Church of England Newspaper | July 8, 2004 In the wake of claims that the Eames Commission has excluded the voices of gays and lesbians from its deliberations comes new word that internal tensions centering around its Steering Committee and staff may divide the Commission. Some members object to a perceived pursuit by the Commission's Steering Committee of "enlightened expediency" at the expense of truth. Non-Western members of the Commission are troubled that the steering committee has privileged a European worldview that allows canon law to trump doctrine. Some Commission members are also concerned that the ACC staff will manipulate the proceedings. On Oct. 2, The Church of England Newspaper reported that a memorandum to the Archbishop of Canterbury, prepared by an ACC staffer, argued that it was imperative that the will of the majority of Primates be frustrated in their plans to discipline the Episcopal Church and the diocese of New Westminster, Canada. ACC staffers inadvertently gave Dr. Paul Zahl — a member of the Inter Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission and Dean of the Cathedral of the Advent in Birmingham, Alabama — a copy of the memo. Dr. Zahl said the memo argued: "The conservatives and the Americans will try to get their way by making a lot of fuss, but we must resist at all costs listening to that." Some Commission members are wary that a similar attempt will be made to frustrate their work. The members of the steering committee are Archbishop Eames, his two legal advisors — the Rev. John Rees and Dr. Norman Doe — and commission secretary Canon Gregory Cameron, who is one of three finalists to replace the Rev. Canon John L. Peterson as Secretary General of the Anglican Consultative Council. Canon Cameron's May 29 address to the 37th General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada, on behalf of the commission, surprised many of its members, as they had not been briefed about the speech before its presentation. Canon Cameron offered a stark choice to Synod: "If you say 'no' to the motions before you [authorising same-sex blessings], then you will be in danger of letting down the thousands of gay people in your midst, who are part of your Canadian family." "But if you say 'yes,' the work of the Lambeth Commission becomes horribly complicated, because we will be told that the Anglican Church of Canada refuses to hear the voice, or to heed the concerns of your fellow Anglicans in the growing Provinces of the Global South, who are your international family." Canon Cameron's speech drew mixed responses, as some were disconcerted by the curt tone while others were annoyed by the usurpation of the Commission's prerogatives by its staff. Archbishop Eames' press officer, the Rev. Brian Parker, said reports of tensions between the staff and members have been overstated. Bishop Tom Wright of Durham, while declining to discuss the internal workings of the Commission, confirmed that the second plenary session had been "very frank, very friendly, very cordial and hard-working." "Canon Cameron was authorized to speak to the Canadian General Synod by the chair and steering committee," Mr. Parker said. "The words were his own but the broad outline was discussed at the steering committee."

By Tony Seel Dear Friends, There is a Russian parable that goes like this: A hunter raised his rifle and took careful aim at a large bear. The hunter was about to pull the trigger when the bear spoke in a soft, soothing voice: "Isn't it better to talk than shoot? What do you want? Let us negotiate the matter." Lowering his rifle, the hunter replied, "I want a fur coat." "Good," said the bear, "that is a negotiable question. I only want a full stomach, so let us negotiate a compromise." They sat down to negotiate, and after a time the bear walked away alone. The negotiations had been successful. The bear had a full stomach, and the hunter had his fur coat. There are times to compromise, and there are other times when compromise will eat you alive. As much as all of us would love peace in the Episcopal Church, to declare peace when there is conflict and discord is dishonest. As much as all of us would like to go on as if nothing important happened at General Convention last summer, we have to honestly acknowledge that the actions of that body have disrupted the life of our church. There was little compromise in the controversial decisions of GC 2003, and it has proved impossible to find a compromise position in the aftermath. We are in the belly of a national church that has lost its way. What will we do? We will continue to do what we have always done. We will proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ from the pulpit, in our classrooms, and in our daily lives. We will seek to live lives that show forth the glory of God's redeeming power and bear testimony to His saving grace. We will stand firm on the truth of Scripture and not trim the gospel to the dimensions of this age. Our national church is in full-scale accommodation to secular culture, and we cannot follow it there and also be faithful to Jesus Christ. The Episcopal Church has not yet been swallowed whole by the standards of an unbelieving world. While the membership of the Episcopal Church has been going down in numbers and as a percentage of the U.S. population for four decades, the largest percentage loss was during the Decade of Evangelism. A forty-year process of decline has decimated our ranks, but it hasn't yet finished us off. There are churches in every diocese that confidently believe the gospel and boldly declare its power and truth, and these churches have been growing even as their dioceses have been declining. We intend to be one of those churches. According to Canon Kevin Martin of Vital Church Ministries, in one-third of our Episcopal churches, "inclusion has replaced evangelism, therapeutic self-acceptance has replaced conversion, and political correctness has replaced belief." This is a way of death for churches, individuals, and the Episcopal Church, and St. Andrew's will not follow along on this path. We will continue to proclaim the positive message of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The gospel is about Jesus' power to transform our lives, and this will continue to be the message declared at St. Andrew's. Our mission is "Growing God's Kingdom," and we will be confident in pursuing what we believe God is calling us to be. Otherwise, we will be the man in the fur coat. Yours in Christ, The Rev. Tony Seel is rector, Saint Andrew's, Vestal, New York.

By Madeleine Collins | The Southern Cross The Sydney Standing Committee has bolstered the heavyweight pressure being put on the Archbishop of Canterbury's Lambeth Commission to penalise the Episcopal Church of the United States (ECUSA) over the controversial appointment of Bishop V. Gene Robinson. After a lengthy debate in late May, the Standing Committee resolved to support the conservative primates of the Global South — representing two-thirds of the Communion — in their call to the Lambeth Commission to urge ECUSA to turn back to God and withdraw from their election of openly gay Bishop Robinson. The Standing Committee also supported the Primates' call to the Commission to invoke disciplinary action, if necessary, that could involve ECUSA's expulsion from the Communion. It supported the Primates' view that such extreme action was necessary because Bishop Robinson's appointment in the Diocese of New Westminster last year demonstrated that ECUSA had "abandoned" the teaching of Scripture as it relates to matters "necessary to salvation." The Standing Committee therefore believes they need "to repent, and to rescind and revoke their election of Bishop Robinson." It also supports the maintenance of those parishes and dioceses "who are seeking to uphold the historic faith of the Anglican Communion as set forth in Holy Scripture." The Nigerian Primate, Archbishop Peter Akinola, writing on behalf of the Primates, said in a strongly worded statement that ECUSA has been deliberate in its "disobedience of the revealed will of God in the Holy Scriptures … and has wilfully torn 'the fabric of the Communion at its deepest level.'" The Lambeth Commission, also known as the Eames Commission, is a group appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury charged with finding a resolution to the deep rift in the worldwide church over the appointment of gay clergy. The group is due to present its findings in October. The Primates have given ECUSA a three-month deadline following the Commission's report to repent and revoke Bishop Robinson's appointment. The 18 Primates who have challenged the Commission are a group of African, Asian and South American clergy who preside over 50 million of the world's 70 million Anglicans. The pronouncement adds weight to a recent show of unity amongst the Australian Bishops in upholding biblical truths relating to gender and homosexuality in light of the damaging events in New Westminster. At a meeting of the Australian Bishops in March, the bishops together affirmed a resolution on human sexuality passed at the Lambeth Conference in 1998, "as conversations continue in relation to this complex and sensitive matter."

