By Eric Gorski Denver Post Staff Writer 8/10/2004 Colorado bishop weighs statement   Colorado Episcopal Bishop Rob O'Neill is expected to issue long-awaited policy statements this month on same-sex unions and the ordination of gays and lesbians, issues that have deeply divided the church nationwide and in Colorado.   O'Neill, who supports broader involvement of gays and lesbians in the church, said that "different understandings" exist about the diocese's existing policies and practices, and he is seeking a clearer stance.   O'Neill has taken a deliberate approach to issues of sexuality since becoming bishop of 35,000 Colorado Episcopalians in January, shortly after the elevation of the nation's first openly gay bishop in New Hampshire pushed the issue to the forefront.   One of O'Neill's first steps was to appoint a 10-member task force that recently completed a blueprint for how the diocese can stick together despite differences over sexuality. The report is to be made public near the end of August, and O'Neill plans to announce his positions on ordination and gay unions about the same time.   "The issue before us is not whether we agree or disagree about matters of sexuality and Christian faith," O'Neill said. "That we disagree is evident. The question that we must address is what are the consequences of our disagreement. How will we or will we not choose to live together?"   But conservative Episcopal leaders believe the diocese needs to fall in line with Anglican Church teaching that marriage should be between a man and woman, sexual activity outside of marriage is not condoned and ordination of practicing homosexuals is not legitimate. The 2.3 million-member Episcopal Church is the American arm of the worldwide Anglican Communion.   "Unless the central platform of this recommendation is an affirmation of the teaching of the Anglican Communion, I don't see how anything they say will draw alienated conservatives back to more full engagement," said the Rev. Ephraim Radner of Pueblo, the conservatives' choice for Colorado bishop last year.   Among O'Neill's challenges will be squaring diocesan policy on ordination with the fact that gay clergy in committed relationships already serve in the diocese.   A diocesan handbook published in 1999 states that clergy are to "exhibit a lifestyle consistent with the Episcopal Church's teaching regarding appropriate physical sexual expression, that is, married and faithful, or single and celibate."   Said O'Neill: "My goal is to establish consistent policy and practice."   He said he will seek to do the same with same-sex blessing ceremonies that fall short of marriage.   In 1994, Colorado Episcopal Bishop Jerry Winterrowd reached an agreement with some clergy allowing same-sex couples to receive prayers of thanksgiving during "the prayers of the people" portion of Sunday worship, O'Neill said. But interpretation of that agreement has varied, and some people didn't know it existed, he said.   One thing seems clear: The diocese is not likely to follow the lead of at least six other U.S. dioceses and develop a new rite for same-sex unions.   A year ago, the church's General Convention adopted a document that was interpreted by some as opening the door for development of such rites.   But O'Neill reaffirmed his belief that that was not the intent, and the national church must develop a same-sex liturgy before Colorado would follow suit. ---

Anglican Church of Brazil Comments on Homosexuality Recife, 6th July 2004 A Call for a consequential and responsible reflection on the issue of homo)sexuality in the Anglican Communion.   "Not by might and not by power, but by my spirit" Zech. 4:6.   Open letter to:   The Primate of the Brazilian Anglican Episcopal Church, (BAEC), the Rev. Dom Orlando Santos de Oliveira; The Diocesan bishop of the Recife Anglican Diocese, (RAD) the Rev. Dom Robinson Cavalcanti; The suffragan bishop of RAD, the Rev. Dom Filadelfo Oliveira Neto; The BAEC Special Commission; The clergy and laity of the RAD and the BAEC; and to all Christians.   Beloved brethren,   The debate on the understanding of (homo)sexuality and its implications has been dividing opinions within the Anglican community for some years now. Though there is a vast majority of people, dioceses and provinces that consider an erotic relationship between people of the same sex inappropriate from Christian standards, there has always been even within this majority a diversity of interpretations on the phenomenon and various ways of understanding its implications for the reality of the Church and Society in general.   The recent happenings of the Episcopal Church of the United States and of Canada, however, immediately led to such a polarisation of opinions and heightening of tensions that it is now almost impossible to conduct a calm reflection and mature discussion on an issue of the utmost importance for the contemporary Church. In this context, the alternatives are reduced to extreme caricatures of an unreasoning, almost homophobic rejection and a secularist and uncritical, almost festive acceptance.   Unfortunately, the international scenario has been transplanted to the reality of our Province and our dioceses without any mediation; reproducing the outside polarisation, leading to extreme and precipitated actions and manifestations, that have led to the rekindling of the historical tensions between the South and Northeast and between the traditional currents in Brazilian Anglicanism.   We, the undersigned, as clergy and laity of the Recife Anglican Diocese and of the Brazilian Anglican Episcopal Church, judge it our duty to come public, at this moment in time, to manifest our appeal for moderation, serenity and wisdom in the discussions regarding this issue. We emphatically affirm that the intransigence often shown in the debates and the extremism clothing the opinions are an obstacle to the cause of the Kingdom of God in our country and an affront to the Brazilian Church.   This letter is an attempt to make a contribution to a realistic and productive dialogue, taking up a position in favour of the construction of a Christian, mature, relevant and renewing alternative to the impasse that our Church and Society are experiencing at the moment. A debate of ideas, respect for different positions, peaceful argument, spiritual and intellectual humility, self-criticism, openness to criticism, an honest and profound analysis of opposing arguments, sobriety, generosity and other attitudes like these are the worthy resources of anyone proposing or even wishing to construct a consistent, responsible and historically relevant discourse on the issue.   In the face of growing speculation, and a climate of suspicion and hostility that has been placed in our context, we also judge it necessary to present some positions in relation to the present debate.   1. Regarding our Faith:   a. We believe in one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit creator and sustainer of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible, who created the human being - man and woman to his image and likeness, with the capacity to co-operate in creation, to develop language, culture and to build on Nature;   b. We believe in the universality of human sin and the universal merit of the redeeming sacrifice of Christ on the cross on Calvary, as also the sovereignty of God in relation to the salvation of human beings.   c. We believe in the Sacred Scriptures of the Old and the New Testaments as the written Word of God, divinely inspired, ultimate authority in matters of theology, trustworthy in its integrity and infallible in all things necessary for salvation (Art. 6, XXXIX);   d. We acknowledge the Ecumenical Creeds of the Christian Church as an efficient synthesis and a sufficient summary of the basic points of our faith, and we respect the tradition of the Church as a source of inspiration and counsel on the Christian Faith and as a sign of the ongoing action of God as Lord and sustainer of History;   e. We consider ourselves to be heirs to the evangelical tradition of a living Protestantism, fulfilled in the day-to-day of the Church; representatives of an evangelicalism open to the work of the Holy Spirit in history, to the diversity of cultures and forms of contextualisation of the Faith, to the contributions from theological reflection and responsible biblical criticism, committed to personal and historical transformation and to the ethical and social implications of the Faith.   2. Regarding the question of (homo)sexuality:   a. We believe that the discussion on the issue of human sexuality and especially of homosexuality for the Church and for theology, today, must go beyond the question of defining what sin is, since, in accordance with our belief, sin has attained all areas of human life and permeates all our works and relationships (Rm. 3,23).   b. It is a fact that the erotic relationship between people of the same sex does not represent the divine ideal for the human creature, as expressed in the Scriptures and thus understood by the Church's tradition (Rm. 1, 18-32). It is also a fact that the questions relative to the discussion on (homo)sexuality comprise a great complexity of human factors that need to be deeply analysed and taken into account when honestly seeking a practical and historical understanding of tradition and the biblical texts.   c. We acknowledge that there exist different forms of interpretation and hermeneutic treatment of the texts that deal with the phenomena of homosexuality, and that it is extremely necessary to deepen and broaden the studies as well as the understanding of this issue.   d. We affirm that a large part of the Church has already become aware of its duty to acknowledge and respect the intrinsic dignity of every human being. Many Christian ministers have been pioneers in dealing with the issue of (homo)sexuality in a respectful, humble and humane manner. Not all the Church, however, has followed this example of evangelical fidelity. It is necessary that work and reflection be stimulated in the sense of producing a Christian mentality and practice, as free as possible from prejudice, hatred and arrogance, regarding these issues.   e. We believe that it is necessary to try to understand in a profound manner the cultures of our time, as a way to identify the renovating work of the Holy Spirit and the aspects of the multiform grace of God in each moment and context, and also, as a way of identifying the presence and mechanisms of the works of sin and death in our generation. It is impossible to understand the issue of homosexuality in a coherent manner today, outside the context of a broader debate on the notion of sexuality for contemporary cultures.   f. We believe that a deepened analysis should seek to be faithful to Biblical revelation and to Christian tradition, while taking into account the biological, psychological, anthropological, philosophical and social aspects that differentiate the understanding of the present phenomenon from the understanding of other similar phenomena contained in the history of Christianity.   