From David W. Virtue, DD February 24, 2026 When the duly mandated banker of a non-profit company in South Africa (an “NPC”) recently found that his access to the bank accounts of the NPC had been blocked after illegal termination of his banking mandate, it opened a Pandora’s box. The NPC, which is registered with the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission of South Africa (CIPC) as St Barnabas Aid, was incorporated by the Barnabas founders in 2017 as a partner entity to undertake charitable work in South Africa. The Barnabas founders have served as directors of the NPC uninterruptedly from inception until recently when they were fraudulently removed. Investigation has shown that the Barnabas founders were removed as directors of the NPC early in December 2025 through an elaborate web of deceit engineered by the same individuals who have been attempting to discredit the Barnabas founders with the Charities Commission for England and Wales. The deceit, perpetrated over an extended period of time, commenced by the blocking of communication between the CIPC and the Barnabas founders, unbeknown to the CIPC who were unaware that their routine communications did not reach the Barnabas founders. In due course the CIPC was thus brought under the impression that the Barnabas founders were delinquent directors, which resulted in the CIPC commencing steps to deregister the CIPC. The perpetrators of the deceit were directors of a USA company, known since 2022 as Nexcus International until it was recently renamed Barnabas Aid International (BAI), in August 2025 - the legal validity of the name change being open to question. Soon thereafter directors of BAI attempted to coerce the directors of the South African non-profit company, St Barnabas Aid NPC, to resign as directors of that company, on the basis that they were supposedly delinquent directors. The directors who had founded St Barnabas Aid NPC were, however, not prepared to oblige them. BAI, a USA company, has no legal right to exercise control over the South African non-profit company or interfere with its governance. The NPC is an independent legal entity in a different country. Although BAI has registered itself with Companies House in the UK as an overseas company “for charitable purposes', it is not registered with the Charities Commission. It must be stressed that notwithstanding the transparent stratagem of certain Nexcus International directors to rename the company Barnabas Aid International (BAI) recently, BAI is not the charity Barnabas Aid. It is also certainly not the apex “Barnabas” entity in the worldwide Barnabas network of charities, as it has held itself out to be. It has now come to light that directors of Barnabas Aid International procured the illegal removal of the Barnabas founders as directors of the NPC on 3 December 2025 through nefarious means, and substituted themselves as directors of the NPC in the founders’ stead. Since it has been effected by means of, inter alia, fraudulent use of the original directors' email addresses and substituting other email addresses for them with the CIPC, it constitutes not only a case of 'business fraud' but also one of cyber identity theft. The history of St Barnabas Aid NPC as recorded in the CIPC registry, including details of changes made over time, is a matter of public record that can be seen on the CIPC website with a free search. A criminal charge has accordingly been laid with the SA Police arising from the events outlined above, and a case has been formally opened. This matter is now under investigation by the SA Police. The founding directors of St Barnabas Aid NPC released this under legal advice, after fraud charges had been laid. Further inquiries can be directed to: StBA2017@mail.com" ***** Majority of Christian charity’s staff resign amid ongoing dispute From Civil Society Most employees at Barnabas Aid have resigned amid a dispute with its linked international organisation and ongoing investigations, according to recently filed documents. Barnabas Aid’s latest accounts state that “about three-quarters of the payroll” left the Christian charity between April 2024 and November last year. Some 25 staff were employed by Barnabas Aid in the year ending 31 August 2024, before the departures, the report states. The trustees criticised “obstruction and delays caused to the audit” by staff at Nexcus International, Barnabas Aid’s global wing, which has reportedly claimed the charity owes it £6.4m. Their report alleges that Nexcus International has “day-to-day control” of Barnabas Aid’s finances, refusing access to its bank accounts and information about staff. Nexcus International, which has since rebranded as Barnabas Aid International and is described as a “non-profit corporation in Virginia, USA”, said the report “contains a number of inaccurate or misleading statements”. Income decline Barnabas Aid’s income, most of which is from donations and legacies, declined from £19.5m in 2022-23 to £16.5m in 2023-24. It reported a deficit of £297,000 for the year 2023-24, with its charitable expenditure standing at £16.6m. The report says a loss of income due to reputational damage and change of ethos and values were the “greatest risk facing the charity” since 23 April 2024. It adds that the “steady” loss of staff was compounded by dwindling “personal relationships with supporters” which were previously a “high priority” for the charity. Despite the declines, the report says: “The trustees believe the statement of financial affairs shows a strong performance by Barnabas Aid in the context of a difficult economic environment.” The trustees claimed that the UK charity was unable to control its cash reserves, which were valued at £9.7m at the end of 2023-24, a decrease from £12.5m a year earlier. Global organisation claims report inaccurate In September 2024, the Charity Commission launched a statutory inquiry into allegations of authorised payments to trustees and related parties at Barnabas Aid. A month later, it restricted Barnabas Aid’s ability to spend money, with any payment over £4,000 now requiring the regulator’s approval. Then in November 2024, two people were arrested as part of a police investigation into fraud and money laundering allegations at a linked “Barnabas family” charity. The following month, the commission announced it was investigating four “Barnabas family” charities - the Oxford Centre for Religion in Public Life plus the Wiltshire-based TBF Trust, Reconciliation Trust and Servants Fellowship International. A commission spokesperson today said: "All the inquiries remain ongoing". The report states that, since April 2024, Nexcus has “prevented the majority of the trustees from accessing the charity’s bank accounts”. Trustees expressed concerns that “some funds donated to the charity have not been used by Nexcus for the purposes for which the donors gave them”. They also said that Nexcus International’s name change to Barnabas Aid International had caused confusion to the supporters of the charity “and possible inadvertent deflection of their giving”. In response to the claims, a Barnabas Aid International spokesperson said: “Sadly, the trustees’ report contains a number of inaccurate or misleading statements by the trustees, which the leadership of Barnabas Aid [International] were not privy to before publication. “The role of the auditors is not to check the factual accuracy of every statement in the trustees’ report. “Their responsibility is limited to ensuring the information shared in the report is materially consistent with the financial statements.” The spokesperson added that they were supporting the Charity Commission with its investigation. Contact us Civil Society Media Limited 15 Prescott Place London SW4 6BS United Kingdom Tel +44 (0)20 7819 1200 Fax +44 (0)20 7819 1210 newsdesk@civilsociety.co.uk info@civilsociety.co.uk Co. Reg: 2855714 VAT reg no: GB 629 3702 31 Statutory inquiry and police investigation ‘ongoing’ The trustees’ report states that the commission’s statutory inquiry has been damaging to the charity’s reputation. A commission spokesperson confirmed that its inquiry was ongoing and would not comment on whether spending restrictions were still in place. The accounts state that the arrests made by Wiltshire Police involved a trustee and senior executive following an investigation “which commenced in April 2024 by a law firm, appointed by Nexcus International, which was not chosen or approved by the majority of the charity's trustees”. Wiltshire Police confirmed that the two people arrested in connection to fraud and money laundering at a “Barnabas family” charity have since been released under investigation. END

