Archives

The Most Rev. Drexel Gomez, Anglican Primate of the Province of the Bahamas and West Indies, and the Most Rev. Gregory Venables, new Archbishop of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, have invited the Presiding Bishop of the Reformed Episcopal Church, the Most Rev. Leonard Riches, and the Presiding Bishop of the Anglican Province of America, the Most Rev. Walter Grundorf, to Nassau this week to meet with other primates and bishops of the Anglican Communion who are in broken or impaired communion with ECUSA. He has also invited three other R.E. Bishops: West, Grote, and Sutton, and, I think, one or two other APA Bishops. Archbishops Gomez and Venables are in constant contact with Anglican Archbishops from Africa and Southeast Asia. The Invitation came about when Archbishop Gomez was in Charleston, SC, in early January, 2004, to address the Anglican Communion Institute (formerly SEAD) conference held in St. Philip's Church. At the conference, he continued his outspoken criticism of the illegal acts of the Episcopal Church USA and the Diocese of Westminster, Anglican Church of Canada, in the last two years. During that conference he met with Bishops Riches, Sutton and West; and, out of that meeting came this extraordinary invitation to forge a link with other Anglican Churches in America outside of ECUSA! Archbishop Gomez had also been impressed and delighted by the new Federation for Anglican Ministry in America that emerged from the December 2003 meetings of Anglicans United in Orlando, Florida. This document drew from the "Federation" concept worked out by the REC/APA Unity Committee earlier year. Bishops, clergy and laity of the REC and APA, along with representatives from other continuing Anglican churches, were prominent signers of the Federation document. (Go to: www.anglicansunited.com or call 1-800-553-3645 for further information.) All of the visiting bishops traveled to the Bahamas last week, in order to preach in various Anglican parishes in Nassau yesterday, March 28th. They had been invited to preach by Archbishop Gomez, who carefully guards who will preach in his parishes. This is an important courtesy - given only to those who are orthodox - extended to the REC and APA bishops. Today, Monday, is a day off for relaxing and refreshment. The meetings with other archbishops and bishops will begin on Tuesday, and conclude on Friday, April 2nd, with most of the time spent in prayer, Bible study, worship and simple discussion about the Gospel and Mission. Anglicans United and The Ekklesia Society are are assisting in the costs of this meeting. Pray for our bishops as they travel and that a renewing of the Holy Spirit may move through our Anglican/Episcopal churches in America to re-form and maintain that biblical and apostolic faith of our fathers.

The Most Rev. Robert H.A. Eames Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland Dear Robin: Rather than respond to the questionnaire I thought it would be more helpful were I to send to you to share with members of the Commission a description of some of the workings of the Episcopal Church, pertinent to your deliberations, and also to try to give some sense of how we have come to a point in our life where we find ourselves having given consent to the election and consecration of a man who shares his life with a member of the same sex. For at least 35 years the Episcopal Church has been engaged in a process of discernment about the question of homosexuality in the life of the church. This discernment began quite naturally on a local level as congregations began to be aware that certain faithful members of their worshipping communities were homosexual. In some instances these persons shared their lives with a partner of the same sex. It also became obvious that the quality of such relationships on occasion matched the mutual care and self-giving that we associate with marriage. It is important to realize here that in many areas of our church, particularly urban areas, homosexuality is a very ordinary reality. The whole question of homosexuality is widely and openly discussed. And homosexual persons are quite public in areas of politics, sports and entertainment. I realize this is not the case around our Communion but this fact of our culture must be taken into account given that none of us do our theology in a vacuum. In the gospel Jesus speaks about knowing a tree by the fruit it bears. In congregations where persons known to be homosexual became a part of congregational life, it became obvious that they possessed the fruit of the Spirit: generosity, kindness, and many of the other characteristics that we associate with Christian virtue. I think here of the experience of the church in Acts, having to deal with the fruit of the Spirit working in the lives of those outside the recognized community, in this case the Gentiles. The fact that in many instances good fruit appeared on trees that were condemned by the church obliged many clergy and others to ponder the scriptures afresh in the light of this reality. If the fruit of the Spirit is discerned in the lives of homosexual men and women is that not in some way an indication by God that these people are to be treated and seen as full members of the community and to be entrusted with ministry on behalf of the community? So, based on the reality around us of men and women who were part of our lives, we continued our discernment. Over these years homosexual persons, lay and ordained, have gradually become a vital part of our church. And, as a logical development, congregations have extended a pastoral ministry to their gay and lesbian members. In some congregations there has been acknowledgment of same sex commitments. Then, as a logical consequence of the acceptance of gay and lesbian persons in the life of congregations and dioceses, the church as a whole has been engaging the question of homosexuality, including in the formal legislative context of the General Convention. At the General Convention in 1976 a resolution was passed stating: "…that homosexual persons are children of God who have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church." Ten years ago at the General Convention in 1994 a resolution was passed amending the canons such that "no one shall be denied access to the selection process for ordination in this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, disabilities or age…" Our engagement as a church with questions of homosexuality has lead to a series of studies and dialogues which have been broadly undertaken and involved persons of a full range of opinion. These conversations, which have been both very structured and unstructured, from settings such as parish halls to the floors of formal gatherings, have been concerned with the authority and interpretation of scripture, human sexuality as God's gift, the place of homosexual Christians within the life of the church and the theological aspects of committed relationships of same sex couples. As part of this work, in 1993 the House of Bishops commissioned from theologians representing diverse points of view a series of papers dealing with authority of scripture. The papers reflected different ways in which scripture may legitimately be approached within the context of the community of faith. I realize that some provinces of our Communion have a dominant tradition for interpreting scripture. I would note here that it is part of the reality of the Episcopal Church that we live with divergent points of view regarding the interpretation of scripture and understandings of the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the church. Though we believe "the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation," as it is stated in our ordination liturgy, there is no neutral reading of scripture, and we interpret various passages differently while seeking to be faithful to the mind of Christ. It is therefore important to recognize that people of genuine faith can and do differ in their understandings of what we