Archives

News Analysis By David W. Virtue The recent disclosure that the Archbishop of Canterbury, in concert with the Bishop of London, to allow the consecration of an English vicar by an African Primate to be a missionary bishop, is precedent setting, and raises more questions than there are answers. The Rev. Sandy Millar, of Holy Trinity, Brompton is a major player in the ALPHA movement and he will become a Ugandan Bishop with responsibility for ALPHA parishes in England and will work as a missionary in Britain following his consecration by the Primate of Uganda, Henry Luke Orombi. How his appointment differs from that of an English 'flying bishop' (PEV) who does not have any legal jurisdiction and ministers only with the permission of the Diocesan, remains to be seen. But this extraordinary ecclesiastical act must be seen in a much larger and wider context. Why did the Archbishop allow it? It has been suggested by this writer that it was a quid pro quo for the Jeffrey John appointment as the first openly gay Dean of St. Alban's and the steadily advancing liberal agenda in the Church of England over the ordination of women priests and the church's acceptance of sodomy. The other suggestion is that Williams and Millar are good friends and the Archbishop has been a public supporter of ALPHA and addresses Holy Trinity, Brompton theology schools. Williams is also a theologian for the Lesbian Gay Christian Movement as well. But the fact that the archbishop gave his blessing to this extraordinary ecclesiastical act raises far bigger questions of provincial autonomy and geographical boundary crossing that could have legal implications for numerous orthodox American Episcopal priests locked in legal combat with revisionist ECUSA bishops. The Episcopal Church has repeatedly argued that crossing boundaries is a violation of their autonomy and their canons and constitutions, they say, forbid such actions. Recently Bishop Charles E. Bennison privately blasted Edwin Barnes a flying bishop in the Church of England for coming into his diocese to perform sacramental functions at Church of the Good Shepherd in Rosemont. At that time Bennison, in a face off said to Barnes, "What are you doing invading my diocese?" Barnes: "I am a flying bishop. It is my job to visit beleaguered parishes." Bennison: "You realize I am in contact with Bishop Griswold to bring this to the attention of the Archbishop of Canterbury." Barnes: "He was informed before I came over." Then Barnes made the extraordinary statement, "I am not subject to your canons and neither is Archbishop Malango." Other revisionist ECUSA bishops have also expressed similar sentiments to that of Bennison arguing that orthodox bishops have no business crossing diocesan lines to perform ecclesiastical acts in their dioceses. When they do, there usually follows threats of deposition and presentment, but to date none has ever occurred, owing to that fact that the House of Bishops is enormously dysfunctional. The most notable boundary crossing to date was the appearance of six retired orthodox ECUSA bishops appearing in the Diocese of Ohio led by revisionist Bishop Clark Grew II. The bishops confirmed more than 100 persons in what they described as "emergency measures" for those ECUSA congregations in dioceses who cannot in good conscience accept the radical actions taken by General Convention in 2003. The six churches applied to the American Anglican Council (AAC) for emergency oversight after seeing a preliminary draft of the ECUSA proposal for supplemental oversight and found it unacceptable and not in keeping with the promise of oversight by the worldwide church leaders last summer. Adequate Episcopal Oversight allows an alienated parish to welcome a substitute bishop if the local bishop and the parish encounter serious theological differences. To give global significance to their actions, the diocesan bishop of Recife, Brazil, Robinson Cavilcanti appeared, adding a certain international flavor to the occasion. The six bishops were put on notice that there actions could lead to ecclesiastical action against them, and a scheduled appointment with the President of the Presiding Bishop's Council of Advice was turned down, as the fear existed of a kangaroo court and presentments. But the most recent case of boundary violation is in the Diocese of Los Angeles where three parishes have left the diocese and the Episcopal Church, sought pastoral oversight from the Primate of Uganda, who in turn placed them under the authority of the retired Bishop of Texas, Bishop Maurice "Ben" Benitez. To date no presentment has been issued against the former Texas bishop. Internationally, three Primates and several bishops have intervened in a number of dioceses in The Episcopal Church with mixed results. Some parishes have left the Episcopal Church and their priests have been inhibited and deposed, others have asked for oversight while waiting for their local bishop to rule against them. Several parish priests face court action over their desire to leave the ECUSA but retain their properties. Dr. Williams' action in allowing an African Primate to cross geographic boundaries and consecrate a bishop in an orthodox diocese (London) clearly has legal ramifications for other provinces, especially the Episcopal Church. It will now allow attorneys in the US, who are fighting for the right of orthodox parish priests to keep their properties, and they can also argue that the church's titular head has himself crossed diocesan boundaries for the sake of global unity. It could mean that new legal leverage is now possible for those orthodox ECUSA parishes that are fighting to keep their properties from revisionist bishops! Clearly the Archbishop of Canterbury is desperate to keep the Anglican Communion together, and the instinct for institutional self-preservation has over-ridden revisionist hegemony. Dr. Williams is expected to go as far as possible in appeasing evangelicals in order to prevent their departure, but the cost might be much higher than he thinks. END