g. We believe that both the discourses of the "conservatives" as well as of the "liberals" presented up to now, have failed in the task of presenting a sufficiently deep and comprehensive reading of the phenomenon under discussion. The great majority of the discourses of the "conservatives" have been based on what seems to be prejudice, ignorance and a superficial reading of the Bible, while the "liberals" seem to have limited themselves to revering and ratifying the agenda, labelling belief in the Bible and Church tradition as anachronisms.   h. We believe that the plurality of theological currents and positionings regarding the issue within Anglicanism do not necessarily represent a weakness in our Church, but rather should be considered as a positive though annoying quality, since it endows us all with the privilege of being constantly questioned and confronted, and of contributing to the growth of the Church through the multiform grace of God. The plurality and inclusion can and should lead us to humility, humanness, maturity, and often, to face up to difficult issues that have as yet not been faced up to by the majority of the Church, but only if we are capable of respecting, listening to and dialoguing with one another, and continually growing together.   i. Finally, we affirm that though plurality of opinions and openness to debate are licit, desirable and extremely necessary, the hegemonic position of the majority of the Anglican Communion and of the tradition of the Church, in as much as we claim to be a protestant and catholic Church, should be respected and maintained by all the institutions linked to her, until there is a minimum consensus regarding the way to deal with the issues raised by our tempo. The ministerial ordination and episcopal consecration of people who publicly profess a conscious and voluntary option for living in a homosexual union is unacceptable in this context, as is the holding of rites and ceremonies for blessing unions between couples of the same sex.   3. Regarding the crisis in the Anglican Communion:   a. We believe that the decisions and the consequent actions of the episcopal Churches in the United States and Canada have publicly and deliberately offended the conscience of the majority of the Church and the international agreements that have been gone into over recent years within the Anglican Communion.   b. We believe, however, that these provinces and dioceses as well as others that may come to adopt the same line of action should be urged to renounce their works and decisions, so as not to be an obstacle to their participation in the Anglican Communion, as well as suffering the lamentable and inevitable institutional isolation that could be imposed by the other provinces and the risk of provoking an irreversible schism.   c. We uphold, as an alternative to a "curialisation" or "federalisation" of the Anglican Communion, that the instruments of Communion should be strengthened, where there will be a greater participation of the clergy and laity the Anglican Consultative Council in such a manner that important decisions can be analysed and ratified in distinct courts.   d. We uphold that, in the case of the dioceses and parishes in the United States and Canada that did not concord with the decisions and actions of their provinces, a norm should be urgently drawn up for the alternative episcopal supervision, so as to avoid greater conflicts and misunderstandings.   e. We uphold that the financial dependence of the Anglican Communion on the Episcopal Church of the United States be urgently reduced, through, if necessary, a reduction of the administrative machine and the cutting down on and sharing of expenses, to such an extent that the "economic weight" does not upset the relations of authority between the various provinces.   f. We call attention to the immense profusion of manifestations of sin that we are witnessing in the contemporary context such as hunger and consumerism/waste, environmental crimes, sexual exploitation of children and adolescents, child labour and slavery, forms of torture, imperialist wars, international economic exploitation - those that have been and should not be forgotten, neglected and relegated to a second plan in virtue of an internal struggle in the body of the Church.   4. Regarding the repercussions of the crisis within the BAEC:   a. Reaffirming our feeling of belonging to the BAEC and our regard for the brethren in the other dioceses, we believe there is no reason for any discussion on, or speculation about a possible schism here in the Province, since unlike the United States and Canada no decision nor action has been taken or even insinuated that could justify such an extreme action;   b. We recommend Christian wisdom, patience, moderation, serenity and humility as necessary attributes for all those involved in the debate. We appeal that there not be any untimely and indiscreet actions or manifestations from any party and we suggest that, at a propitious moment, more profound and specific questions and topics be proposed for discussion.   c. We also recommend that there be greater respect and a searching for greater mutual understanding among the various dioceses of the Province, and that plurality be respected not only while they exist as isolated and parallel currents, but that we be ready to interact, listen to and learn from one another.   d. We support the proposal for the creation of internal provinces in the BAEC, an issue that was discussed a few years ago, not as a way to promote isolation among the regions, but, as a strategy for driving away the "ghosts" and lessening the tensions, and to stimulate growth in the Church.   e. We also support the three-chamber proposal in the synods of the BAEC as a way of promoting greater participation of the laity in the life of the Church.   5. Regarding the repercussions of the crisis in the RAD:   a. We reaffirm our personal respect and affection for Dom Robinson Cavalcanti and Dom Filadelfo Oliveira Neto, as well as our institutional submission to them as diocesan bishop and suffragan of the RAD. We deny and repudiate any accusation of disloyalty, betrayal or disregard. We believe, however, that our loyalty, friendship and submission does not prevent us from disagreeing, duly, from ideas, actions, proposals or from presenting positions contrary to them at some moments.   b. We manifest our concern with the growing canonical restrictions on theological/ideological norms for ordination and participation in our diocese, as well as with the growing climate of ideological and behavioural patrolling that has arisen. The attempt to put Truth within strict boundaries is always risky.   c. We reaffirm our willingness and desire to give of our best, in working together with all the clergy and laity of the RAD, for the growth of our Church and for the construction of a diocese that is Anglican, missionary, mature, relevant, inculturated, inclusive, alive and fraternal.   We do not know the how or the when regarding the outcome of the crisis within the Anglican Communion, nor the manner that this will be reflected in the BAEC, but we do know that the problem of human sexuality and especially homosexuality, is and will continue to be a fundamental question to be understood and worked on by our generation. When "the dust settles" from the battles and the "war drums" have been silenced, there will still be people with their pains and problems, and the Church, with its mission to preach and live the Gospel in an integral manner. Then there will be noticed the lack of an honest, mature, sensitive and serene reflection on the reality of (homo)sexuality, on the Gospel message and on the Mission of the Church in our context. It will be imperative that both the "conservatives" as well as the "liberals" be open to review their histories and positions and be ready to listen and learn under the influence of the Holy Spirit.   In Christ, Lord of History,   Rev. Gustavo Gilson S. de Oliveira, OSE, Rector of the Anglican Seminary for Theological Studies-Recife Most Rev. Sergio F. Lomeu de Andrade Dean of the Anglican Cathedral of the Most Holy Trinity Rev. Fabio S. Vasconcelos, Rector of the Parish of The Mediator and Chaplain to the Anglican Seminary of Theology Studies Rev. Manoel S. Moraes de Almeida, OSE, Rector of the Parish of The Good Samaritan Rev. Joao Cancio Peixoto Filho Rev. Elias Leoncio de B. Filho, OSE Friar Quintino Geraldo Diniz Melo, OSF Mauricio Amazonas, OSE, Lay Minister Prof. Fernando Antonio Goncalves, Seminarian Rodrigo Espiuca, Seminarian Senomar Teixeira Junior, Seminarian Silvio de Freitas Barbosa, Seminarian

From Traditional Values Coalition Washington, DC In 1973, The American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-II).   This decision was a significant victory for homosexual activists and they have continued to claim that the APA based their decision on new scientific discoveries that proved that homosexual behavior is normal and should be affirmed in our culture.   This is false and part of numerous homosexual urban legends that have infiltrated every aspect of our culture. The removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder has given homosexual activists credibility in the culture, and they have demanded that their sexual behavior be affirmed in society.   What Really Happened?   Numerous psychiatrists over the past decades have described what forces were really at work both inside and outside of the American Psychiatric Association---and what led to the removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder.   Dr. Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist has described what actually occurred in his book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. (1981)   In Chapter 4, "Diagnostic Politics: Homosexuality and the American Psychiatric Association," Dr. Bayer says that the first attack by homosexual activists against the APA began in 1970 when this organization held its convention in San Francisco. Homosexual activists decided to disrupt the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, homosexual activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you."   Homosexuals forged APA credentials and gained access to exhibit areas in the conference. They threatened anyone who claimed that homosexuals needed to be cured.   Kameny had found an ally inside of the APA named Kent Robinson who helped the homosexual activist present his demand that homosexuality be removed from the DSM. At the 1972 convention, homosexual activists were permitted to set up a display booth, entitled "Gay, Proud, and Healthy."   