Archives

Visiting C of E bishop wants end to rhetoric on gay clergy By Steve Levin Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 3/28/2004 An influential Church of England bishop visiting Pittsburgh this week believes the crisis in the Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion over gay ordination is related to America's unilateralism. The Rt. Rev. N.T. Wright, bishop of Durham in the Church of England and former canon theologian of Westminster Abbey, said "America has been screwing the world into the socket" for years to reach agreements on land mines, global debt, the environment and trade. Yet when it came time to invade Iraq, the United States acted virtually alone, Wright said in a phone interview from England. He compared that action to the Episcopal Church's consecration of an openly gay bishop against existing church polity. "So why should the world listen to the [Episcopalians in the] United States when changing Episcopal Church law?" he asked. "It is bound to be perceived as, 'There you go again.' It's more of the same." Wright will be in Pittsburgh today through Thursday to speak at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary's Schaff Lectures and talk at churches in the region. As the fourth most important bishop in the Church of England after the bishops of Canterbury, York and London, Wright's comments carry weight beyond that province and throughout the 70-million-member Anglican Communion, which also includes the Episcopal Church, USA. Author of more than 30 books, he also is a member of the 19-member Lambeth Commission formed in October by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Its mission is to find ways of keeping the worldwide Anglican Communion from disintegrating in the wake of the Episcopal Church's ordination of an openly gay bishop and a Canadian diocese's sanctioning of same-sex blessings. Wright said the primary question to be answered by the Lambeth Commission is one of communion, not homosexuality. The consecration of the Rt. Rev. Gene Washington as bishop of New Hampshire was counter to several previous Anglican resolutions, he said. "We're looking at questions of how you hold the church together when that happens," Wright said. "Only secondarily is the question of homosexuality." The Lambeth Commission held its first meeting in February. A second is scheduled for North Carolina in June. Its final report to the archbishop is due in September. Wright was a logical choice for the commission. In addition to his senior position in the Church of England, he taught New Testament studies for 20 years at universities in England and Canada, and participated in numerous international debates on church doctrine. Commission members have agreed not to reveal details of their work. He has no plans during his stay to meet with Diocese of Pittsburgh Bishop Robert W. Duncan Jr. Duncan is moderator of the Anglican Communion Network, which seeks alternate Episcopal oversight for parishes and individuals who disagree with their diocese's stand on gay clergy and same-sex blessings. Wright's own opinion -- "It is inappropriate to ordain to regular ministries those who are active, practicing homosexuals" -- is well known. The key to any discussion, he said, is dispensing with rhetoric. "We need to claim the right and the duty to think through individual issues on a case-by-case basis instead of going with a knee-jerk reaction," he said. "The best case I can think of at this moment ... is for a lot of real listening all around. That has to be listening not to rhetoric but a real digging into what the real issues are," such as scripture and the church's creation doctrine. He is less sanguine about the future of the Anglican Communion should the debate not be resolved. The communion, he said, "simply could come apart at the seams." "We really don't know what that would look like." The topic of Wright's lectures is "Putting Paul Back Together Again." END

By Todd H. Wetzel One week ago, I challenged the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church, USA to commit themselves to a plan for Adequate Episcopal Oversight that displayed true compassion for those who disagreed with General Convention 2003. Their procedure released on 24 March is seriously flawed. It proposes that the only party with any power in the decision making process is the diocesan bishop, not those in disagreement with General Convention. That, by definition, is not adequate oversight. The Archbishop of Canterbury made it clear, that the aggrieved party has the right to determine what constitutes adequate oversight, not the adjudicating bishop. This report has not indicated that the House of Bishops will even read, let alone heed, the Eames Commission report or the decision of the Primates, due out in October 2004. And so, the crisis in ECUSA deepens. The meeting of the House of Bishops points squarely to the necessity for intervention by the Anglican Communion in the Episcopal Church, USA, because the degree of woundedness is past the point where the resources for a cure exist. The Episcopal Church cannot heal itself, nor does it have the will. The meeting this week provides further evidence of the Episcopal Church's narcissistic, self-preoccupied dysfunction. This institution has for decades cast itself as concerned for the oppressed, yet can find not a shred of compassion for those who feel marginalized by this church's recent decisions. The House of Bishops' stubborn and stiff-necked refusal to consider that they are in error has brought this church to this crisis. One must bear in mind that the leadership of ECUSA was warned repeatedly by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates Council, and bishops from provinces all over the world that to approve the practice of homosexuality and lend the church's blessing to it would do no end of harm. The leaders who met last weekend in Navasota have chosen again to proceed without respect for a company of brothers and sisters both around the world and in the United States. Why is it so difficult for the power structure of ECUSA to acknowledge the rights of those who disagree with them? The only hope of avoiding ecclesiastical war is that a moderate group from the House of Bishops will find the courage to recognize the plight of the aggrieved and act appropriately. The report of this meeting does not lend much credence to this hope. We must wait for the October decision of the Eames Commission and the next Primate's meeting. Only then will the orthodox in ECUSA know if there is any hope for this sinking ship. The Rev. Todd H. Wetzel is Executive Director of Anglicans United & Latimer Press