News Analysis by Uwe Siemon-Netto, UPI Religious Affairs Editor — Paris, September 10 (UPI) The accelerating number of ever-bloodier outrages committed in the name of Islam has produced a curious transatlantic split over how this religion is to be seen. A plurality of Americans (46 percent) believes that Islam is more likely than other faiths to encourage violence among its believers, according to a new survey released by the Washington-based Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Yet more Americans take a positive than a negative view of Islam (39 vs. 37 percent). Meanwhile, European scholars interpret this result as a sign of "American naivité" when it comes to judging the radical Muslim threat. "This is in line with the tenor of 90 percent of the books on Islam currently oozing out of the United States," said Christine Schirrmacher, president of the Islamic Studies institute in Bonn, Germany. "Every theologian over there seems to feel compelled these days to pen an apologetic tome on this religion, and almost all of these books are of questionable scholarship, except for those written by bona fide experts, who are often remarkably profound." These sharp words are part of an astonishing phenomenon: In formerly "liberal" Europe, a radical turnaround in the public, scholarly and theological perception of Islam is underway, according to Schirrmacher and other specialists. "People over here have come to believe that Islam is not comparable with Christianity," said the Rev. Hans Voecking, key Islamic affairs adviser to the Brussels-based Commission of European Catholic Bishops' Conferences. Schirrmacher — who is frequently traveling around the continent addressing a vast array of civic, military, police, foreign service and religious organizations — observed amazing changes in her audiences' responses. "It used to be that at every one of these events, some people would get up claiming that Muslims are much nicer and much more faithful than Christians with their history of crusades and inquisition. This is over," Schirrmacher went on. "Now I keep hearing: 'We must return to our Christian heritage.' You no longer hear the phrase, 'After all, aren't we all alike? Don't we all want the same?'" Perhaps the most telling shift has occurred in the relationship between the state-related "Evangelical (Protestant) Church in Germany," known as EKD, and the leadership of the country's 3.5 million Muslims. The EKD's past chairman, the Rev. Manfred Kock, used to maintain a very harmonious relationship with his Muslim counterparts — often criticized as "too cozy" by conservative Christians. His successor, the Rev. Wolfgang Huber, bishop of Berlin, is taking an increasingly tougher stand. After Islamist terrorists had kidnapped 1,200 school children, teachers and parents in Russia and killed 335 of them, Huber demanded that Muslim organizations in Germany disassociate more clearly from such atrocities committed "in the name of God," causing strong protests from Muslim leaders. Meanwhile in France, home to nearly 6 million Muslims, their officials have taken "a very smart approach," according to Voecking. They expressed unqualified solidarity with Christians and others in condemning the kidnapping of two French journalists in Iraq. But on a key issue European Muslims remain intransigent, and that issue is suicide-murders in Israel and elsewhere, Schirrmacher and Voecking stressed. In 1998, Shaikh Mohammed Tantawi of Cairo, the most respected Sunni Muslim theologian, decreed that every Palestinian had the right to blow himself up in Israel. He described suicide operations as acts of self-defense. This attitude is strong among Muslims in Europe, Schirrmacher and Voecking said, which is one reason for Berlin Bishop Huber's tough stand. Interestingly, Huber used to be considered a left-winger within the EKD leadership, but the terms left and right have long lost much of their significance when it comes to assessing the Islamists' strengths and weaknesses in Europe. The Netherlands, for example, was once considered the most liberal country on the continent, unabashedly selling disused Protestant churches to Islamic congregations. "Now the Dutch and the Scandinavians, who were equally liberal, are among the most hard-nosed participants in European conferences on Islam," Schirrmacher related. Discussing attitudes on this subject in the United States — where college graduates (49 percent) and liberal Democrats (56 percent) take the most positive view of Islam, while white evangelicals attending church weekly were most negative (54 percent) — Schirrmacher wondered: "Have Americans not seen the horrible reports from North Ossetia? Are they so badly informed on what is happening away from their shores?" Of course, the Pew poll was taken before the Beslan massacre. "I wonder how Americans felt after watching this bloodbath on television," Schirrmacher concluded.

Official Press Release — September 10, 2004 The Lambeth Commission on Communion announced today that it is to publish its report in London on Monday, 18th October 2004, at the beginning of the meeting in London of the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates' Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council. The announcement follows the Commission's third plenary meeting, which was held this week (6–10 September) in Saint George's House, Windsor Castle. Archbishop Robin Eames, Chairman of the Commission, said: "The Commission has been greatly challenged in this task and I have been privileged to work with such a dedicated team. I have no doubt that their collective insights and recommendations can and must make a profound and practical impact for good in the life and mission of the Anglican Communion. This has been a labour of love in the faith that Christ is our guide and strength in working for peace and healing." The Commission was established by the Archbishop of Canterbury in October 2003, following the special meeting of the Primates in London, to make recommendations to the primates of the Anglican Communion on how to maintain the highest degree of communion possible following developments in North America. The Commission has now concluded its plenary sessions, but work is continuing to be done in the preparation of the report in readiness for its delivery to the Archbishop of Canterbury. No further statements will be issued by the Commission before the release of its report on 18th October. The Commission would like to thank the Dean and Chapter of St George's College, Windsor, for their warm hospitality this week. For full information on the work of the Lambeth Commission on Communion check the website www.anglicancommunion.org Note to Editors: The phrase 'developments in North America' refers to the election and consecration of Canon Gene Robinson to be the Bishop of New Hampshire in the Episcopal Church (USA), and the decisions of the Diocese of New Hampshire, Canada and the 74th General Convention of the Episcopal Church (USA) to proceed towards the authorization of public Rites of Blessing of Same Sex Unions. The Joint Standing Committee is made up of the Standing Committee of the Primates' Meeting and the Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council, two of the Instruments of Unity of the Anglican Communion.