Kameny was then permitted to be part of a panel of psychiatrists who were to discuss homosexuality. The effort to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM was the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation, not scientific discoveries.   Prior to the APA's 1973 convention, several psychiatrists attempted to organize opposition to the efforts of homosexuals to remove homosexual behavior from the DSM. Organizing this effort were Drs. Irving Bieber and Charles Socarides who formed the Ad Hoc Committee Against the Deletion of Homosexuality from the DSM-II.   The DSM-II listed homosexuality as an abnormal behavior under section "302. Sexual Deviations." It was the first deviation listed.   After much political pressure, a committee of the APA met behind closed doors in 1973 and voted to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM-II. Opponents were given 15 minutes to protest this change, according to Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, in Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Satinover writes that after this vote was taken, the decision was to be voted on by the entire APA membership. The National Gay Task Force purchased the APA's mailing list and sent out a letter to the APA members urging them to vote to remove homosexuality as a disorder. No APA member was informed that the mailing had been funded by this homosexual activist group.   According to Satinover, "How much the 1973 APA decision was motivated by politics is only becoming clear even now. While attending a conference in England in 1994, I met a man who told me an account that he had told no one else. He had been in the gay life for years but had left the lifestyle. He recounted how that after the 1973 APA decision, he and his lover, along with a certain very highly placed officer of the APA Board of Trustees and his lover, all sat around the officer's apartment celebrating their victory. For among the gay activists placed high in the APA who maneuvered to ensure a victory was this man--suborning from the top what was presented to both the membership and the public as a disinterested search for truth."   Dr. Socarides Speaks Out   Dr. Charles Socarides has set the record straight on how homosexuals inside and outside of the APA forced this organization to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder. This was done without any valid scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality is not a disordered behavior.   Dr. Socarides, writing in Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality writes: "To declare a condition a 'non-condition,' a group of practitioners had removed it from our list of serious psychosexual disorders. The action was all the more remarkable when one considers that it involved an out-of-hand and peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports, but also a number of other serious studies by groups of psychiatrists, psychologists, and educators over the past seventy years..."   Socarides continued: "For the next 18 years, the APA decision served as a Trojan horse, opening the gates to widespread psychological and social change in sexual customs and mores. The decision was to be used on numerous occasions for numerous purposes with the goal of normalizing homosexuality and elevating it to an esteemed status."   "To some American psychiatrists, this action remains a chilling reminder that if scientific principles are not fought for, they can be lost--a disillusioning warning that unless we make no exceptions to science, we are subject to the snares of political factionalism and the propagation of untruths to an unsuspecting and uninformed public, to the rest of the medical profession, and to the behavioral sciences." Dr. Socarides' report is available from the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality: www.narth.com .   The Importance of the DSM   The DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) is the most widely used diagnostic reference book utilized by mental health professionals in the United States.   It's a manual by which all diagnostic codes are derived for diagnosis and treatment - every single physician (an estimated 850,000*) in the United States refers to this book in order to code for a diagnosis. In plain English, what does this mean? It means that for over 30 years physicians have been prevented from properly diagnosing homosexuality as an aberrant behavior and thus, cannot recommend a treatment for these individuals.   Prior to that time, homosexuality had been treated as a mental disorder under section "302. Sexual Deviations" in the DSM-II. Section 302 said, in part: "This category is for individuals whose sexual interests are directed primarily towards objects other than people of the opposite sex, toward sexual acts...performed under bizarre circumstances...Even though many find their practices distasteful, they remain unable to substitute normal sexual behavior for them." Homosexuality was listed as the first sexual deviation under 302. Once that diagnostic code for homosexuality was removed, physicians, including psychiatrists, have been prevented from diagnosing homosexuality as a mental disorder for more than three decades.   *American Medical Association statistic, 2002.

By Uwe Siemon-Netto UPI Religious Affairs Editor PARIS, Aug. 10 (UPI) Editor's note: This coming weekend, Pope John Paul II will be in Lourdes, the world's most important site of pilgrimage. His journey to this Marian shrine comes at a time of a new Vatican letter written by Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican's highest-ranking cardinal, and seen as a condemnation of the excesses of modern feminism. Lourdes, in the French Pyrenees, says perhaps more about the relationship between Roman Catholicism and women than any other Christian site in the world. Its central figure is the Virgin Mary, who is said to have appeared to a peasant girl, Bernadette Soubirou, in 1858 introducing herself with the words, "I am the Immaculate Conception." Women make up a majority of the six million pilgrims who pour into Lourdes from all continents every year to pay homage to Mary: nuns, desperately ill patients hoping for a miracle, housewives, but also young nobles prepared to serve the poor and the sick, cheerful Irish and German singles, all game for a flirt and a tipple in between the prayers. There are plenty of Protestants, too, and why not? Did not Martin Luther praise the Blessed Virgin as the Spiritual Mother of all Christians? Did not Huldreich Zwingli, the Zurich reformer, rate her above all creatures, "including the saints and angels"? Did not John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, affirm her continuing purity (after Christ's birth, that is)? It is hard to conceive of a more feminine, loving atmosphere than that of Lourdes (this writer, by the way, is a Protestant). It is much in keeping with the attributes of the woman "who in her deepest and original being exists 'for the other' (cf., 1 Corinthians 11:9)," as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger phrased it in his recent controversial Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church. This "being there for the other" is of course what Luther, too, saw manifest in Mary; this is why he called her "blessed above all nobility, wisdom and sanctity." This is why his exegesis of the "Magnificat" (Luke 1:46-55) -- "My soul magnifies the Lord" - is arguably one of most spectacular theological commentaries, so much so that it is taught in most Catholic seminaries. And yet while Cardinal Ratzinger's letter "On the collaboration of men and women in the Church and World," which the pope had approved, made essentially the same point as Luther, Zwingli or Wesley, it became the object of worldwide controversy. Why? Because even before its publication, the letter was purported to be an attack against worldwide feminism. And so Margot Kaessmann, Lutheran bishop of Hanover in Germany, bemoaned the paper's "clichés." Ekin Delgoez, a spokeswoman for Germany's Green Party, accused the church of remaining stuck between the Middle Ages and modernity. Christel Hildebrand, chairwoman of a Conference of European (female) theologians, called Ratzinger's reflection anathema. Emma Bonino, an Italian politician, opined that the paper might just as well have been written by an imam of Cairo's Al-Azhar mosque. Danièle Hervieu-Léger, France's leading sociologist of religion, warned that the church was about to lose the women - at least in Western Europe and in North America - just as in the past it had lost the working class. Yet, as Eberhard von Gemmingen of Radio Vatican pointed out, Ratzinger's observations are much more about women's rights and equality than about feminism. True, Ratzinger does chastise the feminist tendency making "women ... adversaries of men." But he emphasizes clearly that women, like men, are equally created in the image of God, and that this constitutes "the immutable basis of all Christian anthropology." Ratzinger reminds his readers of a previous statement by the pope declaring women as "another 'I' in common humanity." He links the warped bond between men and women to the Fall: "When humanity considers God its enemy, the relationship between men and women becomes distorted. When this relationship is damaged, their access to the face of God risks being compromised in turn." This is part of a basic Christian theology most denominations share, based on the apostle Paul's powerful statement to which Ratzinger also referred: "For all of you who have been baptized into Christ ... there is neither male nor female" (Galatians 3:27-28). In the face of all the criticism, the Vatican takes comfort from the ancient verity that the "dernier cri (latest fashion) of reason expires more rapidly than sound Christian doctrine." Ratzinger's paper goes out of his way to stress the woman's right to equal pay and career chances in the secular world and to an even fuller recognition of her role in the family. In the still more earth-bound opinions of his critics, this seems to take second place to Rome's insistence that women cannot be priests because, as one senior prelate put it, "for a woman to take Christ's place at the altar in an ontological absurdity." Rome is not alone in making this point. Eastern Orthodoxy and some major Protestant denominations do the same, but they are spared reproach. It may not be politically correct to say (as did Ratzinger) that "man and woman are different from the time of creation and will remain so for all eternity." But that is what at heart most people realize and are grateful for - be they Catholic or not. And this is what, in a sense, gives women the edge in the biblical narrative: Women, not men, courageously stood by Christ's cross. Women, not men, discovered his resurrection and revealed it to the world. As Luther observed about Mary: "Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: the Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her, though he had as many tongues as leaves on the trees."