By Lee Buck "Do it our way or get out!" David Virtue recently published an article concerning Walter Righter, the thrice married Bishop, who left his first wife for his secretary. He said in that article, "How can the Bishops 'allow' what the canons and constitution do not allow? How can the Bishops 'cede control' that is not theirs to cede? Even if they wanted to, they cannot. If outfits like the AAC and the Network et al must have a plan cast in concrete, they are stuck with it." Here is a bishop who blatantly and arrogantly violated the canons and the constitution of the church. Yet, in his mind, how you violate those documents makes a difference. If you violate the canons, creeds Articles of Religion, and the Constitution, by allowing heresy, or anti-scriptural behavior, that is admissible and proper, but, if you take an orthodox and biblical stand for righteousness then that is sinful and wicked. Do you consider this convoluted thinking? Any rational person, believer or not, would recognize syllogistic logic in Righter's arguments. So what is new in this? NOTHING !!! We have been subjected to this kind of disinformation and deception for the last 30 or so years and it has gotten worse. Over these years, those clerics and those laypersons who have loved the Lord Jesus and have been willing to say so, have received from the "Princes of the Church" characterizations and labels such as "Fundamentalist", let me assure you that label is bad, "bible basher or toter", and this one is equally bad, "bigot" a label earned because they believe the bible means what it says about homosexuality, and to this you may be able to add a number of others. They have taken the English language and perverted it to mean something it was never intended to mean. For example, in the Episcopal Church, the Homosexual Lobby has entitled itself "Integrity". Integrity is a wonderful word taken in the context of what it really means, but a counterfeit and spurious connotation when applied to the homosexual organization calling itself "Integrity". In the Catholic Church the homosexual lobby calls itself "Dignity". Great God Almighty, when one apprehends what homosexuals actually practice in their sexual habits, the word "Dignity" becomes corrupted and deviant. Oral sex is "dignified"? Anal sex is dignified and has integrity? And then there are the other nefarious practices, too libidinous to list, for the ears of anyone who has "real dignity" and "real integrity". Friends, even at my age of almost 81, I confess I don't know how lesbians engage in sex. The one precept, of which I am aware, is that Holy Scripture condemns sex between man and man, and woman and woman. Anyone who can read is able to understand the words of the NIV bible, or the KJV bible or any other version, and know that it condemns homosexual practice. Then there is the ploy, "We believe the bible, but it can be interpreted differently." That statement is true in a number of instances; however, none of that kind of reasoning can be applied to the scriptures concerning homosexual practice, the very plain and forthright scriptures which have been translated by erudite scholars of every religious persuasion, the same way for 2000 years. However, if one does not subscribe to the tenet that the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God, no matter what "biblical" argument is presented will make a tinker's damn. Frankly, the way language is used can turn the hearts of people toward or away from almost anything. Hitler and his propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, used language to sway and to influence an entire nation into committing atrocious and venal sins against humanity. Hitler used language to seduce people into trusting him as the sole authority in their lives. They ended up by swearing allegiance, not to a country, not to an ideal, not to a cause but to Hitler himself. Yes, all this came about through propaganda. 50 years ago, no one would have dreamed that men would be lined up in San Francisco to marry other men. People of that day, and I am one of them, would have said "PREPOSTEROUS". And, yet, the day has come. Over 20 years ago I obtained a study book entitled "The Homosexual Network" by Enrique Rueda, a native of Cuba who has a Masters Degree from Fordham, advanced degrees in Theology and Divinity from St. Josephs Seminary, and was employed by the Free Congress Foundation as a researcher and writer. When I obtained this book, and by the way, it is a research book and takes study and intensive reading, I could not believe what it said. But it has all come true!!! In this book the statement is made, "There is little question that the homosexual movement is part and parcel of American liberalism." {The Homosexual Network, Enrique Rueda, 1982, Pge 384}. Yes, the ECUSA has become part of that liberalism because the ECUSA has been kidnapped by the liberals of the church. They are not only "religiously liberal", but they are liberal in their social mores, in their politics, in their education and almost anything else one can name. They are the ones who have introduced to the church and helped introduce to the world "Political Correctness." They have seized the reins of power and they "own" the church. Yes, they "own" the church. What am I saying here? I am saying that there is no possibility for the ECUSA to remain a Christian Church and no possibility for the ECUSA to remain a part of the Anglican Communion. They are going to be run out on a rail by the Anglicans of the world who love the scriptures, have a deep and abiding faith in the Lord Jesus, and have suffered for that faith. It is certain that I am about to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune for my next statement, but it must be made. I am compelled to say, for the sake of my brothers and sisters who are operating inside not the "iron curtain" but the "liberal curtain" that they must now make a choice. I lived through the Neville Chamberlain era, before WWII, when the word was "Compromise' – Compromise "Compromise", with the hope that war would not be the result. But, we all know, that compromise with evil never works. Listen to me brothers and sisters, compromise with evil means that the one who compromises, loses and will eventually have to engage in real warfare. Hitler was not defeated from within; he was defeated by the Allied Forces from around the world. Liberalism in the ECUSA has taken such deep root that the only way to get rid of it is by excision and extirpation. Yes, excommunication is coming for the ECUSA. For those of you still paying allegiance to the ECUSA do what you must do and do it quickly. Lee Buck was a lay evangelist for more than 30 years in the Episcopal Church. Recently the congregation he attends in Atlanta came under the spiritual authority of the Province of the Southern Cone.