by Euan Bear Out in the Mountains Vermont Bishop Thomas Ely met individually with press representatives in Montpelier to release three proposed rites for blessing same-gender unions. The liturgies are the fruit of more than a year's work by a task force appointed by the progressive Vermont bishop. The released document is called "A Report to the Bishop and People of the Episcopal Diocese of Vermont from the Task Force on the Blessing of Persons Living in Same-Gender Relationships." Ken Poppe, dean of the Cathedral Church of St. Paul in Burlington, was co-chair of the task force. Even though clergy in the Vermont Diocese have been blessing civil unions with the bishop's permission for four years, the report is considered groundbreaking "because it gives explicit permission — which will be shared across the country — for the blessing of same-gender relationships," according to an email message from Rev. Tanya Wallace of St. Paul's. The report includes a theological statement, a new diocesan policy, trial liturgies for same-gender blessings, and resources for congregations and couples. At last year's national convention, a proposal to create a nationwide liturgy (essentially an approved script) for same-gender marriages or civil unions was tabled. Instead, the question was left up to individual dioceses. According to an "executive summary" released in advance of the post-press-time news conference, "The task force report offers liturgies for trial use that will bring the celebration of Holy Union" — comparable to "Holy Matrimony" — "into the life of common prayer in the Diocese of Vermont." Further, the task force will provide resources for congregations on issues of human sexuality and intimacy, and for clergy and couples preparing for both Holy Matrimony and Holy Union. The summary cited the Anglican church's approach to applying theology and scripture to issues of current life, an approach that involves "using our human capacity to learn about our world and to bring that learning into conversation with scripture and theological and liturgical tradition. This process," the summary continues, "has led the Church over the centuries to change its practice about issues such as slavery, usury and the ordination of women." The statement provided a context for interpreting scripture: "We are suspicious of claims that there can be any one right reading, for all readers see through the lenses of their own backgrounds and cultural circumstances.... We believe the Church should, and will, come to an understanding that the few biblical passages that seem to address same-sex sexual activity do not speak to the reality of faithful, loving relationships between persons of the same gender who identify as gay or lesbian." GAY BISHOP TO PREACH ON PRIDE DAY The first openly gay member of the Episcopal clergy to be elected and consecrated as a diocesan bishop, V. Gene Robinson of the diocese of New Hampshire, will preach at an Evensong service at St. Paul's Cathedral on Pride Day, July 10. The service begins at 3:30 p.m. and is open to all, regardless of faith or orientation. Bishop Robinson, whose consecration was supported by Vermont's Bishop Thomas Ely, is making his first appearance as Bishop at a Vermont Pride Day event. The bishop was away at press time and could not be reached for comment. St. Paul's Canon Educator Tanya Wallace said that the cathedral staff has received a number of requests for Bishop Robinson to participate or speak at events while he is in Vermont. She said her understanding was that Robinson was turning down events that focused on him in favor of those that focused on God's action and Robinson's mission. Last year, the first Pride Day evensong featured Integrity founder Louie Crew. Integrity is an organization for LGBT Episcopalians seeking support within their churches. Wallace noted that in its current "summer seating" arrangement, the cathedral would seat 250 worshippers, which she anticipated would be a mix of parishioners, people from the wider diocese, and Pride festival-goers. The Cathedral Church of St. Paul marched for the first time in the Pride Day parade two years ago. "There were maybe 8 to 10 people and a dog. This year," Wallace said with pride, "we're ordering St. Paul's hats!" END THE PROPHETIC STAND OF THE ECUMENICAL CHURCHES ON HOMOSEXUALITY by Max L. Stackhouse Over the last quarter century, a debate has raged in the Ecumenical Protestant churches belonging to the National and World Councils of Churches. It is about sexuality, particularly homosexuality. The discussion has been intense. In fact, more church documents, statements, background papers, study books, and proposals have been written on human sexuality in this period than in any comparable period of church history. More than one hundred and fifty of the most important documents from Catholic, Evangelical as well as Ecumenical Protestant sources have been collected in a recent set of volumes, and it is likely that the results can already be discerned, although some advocates argue that debates are just getting started. What seems to be clear is both that significant modifications have taken place among the Protestants, and that these modifications have taken place within a reaffirmation of the classic tradition, much in the way that the ancient prophets recalled the covenants of God of old and adapted them to changing situations. It is certainly so that these stances both reflect and will have a substantive influence on the raging cultural and political debates over "family values" generally and homosexuality particularly in the years to come. Disagreements, of course, continue; but the results are rather clear: The churches affirm that genital activity should be confined to a heterosexual marriage, and all intimate relationships should approximate the ideals of that rite. Most churches support the human and civil rights of homosexual persons, but resist giving religious approval to homosexual behavior or same-sex marriage. Most churches (some ambiguously) deny ordination to advocates of or those involved in homosexual practice, which is not viewed as equal to heterosexual marriage. Most have adopted feminist theories of justice in regard to equality of dignity, opportunity, status, and pay, but resist attempts to turn all questions into gender issues. Pastoral care for adults who are single, gay, unable to procreate, or divorced is seen as morally and spiritually required, even if their situations are not approved. In brief, the overall results of quarter century debate reflect a rejection of a radical effort to overturn the classical position, and they are remarkably consistent. The official statements are quite consistent with the classical traditions, even if each is stamped by its tradition's distinctive concepts. The inclusion of "justice feminism," which is likely to increase, has significantly modified the classical uses of traditional symbolism; but not the basic teachings about the normative character of the heterosexual family. The debates, however, have been so multifaceted, so laden with cross-cutting arguments and sensibilities, ideologies and conceptions, that the case for these decisions taken as a whole has nowhere been made. Because I largely agree with them, it is the purpose of this paper to set forth an understanding of the logic by which they make sense. This is all the more necessary in view of recent efforts to grant co-equal moral status and economic benefits to same-sexed companionate relationships. THE DEEPER BACKGROUND OF THE CONTROVERSY It is an enduring, reasonable, and coherent conviction of those religions born out of the Biblical traditions, that the authors of the Adam and Eve stories of Genesis were inspired to see the human situation with a degree of revealing accuracy. God created humanity and gave to this earthy creature a dignity that was nearly godlike, enabling a communion with God as well as a capacity to exercise freedom and to recognize the laws and purposes of God, thus also to chose against them. This most precious of creatures was also distinguished into male and female, a differentiation that both makes possible an interaction between them that is similar to a relationship with the Creator and makes them potential partners in the processes of creation. It is also against the distortions of the patterns implied in this story that the prophets protest. They take the breaking of the basic patterns of the moral stage of life as an indicator that the dramatic judgments and renewal of salvation history are necessary, as we see in Ezekiel and Hosea. And it is to this story which Jesus turned (Mark 10:2-12; Matt. 19:3-6) when the issue of responsible relationship was debated in his day. Something of the right order of life, the good ends of existence, and the engaged participation in the sustaining contexts of life, and their relation, are implicit in it. It is thick with meaning. As to the basic normative structure stated in these texts for human sexuality, three elements are primary: First, the fundamental relationship that humans are to have with God and with each other is to be one of fidelity in communion (Gen. 1:27-8). One is not to live only by or for oneself. Persons, in the Biblical tradition, are to be respected and honored. Each is made "in the image of God." (Gen. 1:26) Here is the deepest root of what became, later, spoken of as the "soul," the seat of human "dignity," the source of "conscience," and thus the center of all rights and duties and the core of that freedom and knowledge that allows personal responsibility. And yet, individualism is not the chief implication of this insight. Persons are not only rooted in a relationship to God, but is intended for human relationship. "It is not good that one should be alone." (Gen. 2:18) The question is whether there is a normative character to the relationship. We are given the freedom and power to name the realities they discover under God's care and to till the garden and to keep it, but we are not to decide matters opportunistically, to use the creation only to satisfy felt needs, or to deny the integrity of the primal relationship which brought all that is into being. (Gen. 2:15-17) It is right to be faithful; it is wrong to violate limits: "of this tree you shall not eat." Personal and relational existence, morally and spiritually considered, is rooted in a God-given right order of things that, in some measure, everyone knows. Moreover, we are to use the resources of creation — the world, the mind, and the body — to see that life flourishes. The command "be fruitful and multiply" is one of the earliest and most repeated of the commands. That which defies or stultifies life is contrary to that purpose. The capacity to reproduce is a gift; generativity is a mark of how God invites creatures to participate in the blessing of ongoing creativity. This means, among other things, that humans are to see their sex as a part of the ongoing flow of life, as a blessed link in the generations, becoming fathers and mothers to the generations of tomorrow in a way that can be honored, and then honoring the fathers and the mothers who went before. To be sure, the mere proliferation of progeny is not the sufficient mark of vision of or responsibility to the future. The serving of God and fellow humanity may call some to stand beyond the ordinary functions of life, as saints and sages in many traditions testify. Further, the formation of affectional bonds that knit together lives in mutual affirmation may itself be generative of social relationships that are to be even more honored than mere parenting, as we see in the life of Jesus. This motif is present throughout the Bible, not only in stories such as those of Abraham and Sarah, or of Jacob and Leah, but also of David and Jonathan and of Ruth and Naomi, and among the first disciples of Jesus. (Mk. 10: 28-30). It may even be that greater moral integrity will be recognized by God in some same-sexed affections than is found in many opposite-sexed relationships. Thus, we dare not prematurely attempt to separate the "wheat from the tares" in this life. Nevertheless, these affections are not something that can and should displace the common expectation that we should seek to approximate the primary structures and purposes of human sexuality given in creation. Not only are fidelity within a framework of created order, and fruitful generativity within a framework of honorable affectional relationships part of the moral fabric established in the deepest structures of human life, humans are called by the Biblical tradition to form and sustain social institutions where both fidelity and fruitful generativity become part of