By Uwe Siemon-Netto UPI Religious Affairs Editor GENEVA, Switzerland, Aug. 3 (UPI) The lethal attacks on five churches in Iraq violated the stated will of the prophet Mohammed, who in the 7th century issued a "Firman" - or letter of protection -- for Assyrian Christians.   Assyrians make up the majority of the 700,000 Christians in present-day Iraq. Mohammed was so impressed with their ancestors' knowledge of medicine and the sciences that he decreed for them to be left in peace, according to Albert Yelda, formerly the Christian representative in the leadership of the London-based Iraqi National Congress.   The Firman disappeared without trace in 1847, Yelda told United Press International. Assyrians believe that the then-Turkish rulers destroyed this document before setting out to kill 30,000 Christians.   Joseph Yacoub, a political science professor at the Catholic University of Lyon, France, fears that the coordinated car bombings of churches may accomplish what Mohammed had tried to prevent. "There exists a definite risk that the Christian presence will be reduced to a level of insignificance," he told the French newspaper, Le Figaro.   "So far there had just been attacks on Christian individuals," this leading expert on Middle Eastern Christianity continued. "But now the bombers have taken on the entire community. Their message is clear: This is Muslim territory; it does not belong to you."   Thus one of the most remarkable set of Christians is once again threatened with extinction. The Assyrians, of whom there are 1.5 million worldwide, are descendants of one of the oldest civilizations - Mesopotamia. Almost three millennia ago, they excelled in astronomy, jurisprudence, the arts, architecture, medicine and the natural sciences.   Assyrians were the first nation to adopt Christianity as their state religion in 179 A.D., more than a century before Armenia. They claim to have been the first to build churches and to translate the New Testament from Greek into their vernacular - Aramaic, the language of Christ.   In the 8th century, not long after Mohammed's death, Assyrians were the first to send missionaries to China, Mongolia and even Japan. They were Nestorians, heretics in the eyes of the rest of the church because they followed the teachings of Nestorius, a 5th-century bishop of Constantinople who taught that the Virgin Mary was not the "theodokos," or mother of God, but simply the mother of Jesus Christ.   This fine point of theology has long ceased to stand in the way of Christian unity in Iraq. In the 16th century, a major segment of the Nestorian church united with Rome while retaining its ancient liturgy. They are now called the Chaldean Church to which most Assyrian Christians belong.   The remaining Nestorians are on excellent of terms with the Chaldeans, while maintaining different traditions. Their liturgy is extremely "high;" yet their incense-filled sanctuaries appear as stark as synagogues or Reformed churches.   There is no iconostasis - a partition or screen decorated with icons separating the sanctuary from the rest of the church. There are no graven images. A simple cross above the altar is the only adornment of a Nestorian church. Nestorians call their priests "rabi;" like orthodox Jews they eschew mixed marriages.   While the Assyrians lived in peace for much of the first 11 centuries since the Muslim conquest of their homeland, martyrdom has been their fate for the past 150 years.   The massacre of 30,000 Christians in 1847 was succeeded by another in 1896. In 1915 the Turks slaughtered not only over one million Armenians but also 250,000 Assyrians, a fact seldom mentioned when the first holocaust of the 20th century is being discussed.   There are still some old men alive in Iraq who were forcibly converted to Islam in their childhood but remained Christians in their hearts, fasting during Lent and making merry at Christmas, Easter and Pentecost.   During Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, the Assyrians' persecution was in a sense more of a cultural than a religious nature. "Tyrants hate minorities," said Yelda. Hence Saddam had hundreds of Assyrian villages razed, including one 2nd-century church. He also banned the Assyrians' cultural clubs where they had kept their literary language alive.   But in Saddam's days, too, Muslim mobs terrorized Iraqi Christians, beheading on Aug. 15, 2002 a Chaldean nun, Sister Cecilia Hanna, whose monastery they had stormed.   Like their cousins, the Jews, Assyrians are now scattered around the world. Almost 300,000 went to America, primarily the Chicago area. Others live in Jordan, Australia, France, Germany and the United Kingdom.   It is with a heavy heart that Pope John Paul II reacted to the news of the murderous attacks on Iraq's churches by stressing his closeness to the marvelous and venerable Christian culture, which is at the point of oblivion.   The pontiff appealed to those believing in one God to show mercy. Instead, Iraq's Christians are being murdered -- in the name of that merciful God. ---

"The Good & True Shepherd" By Bradley T. Page When I became the Episcopal Chaplain to Florida State University I started attending college chaplain and young adult ministry events within the National Episcopal Church. And it didn't take long for me to realize just what a theological mess we were in (and this was well before last year's General Convention). For me the penny dropped — like a millstone — while I was sitting in a small-group college ministry track at the National Church's Christian Education Conference in Chicago almost two years ago. I was with a group of Episcopal priests (several of whom were college chaplains, and several of them were in homosexual relationships). In one of the few brief periods where we weren't talking about homosexuality we discussed how we as college chaplains might identify the students to encourage toward priesthood. How could we shape the future of the ordained leadership of the Episcopal Church, we wondered, and thereby shape the church? Who were the best candidates — the ones we should be encouraging to seek Holy Orders? The Episcopal chaplain from a large Mid-western university offered an example of one such student. The ideal candidate, in his view, for the Episcopal priesthood of tomorrow was a young man in his college ministry. He was a champion for social justice, morally inclusive, theologically curious and open minded, ecumenically Unitarian. Interested in Judaism, a disciple of Islam, deeply involved in walking the path of the Buddha. In describing him this priest never once mentioned if this student was interested in, or in any way inclined toward Christianity, and yet my small group of college chaplains was awash with affirmation as this was clearly the perfect candidate for the priesthood of a "revised" 21st century Episcopal Church. In the group discussion that followed his comments there was no mention of any expectation regarding faith, no Christian particularities here — NOT ONE! Only social activism and openness to anything and everything seemed to be what was needed for the priest of tomorrow (if not the priest of today). When I could stand it no longer I spoke up, and I suggested that surely the Christian priesthood required more than that. For example, was there nothing unique we could say about Christ? Wasn't he the Messiah, the Son of God, the full revelation of God in the world? Wasn't He central to the Church and its ministry? Wasn't our job as college chaplains to be more than just some sort of Unitarian Clearing House? When I had said all of that my colleague responded by pointing me to the chapter from John that contains our Gospel reading for today. It's a chapter that talks about Jesus as the shepherd of the sheep and with an image from the verses just prior to today's reading, this fellow chaplain reminded me that Christ is the gate to the sheepfold. "But," he added "What you need to understand is that this is a gate that swings both ways." "Our job as chaplains," he said "is to help students move out of that sheepfold if that is where their spiritual journey is leading them." Well, I have to tell you I was scandalized by that comment. As a chaplain I am to facilitate and assist the "spiritual" journey of my students when that journey is taking them out of Christianity? And out of the Church. And out of the flock — and sheepfold — of Christ? What an amazing and tolerant deception that is! What an outrageous distortion — not only of my role as a Christian priest and Chaplain to students — but of the Gospel itself! And yet, this distortion is so widespread within American Anglicanism that even the revisionist Episcopal Bishop of Atlanta had to confess in a sermon three weeks ago that "the Church we have known, which taught us the gospel and the sacraments and which we grew up in, that Church is no longer part of us." We have lost much! And what we are seeing is a distortion of the Church propagated by the leaders of the Church — our shepherds. Even the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, whose embrace of a wooly Unitarianism he calls "pluriform truth" has made him duplicitous in his dealings with fellow archbishops and presiding bishops, and with all those under his pastoral care. Some of you may have seen another example of this distortion in the news last week as the retired Episcopal Bishop of Utah — following in the steps of the Bishop of New Hampshire — has divorced his wife, and on Thursday "married" one of his male lovers. We see it promoted by Gene Robinson who, as a new leader of the 21st century Episcopal Church, will participate in yet another fund-raiser to support the rigorous distortion of the church's teaching (and not just on sexuality issues, either). I was interested to note that at this latest event — for an additional $10,000 contribution to the revisionist cause — you can have a private dinner for two with the new bishop at the elite Ritz Carlton. In all of these things (and in so many more) there is a willful misuse of the role of priest, and especially the role of bishop, as shepherd of the flock of Christ! And, along with the teaching expressed by that college chaplain in Chicago, there is a tragic distortion — if not a wholesale rejection — of the call of Christ the Messiah, who is the ultimate, true, and good Shepherd. The relationship of Shepherd to sheep that Jesus talks about throughout the 10th chapter of John's Gospel is actually something quite different from all of this! During Jesus' time sheep in Palestine were largely kept for their fleece for making wool; this