gallup is convinced that most Americans believe that the state of the nation is closely tied to its spiritual health. Now, the 74-year-old pollster has officially retired. But this doesn't mean Gallup will disappear. As a young man with a religion degree from Princeton University, he considered entering the Episcopal priesthood. No one expects him to stop asking questions about the role of faith in American life. Truth is, Gallup has more questions than answers. But he said being retired will allow him even more time and freedom to discuss the strategies he thinks clergy should adopt if they want to help the faithful follow the doctrines they claim to believe. "Surveys reveal an unprecedented desire for religious and spiritual growth among people in all walks of life and in every region of the nation," he said. "There is an intense searching for spiritual moorings, a hunger for God. It is for churches to seize the moment and to direct this often vague and free-floating spirituality into a solid and lived-out faith." The key, he said, is that too many pastors naively assume that church members know and understand the core doctrines of their own faith. "For example, half of all Protestants have no idea whatsoever what the word 'grace' means and what it has to do with their salvation," he said. "Now, that's pretty basic doctrine. Pastors today assume that their people know the basics. They don't." Clergy assume that believers are familiar with the contents of those Bibles sitting on their bookshelves. They assume church members understand the teachings of other major religions and can hold thoughtful, respectful conversations about the differences between these faiths. Many even assume their members sincerely want to repent of their sins, amend their lives and become serious Christians. Gallup said he is constantly shocked to hear that few pastors ever ask members -- person to person, face to face -- about the status of their faith and personal lives. Many pastors no longer see the need to openly discuss the impact of sin. "Someone has to challenge people to be true disciples of Christ," he said. "Someone has to ask the hard questions. If we don't talk about the whole dimension of sin, repentance, grace and forgiveness, what is the faith all about? What are we doing? Without true discipleship, the church can simply turn into a social services agency." Terry Mattingly ( www.tmatt.net ) teaches at Palm Beach Atlantic University and is senior fellow for journalism at the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities. He writes this weekly column for the Scripps Howard News Service.

By Geoffrey Kirk 23 July 2004   'These hands have ordained women and I am comfortable with that', Bishop Peter Beckwith told delegates to the Forward in Faith North America National Assembly in Bedford, Texas. It was an unfortunate way of putting things. Unfortunate because it was a scarcely veiled allusion to the so-called 'Doctrine of Taint', of which Forward in Faith has often been accused, but which it has never held. And unfortunate in the way in which it seemed to belittle the importance of the very issue which had brought the delegates of that conference together. 'The Network', whatever it stands for (and that is by no means clear), has drawn its line at the consecration of Gene Robinson, and so, by implication, declared other contemporary innovations in the life of the Episcopal Church to be secondary or subsidiary. It is therefore important to ask: Why this line in the sand and no other? It has to be said, with frankness, that it does not appear to be a very tenable line. What, after all, is wrong with the ordination of Gene Robinson? Is it that he is a practising gay bishop? But he was a practising gay priest before he was a practising gay bishop. Why is now so much worse than then? Is it that, as a bishop, he exercises a teaching role in matters of doctrine, which as a cathedral canon he did not exercise? Then why did those who object to the consecration of Gene Robinson not seek the deposition of Jack Spong (whose doctrinal defections were at least as flagrant as Bishop Robinson's?) Is it that Gene Robinson has separated from his wife to embrace a life style excoriated by the scriptures? Certainly he has; but is it clear (Article XXVI and all) that his sacramental acts are defective and that his ministry should therefore be shunned? Frankly, a man's bedroom activities are an uncertain foundation on which to build an ecclesiology -- especially those of a man as uncertain in his mores as Bishop Robinson. He has already forsaken a gay lifestyle for matrimony and deserted matrimony for a gay lifestyle. Who is to say that he will not change his mind again and confound his critics with repentance? Is it because a majority of ECUSA bishops consented to his consecration, so signalling their departure from scriptural fidelity and the constraints of the tradition? They did so, of course. But the challenge is to say why this is a defining moment. Does anyone believe that a majority of ECUSA bishops was faithful to scripture and the tradition up to the moment of the Robinson consecration? Those in the Episcopal Church who have