agree is the "Word of God." None of our work and prayerful discernment has produced a common mind, and we have managed to live with the tension of diverse opinions on these matters, agreeing to disagree. We were living in a very Anglican way with divergent views until the circumstances of our life, and the canons of our church, forced us into making an either/or decision in a very public way with the election of the bishop coadjutor of New Hampshire, and the canonical necessity for giving or withholding of consent. This either/or decision did not allow for the middle ground, which the report of the Theology Committee of the House of Bishops (which was submitted to the primates prior to our meeting in Brazil) had sought to establish. The consent to the New Hampshire election has been a presenting issue in our present strains within the Communion. Therefore I think it is important to acknowledge that there is a diversity of practice in appointing or electing bishops around the Communion and to say something here about the nature of our election and consent process, which is open, democratic, and participatory – flowing out of the life of the community. The manner in which bishops are chosen in the Episcopal Church involves a protracted search process undertaken by the diocese, lasting usually a year or longer, in which a profile is developed by the people and clergy of the diocese. Names are put forward and a search committee composed of lay and clergy members reviews the names, checks backgrounds, addresses questions to potential nominees and then puts forward a list of names to be considered. The diocese then has an opportunity to meet and ask questions of all the nominees. This was the process followed in the Diocese of New Hampshire, and at the end of that process the diocesan convention elected the Rev. Canon Gene Robinson, someone who had ministered among them for 17 years. Once a person has been elected, the election must be consented to by a majority of Standing Committees of dioceses and a majority of bishops holding jurisdiction. When an election occurs within 120 days of the General Convention, the consent process takes place within the context of the General Convention, which is precisely what happened in the case of Gene Robinson and nine other bishops-elect. I think it is very important to be clear about this process. When we met at Lambeth the primates asked me if I couldn't have intervened and stopped the consecration. I made it clear that I could not because of the canonical realities by which I am bound, and that it is my responsibility to uphold the decisions formally made by the church. I think it is problematic that some view the bishops who participated in the ordination and consecration of Gene Robinson as having performed some unfaithful act. This is to overlook the fact that it was a formal decision made by a majority of bishops with jurisdiction and majority of clergy and laypeople representing the 100 domestic dioceses. I might say that the very public and open nature of our actions is a factor here. This is both healthy and problematic. Not long ago I was at a meeting in Spain which included Christians from a number of ecclesial communities, one of which had made strongly critical statements about the New Hampshire consecration. I had a long conversation with the bishop representing that church, who castigated me for having allowed the ordination of Gene Robinson to occur. Once he had delivered himself of his anger he surprised me by saying that there were indeed homosexual clergy and bishops in his church, but that it was looked upon as "human weakness" and a private matter between themselves and their spiritual fathers. Only if their homosexuality became public was the church obliged to intervene. I said to him that though I could appreciate capitulation to "human weakness" I was concerned that he was describing a climate of secrecy, and a practice that was tolerated that stood at variance with the public position of the church. Was that not a dishonest stance? Would it not be far more helpful and truthful, albeit difficult, to deal openly with the reality which heretofore has remained hidden? Is not secrecy the Devil's playground? It has been extremely difficult for the Episcopal Church to deal honestly with this issue, but that is the course we have taken and, as I said, the decision of which course to take – openness or secrecy – was one that was forced upon us. I believe that part of the strain within the Communion, and the reaction to a decision taken within the Episcopal Church is the disproportionate influence that the United States has in other parts of the world, leading to the fear that whatever happens in the United States will be imposed in some way on other parts of the world. I am well aware of the negative effects of globalization. I need to make plain that because something may appear to be an unfoldment of the Spirit in the life of the Episcopal Church that does not mean that it should or ought to become normative elsewhere. Never would our church wish to impose patterns that may be appropriate within the life of the Episcopal Church on other provinces of the Anglican Communion. I remember vividly when I visited the Church in Nigeria and was asked if I was coming to tell them they must ordain women. I told them I firmly believed that is a decision they will have to make within the reality of their own context. There is not one right way. Immediately, there was relief on the part of the bishops. This raises the very important notion of context, to which I alluded earlier. We must ask: are our understandings and applications of the gospel conditioned by the historical and cultural circumstances in which we live our lives and seek to articulate our faithful discipleship? I believe the answer is yes. As one primate expressed it "the Holy Spirit can do different things in different places." When I think of a way forward, the first thing I think of is the need to be respectful of one another's contexts, to trust one another, and to honor the fact that we are each trying to be faithful in very different circumstances. I pray we can acknowledge to one another that we are each trying, with God's help, to articulate and live the gospel within the givenness of our own context. There are several other dynamics at work in creating the strains we feel within our beloved Communion which I will briefly mention. One is electronic communication. Events in one part of the world are instantly transmitted across the globe. Our contexts invade one another without explanation. Because our world has become very small we need to remember that our day to day realities are vastly different. As well, the speed of communication can oblige us to react to situations and events in other parts of our Communion without the benefit of knowing how brother and sister Anglicans were led to a particular decision. I vividly recall being in Uganda driving through a very remote area and having the primate called on his cell phone by a reporter in Canada for his reaction to an event in the Church of Canada. Electronic communication also makes it easy for misinformation to be spread abroad and take on a life of its own. This is all the more reason for us to deal directly with one another when there are serious questions or concerns, and not rely on interpretations or reports that may be untrue or biased. Another dynamic is the role members of my own church with a particular point of view have played in shaping opinions, shall we say, since before the last Lambeth Conference. We must openly acknowledge the fact that part of the reason issues of homosexuality have so overtaken the Anglican Communion is because a number of the members of the Episcopal Church – along with individuals and groups motivated by political ideologies rather than theological convictions – have, by virtue of their connections and resources, been able to garner the consciousness of bishops around the world. Their unstinting efforts have made this issue