Rabbi Daniel Lapin Thursday, July 15, 2004 On Wednesday afternoon the United States Senate voted against moving forward on a proposed amendment which would have added to the constitution these words, "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman." Some Americans are celebrating this as a triumph of tolerance while others are mourning it as the defeat of decency. However, I suspect that many Americans, whose basic credo is live-and-let-live, are ignoring it entirely. It is to these readers, who regard the Senate vote as largely irrelevant in their lives, that I address myself. The majority of us live our lives confronting challenges that demand that we make decisions many times each day. Should I invest this unexpected windfall or spend it on a long-awaited necessity? Should we send our children to private or public school? Should I remain in my job or switch careers? Should I marry the person I have been seeing or wait for someone else? Should I do my homework or go swimming? Many of these decisions would be easy if we didn't all live in a state of exquisite tension, constantly suspended between two opposing poles. Almost every decision forces us to choose between the two poles, each pulling us in a different direction. Sometimes the two poles appear dressed as duty and pleasure. Other times they wear the costumes of our short-term interests versus our long-term interests. Often, in our own minds and for our own emotional convenience, we interpret the two conflicting tugs to be good and evil. However, for many of us, that distinction usually reflects nothing but our own pre-existing inclinations. Often our basic two choices masquerade as continuity and change. For instance, do I divorce my spouse or remain in a flawed marriage? We all feel a pull to keep doing what we have been doing, because continuity is comfortable and change can be terrifying. On the other hand, we are also attracted by change with all its promise of excitement, novelty and perhaps improvement. For many years now American public policy seems to have been guided by the false credo that instead of continuity, change is always the best path. To be sure, the abolition of slavery and the outlawing of child labor were overdue and good changes, but many public policy decisions have also caused dreadful changes. Things don't just happen. Many specific decisions, each made with only good intentions, gradually made life in these United States indescribably more squalid, more expensive, and more dangerous than it was only, say, about 50 years ago. Violent and salacious lyrics that would have made a hardened convict blush back then now pound remorselessly through the earphones of almost every suburban teenager. Do you recall how, in the 1950s, an enviable middle-class lifestyle could be maintained for a family by the earnings of one worker? Back then, women could walk safely at any time of the day or night through the parks of any major city in the country. We embraced the public policies that brought about these terrible changes. People like you and me failed to remember that life involves reconciling continuity and change, not just thoughtlessly accepting change. Public policy decisions do have consequences in our lives. You may not feel the impact of a bill passing Congress until years have elapsed, but feel it you will. Eventually it will impact your children, your finances, and most other aspects of your life; and not necessarily for the better. Whether you personally see the two poles as continuity and change, duty and pleasure, or present and future, they are alluded to by the opening words of the Torah: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth." Rather than viewing this sentence as a cosmological insight into Big Bang theory, ancient Jewish wisdom reveals it to be a fundamental insight into the most basic dilemma of human existence: the need to choose between heaven and earth. Virtually every difficult choice resolves itself in terms of this dilemma - at every confusing crossroad, in the face of two choices, reality restricts our footsteps to only one path. The trick is to identify the real nature of the two paths regardless of what the signposts may say. Clearly, the real nature of the two paths is hinted at by the terms heaven and earth, but what in our real lives do heaven and earth represent? Within no more than 20 words, the biblical text provides a hint: The choice is light and darkness. For those of us still unsure, a later verse spells it out: "I have placed life and death before you, blessing and curse, therefore choose life so that you and your children should live." Back in 1973, because people like you and me considered public policy to be irrelevant to our lives, and because some of us were seduced by the propaganda of choice and freedom, the country chose death. It took many years, but today in most states, your teenage daughter can get an abortion without your knowledge or consent. At its deepest level, the existential choice we each confront many times each day is a choice between heaven and earth, a choice between eternity and mortality, and, yes, ultimately a choice between life and death. The question we now ought to ask ourselves is whether publicly sanctioned homosexual marriage corresponds to the path of life or that of death. Can anyone really be sure of the impact this legislation would have upon the essence of all our lives a few years down the road? To those who ignore the public debate on homosexual marriage and to those who feel it is irrelevant in their lives and to those who advertise their tolerance by singing "live-and-let-live," I say the time has come to choose continuity over change. The time has come to choose heaven over earth, and, yes, life over death. Radio talk show host Rabbi Daniel Lapin is president of Toward Tradition - the American Alliance of Jews and Christians (www.towardtradition.org), a Seattle-based bridge-building organization providing a voice for all Americans who defend the Judeo-Christian values vital for our nation's survival.

Retired bishop speaks at news conference affirming outcome By John Johnson [ENS] Episcopalian senators were evenly split on the issue when the U.S. Senate defeated an attempt July 14 to amend the U.S. Constitution by defining marriage and prohibiting same-gender civil marriage. In a procedural vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment, the tally was 50 to 48 -- 12 votes short of the number needed for senators to end debate and vote on the actual amendment, according to the Episcopal Church's Office of Government Relations in Washington, D.C. A vote to invoke cloture -- to cut off debate -- requires 60 votes. An amendment to the Constitution requires a "super majority" of 67 votes in order to pass the Senate. Of those voting to cut off debate - Saxby Chambliss (Georgia), Chuck Hagel (Nebraska), Ted Stevens (Alaska), Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas), and John Warner (Virginia) -- all are Republicans. Of those not voting in favor, Lincoln Chafee (Rhode Island) and John McCain (Arizona) are Republicans and Bill Nelson (Florida), Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas), and Evan Bayh (Indiana) are Democrats. "I am here today to say that not all people of faith believe we should amend the Constitution to deny people equal rights under the law," said the Rt. Rev. Jane Holmes Dixon, retired Bishop of Washington pro-tempore, at a news conference outside the Capitol following the vote. "As a Christian, my faith calls me to respect the dignity of every human being and to strive for justice and to tear down the walls that separate us." "In the history of our nation, this great Constitution to form a more perfect union and establish justice has been amended to include those not originally included, never to exclude," Dixon added. "And the Federal Marriage Amendment debated in the Senate today [would] do just that. It excludes and denies American citizens equal protection under the law." In a statement released by Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold in February, he expressed similar concerns about a Constitutional amendment. "The Episcopal Church is on record as being committed to continuing discussion and discernment around these questions [of sexuality], about which we do not have a common mind, and to equal protection under the law and full civil rights for homosexual persons," the statement said. "I am concerned about the advisability of a Constitutional amendment being put forth for discussion at this time. Questions of sexuality are far from settled, and a Constitutional amendment which was perceived as settling this matter might make it more difficult to engage in civil discourse around this topic." The 1976 General Convention of the Episcopal Church established the policy of the Church that "Homosexual persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws with all other citizens." That policy was reaffirmed in 1994. At the news conference, Dixon was joined at the podium by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and Barbara Boxer (D-California), U.S. Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-New York) and U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colorado). Also participating in the news conference were Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign; Rabbi Michael Namath of the Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism; Lisalyn Jacobs of Legal Momentum and Martin Ornelas-Quintero of Llego. John Johnson is a domestic policy analyst in the Episcopal Church Office of Government Relations.