the common life. When a man and a woman in their differentiation and their complementarity see each other as truly other, yet the same as the self ("...flesh of my flesh," Gen. 2:20-23), they are no longer bound only to previous kin relationships. They are invited to form new intimate bonds without guilt: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." (Gen. 2:24-5) Thus, to fidelity and fecundity is added family, a social and institutional matter that always takes place amidst the various structures of society that give it a specific stamp. Real families, of course, almost never are formed within an idyllic setting of plentiful goodness, although falling in love echoes that primal sensibility. Real families are almost always found in situations of temptation and distortion. Love inevitably takes place in the context of social history where betrayal, scarcity, and pain are well known. At times the family shape has been patriarchal, sometimes matriarchal, always at least a little tribal or clannish, historically often feudal or manorial, recently bourgeois or suburban, and increasingly "dual-career." Each pattern suggests that the actual shape of family life and thus the operating definitions of fidelity and of fecundity are worked out in the context of a civil society at large. Therefore, even if the demand to embody "one flesh" remains, precisely how it is to be related to a fidelity to the right order of things, or to generative fecundity, becomes also partly an issue of the whole fabric of society. The conflicts over these are already known in the hostilities of Cain and Abel, and in the establishment of the arts and crafts by which the larger structures of civilization are created and sustained. (Gen. 4) Yet, while the existential integration of these three aspects of morality is ever fraught with conflict, the primal Biblical witness tells us that from the beginning life entails both a dignity of each person and, in regard to the secondary issue of sexuality, a calling to live in a normed relationship under God — a heterosexual and monogamous one marked by fidelity, fecundity, and family as a critical structure in the fabric of civilization. This that has been seen as valid within and beyond the tradition wherever it has been encountered and all who approximate these patterns, from whatever culture or religion, are recognized as married. All other options are seen as adjustments, exceptions, compromises, or relative approximations. Although parts of the tradition would accent aspects of this heritage with different emphases, this is the triadic standard by which sexuality is classically perceived. Sometimes in history one or another of these three aspects of a full moral vision has been under attack and has to be defended by prophetic outcries; but all are necessary to the whole. It would be an error, one which parts of the tradition have made from time to time, to take one or another of these and to make it the whole in the assessment of human sexuality. Thus, a view that accents only the right order of things can become legalistic; one that accents only fecundity can ignore affection; and one that accents only "traditional family values" can fail to see the changing place of family-life in the fabric of social history. The parts belong to a basic pattern that repeatedly has to be reaffirmed by being reformed in a changing context. It must be emphasized that this pattern stands within a larger vision, one that suggests that marriage is not in itself an ultimate matter. God, in this tradition, has no consort and is neither sexed or gendered, even if human images of or language about God is. Further, Jesus instructed us that "there is no giving or taking in marriage in heaven," and the ultimate vision of the New Jerusalem has no mention of marriage. When we speak of sexuality and the moral forms it is to take, therefore, we are speaking within the confines of history, not of the most ultimate aspects of redemption. That is a matter that must be left to God. Still, historical matters are not to be decided by historical experience alone. It would also be an error, in this view, to begin with an understanding of this or that person's sexual inclinations or desires, and then to construct a moral vision or a spirituality that would support whatever is the case. That would subordinate a normative ethical vision to individual feelings and denies that historical experience itself is experienced as being under norms that history neither contains nor exhausts. For one thing, the image of God that gives each person moral integrity is no more sexed or gendered than is God and persons can claim rights or know duties that history denies. For another, the prophetic tradition appears in the Biblical heritage when Nathan called even the priest-king David to account for violating these norms to meet his own desires. (2 Sam. 11 & 12) So also, when the priests of Baal tried to install a fertility cult in the land, Elijah was raised up to stop it. (I Kings 18 & 19). Christians share this prophetic tradition (Mk. 10: 11-2; Mt. 19: 9-12) and later used it also to restrain excesses on the other side of the sexual spectrum. Against certain Gnostic, Montanist, and Cathar movements, which held that male and female were interchangeable or that spirituality opposed materiality so that to procreate was to enslave souls in matter, Christian theology called marriage a "holy estate." Christians generally believe that this prophetic tradition was most fully revealed in a messiah whom it anticipated. In this presence of God in human flesh, the love of God is made concrete. Jesus Christ reveals in life, more than any other historical event, the integrating order, purpose, and context of life, and thus this love is to be appropriately manifest in each area of life. This is what gives the basic patterns of life, more or less obvious to all, their inner conviction and personal coherence for Christians. Love, like the possibilities given in creation, has in it both freedom and order that take on both existential intensity and transcendental significance. Without freedom it is only instinct; without order, it is mere emotion. Authentic love integrates these and links them to both faith and hope. Without fidelity, it loses logic; without hope, it loses purpose. To be sure, distinctive expressions of freedom and structure are proper to different relationships in life. Honoring the right order of things as a sign of faith and enacting generative fertility as a sign of hope, both proper to the formation of family life, can be organized within this general normative framework in a number of ways. Indeed, it is not unlike every other area of life that is to be lived as a context in which the grace of God's love can be made manifest. There is no single blueprint for politics, economics, culture, law, education, any more than there is for sexuality. But that some patterns lack or threaten or deny or exclude these qualities must be acknowledged. In fact, most Christians believe that everyone knows something of these normative standards and qualities, for what is revealed in scripture and in Christ accords with how God formed all humans at their deepest levels. These religious themes are not something imposed on people, or distinctive to one religious group, but are revealing of how life is really constituted. That is why many believe that all morally honest people know that something is wrong with relationships that are driven only by instinct or emotion or that do not sustain fidelity or hope. And that is why people feel violated by the infidelity of those they love, lament the prospect of infertility, resent social policies that weaken families, and turn to extreme ideological or life-style strategies to overcome these difficulties. For this reason, the Christian tradition has held that it is proper for the church to guide the formation of public thought and the institutions in which sexuality is most directly expressed — especially the family, but also education, law, and economics as they influence or inhibit the formation of the social channels in which sexuality can find expression. The earliest Christians began to advise believers on how to live their sexual lives as we can see in both the Pauline and Pastoral letters and early books of moral instruction. Further, whenever Christians had a chance to shape the civilization, they formed patterns for the expression of sexuality that sustain fidelity, fecundity, and family, infused with love, and developed critical stances toward attitudes and policies that distorted these, even when these distortions came from sources within the faith. DISTINCTIVE PROTESTANT PERSPECTIVES The Biblical view represents the deepest context within which current approaches to sexuality are debated in Christian circles; but we must note also a secondary context and turn, later, to a tertiary context, the current gay-advocacy suspicions of the biblical and the theological traditions. It may be that Protestant views are especially problematic in this regard, for Protestants are often suspicious of natural law arguments. In most Protestant views the focus is more on creation and grace than on nature and law, a distinction that manifests itself in, for example, the moral priority of fidelity in relationship over the role of fertility in procreation. Often, in fact, Protestants are doubtful of the view that grace simply completes or perfects nature. Grace is held to be constitutive of creation in most Protestant views and they often hold that what we call "nature" is "fallen" — the purposes intended by God are contorted, garbled, or made ambiguous in the actual operation of things. What we examine when we study what is "natural" is what is distorted, incomplete, or contingent, even if it bears traces of God's grace in the capacity to be reformed toward order, purpose, and reliable relationship. Thus, in most Protestant traditions, humans may, or even have a duty to alter "natural" patterns of life to limit its defects, and to use technology to alter what is out of accord with God's intent so that it may more nearly approximate grace-full principles, purposes, and relationships. This tradition, for example, has come to advocate (sometimes slowly, but actually in concert with these accents) social reform, a right to divorce or abortion under certain conditions, the equality of women (including in church offices), technological innovation, and birth control as moral obligations. Further, Ecumenical Protestantism feels a compelling responsibility both to interpret and to shape the common life on theological grounds. This perspective tends to reject the view that theology and theologically-grounded ethics are private matters, pertinent only to believing selves or particular religious groups, and to insist that it is a decisive mode of public discourse, pertinent to all members of society and necessary to the framing of policies that govern all. Those who wish to relegate theology to the margins of political debate and reduce the moral influence of religion on the common life on the grounds that we live in a morally and religiously pluralistic society, or that only secular rationality ought to be the basis of public policy, will find their most persistent opponents less among those who want the state to accept their particular dogma, than among those who hold that "ecumenical" theology rooted in grace is more rational and universal than secular or sectarian positions. The contemporary debates in the ecumenical churches about homosexuality are, thus, neither new nor only about the inner life of churches. They echo of convictions that touch the nerves of the civilization's heritage. It is unlikely that we can grasp the profound bases of reservation about homosexuality in our society if we do not understand that it is rooted in a fundamental theological conception about the nature of human identity under God and of how human life therefore ought to be lived in society. On the whole, this public theological tradition has held that what is found in symbolic and mythic form in the Genesis stories and reinforced by Christ is, in fact, the most public and universal truth that humanity knows about the basic normative structure for sexuality. It is how God wants us to live. These deeper convictions have been challenged in recent years, and that has caused much controversy that bears on this issue. It may well be that we can identify some of the deeper issues in the debates by pointing to certain developments in our history that demanded a re-reading of scripture and a reconstruction of our theological ethics in view of various challenges. Each one is a marker of a