more central to our life than the spreading of the gospel and the living of the Good News of Jesus Christ. We must ask ourselves if this preoccupation with sexuality is truly of God. I was particularly struck at the conclusion of our meeting in October when one of the primates plaintively said his concerns were not about sexuality but about poverty and disease and civil unrest in his part of the world, at which point several other primates nodded in agreement. It is a great sadness to me, broadly felt throughout our church, that the Episcopal Church in the simple living of our life has added to the burdens that so many primates and bishops bear in other parts of the Communion. It is my hope that in finding a way forward we can simply agree that for any number of reasons we are not in agreement about concerns of homosexuality, and indeed human sexuality more broadly. A closing thought: Communion, as Archbishop Rowan has made clear, exists on many levels; it is not simply a formal, ecclesial relationship. Therefore, I ask myself and the members of my own church in the midst of this profound and straining disagreement if there is not some invitation or opportunity to live the mystery of communion at a deeper level, as difficult and costly as it may be. Are we not being invited in a more profound way to make room for one another's realities and one another's contexts both at home and abroad? Do we not have things to learn from one another? Do we not all possess, woven into the fabric of our lives in virtue of our baptism into Christ's risen body, dimensions of the truth as in Jesus, who is himself the truth? Are we not being given the opportunity to experience in the depths of the communion we share, which is our participation in the very life of God, the fullness of God in Christ which exceeds all that we can ask or imagine? I thank you, and the members of the Commission, for your patience in attending to my reflections. Please know of my prayers for all of you as you go about this important work on behalf of the Communion which means so much to us all. Yours ever in Christ, The Most Rev. Frank T. Griswold Presiding Bishop and Primate The Episcopal Church, USA

News Release 29 March 2004 A meeting took place between the Most Revd Njongonkulu Ndungane, Primate of Southern Africa and the Most Revd Peter Akinola, Primate of Nigeria held at Kwa Malusi, 18 Stanley Road, Irene, Pretoria. In attendance were the Rt Revd Dr Jo Seoka, the Bishop of Pretoria and the Rt Revd Dr Peter Adebiyi, the Bishop of Lagos West. The meeting started with a Holy Communion Service presided over by the Rt Revd Dr Jo Seoka of the Diocese of Pretoria who also facilitated this meeting as the Liaison Bishop for Southern Africa to CAPA. This meeting was called primarily to discuss the way forward for the Anglican Church in Africa and globally on how to work out issues about what affects the church in general. We agreed that there had been a communication gap between the leadership of the Church and this meeting resolved to remove obstacles that make communication impossible and thereby be able to fight against any forces that seek to divide us. It also agreed to share information about various meetings that will take place in Africa, for example, the All Anglican Bishops' Conference to be held in Nigeria in October 2004; and the Lambeth Conference to be held in Cape Town in 2008; and to assist African nations to be self-reliant – and thereby reduce disease and poverty among the nations of Africa. We concluded to work together to strengthen the position of the Church in Africa on the issue of Human Sexuality. We uphold the Lambeth resolution on Human Sexuality as passed at the 1998 Lambeth Conference and subsequent Primates Meetings which categorically say no to same-sex marriages or unions. We are committed to work together with the African political leaders on conflict prevention and resolution and to facilitate the success of NEPAD. We are committed to work together to eradicate poverty and diseases – most especially HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Signed: ____________________________________________________ Primate of Southern Africa Primate of All Nigeria

This report first examines the appropriateness of women being ordained as priests (presbyters) or consecrated as bishops in the One Holy and Apostolic Church in and through the Anglican Mission in America as these offices are ordered and exercised in the Anglican Communion. In addition, in a following section, it examines the question of the appropriateness of women being ordained as deacons in the Church through the Anglican Mission in America. The question of this study is not whether there should be involvement of women in Christian ministry--that is fully affirmed by the Anglican Mission in America. We are deeply committed to the ministry of all members of Christ's Body. We see the calling of the ordained ministry, in no small measure, to consist of helping to equip the laity for their crucial ministry to be exercised both within the Church and to the World. This ministry of "the priesthood of all believers" or of "the whole people of God," involves us all. Men and women are both gifted by God. They bring complementary sensibilities to ministry, and both need to be properly equipped, openly commissioned and fully recognized in the ministry of the Gospel. Given the tremendous scope of the mission that lies before us in a fallen world and in a secular society, we all need to be fully involved in ministry. In Appendix 3, we indicate some of rich variety of this foundational Christian ministry. The focus of this study, however, is upon the question of women in ordained ministry as it is exercised in the Anglican Communion. We have felt the need to do this study because few of us have given this question the careful, scholarly attention it requires. With that in mind, the Anglican Mission in America has exercised a moratorium on the ordination of women until this study is completed, our convictions have been discerned and the judgment of our Archbishops has been sought and given to us. Since we believe we are not alone in needing guidance, we hope that this report can also serve others as an orientation to this question and as a survey of the pertinent biblical texts and leading theological convictions. Naturally, we invite the readers to search the Scriptures and to read widely for themselves, taking particular note of the books in the Bibliography. To read the complete report, visit the following URL: http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?cid=1&lid=4

By David W. Virtue 3/29/2004 BIRMINGHAM, AL--The Dean of the Cathedral Church of the Advent in Birmingham says that the recent HOB statement regarding Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight is unsatisfactory, because it withholds "jurisdiction", and makes a consistent distinction between "jurisdiction" and "pastoral oversight". The Very Rev. Dr. Paul Zahl says that what is needed for the dissenting minority, is a suspension, in love, of business as usual, indeed a suspension, for a period of time, of the constitution and canons of ECUSA analogous to the Act of Synod in the Church of England, which would provide us a safe place to stand. "We need a position of SAFETY and full recognition of our identity, not somebody else's idea of what that is supposed to mean. They should have given us some place of independent jurisdiction, simply out of concern for our deepest feelings and principles. This they have not done." Zahl said he was disappointed with the outcome, as he had been making progress towards a better statement that would have done more for those orthodox parish priests being persecuted by revisionist bishops. Pennsylvania Bishop Charles E. Bennison has gone on record saying, "As a matter of conscience and in a desire to honour my ordination vows, I personally have no intention of implementing anything like Flying Bishops or whatever they call it even if it is adopted," by the House of Bishops.