ACN NEWS July 14, 2004 The Anglican Communion Network (ACN) has called for a Day of Prayer and Fasting on Thursday, August 5, 2004, in observance of the first anniversary of the confirmation of V. Gene Robinson, the first openly homosexual bishop of the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA). The following Sunday, August 8, 2004, is set aside as a day to recognize and prayerfully support global missions whose ministries and resources experienced the negative repercussions of General Convention 2003. With the impending anniversary of Gene Robinson's confirmation to the episcopate, the ACN bishops, at a recent meeting in Fort Worth, Texas, called for a specific date of organized intercessory prayer for the Anglican Communion, the Episcopal Church and global witness. The bishops pointed to the growing turmoil within ECUSA as well as the divisive and chaotic fallout from decisions made at General Convention that have plunged the Anglican Communion into a crisis situation affecting both domestic and ecumenical relations. The flow of support, relationships with host provinces and the integrity of teaching of missionaries around the world has also been damaged by the Episcopal Church's unilateral decisions to move forward on its social agenda. Participating in the Great Commission has become more difficult now, versus a year ago, for many missionary movements. In an effort to rebuild awareness and commitment to global missions, the ACN bishops are encouraging parishes to dedicate their services on August 8 to recognition of missions through special preaching, prayers, and designation of collections to help meet the needs of missionaries. END

KEN GARFIELD, Religion Editor The Charlotte Observer July 14, 2004 The spiritual leader of nearly 50,000 Episcopalians in North Carolina has given his formal OK to churches in his diocese blessing same-sex unions. In a letter to clergy, Bishop Michael Curry of the Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina said "the blessing of the committed life long unions of persons of the same gender is one way our community can live the Gospel through faithful and loving pastoral care and spiritual support for each other." Curry's diocese is one of at least six among the nation's 108 U.S. Episcopal dioceses to adopt official, written policies allowing the blessing of same-sex unions. The Raleigh-based diocese is home to 121 parishes in Mecklenburg and 38 other N.C. counties. The U.S. Episcopal church, with 2.3 million members, does not officially have a liturgy for same-sex blessings. But the denomination acknowledges that an unknown number of bishops -- including Robert Johnson in Asheville -- allows their clergy to conduct them. Kaye Lasater Culp, a spokesperson for Curry's Raleigh-based diocese, said no same-sex ceremonies have been held in the diocese with the bishop's approval. "If this was done before," she said, "it's been done on its own." Of the four other Carolinas dioceses, only the Western North Carolina diocese allows its clergy to bless same-sex unions. There, Johnson said an unwritten "collegial policy" allows parishes to decide for themselves. He said three parishes among 72 in the diocese have conducted fewer than 10 ceremonies. He said parishes will still be free to decide for themselves when he retires and is succeeded in September by the Rev. Porter Taylor of Athens, Ga. Nearly every mainstream religion denomination in the United States has been battling over gay marriage and ordination for years, with no resolution in sight. Nowhere has the controversy been hotter than in the U.S. Episcopal church, with last summer's confirmation of Gene Robinson of New Hampshire as the first openly gay bishop in the church serving as the spark. Already, Curry's July 1 letter to clergy is stirring more debate, and having an influence. With the bishop's blessing, the Rev. David Pittman of St. Peter's Episcopal Church said he'll now ask lay leaders at the uptown Charlotte church to OK two requests for same-sex ceremonies. "I don't imagine it will be a problem," Pittman said. "We bless homes and consecrate buildings. I think people are more important than things." All four people belong to the 900-member church. One couple is male. Pittman said two women are planning their same-sex blessing to mark their 25th anniversary. In Durham, St. Philip's Episcopal Church plans to bless same-sex unions within the year. Other churches, though, will have no part of same-sex unions despite Curry opening the door. While saying he respects the bishop for laying out his position, the Rev. Fred Hoffman of All Saints Episcopal Church in Concord said he believes blessing same-sex unions runs counter to his reading of Scripture. "This is not an issue of being against homosexuality," he said. "We're called to love everybody." But, Hoffman noted, "I don't think we have to accommodate to the culture." Episcopalians angry over Curry's strong stance have made their feelings known this past year. Spokesperson Culp said financial donations are down 15 percent since last August, when Robinson was confirmed amid national front-page headlines. She said such a drop likely results from tough economic times and disagreements with the bishop. At a forum last September attended by 300 at St. Peter's Episcopal Church, George Young of St. Margaret's Episcopal in Charlotte held up a check and told Curry: "You will never see this." Curry's July 1 letter spells out guidelines for a principle he espoused a day after voting with the majority to confirm Robinson: Congregations can decide for themselves whether they want to bless same-sex unions. Those that do should consult with the bishop, and hold such ceremonies only "after wide and extended prayer, conversation and education in the parish and in consultation with the vestry (board of lay leaders)." As stated in the language of the denomination, relationships being blessed should be "characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God." As Curry put it at the close of his letter: "As followers of Jesus and members of the family of God, we are called to welcome, honor and love all persons." END

Special Report By David W. Virtue BRISTOL, CT., 7/13/2004 — Six orthodox priests in the Diocese of Connecticut are under fire from their bishop Andrew D. Smith over their request for DEPO, and he has ordered all of them to appear before him on or before July 24th. The bishop has refused to meet all six clergy and their vestries jointly, demanding that they meet with him separately, compelling them to meet at Diocesan House. He has also refused to address all the issues of DEPO the six priests and their vestries unanimously raised in their letter to him. In an exchange of letters that has clearly crossed the line from "conversation" to "compulsion", Smith sent a terse one paragraph letter to Hansen saying, "In my capacity as canonical overseer, I issue you a Pastoral Directive. You, as Rector of Saint John's Church, Bristol, shall meet with me in my office at Diocesan House, Hartford, Ct. This meeting shall take place on or before July 24, 2004. I expect that you will contact my office to set up an appropriate appointment." On May 27, the six priests including the Rev. Ron Gauss from Bishop Seabury Church, Groton, the Rev. Allyn Benedict, Christ Church, Watertown, the Rev. Mark Hansen, St. John's Church, Bristol, the Rev. Christopher Leighton, St. Paul's Church, Darien, The Rev. Donald Helmandollar Trinity Church, Bristol, and the Rev. Gilbert Wilkes, Christ & The Epiphany Church, East Haven, sent a letter to Bishop Smith saying that the Clergy, Wardens, and Vestries of the six churches had jointly signed a letter voting unanimously to apply for Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO). The priests said they had reviewed the House of Bishops plan entitled "Caring For All Churches," and they failed to find any requirement that prohibited joint DEPO discussions for multiple parishes. They further requested that a record of the conversations should be taken in order to prevent misunderstanding or misinterpretation. "We cannot envision anything that any of us might say regarding DEPO that should not be a matter of public record," argued the priests. The priests called on Smith to repent of his action in the consecration of V.G. Robinson and also called on him to repent "for your ordination of other unchaste homosexuals to the ordained ministry in this diocese; and an acknowledgement that your actions have done serious damage to the worldwide Anglican Communion." The priests argued in their letter that if the bishop showed due repentance there would be no need for DEPO. They suggested the Parish Hall at Christ Church, Watertown, as the venue for all parties involved. "We intend to have transcripts made of all proceedings by a third party professional transcription service," they said. The six priests said they wanted immediate care and pastoral oversight of a bishop "acceptable to us who affirms Holy Scripture, the ancient creeds, and the 39 Articles and upholds the 1998 Lambeth Resolution on human sexuality and who did not support the election, consecration and ministry of V. G. Robinson as bishop, nor supported the ordination of any unchaste homosexuals to ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church." They also asked for suspension of assessment of funds to the Diocese of Connecticut mission and ministry. They further requested a one-year review of the DEPO agreements in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates of the Anglican Communion or their appointed designee. With the liberal bias of the diocese, the six clergy demanded written agreement that guarantees the future succession of clergy in their parishes rest in the hands of their vestries, search committees, and the DEPO bishop, and not the diocesan bishop. They also asked for a written agreement that all decisions regarding future candidates for ordained ministry from these parishes rest in the hands of the rectors, discernment committees, vestries, the DEPO bishop and not the diocesan bishop. They then sought a written assurance that Smith and the Diocese of Connecticut would not foster a ministerial environment that was hostile to their parishes' mission and ministries. "We are concerned not just for the present situation of faithful, orthodox priests in this diocese, but for the future of our congregations when we are no longer here," said Hansen to Virtuosity. "We want to preserve the 'faith once delivered' for our successors and allow it to thrive continue after we have gone." On June 15, Smith wrote Hansen recalling the visit he made on December 14, 2003 saying there were tensions in the air, "but we did worship and proclaim Christ as brothers and sisters, and we engaged in what I believe were charitable and beneficial conversations together." Smith then said that a review of the "spirit and intent of the House of Bishops plan" made it impossible for a number of their expectations to be met within the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. Smith stipulated there were three major items that needed to be addressed - "the appointment of a bishop for the exercise of the delegated oversight: a pledge for the contribution of funds for the mission and ministry of our diocese, and scheduling appropriate ways that we, your bishops, can regularly visit with you." On June 28 Hansen wrote back to Smith saying that it was unanimously resolved that they would "stand firm" with regard to all the terms set forth in their letter of May 27. "Therefore, your request to meet with us separately as representatives of an individual parish is rendered moot," Hansen wrote, adding that this reflected a unanimous decision by the vestry. "It is clear to us that the bishop has crossed a line between collegiality and a raw exercise of power, and any claim on his part to be acting in a conciliatory fashion will be much harder to sustain," he said. "His pastoral directive has gone from pseudo friendly to outright legalistic," he told Virtuosity. END