By Robert Seitz To witness the descent of the ECUSA mindset to the parish level is a painful experience. The divisiveness that at first was distantly abstract quickly became up close and personal. Suddenly one finds that the parish is composed of the "them" and the "us", and one of the two is no longer welcome. This has occurred recently at Grace Episcopal Church in Tampa, Florida. Here was a relatively small parish (300 communicants, more or less), proud of its family atmosphere, proud of its friendliness, and proud to have recently attained parish status. It became subtly obvious not long after the General Convention that there are two sides to this debate, and they are emotionally incompatible. (The exception, of course, is the larger group of the apathetic and purely parochial in outlook -- the "what's a presiding bishop?" crowd.) We initially engaged in a series of "conversations", largely focused on homosexuality, the symptom, rather than the real question of orthodoxy and its spiritual foundation. Our bishop (John Lipscomb, Southwest Florida) was of the mind that "it is a time for conversation, not action". After a half dozen essentially worthless sessions it had become clear that divisiveness had crept in on us, however quietly, yet palpable. Life moved along comfortably as the elephant in the room was largely ignored until it came time for pledges to be gathered. A serious number of former pledgers abstained or cut their pledge to a reluctant pittance. The budget for 2004, as a result, is short many thousands. The elephant in the sanctuary was beginning to take form, though still transparent. In December a small group of conservatives met to discuss the possibility of moving the parish toward becoming a Confessing Parish of the AAC, thus defining it as a scriptural, orthodox, traditional parish. The rector was present as we formulated the idea of bringing such a recommendation to the vestry, and it was decided that during the February vestry meeting a presentation would be made to that effect. Meanwhile, in January, a number of pre-service (9:00 am) meetings were held to openly discuss the future of Grace relative to the current dilemma. All were invited but the few who attended were largely pro-AAC. It is during this period that the liberal contingent began to become quietly active, and the elephant began to take on visible mass. A couple weeks after the sessions began, for example, an edict was published by the parish leadership and read from the pulpit one Sunday. Included therein was the prohibition of any discussion of the AAC question on church grounds and at any official church function. The backlash was bitter and vocal, and the prohibition was lifted the next Sunday by the rector. The February vestry presentation was made by two members of the pro-AAC group who are both articulate and of strong conviction. From what I gather, it was received in a neutral fashion, and the vestry agreed to study the idea and possibly vote on the matter, in the form of a binding motion, yea or nay, at the March meeting. Much was made during this time that the congregation (much less the vestry) remained uninformed of the true nature of such a move. In an attempt to remedy that shortcoming a series of three evening meetings, open to all, was scheduled to present the facts and to discuss at length the ramifications of a move to Confessing Parish status with the AAC. It is here that the liberal, anti-AAC contingent became publicly visible and vocal. The movement was met with suspicion, assertions of misguided activities, and some serious acrimony The elephant's presence was now unmistakable, and who it would trample was, to some, becoming predictable. The March vestry meeting, Tuesday the 16th, was organized with great care. Individuals wishing to address the vestry (presumably in favor of AAC) were allowed three minutes each to present their thoughts. Eleven persons did so, including three opposed. No questions or comments from the 30 or 40 other persons in attendance were allowed. No statement from the opposition had ever been made formally to the vestry. In remedy a fifteen minute presentation from a spokeswoman for the opposition was forthcoming. She reduced Martin Luther to amateur status as she forcefully nailed the vestry with her theses. The AAC supporters were dividing the formerly happy church, forcing unwanted alliances down the congregation's throat, and attempting an unbearable takeover. Joining the AAC would accomplish nothing, change nothing, but create a schism within Grace. It must be stopped. (She fell short of proposing we be burned at the stake, but we got the message.) It had been decided that the vote that evening was either to support or defeat the AAC motion that was on the table -- no putting it off. The rector announced that the vote of the vestry would be by secret ballot. The previously well-behaved audience erupted in protest, and a vestryman moved to vote by a show of hands instead. That motion was defeated, and the vote proceeded by secret ballot. The rector abstained (for reasons explained below) and the vote was tied at 6-6. Before one could take a breath it was announced that the tie defeated the motion. No AAC. Then the senior warden whipped out a motion prepared for this situation that was designed to patronize the AAC supporters. Within the motion was the idea that a list of all persons who are personally members of AAC be sent to the diocese each year to indicate their unhappiness with the ECUSA position. Once again we were labeled as outsiders and separatists -- just the thing to enhance unity! This Schindler's List in reverse was the last straw, and most of the AAC group walked out, never to return. During the next few days numerous letters of resignation were received by the rector. The parish that evening lost a considerable number of faithful, longtime members (at least 15 families). The quantity is not as important as the fact that those who left were large contributors of time, talent, and treasure. This may have been a factor contributing to the ease with which the AAC group was characterized as a dire threat, in that the group largely was comprised of the active, the highly visible, the doers, the movers and shakers. Many of these true-believers are now attending a local AMiA parish. This case study, if nothing else, points out the perils of a failure of leadership, yet in some ways it is understandable. The rector himself is a member of AAC, and is soon to retire. Thus he abstained from the vote, and thus there existed a newly appointed search committee. Two vestry members have resigned, and two members of the search committee did likewise. Whether Grace will survive as a parish, and whether it will be permitted to proceed with the calling may be in question. All this could not have happened at a worse time. A priest who had hoped to retire in a blaze of glory has, instead, gone down in flames. It is easy for a priest (or a bishop) to intimidate; it is very difficult to repair the resulting damage. Bob Seitz has been a member of the Diocese of SWFLA since 1962, serving on numerous vestries, and a longtime member of Grace as a lay reader. He recently left Grace Episcopal Church in Tampa, FL. END