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."

By Wolfhart Pannenberg Good News Magazine Can love ever be sinful? The entire tradition of Christian doctrine teaches that there is such a thing as inverted, perverted love. Human beings are created for love, as creatures of the God who is Love. And yet that divine appointment is corrupted whenever people turn away from God or love other things more than God. Jesus said, "Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me..." (Matt. 10:37, NRSV). Love for God must take precedence over love for our parents, even though love for parents is commanded by the fourth commandment. The will of God—Jesus' proclamation of God's lordship over our lives—must be the guiding star of our identity and self-determination. What this means for sexual behavior can be seen in Jesus' teaching about divorce. In order to answer the Pharisees' question about the admissibility of divorce, Jesus refers to the creation of human beings. Here he sees God expressing his purpose for his creatures: Creation confirms that God has created human beings as male and female. Thus, a man leaves his father and mother to be united with his wife, and the two become one flesh. Jesus concludes from this that the unbreakable permanence of fellowship between husband and wife is the Creator's will for human beings. The indissoluble fellowship of marriage, therefore, is the goal of our creation as sexual beings (Mark 10:2-9). Since on this principle the Bible is not time bound, Jesus' word is the foundation and criterion for all Christian pronouncement on sexuality, not just marriage in particular, but our entire creaturely identities as sexual beings. According to Jesus' teaching, human sexuality as male and as female is intended for the indissoluble fellowship of marriage. This standard informs Christian teaching about the entire domain of sexual behavior. Jesus' perspective, by and large, corresponds to Jewish tradition, even though his stress on the indissolubility of marriage goes beyond the provision for divorce within Jewish law (Deut. 24:1). It was a shared Jewish conviction that men and women in their sexual identity are intended for the community of marriage. This also accounts for the Old Testament assessment of sexual behaviors that depart from this norm, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual relations. The biblical assessments of homosexual practice are unambiguous in their rejection, and all its statements on this subject agree without exception. The Holiness Code of Leviticus incontrovertibly affirms, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Lev. 18:22 NRSV). Leviticus 20 includes homosexual behavior among the crimes meriting capital punishment (Lev. 20:13; it is significant that the same applies to adultery in verse 10). On these matters, Judaism always knew itself to be distinct from other nations. This same distinctiveness continued to determine the New Testament statement about homosexuality, in contrast to the Hellenistic culture that took no offense at homosexual relations. In Romans, Paul includes homosexual behavior among the consequences of turning away from God (1:27). In 1 Corinthians, homosexual practice belongs with fornication, adultery, idolatry, greed, drunkenness, theft, and robbery as behaviors that preclude participation in the kingdom of God (6:9-10); Paul affirms that through baptism Christians have become free from their entanglement in all these practices (6:11). The New Testament contains not a single passage that might indicate a more positive assessment of homosexual activity to counterbalance these Pauline statements. Thus, the entire biblical witness includes practicing homosexuality, without exception among the kinds of behavior that give particularly striking expression to humanity's turning away from God. This exegetical result places very narrow boundaries around the view of homosexuality in any church that is under the authority of Scripture. What is more, the biblical statements on this subject merely represent the negative corollary to the Bible's positive views on the creational purpose of men and women in their sexuality. These texts that are negative toward homosexual behavior are not merely dealing with marginal opinions that could be neglected without detriment to the Christian message as a whole. Moreover, the biblical statements about homosexuality cannot be relativized as the expressions of a cultural situation that today is simply outdated. The biblical witness from the outset deliberately opposed the assumptions of their cultural environment in the name of faith in the God of Israel, who in Creation appointed men and women for a particular identity. Contemporary advocates for a change in the church's view of homosexuality commonly point out that the biblical statements were unaware of important modern anthropological evidence. This new evidence, it is said, suggests that homosexuality must be regarded as a given constituent of the psychosomatic identity of homosexual persons, entirely prior to any corresponding sexual expression. (For the sake of clarity it is better to speak here of a homophile inclination as distant from homosexual practice.) Such phenomena occur not only in people who are homosexually active. But inclination need not dictate practice. It is characteristic of human beings that our sexual impulses are not confined to a separate realm of behavior; they permeate our behavior in every area of life. This, of course, includes relationships with persons of the same sex. However, precisely because erotic motives are involved in all aspects of human behavior, we are faced with the task of integrating them into the whole of our life and conduct. The mere existence of homophile inclinations does not automatically lead to homosexual practice. Rather, these inclinations can be integrated into a life in which they are subordinated to the relationship with the opposite sex where, in fact, the subject of sexual activity should not be the all-determining center of human life and vocation. As the sociologist Helmut Schelsky has rightly pointed out, one of the primary achievements of marriage as an institution is its enrollment of human sexuality in the service of ulterior tasks and goals. The reality of homophile inclinations, therefore, need not be denied and must not be condemned. The question, however, is how to handle such inclinations within the human task of responsibly directing our behavior. This is the real problem; and it is here that we