WHAT IS THE ACN DOING?! By Hugh McCann Issues for AAC-ACN folk in ECUSA and elsewhere in the Anglican communion The Anglican Communion Network says its core purpose is, "To be a missionary movement of Anglicans IN FELLOWSHIP WITH global Anglicanism, making disciples who make disciples of Jesus Christ in North America and to the ends of the earth." The American Anglican Council claims that it "is a Network of individuals, parishes, specialized ministries and Episcopal Bishops who affirm Biblical authority and Anglican orthodoxy AS the Episcopal Church WITHIN the Anglican Communion. In response to the Lord's calling and by His grace, we commit ourselves to proclaiming the Good News to every person and to working to reform and renew OUR CHURCH. We are gathering those of like mind in order to move ahead with the mission and ministry OF THE CHURCH." David Virtue wrote on May 9th, 2004, "The one unifying principle for both conservative and liberal Anglicans is that they REMAIN IN COMMUNION with the mother Church of England through the Archbishop of Canterbury." Though many of their aims are lofty and often biblical, what is strikingly lacking in the AAC & ACN statements of "vision," "values," and "purpose," is any indication of being willing (much less planning) to separate from the faithless, heretical bishops and priests in authority in both the ECUSA and the Church of England. Sadly, those who stay united to heretics are untrue to Christ. The Episco-Anglicans who like to play dress up (and kiss up to the Archbishop), seem bent on rejecting Christ's word where his inspired apostle Paul commands separation from unbelievers in 1 Cor. 6:14-7:1. "Do not be deceived: Bad company ruins good morals" (1 Cor. 15:33, ESV). Until the conservatives leave the ECUSA, the impotent AAC-ACN gang is just blowing smoke. They do not REBUKE the enemies of Christ, they do not DENOUNCE them, they do not CHARGE them with sin, they have not DISCIPLINED them, and they do not SEPARATE from them. Instead, they DIALOGUE with them, trying to NEGOTIATE alternative oversight! Imagine Jesus doing that with the devil in his temptation. Eve tried it with the serpent in the garden, and we know how successful that was. But unless and until faithful ECUSA priests and bishops (1) recognize the illegitimacy of their communion with antichrist, and (2) are willing to lose all for Christ, there is no hope for them. But they are masters of compromise; they have been comfortably yoked together with the unfaithful in the ECUSA for decades. Trying to operate as a faithful remnant within an apostate church, the AAC-ACN is calling on outside help in Africa and the UK to restore order and piety within the ECUSA. This is a fool's errand, as the liberal majority in the ECUSA is (1) unimpressed with the "Canterbury connection," and (2) not even under the jurisdiction of Africa or the C of E! But when the Africans excommunicate the ECUSA, the conservatives will finally be forced to decide between their properties, and fellowship with African Anglicans. Until the AAC-ACN repent of their lust for respectability in associating with the C of E, and their unbiblical ordination of women, they will continue to be out of communion with the more orthodox Africans, AMiA, REC, and others, and out of step with the holy Spirit, who is not bound to bless a church apart from its being faithful to the Scriptures he inspired. The "Big Six" alliance [1] is hurriedly thrown together with at least two problems: (1) Trying to impress the Archbishop of Canterbury. They think they need Rowan Williams' imprimatur for validation. Wrong. But the fear of man is a strong snare, indeed. (2) They haven't reached unanimity on women's ordination. As long as women are ordained, St. Paul (God's word) is being despised, and those biblically prohibited from office are in positions of authority and influence. But just as Eve was deceived (Gen 3:1-6; 1 Cor. 11:3; 2 Cor. 11:3-4; 1 Tim. 2:9-15), and misled her irresponsible hubby, so too do "female clergy" their neutered counterparts today. This lack of unanimity will come back to haunt the now-roused troops [2] within ten or so years. The issue of accepting homosexuality is not unrelated to that of women in the pastorate. Both rely on revisionist interpretations of Scripture, sharing the same underlying hermeneutic: "The Bible may teach it (anti-sodomy or anti-feminism), but we reject it because of our enlightened ways today." [3] Those holding this principle must repent and see the error of such thinking. Finally, the "common cause" is all well and good, but Evangelicals, Calvinists, and Anglo-Catholics each have very different views on the work of Christ, the sacraments, and how grace is mediated. These too will need addressing. Simply being united against outrageous revisionists will not be enough to sustain the perceived "common cause." The center may hold, but the bigger the center (the more that can be agreed upon), the stronger the bond, of course. May God help those in leadership in the Anglican and Episcopalian churches today. Notes: [1] The American Anglican Council, the Anglican Communion Network, the Anglican Mission in America, the Anglican Province of America, Forward in Faith (North America), and the Reformed Episcopal Church. Historically, the AMiA, APA, & REC have been united in their departure from the C of E, and to the scriptural order of male-only clergy. FiFNA, the ACN, & AAC are movements within the ECUSA pushing for reform. But while FiFNA rejects women priests, the ACN & AAC both support women clergy. Simple enough? [2] That is, the AAC, ACN, AMiA, APA, FiFNA, and REC. [3] Of course, many of the "enlightened majority" who teach this hermeneutic are women clergy. Surprise! Hugh McCann (MA in biblical studies) taught New Testament at the APCK seminary in Berkeley, CA. Once confirmed in the Episcopal Church, USA, he is today a recovering ex-member, realizing that the ECUSA is irredeemable and irreformable. AFRICANS WILL LEAVE ANGLICAN COMMUNION SAYS CHURCH SOCIETY LEADER By David W. Virtue Come October the Africans will leave the Anglican Communion following the conclusion of the Lambeth-Eames Commission, because they think the report will be little more than a "fudge", says David Phillips, General Secretary, Church Society. "There is no doubt that the Africans in particular do not really understand the western church. They do not understand the way it plays politics in bodies such as the General Synod or the Primates meetings. They do not understand how 'fundamentalist revisionist' Bishops in the US can persecute Christians and others turn a blind eye, they do not understand how some leaders can blatantly lie to them and they do not understand why we are so lifeless as a church and why we have sold out so thoroughly to the culture around us," said Phillips. These views were expressed at a meeting called by Anglican Mainstream at General Synod and included various leaders in the Anglican Communion - Greg Venables (Primate of the Southern Cone), Stephen Nyorsok (Bishop of Kitale, Kenya), Peter Rwaboma (Uganda) and Ellis Brust representing the Anglican Communion Network and the American Anglican Council, made a presentation at the meeting. "It is evident that none of them expect the Lambeth Commission to do any more than Rowan Williams and Robin Eames wanted it to do - produce a fudge," Phillips is reported as saying. Anglican Mainstream is a community within the Anglican Communion teaching and preserving the Scriptural truths on which the Anglican Church was founded. Church Society exists to promote a biblical faith which shapes both the Church of England and the society in which we live for the sake of Christ. END