meant that the sheep were often with their shepherds for years. The daily routine of their lives was intertwined. The shepherd really cared for his sheep — he would name them, and look out for them, and they would know his voice and respond to it, because they knew they could trust it. The shepherd thought of the sheep before he thought of himself — and he would do everything he could to protect them from harm and abuse. This is the relationship that Jesus is talking about when he says in today's gospel: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me, and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand..." That relationship. That protection. The caring for the sheep. The sacrificing for the sheep. The leading to good pastures, to clean water, to life — all of that is part of the relationship between the Good Shepherd and the sheep of his flock. It should be the relationship that is emulated by bishops and leaders of the church, though sadly this is not the case. But beyond this, beyond this at the moment glaring human failure, is of course the most important thing about Jesus' use of the image of Shepherd and Sheep. Which is that it speaks to the relationship between Jesus, and you and me, as faithful Christians who hear his voice and seek to follow him — because we trust him? Because we know that his VOICE, his WORD — in fact HE IS TRUE. This is Jesus, the Messiah, the Christ, the Good Shepherd, (He who is "one with the Father" as the Gospel today tells us). The ONE who seeks us when we are lost. Here is the Good Shepherd, the ultimate Shepherd, the God-Incarnate Shepherd, who calls to us because of God's love for us. The Shepherd who gave his life for us, his sheep. And who through that giving and that love invites us to participate more and more — not in some willy-nilly spirituality, but — in the eternal life of the one true God. To know him and respond to his love for us are what bring us into the community of the Church, into a community of Christian Faith, into the Lord's sheepfold, and into life everlasting. This truth — and that's what it is, TRUTH — is not something we should be ambiguous about. It is not something that any of us should be turning folks away from, nor should we "facilitate" their denial of it, or help them walk out the door of the Church and into another religion or, into some freeform "spirituality" that sees all truth as relative, and thereby denies Christ, who is "the way, the truth, and the life." Our job (Chaplain, priest, people) is to follow Christ's example — to bring folks in! And that, my brothers and sisters, is the task of this great parish. All of you together, in all your wonderful diversity, are actually called to be something quite particular: A community of Christian Faith! And I believe that Jesus has brought you into the sheepfold — or is bringing you into the sheepfold — through the ministry of this place. I believe that there are shepherds here who strive to be good and faithful shepherds, and who would never want to facilitate your departure from the Church, but want you to hear the voice of Christ as he calls you, more deeply into his flock, and as he calls all of us (both "in here" and "out there" in the larger Episcopal Church) into the deepest levels of faithfulness to him — who is the Shepherd of the Sheep. The Good Shepherd, who in the midst of danger and strife envelops us and holds us. Who will sustain us in all peril and uncertainty. And who — because of his perfect love and faithfulness — calls us, and seeks us, repeatedly, so that he will redeem us, and (if we let him) he will bring us home. This is where our hope — for now, for the 21st century of the Episcopal Church, for our future — this is where our hope must be fixed. And as we work to bring others into the sheepfold here at St John's, and as we — each and every one of us — seek to hear God's call to us, we long and pray and we hope for that day when all those who are departing from the faith will gather with us in the sheepfold of Christ, and sing in unison with us once more: "Perverse and foolish oft I've strayed, but yet, in love, He sought me. And on His shoulder gently laid, and home, home, rejoicing brought me." May it be so for our beloved Episcopal Church. May it be so for us all. The above was a sermon preached by Fr. Bradley at St John's Episcopal Church, Tallahassee, Florida. The Rev. Canon Bradley T. Page is Canon for College Ministries in the Apalachee Region and Episcopal Chaplain to The Florida State University. — — —

By David W. Virtue The Anglican Mission in America has added three new churches to its growing roster — one in Minneapolis, the other two in Nashville and Ohio. The new church in Minneapolis has deep roots in the community, according to AMIA spokesman Jay Greener. The new Church of the Cross began with its own building: lock, pew and pulpit. The building was an older Lutheran church that had served as a synagogue for the last two decades and is a mere 15 minutes from downtown in an area that is experiencing revitalization, said Greener. "There are a lot of young families moving in, and our people are excited by the opportunities for ministry here," said the Rev. Christian Ruch, the church's new priest and pastor. "The opportunity for a church 'plant' to have its own building is unusual, but when it became available and we saw that we could actually put something together, we knew that it would be foolish not to go forward." The Church of the Cross recently closed on the property, a move that will save the church from having to rent space in a school, theatre, or off-hours in other church buildings. The Church of the Cross began its journey last year when Christian, his wife Molly, and their children moved to Minneapolis to pull together a core team — a process that resulted in 30 energetic and gifted leaders stepping up to the plate. The call to plant a church came while Christian was part of a dynamic congregation in the Chicago area pastored by his brother, Stewart — Church of the Resurrection in Wheaton. "We came to a sense that we had to do this, and as we moved forward, God has provided," Christian stated. "Church of the Resurrection has made it possible for us to do this, and we have tremendous support from the Anglican Mission, as well." The Ruchs and other members of the new church's core team place a high value on community, with an expectation that open generosity and hospitality will attract those who are not believers. "As an Anglican congregation, our ancient traditions are a draw for people. There is a rootedness and authenticity that so many long to find," noted Rev. Ruch. "There is excitement about reaching the un-churched, and that's why people are getting involved." The new Minneapolis congregation will shortly take possession of the property and begin needed interior work, including the re-introduction of Christian symbols. They are mindful, however, that a church is not a building. "We have a strong sense that buying this building is not ultimately about us obtaining a permanent worship space," reflected Pastor Ruch, "it's about being equipped to reach the harvest of souls God has called us to reach." The Anglican Mission in America has also added two new churches recently, one in Nashville and the other in Ohio. The Church of the Redeemer in Nashville, TN, is comprised, to a large degree, of former members of St. Bartholomew's Episcopal Church (St. B's). The Rev. Thomas McKenzie, interim rector of St. Bartholomew's, will serve as priest of the new congregation, which drew some 150 interested participants to its July 1 information meeting. The core team of Church of the Redeemer had been meeting and praying together since April when the Rev. McKenzie realized that God was calling him out of the Episcopal Church (ECUSA). "Many in our group have known of the AMiA for some time through our long time relationship with Bishop Chuck Murphy and his family," observed one of the new church's members. "Nevertheless, we undertook an investigation of all the options for affiliation that might be open to us. The study concluded that the Anglican Mission was our choice. Church of the Redeemer, Nashville, desires to 'proclaim Christ's redemption, to liberate people from bondage, to recreate them from the inside out, to give them a loving relationship with Himself, to place them in Christian community, and to mold them into proclaimers of liberation to others through the power of the Holy Spirit,'" said McKenzie. Regular worship services began Sunday August 8th at Otter Creek Church, 5253 Granny White Pike, Nashville. The AMiA's third new congregation also has roots in the Episcopal Church. Hudson Anglican Fellowship (Ohio) is a plant by some former members of Christ Episcopal Church in Hudson, who were deeply troubled by the unscriptural direction that their church and diocese began to take, most evidenced in the process to select a new Bishop of Ohio, more than a year ago. Hudson Anglican Fellowship was birthed and began a process of discerning its direction, in terms of affiliation. The Rev. David "Doc" Loomis helped to give direction to the group in its early stages, and was ultimately invited to serve as rector in early December of 2003. Since then the church has grown to almost 100 members. It sought a home for its Anglican vision and mission, and found in the Anglican Mission in America. The Hudson Anglican Fellowship is also home for a broader regional effort, the Great Lakes Anglican Renewal, which seeks to plant and re-plant Anglican congregations in the Great Lakes region of northern Ohio. GLAR works directly with disenfranchised Episcopalians abandoned by revisionist decisions within ECUSA in order to help them deal with their hurt and anger, "ultimately placing them in safe parishes with Godly leadership and oversight that will carry on the work of the Gospel in America," said Greener. "Not all churches under GLAR will automatically affiliate with the AMiA, but they will be encouraged to find the best fit in the 'American Anglican fabric.'" The Anglican Mission in America is a growing missionary outreach of the Anglican Province of Rwanda, focusing on the 130 million un-churched in the U.S. www.theamia.org