From Church of England Newspaper Liberals have warned that the Church of England would break into "civil war" if the American Church is disciplined for its consecration of the Anglican Communion's first active homosexual bishop. There could be mass resignations amongst clergy who are sympathetic to the action taken by the Episcopal Church of the USA (ECUSA), according to the Dean of Southwark, the Rt Rev Colin Slee. He said that recommendations from the Eames Commission that propose the exclusion of bishops supportive of Canon Gene Robinson's consecration from future Anglican summits would be devastating for the unity of the Communion Church of England. "There would be outrage," Dean Slee commented. "I think a lot of clergy would consider resigning. This would be interference with the proper processes of an independent province, forced on them by other provinces who have no jurisdiction there." A delegation of bishops flew in from America to meet with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, as it appeared that the Eames Commission, meeting this week, was moving towards taking action against ECUSA. Under the likely resolution, the American Primate, the Most Rev Frank Griswold, would be barred from attending future Primates' Meetings as he presided at Canon Robinson's consecration. It would be a major blow to Bishop Griswold, who is already furious at the interference in his province of Ugandan bishops, who are providing oversight to conservative parishes in Los Angeles that have broken with their bishop. Primates from the Global South have called for ECUSA to be expelled from the Communion, but they would welcome recommendations that exclude bishops supportive of Canon Robinson's consecration until they repent of their action. The Most Rev Greg Venables, Primate of the Southern Cone (South America), said: "It's now beyond doubt that the majority of Anglicans worldwide aren't in agreement with what has happened in America and Canada. The commission will have to reflect that reality or there is little hope for the future of the Communion." However, the Rev Dr Giles Fraser, Chair of the pressure group Inclusive Church, said: "The idea you can sort things out by scapegoating Americans is absolutely preposterous. I can't believe it's going to happen. It would bring civil war in the Church of England." The Rev Robert Van de Weyer, a Cambridgeshire vicar, said that he would consider looking for American supervision if the hardline proposals were imposed. "I personally would find myself unable to be a member of an ecclesiastical organisation which effectively condemned homosexuality as sinful," he said. "The churches in America are seeking Ugandan and Nigerian supervision, we might seek American supervision. And that's probably what we might find ourselves forced to do. This is very speculative but that is the kind of scenario that would unfold if the American Episcopal Church is excluded." The Eames Commission, which includes both conservative and liberals, is due to deliver its final report to Dr Williams by the end of the month, which will then be discussed at the Primates' Meeting in October.

September 1, 2004 We write as bishops and theologians within the Anglican Communion to the Lambeth Commission to express our thanks for the important work which you are doing on our behalf as you respond to the current crisis within the Communion. We hold you in our prayers as you work to clarify for us the nature of Anglican discipline and make proposals for a way forward which will maintain among us the highest level of communion. Such communion and godly unity is our desire also. Yet we need to express our grave concerns about possible outcomes that might shortly be proposed by the Commission. 1. We write as persons convinced that the only way forward for the continuance of the Communion is for the Primates to exercise some form of discipline upon innovating provinces. The arguments for such a 'restorative' discipline, together with concrete suggestions for the shape of that discipline, have been given in previous submissions. We believe that the arguments in these submissions summarise well the concerns of the vast majority of Anglicans in the Communion, including much of the Two-Thirds World. For the present dispute does not derive from some conflict of local cultures, but is truly about right Christian teaching and common life understood in a 'catholic' sense (that is, throughout the world). 2. There is, however, a danger that the voice of that vast majority may not be heard. We note that, while there have been some significant contributions from the Two-Thirds World, these are still few in number. This is surprising since the churches of the 'Global South' make up over well over half of the Anglican Communion. We know that the membership of the Commission is as representative as it can be, but we trust that it will not be misled by this 'accident' in its sources. Regrettably many in the Global South may find the methodology of such a Commission culturally alien and therefore be hesitant to contribute to this process. There would then be the danger that the important work that you are doing and which all of us support might be perceived as a bureaucratic discussion amongst those who live in the 'West'. Should this turn out to be the case, it would not be surprising if the Commission's advice and proposals were not heeded. We must emphasize that the churches of the 'Global South' have an important a voice and a strong intention which will be ignored at great cost. We trust that the Commission is fully apprised of this political reality and therefore of the inevitable consequences of failing to make recommendations that adequately reflect this. 3. The argument for discipline is hard to refute. We trust that the Commission is now fully aware that the present crisis cannot be resolved through adopting a simple process of 'reception' (as with women's orders). For we have already entered an evident process of rejection, not reception. Primates and bishops throughout the Communion have therefore repeatedly urged for such discipline. If this request is ignored, then plainly we have reached the end of the Anglican Communion in its present form. Indeed, given that many in the Global South have been asking for an even stronger response (namely 'repentance or complete expulsion'), it is clear that this category of 'restorative discipline' is the only viable middle-ground that might possibly preserve the Communion. Even then it will require persuasion on both sides: not only will innovating provinces need to accept its strictures, but Global South provinces will need convincing that it is a sufficient response and not a subtle means of evading or postponing the hard issues. For many provinces are set in contexts where this distinctively Christ-like concept of 'restorative discipline' (giving time for 'amendment of life' and upholding both truth and grace) would be dismissed as weak or erroneous. The key point remains, however: anything less than discipline is a non-starter. 4. So our chief concern now is that the Commission might be tempted to seek to accommodate this call for 'discipline' by proposing instead some form of 'associate status' as an alternative to 'communion'. The argument here would be that, if the overwhelming majority of Anglicans are pressing for ECUSA and Canada to be 'disciplined' (as the only way of preserving the Communion), perhaps instead these two provinces (and any others that overturn biblical and traditional teaching on human sexuality) can be given an alternative status — a 'looser' relating to Canterbury. Some have spoken of an 'inner' and 'outer track', some of a 'federation'. In such a way it is hoped our present crisis can be side-stepped and the provinces of North America can avoid the painful 'loss of face' and legal vulnerability associated with being 'under discipline'. 5. At first sight this may appear an attractive proposal, even (in a caricatured sense) very 'Anglican' in its attempt to comprehend within a single institutional structure what appear to be logically irreconcilable positions. Within this proposal both 'sides' in the argument might be 'affirmed' in some way, and they might even learn to live alongside one another under some 'still-Anglican' umbrella. But the reality on the ground is quite different. This proposal is wrong in principle and unacceptable in practice. 