A Forward in Faith Response to the House of Bishops' Paper 'Caring for all the Churches' "I could not possibly be more proud of our bishops, who with great care and deliberation sought to articulate our shared ministry of reconciliation in ways that are generous toward those who feel themselves in some sense alienated from our common life," Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold said, commending the House of Bishops' paper 'Caring for all the Churches'. The paper itself lays equal stress on a doctrine of reconciliation and on the role of bishop as a focus of unity. It needs to be asked, therefore, what reconciliation the bishops envisage or expect as a result of their initiative. The Problem As the bishops admit, two conflicting opinions are held in the Episcopal Church about the moral admissibility of homosexual acts. Where is compromise between these positions to be sought? What issues are at stake and how might they be settled? In understanding of the Scriptures? Here there is a fundamental disagreement. On the one hand there are those who suppose the plain meaning of scripture in the matter of same sex relationships to be apparent to all and to be upheld by the consistent tradition of the Church throughout the ages. On the other hand there are those who suppose that scripture is unclear on this and other important matters, that the tradition is no certain guide to its interpretation, and that modern knowledge raises matters previously unknown and so unaddressed by its authors. Some of them believe that the scriptures are the possession of the Church (in the sense of the contemporary believing community) and that the Church (in that sense) can re-interpret or ignore them as it will. In attitudes to the authority and competence of the local Church? Here there are also radical differences of opinion. On the one hand there are those who hold that the local church (in the sense of the diocese or province) has plenary authority to order its own affairs. For them a democratic decision at the appropriate level settles the matter. (That level is held by some to be diocesan – "the people of New Hampshire have the right to call the bishop they want"; by some it is thought to be provincial – "this Church has the authority to order its ministry as it alone sees fit"). On the other hand there are those who cling tenaciously to the understanding that no province of the Anglican Communion (or even the Communion as a whole) is more than a small part of the Church Universal and that those parts are answerable for any wounds or divisions inflicted upon the wider Church. In particular they are directly answerable to other churches in the Anglican tradition and to the common inheritance. In sexual morality? Surely it is here that the deepest disagreements lie. On the one hand there are those who hold that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life, and that all relations of a sexual nature outside that bond fall short of the demands made by God of Christian people. They are consequently of the opinion that a man who cannot or will not conform himself to such standards of conduct (or remain celibate) is not a fit person to assume the role of bishop in the Church, - for the bishop is to be, in the words of St Ignatius of Antioch, 'a type of the Father'. On the other hand there are those who suppose that a man may separate himself from his wife and family, contract a new and openly carnal relationship with a person of the same sex, and still be regarded as an appropriate person to exercise the office of a bishop and the guardianship, in the diocese over which he is appointed, of the Church's doctrine and morals. In short there are presently represented, in the Episcopal Church, in its dioceses and in many of its parishes, two views which are diametrically opposed. They are, moreover, asymmetrically disposed. Those who reject the ordination of a non-celibate homosexual as bishop do so, at least in part, in order to sustain the unity of the Church in present time and its continuity with the past. Those who uphold the appointment of such a man as bishop express their opinion contra mundum. The Proposed Solution There are, moreover, obvious and serious problems with the mechanism – Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight – which the bishops have proposed as a means of dealing with these differences. The problems are of two kinds: of principle and of process. The principle underlying the bishops' statement is that the unity of the Church consists, not in shared belief, but in due canonical form. 'Sensitive pastoral care does not presuppose like-mindedness,' say the bishops. 'Bishops and congregations have frequently disagreed about particular articulations and interpretations of scripture and the Creeds while being able to transcend their differences through common prayer and celebration of the sacraments of the new covenant.' Some of this, of course, is true - to a limited extent. But it is not true that bishops may, with impunity, entertain whatever theological or ethical opinions they think fit. On the contrary, the Church entrusts to them the task of guarding the faith, so that it may be passed on, in its integrity, to future generations. The college of bishops, both provincial and world-wide, should be a fellowship in which restraint and discipline are exercised in charity. The failure of the House of Bishops of ECUSA to exercise, or even to acknowledge, that collegial restraint has, in the recent past, been apparent by their willingness to accept among their number bishops who have denied the principal tenets of the Nicene Faith. It is similarly manifest in their deliberate rejection of the fraternal guidance offered them by successive Lambeth Conferences, and by the recent meeting of the Primates. Where the House of Bishops of a province is dysfunctional in this way, the responsibility to guard the faith and perpetuate its doctrines inevitably devolves to groups of clergy and laity. Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight, as the bishops define it, is a proposal which gives plenary authority to those who have precipitated the present crisis to administer provision for those alienated by their actions. It gives to those at variance with the majority in the Episcopal Church no rights in the matter whatsoever. All discretion is in the hands of the innovators. Where it counts, the protocol of proposals invariably uses the word 'may'; where the interests of the minority are at stake the word 'shall' never appears. It will come as no surprise to those who drafted it, that this is wholly unacceptable to those to whom it is addressed. Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (as the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church has defined it) is: a) precisely, not oversight – that is to say it does not provide what the Primates of the Communion called for. They asked for 'provinces concerned to make adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates'. Elsewhere in the Communion, 'oversight' (episcope) involves responsibility for the care, governance and supervision of part of the Church; in short, it necessarily involves jurisdiction. Not so, it seems, in the Episcopal Church, where the bishops assert the opposite to be the case: 'In our Episcopal Church polity,' they claim, "oversight" does not confer "jurisdiction."' By this sleight of hand, redefining episcope to mean what they want it to mean, the bishops of the Episcopal Church have sought to evade the very provision demanded of them b) In any case, minimal – that is to say it affects the existing rights and jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop in no way. Nor does the provision include anything new, or even extend what already exists. As the bishops themselves say: 'We believe that the present Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church are sufficient for dealing with questions of episcopal oversight, supplemental episcopal pastoral care, and disputes that may arise between the bishop and a congregation. We encourage that their provisions be used wisely and in the spirit of charity.' The problem that, in some quarters, those provisions have not been applied (with or without 'charity') is simply not addressed. c) concessionary, rather than conciliatory – that is to say that it makes no admission or acknowledgement that there has been, or might have been, conduct prejudicial to the unity and well-being of the Church on the part of the bishops who have framed it. d) temporary – that is to say that its clear intention is to eliminate dissent. 