By Michael J. McManus During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush was asked who his favorite political philosopher was, and he answered: "Jesus Christ, because he changed my life." No president has been as outspoken about his faith, or been as inclined to translate those beliefs into political action as George Bush. In doing so, he has made both friends and enemies. His most committed backers are fellow evangelicals, a quarter of the electorate, 86% of whom support his re-election. They know his story. A man born to wealth and political prominence, whose grandfather was a U.S. Senator, and father, a President. But the fallen-away Episcopalian left the comfort of Connecticut as a young man to go into the Texas oil business, where he became a hard-drinking, unsuccessful businessman. At his parents' Maine home, Bush took a long walk with Billy Graham, who led him to make a fresh commitment to Christ. No other American President made such a conversion as an adult. His business and political fortunes changed. Today he reads Scripture daily. "I am... a lowly sinner who sought redemption and found it," he told USA Today. "That doesn't make me better than anybody. It just adds perspective, I hope. I think people are going to find that in tough times...they're going to see a steady hand because the rock on which I stand is something other than the moment, the emotion of the day. Faith can be a steadying influence." When he considered running for president, he met evangelist James Robison and said, he felt "something was going to happen" and that the country would need his leadership. The crisis of 9/11 seemed to him evidence that Providence chose him to lead the country at the time. His faith was undoubtedly a factor in his characterizing the war against terrorism as a battle between forces of good and evil. Such language was repugnant to secularists here and in Europe. Like Woodrow Wilson who was the first to propose a League of Nations, Bush's vision of foreign policy is grand in design. He's said that "Freedom is not America's gift to the world, but God's gift to mankind." Both visions rest on a Christian conviction that "changed people and transformed communities are possible," asserts a National Association of Evangelicals document, "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility." However, both Wilson and Bush's visions were flawed in their execution. The League did not stop Hitler. Bush found it far easier to topple Saddam than to restore security afterwards. Jesus proclaimed we are to "love our neighbor as ourselves." Therefore Bush supported a $15 billion AIDS initiative to halt the unnecessary deaths of millions of Africans and Asians. And he signed a law to fight the trafficking of women and children for sexual abuse. Psalm 139 states, "You knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made." Therefore evangelicals believe abortion is an unjust taking of a human life. Bush signed a law to prohibit partial birth abortions, the first limitation of abortion. For similar reasons, his Administration has opposed Oregon doctors using drugs for euthanasia. Sometimes this principle leads Bush to take unpopular stands, such as his opposition to embryonic stem cell research, on grounds that it requires the killing of potential human beings. Like many politicians, he compromised, however, allowing federally funded research to continue on a limited number of "stem cell lines." While only half of them have been used by scientists, and though there's no evidence embryonic stem cells can cure disease, polls show opposition to Bush's stand. Knowing that faith-based programs are freeing people from drugs and other problems, he has had federal rules re-written so that churches could compete for federal funds to do such work. Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 teach that man and woman are both made in God's image, and they are "to be united" in marriage. Bush was the first to say in 2002, "My administration will give unprecedented support to strengthening marriages." He proposed spending $200 million a year to help couples "get married and stay married." However, Congress did not pass that bill. One of his tax reforms removed tax incentives for couples to cohabit rather than to marry. However, three major tax cuts combined with greater outlays to fight terrorism and to add drug benefits to Medicare have created monster deficits that will cost our children trillions. Although Bush's record is flawed it has been based on high Biblical ideals. Copyright 2004 Michael J. McManus — — —

By Simon Vibert How do you go about teaching your congregation to live with eschatological tension? (perhaps, not by using that word, in the first place!). It is a challenge, though. We have the first fruits of the Spirit, but not yet the full harvest (Romans 8). We are as a bride betrothed to her beloved, awaiting the wedding day (Revelation 21-22). We are, according to 2 Peter, as in the days of Noah — busy with the urgent task of building the ark, enduring the mockery of the unbelievers around us, but certain that, as God has promised, He will send destruction (see Chapter 3). Yes, this is a tension! And over the years, the Christian Church has swayed between over or under-realised eschatology as it has lived with the tension. This sense of tension is particularly acute for those of us in the Anglican Communion at the moment. We feel God's hand heavily upon us as the Communion looks set to be torn in two (or many more pieces) following the implications of consecrating a practising homosexual bishop, and a tacit assumption that the mind of Scripture has apparently changed on this issue. Some may argue, the horizons are not of eschatological proportions. Churches and even denominations come and go, as a cursory reading of Revelation 2-3 reminds us. Where is the living witness in those parts of the world right now? The shorter term horizons for Anglicans are focussed around the results of the Eames Commission due at the end of the Autumn, and our reaction to the global scene in which Anglicanism now operates. The tension is acute: How do we continue to operate in the denomination — working for the evangelisation of the nation — when even our Archbishops seem to concede that some kind of 'tearing of the fabric' is looking more likely? For some, there is a capitulation to the world's agenda. In recent weeks there was a fringe meeting of General Synod of a group calling themselves "Accepting Evangelicals" which requested that evangelicals reconsider its traditional condemnation of homosexual conduct. Evangelicals would surely not have countenanced having such a conversation a generation ago. There is no denying that the pressure on the world is very strong, but in my view, no excuse for adopting the world's agenda! For others, there is an agreement that this issue has become something of a defining moment over whether or not we will stand by Scriptural truth, but, there is a limit to the action that they would be prepared to take. Recently, a small group of us wrote to fellow evangelicals in Southwark Diocese with concerns over the perception that the official line over homosexual clergy has changed. It was a fairly mild protest which, in the first instance, asked for signatories to a letter which included the line: "While there are differing shades of feeling about the present uncertainty as we perceive it, many of us are having to reconsider the extent to which we will be able to participate in Diocesan life in the future." The intriguing, and somewhat frustrating, thing was that a considerable number of Evangelical brethren were not prepared to sign the letter because this statement was included. I do agree that we will differ as to how we should protest and fulfil our desire to reform dioceses and the denomination. Many of those who responded are in positions of influence and preferment in the Diocese. However, what I really hope that we can agree upon is: speaking without any intention of acting can never be right! My space is running out! However there is a third response which I have come across, and I guess it is the one I have the most sympathy with, but do still have some concerns about. For some, the urgency of the Gospel mandate requires that we transcend diocesan structures and find co-belligerence wherever we can — for the sake of the Gospel!! And, "amen" to that! However, when we met together as Council and Trustees a few weeks ago, I shared the concern that we don't confuse Gospel urgency with impatience. I think that the eschatology of 2 Peter 3 helps here. God is our model. He is surely coming! But He is patient. As in the days of Noah, we will be urgent in pleading that the lost may not perish in the impending destruction, but we will also model the Lord's patience. I think my plea at the moment would be: plan for the worst, pray for the best! Is that naive? I hope not. If we are truly living in momentous days, we do need to gain as many friends as we can in Gospel work. We need to consult widely. We need to realise that the 16th and 17th Century Reformation, though precipitated by a clear Gospel issue, nevertheless took decades to execute. I welcome the consultation process which the Reform Conference in October has committed itself to, and agree with them that action will need to be taken — and urgently! The eschatological tension with which we live as Christians is being worked out in miniature in our denomination. Let's live in anticipation of a day when the denomination will return to its Reformed and Gospel heritage. Let us also appreciate that such huge changes do not necessarily happen overnight. We need each other to be kept on track. The influence of the world is insipient. And our sinfulness colours all our agendas. But, I think I am convinced of this need to be both urgent and patient. The Rev. Dr. Simon Vibert is the rector of St. Luke's Church in Wimbledon, London. — — —