opposed the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate for the last thirty years (and have been marginalised in that Church as a result of their principled stand) have earned the right to ask these questions and more. Forward in Faith maintains that the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate is contrary to the clear teaching of scripture, and is repeatedly and unreservedly condemned in the tradition. We hold that the exegetical sleights of hand which allow women's ordination to be portrayed as consonant with scripture are precisely those which are now being employed in condoning homosexual practice. We believe, moreover, that the two matters are related, not only by the exegetical methods used to uphold them, but by a doctrine of personal rights and freedoms which is itself unevidenced in scripture and inimical to orthodox Christianity. It will be seen that an alliance with those who oppose the homosexualist agenda is one which Forward in Faith can undertake with enthusiasm. It will be equally clear that we cannot do so in terms which will in any way compromise our stand on what is, in our view, the clearest and most fundamental ecclesiological issue in the present debate. We believe that matters of sexual ethics, especially when they set aside (or seek to trivialise or compromise) the marriage bond, seriously affect the integrity of the Church as the Bride of Christ [Ephesians 5:22-33] and the Household of Faith [Galatians 6:10; Ephesians 2:19]. These are matters of great importance. The Apostle Paul, more than once, links sexual license with idolatry. [Romans 1:18-24; Galatians 5:19-20; Colossians 3:5] But the ordination of women (setting aside, as it does, the free, gracious and sovereign action of the Lord in his choice of male Apostles [Matthew 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20]; the deliberate continuation of that choice by the Apostles themselves [Acts 1:15-26]; and the specific and clear prohibitions of Paul in his Apostolic charge to those who were to succeed him [I Timothy 2:11-15]) is graver still. The ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate is for us a salvation issue. By this we mean that it calls into question the apostolicity, continuity and reliability of those sacraments upon which eternal life and salvation depend. We do not mean by this, as some have perversely misconstrued, that those who have ordained women or have received their ministry are damned: simply that their actions endanger the salvation and spiritual well-being of others. Women's ordination is also a primary ecclesiological issue, since it is the vocation and purpose of the Church to guard the authenticity of the sacraments of the Lord, until the Lord himself comes and all sacraments are done away. The Church does not authorise the sacraments; in Christ the sacraments constitute and authorise the Church. Because of the ecclesiological implications of the ordination of women it has been the consistent aim of Forward in Faith to establish a free and independent province of the Anglican Communion in North America which would continue the priesthood and episcopate of the Catholic Church as the Episcopal Church received them. Such a province would, as a matter of course, uphold the Church's teaching on the sanctity and indissolubility of the marriage bond, and other dependent issues in human sexuality. It is not presently clear what the ultimate ecclesial aims of the Network are. We are grateful for the generosity of those who have assured a secure and respected place within it for those opposed to women bishops and priests. But such assurances do not diminish our aims and objectives. Ours is the majority opinion in the communion and in the wider church. It would be foolish, therefore, to allow impaired communion with those within the Network to dictate for us the nature and extent of our fraternal relations with fellow Anglicans opposed to women's ordination -- and our ecumenical opportunities with respect to the great churches of East and West. The Rev. Dr. Geoffrey Kirk is the secretary of Forward in Faith UK

By Frederica Mathewes-Green   Judging from audience response, the tale told in "The Manchurian Candidate" still packs a wallop. Twists in the plot were met by gasps, and a retaliatory punch in the nose with applause. It seems to have everything a summer thriller needs. I have to say "seems to have" because I'm a fan of the original version, released in 1962. Instead of being surprised by turns in the story I kept waiting for them to happen, which kind of takes the sock out of suspense. And without suspense, this version doesn't have much going for it. It's a spectacle of noise and blood, without the psychological subtext that made the original far more disturbing. That may sound like cinema-snob whining, but a quick trip through the earlier version discloses far too many superior points. Both films were based on a Cold War era novel by Richard Condon, and the 1962 film, unsurprisingly, stuck to a Cold War time frame, while the new one is set in the present day. It imagined that an Army unit (then, in Korea; now, in the Gulf) was kidnapped and brainwashed, and