6. In Appendix 2 we list some of the reasons why this is so, which cover matters of theological principle, practical procedures and real politics. In many ways this 'federation' model, it will be noted, only pushes the problem down a level — from inter-provincial relations to those within provinces and dioceses. It does not actually resolve anything, but leaves the issue to worm its divisive way down into every layer of the Communion's life. Another concern is that, if there were ever occasions when the 'inner and outer tracks' were required to gather together, then this would place an intolerable strain on the consciences and patience of those who have consistently expressed their principled objection to revisionist teaching. Hence the insistence in various recent proposals that provinces 'under discipline' would not be represented at the Primates Meeting and the Lambeth Conference. 7. The key problem, however, is that those provinces of the Global South that have already declared a state of 'impaired communion' (as well as orthodox Christians and churches in the North) will not wish to be in some ambiguous kind of relationship with ECUSA and Canada. For the sake of their own mission (often in Muslim lands) there needs to be a clear and publicly recognised distinction between the continuing Anglican Communion and those provinces whose witness diverges from the Communion. In some instances this may be because Communion churches do not wish to see their recent church growth compromised by association with unbiblical standards; in others (more soberly) because the very survival of any Anglican presence in their local context depends on this clear severance — it is, too literally, a 'life and death' issue. We urge you to note this key reality 'on the ground'. The provinces of North America must therefore be seen and known to be a quite separate church or denomination. 8. It should also be noted that the 'federation' model is a proposal which necessarily signals the end of the Communion — a tacit acceptance that an irretrievable breakdown has occurred within our common life. It should also be quite plain which provinces are responsible for this dissolution of our Communion. Indeed it seems odd and even irresponsible that the Communion as whole should be being asked to reorient its common life in a fundamental manner around the actions of a few provinces bent upon such dissolution. 9. If the 'federation' model were pursued, then orthodox provinces, we trust, would be clearly and securely within the continuing (though depleted and smaller) Communion — the 'inner track'. They would also, of course, keenly hope that they might continue to be in the same valued relationship with Canterbury that they have known up to this point. The problem with the 'federation' proposal arises when the status of the provinces in the 'outer track' needs to be defined. For if Canterbury sought to confer some legitimate 'Anglican' status upon these provinces, then many who have seen Canterbury as the focus of their Anglican unity and identity would find that relationship placed under intolerable strain. This awful possibility does not arise from any desire for independence but from a firm commitment to the Communion as it has been known and understood until now. 10. These plain statements of the church-political realities at stake on this issue cannot be ignored. They also help then to clarify what the realistic and viable options are for the status of the provinces of North America: membership in the Communion (in conformity with its teaching), 'membership under discipline' or non-membership. There is no fourth category. Talk of 'federation' is effectively a device to open up such a new category. It is a new and ecclesially vague status, specially designed for these provinces so that they can appear to have been distanced and disciplined (to the supposed satisfaction of the orthodox) whilst conveniently retaining their Anglican status and their treasured links with Canterbury. But this is giving them the privileges of membership without any matching responsibilities (of conformity to the Communion's teaching). No institution can survive if it seeks to play such a game. 11. In this submission we seek to make it quite clear that orthodox 'members' of the Communion will not accept such a compromising move: there is no magical way to 'square the circle' and keep all current members of the Communion satisfied, despite the irreconcilability of their views. A 'compromise' in the direction of an inclusive federation is theologically wrong, morally questionable, ecclesiologically disastrous — and totally unworkable in practice. Orthodox bishops will reserve the right to resist false teaching and to preserve a Communion that is essentially theological. A response that is primarily a matter of structural re-arrangement is doomed. 12. We therefore offer our own proposal of a way forward to the Commission. And we do so at this time as the gathered voice of a host of traditional Anglicans from around the world, standing in steadfast unity with our brothers and sisters in the Global South — indeed in the Communion as we have received it. We propose that the Commission recommend the Primates to act in some such way as this: The Primates should address the House of Bishops (or specially convened General Convention or Synod) of the provinces of ECUSA and Canada with this SOLEMN DECLARATION, requiring a response within a set period: In the light of your recent synodical decisions which have knowingly flouted Communion teaching on matters of human sexuality: A) We hereby declare that your provinces have entered a period of restorative discipline, the purpose of which is to provide time for your reconciliation to the larger Communion and its teaching. This discipline will have implications for the presence of your representatives in the councils of the Communion and includes the adequate provision of episcopal oversight for clergy and congregations in your midst who wish to remain in communion with us. While this discipline is in force, there will be quite naturally an impairment of sacramental fellowship and a restriction on the interchangeability of ministries. B) We hereby pronounce that this discipline will come into force with immediate effect for a set period lasting up to 2 years. It will only be rescinded during this time if your provinces publicly renounce your recent decisions and take practical steps to rescind your actions. C) We hereby also give warning that, should you refuse to respond by renouncing these decisions during the set period (B) or even by refusing to accept the discipline imposed (A), then either of these two refusals will be taken as a clear and conscious signal that you yourselves are unwilling to continue as constituent members of the Anglican Communion. Instead we shall recognise that 'communion' to exist with those from among you who declare their commitment to our common teaching and life. 13. It may be that these provinces will wish to pursue the claim to be offering the Communion a 'prophetic' vision. Our argument is that, if so, then they must speak their voice 'from outside' the Communion's structures — so that we may 'test the spirits' and observe whether their prophetic stance is true or false. 14. We see the above as a reasoned and reasonable proposal, which honestly acknowledges the depth of division that has now broken out within our Communion. Most importantly, however, it adequately does justice to the clear, principled and repeated concerns of the overwhelming majority of faithful Anglican Christians. Why do the majority have to be troubled for so many years by the insistence of such a tiny minority? How long can any institution — let alone the Church of Jesus Christ — continue in this indecisive manner, limping endlessly between two opinions? How much longer can we see our spiritual and material resources being haemorrhaged through incessant debate and acrimony on this point? For the sake of the Church and for our communion in Christ, the time has surely come for decisive action, for clear speaking and, if there is no change of heart, for a clean break. It is time to draw the line.