Dear Brothers and Sisters, There is a deep contradiction (perhaps many) inside Frank Griswold, The Episcopal Church's Presiding Bishop. He talks much about the need for unity in the church, a need to come together across divisions, to "hear" and "listen" to one other, to have "deep conversation" and much more, all the while he and his fellow revisionist bishops do things that continue to separate us all from one another. While it is true that Anglicans do not have a central authority, we are bound, at the very least by Holy Scripture and more, all the while Episcopal church leaders continue to say that we are independent of the other 37 Primates and their provinces, accountable only to the Archbishop of Canterbury. The truth is ECUSA revisionist bishops, especially Frank Griswold don't care what the other Primates think anyway, he prefers to act independently on issues of sexual morality. All the while the ECUSA itself is riven by growing factions because of the church's sexual and doctrinal innovations. The more Griswold shouts unity, the more things keep falling apart. And it is not like Women's Ordination as the revisionists keep saying, and while the church survived, it paved the way for further innovations. What is worse is that the Global South bishops know it and so does the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Lambeth Commission will deliver itself of a verdict ere long, and then we will know for sure who is "independent" of whom. And when it comes to language, no one is better than Griswold at twisting words to make them mean what he wants them to mean. I have taken a long hard look at the way he uses words like "listening", "dialogue", "mediation" and "conversation". They are often smoke screens for my way or the highway. On the brighter side I interviewed TAC Primate Archbishop John Hepworth and you can read what he has to say about the future of traditionalists in the Anglican Communion. IT WAS ANOTHER WEEK OF CHAOS AND MAYHEM in the Anglican Communion. Episcopal globe trotter and strategist for the Communion's orthodox Primates Canon Bill Atwood made the case at the recent FIFNA conference in Texas that it was impossible to overrate the ill health of The Episcopal Church. He writes, "The difficulty nowadays is to make a caricature of the institution. The biggest concern is not that the parts are in ill health but the impact it has on those of us who have good health." You can read that story. In the DIOCESE OF COLORADO, two priests and two bishops duke it out in the press with charges made of deception, "secret protocols" and perjury by the orthodox clergy, with a revisionist bishop hissing and taunting the priests saying "present me if you dare". In the DIOCESE OF PENNSYLVANIA Charles Bennison got taken over the coals by parishioners and vestry at a Forward in Faith parish - St. Luke's, Newtown - where, in a face to face encounter his answers proved indisputably just how far off base revisionist bishops can get when they have no authority for what they say except "stories" and themselves. And a parish in the DIOCESE OF LOUISIANA, Holy Spirit Episcopal Church in Baton Rouge, wrote a letter to Frank Griswold saying, "We, the vestry of the Episcopal Church of the Holy Spirit, are most distressed by the misapplication of Holy Scripture and the grievous distortions of the Gospel contained in your pastoral letter of June 23 to the Episcopal Church." You can read the full letter in today's digest. And in the DIOCESE OF LONG ISLAND the sad saga of Bishop Orris Walker continues with a story saying the cathedral Dean was summarily fired by Walker and that the bishop's letter saying he resigned was a "gross inaccuracy". In a copy of the Dean's letter obtained by Virtuosity, Cardone wrote that "he [the bishop] never asked for my resignation, either verbally or in writing," and he accused the bishop of having a "convenient memory lapse" or being "a deliberate ruse." You can read that full report. And in the DIOCESE OF OHIO the homosexuality debate has divided the Episcopal Church with three churches in the Greater Akron area having a different view on what is acceptable. The Church of Our Saviour is proud to be part of the Episcopal Church USA, which ordained an openly gay bishop. St. Luke's is still Episcopal but would rather not be and Hudson Anglican never was Episcopal, having started with people who left the Episcopal Church over the ordination. Those differences are a reflection of the division that remains within the Episcopal Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion. In the DIOCESE OF CONNECTICUT, six orthodox parishes have written to The Rt. Rev. Andrew D. Smith applying for DEPO. The six parishes are Bishop Seabury Church, Groton; Christ Church, Watertown; St. John's Church, Bristol; St. Paul's Church, Darien; Trinity Church, Bristol and Christ & The Epiphany Church, East Haven. We wait with baited breath to see what eventuates. And in the DIOCESE OF HAWAII, the Bishop's Warden of Holy Cross at Malaekahana in Honolulu wrote a heart-wrenching letter to the liberal bishop there one Richard Chang on the impending split in the worldwide Anglican Communion. "American Episcopalians, a tiny (and declining) minority of the world's Christians, are so confident that we honor and ordain an exemplar of the open practice of a specifically forbidden sin. This to many is in apparent defiance of the prior understanding of most Christians as to the faith once received, and in disregard of the leaders of millions of worldwide Anglicans who call us to repentance. Why then are we so timorous in our discussions about it? Do we despair of reason?" You can read the full letter in today's digest. The Rev. Tony Seel rector, Saint Andrew's, Vestal, in the DIOCESE OF NEW YORK has written a piece in defense of the gospel. But he got taken to task by Louie Crew, over his parish's statistics. When the story was posted on the HOB/D list Crew said that in 1989 St. Andrew's reported between 300-400 members. "When Seel became rector six years ago, in 1998, the parish reported only between 200-300 members, down by about one-third. Crew said that in 2002 St. Andrew's reported no growth, with membership still between 200-300 members." Seel's response: "We cleaned the books (something I have found that liberals don't often do, because it decreases a parish's representation at diocesan conventions in a lot of places). I did the same thing in my previous parish. The parish has not lost a third of our members in my six years - this is totally false. We were pretty much on a plateau until GC 2003. Over 20 people left over GC 2003, some conservative, most liberal (left in response to parish joining the AAC). We have picked up a similar amount of new attendees, but giving is down from before the GC." ON THE INTERNATIONAL FRONT sweepstakes are being taken on who will succeed John Peterson as head of the Anglican Communion Office. Odds on favorite are Canon Gregory Cameron who works in the same office and is a close personal friend of Rowan Williams. He appeared at the Canadian Anglican gabfest in St. Catherine's recently and gave a middle of the road speech on whether the Canadians should offend gays or Global South bishops as they move forward into an unknown future. Word has it that Frank Griswold is pushing for an American to get the job. Either way a liberal will hold the top slot, thus marking it out for isolation by the Global South. But the real action this week was in the CHURCH OF ENGLAND SYNOD where the ARCHBISHOP OF YORK opined that the CofE is in danger of suffering a seismic rift over the issue of homosexuality. Dr David Hope called for church members to move on from the debate and concentrate on the Church's original task of converting the unbeliever. But the truly sinister stuff going on at General Synod is that they "kicked out" the Draft Clergy Discipline Measure, thus defeating the Conservatives who created the measure, and giving freedom to the gays. But this is all liberal spin says a Virtuosity reader who is at the Synod. "The first piece of evidence the press don't consider is that the Measure was created by General Synod itself, not the evangelicals on it, and it has been about four or five years in the cooking. The second piece of evidence that the press choose to ignore is that evangelicals have consistently opposed the measure; not because they don't want orthodoxy tests (we do), but because in its present form the measure was also designed to clip the wings of evangelical churches who were (for instance) church planting into liberal parishes, refusing to pay their quota because of the St Alban's debacle, not having an unorthodox bishop to do confirmations. The third piece of evidence: the argument that this was an evangelical move to clip heresy would explain why it passed through the House of Laity (who are the most conservative of the three Houses), and might explain why it failed to get through the House of Clergy. What the paradigm fails to explain is why the Measure passed massively in the House of Bishops. The last thing the Bishops want is to be tied up in a series of heresy trials, so why would they vote for it? Because it gave them more power over trouble makers, who are overwhelmingly at the moment the Conservatives. Why else would the bishop of St Alban's type of man want it through? In a word P-O-W-E-R. Press coverage is saying that it was a conservative plot against the gays? Of course. The Parliament of the World's Religions opened this week with such illustrious figures in attendance as "His Holiness" the Dalai Lama and "Her Holiness" Mata Amritanandamayi Devi, popularly known as Amma, the Indian-born spiritual leader who works to establish charitable institutions. London-based author Karen Armstrong, whose books include "A History of God," "Islam," and "Buddha," will also speak, as will Catholic theologian Hans Kung, president of the Foundation for a Global Ethic, and Rabbi Michael Learner. Among Episcopalians scheduled to participate in the Parliament gathering are Bishop Christopher Epting, the Presiding Bishop's deputy officer for ecumenical and interfaith relations; Sonia Omulepu, coordinator for the Episcopal Church's Interfaith Education Initiative; and Richard Parkins, director of Episcopal Migration Ministries. Episcopal deacon Gwynne Guibord, officer for ecumenical and interfaith concerns in the Diocese of Los Angeles, and Episcopal lay leader Kay Lindahl, director of the Listening Center in Laguna Niguel, California, are among Episcopalians leading workshops. It's ironic when you think about it. The Episcopal Church is imploding, it is doing its best to eviscerate, marginalize, yell homophobia, fundamentalist and much more at its orthodox and Evangelical wing, but it must make haste to Barcelona to make nice with this phony "parliament" who would water down all distinctions of faith and belief in favor of a grab bag of loosely held liberal notions about the goodness of mankind even as Islam rears its ugly head in countries like the Sudan, Nigeria, Iran, Iraq and Indonesia to wipe out Christians and Jews. It is really sad when in northern Nigeria, Shari'a loving Islamicists are busy slaughtering Anglican Christians. It's the irony to end all ironies, and The Episcopal Church is right in the thick of things pushing diversity and inclusion even as souls are being lost for all eternity. And you wonder why millions of orthodox Global South Anglicans have no respect for the Episcopal Church. On the specifically Anglican front regarding same-sex issues, the new Primate of New Zealand is a Maori and, as such, is opposed to homosexuality. In Canada, the First Nations are opposed and in the Diocese of New Westminster a large number of the clergy opposed are Chinese. In the United States, the Black