Archives

By Ephraim Radner As we await the Taskforce recommendations with their proposals for common life on the basis of some set of "principles," and anticipate our own diocesan convention, with its resolutions and legal articulations, the following may be of interest. I recently came across a declaration from the 1814 General Convention, Journal of the House of Bishops. It seems to have pertinence to our current discussions regarding the character of ecclesial authority within ECUSA, and the proper limits on our doctrinal and disciplinary self-understanding. The declaration states clearly that the "independence" of ECUSA as a church is focused solely within the realm of "civil concerns" and does not in any way touch upon the unity of "doctrine, worship, or discipline" between ECUSA and the Church of England. In other words, although only General Convention can impose "rules" within the civil realm of the church in America, it cannot make up any rules that violate this unity of doctrine, worship, and discipline. From the Journal of the House of Bishops, May 20th, 1814: "The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America is the same body heretofore known in these States by the name of the 'Church of England;' the change of name, although not in religious principle, in doctrine, or in worship, or in discipline, being induced by a characteristic of the Church of England..." The question remains: are the actions of General Convention and of bishops and dioceses of this church at one with the doctrine, worship, and discipline of the Church of England and of the Anglican Communion? If they are not, we stand in violation of our legal identity. — END —

By David W. Virtue ABUJA, NIGERIA (7/30/2004) — The Primate of the Anglican Church of Nigeria has written a scathing letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury blasting the appointment of the new general secretary for the Anglican Consultative Council, Irish-born Canon Kenneth Kearon. In a stiffly worded letter to Dr. Rowan Williams and all the Primates and Moderators of the Anglican Communion, The Most Revd. Peter Akinola wrote saying he was "disappointed at the action that fails to take cognizance of the feelings and yearnings of those of us in the global south." Primate Akinola noted that non-Western faces at the Secretariat are either interns or support staff. "It is vital that we have staff, at the most senior as well as junior levels, which represent the viewpoint of the Global South of the church." "We see in this latest appointment that nothing has changed and that what we thought and believe to be a world-wide Communion is actually now being portrayed to be no more than a 'western section communion,'" Akinola wrote. In an interview with the BBC, Canon Kearon refused to commit himself when pressed for his views on homosexuality. He did not publicly repudiate homosexual behavior, a failure that could rebound on both him and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Dr. Williams said he was "delighted with the appointment," noting that Canon Kearon would bring "a superb knowledge of the worldwide church and invaluable experience, especially in the field of church and community relationships and in mediation and conflict resolution." — END —

By David W. Virtue | News Analysis HARTFORD, CT — (7/30/2004) — Four orthodox clergy in the Diocese of Connecticut whose parishes have taken part in a 6-parish joint request for DEPO have appeared before Bishop Andrew Smith in response to a "pastoral directive." Three have been told that "canonical initiatives" will be forthcoming unless some resolution is achieved with respect to their differences with the bishop. The three who received implied threats from the bishop are the Revds. Christopher Leighton, rector of St. Paul's, Darien; Allyn Benedict, rector of Christ Church, Watertown; and Dr. Mark Hansen, rector of St. John's Church, Bristol. The Rev. Christopher Leighton met one-on-one with the bishop for 35 minutes and described their talk as "frank." The bishop sees only three possibilities: the churches leave, they stay and accept his form of DEPO, or he takes canonical initiatives against the clergy and their churches. Fr. Leighton made clear that St. Paul's has no intention of leaving the Diocese or the Episcopal Church. "We're not threatening to leave. We're threatening to stay." Fr. Allyn Benedict reported that the bishop remained firm about not meeting with the churches together, insisting each church is in relationship with the bishop canonically as a separate unit. The Rev. Mark Hansen expressed concern over the bishop's "precisely worded invocation of the phrase 'canonical initiatives.'" Hansen said he was not hopeful that anything could ultimately be worked out with the bishop. "Our real hope comes from the Lord," Hansen concluded. — END —

By Uwe Siemon-Netto | UPI Religious Affairs Editor | News Analysis PARIS, July 30 (UPI) — For all the talk about the Americans' descent into secularism and postmodern confusion, their Judeo-Christian values in key areas seem to be rock-solid, a new survey showed. Only 18 percent of all adults favor the removal of signs listing the Ten Commandments from public buildings, according to a poll taken by the Barna Research Group in Ventura, CA. The Ten Commandments are part of the Judeo-Christian scriptures. Yet even 32 percent of non-Christians and 45 percent of atheists and agnostics oppose their removal. On the issue of whether the words "In God We Trust" should be taken off U.S. currency, only 15 percent of Catholics polled said "yes," compared with 13 percent of the national average and a mere 1 percent of evangelicals. "On balance," commented pollster George Barna, "the research shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans want Christian values and symbols to prevail, although most people stop short of declaring the U.S. to be a Christian society." Almost 70 million Americans are supportive of an amendment declaring Christianity the official national religion. Given that only 28 percent of U.S. ministers affirm basic Christian tenets, Barna called that result "a huge vote of confidence in the Christian faith." Uwe Siemon-Netto, Ph.D., DLitt is UPI Religious Affairs Editor. — END —