Letter to all Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States From: The Rt. Rev. Jerry A. Lamb | Diocese of Northern California | July 7, 2004   Dear Sisters and Brothers:   More and more of the churches in the Diocese of Northern California are adopting the custom of Open Communion or as our Task Force describes it, "Administering the Sacrament of the Eucharist to Those Who Have Not Been Baptized." I have been issuing a carefully worded open invitation at Confirmations and other major events in the Diocese. At our last Diocesan Convention in November of 2003, a Resolution was put forth to prohibit this custom.   The motion was ultimately defeated after a number of supplemental resolutions were introduced. I agreed at that Convention to appoint a Task Force to review this practice and make a report to the Diocesan Convention in 2006.   If you will recall this issue did come up before the House of Bishops while we were in Minneapolis, and I believe it was tabled or sent on to the Theology Committee of the House of Bishops for further reflection.   There is a very short survey attached to this letter, and I ask that you or one of your staff fill it out and mail it back in the envelope that is provided. Your help in this matter will be greatly appreciated, and the Task Force of this Diocese will be sending on its findings to any group looking at this question on the National Church level.   I pray that you have a wonderful summer and that you may find these months to be a time of rest and renewal. In Peace, +Jerry A. Lamb SURVEY ON OPEN COMMUNION Are any of your congregations regularly practicing the custom of Open Communion?           Yes ☐          No ☐          Unknown ☐   Have you issued any statements regarding this practice of Open Communion?           Yes ☐          No ☐ (If yes, would you please attach the statement that you have made.)   Do you have a Task Force to review this practice in your Diocese?           Yes ☐          No ☐ (If yes, please give names, address, e-mail of the Chair of the Task Force) Have you taken any disciplinary action against any clergy who have violated Canon 1.17.8 that states, "No unbaptized person shall be eligible to receive Holy Communion in this Church."           Yes ☐          No ☐   Is there any further information you would like to share with the Task Force regarding Open Communion in the Diocese of Northern California?   Again, thank you for filling out this survey.

Splinter group, most from Wauwatosa church, rejects gay bishop   By Tom Heinen | The Journal Sentinel | July 18, 2004   A Milwaukee priest has joined the global upheaval over the Episcopal Church's approval of an openly gay bishop and the blessing of same-sex unions by forming the first known splinter congregation in Wisconsin: Light Of Christ Church.   The Rev. Tere Wilson is renting the Hall of Fame room at the Pettit National Ice Center to hold Sunday services for what he calls "Light of Christ Church, an emerging Anglican mission."   "There was a group of people who have felt abandoned by the Episcopal Church, as I do," said Wilson, who had been filling in for parish priests. "I am part time, but we needed to start something permanent to get people an alternative.   "I don't care what the package looks like. I'm much more concerned with the present inside. The Episcopal Church seems to have kept the trappings, the package, but they've thrown out Jesus and the Bible, as far as what I can see."   Milwaukee Bishop Steven A. Miller called the splinter congregation "a very small group of people who have chosen to worship together."   The new congregation is symbolic of larger, continuing challenges for the Episcopal Church, which represents the worldwide Anglican Communion in the United States. There are questions about whether the 2.3-million-member Episcopal Church might face schism here and/or be ejected from the 77-million-member communion. At least nine of the nation's 107 Episcopal dioceses and dozens of individual congregations have joined the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes, a conservative group that was formed at a January meeting in Texas to oppose the national church's decisions on homosexuality.   The network has made it clear that it intends to operate within the Episcopal Church, and the archbishop of Canterbury's interpretation is that the network is not a rival denomination to the Episcopal Church in the United States, Robert Williams, a spokesperson for the denomination in New York, said Friday. Eighteen Anglican archbishops, most from Africa and Asia, released a letter in May calling for the Episcopal Church to be expelled from the Anglican Communion if it does not "repent" and revoke the consecration of gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.   Last month, orthodox Episcopalians formed what is believed to be the first breakaway congregation in Illinois in a rented church in Evanston.   In the Episcopal Diocese of Milwaukee, which covers about the southern third of Wisconsin, a task force on human sexuality appointed by Miller has been meeting to find common ground.   A 17-member Lambeth Commission appointed by the archbishop of Canterbury and led by Ireland's Archbishop Robin Eames is seeking a solution. It is expected to complete its report in October.   Robinson, who is divorced and living with a male partner, made international news last year when his diocese elected him a bishop. The controversy intensified last August when the Episcopal Church's national governing body, its General Convention, at its meeting in Minneapolis, approved of both his election and of the blessing of same-sex unions.   Miller said his job as bishop "is to foster dialogue and to be a pastor to people on both sides of the issue so that, together, we can discern and learn what the Spirit is saying to the church.   "I would say that we have people on both sides of this issue who are seeking to be faithful to God as God reveals himself to them in Christ Jesus, and that we have a majority of people who want to get on with the business of the church, which is to reconcile and restore to unity all people to God in Christ." Wilson has about 30 people in his congregation; average Sunday attendance is about 18 adults and children.   Most came from Trinity Episcopal Church in Wauwatosa, where heated disputes last year over the national church's actions resulted in the departure of about 30 parishioners from what continues to be one of the largest Episcopal congregations in Wisconsin, according to Wilson and Bill Robison, Trinity's current senior warden. Some are known to have gone to other Episcopal churches, to Wilson's church, or to other denominations.   Although Miller had called for a year of study and prayer, dissidents at Trinity pushed for and nearly succeeded in getting a vote on the national church's decisions. Participants described an intense and angry meeting of the vestry, or parish governing body, immediately before a heated meeting of about 200 congregation members on Dec. 7, 2003.   Miller, whom Robison described as angry, attended at the request of a majority of the vestry. After Miller strongly opposed a vote as divisive, a motion to table it for a year passed by a large majority.   Robison thought those who supported or were willing to live with the national church's action would have won a vote by a wide margin. Gregg Bridge, a member of the vestry who later left and now attends a Catholic church, thought the opponents would have won a vote. "Many of us were looking to know where we stood with this church," said Bridge, who remains highly critical of the bishop's interventions. "If I feel I'm in a minority in a group that really wants to go in a different direction, I want to know so I can choose where to worship."   At the time, Trinity was searching for a permanent priest. More controversy arose when most of the vestry, concerned that the internal division would carry over into that effort, asked the bishop to intervene. The search was suspended, diocesan staff recommended candidates to serve the church as a vicar, or bishop's representative, and the vestry selected the Rev. Gary Manning of Norfolk, Va., who presided at his first service Sunday.   The Episcopal Church's General Convention last year highlighted a growing ideological division within the church on a variety of questions, from human sexuality to the relationship between the authority of scripture and what people understand about God from modern culture, said Robert Bruce Mullin, professor of history at General Theological Seminary in New York.   "The interesting thing is, going on 30 years ago, in the last big fight in the Episcopal Church — the question of the ordination of women — the church in Wisconsin was really one of the leaders (against it)," Mullin said.   Mullin says the votes at the convention indicated that about two-thirds of the dioceses were at least able to live with New Hampshire's right to choose Robinson, even if they weren't comfortable with it. And he thinks that a significant number of dissidents who are pushing to break up the church are newcomers who are not comfortable with a long-standing Anglican tradition of living with ambiguity.   "My sense is that there's still a lot of anger, frustration and ill will, but the thing you have to understand about the Episcopal Church is that it has been remarkably resilient and has suffered very few divisions in its long history," Mullin said.   "They all sort of know where the line is, and can get very close to it and yell and wave hands and all that. . . . As angry as they get at each other, when the question comes to either live together or leave, they tend to side toward living together. My sense is that's probably going to triumph in the United States. Whether it triumphs in the larger Anglican Communion, I'm not so sure of."