ZENIT International News Agency | Pamplona, Spain | September 29, 2004 Science marks a key achievement in human history, says a philosopher who nevertheless warns of an "imperialism" that tries to judge everything through the sciences. Mariano Artigas, a member of Brussels' International Academy of the Philosophy of Sciences and of the Vatican's St. Thomas Pontifical Academy, has just published a book on evolutionism and its relationship with philosophy and religion. Entitled "The Frontiers of Evolutionism" and published by Eunsa, the book states that there are questions that science cannot resolve. Artigas, a professor of philosophy of nature and of sciences at the University of Navarre, spoke with ZENIT. Q: The title "The Frontiers of Evolutionism" indicates that there are questions that fall outside the competence of science, yes? Artigas: I will respond with the words of Stephen Jay Gould, one of the most important evolutionists of the 20th century. He was a professor of Harvard University for most of his life. Together with Niles Eldredge, he was the author of the theory of "punctuated equilibrium." He died of cancer in 2002 at 60. He was an agnostic. In his last years he published two books on the relations between science, the humanities and religion, and upheld that science and religion are "two disciplines that are not superimposed," because science studies the composition and functioning of the natural world, while religion addresses spiritual and moral questions. Gould said that it made no sense to seek answers to the questions on the meaning of life in natural science. Another well-known evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, a professor at Oxford University, is an atheist and attacks religion, but acknowledges that the study of evolution cannot give an answer to moral problems. Q: Your view on evolution and creation is interesting: "Evolution can only take place if there is something capable of evolving: Evolution from nothing is a contradiction. This is why evolutionist theories cannot be used to affirm or deny creation." Can you elucidate this affirmation further? Artigas: The Christian idea of creation states that everything that exists depends on God for its being. Instead, evolution defines beings through mutation and natural selection. They are two different planes. This was already recognized by not a few Christians in the 20th century, and it has been generally accepted by almost all Christians for some time, except for some fundamentalist Protestant groups, which are in the minority in the United States but very noisy. Q: You don't try to criticize the scientific theories of evolution, but there are some Christians who do. What is your opinion about them? Artigas: They have a right. Anyone can criticize scientific theories, which are formulated publicly and are based on known arguments. But for those criticism to be serious, they must be based on well-founded reasons. The North American "scientific creationists" have used quite unconvincing arguments, and have used the Bible as if it were a scientific treatise, extracting from it doctrines that go beyond the meaning of the sacred books. Q: What, however, should we do about the Book of Genesis? Artigas: Extract the religious doctrines it contains, which are very important and are the ones that have been emphasized by the Church throughout the centuries. For example, that God is the creator of everything that exists; that he has a special providence with the human being; that at the beginning the human being separated himself from God; that God has plans of salvation for the human race and has developed them through history. Centuries ago, in the West, the Church was concerned with almost the whole of culture. The development of modern science has helped to identify the realm of religious truths and to distinguish those truths from the metaphors in which they have been presented. Q: There should be no problem to combine evolution and God; however, there is conflict. How is it resolved? Artigas: By studying and avoiding prejudices -- thinking what it means that God is the first cause of the being of everything that exists, and that creatures are second causes which in turn cause, but depend completely on God, although God respects the capacities that he himself has given them. Seeing that science is one of the most important achievements of human history, but avoiding scientific imperialism which attempts to judge everything through science. This is no longer science, but a bad philosophy which is generally called scientism.

Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent | The Telegraph | 9/13/2004 The pro-gay leader of the American Anglican Church, who faces discipline for consecrating an actively homosexual bishop, used the pulpit of St Paul's Cathedral yesterday to plead for reconciliation. Bishop Frank Griswold, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, admitted that worldwide Anglicanism was torn between those who had a "concern for boundaries" and those who followed the holy spirit wherever it led them. In an appeal for tolerance, the bishop argued that the spirit had a habit of "stretching" the Church to make room for "new realities". Bishop Griswold's sermon followed growing speculation that he and other liberal bishops would be punished for consecrating Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire last year. But his words will make little impact on conservatives, some of whom are angry that he was even invited to preach at one of the Church of England's flagship cathedrals at such a sensitive time. The Church's conservative wing has denounced active homosexuality and gay "marriages" as contrary to the Bible and have threatened splits if sanctions are not imposed against bishops who have breached official Anglican policy. Liberals fought back last week, giving a warning that civil war would follow any attempt to apply discipline by the Lambeth Commission, the body set up by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, to avert schism. The commission is to publish its recommendations next month. With the prospect of fresh confrontation, both Bishop Griswold and Bishop Robinson, a divorce who lives with his male lover, have made it clear that they are not about to modify their positions. Bishop Griswold said in a radio interview broadcast yesterday that he hoped that the commission would not recommend a "juridical" solution, and that the worldwide Church would remain "broad and inclusive". He told BBC Radio 4's Sunday programme: "If scripture can only be read literally, classical Anglicanism is dead. There has always been a willingness to read the scripture in the light of one's immediate understanding of the Gospel, but also to read the scripture critically in terms of the context in which various books were written."