clergy are also opposed. In Australia, the Uniting Church a few years ago failed to pass pro-Gay legislation because of the opposition of the Aborigines. And, of course, the Primates of the Global South are noisily opposed to homosexuality. This is a matter of record. Are we getting the picture here? NEW BIBLE FIRESTORM. Rowan William's backing of this "Good as New" book is setting off a firestorm amongst the English bishops, and, from several phone calls received not a few ECUSA prelates. Given previous divisions over the scandals in England and America last year, this really blanches the cabbage, de-centralizing Williams from the "supposed" centrist position which took after the English problem in June, putting him right into the fire kettle with Griswold and Robinson. Effectually, it compromises his position as first among equals in the now very uneven worldwide episcopate, making himself the focus of all that ails. An orthodox CofE bishop says it could enflame a constitutional crisis if enough of the bishops of the bench, that is, those in Parliament, take issue with him over his authority to subsume Scripture. Of course, this will set off a firestorm with the already doctrinally handicapped ACC in the UK, further widening the chasm within ECUSA. A NEW GROUP calling themselves "Accepting Evangelicals" in the CofE believe the time has come to move towards the acceptance of faithful, loving same-sex partnerships at every level of church life, and the development of a positive Christian ethic for gay and lesbian people. Accepting Evangelicals is a network of people who are increasingly uncomfortable with the hard-line statements which are being issued by some Evangelical groups, and the damage which this is causing, both to the church and the mission of the Gospel. Accepting Evangelicals is open both to people who believe that the Bible does not condemn loving, faithful same-sex relationships which are built on mutual commitment and self-giving love and to people who, although they do not personally hold this view are willing to accept the integrity of those who do. David Phillips General Secretary, Church Society, THE evangelical organization in the CofE says he is one of those groups mentioned as making hard-line statements. "By this I presume that they mean statements which could have been made by any orthodox Christian through the last two millenia. This is where evangelicalism has come, that people can delude themselves into believing that they have an interpretation of the Scriptures which is completely at odds with what every previous generation of believers have held. Of course they will not like it but it is clear they are not evangelical." CORRECTION: In my report on the dating of the Primates Commission, I cited Oct. 16 as the revelation date. However this refers to a memo from John Peterson saying the report should go to the ACC/Primates standing committee on Oct 15 & 16. He does not plan for the report to be public then. The Primates still want this in their hands first so Peterson can't spin it. In another note on Ingham's appointment to represent the Canadian Anglican Church in ECUSA comes this from Fr. Steve Lane: "He was elected by the General Synod to serve on the Council of General Synod (like our Executive Council). The Council elected Michael to represent it as the Partner to the Episcopal Church. The Council of General Synod also elected Bishop Rodney Andrews as alternate." IN TODAY'S DIGEST you can read a number of fine stories from commentators around the world, including Timothy Bradshaw, Bob Wenz and Max Stackhouse. WELCOME TO VIRTUOSITY! If you have not done so please consider making a tax deductible donation to Virtuosity. Virtuosity now has two part time staffers and this ministry depends totally on its readership for support. You can make out your tax deductible donation to: VIRTUOSITY 1236 Waterford Rd., West Chester, PA 19380 Or you can make a donation through PAYPAL at the website. Your gift will be acknowledged promptly. If you are in England, Virtuosity is a registered charity and you can send your donation to: VIRTUOSITY c/- Brycedale 105 Ridgeway Northaw Herts EN6 4BG Thank you for your support. All blessings, David W. Virtue DD

By David W. Virtue — Philadelphia, PA — July 12, 2004 The following conversation took place between the rector, vestry and congregation of St. Luke's Church, a Forward in Faith parish in Newtown, PA and Charles E. Bennison the Bishop of Pennsylvania on July 8, 2004. During their conversation, the bishop quoted chapter and verse from many scripture passages and used numerous Latin theological terms. He also told many stories. VIRTUOSITY obtained this abstract of that meeting. Bennison opened the conversation by saying that there was a serious 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 have less than 40 members. QUESTION: Isn't the Episcopal Church losing members? BENNISON: From 1992-1997 the Episcopal Church was the fastest growing church of the mainline protestant denominations in the US. We experienced a 2% yearly growth in members. There is a decline in some areas but growth in other areas. QUESTION: Isn't the Episcopal Church following the spirit of the secular culture rather than the teachings of the Bible? BENNISON: When King James I ascended the throne it was his decision to bring various competing groups within the Anglican Church of the time to produce a new Bible translation. I have just read "God's Secretaries" by Adam Nicholson. The new Bible translation was a committee effort by scholars from Puritan and Catholic backgrounds. King James forbade the use of explanatory notes in his translation because we all hear things differently when we read the Bible. We need to ask ourselves how we use the Bible and how we maintain the unity of the church. QUESTION: Didn't you say the Church wrote the Bible and the Church can change the Bible? BENNISON: I was misquoted. What I said was I was taught in seminary by Reginald Fuller: "The Church wrote the Bible. The Bible did not write the Church". This is what I was taught in seminary. We need to use the Bible pastorally. We should not use the Bible to condemn people. The Episcopal Church is a pastoral church. We live together in ambiguity. A pastor preaches the gospel to the community of faith as he perceives the gospel at work in the lives of that particular faith community. The gospel will sound different in every parish as it is lived out in the lives of the people and expressed by the preaching of their pastor. The bishop then told a lengthy story about two African Americans who were struggling with issues that he believed were a result of present racism and past slavery in the US. He said the Bible condones and supports slavery. The church now rejects slavery. QUESTION: Is Jesus the only way to salvation? BENNISON: Yes. For us Jesus is the only way to salvation because He shows us God's love. Christianity is a unique religion. Through the Incarnation God is one for us. But is Christ God's final act? We can't say that because we cannot see the future. We don't know what God will do next to redeem us. The Bible tells us that the Kingdom of God has not yet come. The Scriptures are internally contradictory on the surface. Their interpretation varies according to the needs of the hearer. The bishop quoted a number of scripture passages to substantiate his point. He contrasted different views of Jesus in the different gospels and said that the gospel of John represents the Church's post resurrection understanding of Jesus while Mark represents a pre-resurrection understanding. QUESTION: How can you help us at St. Luke's meet our needs? BENNISON: The Episcopal Church has a diversity of people and a diversity of needs. I am not asking you to believe as I believe. We all practice the faith differently. But, it is not good for us to enclose ourselves in a community of like-minded people. PARISHIONER: We all feel marginalized in the church. Labels are destructive. QUESTION: Aren't you using our concerns against us? Haven't you done that to the other Forward in Faith parishes? BENNISON: I was surprised when St. John's Huntingdon Valley notified me that they were leaving the church. They asked to buy their property and of course I refused. They left but there is now an active congregation there with a wonderful rector. We all believe in the Bible. That is not the issue. Each of the alienated parishes has its own issues apart from the authority of the Bible. St. James formed an illegal corporation to take the parish out of the diocese. Good Shepherd, Rosemont has not received the required Episcopal visitation for years. The bishop is responsible for the parishes in financial matters and clergy discipline. We are all accountable to each other in the Body of Christ. We are a catholic church. The bishop is the pontiofex - the bridge who unites the church. QUESTION: What do we have to do to have permission for Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight? BENNISON: It is the same as it has been since 1998. Receive the diocesan bishop for a full Episcopal visit. The vestry welcomes the bishop, opens its books for examination, allows the bishop to preach, celebrate, baptize and confirm. The Diocesan bishop must visit more frequently than the visiting bishop. The parish must pay its full assessment. The parish must pay at least the voluntary 10% mission offering. The mission offering goes in thirds to the National Church, Diocesan Mission, Diocesan salaries. PARISHIONER: Bishop that is not accurate, you have changed your requirements recently to include the 10 percent mission giving, but it was not part of your requirements from 1998. BENNISON RESPONDS: Maybe that was not part of the original requirement, but it's been there a long time, maybe 1998, 1999. QUESTION: Are we required to pay the 10% of our income to the mission fund to qualify for DEPO? BENNISON: Yes. QUESTION: Are we in compliance with all of the other provisions? BENNISON: No. I have only visited you twice in the last 7 and a half years and the visit on June 20th didn't count since you did not present a confirmation class. QUESTION: How can we be held accountable for not presenting a confirmation class? The confirmation class itself chose not to be confirmed by you. Are you saying that the people of the parish must accept confirmation at your hands? BENNISON: The leadership of the St. Luke's unifies the parish in opposition to me. You treat the bishop as an enemy, encouraging a fight or flight