larger transition from earlier practices and perspectives to present debates. One involves the conviction by Martin Luther that the Roman Church had misinterpreted the scriptures by presuming a sharp contrast between spiritual and material reality, and thus falsely given a privileged status both to celibacy and the capacity of the priesthood to confer grace through sacramental performance. It was an order of creation graciously given by God to sustain life and constrain lustful tendencies in society, but it was not the actions of the church that conferred the grace, even if marriage continued to be celebrated in and registered with the church as a part of the church's proper, public role. Implicit in this challenge is a repudiation of the synthesis of "lower" nature and "higher" grace that had been worked out in medieval theology. Grace and nature are woven together in a more subtle mix. The other was the recovery of the Biblical theme of covenant, especially by the Calvinistic wing of the Reformation. The covenant was the forming of a new institution under God that would allow the orders of creation to sustain and bless life, even when they are distorted by sin. All people are to form covenants of commitment that give shape to life in ways that approximate, under conditions of sin, the patterns and purposes of holy living that God intends. This is true in regard to power and politics, in regard to culture and learning, and in regard to wealth and economics. States, universities, and corporations are potential centers of covenantal responsibility. It is even more true in regard to sexuality and family life, for these are the most widespread and most directly personal of covenantal spheres. Marriage, understood as covenant rather than as sacrament or as contract, is the primary theological-social relationship by which the defects of the fall, known in broken nature and manifest in lustful desires, find their evils constrained and their residual graces, effaced but not obliterated by the fall, enabled to approximate holy living. Each of these areas or "orders" of life (e.g., religion, politics, economics, culture, law, education, and family) are distinct; but properly structured by a theologically grounded covenantal ethic, they strengthen both the whole fabric of civil society and the soul of each person. This covenant was to take place in accord with the laws and purposes of God, as discerned and made manifest in the mutual pledges of "troth" — enduring faithfulness under God — between a man and a woman, as confirmed by the community of witnesses to be in accord with the first principles of righteousness and the well-being of society. The wedding, thus, is a public declaration before God and the people, and society's public honoring of, a valid covenant of marriage, which will actually have been made privately in pledges of love. PURITAN CONTRIBUTIONS; PURITAN CONFLICTS There were many variations on these themes in the several Protestant traditions, but the adoption of the covenantal model in the rites of marriage that soon followed stands as a symbol of a shift from sacrament to covenant as the primary, way of understanding not only human sexuality, but the social and ethical context in which sexuality was to be understood in much of modern theology and society. Because of frequent confusions, we must note the difference between the views of the Puritans, who first mediated this covenantal view to the Anglo-American world, and the Victorians, who reasserted an older tradition that spirituality and materiality, grace and nature were contraries, and thus that the more religious or moral one was, the less concerned with the physical side of life one would be. This view not only fed moralistic protests against the rising influence of the biological sciences and of economics, but issued in a prudery in regard to human sexuality, to which the term "puritan" is sometimes applied. However, like most Protestant traditions, this heritage did not think that sex was evil or bad, an indicator of inferiority, or a brutish necessity that had to be endured. While undoubtedly laden with residues of patriarchy, the Protestants thought God created not only sex, but marriage, before the Fall for our companionship, increase, and well-being, even if, after the Fall, sex was sufficiently distorted that the covenant became all the more necessary as a decisive way of limiting sin and of providing a means whereby we could, by the grace of God, sense the joys of heaven. At the same time, it must be admitted that in many Protestant sermons and households, this larger tradition became temporarily wedded to Victorian presumptions (as later generations were to Romanticism, Existentialism, or Freudianism), and the notion was lost that the ecstasies of sex both echo the bliss of creation and anticipate the joys of the kingdom yet to come, even if they are not redemptive per se. Sex in marriage, thus, was designed not only to regenerate the species, thereby connecting us ethically, biologically, and socially to the nurture of the future, it was also to regenerate the spirit, remind us of the divine life, and empower the spirit to rightly order life so that the paired complementarity of God's design of humankind could be concretely manifest in ways that would also overcome the terrors of loneliness and ego-centrism to which humans are prone. Sinful humans would be drawn into structured bonds of interdependence that link the interpersonal unit of the family to the institutional composition of civil society, and tie the affections of the soul to Godly living. Fidelity to and in this covenantal relationship was an emblem of our fidelity to God's covenantal design for life as it was to be actualized in all areas, even if it sometimes led to the sufferings of the cross. The attention given to familial covenants thus becomes a manifestation of a very high estimate of sexuality, not of its low estate. In this context, humans had a "duty to desire." This tradition never advocated celibacy (or, disengagement from politics or vows of poverty as marks of faith). Nor did it speak of the "rights of privacy" as an individual right — although it often sought the independence of the church, of the press, of the school, and of business, as well as the home, from too much state intervention. Covenanted "societies" had a sacred inviolability and were the primary units in which persons worked out their gifts and callings. It cannot be said that all moral difficulties were overcome by these developments or that those who lived according to this view were fully righteous, any more than it can be said that every Hebrew after Sinai refrained from idolatry, adultery, and covetousness, or every Catholic after receiving the sacraments lived a holy, pure, and sanctified life in accord with the highest possibilities of human nature. But these developments can be said to offer a prophetic interpretation of the previous biblical and theological traditions that is both faithful to their deepest structures of reason and revelation, and conducive to modern, complex civilizations in a way that brings greater possibilities of free will guided by and toward just order. Decisive in this development for our questions was the growing sense of distinction between sin and crime. In accord with the larger heritage, the Protestant churches argued, compellingly, that not everything that has been treated as sinful (such as some abortions) should be criminalized and not all that is criminal (such as some civil disobedience) should be treated as sinful. Indeed, each of them could be, like just revolutions, the least evil option which one may be called upon to undertake with a humble courage, while holding with confidence to the promise of forgiveness offered to those who seek to discern how God wants us to live in this world. We should be tolerant, especially legally, but we should not engage in or approve behavior that increases the likelihood of abortion or war, even if some people genuinely feel desires that could lead to those results. Similarly with homosexuality. The distinction of sin and crime augmented the tendency to see marriage as a voluntary act, not a sacramental one, and thus aided the growth of contractual views of marriage in the culture. Yet these distinctions did not exempt sexual feelings and behaviors from moral and theological guidance; indeed, all human life in these areas is subject to theological discernment, ethical evaluation and social judgment, and the standard remains the enduring, faithful, equitable, monogamous, heterosexual, covenantal model. Preferably, they are also to be fecund, but should use proper means of birth control, which the state must allow, to make sure that children are wanted, well-spaced, and cared for. Those who live in other kinds of relationships — separated, divorced, unfaithful, abusive, homosexual — may well be accepted as members of churches and recognized as persons under God's care; but their inclinations and their behaviors, whether intended or not, are among those that are not affirmed as ideal. It is indeed likely that, in this view, few or even no marriages fulfill all aspects of the kind of covenant such as God established with Israel or Christ with the church, and thus every human approximation to the marriage covenant has elements that are deficient or problematic. That is what most ecumenical Protestants affirm when they were alert to the tradition's deepest roots, and that is why the Old and New Testaments, which witness to these covenants, are deemed revelation and are taken as the standards for our relative covenants. That is also the basis for the Protestant view that "all are sinners in need of the grace of God." Sin, in this view, is less the intentional betrayal of some principle or norm than a basic condition that makes saving grace necessary whatever our intentions, and even in spite of our best intentions. In addition to this "state of sin" which we call "original," there are of course particular "sins," specific acts that we do, duties we neglect, attitudes that we take, feelings that we savor, egoisms that we indulge, either willfully or without moral or spiritual protest, that are contrary to what we know to be right and good and fitting. Even more distorting are the rationalized forms of denial of our sin or of justifications for our sins, which compound the fault. The resistance to the ordination of gay clergy is, at its deepest levels, rooted as much in this issue as it is in certain behaviors. Protestant pastors are not inclined to argue that separated, divorced, unfaithful, or abusive relationships are fully compatible with the ideal, and in most of theological history homosexual pastors did not claim that their situation was normative either. It is suspected that under contemporary ideological confusions, they are likely to distort the normative message, thereby morally and spiritually legitimating sin or sins with the authority of their office. Temptations to rationalize a particular bias attend us all, not only gay clergy. Yet, in spite of the general condition of sin and our particular list of sins of omission or commission, Ecumenical Protestants hold that we can make some relative discernment as to the marks of a properly covenantal relation, just as we can, with a relative degree of confidence, tell the difference between better or worse political regimes, better or worse corporate behaviors, and better or worse academic institutions. And in this area, Ecumenical Protestants throughout their history and still today are doubtful whether homosexual relationships are or can be as nearly approximate to the ideal as heterosexual ones. Congregations thus are suspicious of non-married clergy, even if the distinction between sin and crime and their own awareness of their own defects leads Protestants to believe that "it takes all kinds to make a world," and that Christians ought to "live and let live" in terms of legal policy. In accord with this emphasis, a number of the ecumenical churches have increasingly advocated the decriminalization of homosexuality, even if they have not moved toward approving it. MORE RECENT PROTESTANT DISPUTES Among the intriguing issues surrounding the debates about these teachings is the fact that those who oppose this general consensus frequently link their objections to economistic interpretations of the origins and function of classical moral concepts and thereby undercut, perhaps unintentionally, the theological tradition. This can easily be seen in a recent article written by Walter C. Righter. As the Episcopal bishop accused of heresy for ordaining a priest who has been living with a United Church of