David W. Virtue DD | Virtuosity "There is no magical way to 'square the circle' and keep all current members of the Communion satisfied, because of the irreconcilability of their views." — Anglican Communion Institute report. Dear Brothers and Sisters, The Lambeth/Eames commission wrapped up its work last Friday on how to resolve the Anglican Communion's crisis over the consecration of an avowed homosexual to the U.S. episcopacy. They said it would publish its report on Oct. 18 at the beginning of the meeting in London of the joint standing committee of the Primates' Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council. Virtuosity has learned that fears the Lambeth report draft document might be leaked prematurely caused ecumenical officer Gregory Cameron at the Anglican Communion Office to ask that binding equipment be purchased and administration staff do it all themselves. As the document is now in the hands of liberals, there is a very real danger that its contents will be leaked to newspapers like The Guardian who would spin it before orthodox believers could see it. Virtuosity is pulling out all the stops to get it for its readers. But a battle is brewing over the Eames recommendations, with liberals screaming that The Church of England will be engulfed in "civil war" if American bishops are disciplined for consecrating its first actively homosexual Anglican bishop, there would be "outrage" and a number of clergy would consider resigning in protest, the Dean of Southwark, the Very Rev Colin Slee, said. Any attempt to do more than censure the Episcopal Church would be "gravely mistaken", added the Dean, a prominent ally of Dr Jeffrey John, the homosexual cleric forced to step down as Bishop of Reading last year. But the Bishop of Willesden, the Rt Rev Peter Broadbent, and the Bishop of Lewes, the Rt Rev Wallace Benn, became the first Church of England bishops to call publicly for the suspension of their American counterparts. "I am not looking at the moment to open hostilities," said Bishop Broadbent. "But we need some degree of acknowledgement that the Episcopal Church has gone beyond what is acceptable. We need more than just slapped wrists." Archbishop Robin Eames of Armagh, chair of the commission, said: "The commission has been greatly challenged in this task and I have been privileged to work with such a dedicated team. I have no doubt that their collective insights and recommendations can and must make a profound and practical impact for good in the life and mission of the Anglican Communion." Dr. Rowan Williams is surprisingly cheerful despite what many see as calamitous days ahead for the whole Communion. A Virtuosity reader said Rowan and Jane Williams did a tour of 1 Millbank, the Church Commissioners' Westminster buildings to listen to their discussions. "He seemed remarkably cheerful and friendly, sitting near to me, not at all like a man in the greatest crisis since Colenso. Perhaps Eames has pulled some kind of ecclesiological rabbit out of the Canterbury cap?" But a delegation of revisionist US bishops flew into London this past week for talks with Dr Williams, hoping no doubt, to influence the archbishop not to punish Frank Griswold. What is for sure is that the realignment begun in the Episcopal Church will not stop whatever the outcome of the report. Frank Griswold is a "classical Anglican" so he says. The Presiding Bishop was interviewed on BBC Radio 4 on the Sunday programme after speaking at St Paul's Cathedral. He was asked about the consecration of Gene Robinson and its impact, as well as about his reaction to the forthcoming Lambeth Commission (Eames) Report arising from the impact of that consecration. He claimed to have been surprised by the world-wide interest in and reaction to the consecration, and he refused to comment on what he would say or do if the Report recommends discipline for the ECUSA. This week former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey will preside at confirmation services for 11 parishes in Virginia that have rejected their own bishop because of his support for Bishop Robinson. Dr. Carey said he was presiding at the invitation of Peter Lee, the bishop of Virginia. "I salute Peter Lee's spirit of generosity and humility as a demonstration that in these critical days for the Anglican Communion it is possible to avoid schism, if American bishops pay attention to the many Episcopalians who are exceedingly distressed by the consecration of Gene Robinson." In the Diocese of Los Angeles, St. James, Newport Beach, one of the dissident parishes to depart from Bishop Jon Bruno received a Texas-size boost in the person of retired Bishop Maurice "Ben" Benitez. He has been assigned to look after the parishes in the absence of Uganda Primate Henry Orombi. In the Diocese of the Rio Grande, Virtuosity was told that The Rev. Canon Jeffrey Steenson will be on the ballot, nominated by petition. The Diocese of Bethlehem will send $53,722 to help the Sudanese people in their time of crisis, according to Bishop Paul Marshall. "We must act now to prevent people in Kajo Keji [Sudan] from starving to death," Bishop Marshall wrote. In the Diocese of Pennsylvania, revisionist Bishop Charles E. Bennison told the Associated Press that he has not issued a formal same-sex blessing because the national church has yet to authorize one, but he is an outspoken supporter of gay rights and marriages. African Anglican Bishops to Meet in Nigeria: About 350 Anglican Bishops from across Africa are meeting for six days from October 26 - November 1 in Lagos. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams will be in attendance and Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo is expected to deliver an opening address. Standing in Faith, a conference sponsored by the Anglican Communion Network will hold its first formal gathering of orthodox and faithful Episcopalians in the Midwest, October 28-30. The Church of England claims a dramatic rise in attendance figures after adopting new ways of calculating the number of worshippers. The church claimed that a "more precise figure" showed an average of 1.7 million people attending church over the month. The Diocese of Niagara in the Anglican Church of Canada has hit an iceberg. Parishes are being disestablished as the deck chairs are being rearranged. Executive Archdeacon Marion Vincett said that during the past nine months six parishes within the diocese of Niagara have elected to disestablish. A new Barna Institute report says born again Christians are just as likely to divorce as are non-Christians, living proof that people's religious faith appears to have no impact on whether or not a married person gets divorced.