By David W. Virtue | Philadelphia, PA — July 19, 2004   Charles Bennison, Bishop of the Diocese of Pennsylvania, has rightly earned his reputation throughout the world as an apostate and heretical bishop, as well as being a liar.   His "theology" has been deemed so crazy that people find it difficult to believe that a bishop could say and affirm the things that he does and still remain a bishop. He has said Jesus was a sinner who forgave himself and he has changed the marriage ceremony to a Visigoth rite for same-sex blessings and much more. He cannot be trusted to keep his promises. When he ran for the office of Bishop Coadjutor, he promised to keep the Parsons Plan for Forward in Faith traditionalist parishes in the diocese. Following his election, he broke that promise.   He wrote a "Pastoral Direction" to Fr. David Moyer, Church of the Good Shepherd, Rosemont, stating that the priest would receive a trial if the demands were not met. He lied; he never intended to give Fr. Moyer a trial. More recently Virtuosity reported the conclusions of a "whistleblower" over massive financial irregularities in the Diocese. Now, in addition to all this, there is something else — a sadistic "dark side" to Bishop Bennison in which he takes pleasure in inflicting pain on others.   When Bennison "inhibited" and then "deposed" Fr. Moyer, he issued public statements about how this "pained" him and "grieved" him. But the "real" Charles Bennison was revealed on the day of Fr. Moyer's "deposition." The "deposition" was intended by Bennison to expel Fr. Moyer from his church and from his home — and to prevent the traditionalist priest, and the national leader of Forward in Faith NA from being a priest anywhere in the Anglican Communion.   The deposition followed with six months of severe emotional distress for the Anglo-Catholic priest who had been prevented by Bennison from functioning as a priest because of the "inhibition" laid on him. When the "deposition day" came around it should have been a solemn and sad occasion. Not for Charles Bennison. He summoned two priests to witness him signing the sentence of "deposition." To get them in the mood, he began to tell jokes. When all three were smiling, a photographer was summoned to take a picture of the smiling Charles Bennison signing the "deposition."   When Fr. Moyer's lawyers demanded to see the picture, Bennison responded by saying that the picture was "destroyed or was irretrievably lost" and that Bennison did "not recall with specificity the substance of the joke(s)."   As an indication of the state of the diocese, Bennison admitted recently to another orthodox priest that there had been a major reduction in pledges throughout the diocese, and that some 70 out of 159 parishes had serious financial problems. He also said that the Diocese of Pennsylvania is "over churched in terms of buildings since many parishes were built before modern transportation." He indicated that 40 parishes now have less than 40 members.

News Analysis | By David W. Virtue Bill Clinton's former Labor Secretary Robert Reich predicts there will be a religious war in America. Writing for the liberal magazine The American Prospect, former U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich calls for a war against conservative (read Evangelical) religious believers. "The great conflict of the 21st century will not be between the West and terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic, not a belief," he writes. "The true battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modernists; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority; between those who give priority to life in this world and those who believe that human life is mere preparation for an existence beyond life; between those who believe in science, reason, and logic and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma. Terrorism will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism itself is not the greatest danger we face." Reich has been calling for — or at least predicting — this war for a long time. In the past, his use of war language has seemed rhetorical and metaphoric, but now it seems we should take him literally if not seriously. Mr. Reich has it all wrong. There is indeed a serious culture war going on in America, a culture war that was started by those dissenting from absolute moral norms that have been the staple of Western Civilization for more than 2,000 years. Our understanding of the family, marriage, law, what is right and wrong have been shaped by the West's reading of the Bible, its understanding of the ancient Mosaic texts, reflected further in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. It is the abandonment and violation of these laws that has brought about the current culture wars in the West, the infiltration of which has permeated not only society but the historic mainline Christian churches as well. Mr. Reich says that the outcome of the 2004 presidential election will depend partly on what happens between now and Election Day in Iraq and to the U.S. economy. "It will also turn on the religious wars — fueled by evangelical Protestants, the ground troops of the Republican Party," he wrote in December. It is apparent Mr. Reich doesn't know very much about Evangelicals in America. Evangelicals are not a homogenous group; they are as diverse as any group could be. Jerry Falwell (a Republican) calls himself an Evangelical and so does Jimmy Carter (a Democrat). In fact Carter gave cache to the term "born again" when he became president. Billy Graham is an Evangelical and so is Dr. C. FitzSimons Allison a retired Episcopal Bishop. Furthermore there is a whole history of left wing Evangelicalism in America found in such persons as Jim Wallis of Sojourners magazine, Dr. Tony Campolo, a former professor at Eastern University and chaplain to Clinton, and Dr. Ron Sider who heads Evangelicals for Social Action. They are all left of center Evangelicals and you can be assured they will vote for the Democratic Party in November. There is of course, a right wing Evangelicalism in America that will, of course, vote for George W. Bush. That is their right. I also know a dozen religion writers, columnists and editors who would describe themselves as evangelicals but they won't necessarily be voting for George W. Bush in November. For Mr. Reich to cast "Evangelical Protestants" as the "ground troops of the Republican Party" is just plain nonsense. Millions of Southern Baptists are Democrats. They are not uniformly Republican. Writes Reich: "Democrats, he says, can hold their own in these wars — if they respond vigorously to the coming assault. Democrats should call all this for what it is — a clear and present danger to religious liberty in America. For more than three hundred years, the liberal tradition has sought to free people from the tyranny of religious doctrines that would otherwise be imposed on them. Today's evangelical right detests that tradition and seeks nothing short of a state-sponsored religion. But maintaining the separation of church and state is a necessary precondition of liberty. … The religious wars aren't pretty. Religious wars never are. But Democrats should mount a firm and clear counter-assault. In the months leading up to Election Day, when Republicans are screaming about God and accusing the Democrats of siding with sexual deviants and baby killers, Democrats should remind Americans that however important religion is to our spiritual lives, there is no room for liberty in a theocracy." This statement is not only inflammatory it is wrong. Many Evangelicals now believe that THEIR liberties are under assault by the tyranny of liberals and the abandonment of once held cherished beliefs and the Federal Marriage Amendment Act is a case in point. The tyranny of activist homosexualists in this country has reduced everyone to such fear that even to say the behavior is wrong can get you jail time. Just ask a Canadian and a Swedish pastor who are both serving time in jail for saying homosexual behavior can kill you. Will that time come in the US? Religious liberties are under assault in the State of PA where laws are in place to slap anyone in jail who opposes sodomy. The clergy are fighting back. Mr. Reich says evangelicals want a "state sponsored religion" or a theocracy. That's nonsense. No Evangelical or