must deal with the conclusion that homosexual activity is a departure from the norm for sexual behavior that has been given to men and women as creatures of God. For the church this is the case not only for homosexual, but for any sexual activity that does not intend the goal of marriage between man and wife—in particular, adultery. The church has to live with the fact that, in this area of life as in others, departures from the norm are not exceptional but rather common and widespread. The church must encounter all those concerned with tolerance and understanding but also call them to repentance. It cannot surrender the distinction between the norm and behavior that departs from that norm. Here lies the boundary of a Christian church that knows itself to be bound by the authority of Scripture. Those who urge the church to change the norm of its teaching on this matter must know that they are promoting schism. If a church were to let itself be pushed to the point where it ceased to treat homosexual activity as a departure from the biblical norm, and recognized homosexual unions as a personal partnership of love equivalent to marriage, such a church would stand no longer on biblical ground but against the unequivocal witness of Scripture. A church that took this step would cease to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. Wolfhart Pannenberg, arguably the preeminent contemporary theologian, recently retired after 27 years as professor of systematic theology at the University of Munich, Germany, and director of the Institute of Ecumenical Theology. Translated by Markus Bockmuehl for publication in the Church Times; copyright Wolfhart Pannenberg.

By HARRY R. WEBER ASSOCIATED PRESS ATLANTA (AP) - Moderate and liberal Episcopalians from dioceses that oppose an openly gay bishop called Saturday for church members to find common ground and tolerate differing viewpoints so the church can remain whole. Episcopalians from 11 conservative dioceses said at the conclusion of a three-day meeting in Atlanta they are trying to move past a debate that has caused divisions in the church. "There is a place for everybody in this church," said the Rev. Michael Russell, rector of All Souls' Episcopal Church in San Diego. "Because a vote was taken that a group doesn't like isn't a reason to leave the church. It's a reason to stay together in conversation." Church conservatives have heavily criticized leaders who consecrated openly gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire in November, and have created a national oppositional organization called the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes. The network opposes same-sex unions and the ordination of gay clergy. Members have said they plan to defy church leaders and contend for control of parishes and dioceses, which could lead to a schism in the national church. The meeting was attended by liberal and moderate Episcopalian clergy and laypeople from conservative dioceses in California, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, New York, Illinois, Texas, South Carolina and Florida. They are members of organizations known as "via media" groups formed mainly to support unity in the national church. "Via media" is a Latin phrase meaning "middle way."

The Historic Via Media: The Boundaries of Anglican Identity By Cheryl H. White, Ph.D. There seems to have been a renewed interest in the via media – indeed, this term has been invoked with increasing frequency amidst the rhetoric of the revisionists within the Episcopal Church. Many groups who support the recent consecration of Gene Robinson as a bishop of the Church are using the term via media in an attempt to corrupt its historic meaning. By applying the term to actions that can only be described as unorthodox, these elements within the Episcopal Church are ignoring the very history they claim to understand so well. The implication of this recent rhetoric is that the truth of one generation might be understood differently by the next, and that we must all be willing to create room for each other. The "middle way" of fully developed historical Anglicanism sought to be inclusive, that much is true, however, the notion of inclusion within the Anglican identity has always had definite limits and boundaries that were clearly drawn. To look to the proper usage of the term via media requires a history lesson, looking at the origin of the term with Queen Elizabeth I in the sixteenth century. The context in which the term developed historically provides some striking parallels as others before sought to define inclusion in a universal Christian manner. The break with Rome that occurred in England during the reign of Henry VIII did not represent a final or comprehensive religious solution. England was chaotically torn by years of extremism in the decade following Henry VIII's death under the reigns of Edward VI and Mary I; so bad was the national situation in 1558 that a "settlement" was needed – a compromise that would appease most English subjects. This was to provide the fertile field for the sowing of the Anglican identity – the via media. It is helpful to recall that most reformers who sought the primitive Church claimed to do so to restore catholicity; in other words, what they searched for were the elements of unity, universality, and inclusiveness. By 1558, years of protracted theological debate, both in England and on the continent of Europe, had instead yielded institutions defined by their degrees of separation. For Protestants and Roman Catholics alike, the process of reform had long since ceased to be a matter of finding points of agreement between opposing extremes; by the latter half of the sixteenth century, the road to catholicity diverged into multiple paths that were now exclusive. Elizabeth I therefore faced a dilemma of dramatic proportions as she sought a way to appease the extremes of her populace, for not only was the collective moral mindset of her people at issue, the very unity of the nation and the acceptability of her regime depended upon it. Although we cannot know precisely how many Protestants there were in England in 1559, one may assume that initially, at least, there were few (J.J. Scarisbrick, 1984). Yet Roman Catholics and Puritan Protestants alike were hostile, and Elizabeth's religious strength seems to have rested with being the reverse of her half-sister, Mary – by contrast, Elizabeth was not devout or rigid in religious practice, and was a patient and cautious realist. Because of all these factors, the