'When an agreement is reached with respect to a plan, it shall be for the purpose of reconciliation... The plan shall be for a stated period of time with regular reviews.' These 'plans' will be temporary; they are simply to allow time for the parish concerned to brought to 'reconciliation' with the views of its bishop. In any case, no one who has observed the fate of those opposed to the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate (reduced now to three bishops whose dioceses will be unable to secure the required consents for like-minded successors) can expect a body of bishops opposed the recent innovation to survive for any length of time. A future in which there are no bishops who could be invited to offer DEPO is already in sight. Conclusion We reject the proposals of the House of Bishops, both as to their premises and their provisions. Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight will not provide what we need. We trust that the Lambeth Commission and the Primates Meeting will reject it as an insubstantial and merely cosmetic response to a deepening crisis of both Faith and Order. Let no one be in any doubt: DEPO will not and cannot bring about the reconciliation promised. The self-congratulatory language of those who have framed these proposals is, moreover, a further offence in itself. END

News Analysis By David W. Virtue PITTSBURGH, PA-(3/30/2004) The former Bishop of Iowa, Walter Righter, who publicly condemned five dissenting retired bishops for participating in a confirmation service in the Diocese of Ohio, saying that they should leave the Episcopal Church, has been performing sacramentally, without permission or a license in the orthodox Diocese of Pittsburgh bishop Robert Duncan. The revisionist bishop, who walked away from charges that he violated the canons for ordaining a non-celibate homosexual man to the deaconate in 1990, has been caught red-handed in the Pittsburgh Diocese without ever obtaining the approval of Bishop Duncan. Righter had argued, "How can the Bishops 'allow' what the canons and constitution do not allow? How can the Bishops 'cede control' that is not theirs to cede? Even if they wanted to, they cannot." Apparently Righter has been doing "what the canons and constitution do not allow" for more than six months in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. According to a source he has been "supplying" at Calvary Church while the ultra-liberal rector Harold Lewis is on sabbatical. Righter moved back from Maine because his third wife is from Pittsburgh. Reached at Calvary Church, the Rev. Leslie G. Reimer associate rector for Pastoral Care, refused at first to answer any questions about Righter's activities at the church, but then admitted that "he was helping us out liturgically." Pressed on whether he was performing full sacramental functions, Reimer did not deny it, but said that a letter the church sent to Bishop Duncan about Righter's presence and activities in the church went unanswered. "The Canons require we ask, we did, but we never got an answer. We never received an answer one way or the other," she said. According to a spokesman in the bishop's office, Righter should not have performed any functions at the parish without the bishop's permission, and by crossing into another diocese without permission and preaching and celebrating; he was in violation of the Canons after 90 days. Does this mean that there could be a second Righter Trial? Diocesan officials would not say. Clearly Righter, who has been an outspoken critic of orthodox bishops and an outright proponent of pansexual behavior (he functioned as an assistant bishop under Jack Spong in the Diocese of Newark) may finally get his own comeuppance. So the rules only apply to others, not to Mr. Righter, said a source to Virtuosity. While the Pittsburgh Diocese was holding hearings on resolutions to come before special convention, the Righters were both very vocal at the open hearing in Fox Chapel. "Isn't it interesting that this is the man who says conservatives ought to leave ECUSA? Perhaps he sees himself stepping into a geographically convenient Diocesan opening?" The resolution that the revisionists pushed through the HoB condemning the Ohio confirmations, said that the next time this happened there would be disciplinary action. Now it has and Righter, the hypocrite, should be put on trial and tossed out of the church. END

By Robert Seitz To witness the descent of the ECUSA mindset to the parish level is a painful experience. The divisiveness that at first was distantly abstract quickly became up close and personal. Suddenly one finds that the parish is composed of the "them" and the "us", and one of the two is no longer welcome. This has occurred recently at Grace Episcopal Church in Tampa, Florida. Here was a relatively small parish (300 communicants, more or less), proud of its family atmosphere, proud of its friendliness, and proud to have recently attained parish status. It became subtly obvious not long after the General Convention that there are two sides to this debate, and they are emotionally incompatible. (The exception, of course, is the larger group of the apathetic and purely parochial in outlook -- the "what's a presiding bishop?" crowd.) We initially engaged in a series of "conversations", largely focused on homosexuality, the symptom, rather than the real question of orthodoxy and its spiritual foundation. Our bishop (John Lipscomb, Southwest Florida) was of the mind that "it is a time for conversation, not action". After a half dozen essentially worthless sessions it had become clear that divisiveness had crept in on us, however quietly, yet palpable. Life moved along comfortably as the elephant in the room was largely ignored until it came time for pledges to be gathered. A serious number of former pledgers abstained or cut their pledge to a reluctant pittance. The budget for 2004, as a result, is short many thousands. The elephant in the sanctuary was beginning to take form, though still transparent. In December a small group of conservatives met to discuss the possibility of moving the parish toward becoming a Confessing Parish of the AAC, thus defining it as a scriptural, orthodox, traditional parish. The rector was present as we formulated the idea of bringing such a recommendation to the vestry, and it was decided that during the February vestry meeting a presentation would be made to that effect. Meanwhile, in January, a number of pre-service (9:00 am) meetings were held to openly discuss the future of Grace relative to the current dilemma. All were invited but the few who attended were largely pro-AAC. It is during this period that the liberal contingent began to become quietly active, and the elephant began to take on visible mass. A couple weeks after the sessions began, for example, an edict was published by the parish leadership and read from the pulpit one Sunday. Included therein was the prohibition of any discussion of the AAC question on church grounds and at any official church function. The backlash was bitter and vocal, and the prohibition was lifted the next Sunday by the rector. The February vestry presentation was made