Evangelical publication that I know of, including Christianity Today, WORLD, Charisma, even Focus on the Family has ever called for a theocracy. All Evangelicals want is the right to call SIN by its name and call people to repentance, and increasingly that option is being taken away from them by the left who are promoting sodomy in schools through GLSEN and demanding laws that proscribe any talk of sodomy as "homophobic" and more. Furthermore to call Evangelicals "anti-modernists" is arrant nonsense. Evangelicals have been in the forefront of science, business, the environment, foundations, and a care for the poor that makes liberal efforts pale by comparison. Liberal church organizations have got nothing to compare with movements like the Salvation Army, World Vision Int., Food for the Poor and a whole array of institutions, schools and universities begun by evangelicals including Harvard, Yale, Princeton and more. Reich talks rubbish about Evangelicals. In the Episcopal Church, for example, Evangelicals have, for more than 40 years backed away from advances made by liberals in theological and moral innovation drawing more lines in the sands than rings around Uranus. Today they stand with their backs to the wall as revisionist bishops beat orthodox rectors into the ground, inhibiting, deposing and taking their parishes from them and more in the name of their "liberal" revisionist god. The truth is the emerging tyranny is coming from the left not the right. Is opposing gay marriage, abortion and the free exercise of religion in public schools and elsewhere (three issues that Reich specifically mentions) so terribly un-American? Will such opposition promote a revolution? "Democrats should be clear that the issues of abortion and stem-cell research are about religious liberty," Reich says. If either of these is limited in any way, he suggests, America becomes a theocracy, regardless of whether it officially sponsors a specific religion. And that, the logic necessarily follows, demands a revolution. And will the Roman Catholic Church which opposes abortion and has told John Kerry in some dioceses that he cannot receive Communion, be part of the coming religious war in America? Reich doesn't say so. Can Reich really mean what he says, asks Ramesh Ponnuru in National Review Online. "His most recent column is a denunciation — as a graver threat than terrorists — of people who believe that the world to come is more important than this world, or that all human beings owe their allegiance to God. Many millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other religious believers will reject Reich's witless rhetorical oppositions. One can believe in the political 'primacy of the individual,' the obligation of all people to answer to God, and the wrongness of any governmental attempt to make them answer to Him, all at the same time. But if our choice is between the primacy of individuals and the primacy of God — if, that is, we are to choose between individual human beings and God — then the vast majority of traditional religious believers would have to choose God. I certainly would. That would be the case for plenty of believers who are not sure what they think about abortion law, or want a higher minimum wage. All of us, for Reich, are the enemy." The deeper truth is that if a war is coming it will be between Islam and a morally bankrupt West that Islam sees as weak and therefore vulnerable. If that is true then Mr. Reich may well be grateful for "Evangelical Protestants" when that time comes, because it will be they who will be the nation's storm-troopers as the West fights for its very soul.

Seabury, other churches troubled by their leader's support of gay bishop By Bethne Dufresne | General Assignment Reporter/Columnist | THE DAY 7/17/2004 NEW LONDON, CT 7/17/2004 — Power, not sex, is the crux of a dispute within America's Episcopal Church over the consecration of the church's first openly gay bishop. So said a spokesman Friday for six churches, including Bishop Seabury in Groton, that are seeking to be led by a bishop other than the head of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut, the Rt. Rev. Andrew D. Smith, who supported the consecration. The six churches are the only ones among the state's 178 Episcopal congregations to apply for what is called "Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight." But the Rev. Mark Hansen of St. John's Episcopal Church in Bristol said it won't remove them from Smith's jurisdiction. A major concern, said Hansen, is the selection of future pastors. Church tradition says the presiding bishop must approve the parish's selection. Hansen and his group want written assurance that parishioners can "call" pastors without fear of veto by a bishop, such as Smith, who doesn't share their opposition to gay clergy. "Not one of us intends to leave the church," assured the Rev. Ronald A. Gauss of Bishop Seabury, who is on vacation and spoke via phone from Kentucky. But parishioners are "very worried," he said. "If I were to retire," he explained, "the church might not be able to call up the person they want." The global Anglican Communion, of which the Episcopal Church here is a part, has been deeply divided over the consecration of the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, a divorced man who lives openly with his gay partner. Church leaders in some nations have gone so far as to suggest that the American church be thrown out of the Anglican Communion. Many in the Episcopal Church have embraced the decision to ordain Robinson, and most appear to have accepted it. But a number of orthodox Anglican parishes, including Groton's Bishop Seabury, have joined the American Anglican Council, not a breakaway church but formed in opposition to the U.S. church's liberal direction. To keep the Anglican Communion whole while a commission appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury studies the fissures, global primates mandated "adequate or alternative Episcopal pastoral oversight." This, said Hansen, would allow "biblically orthodox" parishes like his to report to a bishop in line with their thinking. But "through a sleight of hand," said Hansen, the American House of Bishops changed "alternative" to "delegated." Smith acknowledged that the two are "fundamentally different." But "we have our own policy, our own church canons," he said. "Other provinces have different procedures." Alternative oversight places a church "under the jurisdiction of another bishop entirely," said Smith. "Delegated means the diocesan bishop remains the bishop of all the parishes, but certain functions can be delegated to another bishop." As Smith struggles to keep the Connecticut diocese united, dissenting churches are seeking as much distance as possible. The group also includes Christ Church in Watertown, St. Paul's Church in Darien, Trinity Church in Bristol and Christ & The Epiphany Church in East Haven. Pastors of the six churches asked to meet with Smith as a group, but he has insisted on meeting with each individually. Hansen said this a "divide and conquer" tactic. Smith said it's his duty to treat each parish as a unique unit. "Each parish is very different," he said, and one other bishop might not be able to meet all their needs. "This is one of the things I want to talk about," he said. Smith ignored the group's request that he apologize for his vote in favor of Robinson, and their request for "written assurance that you and the Diocese of Connecticut will not foster a ministerial environment that is hostile to our parishes' mission and ministries." Hansen will meet with Smith later this month, but Gauss said vacations — his and Smith's — might keep them from meeting until the end of August. Gauss said he was in no rush, that these things take time. Hansen was offended by Smith's terse July 9 letter to him that began, "In my capacity as canonical overseer I issue to you a Pastoral Direction." Smith went on, in three sentences, to tell Hansen when and where they would meet one-on-one. Hansen, echoing the sentiments of another of the six pastors, said it sounded like he was being "served with a subpoena." But Smith made no apologies for his directive. "It is what it is," he said. "I don't know why he (Smith) won't meet with us as a group," said Gauss. "But I will obey his directive. He is still my bishop."