idea of the via media probably came to her quite naturally. Out of Elizabeth's understanding of the necessity of political stability and unity grew a structure that would support true religious unity for the majority of her subjects. Indeed, this likely represents the greatest achievement of her reign. The Elizabethan Church of England would be historically catholic by definition, as evidenced by the broad and inclusive religious approach the queen seems to have naturally understood. At times, this unity was born of seemingly incompatible marriages of opposing principles, and herein is found the simple genius of the Elizabethan settlement. Incongruent mixes of opposing theologies represent the very essence of inclusion, an a Church must indeed embrace some diversity to be truly catholic. No one of that era disputed that the Apostolic Church and Holy Scripture were the true guides to catholicity. Not to imply that Elizabeth counted herself a patristic scholar of any degree, but the example of St. Athanasius may have influenced her. His theology provides a striking and interesting parallel for comparison, both in the sixteenth century and today. Athanasius, a fourth century Egyptian bishop, was an early champion of orthodoxy. He strongly supported the faith formalized by the Council of Nicaea in 325, in what became known as the Nicene Creed. He did not seek to define God for others precisely because the human mind, created in the image of God, cannot fathom the Divine Mind of the uncreated, transcendent God. Rather, Athanasius encouraged diversity and personal exploration within wide but recognized essential boundaries, for broad truth among Christian believers. According to Athanasius, it was precisely within tradition that individuals could find their own unique way to a personal knowledge of Christ. As diversity was a necessary characteristic of a universal Church, so for St. Athanasius the creed was a signpost for the faithful – a signpost that marked the necessary boundaries. It makes an interesting parallel to see this early patristic understanding applied so directly in the Elizabethan age, for hers was a regime that sought out diversity and embraced it within historic and catholic limits. Some might recall that Athanasius is remembered best for addressing one of the first major heresies of the Church. Arius, a priest in Alexandria, Egypt, evolved the heresy known as Arianism, which denied the true divinity of Christ. He argued that the Son of Man did not share the same full divinity as God the Father. The Son was not eternal, believed Arius, but was created from nothingness as an instrument solely for the salvation of the world. Arius was excommunicated by a Church council at Alexandria in about 320 and exiled. His following continued to grow, however. There were other theological debates that were festering during this same time, but it was the issue of the Trinity that seems to have most compelled Emperor Constantine to convene the first general council of the Church at Nicaea in 325. The new faith of the Roman Empire needed discipline, so the council's major task was, of course, to draft a comprehensive creed. The great early Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea tells us that the greatest desire of Constantine was to preserve and maintain peace in his empire. To draw the parallel with sixteenth century England, there can be no doubt that it was a similar shrewd political necessity that drove the inclusive Elizabethan religious policy. At Nicaea, the writings of Athanasius were used in support of Christ's true divinity. If Christ was the Savior, Athanasius reasoned, then He could not be less than God, for only God could restore humanity to communion with Himself. What followed, of course, was the cementing of a fundamental statement of Christian belief, to set with certainty the nature of belief that all Christians must share to be a part of the catholicity of the Church. Jesus was confirmed at Nicaea as belonging to the world of the eternal and uncreated; in the creed He was and remains "true God from true God; begotten, not made, one in being with the Father." The Roman Empire needed to fix the boundaries for the faithful, to avoid further religious strife that threatened the imperial threads themselves. St. Athanasius supplied the logic and reasoning and averted a major split in Christianity in the fourth century. By parallel, Elizabeth I faced similar challenges and employed a similar approach on a smaller scale. Elizabeth brought an innate wisdom with her to the throne of England. It was a wisdom rooted in a fundamental understanding of human nature, although it was certainly never a foregone conclusion that she would possess any greater understanding of catholicity and unity than her siblings had. In her youth, Protestant teachers tutored her, and all of her life Catholics had been suspicious of her. Elizabeth herself had been the target of her sister Mary's feverish religious wrath. The necessity of survival made her a master of amalgamation. From her unique life perspective, she was able to see the benefits of inclusive diversity in a manner that eluded her predecessors and even her contemporaries elsewhere in Europe. Reformed English Catholicism thereby emerged as "Athanasian," for Elizabeth sought to anchor firmly the spiritual signpost for her people, while comprehensively addressing the diversity that was characteristic of the age in which she lived. Hers was a Church of England tethered to the church universal by the authority of Holy Scripture, traditional doctrine, sacraments, and preservation of a historic liturgy. Her approach often represented a unique blending of extremes with an awkward match of opposites, yet this was precisely what the renewal of catholicity may have required. For instance, the formula for Holy Communion reflected a Protestant expression: "Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving." This meshed with the formula from the original 1549 prayer book: "The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life" (Guy, 1988). While not openly affirming the concept of transubstantiation, this formula nevertheless assured Christ's real presence in the Eucharist. It was a settlement of theologies, a compromise that addressed the Eucharistic understanding of a diverse group of Christians. Elizabeth was convinced that her "middle way" was the best promise for inclusiveness and unity, rather than the examples of extremism that characterized the preceding decade. Elizabeth