by two members of the pro-AAC group who are both articulate and of strong conviction. From what I gather, it was received in a neutral fashion, and the vestry agreed to study the idea and possibly vote on the matter, in the form of a binding motion, yea or nay, at the March meeting. Much was made during this time that the congregation (much less the vestry) remained uninformed of the true nature of such a move. In an attempt to remedy that shortcoming a series of three evening meetings, open to all, was scheduled to present the facts and to discuss at length the ramifications of a move to Confessing Parish status with the AAC. It is here that the liberal, anti-AAC contingent became publicly visible and vocal. The movement was met with suspicion, assertions of misguided activities, and some serious acrimony The elephant's presence was now unmistakable, and who it would trample was, to some, becoming predictable. The March vestry meeting, Tuesday the 16th, was organized with great care. Individuals wishing to address the vestry (presumably in favor of AAC) were allowed three minutes each to present their thoughts. Eleven persons did so, including three opposed. No questions or comments from the 30 or 40 other persons in attendance were allowed. No statement from the opposition had ever been made formally to the vestry. In remedy a fifteen minute presentation from a spokeswoman for the opposition was forthcoming. She reduced Martin Luther to amateur status as she forcefully nailed the vestry with her theses. The AAC supporters were dividing the formerly happy church, forcing unwanted alliances down the congregation's throat, and attempting an unbearable takeover. Joining the AAC would accomplish nothing, change nothing, but create a schism within Grace. It must be stopped. (She fell short of proposing we be burned at the stake, but we got the message.) It had been decided that the vote that evening was either to support or defeat the AAC motion that was on the table -- no putting it off. The rector announced that the vote of the vestry would be by secret ballot. The previously well-behaved audience erupted in protest, and a vestryman moved to vote by a show of hands instead. That motion was defeated, and the vote proceeded by secret ballot. The rector abstained (for reasons explained below) and the vote was tied at 6-6. Before one could take a breath it was announced that the tie defeated the motion. No AAC. Then the senior warden whipped out a motion prepared for this situation that was designed to patronize the AAC supporters. Within the motion was the idea that a list of all persons who are personally members of AAC be sent to the diocese each year to indicate their unhappiness with the ECUSA position. Once again we were labeled as outsiders and separatists -- just the thing to enhance unity! This Schindler's List in reverse was the last straw, and most of the AAC group walked out, never to return. During the next few days numerous letters of resignation were received by the rector. The parish that evening lost a considerable number of faithful, longtime members (at least 15 families). The quantity is not as important as the fact that those who left were large contributors of time, talent, and treasure. This may have been a factor contributing to the ease with which the AAC group was characterized as a dire threat, in that the group largely was comprised of the active, the highly visible, the doers, the movers and shakers. Many of these true-believers are now attending a local AMiA parish. This case study, if nothing else, points out the perils of a failure of leadership, yet in some ways it is understandable. The rector himself is a member of AAC, and is soon to retire. Thus he abstained from the vote, and thus there existed a newly appointed search committee. Two vestry members have resigned, and two members of the search committee did likewise. Whether Grace will survive as a parish, and whether it will be permitted to proceed with the calling may be in question. All this could not have happened at a worse time. A priest who had hoped to retire in a blaze of glory has, instead, gone down in flames. It is easy for a priest (or a bishop) to intimidate; it is very difficult to repair the resulting damage. Bob Seitz has been a member of the Diocese of SWFLA since 1962, serving on numerous vestries, and a longtime member of Grace as a lay reader. He recently left Grace Episcopal Church in Tampa, FL. END

A Forward in Faith Response to the House of Bishops' Paper 'Caring for all the Churches' "I could not possibly be more proud of our bishops, who with great care and deliberation sought to articulate our shared ministry of reconciliation in ways that are generous toward those who feel themselves in some sense alienated from our common life," Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold said, commending the House of Bishops' paper 'Caring for all the Churches'. The paper itself lays equal stress on a doctrine of reconciliation and on the role of bishop as a focus of unity. It needs to be asked, therefore, what reconciliation the bishops envisage or expect as a result of their initiative. The Problem As the bishops admit, two conflicting opinions are held in the Episcopal Church about the moral admissibility of homosexual acts. Where is compromise between these positions to be sought? What issues are at stake and how might they be settled? In understanding of the Scriptures? Here there is a fundamental disagreement. On the one hand there are those who suppose the plain meaning of scripture in the matter of same sex relationships to be apparent to all and to be upheld by the consistent tradition of the Church throughout the ages. On the other hand there are those who suppose that scripture is unclear on this and other important matters, that the tradition is no certain guide to its interpretation, and that modern knowledge raises matters previously unknown and so unaddressed by its authors. Some of them believe that the scriptures are the possession of the Church (in the sense of the contemporary believing community) and that the Church (in that sense) can re-interpret or ignore them as it will. In attitudes to the authority and competence of the local Church? Here there are also radical differences of opinion. On the one hand there are those who hold that the local church (in the sense of the diocese or province) has plenary authority to order its own affairs. For them a democratic decision at the appropriate level settles the matter. (That level is held by some to be diocesan – "the people of New Hampshire have the right to call the bishop they want"; by some it is thought to be provincial – "this Church has the authority to order its ministry as it alone sees fit"). On the other hand there are those who cling tenaciously to the understanding that no province of the Anglican Communion (or even the Communion as a whole) is more than a small part of the Church Universal and that those parts are answerable for any wounds or divisions inflicted upon the wider Church. In particular they are directly answerable to other churches in the Anglican tradition and to the common inheritance. In sexual morality? Surely it is here that the deepest disagreements lie. On the one hand there are those who hold that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life, and that all relations of a sexual nature outside that bond fall short of the demands made by God of Christian people. They are consequently of the opinion that a man who cannot or will not conform himself to such standards of conduct (or remain celibate) is not a fit person to assume the role of bishop in the Church, - for