By Frances Grandy Taylor, Staff Writer THE COURANT HARTFORD, July 16, 2004 In the latest sign of the stresses tearing at a variety of denominations over social issues, six Episcopal parishes are seeking to remove their churches from the control of Bishop Andrew D. Smith, who leads the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut. The parishes want to become aligned with a bishop outside the state, one who is part of a network of conservative Episcopal churches that have come together in opposition to the consecration last year of the church's first openly gay bishop. This week, priests from the six churches - Christ Church in Watertown, St. John's Church in Bristol, St. Paul's Church in Darien, Trinity Church in Bristol, Christ & The Epiphany Church in East Haven, and Bishop of Seabury Church in Groton - each received a "pastoral directive" and were summoned by registered letter to meet with Smith. "At first, I thought I was being subpoenaed. It turned out to be a letter from my bishop commanding that I meet with him," said the Rev. Christopher Leighton, pastor of St. Paul's Church in Darien. Leighton said being summoned to a compulsory meeting with Smith was a tactic that added more tension to an increasingly strained relationship. In March, the U.S. Episcopal bishops created a framework for the kind of alternative oversight the six churches are seeking. Called "Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight," the procedure was designed to allow churches that refuse to accept the consecration of Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire to become aligned with another bishop, "who neither supported the election [of Robinson] nor supports the ordination of homosexuals to ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church." Robinson's consecration a year ago, which was supported by a majority of Episcopal bishops, including Smith, has brought the U.S. Episcopal Church to the brink of schism with the worldwide Anglican Communion. Smith said Thursday he expects the six churches will get another bishop to oversee them, though many details still need to be worked out. "I want the delegated oversight to be implemented," Smith said. "It's something that is offered in the church, that respects and accommodates the views of those who have petitioned for it." So far, only one parish church, in Newark, N.J., has been granted delegated oversight. Under a DEPO agreement, Smith would voluntarily relinquish many activities at the six churches, such as performing confirmations, baptisms and rites of initiation. At the same time, Smith would retain constitutional and canonical jurisdiction over the congregations, and the parishes would pledge funds to the diocese at a level that is agreed upon. Leighton said St. Paul's Church has stopped contributing to the diocese and instead sends its money to other Episcopal ministries. "We have felt led by God to continue to give our money - not to a bureaucracy filled with error - but to people who need help," Leighton said. The rectors of the six churches wanted to undergo the DEPO process as a group, but several said Smith has insisted that they do so as individual churches, which has put the process at something of an impasse. Smith declined to express his personal feelings about the quest of the six parishes, except to say "we worked very long and hard at the bishops meeting to create DEPO, recognizing that it would meet the pastoral needs." "It's the [Episcopal] Church's attempt to accommodate the pastoral needs of our parishes and to maintain our unity," he said. The Rev. Allan Benedict, rector of Christ Church in Watertown, said the process could take months, since the bishop who would be chosen for oversight must be acceptable both to Smith and the churches. But, Benedict added, that will not stop the crisis facing the Episcopal Church. "I believe that ultimately, the worldwide communion will take action against the U.S. Episcopal Church," Benedict said. "They will either have to reverse their decision [on Robinson] or go their own way." The Rev. Mark Hansen is rector of St. John's Church in Bristol, which in the wake of Robinson's approval voted in February to affiliate with the Anglican Network, a new group of "biblically orthodox" parishes. Hansen criticized the designated oversight plan as inadequate and said it unilaterally imposes a take-it-or-leave-it approach. He said a number of specifics still need to be worked out - such as future succession of clergy at parishes under delegated oversight, which is not spelled out in the DEPO framework. Further, it "keeps all the power in the hands of an existing bishop," Hansen said. "[Smith] doesn't relinquish one iota of power." The bishops of the U.S. Episcopal Church are refusing to see that "reality has been radically and irrevocably altered," Hansen said. "A tectonic shift is going on, and they are trying to manage it in a business-as-usual way. ... There is a power struggle going on that transcends Bristol, a drama being played on the global stage."