response. You label me as a deviant. QUESTION: Bishop, we welcomed you to the parish. You preached and celebrated at both Sunday morning services. There were no protests and some people received communion from you. No one told the confirmation class not to come forward. It was solely their choice. Don't you think it is unfair to say we paint you as the enemy? If that were true you would have been greeted by an empty parish. BENNISON: I have been hasty. I withdraw my comment. The bishop is the center of unity. The DEPO process is about reconciliation so you really don't need another bishop. QUESTION: Isn't it true that you are out of communion with many of the Anglican Archbishops in the world because of your vote to approve the consecration of Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire? BENNISON: I am in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. So, we are all in communion. QUESTION: Are you in communion with Archbishop Akinola? BENNISON: (Bennison repeated the above answer, followed by a restatement of the question.) "I would probably say no." QUESTION: How frequently can we have a visiting bishop? BENNISON: Assuming you meet the requirements I just stated, once every ten years. You can do no better than to have me come. QUESTION: Bishop, I believe the Bible is God's Word and is the guidebook for life. I am concerned that you do not accept the authority of the Bible. Is that your position? BENNISON: The church during the Reformation rewrote the Bible by deleting the Apocrypha. Whenever we authorize new translations we re-write the Bible. The Bible is a rule book for life for some people; I read it as a series of narrative stories that give me spiritual insights. QUESTION: You say you believe in Christ as your Savior. Can you share with us your personal testimony? BENNISON: I am a once born Christian. I was baptized into the church as an infant. QUESTION: Bishop, when you speak of The Church are you speaking of the Episcopal Church in the United States? BENNISON: Yes. I have always lived in the Episcopal Church. I have never had a burning bush experience. I have had multiple experiences of Christ in the Church. QUESTION: Could you explain to us why you voted to consecrate a divorced man living in a relationship with another man as a bishop in the church? BENNISON: This was the mind of the church. The great majority of the church approves this. We were aware of some dissent. I was in awe of not knowing the result. QUESTION: How could you ignore the decision of the last Lambeth Conference and the pleas of the Archbishops of the Anglican Communion as well as concerns of the Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals? BENNISON: Bishop Griswold was aware there was some concern expressed. There has been some sadness expressed. Everyone recognized this was an important moment. No one has sought to see this as a victory or a defeat. The Holy Spirit was at work. PARISHIONER COMMENTS: The bishop also explained that the concerns were not taken seriously because of past experience on other issues such as the ordination of women, when people did not follow through on their concerns. QUESTION: Wasn't this decision contrary to Scripture? BENNISON: How we use the Bible is fundamental. Do you oppose women's ordination? Should women keep silent in the church? Is it right to own slaves? It is all about interpretation. PARISHIONER COMMENTS: Bishop, I agree the Eucharist is the meal of unity with Christ and therefore with each other, but in the Early Church converts were not admitted to the Eucharist until the community was certain that they held unity of faith in Jesus as the Christ and the only means of salvation. The Eucharist expresses unity, it does not create unity. It's as though you are expressing what you think we want to hear, but what you're saying tonight is different from what you've written and said in the past. BENNISON: For example? RESPONSE: Such as what you wrote in your Easter message for 2003, or what you said in your sermon here on June 20. BENNISON: What did I say in my sermon? What was the text? PARISHIONER: Jesus' question to the disciples "who do you say that I am?" You said that Jesus was not sure who he was whether he was the Messiah or not - that he had to turn to those around him to discover his identity. BENNISON: Yes, that's the new thinking... ALTOGETHER: Loud groaning from the vestry and congregation. QUESTION: You seem to suggest that scripture contradicts itself rather than complementing itself. Is that what you believe? BENNISON: That is what I was taught in seminary. John's view of Jesus is that He is the way, the Truth, and the Life, the only way to salvation. That was true for him then. But God may choose to act in another way. Who are we to limit God? QUESTION: I'm confused about how you are using Scripture. You seem to mix matters pertaining to the salvation and sanctification of souls with pastoral concerns for how people feel about themselves. Is that true? BENNISON: That is an interesting insight. QUESTION: If Jesus is not the only way to salvation then why are we here? Why should the church exist and you have a job? I believe the Bible and I trust Christ for my salvation. BENNISON: Hallelujah. Thanks for sharing your story. We all have different stories. All are valid. PARISHIONER: Bishop, I've said nothing till now, but you indicated at the start of the meeting that you had been misquoted about "man/church wrote the Bible - we can rewrite the Bible" but you said that to me sitting at a table in a restaurant during a luncheon meeting, and I know you've not been misquoted. BENNISON: No response. QUESTION: To summarize your understanding of our DEPO request. You believe our differences are minor and there is no need for us to have a visiting bishop? BENNISON: Yes. I believe our differences are minor. I want to thank you all for sharing your stories with me. I am more than willing to continue the dialogue. I'll meet with you as often as you like. Nothing is decided. I may change my mind, I've done it before. YOU CAN ALWAYS HAVE BISHOP SPONG AS A VISITING BISHOP. PARISHIONER: Bishop, the "offer" of Spong was not funny the first time you said it to me, and it's not funny now. BENNISON: O ye of little humor. PARISHIONER: Can you supply us with a statement in writing of your requirements for us to have a visiting bishop? BENNISON: Yes, I'll send something to you. I look forward to our next meeting. FOOTNOTE: The offer of continuing meetings was perceived by the vestry as a technique used by the bishop to change nothing, but keep us participating in a discussion until we give up in frustration, tolerated his difference, or accept him and his teachings as valid.

June 25, 2004 Dear Bishop Chang: I know you are forced, by your calling as our spiritual leader, to wrestle with these issues. The attached article, and these considerations of mine, are offered faithfully and in hope, that you may be guided by the Holy Spirit as you lead our Diocese in the one holy catholic and apostolic faith. Our entire delegation to last year's national convention voted for the action that precipitated the impending worldwide split. Only one among them felt obliged to give any explanation. While admirable in its length and erudition, we heard lectures on social and cultural matters, with no substantive reference to the authority of scripture independent of the context-bound spirit of the age. And who is to say what that spirit of the age is? Spengler and Nietzsche and Heidegger said it was what made Nazism nearly the world conqueror, Marx, Engels, Lenin and Mao said it was what nearly made atheist communism the conqueror of all. I believe that, in our Diocese, it is therefore yet incumbent upon the faithful to return to the scriptures and the dialogue with each other and to seek guidance. Are we to suffer this schism from the Anglican communion gladly? Are we clearly pono and so may disregard the pleas from our more numerous Global South brothers and sisters that we repent? It's the first place yet that I've seen mentioned the important distinction, worked out in blood and travail through the many European and English religious struggles, between the RITES and CIVIL PRECEPTS of the Old Testament, and the MORAL Commandments. Our church agreed at its founding, in 1801, that the former two are not, but that the latter are, BINDING ON THE CHRISTIAN. That is to say, it is not the ancient social or political order, nor the particular forms of punishment, nor the food rituals, nor the master-slave relationships, nor any "ritual purity" precepts of the Hebrew Bible that we are to follow. But our church's founders agreed, in the Articles of Religion, that in our voluntary actions in our relation to others, we Christians are to follow the MORAL Commandments of the Hebrew Bible. Christ came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. His men, like David's, plucked grain, and He Himself healed, on the Sabbath. This was His open disregard of certain CIVIL PRECEPTS, namely, what to do or not to do, on a certain day of the week. Christ saved an adulteress from a stoning: but he told her to "go and sin no more." He shamed the judges into withholding an awful, though scriptural, punishment. But He did not tell her that her MORAL sin was no more a sin! American Episcopalians, a tiny (and declining) minority of the world's Christians, are so confident that we honor and ordain an exemplar of the open practice of a specifically forbidden sin. This to many is in apparent defiance of the prior understanding of most Christians as to the faith once received, and in disregard of the leaders of millions of worldwide Anglicans who call us to repentance. Why then are we so timorous in our discussions about it? Do we despair of reason? Can we be sure that to simply dispense with our anchor in scripture and to lead from the spirit of the age is not to be led by a deceiving spirit? Is tolerance to be tolerance of all things? Of what do I speak? Leaders in our Diocese who insist that words cannot be relied upon to reliably communicate with each other: this is despair of reason. Assembled church lay and clerical representatives who refuse to even consider the issues at hand: this is despair of reason. A visiting Bishop of the church who freely calls the Bible a fairy tale and a myth, and proclaims a "non-theist" doctrine, yet is welcomed by some in the church: this is tolerance taken to the extreme. Without the careful use of words, the study of pertinent holy