believed that it was Mary's surrender to extremism that had wrecked the Marian Church of England and that extremism would, if allowed to dominate, do the same to hers. She seemed determined to never allow clerical extremism to dominate the religious landscape while she lived as queen. By uniting all but the most rigid extremes, the Church of England became more inclusive and universal under Elizabeth I, and therefore by definition, more catholic. The "middle way" cut a broad path in the sixteenth century, but would be incompletely defined without the limitations of Holy Scripture, the Creeds, and a reverence for history. By anchoring the signpost for her subjects, Elizabeth meant for it to endure the times. Once Parliament had completed the necessary legal services for the queen, she would not call upon it again to discuss matters of religion. In fact, Elizabeth became angry if members of Parliament attempted to initiate further church change. Upon the dissolution of the 1559 Parliament, Sir Nicholas Bacon summed up that the law now bound any decision made in Parliament, however much individuals might dissent in their private consciences. Bacon stated that the queen's religious settlement would endure, and the queen would have little patience with "those who imperiled it by trying to go before the law, or beyond the law" (Hartley, 1981). Later in her reign (January 1580) Elizabeth sent a firm admonition to the House of Commons that they were "not to deal with matters touching Her Majesty's Person or Estate, or touching Religion (D'Ewes, 1682). The via media never stretched so far as to include heresy of any nature. Also, the "middle way" never implied that Holy Scripture or tradition could be ignored for the sake of diversity and inclusion. The traditional teaching of the historic church was cemented firmly in the via media of Elizabeth I, and for the orthodox among us, continues to be a cornerstone of our Anglican identity. To invoke the great tradition of the via media to justify sin is a grave injustice to the dignity and integrity of one of the most brilliant and comprehensive settlements of unity that the Christian Church has ever known. Elizabeth I sought to include the majority of her subjects in a comprehensive religious unity, understanding that the extremes might not be appeased. In the middle, however, were the majority of Christians who recognized the boundaries of historic tradition and Holy Scripture. The modern argument focused on the state of our church today always devolves to this basis – there are many of us who cannot accept the sanction of sin as just another manifestation of inclusive Anglicanism. If modern Episcopalians are truly concerned about embracing anew the via media, then why does it now cut so narrow a path as to theologically exclude those who insist upon its original boundary - the authority of Holy Scripture? END

US Bishops pressured to find a compromise Church of England Newspaper, 3/25/2004 The American House of Bishops was this week under immense pressure to reach a compromise on providing Episcopal oversight to dissenting traditional parishes, amid an intractable divide between conservatives and liberals. Guards have been posted at the gates and a media lockdown is in force during the Episcopal Church's retreat for bishops which began on March 19 in Navasota, Texas. Aides to Presiding Bishop Frank T Griswold denied the Church was in crisis, claiming "all is well" while traditionalists predicted the imminent break-up of the Church. To add to the problems, four bishops - three members of Forward in Faith and one evangelical - have boycotted the meeting in protest to the presence of Gene Robinson while five bishops have refused to stay at the Conference Centre. Conference organisers scored a spectacular own goal by placing Bishop Bob Duncan, the leader of the dissenting 'Anglican Communion Network' in the same Bible study and prayer group as Gene Robinson, causing Bishop Duncan to withdraw. "The stakes are high," noted the Rt Rev Charles Jenkins of Louisiana, chairman of the Presiding Bishop's Council of Advice, and the man tasked with presenting a programme of alternative Episcopal oversight (AEO) to the gathering. On March 20, Bishop Jenkins presented a revised plan of AEO to the Bishops who will debate the measure at a plenary session on March 22. Liberal bishops, including the Presiding Bishop favour temporary Episcopal oversight at the whim of the diocesan bishop. Meanwhile conservative bishops involved in the new 'Anglican Communion Network' are pressing for oversight which is largely independent of the diocesan bishop with whom individual parishes are in dispute. Bishop Charles Bennison of Pennsylvania on March 16 wrote, "As a matter of conscience and in a desire to honour my ordination vows, I personally have no intention of implementing anything like Flying Bishops or whatever they call it even if it is adopted," by the House of Bishops. Moderator of the Network of traditionalist dioceses, Bishop Robert W Duncan of Pittsburgh, thought the Jenkins plan was something "we could work with" as a temporary measure while the Lambeth Commission did its work. A row has also broken out over the contents of a letter written by the Archbishop of Canterbury to Presiding Bishop Griswold. One conservative news source reported that the letter strongly urged Bishop Griswold to find a compromise solution to the crisis were not confirmed by bishops present when the letter was read. Bishop Griswold's communications assistant did confirm that Archbishop Williams wrote to Bishop Griswold and that Bishop Griswold had read the paragraphs about the irregular Ohio confirmations held by six retired bishops last week. She did not disclose the full contents of the letter, however. One bishop described the letter as "dull" and as having dealt solely with the Primates request that AEO take place within the parameters of a Province's canons. Bishop John W Howe of Central Florida told The Church of England Newspaper, "What he read was very mild, even bland." Bishop Howe was not sanguine about the outcome of the meeting. Bishop Howe told us that he had been seated next to Bishop John Chane of Washington. He and Bishop Chane, a leader of the progressive caucus, were "agreed that we are not dealing with the real issues, but only symptoms of a crisis that is deeper than is being acknowledged." One liberal bishop, Pierre Whalon, reported from the House of Bishops this week: "There is an undertone of dread as these discussions loom in our schedule.