returned to the U.S. with a story that Sgt. Raymond Shaw (then, Laurence Harvey; now, Leiv Schreiber) had heroically saved them. But some of the men have nightmares of a very different series of events. The unit's commander, Maj. Bennet Marco (then, Frank Sinatra; now, Denzel Washington), becomes convinced that his memories of Shaw's valor are false, and the nightmares are trying to tell him something true -- something that becomes increasingly urgent. Shaw's scheming mother (then, Angela Lansbury; now, Meryl Streep) has political ambitions, and it begins to appear that the wartime brain-altering has dark connections to the upcoming presidential election. The new film sticks to that outline, but boy has it been updated, and rendered a PC flourish wherever possible. Where Angela Lansbury was the wife of a doltish Senator whom she played like a puppet, Streep is a senator herself. Streep wisely chose to not view the original before making the film, to avoid being influenced by Lansbury's extraordinary performance, which won her an Oscar nod. The character herself, however, demands to be played in certain ways, and Streep's version is inevitably similar. It's well done, but Lansbury's was better, thanks to her babyfaced softness which made the evil more chilling. Another female character has been turned from a romantic interest into a special agent, charging up the stairs with a gun. But the biggest change is in who the bad guy is. The original offered a truly surprising twist: it turns out that right-wing conservatives are right after all. Communists really are infiltrating the country and plotting to take over the government; that's what the title means. The ingenious smoke screen is that Lansbury's husband, Sen. Johnny Iselin (James Gregory -- this character was eliminated from the new movie), is a drunken buffoon who keeps alleging that there are exactly 104 communists operating in the government, or maybe 254, or maybe 57, after he looks at a bottle of Heinz. Iselin is so laughable that being wary of communism looks stupid. Meanwhile, Mrs. Iselin is pulling exactly the strings she wants. Transferred to present day, the story should have run: the men are kidnapped and brainwashed by Muslim terrorists; Shaw's mother is associated with hawks so extreme they make preparation for defense look absurd; in the end we learn that our clever enemy has arranged to have their own candidate elected as our president. But that pleasing symmetry is lost in this new version, where the enemy is not people who are actually shooting at us, but a big, bad corporation. "Manchurian Global" does all kinds of nasty things, though not in pursuit of any particular political aim. Their goal is solely desire for money, a sentiment no one in the audience must share. It's perplexing why an audience would believe that our greatest danger is from a corporation, when Americans are dying on the other side of the world. Especially considering that these two short hours of entertainment can only come to us through the cooperation of a great many corporations, who spent lots of money to do so and hope to make more in return. If we should hate and fear corporations, how come we go along with this? It's the "Look over there!" strategy employed so elegantly by Mrs. Iselin in the first film, and it seems it still works just fine. Every change in the new film is a change for the worse. The brainwashing scenes in the original were profoundly creepy -- you'll never look at a women's garden club the same way again -- and in the new they are just bloody. The idea of brainwashing itself, of coaxing, confusing, and altering a person's mind, is pretty creepy in itself; now the men are controlled by tiny metal implants. The first movie was a psychological thriller, and this one is a robotics thriller. These implants figure in several leaps of implausibility. Marco discovers a lump in his shoulder while showering and cuts out the metal capsule with a knife. Later, he rips off Shaw's shirt and bites the implant out of his back -- yes, really. Although this implant turns out to bear technology that was thought impossible, no one finds it of interest. And, finally, removing the implants makes no difference in the behavior of either Shaw or Marco. So what were they there for? And wouldn't the bad guys at Manchurian Global be tracking these implants, and aware when they went missing? And wouldn't the implants have shown up any time the guys went through a metal detector? And how could you miss noticing a lump in your shoulder for a dozen years? There are points where this plot is just weak, and then there are points where it crosses over to dumb. It's tempting for me to go on comparing the two films, but much better for you to do so. If you have never seen the original "Manchurian Candidate," you are in for a scary treat. It's not a summer action movie; it's a smaller, more thoughtful, more provocative film, and one that will haunt you a long time. Rent it before you go to your local giant corporate theater chain to watch the new corporately-financed version -- unless, of course, you agree with this movie's message and think such things are the greatest evil we face.