By Cyntha Brust | AAC Communications Director Two stories have surfaced in recent weeks about the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA). On the surface, they may appear unrelated, but closer examination raises a number of questions about the future of ECUSA. On July 19, 2004, the Rt. Rev. John Lipscomb, Bishop of Southwest Florida, announced he had been invited to be part of a team visiting several provinces in East Africa. He will be joined by the Rt. Rev. Ted Daniels, assistant bishop of the Diocese of Texas and the Very Rev. Titus Presler, Dean of the Seminary of the Southwest, traveling with "the full knowledge and support of our Presiding Bishop." The focus of the trip appears to center on attempts toward reconciliation with African provinces and dioceses that have decried the decisions of General Convention 2003. To date, twenty-one Anglican provinces have declared either impaired or broken communion with ECUSA. The timing of this trip — just 2 months before the Lambeth Commission is expected to issue its report — is significant. It seems ECUSA's leadership has suddenly backed away from its position that the worldwide Anglican Communion's outrage does not matter. In a surprising development, the Chief Operating Officer of the Episcopal Church Center announced the resignation, effective immediately, of Daniel B. England as Director of Communication. The announcement was not only unexpected and abrupt, but also offered few details. Does Mr. England's resignation signal an acknowledgement that the approach chosen by ECUSA has proven ineffective, unsuccessful or even a complete failure? As these two situations are considered together, questions must be asked: What is going on behind the scenes in ECUSA? Is the leadership divided? — END —

By Cheryl H. White, Ph.D. "He that holds not the unity of the Church, does he believe that he holds the faith? He who strives against and resists the Church, is he confident that he is in the Church?" — St. Cyprian of Carthage, Third Century In the above text, St. Cyprian is writing about the episcopal office — the bishop — and his duty to represent the unity of the Body of Christ. Today, the latest discussions arising from the divisiveness within the Episcopal Church reverberate again, not surprisingly, with a lack of understanding or appreciation for history. The early Church insisted upon the episcopacy as a means of administering the growing church catholic and preserving a common orthodoxy. St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing at the end of the first century, told the faithful that no Eucharist or Baptism could be performed if the bishop was not present. St. Ignatius urged bishops to be "inseparable from Jesus Christ and the ordinance of the Apostles." St. Cyprian wrote that the bishop, his sacrifices and prayers, were effectual only as long as "he remains faithful and leads a holy life." He stressed that the bishops themselves represent the unity to be enjoyed within the whole Body of Christ, noting this unity was manifested in "united conferences and mutual recognition." If the very essence of Christian unity requires the common consent of the greater communion of the faithful, then we face troubles today of historic and epic proportions. The Episcopal Church and the greater Anglican Communion has been divided, not united, over recent developments. Whatever form future rhetoric in this debate may take, there is one logical conclusion that surely all can agree upon — what divides us cannot unite us. Dr. Cheryl White is a professor of history at Louisiana State University in Shreveport. Her major fields of study are church history and the history of dogmatic theology. — END —

By Bert Herlong | From the Jul/Aug 2004 issue of the Cross and Crozier It is not news to anyone that there continues to be significant fallout and disruption in the Episcopal Church from the actions of the 74th General Convention. Laity and clergy are continuing to react in ways that demonstrate their dissatisfaction. Then, of course, there is an equal and opposite reaction by those who disagree with them, contributing to the continuing unrest. We do have a basic theological split in the church and the convention decisions have produced a polarization that leaves no middle ground. There seems to be an ever-widening gap between the two positions. No matter which side you are on, one cannot deny the crisis in our church. I have frequently been asked if there are any good things happening in the church these days in light of the General Convention actions. I see four distinct things happening in the Diocese of Tennessee and from my conversations with other bishops, I have reason to believe that they are happening all over our church. These are things that give me hope for the future. First, there is an enormous amount of energy and concern among our laity. Never in my whole life have I seen such interest, care and concern for the church. Second, more and more people are reading the Bible. New Bible study groups are being formed and existing groups are expanding. Third, many, many people are questioning what they truly do believe. This "teachable moment" is opening new and deeper understanding of the Christian faith in our churches. Fourth, most important of all is the fact more people than ever before are praying for the church, for the clergy and people and our common mission. If we have an energized, active and committed laity, seriously reading the Bible, studying their faith and deeply involved in prayer, there is good reason to look to the future in confidence. A woman here in Tennessee prayed to God, "O God, the church is hopeless, the situation is impossible." God answered, "Good, that is when I do my best work!" The Rt. Rev. Bert Herlong is the Episcopal Bishop of the Diocese of Tennessee. — END —

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

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

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

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

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