Christ clergyman, he puzzles about the possible reasons for such charges, now that they have been dropped. He notes that some studies show a link between homophobia and misogyny and he speaks of pent up anxiety about change in moral standards to which many are "accustomed." Such irrational motivations are presumed to be behind the opposition to his actions, not theology or morality. When he does speak of these, he says that the Ten Commandments "long thought to be a moral code for all ages," are now held to be "a property code" designed "to preserve property rights that no longer exist." Indeed, the entire debate about the family, he claims, is primarily about a "fault line between the past and the future" in regard to property and society, and "we are privileged with the necessity of forming a new social contract." He ends with a text from "Star Trek": "Boldly go where no person has gone before." Although many find the whole idea of heresy quaint, even offensive, it is doubtful that the perspectives offered by the bishop will be persuasive to believers, even if most agree that misogyny, homophobia, reactive anxiety about change, and the applications of property issues to persons are frightful. The view he advocates undercuts the very prospect of a normative theology and an enduring morality able to assess and guide changing experience in changing societies. However, his perspective has wide currency in parts of academia and many advocacy movements in the Ecumenical churches, many of which already practice some form of pastoral blessing of same-sex marriage. Nevertheless, as we can see in recent decisions by the United Methodist, Reformed, Presbyterian, and Lutheran churches, all of which repudiate such views in favor of the classical, covenantal tradition, Protestant Christians are unlikely to adopt such views — even if they do not want to condemn individuals and seeking to reconstruct the wisdom and insight present in Scripture and the Reformation. They are more likely to hold fast to the prophetic tradition that was willing to judge distortions of God's covenantal laws and purposes. In this, they recognize the indispensable place of theology and ethics in social analysis, both to understand why people do what they do, and to offer guidance as to how we ought to live. Because religions vary and religious conflicts are sometimes the most intense, many seek non-religious concepts to interpret social realities. Some things about humans are, in fact, rather constant: most people want and need companionship, and basically like sex, peace, and plenty. They avoid loneliness, conflict, and sexual and economic poverty. But sexual activity, material plenty, and both personal companionship and social solidarity tend to be more reliably present when a stable way of linking them is found, and the only durable way of linking them has been the family. But the family, it turns out, is rather fragile on its own under conditions of a sinful and broken world. It requires an embodied sense of sacredness to stabilize it, and that sacredness must be graced by a divine righteousness and purpose. "Religion," in other words, and both the critical reflection on it and its ethical implications for all the aspects of society they influence by means of theology, are the distinctive human activities that distinguish humanity from other creatures of the earth. It will not do to see all human motivations in terms of psychodynamic impulses or economic interests. Our most profound, determinative nature is not "natural" in the biophysical sense, but spiritual and moral. Insofar as these structure the social realities of life, they cannot be ignored in the analysis of the fabric of society. In fact, the kind and quality of religion turns out to be critical for the kind of social, ethical, and material systems developed in civilizations — the roles, relationships, institutions, rules, and expectations that guide us. And it is doubtful that the ethical norms for that religion can be gathered from science fiction. For such reasons, one wide stream of the theological heritage is essentially reasserting continuity with the wisdom of previous ages and adapting it to today: sexuality, the formation of households and homes, the nurture of children and the development of ways to aid those in need, ought to take place in the covenanted relationships of a differentiated civil society which recognizes the reality of the basic orders of creation or spheres of life, and that we can know, with some degree of reliability, what some marks of such relationships are. Thus, some in the churches are seeking a deeper analysis of the concept of covenant as a moral theory for familial life in civil society. In view of all the issues of sex and marriage, household and work, home and religion, corporations and schools, welfare and society, this question continues to haunt the churches' efforts: can we construct a viable ethic for family life in a globalizing civil society, given the changing intellectual, economic, and psycho-social transformations at hand. On the whole, the Ecumenical Protestants do not oppose these transformations. In fact, many of them may well be rooted in attitudes and institutions that the Reformation and its implications engendered. Most Protestants do not want to be forced into becoming sectarians, hostile to culture, unable to perform marriages as a civil act, opposed to justice for women or minorities, or angry about the secular or pagan character of everything around them. Instead, they do want to live in, participate in, have a voice in, and shape things toward a more just and loving society. They simply do not believe that the present movement to make gay coupling equal to heterosexual marriage is likely to do that, or how God wants people to live. On the whole, also, the answer is a prophetic one: love, indeed, just love is best grasped when linked to a basic appreciation for the way God created humanity for fidelity, fecundity and family, a recognition that much is fallen, and neglected dimensions of our theological heritage of covenantal understanding may be still laden with valid, pluralistic, and dynamic possibilities more faithful and more graceful, and (thank God) more adequate to the deep and enduring needs of humanity than the alternatives. The alternatives are, to put it most sharply, false prophecy. In one way, the unintended result of the churches' explorations stands as a challenge to the churches and clergy as well as to society in general. It is not clear that contemporary religious leaders realize what an impact, and thus both an opportunity and a responsibility, they have in influencing souls and societies. Decisive, I believe, is a "prophetic" recovery and recasting of the covenantal tradition, linked to a fresh vision of how the family may find its place in a civil society where dual careers, a corporate economy, and a limited state in a global society are our likely future. About the author: Max Stackhouse is professor of Christian ethics at the Princeton Theological Seminary. He is an ordained minister of the United Church of Christ. END

Christian Institute News Release, 7th July 2004 Earlier this afternoon David Blunkett launched an astonishing attack on Christians throughout the UK. Announcing a new policy to criminalise 'incitement to hatred', the Home Secretary has implied that he wants to clamp down on the beliefs of evangelical Christians. David Blunkett has resurrected the proposed law after it was thrown out in 2001 by the House of Lords. At the time evangelical Christians raised alarm that the incitement offence could be used to criminalise ordinary Christians for expressing their beliefs. In his speech this afternoon David Blunkett explicitly equated evangelicals with Islamic terrorists. He talked about "those who would take our lives because they reject our faith" and went on: "[the new law] applies equally from far right evangelical Christians, to extremists in the Islamic faith." The proposal appears to be a new censorship law which allows politicians to decide what is an acceptable religious belief and what isn't. Colin Hart, Director of The Christian Institute, said today: "David Blunkett today has showed the danger of giving politicians the power to censor religious belief. The confidence of evangelicals in this new law has been shattered by the Home Secretary's intemperate comments." "He appears to want to introduce this law to clamp down on evangelicals. A new incitement offence could put church leaders in jail and affect Christian schools, youth work or street preaching." "Many evangelicals have gone down in history as great Britons — Wilberforce, Shaftsbury and Josephine Butler, to name a few. To equate evangelicals with terrorists is an outrage. I call on the Home Secretary to retract his implied assertion that evangelicals in the UK are calling for the murder of non-Christians." For further information contact Simon Calvert on 0191 281 5664. Note for editors: Evangelicals are Christians whose highest authority is the Bible and who hold to the historic Christian creeds. Extract from speech given by David Blunkett on 7 July 2004: "We need to be able to take on those extremists and say, I'm afraid in our society, pluralism and openness, the ability to accept differences without being subsumed, is crucial to our survival, it's what distinguishes all of us, from every faith, from those who would take our lives because they reject our faith, and it applies equally from far right evangelical Christians, to extremists in the Islamic faith."

ACiNW News Release http://www.acinw.org/ July 7, 2004 VANCOUVER — A group of North Vancouver Anglicans struggling to restore democracy in their parish have decided to drop legal action against the Bishop of New Westminster for firing its elected church trustees in September 2003. The parishioners of St. Martin's Anglican Church in North Vancouver say they prefer to use resources for ministry instead of a court battle, adding that even a favourable court judgment would not likely prompt the diocese to allow the parish to govern itself entirely. In September 2003 the Bishop of New Westminster, the Rt. Rev. Michael Ingham, fired the elected leadership of the parish after the vestry (membership) voted to seek an alternative bishop to lead them. The Bishop acted under Canon 15, an obscure church law that gives the local bishop extraordinary powers over the parish. The bishop subsequently appointed parish leaders loyal to him, who immediately fired the church's youth pastor, scuttled the parish website, and removed volunteers from key positions in the church. But in a lawsuit launched March 1, 2004, parishioners argued that the removal of two of the trustees was in violation of B.C. corporate law. But according to parishioner Ronald Edward, while the court action would have given hope that the two trustees could be reinstated, it would not have completely restored democracy at the church. "But we look forward to a time when democratic processes are restored at St. Martin's and we can return to worship there," he said. "In the meantime, we're getting on with ministry." Conservative St. Martin's parishioners now worship each Sunday in rented premises and are seeking to hire a new youth pastor. Since January 2004, the group has grown by more than 30%. St. Martin's is one of two congregations in which diocesan authorities have intervened in the past year. In December 2003, the diocese terminated Holy Cross, a mission congregation in Abbotsford, when it voted to join the Anglican Communion in New Westminster (ACiNW). Members of Holy Cross also continue to worship each Sunday in rented premises. The Anglican Communion in New Westminster (ACiNW) is a coalition of eleven congregations representing almost a quarter of the Diocese's attending population. The coalition formed in June 2002 following the Diocese of New Westminster's decision to move away from the teachings of mainstream Anglicanism.