By Jean Torkelson Rocky Mountain News July 27, 2004 A new Episcopal parish in Jefferson County may close in January because pledges to the Episcopal Diocese of Colorado have plunged 25 percent, which is nearly $500,000 this year. Traditionalists say the drop in donations is meant to send a message to the bishop to stop backing same-sex blessings. "New Life Church has no money in the budget from the diocese for next year - zero," said the Rev. Chuck Reischman, pastor of New Life Episcopal Church, 11195 W. Belleview Ave. New Life stands to lose $147,000 in funding in 2005, according to an overview of the proposed budget sent last week to the diocese's standing committee by its chief financial officer, Bob Leaman. New Life is one of two "start-up" churches. The other, Briargate in Colorado Springs, faces a $50,000 loss. Leaman laid out details of a slimmed-down $1.6 million budget last week for the committee, an advisory body to the bishop. The budget will be voted on at the diocesan convention in October. In order to erase a projected 10 percent deficit of $160,000 and balance the budget, the diocese would have to pull support for Reischman's church as well as Briargate. In addition, Leaman wrote, "assume a payroll freeze at all levels" for 2005. He added that revenue from congregations' pledges will be flat next year, too. The diocese had expected nearly $1.8 million in pledges but will likely receive less than $1.3 million this year, according to figures distributed to the committee. The diocese said Leaman was on vacation. He could not be reached for comment. Traditionalists blame the decline in giving on the Episcopal Church USA's endorsement last year for openly gay bishop Gene Robinson and same-sex blessings. Colorado Bishop Rob O'Neill also supports gay rights. But he's moved slowly in implementing them because of conservatives' ire, which they are demonstrating by reducing their financial pledges to the diocese. O'Neill is out of town this week and did not return calls to his cell phone. "It is absolutely unprecedented to cut the funding of a mission church that has become successful" like New Life, said the Rev. Don Armstrong, a conservative leader and member of the standing committee. The 50-member New Life church would have gone in the red in September, but received $11,500 in emergency funding from the Episcopal Foundation, said Reischman. Now, he said, "We can keep the lights on till Christmas." Reischman was brought to Colorado from Ohio in 2001 by now-retired Bishop Jerry Winterrowd, who sought out Reischman and his wife, Gina, because they had founded a vibrant youth ministry, Joshua Force. Winterrowd wanted the Reischmans to fill St. Nicholas Episcopal Church, which lost its pastor and most of the congregation in 2000. They were among the first wave of Episcopalians to leave over the issue of expanding homosexual rights in the church. The Reischmans agreed to come to Colorado to start New Life Church. They also have continued to run Joshua Force. Reischman said his church is healthy and growing this year - which is why he hopes the diocese can find a way to continue its support. Thanks to the diocese's current funding, New Life was able to distribute 5,000 information packets in the neighborhood, which yielded 13 new visitors last Sunday. "We find ourselves in the middle of a battle that the whole denomination finds itself in," Reischman said. "But this is a vibrant, growing congregation, and new families are coming every week and are excited about being at a Christ-centered church. Somehow, we will find a way to continue. I just don't know what that 'way' will look like." Budget Summaries for Episcopal Diocese of Colorado 2003 Actual Results Total revenues: $1,868,496 Total expenses: $2,037,929 Deficit: $169,532 2004 Revised Budget Total revenues: $1,650,525 Total expenses: $1,796,510 Projected deficit: $145,985 2005 Proposed Budget (after adjustments) Total revenues: $1,625,200 Total expenses: $1,649,200 Projected deficit: $24,000 Source: Episcopal Diocese of Colorado — END —

By Andrew Carey 7/26/2004 A nasty piece of spin in the Sunday Times this week. Readers will need to know that Christopher Morgan is an old friend of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, and was in fact his best man. A pattern is emerging that new initiatives from Lambeth Palace are trailed by Christopher Morgan in The Sunday Times - a seeming favouritism that other newspapers deeply resent. Morgan reveals that the Archbishop of Canterbury is marking the third anniversary of 9/11 with a speech to praise Islam at Al-Azhar university. Morgan even apparently knows the content of the speech stating that the Archbishop will speak to his Muslim congregation of the common ground between Christianity and Islam through their shared inheritance as 'children of Abraham'. The story it must be said, is genuinely newsworthy and controversial because it marks the anniversary of the Islamist terror unleashed on the United States of America. But the whole tone of the report suggests that this lecture is of groundbreaking significance, whereas in fact Rowan's predecessor, who is criticised later in the article, lectured twice at Al-Azhar University (in 1994 and 1999) and established several important dialogues with Islam, including the Building Bridges seminar which Morgan disingenuously credits to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair. It is in this sense that I believe it to be a nasty piece of spin. Readers will expect me to say that given my relationship to Rowan's predecessor. Naturally enough I object to this from Morgan's report: "Muslim leaders believe Williams' address will repair some of the damage done to relations by a critical lecture from Lord Carey, his predecessor. Earlier this year at a seminar in Rome, Carey accused Muslim societies of being authoritarian and committed to power and privilege. He also criticised Muslim leaders who failed to condemn suicide bombers unequivocally. "In a rare clash among the higher echelons of the two faiths, Muslim leaders rounded on Carey, accusing him of bigotry and religious prejudice. Carey seemed bemused by the reaction." The report aids and abets this strange idea that criticism of Islam is out-of-bounds. So-called Muslim moderates need to have the maturity to accept well-intended criticism rather than petulantly claiming victim status every time someone points out a few home truths. After all, Islamic leaders throughout the world are only too happy to attack western values and describe America as 'the Great Satan'. I cannot believe for a moment that Archbishop Williams will duck the issues by delivering a lecture which minimises the major points of difference between our faiths. If he does then he will let us down badly. A speech which only emphasises our common inheritance and points of agreement will amount to nothing less than a betrayal of Christian minorities persecuted in countries like Nigeria, Pakistan and indeed deprived of their human rights throughout the Middle East. — END —