scripture, our historic traditions, and the faithful use of our reason (in obedience to His will) how can we be sure we're pono? What does our Church reliably rest upon? The constitution and canons alone will most certainly not be enough. The truths revealed to us by the Holy Spirit, per our catechism, are known to be of that Spirit when they are "in accord with scripture" (BCP, p. 852). This is not to call for any "bibliolatry", but for a comparison of new truths, if they be of the Holy Spirit, with God's Word. Christianity is a religion of the ages and the endless multitudes of saints, it is not a plaything of a temporary sociological subgroup that can, without real and earnest defense of its innovations on scriptural principles, simply disregard the accepted MORAL Commandments our founders agreed are binding. You cannot persuade millions of believers, many of whom are locked in a life and death struggle for survival, or who find themselves unavoidably subject to persecution and intimidation by Muslims and communists, that the latest pansexual pastimes, no matter how discretely and honorably practiced, among a few urban sophisticates, are the inevitable progressive wing of Christianity that all are destined to follow, without some better reasoning and deeper scriptural understanding than what has been made evident so far. Love, when it finds a wound, binds it up, but may put a stinging antiseptic on it. The wounded who avoids antiseptic, may feel better for awhile, but will regret it, with much more pain, and the threat of death, as time goes on. Sin, like a wound, needs healing, not tolerance, and not rationalizations to avoid a bit of emotional pain. To malama our mana will take some ho'opono'pono. Faithfully, Boyd Ready Bishop's Warden, Holy Cross at Malaekahana

By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent — The London Times — July 11, 2004 The Church of England is in danger of suffering a seismic rift over the issue of homosexuality, the Archbishop of York, Dr David Hope, said yesterday. He called for church members to move on from the debate and concentrate on the Church's original task of converting the unbeliever. Dr Hope, leading a Bible study seminar at the summer meeting of the General Synod in York, said that the Church was "in danger of being overwhelmed in respect of the single issue of sex and sexuality to the extent that we are almost wholly diverted and distracted from the fundamental priority of the mission entrusted to us by Christ". Dr Hope was speaking shortly before the synod threw out proposals to introduce heresy trials for clergy who step out of line on orthodox church teachings. If the proposal had been passed, clergy or bishops who knowingly ordained a practising homosexual or who promoted or preached in favour of a gay lifestyle could have found themselves in the doctrinal dock and removed from their post, or unfrocked. Dr Hope, speaking at York University, compared the present turmoil in the Anglican Communion and the wider world with the traumas of the early Church and the first Christians. He said: "You and I may not yet be called to witness to Christ to the point of bloodshedding, but that does not mean to say that we are not called to martyrdom." Arguing that "witness" was a key feature of trying to follow the Christian path, he said that many synod members, as churchgoers and as people living in the world, had the feeling of being "overwhelmed" by events around them. Referring directly to the Church, Dr Hope continued: "As you might just have noticed we have not been without our squalls, seismic and otherwise." He urged church members to study and learn from the history of Christianity, in particular the first five centuries, when arguments "raged" about the nature of Christ and of the Trinity, threatening "the very existence and continuance of the Church". Dr Hope's Bible exposition came as the Lambeth Commission - set up to find a way through the difficulties caused by homosexual ordinations and same-sex blessing rites - prepares to report back in October. Church leaders fear that there will be no way forward without some "realignment" between the episcopal churches of the West and of the Global South, if not a complete breach of communion amounting to a schism between conservative evangelicals and liberals. Drawing a comparison between the present disputes and controversies in the early Church, Dr Hope pleaded for a more Christian tenor to "the tone of the way we both handle and debate deeply disputed issues".

From Rector and Vestry of the Episcopal Church of the Holy Spirit — July 4, 2004 The Most Reverend Frank Griswold, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, 815 Second Avenue, New York, New York 10017 Dear Bishop Griswold: We, the vestry of the Episcopal Church of the Holy Spirit, are most distressed by the misapplication of Holy Scripture and the grievous distortions of the Gospel contained in your pastoral letter of June 23 to the Episcopal Church. In this obliquely worded and palliative attempt to justify your consecration of a noncelibate homosexual as bishop and the resulting inevitable fracture between the Episcopal Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion, you have indulged in specious reasoning that is truly stunning in its arrogance. You are correct when you say in your letter that this is "not an easy time in the life of the church, as we live with questions that yield no easy answers," which presumably is an indirect way of referring to the controversy over the role of noncelibate homosexuals in church leadership. The answer to this question, however, is clearly stated in God's Word and, furthermore, has been supported through hundreds of years of church tradition and reasoning by the great saints of the faith: Noncelibate homosexuality is sin and not acceptable in a church leader. As you say, ecclesial divisions and polarities are indeed "the order of the day" but you fail to mention your own part in fomenting the resulting "anxiety, confusion, fear, and anger." If you had not chosen to flout the authority of Scripture and church teaching, to stubbornly ignore the pleas of your fellow primates of the Anglican Communion, the present division in the church could have been avoided. You write that, because the church is "called into being not by us, but by God through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit," it is "never ours." True, it is God's church, but it is doubtful that you actually believe this. If you did, you never would have had the temerity to wrest authority from God and revise His Word to your own liking. Your section on love is truly eloquent. The radical love of Christ within us does indeed open us to constant surprise, give us the ability to discern Christ in others, and demand that we relinquish our plans, views, and expectations in favor of God's. Any Christian who worships and serves God in spirit and in truth can attest to this. However, you fail to mention an important dimension of love: While Christ requires us to love others as he loves us, we are not to condone their sin but help them overcome it. Jesus ministered his love and healing in radical and life-changing ways, but never did he accept sin. We are to emulate Christ by loving the sinner but rejecting the sin. Our church is now not only openly condoning sin, but celebrating it by placing an unrepentant sinner in a position of authority. This is especially grievous when the person's role makes him or her a model for the church, as bishops are meant to be. As Romans 3:23 says, we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Mercifully, God loves us even in our sin, but full fellowship with him requires us to confess our sins and repent of them. We see no repentance within the leadership of the Episcopal Church, but instead a selfish insistence on a road that can only lead the church farther and farther from God. Your use of the story of Peter's rooftop vision as an analogy to reinforce your own perspective on the church's acceptance of noncelibate homosexuals is a false and blatantly self-serving application of Scripture. God showed Peter that simply being Gentiles did not preclude people from the church, that God loved them as much as he loved the Jews. But sinful Gentiles were expected to repent, to renew their minds, to change their lives, just as today those who desire intimate relationship with God are called to radical new lives of repentance in accordance with God's Word. Your implied analogy with noncelibate homosexuals fails because deliberate and continuing noncelibacy is a state of sin and is contrary to God's Word. Bishop Griswold, we too hope and pray for healing and reconciliation in a broken and divided world. But reconciliation in the Episcopal Church cannot happen if you as presiding bishop continue to bless sin, because we and other orthodox Episcopal churches will not seek unity at any cost. We continue to remain faithful to Scripture and church tradition, and we continue to pray for the repentance of our church's leadership. You remain in our prayers, The Rector and Vestry of the Episcopal Church of the Holy Spirit, Baton Rouge, LA Copy: The Right Reverend Charles E. Jenkins