By Anthony Browne THE SPECTATOR There's no plot, says Anthony Browne: Islam really does want to conquer the world. That's because Muslims, unlike many Christians, actually believe they are right, and that their religion is the path to salvation for all. A year ago I had lunch with an eminent figure who asked if I thought she was mad. 'No,' I said politely, while thinking, 'Yup.' She had said she thought there was a secret plot by Muslims to take over the West. I have never been into conspiracy theories, and this one was definitely of the little-green-men variety. It is the sort of thing BNP thugs claim to justify their racial hatred. Obviously, we all know about Osama bin Laden's ambitions. And we are all aware of the loons of al-Muhajiroun waving placards saying 'Islam is the future of Britain'. But these are all on the extremist fringe, representative of no one but themselves. Surely no one in Islam takes this sort of thing seriously? I started surfing the Islamic media. Take Dr Al-Qaradawi, the controversial Egyptian imam who was recently fawned over by the Mayor of London even though he promotes the execution of homosexuals, the right of men to indulge in domestic violence, and the murder of innocent Jews. During the brouhaha it went unnoticed that he also wants to conquer Europe. Don't take my word for it, just listen to him on his popular al-Jazeera TV show, Sharia and Life. 'Islam will return to Europe. The conquest need not necessarily be by the sword. Perhaps we will conquer these lands without armies. We want an army of preachers and teachers who will present Islam in all languages and in all dialects,' he broadcast in 1999, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute, which translates his programmes. On another programme he declared, 'Europe will see that it suffers from a materialist culture, and it will seek a way out, it will seek a lifeboat. It will seek no life-saver but the message of Islam.' Far from being on the fringe, his immensely popular programmes are watched by millions across the Middle East and Europe. The BBC cooed that he has 'star' status among the world's Muslims. Dr Al-Qaradawi, who is based in Qatar, is also the spiritual guide of the hardline Muslim Brotherhood, which is growing across Europe, and whose leader Muhammad Mahdi Othman 'Akef declared recently, 'I have complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America, because Islam has logic and a mission.' In the most sacred mosque in Islam, Sheikh Abd al-Rahman al-Sudais of the Grand Mosque in Mecca uses his sermons to call for Jews to be 'annihilated' and to urge the overthrow of Western civilisation. 'The most noble civilisation ever known to mankind is our Islamic civilisation. Today, Western civilisation is nothing more than the product of its encounter with our Islamic civilisation in Andalusia [mediaeval Spain]. The reason for [Western civilisation's] bankruptcy is its reliance on the materialistic approach, and its detachment from religion and values. [This approach] has been one reason for the misery of the human race, for the proliferation of suicide, mental problems and for moral perversion. Only one nation is capable of resuscitating global civilisation, and that is the nation [of Islam].' Al-Sudais is the highest imam appointed by our Saudi government ally, and his sermons are widely listened to across the Middle East. When he came to the UK in June to open the London Islamic Centre, thousands of British Muslims flocked to see him, our so-called race relations minister Fiona Mactaggart shared the platform, and Prince Charles sent a video message. He is probably the closest thing in Islam to the Pope, but I haven't recently heard the Pope call for the overthrow of all other faiths. Saudi Arabia, whose flag shows a sword, seems unabashed about its desire for Islam to take over the world. Its embassy in Washington recommends the home page of its Islamic affairs department, where it declares, 'The Muslims are required to raise the banner of jihad in order to make the Word of Allah supreme in this world.' Saudi Arabia has used billions of its petrodollars to export its particularly harsh form of Islam, Wahabism, paying for mosques and Islamic schools across the West. About 80 per cent of the US's mosques are thought to be under Wahabi control. Saudi Arabia's education ministry encourages schoolchildren to despise Christianity and Judaism. A new schoolbook in the kingdom's curriculum tells six-year-olds: 'All religions other than Islam are false.' A note for teachers says they should 'ensure to explain' this point. In Egypt, the schoolbook Studies in Theology: Traditions and Morals explains that a particularly 'noble' bit of the Koran is 'encouraging the faithful to perform jihad in God's cause, to behead the infidels, take them prisoner, break their power -- all that in a style which contains the highest examples of urging to fight'. A popular topic for discussion on Arabic TV channels is the best strategy for conquering the West. It seems to be agreed that since the West has overwhelming economic, military and scientific power, it could take some time, and a full frontal assault could prove counterproductive. Muslim immigration and conversion are seen as the best path. Saudi Professor Nasser bin Suleiman al-Omar declared on al-Majd TV last month, 'Islam is advancing according to a steady plan, to the point that tens of thousands of Muslims have joined the American army and Islam is the second largest religion in America. America will be destroyed. But we must be patient.' Islam is now the second religion not just in the US but in Europe and Australia. Europe has 15 million Muslims, accounting for one in ten of the population in France, where the government now estimates 50,000 Christians are converting to Islam every year. In Brussels, Mohammed has been the most popular name for boy babies for the last four years. In Britain, attendance at mosques is now higher than it is in the Church of England. Al-Qa'eda is criticised for being impatient, and waking the West up. Saudi preacher Sheikh Said al-Qahtani said on the Iqraa TV satellite channel, 'We did not occupy the US, with eight million Muslims, using bombings. Had we been patient and let time take its course, instead of the eight million there could have been 80 million [Muslims], and 50 years later perhaps the US would have become Muslim.' It is difficult to brush this off as an aberration of Islam, which is normally just tickety-boo letting the rest of the world indulge in its false beliefs. Dr Zaki Badawi, the moderate former director of the Islamic Cultural Centre in London, admitted, 'Islam endeavours to expand in Britain. Islam is a universal religion. It aims to bring its message to all corners of the earth. It hopes that one day the whole of humanity will be one Muslim community.' In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into Dar al-Islam, where Muslims rule, and Dar al-Harb, the 'field of war' where the infidels live. 'The presumption is that the duty of jihad will continue, interrupted only by truces, until all the world either adopts the Muslim faith or submits to Muslim rule,' wrote Professor Bernard Lewis in his bestseller The Crisis of Islam. The first jihad was in AD 630, when Mohammed led his army to conquer Mecca. He made a prediction that Islam would conquer the two most powerful Christian centres at the time, Constantinople and Rome. Within 100 years of his death, Muslim armies had conquered the previously Christian provinces of Syria, Palestine, Egypt and the rest of North Africa, as well as Spain, Portugal and southern Italy, until they were stopped at Poitiers in central France in AD 732. Muslim armies overthrew the ancient Zoroastrian empire of Persia, and conquered much of central Asia and Hindu India. Ibn Warraq, a Pakistani who lost his Islamic faith, wrote in his book Why I am not a Muslim, 'Although Europeans are constantly castigated for having imposed their insidious decadent values, culture and language on the Third World, no one cares to point out that Islam colonised lands that were the homes of advanced and ancient civilisations.' It took 700 years for the Spanish to get their country back in the prolonged 'Reconquista'. In the meantime the Turks, a central Asian people, had been converted to Islam and had conquered the ancient Christian land of Anatolia (now called Turkey). In 1453 they captured Constantinople -- fulfilling Mohammed's first prediction -- which was the centre of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The glorious Hagia Sophia, which had been one of the most important churches in Christendom for nearly 1,000 years after it was built in AD 537, was turned into a mosque, and minarets were added. The Turks went on to occupy Greece and much of the Balkans for four centuries, turning the Parthenon into a mosque and besieging Vienna, before retreating as their power waned. In the Middle East, there are regular calls for Mohammed's second prediction to come true. Sheikh Muhammad bin Abd al-Rahman al-'Arifi, imam of the mosque of the Saudi government's King Fahd Defence Academy, wrote recently, 'We will control the land of the Vatican; we will control