Jamie Doward and David Smith | Sunday September 12, 2004 | The Observer The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, yesterday marked the third anniversary of the 11 September atrocities by calling on Christians to show more respect to other religions. "It is sad that sometimes an unfaithful or careless Christian way of speaking has led Muslims and Jews to believe that we have a doctrine of God that does not recognise the oneness and sufficiency of God," Williams said in a speech at the al-Azhar al-Sharif Institute in Cairo, one of Sunni Islam's most revered centres of learning. Williams called on all faiths to speak out against violence committed by religious fanatics. "When the Christian, the Muslim or the Jew sees his neighbour of another faith following the ways of this world instead of the peaceful will of God, he must remind his neighbour of the nature of the one God we look to." The archbishop's address came as the Prime Minister's former envoy to Iraq acknowledged that the invasion of Iraq had played into al-Qaeda's hands. Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who as UK ambassador to the United Nations was at the centre of events in the run-up to the war, said the allies in Iraq had "suffered the consequences" of al-Qaeda's determination to exploit the opportunities presented by a war on Arab soil. He told Radio Four's Today programme yesterday that the West could not defeat Osama bin Laden's terror network by military means alone, but must adopt policies to reduce resentment in the Muslim world. "I think it was one of the objectives of Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda leadership originally to draw America into conflict on Arab soil as close to Saudi Arabia as possible." "Iraq is not yet a failed state. We are in a transition period, which has got considerable difficulties. But if Iraq ends up as a failed state and we leave it in that state, then we are worse off than when we started," Greenstock warned. A number of British Muslim groups used the anniversary to warn that 9/11 had led to a rise in Islamophobia. Massoud Shadjareh, chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, said: "The backlash against Muslims in the UK needs systematic and sustained responses from the British government, yet instead we see endless attention given to increasing draconian legislative measures which are used almost overwhelmingly against Muslims." Radical Muslim group al-Muhajiroun held a conference at which the group's UK leader, Anjem Choudary, praised the 'Magnificent 19' hijackers. In the United States, President Bush marked the anniversary by linking the events of 9/11 to the war in Iraq. "America was attacked with deliberate and massive cruelty. We remember the tragedy of that day. We remember the images of fire, and the final calls of love, and the courage of rescuers who saw death and did not flee," Bush said in a radio address. "Since that day, our nation has waged a relentless war against terror and evil." In New York, hundreds of British police officers joined counterparts from 47 national forces to form an honour guard for the families of those who died in the atrocities. Yesterday also marked the deadline for lawsuits related to the terrorist attacks, prompting a last-minute flurry of filings. Officials at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the owner of the World Trade Centre, filed a suit for damages against Saudi Arabia, alleging that its royal family had supported al-Qaeda in the years before 9/11. The claim followed a similar suit by Cantor Fitzgerald, the brokerage firm that lost 658 employees in the attacks.

News Analysis by David W. Virtue | New York, NY | 10/11/2004 The Episcopal Church's first publicly consecrated homoerotic bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, told an audience at the 92nd Street Y in Manhattan, that there was no going back on his consecration, and he said that stepping down was not an option and doing so would not resolve the issue. Speaking at a forum on Thursday which included an openly gay Rabbi, Steven Greenberg of New York, Robinson said that the conflict over homosexuality had become a "distraction" from more vital issues like the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and the victims of genocide in Sudan and the global spread of AIDS. "How absorbed can we be, to be fighting over this when people are dying everywhere?" "We have allowed the conservative religious right to take our Bible hostage, and I think it is time we took it back," said Robinson. Robinson cited the Acts of the Apostles, likening himself to the lame beggar lying outside the temple gates who is miraculously healed and walks into the temple after Peter and John bid him to rise up in the name of Jesus. "I know what it feels like to be inside the temple. Once out, once liberated, you're never going to be satisfied being outside." The bishop has repeatedly refused to give interviews, but said he will do so after the Lambeth/Eames report has been released. That the bishop can separate public and private morality and then distort and exegete Scripture to fit his own homoerotic ends and needs, is too disingenuous by half. That social justice should be permitted to trump his sexual misbehavior is every mother's worst nightmare. He talks about the global impact of AIDS while failing to identify that the primary cause of AIDS is anal sex in the West and heterosexual promiscuity in the Two-Thirds world! It is sheer hypocrisy of him to separate the AIDS holocaust from what he himself practices! In fact it is his unrepentant behavior that will most likely destroy the Anglican Communion as we know it. Not since there was a call to action by the Anglican Synod in Canada in 1865 to deal with Bishop Colenso of Natal, who, in ministering to African natives refused to make polygamous men give up their extra wives prior to baptism, have we had a scenario in which a Presiding Bishop lied to his fellow primates about what he would not do, then proceed to consecrate a homoerotic bishop, and then whine and scream about his pain when he is called on the carpet for doing it. There has been no more fractious act in modern ecclesiastical history that has the capacity to rent asunder 77 million Anglicans than his consecration. And Robinson calls it a "distraction." In the next 35 days we will know just how big or small a "distraction" it has caused, and how big the ecclesiastical fissure will be as a result of his consecration. Certainly the realignment currently underway in the Episcopal Church will not slow down whatever the Lambeth/Eames Commission report contains, and the momentum is only gathering in one ECUSA diocese after another for change. Resistance is useless; it is resulting only in lawsuits and more. We cannot go back for sure, but the alignment is not going to stop going forward, Griswold's denial notwithstanding. The way forward is fraught with danger, possibly death, but so was the road to Calvary.

Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent | The London Times | September 11, 2004 Conservatives and liberals in the Anglican Church who are at war over the issue of homosexuality made clear yesterday that the divisions are as deep as ever despite the work of a commission set up to heal the rift. The Lambeth Commission, which was set up by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, to resolve the issue, reached the end of its final, week-long meeting in Windsor, yesterday. Chaired by Dr Robin Eames, the Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland, the commission ended the third of its meetings in a series of "challenging" workshops without completing its report. Further work will be needed before the final draft is presented to Dr Williams this month. The report is expected to make a "profound and practical impact" on the future shape of the Anglican Communion, a spokesman said. Disciplinary action, including possible suspension from some or all of the governing bodies of the Anglican Communion, is expected against the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (Ecusa). The Anglican Church in Canada also faces a warning. The crisis erupted last year after Canon Gene Robinson was consecrated as the Bishop of New Hampshire in the US and after the decisions of the Diocese of New Hampshire, Canada and the General Convention of the US Church to proceed towards the authorisation of public rites of blessing of same-sex unions. But the impossibility of reaching a conclusion that will satisfy all parties became clearer than ever yesterday. Anglican Mainstream, the multinational conservative evangelical group founded to oppose the appointment of Dr Jeffrey John, now Dean of St Albans, as Bishop of Reading, demanded "restorative discipline" on Ecusa that would reduce it to observer status for two years. During that time it should rescind its actions or face outright expulsion. In a statement signed by leading global evangelical bishops and theologians, including the Bishop of Lewes, the Rt Rev Wallace Benn, President of the Church of England Evangelical Council, the group insisted that Ecusa "must not be able to use the label Anglican in a way that identifies them as part of the Anglican Communion". The evangelicals also insisted that Ecusa's relationship with Canterbury, if it is to continue at all, must be "qualitatively different" from Canterbury's relationship with what will become the continuing Communion. They would need to have a clearly "diminished" status, Anglican Mainstream said. There are already indications that if the African and Asian bishops' demands for discipline against the US are not met, leading bishops will set up a rival Anglican Church with its titular headquarters in an ancient see such as Alexandria. The Primate of Nigeria, the Most Rev Peter Akinola, has previously said: "You do not need to go through Canterbury to get to Jesus." In the open letter on its website yesterday, Anglican Mainstream said: "If this request (for discipline) is ignored, then plainly we have reached the end of the Anglican Communion in its present form." Liberals in this country said that the Church of England would break into "civil war" if the American Church were disciplined for its consecration of the Anglican Communion's first active homosexual bishop. The Dean of Southwark, the Very Rev Colin Slee, told The Church of England Newspaper that there could be mass resignations among clergy sympathetic to Ecusa's action. "There would be outrage," he said. "I think a lot of clergy would consider resigning. This would be interference with the proper processes of an independent province, forced on them by other provinces who have no jurisdiction there." This week, a US delegation of bishops met Dr Williams in a further attempt to help to resolve the matter. Under the likely penalty, the US Primate, the Most Rev Frank Griswold, who is preaching at St Paul's in London tomorrow, would be barred from attending future primates' meetings because he presided at Bishop Robinson's consecration.

Most Churches Turn Blind Eye to Nation's Real Moral Crisis By Richard B. Hays | Special to the Observer Christians in the United States should stop fighting one another about issues of sexuality so that we can focus on the deepest moral crisis of our time: our responsibility for the destruction our nation has inflicted upon the people of Iraq. Ignoring traditional "just war" criteria, the United States launched a pre-emptive war on Iraq that has killed at least 10,000 Iraqi civilians, more than three times the number of people killed in the tragic 9-11 attacks. Additionally, more than 900 American soldiers have died in Iraq. Thousands more have been wounded and maimed on both sides of the conflict. The justifications proposed by the president and other leaders have proven false: no weapons of mass destruction, no involvement by Iraq in the 9-11 attacks or in sponsoring al-Qaida. The systematic torture and humiliation of Iraqi prisoners of war in Abu Ghraib prison is merely one painful symptom of the reckless manner in which our country has acted. Remarkably, most churches in this country have turned a blind eye to these terrible facts or have remained silent. Instead, it seems all we can do is squabble about sex. The recent general conference of my own denomination, the United Methodist Church, spent many hours debating the "sexy" issues of gay ordination and same-sex marriage, but it found only a few minutes to pass a resolution calling cautiously for an investigation of abuses of Iraqi prisoners. The larger ethical question of first-strike invasion was never raised at all. Am I alone in believing that we are straining at gnats and swallowing a very large camel? Jesus taught his followers to turn the other cheek when attacked. At the heart of Christian identity as his disciples is the call to be peacemakers. Yet we fail repeatedly. Scripture diagnoses our true condition: "Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery are in their paths, and the way of peace they have not known" (Romans 3:15-17, quoting Isaiah 59:7-8). Of course, how we should apply the New Testament's teachings to international affairs in a post-9-11 world is a complex question. At present, however, we are not having the debate at all. And, along with the rest of the nation, we seem paralyzed by the inability to admit that we have made a tragic mistake. It has been left to secular voices, such as the muckraking provocateur Michael Moore, to raise moral qualms about the invasion. Consequently, President Bush (himself a Methodist) receives no guidance from his own church in these matters, and no political leader of either party has had the courage to call the nation to acknowledge its errors. If we hear any religious discussion of the war in the public sphere, it is almost always self-justifying, seldom calling us to prayerful self-examination. Thus, the public, including the Islamic world, receives the impression that Christianity underwrites war-making. Because Christians have remained strangely silent, we are complicit in these actions. The Jewish and Christian traditions offer an ancient wisdom about what we must do when we recognize we have wrongly harmed others: It is called repentance. Instead of obsessively debating sexual politics, we should raise our voices together in calling the Church and the nation to repentance and peacemaking. Wouldn't it be wonderful to pick up the newspaper and read, "Christians table sex debates, call nation to repent of war"? Perhaps if we can acknowledge our own failings regarding matters of war and peace, we will find it possible to return to our conversation about sexuality later in a more generous spirit. During the past year, I have made lecturing trips to South Africa and New Zealand. In both countries, the first question repeatedly asked me by people in the churches, of all different theological stripes, was: "How can the Christians in America fail to speak out against this war?" In view of my own denomination's timid silence, I hardly knew what to answer. If we could together seek God's mercy for the chaos our nation has unleashed, I dare to hope that we might in time be able to offer a better answer to the nations, as well as to the One to whom we must ultimately render an account. Richard B. Hays is the George Washington Ivey Professor of New Testament at Duke Divinity School. His book "The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation" was selected by Christianity Today as one of the 100 most important religious books of the 20th century.