ALBANY: HOB RESPONDS - IS HALF A LOAF BETTER THAN NONE? by Bishop Dave Bena The House of Bishops met this week in Texas to take up action on the growing number of parishes (now in the hundreds) who feel that they cannot accept Episcopal Oversight by their bishops. Most of these are traditional parishes which take Scripture very seriously and which teach and model biblical, conservative values. They have gathered that their bishops are teaching and modeling values in opposition to theirs, and are concerned that the teaching role of the bishop may threaten their position on these values. Last October, the Primates - the archbishops of the thirty-eight Churches of the Anglican Communion, our Presiding Bishop being one of them - stated in a pastoral letter, "Whilst we affirm the teaching of successive Lambeth Conferences that bishops must respect the autonomy and territorial integrity of dioceses and provinces other than their own, we call on the 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." Translated into "regular talk," that means that the Episcopal Church bishops were charged by the Primates to come up with a plan that would minister to parishes who in all conscience feel bound to dissent from the actions of last August's General Convention regarding sexual practice. That plan would need to be made in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury. There was some drama leading up to the House of Bishops meeting this week. You may have read about it. Both the Presiding Bishop and representatives of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes were in regular consultation with Archbishop Williams right up to the eve of the meeting. The Archbishop counseled charity on everyone's part, as well as encouragement to go as far as possible in providing adequate Episcopal Oversight for traditional parishes in non-traditional dioceses. The Archbishop was instrumental in the development and implementation of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes, because he realized the need the Episcopal Church has for such an organization to act as an advocate for persons and parishes who hold to orthodox Anglican teaching. And so he regularly consults with our Presiding Bishop and he regularly consults with leaders of the Network. Obviously his consultation had a positive effect on the House of Bishops meeting. While no one got the whole loaf, both sides got half a loaf. A document was produced entitled "Caring for all the Churches," in which a way through the difficulty is sketched out. The way through is called Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight. If a rector (or clergy in charge) and vestry petition the local bishop for Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight, a negotiated settlement may be reached by which a traditional bishop from another diocese can become the primary caregiver for that parish. There is an appeal process in case the parish and the local bishop cannot reach agreement. This, in my opinion, will allow traditional parishes to continue functioning in non-traditional dioceses without feeling pressure by their local bishop. Not all agree with me that this document shows promise. Some of the bishops thought the document went way too far in granting alternative episcopal oversight to traditional parishes. One bishop wanted to so obfuscate the document that it would make no sense at all. He was shouted down. And some bishops felt the document went nowhere near far enough to provide oversight. But as I read the document, I see some gains for the concept of alternative episcopal oversight. There are positives and there are negatives regarding this document: POSITIVES: Allows a way for traditional parishes in non-traditional dioceses to stay in the Episcopal Church, and receive oversight by a traditional bishop. Allows for a continuation of dioceses as territorial, in keeping with Anglican practice. Provides an way for the Episcopal Church to function while the larger Anglican Communion considers a response to the "American" issue of sexual behavior. Allows God time to work toward bringing the Episcopal Church back in the direction of its traditional heritage. Encourages bishops to be charitable with dissenting parishes, and to give up some of their "power." NEGATIVES: The document is rather sketchy on the particulars of how much pastoral care a parish can receive from a bishop from outside the diocese. Depends an awful lot on the integrity and generosity of the local bishop to allow traditional parishes to flourish without his/her attempts to liberalize them. The appeal process could be flawed in that the Provincial Bishop, who is to handle the appeal, could be less than charitable. There are no teeth in this document; it can be easily abused by a diocesan bishop indisposed to sharing power. It puts severe limits on the exercise of oversight by a bishop from outside the diocese - time limited, no jurisdiction possibilities, 2/3 majority by vestry required. In the end, it is half a loaf for those wanting Adequate Episcopal Oversight and half a loaf for those wanting Supplemental Pastoral Care. Let's give it a try. David Bena is Bishop Suffragan in the Diocese of Albany

Offer of episcopal oversight called 'unfortunate' Marites N. Sison, Staff Writer, Anglican Journal Archbishop David Crawley, the acting primate, has written formal letters of protest to the primates of Central Africa, Congo, Rwanda and Southeast Asia saying their offer of "temporary adequate episcopal oversight" to New Westminster parishes opposed to same-sex blessings constitutes interference in the affairs of the Anglican Church of Canada. Four out of 11 churches that do not recognize the authority of Bishop Michael Ingham of New Westminster and formed the Anglican Communion in New Westminster (ACiNW) have accepted the offer. "I regret that these four primates have chosen to interfere in the life of the Canadian church, especially since a task force has been set up by the house of bishops to develop and provide guidelines for episcopal oversight and it has not completed its work," said Archbishop Crawley, who is metropolitan of the church province of British Columbia and Yukon, in an interview. "It was made clear over 100 years ago and restated in the 1998 Lambeth Conference, in a motion made by two Canadian bishops, that primates should not interfere in each other's affairs." Bishop Victoria Matthews, chair of the task force created by the house of bishops to look into the issue of adequate episcopal oversight for dissenters, said the offer was "unfortunate." (See related story on the task force's findings) One of the primates who made the offer, Archbishop Bernard Malango of Central Africa, is a member of the Lambeth Commission created to find ways of preserving the Anglican Communion. The Church of England Newspaper said there was an unconfirmed report that members of the commission had "chastised" Archbishop Malango for his action. St. Andrews, Pender Harbour, Church of Emmanuel (Richmond), St. Simon's ( North Vancouver) and Immanuel Church West side announced in a press statement that they were accepting the offer. Seven other ACiNW member congregations are "mulling their options," said the coalition. (A fifth primate, from Kenya, later joined the alliance of primates offering oversight, according to a news release from one of the parishes.) Bishop Ingham said the acceptance by the four parishes of pastoral care from overseas "means that (they) have given up on the Anglican Church of Canada." He said in an interview that the move "pre-empted the work of the (bishops') task force." Last year, Bishop Ingham asserted his authority as diocesan bishop and prevented Bishop Terrence Buckle of the Yukon from coming in as a "flying bishop." Bishop Buckle had made an offer to oversee the dissenting parishes, which he later withdrew after the task force was formed. In a statement, ACiNW spokesperson Lesley Bentley expressed the hope that the national church would make the same offer of episcopal oversight. "This may be a sign that time is running out," she said. Rev. Paul Carter executive director of ACiNW and priest at Immanuel Church Westside (a church plant not affiliated with the diocese of New Westminster), said the offer of episcopal oversight "will now enable us to have relief and move forward in mission while the Anglican Communion works out how to deal with false teaching in its midst, and the impending re-alignment."