An Interview with Archbishop John Hepworth, Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion By David W. Virtue BEDFORD, TX--He's been in the top job for little more than a year, but already he is flexing his ecclesiastical muscle and showing that he is made of the right stuff. He is tall, imposing, and has the right bearing for an Anglo-Catholic Archbishop. He travels extensively, hobnobs comfortably with world class religious leaders, is politically astute, and he is positioning himself and his church for major growth around the world over the next decade. Australian-born John Hepworth is barely 60, but with a shock of black hair he looks considerably younger. The Traditional Anglican Communion is the largest Anglican group of churches outside the mainstream Anglican Communion with 85 parishes in the US. Recently I sat down and talked with the archbishop at the 16th Forward in Faith NA Annual Assembly at St. Vincent's cathedral where he was a guest speaker. VIRTUOSITY: Why is the TAC necessary? HEPWORTH: The TAC was formed to care of the 'chuck outs', those who oppose women's ordination. We formed a caring community as a temporary measure for what we do next. VIRTUOSITY: The Anglican Communion is in crisis, are you trying to take advantage of that? HEPWORTH: The Anglican Communion is disintegrating and we have to look at what sort of structures will follow from that. We are realigning our dioceses as well as parishes and people with like-minded orthodox Anglicans who share our understanding of the Anglican heritage. VIRTUOSITY: How big are you? HEPWORTH: We have close to 300,000 formal members in churches in Australia, Torres Strait, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, India, Pakistan, Japan, England, the US and Ireland. We are about to go into Burundi, Rwanda and the Congo. VIRTUOSITY: What is the central issue that separates you from a good portion of the Anglican Communion? HEPWORTH: Women's ordination is the central issue for the Traditional Anglican Communion. It is the mirror image of the Anglican Communion wherever they ordain women. VIRTUOSITY: Where do you see yourselves going? Put another way what do you think the Anglican Communion will look like in the years to come? HEPWORTH: We are in bilateral talks with both Canterbury and Rome as a strategy to provide Anglicans with an alternative means of expressing their communion within an Orthodox, biblically faithful context, whilst together attempting a pilgrimage towards church unity. VIRTUOSITY: You were once a Roman Catholic priest, now an Anglo-Catholic Archbishop. Are you marching inevitably towards Rome? HEPWORTH: We have formally asked Rome to be an Anglican Church in full communion with the Holy See. We have been in conversation with Rome for over 12 years. VIRTUOSITY: And ARCIC? (Anglican Roman Catholic talks). HEPWORTH: We have sought to continue the ARCIC process because catholic Anglicanism has always agreed with reunion and we want to continue that with all our other dreams. VIRTUOSITY: What of your relationships with the various branches of the Anglican Communion around the world? HEPWORTH: Many diocesan bishops around the world where the TAC exists have requested to meet their TAC opposite numbers. We are building mutual knowledge and trust, while discussions are taking place with the Curia in the Vatican at the same time. VIRTUOSITY: Recent actions by ECUSA in affirming same-sex unions and consecrating an openly homoerotic bishop signal too many that ARCIC is dead. Do you believe that? HEPWORTH: The ordination of women is the primary problem in the ARCIC process. There is no hope of Anglican Rome unity now. Unity is no longer the goal of this process. Rome is looking down the road, way beyond the present corrupt situation in the Episcopal Church. VIRTUOSITY: How would you describe the TAC's relationship with the Anglican Communion Network? HEPWORTH: I remain to be convinced, at the moment, that the Network's inclusion of bishops who ordain women and bishops who don't, can be molded into a permanent ecclesial structure, because the two positions have, so far, not been able to co-exist. VIRTUOSITY: Please elaborate. HEPWORTH: The fundamental principle of the Forward in Faith communion statements and of my own communion is that there must be a separation in the two sacramental lifes - one conditional, and the other is traditional and unconditional - that of the ministry of women priests and bishops. By their very nature they are not interchangeable. That has been our position for 30 years. VIRTUOSITY: The Network seems to be forcing the issue back onto the agenda; Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan, the titular head of the NETWORK believes in the ordination of women. What is your response to that? HEPWORTH: I am not yet satisfied that those opposed to the ordination of women in the Convocation or Network is providing the ecclesial future we are attempting to create in North America. The structures of the Network allow women's ordination and they force that view. VIRTUOSITY: Why is women's ordination a lynch pin issue? HEPWORTH: The ordination of women was a response to a secular hermeneutic that demanded women's rights and women's equality. The homosexual agenda is a response to an identical hermeneutic from the secular world. Both have involved the reinterpretation of biblical theology and traditional church teaching. The truth is they are a continuum, one inevitably flowing from the other; they are two sides of the one coin. They both involve filtering the bible, declaring that gender is not relevant for any serious purpose in human life. It was the mantra of Germaine Greer that gender is not relevant...women can do anything. Apply that to the ordination of women and say that gender is irrelevant for the priesthood and it becomes irrelevant for the incarnation. Women's ordination becomes a feminist construction. VIRTUOSITY: What is the TAC strategy? HEPWORTH: Firstly to offer to the Lambeth Commission and Rowan Williams the TAC as the existing vehicle for alternative Episcopal oversight. It is ludicrous to establish a parallel structure for Episcopal oversight. VIRTUOSITY: Intercommunion? HEPWORTH: I would like to see full intercommunion with each constituent part with Forward in Faith International. The TAC would agree not to put a diocesan bishop in an orthodox diocese of the Anglican Communion. In the UK we are a guerrilla movement to undermine heretical bishops and we will take them on, head on. We want to save hurting priests who are Anglicans. We have 40 plus parishes in the UK. This is also true in the USA. We have over 60 priests in the Anglican Church of Australia, for example, who have licenses with the TAC. They have entered into a pastoral relationship with us. Secondly we want to show that that strategy is working by exercising that oversight in places where there has been no provision whatsoever for the consciences of Anglo Catholics. VIRTUOSITY: Can you give examples? HEPWORTH: Yes, the recent events in Uvumbi, Tanzania where the diocese and its bishops have entered into full communion with the TAC. VIRTUOSITY: Where else? HEPWORTH: Following the taking of a substantial part of North Queensland in Australia and notifying the ABC, we have similar arrangements put into place where we will take the diocese out of the Anglican Communion into a new arrangement. VIRTUOSITY: You recently consecrated Fr. David Chislett a traditionalist Forward in Faith Anglican priest based in Brisbane, Queensland in the Anglican Church of Australia to be a bishop in the TAC in Australia. What was that all about? HEPWORTH: The Church of England has made provision for "Provincial Episcopal Visitors" or "Flying Bishops" as a way of providing for the consciences of people like us who don't agree with women's ordination. The Anglican Church of Australia and the Episcopal Church USA has offered no provision for real Anglo-Catholics. That is why we did it. VIRTUOSITY: What has been the response of Peter Carnley the Anglican Church Primate? HEPWORTH: He wrote a letter to David congratulating him on the appointment. VIRTUOSITY: In the Episcopal Church there are two traditionalist priests, Fr. David L. Moyer (PA) and William Ilgenfritz (Bethlehem) who are waiting to become bishops. What is holding that back? HEPWORTH: Their names have "lain on the table" pending consecration at the hands of sympathetic bishops. VIRTUOSITY: Would you like to see an independent Anglican Province that orthodox priests and bishops can be united under? HEPWORTH: Yes. Very much so. Forward in Faith in the UK are planning a new Anglican Province in England - a development that even the Archbishop Canterbury admits will probably be necessary. I don't think anything will happen until the results of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Eames Commission (on the nature of the new Anglican Impaired Communion), due to report back in October, have been released and digested. VIRTUOSITY: How do you perceive your evangelistic responsibilities for church growth? HEPWORTH: My first concern is the world of Anglo-Catholics where we are reaping a 30-year history of being separated from the means of grace. For a catholic Anglican the primary contact with God is through the sacramental life of the church. If there is an uncertainty their people will inevitably drift away. Furthermore if you introduce on top of that a high level of insecurity in the priest and his family then almost certainly you remove the confidence to evangelize. VIRTUOSITY: Where have you been the most effective? HEPWORTH: In Africa and India we have dynamic congregations numbering in the thousands and we have been successful in neutralizing persecution by diocesan bishops. We were in real trouble in South Africa from Desmond Tutu. But the new South African prime minister worships in one of our churches. VIRTUOSITY: What is wrong with Tutu? HEPWORTH: We all applauded Tutu for racial liberation, but on feminine liberation and sexual liberation, we don't agree with him and we have all drawn the line. He is applying the ANC's tactics on church life. We have taken in congregations ejected from the Church of the Province of Southern Africa. We are in townships where the established church in SA has had problems since the end of apartheid. There you see white bishops serving in black townships to rebuild the church alongside traditional faithful parishes, while Black liberal bishops live in the former white palaces on the white side of town pushing their reformist agenda. VIRTUOSITY: Your congregations are generally small and your priests are non-stipendiary. True? HEPWORTH: That is true. We have worker priests but we are just beginning to be stipendiary. Some 70 percent are worker priests around the world and a majority of our bishops support themselves. VIRTUOSITY: You are in the US. Why? HEPWORTH: We have 85 congregations in the US. I was also here to bless the Fishing Fleet in Portland, Maine (close to Robinson the gay Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire). We are mainstreaming ourselves as the alternative Anglican Church in the US. We have large continuing churches with which we are contributing. Also I was invited to speak here. VIRTUOSITY: What is your relationship like with other members of the Convocation? HEPWORTH: I have played golf with the AMIA bishops and we are making serious efforts to understand each other. Since their statement on the priesthood we have felt enormously encouraged to have closer relationships with them. Naturally as with the Network we are not going to place our entire future in the hands of organizations whose positions are unclear. Having women in the Diaconate is the thin end of the wedge. VIRTUOSITY: Who else are you talking to? HEPWORTH: We are in talks with the Anglican Province of America (APA), whose Primate is The Most Rev. Walter Grundorf. We are also in talks with the Anglican Province of Christ the King and we will be meeting with their Archbishop Robert Morse. We are at the moment the only global province of Anglicans trying to create a real global Anglicanism with a single college of bishops. VIRTUOSITY: What makes you distinct and different from other Continuing Churches? HEPWORTH: We are THE Continuing Church player for two reasons. We are the ones who have a ministry within the Anglican Communion. We fish in the murky waters of the Anglican Communion in order to move the fish to living water. We are continuing Anglicans. We have not started a new church. We are prepared to be totally international. English is the 7th most used language. I can celebrate the liturgy in 8 languages and be answered. VIRTUOSITY: Have you asked Rome to accept you? HEPWORTH: We are not applying to be part of the Roman rite. We are Anglican and catholic. We have an Anglican Use Rite not used anywhere else in the world. We want to be united but not absorbed. We have something to offer the world of Catholicism. What we have to offer is our evangelism, we balance the beauty of holiness, the Anglican heritage of lay involvement as well as the highly developed Anglican concept of a family at the heart of the parish rather than a celibate priest. These are charisms the current church needs. VIRTUOSITY: Thank you archbishop. NOTE: This story is copyrighted but may be forwarded electronically with reference to VIRTUOSITY and the author. No changes are permitted in the text.