Rome and introduce Islam in it.' Not all conversion has been by the sword. Muslim traders peaceably converted Indonesia, now the most populous Islamic nation. But nor have the conquests stopped. Islam has continued spreading in sub-Saharan Africa, most notably in Nigeria and Sudan. Abyssinia -- Ethiopia -- is an ancient Christian land where Muslims have come to outnumber Christians only in the last 100 years. Just 50 years ago, Lebanon was still predominantly Christian; it is now predominantly Muslim. Of course, Christianity has been just as much a conquering religion. Spanish armies ruthlessly destroyed ancient civilisations in Central and South America to spread the message of love. Christians colonised the Americas and Australia, committing genocide as they went, while missionaries such as Livingstone converted most of Africa. But the difference is that Christendom has -- by and large -- stopped conquering and converting, and indeed in Europe simply stopped believing. Even President Bush's most trenchant critics don't believe he conquered Afghanistan and Iraq to spread the word of Jesus. It is ironic that by deposing Saddam, who ran the most secular of Arab regimes, the US actually transferred power to the imams. I believe in a free market in religions, and it is inevitable that if you believe your religion is true, then you believe others are false. But this market is seriously rigged. In Saudi Arabia the government bans all churches, while in Europe governments pay to build Islamic cultural centres. While in many Islamic countries preaching Christianity is banned, in Western Christian countries the right to preach Islam is enshrined in law. Christians are free to convert to Islam, while Muslims who convert to Christianity can expect either death threats or a death sentence. The Pope keeps apologising for the Crusades (even though they were just attempts to get back former Christian lands) while his opposite numbers call for the overthrow of Christendom. In Christian countries, those who warn about Islamification, such as the film star Brigitte Bardot, are prosecuted, while in Muslim countries those who call for the Islamification of the world are turned into TV celebrities. In the West, schools teach comparative religion, while in Muslim countries schools teach that Islam is the only true faith. David Blunkett in effect wants to ban criticism of Islam, a protection not enjoyed by Christianity in Muslim countries. Millions of Muslims move to Christian countries, but virtually no Christians move to Muslim ones. In the last century some Christians justified the persecution and mass murder of Jews by claiming that Jews wanted to take over the world. But these fascist fantasies were based on deliberate lies, such as the notorious fake book The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Now, many in the Muslim world are open about their desire for Islam to conquer the West. Anthony Browne is Europe correspondent for the Times. (c) 2001 The Spectator.co.uk

The Telegraph DUBLIN, 7/16/2004 A major international conference of world leaders of the Anglican Church under the chairmanship of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, is scheduled to meet in Northern Ireland next February. The Belfast Telegraph has learned that primates from all 38 provinces of the Communion will meet in Newcastle, Co Down, to make crucial decisions on the future of the worldwide Church following the report of the Anglican Commission on the divisions caused over sexual issues within Anglicanism. The historic Primates Meeting in Newcastle is likely to be one of the most significant Church gatherings to take place in Northern Ireland, with its outcome charting the way forward for the future of the entire Anglican Church, which has some 70 million members around the world. The current Commission on Anglican Structures, headed by the Church of Ireland Primate Archbishop Robin Eames, is scheduled to deliver its highly significant report in October to Dr Williams. This was set up by Dr Williams after the international upheaval within Anglicanism in the wake of the appointment of the openly homosexual Dr Gene Robinson as a bishop in New Hampshire last year. It is understood that once the report is delivered to Dr Williams it will be analysed in depth within the Communion in order to help the primates come to definitive decisions about the way forward for the Church as a whole at their meeting in Newcastle next February. The fact that this historic meeting is coming to Ulster is a reflection of the high standing within worldwide Anglicanism of Archbishop Eames. He is senior primate in the Church and previously chaired with success two other important Anglican commissions - on women's ordination and also on theological issues. He told the Belfast Telegraph: "I am very pleased that the Primates Meeting will be coming here in February. A number of venues were considered and Northern Ireland was deemed to be the most suitable on this occasion."

Commentary By William Murchison THE WASHINGTON TIMES Well, just who's happy the Senate this week has been debating the Federal Marriage Amendment, defining marriage as the union exclusively of a man and a woman? Are Democrats happy? Not hugely. For all that they meant the whole time to sink the amendment on a procedural vote, there is the inconvenience of the thing, the necessity of -- one more time -- reminding the electorate Democrats aren't hot to defend traditional cultural norms. Are Republicans happy? To the extent, perhaps, that the issue finally gets out in the sunshine. But out in the sunshine, the party's inability to pass such an amendment, and gratify an important constituency, will show up all the more clearly. I think nonetheless a bigger disheartening lies in store for amendment backers. It is knowledge -- the in-your-face variety -- of how things get done in modern America. Here's how they get done: You get the media and the judiciary on your side; they do the rest. That sounds like elitism? Elitism it is: meaning the capacity, enjoyed by a select, like-minded few, to shove social change down the more numerous throats of others ill-prepared for said change. The reason the Senate has been considering the constitutional amendment is that courts -- notably the highest Massachusetts court -- have been foisting on the population a conceptual overhaul of the oldest human institution there is: marriage. The Massachusetts judges, ordering the state to legitimatize same-sex unions, proclaimed the existence of "an evolving paradigm" regarding marriage. Now you see the historic understanding; now you don't. Oh? And how did the judges know? Well, a little bird or, likelier, television, notable newspapers and magazines told them. When you have evolving paradigms, the last thing you're to look for is stability of understanding. Yesterday's truth, in the evolving-paradigm department, is tomorrow's cranky opinion. I'll wager you just noted a seeming inconsistency. Aren't court decisions known as "opinions"? They certainly are, which is one reason courts once were fairly modest when it came to shaking up institutions. This was becoming in the judges. They recognized, to one degree or another, that democratic government rests on the consent of the governed, not the consent of those who do the governing. Gone with the wind. For 30 or 40 years, judges have been flattering themselves their own acute readings of social necessity and paradigms exceeded those of lesser folk. A moment ago, I mentioned the media. The media's consent is instrumental in matters like the pending overthrow of marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. The media's fascination with homosexual rights has invested the quest for such rights with an authority it never before enjoyed. Judges can't help but notice such things. And that's where we are today: trying halfheartedly (if we're talking about Congress) to let the people's will prevail over that of judges with respect to marriage. But there isn't the kind of unanimity you would expect on this question, perhaps because people have grown used to judges running their lives and consequently put little stock in those constitutional amendments (anti-busing, pro-school prayer, anti-abortion, anti-flag burning, etc.) members of Congress talk about but never seem to pass. Granted, amending the Constitution is an arduous and complex process. Any amendment Congress really wants requires two-thirds votes in both houses and ratification by three-fourths of the states. That can be a tall order, especially on an evolving paradigm. When you're being forward-kicked by men and women in judicial robes, the temptation is to suppose they can't be altogether mischievous in their assumptions. Well, they are in the case of marriage: an institution older than the Constitution and never before considered open-ended except maybe in Las Vegas. The judges are as wrong as can be, but setting them right -- that's a challenge possibly beyond our present representatives. When the harm and gross stupidity of the attack on marriage becomes more apparent -- maybe we'll finally do something, if it isn't too late. William Murchison is a nationally syndicated columnist.