the bishop is to be, in the words of St Ignatius of Antioch, 'a type of the Father'. On the other hand there are those who suppose that a man may separate himself from his wife and family, contract a new and openly carnal relationship with a person of the same sex, and still be regarded as an appropriate person to exercise the office of a bishop and the guardianship, in the diocese over which he is appointed, of the Church's doctrine and morals. In short there are presently represented, in the Episcopal Church, in its dioceses and in many of its parishes, two views which are diametrically opposed. They are, moreover, asymmetrically disposed. Those who reject the ordination of a non-celibate homosexual as bishop do so, at least in part, in order to sustain the unity of the Church in present time and its continuity with the past. Those who uphold the appointment of such a man as bishop express their opinion contra mundum. The Proposed Solution There are, moreover, obvious and serious problems with the mechanism – Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight – which the bishops have proposed as a means of dealing with these differences. The problems are of two kinds: of principle and of process. The principle underlying the bishops' statement is that the unity of the Church consists, not in shared belief, but in due canonical form. 'Sensitive pastoral care does not presuppose like-mindedness,' say the bishops. 'Bishops and congregations have frequently disagreed about particular articulations and interpretations of scripture and the Creeds while being able to transcend their differences through common prayer and celebration of the sacraments of the new covenant.' Some of this, of course, is true - to a limited extent. But it is not true that bishops may, with impunity, entertain whatever theological or ethical opinions they think fit. On the contrary, the Church entrusts to them the task of guarding the faith, so that it may be passed on, in its integrity, to future generations. The college of bishops, both provincial and world-wide, should be a fellowship in which restraint and discipline are exercised in charity. The failure of the House of Bishops of ECUSA to exercise, or even to acknowledge, that collegial restraint has, in the recent past, been apparent by their willingness to accept among their number bishops who have denied the principal tenets of the Nicene Faith. It is similarly manifest in their deliberate rejection of the fraternal guidance offered them by successive Lambeth Conferences, and by the recent meeting of the Primates. Where the House of Bishops of a province is dysfunctional in this way, the responsibility to guard the faith and perpetuate its doctrines inevitably devolves to groups of clergy and laity. Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight, as the bishops define it, is a proposal which gives plenary authority to those who have precipitated the present crisis to administer provision for those alienated by their actions. It gives to those at variance with the majority in the Episcopal Church no rights in the matter whatsoever. All discretion is in the hands of the innovators. Where it counts, the protocol of proposals invariably uses the word 'may'; where the interests of the minority are at stake the word 'shall' never appears. It will come as no surprise to those who drafted it, that this is wholly unacceptable to those to whom it is addressed. Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (as the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church has defined it) is: a) precisely, not oversight – that is to say it does not provide what the Primates of the Communion called for. They asked for 'provinces concerned to make adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates'. Elsewhere in the Communion, 'oversight' (episcope) involves responsibility for the care, governance and supervision of part of the Church; in short, it necessarily involves jurisdiction. Not so, it seems, in the Episcopal Church, where the bishops assert the opposite to be the case: 'In our Episcopal Church polity,' they claim, "oversight" does not confer "jurisdiction."' By this sleight of hand, redefining episcope to mean what they want it to mean, the bishops of the Episcopal Church have sought to evade the very provision demanded of them b) In any case, minimal – that is to say it affects the existing rights and jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop in no way. Nor does the provision include anything new, or even extend what already exists. As the bishops themselves say: 'We believe that the present Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church are sufficient for dealing with questions of episcopal oversight, supplemental episcopal pastoral care, and disputes that may arise between the bishop and a congregation. We encourage that their provisions be used wisely and in the spirit of charity.' The problem that, in some quarters, those provisions have not been applied (with or without 'charity') is simply not addressed. c) concessionary, rather than conciliatory – that is to say that it makes no admission or acknowledgement that there has been, or might have been, conduct prejudicial to the unity and well-being of the Church on the part of the bishops who have framed it. d) temporary – that is to say that its clear intention is to eliminate dissent. 'When an agreement is reached with respect to a plan, it shall be for the purpose of reconciliation... The plan shall be for a stated period of time with regular reviews.' These 'plans' will be temporary; they are simply to allow time for the parish concerned to brought to 'reconciliation' with the views of its bishop. In any case, no one who has observed the fate of those opposed to the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate (reduced now to three bishops whose dioceses will be unable to secure the required consents for like-minded successors) can expect a body of bishops opposed the recent innovation to survive for any length of time. A future in which there are no bishops who could be invited to offer DEPO is already in sight. Conclusion We reject the proposals of the House of Bishops, both as to their premises and their provisions. Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight will not provide what we need. We trust that the Lambeth Commission and the Primates Meeting will reject it as an insubstantial and merely cosmetic response to a deepening crisis of both Faith and Order. Let no one be in any doubt: DEPO will not and cannot bring about the reconciliation promised. The self-congratulatory language of those who have framed these proposals is, moreover, a further offence in itself. END