In recent weeks, ACNS has received a large number of queries about the progress of the Lambeth Commission on Communion (LCC). ACNS managed to catch up with the Chair of the Commission, the Most Revd Robin Eames, as he passed through St. Andrew's House this week. He agreed to give some personal reflections on the work of the Commission, given that it is impossible for him or the Secretary of the Commission to respond to the large number of individual enquiries that we have received. 1. How would you describe the challenge facing the Lambeth Commission on Communion? Archbishop Eames: Well, you know the Anglican Communion has become deeply polarised by recent developments in the Canadian Diocese of New Westminster and the Episcopal Church (USA). It would not be putting it too strongly to say that there is a sense of betrayal in parts of the Communion about the actions in North America. Now in the Commission, the Archbishop of Canterbury has brought together a group of primates, theologians and canon lawyers to consider the diverse views within the Communion, and to seek ways in which the provinces can find the highest degree of communion possible given this diversity. We represent a microcosm of the Communion's life. I am delighted to see the degree of trust and co-operation amongst our members, which has been very encouraging, and which augurs well as we have begun to navigate our way towards our report. I'm extremely grateful for this as Chair. 2. Considering the diverse backgrounds of the commission members, how has the commission conducted its work together? We've begun each day of our meetings with shared prayer and Bible Study. I've taken the view that there is no point in bringing members half around the globe for a meeting and them not having the opportunity for their voice to be heard. Each member has in fact taken the opportunity to contribute fully in the discussions both in plenary sessions and in small groups. The discussions have been open, frank and generous. 3. The LCC stated that there was to be an open process for submission of evidence. What were the criteria for deciding which material was for primary consideration, and which was supplemental? We've taken all the material we've received very seriously. Submissions have come from a wide spectrum of the Communion — from primates; from provinces; from groups of provinces and organisations, and from many, many individuals. Everything has been read — in the first place either by myself, or the secretariat based in London. And then, we've evaluated what we've read on the basis of the key questions we identified at the beginning of our work, and the quality of the insights into those questions which have been offered to us. Sometimes, an individual's insight has been better than that of a whole organisation. The Revd Terrie Robinson, one of Canon Cameron's staff at the ACO, has made a very helpful resume of all the individual submissions — I think that it's up on our website — but all the submissions are being made available in full at the plenary meetings so that they can be read by members of the Commission. 4. Who has been invited to speak to the commission? We've actually sent out very few invitations — time for the Commission has been very limited, and what we have not been able to do is to respond positively to the many requests we have received for people to make representations in person. There is simply not the time to be able to do this, and representations in person have been on a very limited basis. At our first meeting in Windsor, we invited four key theologians of international standing, who were at hand in England, to offer advice on the shape of the ecclesiological questions that we would be addressing; at our second meeting in Kanuga, we asked the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (USA) to bring a team to speak to us about different perceptions of the situation within that province; and we asked the Rt Revd Bob Duncan, as a leading voice of opposition in the Episcopal Church, to make his views known in person also, as we needed to understand clearly the nature and direction of the work of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes. 5. There has been criticism that only certain voices are being heard by the commission. Is this the case? What were the guidelines that decided who was allowed to present directly to its members? Well, as I've said, very few people have actually had the opportunity to speak to the Commission in person. But I must say that there has been absolutely no intention of listening only to particular voices, or even the loudest voices. From the first, we sent out an open invitation for people to submit evidence to the Commission. Some groups appear to have been waiting for us to take the initiative to contact them. That has not been possible. But can I say again, that we don't want any voice to go unheard — the opportunity is there for all to make a submission to the Commission. And of course, the individual members of the Commission are listening all the time to the people they encounter in their ministries across the globe. 6. Is the commission still receiving evidence/presentations? Yes. All are invited, without exception, to make written submissions to the Commission. Many groups and individuals have already elected to do so, and it is my understanding that all submissions made by this method have been acknowledged and processed for the consideration of the Commission. If anyone feels that any particular voice is going unheard by the Commission, then I urge them to make a submission by this route, bearing in mind the questions with which the Commission has been charged. 7. Should the commission's remit also have included the issue of sexuality, or was it justified to centre the commission's work purely on how to maintain the highest degree of communion when confronted by divisive issues? The simple answer is that the Lambeth Commission was not asked to reconsider the teaching of Resolution 1.10 of the Lambeth Conference of 1998, and so it is not at liberty to do so. The question of ministry by or to persons of homosexual orientation is not a matter which can be debated beyond the position adopted there, because the Primates made it clear in their statement of last October that Resolution 1.10 remains the formally voiced teaching of the Anglican Communion on this issue. It is part of the basis on which the Commission must come to its conclusions, and is not open to renegotiation by the Commission. 8. Will the commission report on time, and what is the process after that? Yes — I'm confident that the level of work will enable the Commission to complete its work by the end of September this year. The Standing Committees of The Primates' Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council will be meeting together in mid-October, and I'd like to deliver the report to the Archbishop of Canterbury in time for that meeting. However, it's worth noting that the Report was commissioned by the Archbishop of Canterbury at the request of the Primates, so the report will go to the Standing Committee of the Primates' Meeting for their consideration. It is the Standing Committee of the Primates which will have to come to a decision about how and when the Primates as a body will respond to the report, although there will have to be consultation with the Standing Committee of ACC because the Anglican Consultative Council will undoubtedly have to receive the report in due course as well. 9. Have you got any advice to offer the Communion in the meantime? I am increasingly aware of the importance of keeping channels of communication open at every level of our Communion at this time. This, I feel, is particularly important when we remember that there is much alienation, hurt and bewilderment on all sides. I believe, from my experience in Northern Ireland, that division, when honestly confronted and understood, can so often be turned into opportunity for the future. When the report is published, I hope that it will be read with prayer and generosity and will provide a basis to help us to face up to any future tensions, and to discern God's purposes for the Anglican Communion.

Warren Throckmorton, PhD July 3, 2004 Are your kids safe at school? In the space of three days, two independent reports have questioned the safety of the nation's schools. First, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Educators Network (GLSEN) released a report on June 28 which gave 42 states failing grades on policies designed to ensure safe schools for all students. Then, June 30, the Department of Education released the widely quoted report concerning educator sexual misconduct suggesting that one in ten students may have been victimized by school staff. At the same time and place these reports were released, the nation's largest teacher's association, the National Education Association, is holding its annual convention. Meeting in Washington, DC, the NEA reacted to one of the reports with "umbrage" as spokeswoman Kathleen Lyons put it. Another spokesman, Michael Pons, dismissed one of the reports saying the nation's public schools are "statistically...one of the safest places for children to be." Which report drew the ire of the NEA? Despite the frightening suggestion that 4.5 million students may have been the victim of educator misconduct, the NEA panned the Department of Education report on sexual abuse. I could find no published response to the GLSEN report. In fact, the NEA plans to give GLSEN's president an award during the convention. So why the different reactions? Both reports fly in the face of the NEA's contentions that the schools are one of the safest spots for children. The GLSEN report suggests that 84% of the states have policies that make going to school an unsafe experience for all students and yet not a peep of outrage from the NEA. To best understand the silence, one should know that the NEA has provided funding to GLSEN and recommends GLSEN's website to teachers for information concerning sexuality. And as noted above, the NEA plans to give GLSEN's Kevin Jennings a civil rights award. The NEA leadership seems to like GLSEN. On the other hand, the NEA doesn't appear to like the producer of the sexual misconduct report. In addition to producing reports designed to improve school safety, the Bush administration's Department of Education is responsible for implementing the No Child Left Behind law. This effort to bring standards to the nation's schools is clearly on the NEA hit list as is evidenced by the organization's website. Ok, so the NEA shares political goals with GLSEN and opposes those of the Bush Administration's Education Department. Isn't it understandable that you would go a little easier on your political allies than on those with whom you disagree? Understandable, maybe, but I don't think such an approach is desirable for the NEA. To have credibility, the NEA needs to assure its members and the nation's parents that it does not base policy on political expediency. Can we trust the NEA to speak as experts on education when the leadership of the organization seems to make public statements informed more by political allegiance than by research and best practices? This is not a frivolous question. If GLSEN's policy analysis is correct, then the vast majority of the nation's schools are unsafe accidents waiting to happen. However, the NEA says that schools are among the safest places for children. I am confused. If 84% of the country fails the GLSEN safety policy tests, how can the NEA spokesman still be correct? According to GLSEN spokesman Joshua Lamont, the report grading the states "represents the first systematic measurement and comprehensive analysis of statewide policy to ensure the safety of all students, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity." If the schools are as safe as the NEA claims, then the GLSEN report must be missing the mark. Given the NEA belief that schools are basically safe, shouldn't the NEA come out and criticize the GLSEN analysis with the same vigor as has been directed at the sexual misconduct report? In my view, the NEA should criticize the GLSEN analysis for one primary reason: the analysis is flawed. GLSEN's study basically reports a few of their policy objectives, matches them to current law and policy in the states and finds very few states where such policies exist. Specifically, if a state had an anti-bullying law mentioning gay students by name, then a higher grade was received. Having a law protecting all students against bullying did not count positively in the GLSEN analysis. Is this because protecting "all" students is not really the objective? Rather, having sexual orientation mentioned in law is the aim. GLSEN looked at no statistics concerning bullying or violence. For all anyone knows, states with "Fs" could have fewer incidents of violence than schools graded "A." In short, the report doesn't reveal any research or substance about safe schools, all the while claiming the vast majority of schools are unsafe. Clearly the issue of educator sexual misconduct needs more attention and better research, but the report reviewed nearly 900 studies to substantiate its claims. The only direct relationship the GLSEN report has to actual safety is that it's a pretty safe bet that GLSEN will not be challenged by the NEA. Seems to me that the NEA is suffering from a case of misdirected umbrage. The cure? A dose of reality would help. Perhaps parents need to let the NEA know we want action not umbrage. Warren Throckmorton is Director of College Counseling and an Associate Professor of Psychology at Grove City College. Footnote: Episcopal Academy in Philadelphia has implemented the GLSEN program at the behest of Bishop Charles E. Bennison.