By Peter Toon People who have the time and inclination to read my little tracts and books will have noticed that consistently over the years I have referred to the official Prayer Book of the Episcopal Church, USA, as "the 1979 Prayer Book." This is a reasonable title to use and it is used by me for one basic reason -- in order to avoid using the official title as given to it by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in Minneapolis 1979 which was "The Book of Common Prayer..." Why do I seek to avoid calling this Book by its official title? The answer is simple. I cannot in conscience or historical judgment see it as "The Book of Common Prayer." It is most certainly a Prayer Book, but to my eyes it is not "The BCP." If we actually take note only of its internal contents which are characterized by variety and choice, we see very clearly and quickly that they belong to the new class of Prayer Books which were produced from the early 1970s onwards in the western/northern parts of the Anglican Communion, after the Lambeth Conference gave its moral backing to this enterprise. These new Books were intended to provide experimental, alternative forms of public services alongside the received, historical, Book of Common Prayer. Thus they usually contained the word "alternative" in their titles - e.g., An Alternative Service Book (England 1980). Therefore, as a historian of doctrine and of forms of Anglican worship, I see that the 1979 book was given the wrong title. It should have been something like, An American Prayer Book (1979) or A Book of Alternative Services (1979). When I enquire why it has the wrong title, I find a long and involved story about the ecclesiastical politics operative in the Episcopal Church from the 1960s into the 1970s and it is not necessary to tell that story here. However, looking back over the history of the Episcopal Church from the new millennium back to the 1960s, I can see clearly how so often the General Convention is driven not by a commitment to biblical truth and historical orthodoxy, but by the desire to innovate to be relevant to a fast changing society and culture. So, it seems to me, the title of the new Prayer Book was a major innovation, a novel way of using an hallowed and distinctive title in order to make easy the speedy entrance of innovation and change of doctrine. And as such it worked as bishops took up the cause and pressed its use upon all dioceses of the Church. Because its title is the wrong one does not mean that there are not useful, even good, things in the 1979 Book. I gladly accept that by it, in the hands of faithful priests over the years, many have been blessed by God. Thus, in summary, my position in terms of my relation to the Prayer Books of the ECUSA is to regard the last edition of the classic Book of Common Prayer, the edition of 1928 as the true Formulary of the Anglican Way in America and then to see the 1979 Book as the equivalent of the ASB (1980) of the Church of England and the BAS (1985) of the Anglican Church of Canada (and of others similar ones from Australia, South Africa. Wales, Ireland etc). So for me to say "the 1979 Prayer Book" is to see it as an official alternative to the classic BCP and also under the general doctrinal standard of the historic editions in the USA of the classic BCP - that is those of 1662, 1789, 1892 & 1928. When the new Prayer Book (or perhaps books and web sites of liturgical resources) of the ECUSA appears later in this decade, then I shall have to re-evaluate my position; but I expect that I shall regard the 1979 Book as conservative in comparison with the innovatory content of what will replace it by 2010! In and of itself the 1979 Book was innovatory in 1979 but such have been the changes within the ECUSA that it is now a conservative bedrock for some. (The liberals of the 1970s became the conservatives of the 1990s!) The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.), is vicar of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor & St Anne's, Brown Edge; peter@toon662.fsnet.co.uk — END

From correspondents in London July 25, 2004 The head of the worldwide Anglican Church, the archbishop of Canterbury, will reportedly mark the third anniversary of the September 11 attacks by praising Islam in an address from the pulpit of an Egyptian mosque. Rowan Williams had accepted an invitation to speak at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, considered by many to be the Muslim world's most important centre of learning, Britain's Sunday Times said today. He would speak of the common ground between Christianity and Islam with their shared inheritance as "children of Abraham", the report said. "It is a very significant moment in the history of our two faiths and especially coming from a man of his stature and learning," Zaki Badawi, the founder of the Muslim College in London, told the newspaper. "This will cement the relationship between Christianity and Islam because he will point out those aspects which unite the two religions. "The Muslims throughout the world feel beleaguered and a comforting word from Archbishop Williams will assure our people they are not alone." Al-Azhar is considered the most important religious university in the Muslim world and is attended by 90,000 students. — END —