By Mark D. Tooley The Weekly Standard One of America's largest Protestant denominations voted in May to prohibit the solemnization of same-sex unions in its churches, to withhold ordination from practicing homosexuals, to ban church funding for "gay" causes, to require celibacy for its single clergy, and to endorse civil laws that define marriage as uniting a man and a woman. And it wasn't the Southern Baptists. No, all this occurred at the governing General Conference of the United Methodist Church, a "mainline" denomination whose leadership has been decidedly liberal for decades. Over 8 million strong, the United Methodists are the third largest church in the United States after the Roman Catholics and the Southern Baptists, and the turn they have taken on the issue of homosexuality is almost directly opposite to that of the quintessential mainline group, the Episcopalians. The Episcopal Church -- only one-fourth the size of the United Methodists -- has been much in the spotlight since the election of its first openly homosexual bishop last year. Advocates of approving homosexuality hoped the Episcopal Church was a harbinger of America's religious future. But the Methodists aren't following its lead. The United Methodists have always been Main Street, to the Episcopalians' Wall Street. They are more suburban and small town than the Episcopalians, more southern and midwestern, and on the whole more culturally conservative. United Methodists are also highly international. Almost one-third of the U.S.-based denomination is now overseas, mostly in Africa. This represents not only growth abroad but also diminishing numbers at home. Methodism was America's largest church as recently as the late 19th century, but after 40 years of continuous decline, the United Methodists have gone from 11 million to 8.3 million in the United States. Meanwhile, their former mission churches in places like the Congo, Angola, and Mozambique are surging. Full of enthusiastic recent converts, these congregations are ones where liberal theology holds little sway. Africans and to a lesser extent Filipinos have been crucial to setting United Methodism's more culturally conservative direction. In the floor debates over homosexuality at the church's 2004 General Conference in Pittsburgh, African delegates seized the lead in arguing against any weakening of the church's stance that homosexual behavior is "incompatible with Christian teaching." "We have received teaching on marriage from our missionaries," explained one delegate from the Congo, noting the rejection of polygamy. "We Africans, we accepted this teaching, and we became Christians." About two-thirds of the nearly 1,000 delegates voted to reaffirm and in some cases strengthen the church's disapproval of homosexual practice. Compromise language that would have acknowledged internal church differences over homosexuality was rejected, though by a smaller margin. Sixty percent voted that homosexual practice was incompatible with Christian teaching, 72 percent voted to uphold the ban on practicing homosexual clergy, 80 percent reaffirmed the ban on same-sex unions, and 85 percent reaffirmed that clergy must be celibate if single and monogamous if married. Seventy-seven percent voted to affirm "laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman," making the United Methodists the first mainline church to adopt a political stance on same-sex unions. The ban on funding of homosexual advocacy by the national church was expanded to include regional bodies. And adultery, premarital sex, homosexual practice, and same-sex ceremonies were all made chargeable offenses that could precipitate church trials. Supporters of endorsing homosexual behavior responded with anger. "Few expected that there would be any moderation in the denomination's position regarding sexual orientation," complained the Rev. Greg Dell, a Chicago pastor put on leave of absence several years ago for conducting a same-sex ceremony. "But not many were ready for the further tightening of the belt of bigotry that is occurring in Pittsburgh." Many liberal United Methodists believe only fear is keeping the church from following secular society in embracing homosexuality. They are waiting for what they believe is inevitable. But time is not on their side. Liberal religion is demographically dying in the United States, as it is around the world.

By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent THE TELEGRAPH 10/07/2004 The Church of England's largest diocese is leading an unprecedented revolt, preparing to withhold more than £100,000 in protest over spiraling costs. In a move that could have far-reaching consequences, the Diocese of London is threatening to cap the money it is expected to pay towards the Church's central bureaucracy. The development, which will alarm the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, follows a 28 per cent jump in the amount that the diocese has been asked to contribute. The Bishop of Willesden, the Rt Rev Peter Broadbent, who is leading the London diocese's campaign, said the Church needed to carry out a fundamental independent review of its bureaucracy and make significant cuts. Six other large dioceses, including Southwark, Oxford and Chichester, are understood to be sympathetic and could follow suit, further undermining the Church's finances. A number of dioceses have been struggling with large deficits and several, particularly in the north of England, face bankruptcy. The London diocese itself has had to cut a number of clergy and other posts to stave off imminent collapse. The row is expected to surface at the General Synod, which began a four-day meeting in York yesterday and is to debate the budget of the Archbishops' Council, the Church's managing body. It will also undermine criticism by bishops that evangelical parishes that cap their quotas in protest at the Church's policy on homosexuality are using money as a weapon. The London diocese voted by a large majority at its diocesan synod last week to give the Bishop of London, the Rt Rev Richard Chartres, the authority to cap its 2005 contribution to central funds to £1.7 million. It also asked the council to share out the cost of administering the Church more fairly. Bishop Broadbent said that while wealthier dioceses should support poorer ones, the balance had been lost and the Church had ignored his complaints for years. "The current formula hits us below the belt, and because they haven't been listening to us, we've had to issue this threat," said the bishop. He said that while the central bureaucracy had controlled its spending in recent years, it needed to make further cuts to services it offered that could be carried out by dioceses. Among the services paid for by the centre are the selection and training of future clergy, working on social issues such as education, supporting chaplaincies and supporting the General Synod and the media office. A Church insider said that the six wealthiest dioceses encompassed 28 per cent of the population of England, and the apportionment placed on them was about 30 per cent. He said the council's budget had been frozen for three years, and had effectively reduced its sum by £1 million. A spokesman for the council said: "The council views this development with considerable concern. Dioceses were consulted as usual on the proposed national budget at a meeting of diocesan representatives in May, before the council approved the budget, but this issue was not aired at that stage."