News Analysis By David W. Virtue PITTSBURGH, PA-(3/30/2004) The former Bishop of Iowa, Walter Righter, who publicly condemned five dissenting retired bishops for participating in a confirmation service in the Diocese of Ohio, saying that they should leave the Episcopal Church, has been performing sacramentally, without permission or a license in the orthodox Diocese of Pittsburgh bishop Robert Duncan. The revisionist bishop, who walked away from charges that he violated the canons for ordaining a non-celibate homosexual man to the deaconate in 1990, has been caught red-handed in the Pittsburgh Diocese without ever obtaining the approval of Bishop Duncan. Righter had argued, "How can the Bishops 'allow' what the canons and constitution do not allow? How can the Bishops 'cede control' that is not theirs to cede? Even if they wanted to, they cannot." Apparently Righter has been doing "what the canons and constitution do not allow" for more than six months in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. According to a source he has been "supplying" at Calvary Church while the ultra-liberal rector Harold Lewis is on sabbatical. Righter moved back from Maine because his third wife is from Pittsburgh. Reached at Calvary Church, the Rev. Leslie G. Reimer associate rector for Pastoral Care, refused at first to answer any questions about Righter's activities at the church, but then admitted that "he was helping us out liturgically." Pressed on whether he was performing full sacramental functions, Reimer did not deny it, but said that a letter the church sent to Bishop Duncan about Righter's presence and activities in the church went unanswered. "The Canons require we ask, we did, but we never got an answer. We never received an answer one way or the other," she said. According to a spokesman in the bishop's office, Righter should not have performed any functions at the parish without the bishop's permission, and by crossing into another diocese without permission and preaching and celebrating; he was in violation of the Canons after 90 days. Does this mean that there could be a second Righter Trial? Diocesan officials would not say. Clearly Righter, who has been an outspoken critic of orthodox bishops and an outright proponent of pansexual behavior (he functioned as an assistant bishop under Jack Spong in the Diocese of Newark) may finally get his own comeuppance. So the rules only apply to others, not to Mr. Righter, said a source to Virtuosity. While the Pittsburgh Diocese was holding hearings on resolutions to come before special convention, the Righters were both very vocal at the open hearing in Fox Chapel. "Isn't it interesting that this is the man who says conservatives ought to leave ECUSA? Perhaps he sees himself stepping into a geographically convenient Diocesan opening?" The resolution that the revisionists pushed through the HoB condemning the Ohio confirmations, said that the next time this happened there would be disciplinary action. Now it has and Righter, the hypocrite, should be put on trial and tossed out of the church. END

Quoting Scriptures against homosexual behavior say Catholic bishops and leading evangelicals in that country. Portions of the Bible are in danger of being condemned as hate literature, say religious groups opposed to changes in the Criminal Code to be debated next week by the Senate. In a letter to Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops said Friday that Bill C-250 proposes changes that could lead to the church being prosecuted for its teaching that "sexual conduct between people of the same sex is morally wrong." Janet Epp Buckingham, the director of law and public policy for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, said senators have told her they are "getting a ton of phone calls and e-mails opposing the bill," but said there is also "quite a bit of momentum for the bill to pass." The evangelical fellowship said that if C-250 is passed, it will endanger faith groups' freedom to read, preach and distribute sacred texts, and to publicly discuss and comment on sexual morality. A Canadian Virtuosity reader said that Virtuosity itself could be classified as hate literature….and I should try crossing the border sometime for tea and biscuits.

That this year's honorary degree recipients include the Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada Michael Peers and the new homoerotic Bishop of New Hampshire V. Gene Robinson. Peers will be the Commencement Speaker. Peers, who recently retired as Primate will, according to the PR puffery bring his special concern to encourage greater inclusiveness in the life of the church and to address major issues facing Canada and the world from a Christian perspective. Get this. He was Primate from 1986-2004 and during that time the Canadian Church has been dropping like a stone. It has been declining steadily since the 70s and this has been well documented by church historian Marney Patterson in his book: SUICIDE, The Decline and Fall of the Anglican Church of Canada. In 1990 the church had 812,962 members, in 1995 it had dropped to 740, 262, by 2000 the figure was down to 2000 650, 977. There has been no census since then, but one expert suggested that Canadian Anglicanism could now be well below 600,000. That's the legacy of Peer's doctrine of inclusion. Robinson has become the new darling of sexual revisionist agit prop, and the only issue now is whether the University of the South at Sewanee will also give him an honorary doctorate. Being anal is one thing, being anointed with honorary doctorates for having anal sex is quite another matter altogether.

The American Anglican Council says it knows. Here is what they say really happened at the HoB meeting in Navasota, Texas. "The House of Bishops meeting was tightly controlled and "process oriented". The Presiding Bishop stated in his opening address that V. Gene Robinson has borne all the pain over the last several months. The House neither acknowledged nor dealt with the severe level of crisis in the church. The Presiding Bishop's mantra continues to be, "More unites us than divides us." His Assistant for Communications, Barbara Braver flippantly underscored this in a posting on Episcopal Communicators Discussion Group: "We can all be proud of our bishops. Of course, we know they don't all agree but by and large they care much more about the total life and mission of the community and our life in Christ for the sake of the world than they do about what divides. And, by and large, they are able to live in the tension of agreeing that they don't agree about everything. GEE WHIZ - how Anglican!" IN THE DIOCESE OF WESTERN NEW YORK Five orthodox churches in the Diocese are gathering for prayer and a show of solidarity on Friday, April 2, 2004 at 7 p.m. They are at odds with their bishop J. Michael Garrison and many of them are wondering how they should proceed. Withholding funds might just be not enough for some of them. The bishop has threatened five parishes with ecclesiastical action if they don't come into line. We await the outcome. THE VIA MEDIA GROUPS MET IN ATLANTA THIS WEEK And emerged pleading their case of why can't we all just get along. "There is room for everyone in the Episcopal Church," said The Rev. Michael Russell, Rector of All Souls' Episcopal Church in San Diego, CA, and a member of Episcopal Way of San Diego. "We believe that the Christian way is to love, work and worship together - to resolve disputes within the church without tearing it apart." Right, and the Via Media groups exist ONLY in orthodox dioceses not in revisionist ones. They recently opened a chapter in the Diocese of Southwest Florida, where Bishop John Lipscomb resides, and he said publicly that he was not happy at this development. The truth is there is not one vestige of via media in this group, it is a complete fiction, they are squarely in the opposing camp and when push comes to shove, they will shove, with lawsuits, against anybody who doesn't fall in line. Griswold weighed in with this statement about the meeting; "Our divergent points of view find their place of meeting and reconciliation in word and sacrament and a life shared in the service of the Gospel. The diverse center is the overwhelming reality of our church and its voice is urgently needed, both within the church and in our fractured and polarized world." VIRTUOSITY LEARNED THIS WEEK THAT WALTER RIGHTER The former BISHOP OF IOWA who recently told the five Ohio "dissenters" they should just leave ECUSA, has been functioning without permission in the DIOCESE OF PITTSBURGH. (Full story in today's digest).