The Archbishop of Canterbury talks to Roy Hattersley about Tony Blair, war and God Sunday July 11, 2004 — The Observer Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of All England, possesses personal modesty and moral certainty in equal measure. Combined with the scholarly precision of his language and his unqualified belief in the message of the Gospels, those qualities make him reluctant to give glib answers to simplistic questions. They also enable him to express strong views in gentle language. It is a technique which allowed Downing Street to describe his criticisms of government ('manipulating the media ... habitually repressing criticism') as 'elliptical'. He could hardly have been more direct in his condemnation of the war in Iraq. At a time when mistakes are being admitted and errors of judgment exposed, didn't he think an apology was necessary. He does not. 'Those who took the decision [to go to war] were acting in good faith.' I suggested that 'acting in good faith' understated the conviction of a Prime Minister who 'has no doubt that he is doing God's work'. The Archbishop described the Blair conscience in more theologically acceptable terms. 'He believes that he's answerable for what he does, and I respect that.' Answerable? Rowan Williams had already spoken of the instigators of the war being 'called to account'. Unsure what that meant, I asked him to explain. 'Two levels. At the simplest level, the public - nations, electorates - watch for the results. Politicians take large risks. I think they know that and the Prime Minister acknowledged it. Anyone making decisions involving the lives and welfare of other people must answer to God.' I asked, in the language of the Victorian Church, if the answer would be required 'at the Judgment Seat'. To my astonishment, the Archbishop of Canterbury replied - carefully enunciating each word - 'at the Judgement Seat'. That raised the question of what the penalty would be for an inadequate reply. I understood that, in life, Tony Blair and George W Bush might have to live with the knowledge that the death and destruction in the Iraq war could not morally be justified. But was the Archbishop talking about punishment after death? The penalty for those 'found wanting' at the Judgment Seat is, or used to be, Eternal Damnation. The Archbishop of Canterbury worships a more merciful and a more subtle God. 'Not damnation. But you know the scale of the mistakes you've made ...' I interrupted him to make sure I understood that he meant more than the regrets of old age. Was he, I asked, talking about 'the life to be, God's reckoning?' The Archbishop's reply - expanding the general to the particular - could not have been more categoric. 'You only see the clear perspectives of the situation when some of the ordinary muddles and selfishness of what life now involves have somehow slipped away. I'm talking about judgment and punishment. I've always thought that the essence of judgment is simply to be face to face with the truth - and no escape.' Was he really saying George W Bush and Tony Blair - and the rest of us - would, after death, still be able to feel guilt and remorse? Again, there was no doubt about the Archbishop's certainty. In the next life we will all be 'cognisant and conscious' beings, capable of suffering the torment of the truth about ourselves. Putting aside the implication of that doctrine for the Prime Minister and the President, it seemed - in my atheist ignorance - astonishing that a man of such obvious intellectual sophistication should speak in such fundamentalist language. The time had come to advance into the remote recesses of faith. 'Is it possible,' I asked, 'to be simply an ethical Christian or must I believe in the mysteries and miracles?' The answer - hedged about with a description of how a moral commitment usually evolves into 'something pretty indistinguishable from those doctrines' - seemed to be 'No'. I moved on to another one of the great intangibles. Are human beings redeemed, that is to say 'saved', by good works or by faith? The Archbishop answered that 'big classical question' with the explanation that 'neither good works (the way you act) nor faith (a state of mind) can guarantee a place in heaven. What brings you into eternal life is a relationship with God' - an answer which did not help me fumble my way towards my intended inquiry about 'the good life' (pace Thomas Aquinas rather than Tony Bennett). So I just asked, 'Is it the Church's job - your job as its head - to guide the nation's morals?' 'It is the duty of a religious community, part of its job, to say to the rest of society: "This is what matters about human beings, these are non-negotiable things about human beings" ... There are a range of matters where the Church says this far and no further - the image of God requires more than this.' So how does the Church decide what those issues are? 'There is always a range of possible issues and there is a danger of them becoming issues of the week. I think ecclesiastical spokesmen are prone to this ... A lot depends on being a bit reactive - what comes up at a particular moment.' It was the Archbishop of Canterbury's misfortune to have the issue of gay clergy - the nomination of Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading - 'come up' at the very start of his archiepiscopate. I wondered if the wounds, endured as a result of his reaction to that proposal, had healed. Is he 'anxious not to be quite as controversial as it was assumed he would be when first appointed?' 'A lot of people helped to build up the picture of the controversial, turbulent priest. I have to be as honest as I can within the framework of the responsibilities I have to a large range of people. I have never thought there is any virtue in being controversial for its own sake.' Although Rowan Williams is a man whose word it is impossible to doubt, it did seem - during his early months in Lambeth Palace - that he was attracted to trouble. In February 2003, he announced that it was 'perfectly reasonable for those hoping to stay in Britain to be kept in secure accommodation while their cases are considered'. He appears genuinely surprised that his statement was interpreted as a support for imprisoning asylum seekers. That was not his intention. He meant 'security in a wider sense' - a concept difficult to define. Thirteen months later, he again demonstrated the wisdom of not commenting on the event of the week. He criticised Footballers' Wives for exhibiting 'different sorts of selfish behaviour'. The programme's executive producer said the Archbishop had missed the point. He disagrees. 'I knew it was ironic. I knew it was self-parody. Like a good moral comedy, it drew out an extreme version of human behaviour.' But it was the peg on which he hung two fundamental criticisms of modern society which television epitomises and encourages. The first is 'emotional voyeurism' - not just observing sex and suffering, but wanting to see 'other people going through extremes of feeling - anger and misery'. Both television drama and reality TV pander to a taste which the Archbishop finds baffling as well as distasteful. That is not, in itself, unworldly, but a surprise that expressing such opinions makes tabloid headlines is. The question which now hangs over Rowan Williams is whether or not the bruising experience of those early months - the abuse from the homophobic wing of the Church and the threat by the African bishops to break up the Anglican Communion - had driven him back from his own convictions that gay clergy, homosexual in inclination but celibate in life, should not be victimised. I suggested a preoccupation with unity was the reaction to be expected from a 'Prince of the Church' while the refusal to be driven off principle was the response of a 'Man of God' and that the accusation that he had chosen to occupy the wrong role was a 'very severe criticism'. He accepted the severity of the criticism but refuted it with the insistence that 'unity is a principle ... it is all to do with a calculation that goes something like this. The decision was one which severely ruptured a whole set of relationships which are not about structural harmony but about mutual learning and mutual giving - relationships, let's say, between churches in the developing world and the Church here or the Church in the States. To rupture those relations would be bad for the Church not as an institution but as a community ... making people feel they have not been taken seriously.' He then added, with admirable humility, 'I recognise the argument of unity versus principle and it stings. It goes deep.' No one can doubt that it does. But, integrity being beyond question, his decision may have been an error of judgment. I suggested that men and women of every sort are longing for people who speak out, who say 'it is wrong to discriminate against gays and I do not care what the consequences are of my saying so. It is a matter of principle.' Wouldn't it do the Church a world of good if people said that sort of thing? The Archbishop got very near to agreeing and perilously close to exhibiting regret that the inhibitions which are imposed upon him require discretion. 'I have had it borne in on me - I do not mean by weighty figures but borne in by the office - that, as Archbishop, I have to keep as many voices in play as possible ... The voices in the developing world, people who regularly feel marginal in pretty well every respect, this is another turn of the screw for them. I'm serious about the international dimension here. That is probably what weighs with me most, personally and emotionally.' Concern for the developing world - in the argument about the acceptability of gay clergy, normally a euphemism for Nigerian obduracy - leaves a palpably principled Archbishop with a dilemma. Some of his brother bishops openly speak of homosexuals in the pure language of prejudice. How does he deal with them? 'When our conference had a discussion in '98 about this, one of the things that the famous resolution said was that we had a commitment to listen to the voices of gay people. When I hear what I do regard as deeply prejudiced voices coming out of the Church I say "look, we have that commitment as well" ... There are some things which should not be said in the Church or anywhere else.' The hope of renewed harmony lies, the Archbishop believes, in the 'difficult and quite recent principle that orientation and sexual behaviour can be distinguished'. Jeffrey John is celibate. But that has not prevented the Reverend David Holloway, leader of Reform within the Church of England, excoriating him. That, the Archbishop says, is why the 'discipline making a disjunction between orientation and behaviour is important. The Church is committed to it, whatever any individual cleric may say.' The Church of England exists on compromise. But Islam seems to flourish on the refusal to yield. If a young Muslim, working in a Birmingham car factory, says that it is absurd that during Ramadan he must not eat between dawn and dusk, he is told by his priest that the Koran brooks no amendment. I wondered if the Archbishop thought people responded more enthusiastically to an absolute view of belief and faith. 'Some clearly do. Some are clearly appalled by it. If you look, second- and third-generation Muslim families have a lot of the same problems with teenagers that other families do.' My suggestion that they may be just as prone to steal motor cars, but probably still believe that the sky is God's canopy provoked the response that an 'older generation of Muslims would have regarded seeing the sky as God's canopy and not stealing motor cars was a part of the same ethical tradition'. The Archbishop is all of a piece. He never tries to divide virtue between faith and good works.