Diocesan News The Synod and Standing Committee of the Diocese of Sydney remain convinced that administration of the Lord's Supper by deacons and lay persons is important both theologically and for the sake of mission. However, no change in the present legal situation is proposed. Standing Committee met last Monday night, and further considered the matter of lay administration and the nature of its recommendation to our synod in late October 2004. It received advice about attitudes to lay administration around the Communion and also the legal situation. As a result, we are not intending to promote any legislation in the form of an ordinance, but the Standing Committee is asking synod to consider a resolution. In summary, that resolution addresses the following points: 1. That we believe there are good biblical, theological and practical grounds for introducing lay administration, a matter which was stated by the Appellate Tribunal in 1997 to be consistent with the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia. 2. There are differing opinions as to the legal situation, but we believe law should allow that which Holy Scripture allows. However, the Archbishop has made it very clear that he is not prepared to sign an ordinance unless he is convinced that it is legal to do so. 3. The synod is therefore being asked to resolve that until such time as any necessary change in the law can be effected, or it can be determined that no change in the law is needed, no disciplinary or other action should be taken against any person in relation to deacons or lay persons administering the Lord's Supper. 4. The resolution therefore is not in the nature of an ordinance giving permission, but rather a motion affirming the view that lay or diaconal administration is a legitimate expression of Anglicanism. Obviously, it will be synod itself in October 2004, which needs to decide whether to pass the resolution, or not. It will be important for synod to have the full facts before it, including the attitudes of others in the Communion. On the other hand, a motion of our synod is simply an expression of opinion of those present and voting, with no legal or formal force. It does not bind the Archbishop or the Diocese of Sydney, or alter the rights of any person. News of the Standing Committee decision has been disseminated around the world and it is likely that some misinformation may result in some quarters. — — —

Solange De Santis, Staff Writer, Anglican Journal August 10, 2004 American bishop Terence Kelshaw was hospitalized for three weeks in St. John's after falling ill June 4 on a transatlantic flight from Turkey to his home in Albuquerque, N.M. "I had been leading a pilgrimage to the seven churches of Revelation in Turkey. We changed planes in Frankfurt and were heading for Denver. Coming over Canada, I felt short of breath. There was a German doctor on board and he decided I ought not to go to Denver," said Bishop Kelshaw in an interview. The plane made an emergency landing in Goose Bay, Labrador, where Bishop Kelshaw and his family were met by an ambulance. He was in hospital for three days in Goose Bay, then transferred to the Health Sciences Centre in St. John's, where he spent 10 days in intensive care, he said. Bishop Kelshaw, who is 67, was diagnosed with double pneumonia and treated with antibiotics. He was visited several times by Bishop Don Harvey of the diocese of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador and the hospital chaplains, Rev. Garry Parsons and Canon William Noel. Clergy in the diocese offered to host Bishop Kelshaw's wife, Hazel, in their homes, but "she wanted to stay at the hospital because it really was touch-and-go there for a while," said Bishop Harvey. However, said the bishop, "the traditional Newfoundland hospitality rose again." Bishop Kelshaw praised clergy and lay people in the diocese for their visits and the care given Mrs. Kelshaw, who was taken out to dinner and shown around the city. "It was an apostolic experience. Here is a stranger passing through the land and they ministered to me and it was wonderful. It reinforced my view that hospitals need chaplains. The work that Father Noel does and the hope he brings to everyone — not just Anglicans — in the hospital is wonderful," said Bishop Kelshaw. Mr. Noel drove the Kelshaws to the airport at 4 a.m. on June 29 for the flight home, said Bishop Kelshaw. Bishop Harvey also telephoned Bishop Kelshaw's office and one of his episcopal colleagues in the U.S. with regular updates on his progress. As of early August, Bishop Kelshaw was home and still on oxygen, but spending two days a week at the office and, he said, "doing a lot better." Bishop Kelshaw said he and his wife hope to return for a visit and to thank Newfoundlanders for their kindness. — — —

News Analysis By David W. Virtue   Two bishops recently celebrated significant milestones in their ecclesiastical careers.   One was William Swing Bishop of the Diocese of California who celebrated his 25th anniversary, and the other was the Bishop of Quincy, the Rt. Rev. Keith Ackerman who recently celebrated his 30th anniversary. He has been bishop for 10 years.   The two men represent the extreme polarities of thinking now present in The Episcopal Church USA. One is a godly Evangelical Catholic, Charismatic, liturgically High Churchman who talks more about the Mass than the Eucharist - but a man who oozes love for even the worst of his fellow revisionist bishops, a man that even Frank Griswold likes.   The other is a hale fellow, bon vivant, bow tie (when he's not wearing clericals) type who says he's Republican and voted for George W. Bush, but is as lost theologically as Jack Spong. He is an example of a man who, while politically conservative is as loose as a bucket of bolts on moral and theological issues.   Swing helped form the United Religions Initiative (URI) - No one Exempt - who thinks that world peace can come through a one world religion and presumably, over time, a one world government. He is tres chic avocado California, the quintessential vacuous ecumenist, the ultimate moon beam bishop.   Both bishop's voting record speaks volumes.   Bishop Ackerman signed the Province 7 Statement; he signed the Presentment against Walter Righter who ordained an openly gay man to the priesthood; he voted to condemn promiscuous homosexuality; he endorsed the Kuala Lumpur statement, he voted with the majority of bishops at Lambeth opposing homosexuality, opposed the consecration of V. Gene Robinson, signed Bishop David Bena's statement at the consecration. Put up resolution B001 upholding certain doctrines of the church (which was defeated) and signed the Memorandum of agreement for the formation of the Anglican Communion Network. He has stood for truth and unity nearly all the way down the line. If the Episcopal Church had 100 Keith Ackerman's the church would be a thriving and growing concern. Now it is a total shambles, a mess beyond all human redemption.   By contrast Bishop Swing has voted for just about every innovation the Episcopal Church has come up with. He signed Spong's Koinonia Statement. He voted to insist on women's ministries in every diocese, which hurt Bishop Ackerman. He signed A Pastoral Statement to Lesbian and Gay Anglicans from some member Bishops of the Lambeth Conference. He voted for the blessing of same-gender unions to be added to Book of Occasional Services (8th resolve to D039), recognized and affirming fidelity in relationships outside (D039) and consented to the consecration of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. He recently smacked former Utah bishop Otis Charles for getting married in one of his parishes and said he couldn't serve in the diocese any more, but that was much of 'look I'll show you whose in charge.' He has gone along with the whole pansexual enterprise and prides himself on holding the rest of the diocese (which is 95 per cent liberal) in line - hardly a feat that requires Samson's strength.   In an interview with Bishop Swing by ENS writer Bob Williams there was not one single mention of the gospel, nor did the name of Jesus, the Trinity, faith or redemption ever cross his lips.   He talked about his own physical health, tensions in the church and how he held the diocese together during difficult times and, above all, his golfing abilities. In fact he is viewed as such a successful bishop by his liberal and revisionist priests they are ponying up $2 MILLION to refurbish his summer ranch home. Diversity pays.   The ENS article headlined "Swing marks 25th year as Bay Area bishop [as] Shining example: bishop marks silver year in Golden State."   But a look at diocesan statistics (courtesy of Louie Crew's website) reveals a less than sterling performance in his years as bishop of the diocese. Actual attendance in the diocese from 1992 to 2002 rose a meager 4.6% or 479 new members; from 10,394 to 10,873, and this in one of the fastest growth population areas in the whole country.   Reading about the lives of the two men is a study in stark contrasts. Of Ackerman it can be said he has devoted his life to the glory of God, the gospel and the Anglican Way in all its depth, richness and glory; while Swing is a study in shallowness, inclusivity, diversity, a false ecumenicity, hype, utterly devoid of any talk of the life changing message of the gospel.   Bishop Ackerman's statements about his years in the ministry (see August issue of Harvest Plain) is full of gospel affirmation, the faithfulness of God, our lostness and need for forgiveness, redemption and grace.   Bishop Swing speaking of his years as bishop said this: "Later in your ministry you're project-driven. I feel project-driven."   By contrast Bishop Ackerman said, "This celebration is not about me. It's about you and me celebrating the Life, Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ."   "In the end what matters most is Jesus Christ."   Of Bishop Swing, ENS writer Williams had this to say: "In his 25 years as bishop of the San Francisco-based Diocese of California, Bill Swing has never missed a Sunday visitation scheduled among the 82 congregations he serves, and he's been out sick only four of the 9,100-plus days of his episcopate. His golf game is hole-in-one legendary, both in form and fundraising successes scored around the links of Pebble Beach."   The Rt. Rev. Alden Hathaway, Bishop of Pittsburgh (ret) preaching on the occasion of a three-day celebration honoring the Quincy bishop's 31 years said this: "He's one of the truly great men of God in our church, probably the closest to being a saint of anyone I know. He's simply a genuine human being. I never found anybody who didn't like Keith Ackerman."   No one said that of Swing.   Hathaway went on to say that Ackerman would be a good candidate for presiding bishop of the ECUSA when that election takes place in two years.   Swing: "I think it's very important to use leadership to help people grow up in stormy times."   But grow up how? No mention of growing up "into Him...into the fullness of Christ".   Swing said he's been honest about the challenges he's faced as the Episcopal Church's senior active diocesan bishop. He's led his 35,000-member diocese (on the books but not necessarily attending) through crises ranging from HIV/AIDS to 1989's 6.9-magnitude Loma Prieta earthquake. He prizes the world's religions, and he knows about coalition-building, especially as a Republican who voted for George W. Bush in a region well known for its progressive Democratic political majority.   