Sterling Fox, CKNW, Corus Radio Network across Canada July 3, 2004 Fox: A couple of Anglican parishes in the British Columbia diocese of New Westminster (which is the Greater Vancouver area) who are being threatened with eviction from their churches because of their disagreement with the diocese and the bishop, of course, on the matter of same-sex marriages. Ed Hird is the acting Media Director of the Anglican Communion in Canada. He's also the Rector of St. Simon's Church in Deep Cove, which is part of North Vancouver, British Columbia, and one of the congregations literally being threatened with eviction. Mr. Hird… Ed, welcome to our show. Ed Hird: Yes, I appreciate. It's great to be with you. Fox: How long has this disagreement, for lack of a better word, between your congregation and others with the diocese been festering over the issue of same-sex marriage? Hird: It goes back actually six years since our former bishop and diocese voted for same-sex blessings. And then two years ago there were eight congregations that withdrew from the Synod. There are now eleven congregations that have formally protested and have declared a disconnection with Michael Ingham and the Synod. Fox: Now those eleven congregations… Are they all in this one diocese of New Westminster in BC? Hird: Essentially. Fox: Are you aware of any other Anglican congregations (we are on in five provinces across the country) experiencing the same battle of opinion that you are? Hird: Actually it used to be more local and more regional. But what has happened is through inaction on a national level, there is the same unfortunate confusion that has happened across the nation. The General Synod, which is the national body, recently voted to not take action and yet they took action simultaneously. It has got people very confused. They voted to affirm same-sex relationships, to affirm the integrity and sanctity of them, which basically defines them as holy. And so, what's left to discuss. Anglicans around the world are around 75 million. The view of Anglicans worldwide is that this is not where the Anglican Church is coming from. And there are a few thousand Anglicans off on the West Coast who are making it up themselves. We're not telling people what to do, but we want to be faithful to the Anglican beliefs and practices worldwide. Fox: So in the opinion of your congregation, this whole business of the Church sanctifying same-sex unions through official liturgies is just wrong, you're just opposed to it, period? Hird: Everyone is welcome in our church. We are not perfect, but we can't make it up as we go. Fox: Okay. Hird: We're part of a historic faith that has some convictions and we want to be faithful to that. Fox: Okay, I understand that part, Ed, and I wasn't trying to sandbag you, sir. I was just trying to get your position clarified because now it has moved beyond a disagreement between a parish and the diocese in which that parish is located. And you have already told us that there are a number of parishes that are like-minded. But now this has bubbled up beyond the surface into what essentially is boiling down into a turf war, if you will, with no disrespect intended, because the diocese is threatening to evict you and your fellow members at St. Simon's. Did you people not build that church with your contributions to the collection plate? Hird: Our congregation has been around for 59 years, and we built it ourselves and supported it. We are a self-supporting congregation. We unanimously voted to dismiss our former bishop Michael Ingham and to accept the offer of actually five international Anglican Archbishops/Primates from Africa and Southeast Asia. And so now we have new Anglican coverage from around the world. We are not trying to tell our former bishop what to believe or what to do. Fox: Right… Hird: We have certain convictions and we would ask to be respected in those convictions. So we are just getting on with our lives. Fox: Now Mr. Hird, what I am after of course is a legal clarification. For example, the title to the church and the property surrounding St. Simon's. Who is that deeded to? The diocese? Hird: Well, there is no question that it is deeded to the congregation, the people of St. Simon's. And we are also legally incorporated and have been so for many years. That is somewhat unusual. Across the nation, it is not always the case that the congregation has the legal title. Fox: I was going to say, it is usually the diocese that has the legal title to the parish church and so on. Hird: We are in a very fortunate position. But the bureaucratic maneuver is suggesting because we have accepted a new bishop, therefore they use the word 'parish' as a bureaucratic word that doesn't even need people in it. And they would suggest that a parish can never leave. Only individuals can leave. But in our case, the entire congregation voted unanimously to choose a new bishop. Fox: So they are threatening you with eviction from a property that you own, that they have no claim to, so they don't have a lot of legal ground to stand on, at least from this layman's perspective. Hird: Well, we would certainly agree with you. Fox: What about the other churches that don't have the sort of clear title that your congregation does? Suppose in another part of town, another congregation with equally strong feelings about this issue disagrees with the bishop and so on, that is threatened with eviction. If indeed with that church, if the deed and title is held by the diocese, they can get tossed. Hird: I understand what you are saying. What is unique to the West Coast is that the diocese many years ago encouraged many congregations to get separately incorporated. Fox: Interesting. Hird: So many congregations on the West Coast are in quite a unique position. But also there is a concept called 'beneficial ownership.' Our lawyer Bob Kuhn — he's the one who won the Trinity Western University case — he's a very gifted lawyer. He says that beneficial ownership, which relates to the Christ the Redeemer congregation up on the Sunshine Coast, even though it's held in trust by the diocese, the congregational members are the ones who have paid for, invested in it, built it up. Beneficial ownership is a very strong legal argument for retaining property. Fox: We don't have a great deal of time left, Mr. Hird. What is next in this ongoing dispute? Do you have for example a court date? Hird: No, a lot of this is just basically public relations intimidation, and seeking to demoralize the congregations, and divide-and-conquer. But there is a great sense of unity, so we are getting on with the ministry, and sharing the good news. Everyone is welcome in our church. Fox: So now you are called the Anglican Communion in Canada (ACiC). This is the new setup and the new affiliation. Hird: That's right. Fox: Do you have a website? Hird: Yes, we do actually. Fox: What is the web address? Hird: It is http://www.acicanada.ca Fox: And if I can just re-mention, we're not rejecting anybody. Everyone is welcome in our church. We walk with people where they are at. We are certainly not perfect. We basically just want to be able to get on with our life without oppressive threats from our former bishop. As Anglicans, it is like we have a roadmap that we have been following, and our former bishop has come up with a new roadmap and a new destination. And we are saying that he is welcome to go use a new roadmap, but please rent your own bus. And don't hijack our bus. That is all we are asking. Fox: Interesting analogy. Ed Hird, thank you for taking the time. We appreciate your joining us. Hird: Yes, God bless. Fox: Ed Hird, Acting Media Director for the Anglican Communion in Canada. And you and I both know this is far from the end of this story. We will keep a watch on it for you.

By David C. Steinmetz Special to the Sentinel Orlando, July 6 It's no secret, of course, that Christianity is an international movement. But it is an international movement that has been dominated by Christians in the developed West. Christians from Asia, Africa and Latin America (the region known as the Global South) have taken their cues from the settled churches of Europe and North America. There are signs, however, that this relationship is changing. Take, for example, the recent debate in the United States and Canada over gay ordination and same-sex marriage. While mainline churches in the West have taken an increasingly liberal stance on gay and lesbian issues, churches in the Global South have not. With very few exceptions they oppose the ordination of gay clergy and the blessing of same-sex unions. The English newspaper, the Guardian, urged Anglicans in the developed West to "ignore the bigots" in the Global South and to continue to support gay and lesbian issues. But ignoring the Global South is increasingly hard to do. At its triennial convention, the Anglican Church of Canada decided to postpone its debate on the approval of same-sex unions until 2007, even though the liberal provinces of Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia have already approved same-sex marriage. The reason was the opposition of the Global South. The case for postponement was argued by the Rev. Canon Gregory Cameron, speaking on behalf of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Such a postponement could buy time for the beleaguered Anglican Communion and reduce the strains brought on by the unilateral decision of the Episcopal Church to consecrate an openly gay man, the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, as the bishop of New Hampshire. The Canadians grudgingly agreed to wait. The Global South is hard to ignore because it is the fastest growing area in Christendom. In 1900 there were only 10 million Christians in Africa. Africa now has 360 million, Latin America 560 million, and Asia 313 million. There are at least 30 million Christians in China, perhaps as many as 50 million. Korea has a large Christian minority and Korean missionaries can be found throughout Asia. The figures for attendance at Sunday worship are even more striking. Archbishop Peter Akinola presides over an Anglican Church in Nigeria with more than 17 million members. But Anglican services in Nigeria can be attended on any Sunday by twice that number of worshippers. In contrast the Church of England with 26 million members and the Episcopal Church with 2.3 million have an average Sunday attendance of roughly 800,000. Christians in the West are well aware of the reaction against Western values by Islamic militants but seem far less sensitive to the anti-colonial thinking of Christians in the Global South. Africans in particular regard the imposition of the sexual morality of the West on their traditional societies as a new and insidious form of intellectual colonialism that must be resisted. As painful as the cross-cultural argument between Christians in the West and Global South may be, it is unavoidable. One of the oldest tests for authentic Christian teaching is to ask whether it is universally accepted. The old rule was it should have been taught "everywhere, always, and by all." According to that rule a theological opinion was thought to fail the test of universality if it could be embraced in Canada but not in Kenya, or in England but not in Hong Kong. On the other hand, it passed a crucial test if it showed staying power over time. Even then, it could not be accepted as correct if promoted by only one sociological group — by men but not by women, by whites but not by blacks, or by rich but not by poor. Christians thought truth is by definition boundary-transcending or it is an error. "Local option" is another name for heresy. Judged by the ancient standard of "everywhere, always, and by all" the international debate in mainline Christian churches over human sexuality is a long way away from achieving a consensus. The temptation of the liberal West will be to give up on dialogue with the more conservative Global South, surrender any hope of consensus, and fall back into the comfortable old ways of colonial thinking. We teach; they listen. But falling into the bad old ways is a formula for disaster. Unless the emerging consensus of the churches over human sexuality is international, it will not last. You can count on it. David C. Steinmetz is the Amos Ragan Kearns Professor of the History of Christianity at The Divinity School at Duke University in Durham, N.C. He wrote this commentary for the Orlando Sentinel.

By Phil Brennan NewsMax.com July 7, 2004 In a private memorandum, top Vatican prelate Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger told American bishops that Communion must be denied to Catholic politicians who support legal abortion. While never mentioning Sen. John Kerry by name, the memo implicitly aims at the pro-choice Catholic Massachusetts senator and presidential candidate. Ratzinger's ban is broad and includes all other pro-abortion Catholic politicians who are defying the church's ban on abortion. According the Culture of Life Foundation, which obtained a copy of the confidential document, the Cardinal began by stressing the serious nature of receiving Communion and the need for each person to make "a conscious decision" regarding their worthiness based on "the Church's objective criterion." But the Cardinal adds that it is not only the responsibility of the pro-abortion politicians such as Kerry to make a judgment about their worthiness to receive Communion. It is also up to those distributing Communion to deny the sacrament to those in conflict with the Church's prohibition of abortion and the duty of office holders to oppose the procedure. "Apart from an individual's judgment about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin." If a politician such as Kerry "still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it," Cardinal Ratzinger wrote. He added that such a denial does not mean that the minister of Communion is judging the politician's soul but is a reflection that he is in a state of obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin. "Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person's subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person's public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin." The document also addresses the issues of the death penalty and war, contrasting these issues with abortion. "Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia ... There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia," Ratzinger wrote. The memo was one of the subjects of an interim report by a task force of seven bishops established to address the Communion question. The topic was also addressed by the American Bishops during their mid-June meeting in Dallas. At that meeting the Bishops approved a document titled "Catholics in Political Life" which, while it had harsh words for pro-abortion leaders, did not make specific recommendations on whether or not they should be denied Communion, instead leaving the decision to individual Bishops. Implicit in what the Cardinal was saying, however, is that the bishops are required to state unambiguously that pro-abortion politicians must be denied Holy Communion, thus removing the decision from the bishops' discretion.