So what has that got to do with advancing the Kingdom? Were any of those suffering from HIV/AIDS presented with the life changing message of Jesus, or was it just a feel-your-pain exercise? What has "coalition-building" got to do with gospel proclamation? The Episcopal Church is falling apart at the seams over Robinson's consecration and he talks about coalition building!!! His own church is falling apart and he wants to unite the world's religions! What's wrong with this picture? What has "prizing the world's religions" got to do with offering the very exclusive claims of Jesus Christ to every living soul, and who cares whether he votes Republican or Democrat as the spiritual leader of 35,000 souls, MOST of whom do not turn up to church on any given Sunday. So where's the "honesty" he talked about?   And talking of rewards, Jesus said we shouldn't be looking for rewards in this life, let the Father reward you in the next. But Swing is getting his now - all $2 million dollars worth of home improvement.   Ackerman: "What I've learned in thirty-one years in the ministry is one simple Divine truth. Humanity has broken itself and we cannot repair our brokenness. Knowing this Divine Truth, why do we persist in meaningless meddling on our part in trying to fix or repair what is broken? We can better serve our Lord by praying, discerning how the Lord Wills to fix what we broke."   Williams on Swing: The Diocese of California is distinguished by an overall sense of health. I think that comes from your sense of health approach for ministry. What would you recommend for other dioceses seeking to achieve health in their ministries?   Swing: "I think a lot of it starts with physical health. I think it starts with people taking care of themselves, people giving some balance to their lives so that you're indoors-outdoors, you're praying and you're bustling in the secular world, you're singing and you're quiet and reading. You know, the phrase about 'Be nice to yourself' -- I say that a lot to myself. Sometimes I ask myself, 'What's the best thing I can do for the Diocese of California right now?' I've got a zillion things going and the answer is almost always: 'Just please goof off right now.' The most important thing when you're under pressure is to figure out some way to get your footing because an anxious, undone person gets in a lot of accidents and makes a lot of mistakes. If you have a good night's sleep, or if you go out and take a long walk, or get some sunshine, you tend to make better decisions and you've got more to offer people. You know, it's not just for me: I really want clergy to be healthy, I want them to have pastoral counseling, I want them to have some money to get away to do continuing education."   Ackerman: "I would be pleased to be remembered for God's transformation of my life by His Grace and Promise through Jesus Christ. I would be pleased to be remembered as the evidence and example of the Savior and Lord - that He saved me and I willed Him to be the Lord of my life. I would be pleased to be remembered as a priest who told the story of God's redemption and salvation through the Life, Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ and never compromised in the telling of the story."   Swing: "I think some of it has to do with challenge. People need to challenge themselves, or allow themselves to be challenged. An awful lot of times, the church doesn't take on the obvious challenges that are there because it lacks a little bit of courage, like 'I'll sit out this dance' when there's a cry out there. You say, 'Well, if I just stay very quiet now, it'll go by, and I don't have to do anything.' But I think part of health is taking on the challenge, whatever it is. Another part of health is not to take on all the challenges, take on the ones that you can pour yourself into, and if somebody else wants to take on something else, God bless 'em. Have some sort of sense of priority, because if you let yourself take on everything -- especially as a bishop -- you just get run ragged."   Ackerman: "I would be pleased to be remembered that I did not live by the human standard of 'What has God done for me lately,' but know in my heart of hearts that I am still a 'work in progress.' I willed to hang a sign around my neck that states 'Under construction by order and command of God.' I know with certainty that I have not been given a date of completion."   Swing: "Going back to the earlier point, I often look at the Bible and think how many things happened indoors and how many things happened out of doors. And most of the occasions of meeting God were outdoors. So I think if it's true in the Bible, it might be true of us that we need to get out of doors to meet God sometimes."   Virtuosity: Say what? Nature worship perhaps?   Williams to Swing: Looking back beyond your ministry as rector of St. Columba's in Washington, D.C., to your childhood in West Virginia, when did you first feel called to the ordained ministry?   Swing: My father was a professional golfer, and we lived at a country club, and I didn't go to church. I sort of came in the back door by being an acolyte in the little neighborhood we moved into, with no thought of Episcopal or Anglican or anything -- it was just something you did as a kid. I remember a sermon when I was about 11 years old when the priest said, "Imagine when there was no Huntington, West Virginia; when there was no Ohio River; when there were no hills; ... no United States, ... no oceans, ... no mountains, ... no earth, ... no sun, ... no moon; there was nothing, and all there was God." When he said those words, I was there. I understood the sheer magnificence, uniqueness, power of whoever God is. So in a sense my life got in alignment with that power on that occasion. And then afterwards growing up in the youth group and at summer camp, in lots of discussions with the parish priest, I got a sense that I was being called.   Ackerman: "All I know is that I am not yet fit for his eternal kingdom, which means, I must do my part, allowing God to break and remake me into His glorious image He willed for me through Christ."   Swing: When you get my age, and you've been in the episcopacy as long as I have, you don't stay on in order to do the normal job, because a lot of people can do the normal job. A lot of people can do the rounds, go to the parishes, etc. You stay on to make sure some projects get done that only you uniquely can see to completion. I've got some things -- at the hospital, and with the Episcopal Homes Foundation, with the Ranch here, and with the cathedral, and with the diocese reorganizing -- that I've got to get done. And when those things are done, I'll be gone. Later in your ministry you're project-driven. I feel project-driven.   Williams to Swing: What do you see as important for the House of Bishops in particular and for the wider church at this point in the life of the church?   Swing: "I heard a bishop say when I was a young bishop, if I had known how hard it was going to be to go through women's ordination, as a bishop, I would have declined to be nominated. I heard that statement, and I had the opposite reaction. I thought: what a challenge it would be to take a bunch of people through a crisis, and allow them to feel it and internalize it, and move with it and grow up with it, and not infantilize people, a leave them back in history so that they get stuck and it will take three or four generations of people in that place to move beyond them. I think it's very important to use leadership to help people grow up in stormy times."   Ackerman: "The Lord has given us our marching orders. We don't know what lies ahead for us. All we know is the Lord's promises are true: He will level the mountains and fill in the valleys. Hopefully at our journey's end, we shall be rewarded the grand sight of heaven overlooking the temporal confines of the universe."   Swing: I had a clergy conference in the early 1980s to deal with the gay and lesbian issue with the clergy, and a lot of the dioceses are doing stuff we were doing 20 or 30 years ago, so in a sense a lot of this is doubling back for us. But that's not to say we're ahead or smarter or anything else, it just means the body matured around this issue. Two things I'd say: number one, there's got to be some perspective that what we're dealing with is a long-term issue. This is not a matter that's going to get resolved at a convention: it's not going to get resolved at one convention or two conventions; we're talking about things that go so deep in the human psyche that it's going to take lifetimes to get on the other side of the issues that we're struggling with now. I think the people who say, "Well, we're just going to go to convention and vote and get this thing solved," they're just aiming for trouble. There's got to be some historic and psychological perspective on this stuff that this is long-term, this is not short-term.   Williams to Swing: "In the current world climate, we have the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. What do you recommend for peacemaking in these contexts?"   Swing: "When people say 'The United States of America is at war with Islam,' well, you just rang my bell, and that's where I can come in and get to work. I'm not a politician, but I am a person of religion, so when you're dealing with my subject, it's my responsibility to know Islamic people at a great depth and to learn about historically where Islam and Christianity have been, where we are presently around the world in different countries, and what can happen in the United States of America, and then witness to a better way of interacting -- I can do that through the United Religions Initiative. That's where I want to invest myself."   "I think we're at a crossroads with international interfaith work. We're all going to either break up into denominations or groups comparable to denominations, or we are going to figure out a way to complement each other and present a united front so that some day there will be a veritable United Religions, not just URI blown large, but something that will be created by the Holy Spirit that's way beyond our imaginations right now. That gets back to the race for peace among religions. I think the world is going to turn to us and say, 'You guys have got to do better, for the sake of the world.'"   Williams to Swing: "How is your golf game?"   Swing: "It's pretty good. Yeah, have a nine handicap, and I still win money from my buddies. I lose occasionally, but I get right back."   Ackerman: "I stood my watch faithfully as the Lord commanded of me. I pray I did not fail the Lord terribly in the station He appointed me over the past thirty-one years."   END