Archives

Statement from FIFNA President, Fr. David Moyer 24 March 2004 FIFNA's Response to the House of Bishops' Statement on Episcopal Care Kyrie Eleison, Christe Eleison, Kyrie Eleison. It would be wise in this second half of the Lenten season to pray unceasingly in light of the ECUSA House of Bishop's Statement of 23 March, 2004. We have a church (or as Father Sam Edwards would say, an "unchurch") that has been declared to be in rebellion, disobedient to the whole counsel of God, by the vast majority of baptized members of the Anglican Communion, as well as the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Although the bishops say that the church is "to be a trustworthy sign to the world of this costly reconciling power of God," they mean that the orthodox must be "reconciled" to the agenda of ECUSA. Forward In Faith, North America, being a part of an international witness to Apostolic Order, Catholic Truth, and Evangelical Faith, is totally committed to reconciliation and unity. But, this reconciliation must be grounded in the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles which alone fosters unity amongst Christians. We strive to submit ourselves to God's Revelation as known in the mind of the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church. The thrust of the House of Bishops' Statement is on episcopal oversight. How in the Name of God can a church in crisis and denial led by revisionist bishops in aggressive and willful disobedience to Holy Scripture and ecumenical consensus think that faithful and intelligent people be deceived by this statement. No member parish or individual of FIFNA takes joy in the brokenness and impairment of relationships with their bishops. This isn't the way it should be. But, we are not foolish. We see the state of denial that the ECUSA House of Bishops maintains. We understand the agenda to be that of intimidation, suppression and the elimination of orthodox faith and practice. Has there been any reversal of this? I will say with the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, "Bear fruit that befits repentance" (Matthew 3:8) Bishops are not welcomed and diocesan programs are not supported for the simple reason that a significant number of faithful souls don't see them upholding and maintaining the Church's proven witness to the world for salvation, healing, and reconciliation. We observe with heavy hearts those entrusted with apostolic authority who do not bring to the sheep of Christ's pasture the doctrine of the Church Catholic and Apostolic. Indeed, they undermine Christ's teachings. How could any converted soul welcome their statement? The provision (and there are no guarantees) of Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight is simply a denial of reality, and a gross failure to be apostolically pastoral to people. What committed priest or lay person could embrace this token thrown our way to deceive us by attempting to lower the temperature of unrest, and to stop the hemorrhaging of people. We all know that fully orthodox bishops cannot be reproduced in ECUSA and that fully orthodox churches are no longer free to maintain fully orthodox clergy leadership upon the death or retirement of their priest. Daily ECUSA loses more of her members to other churches or to nowhere at all! We will not accept this. We are committed to Adequate Episcopal Oversight as defined by the Archbishop of Canterbury. We will continue to work with the "Network" to achieve this goal. Let us be glad for Mother Church's gift of Lent. We truly need it. (The Rev. Dr.) David L. Moyer

IRISH CATHOLIC, ANGLICAN LEADERS SPAR March 20, 2004 Dublin, Mar. 19 (CWNews.com) - A sharp disagreement on homosexuality has given rise to tensions between Catholic and Anglican leaders in Ireland. The dispute arose last week when the Church of Ireland (Anglican) Archdeacon of Dublin, Gordon Linney, argued in a public speech that the government should allow homosexual couples to "have registered stable relationships with all the benefits and rights that go with that status." The archdeacon stopped short of advocating same-sex marriage, conceding that marriage is "a term with very special dimensions and meanings." However, as he made his argument for same-sex unions, the Anglican leader took what appeared to be a direct slap at the Catholic hierarchy, asking "how people who are so certain about homosexuality being evil could have been so indifferent and even devious when it came to facing up to the issue of child abuse." Speaking in Dublin's Anglican cathedral on Sunday, the Catholic Archbishop shot back. Archbishop Diarmuid Martin told the congregation at St. Patrick's cathedral: It would not be honest of me, speaking here today in a Church of Ireland cathedral, not to refer to a certain hurt that I felt in these days by words attributed in the press to a Church of Ireland figure which somehow gave the impression that those who hold different theological positions to the author on the subject of homosexuality, were perhaps less sincere, even fundamentalist, or were associated with having been "devious" on other serious issues. Archbishop Martin, who made his remarks at an ecumenical evensong service, suggested that Christians of different denominations should show "respect for each other's searching" on controversial issues. Such public disputes among Christians emphasize the differences between the denominations, he said. He called upon all Christians to "address our individual sinful responsibility today for the perpetuation of the disunity which exists among the followers of Christ." This article courtesy of Catholic World News. To subscribe or for further information, contact subs@cwnews.com or visit www.cwnews.com.

Dear Brothers and Sisters, LONDON, UK - The Archbishop of Canterbury is worried. In a moment of candor about problems facing the church and his leadership over homosexuals in the priesthood and the recent consecration of Gene Robinson, he said, "I have to admit that over the past twelve months I'm not sure what God has in mind for the Church of England or the Anglican Communion. Half the time I haven't any idea. But in the end, I believe it will work itself out." Yesterday he ratcheted up the tension a notch or two when he sent a private letter to Frank Griswold on the eve of the Camp Allen House of Bishops meeting telling the Presiding Bishop that the confirmations in Ohio had his blessing. The full contents of the letter have not been leaked to anyone, and Griswold has not so much as admitted that a letter even exists. But when a fellow journalist here in London talked to Lambeth Palace, she got the response that it was "too hot to leak"! Virtuosity has learned that it contains, at the very minimum, a strong if not harsh word to Griswold to take no ecclesiastical action against the "Ohio five" bishops, because he would not get support from Lambeth Palace. This puts Griswold in a real quandary. He has 61 or more revisionist ECUSA bishops breathing down his neck wanting him to do something, with the not so veiled threat from the Bishop of Oklahoma, Robert M. Moody that an appropriate response to this action of defiance and disobedience on the part of those bishops will be on the agenda. "That response could be a censure of these bishops or a presentment that could lead to an ecclesiastical trial." This is the last thing Griswold wants. He hates conflict of any kind, but every time he turns around he faces it, and it is getting worse by the week. The orthodox bishops have made it very clear they will never accept pastoral care because it is not alternative Episcopal oversight, and Griswold won't back down from his position that the diocesan bishop's power must be honored under existing church law. Stalemate. Meantime V. Gene Robinson makes his first appearance as a bishop in Camp Allen, where he will undoubtedly be greeted with cheers from the revisionist gallery and groans from the orthodox side of the house. VIRTUOSITY has received word that his partner Mark Andrew will be attending the wives gathering, where, one assumes he will be acknowledged and possibly consecrated the first queen among the wives. Phoebe Griswold, who wore, "just ask me about Gene" buttons at General Convention, will do the honors. BUT ALL IS NOT WELL AT CAMP ALLEN. The bishops are not staying together and some conservative bishops are boycotting the Navasota meeting. Some will participate fully and some like Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan will stay offsite and attend only sessions treating the church fracture. Do we have a de facto breakup already underway? Clearly we will not see any public embracing of Frank and Bob this time round, if ever again. Lines are beginning to harden and there would seem to be no way back unless one or other parties cries uncle. The revisionists have the numbers, at least in the number of bishops, but the laity is clearly given more to orthodoxy in faith and morals, and this can be judged by the numbers leaving liberal dioceses. El Camino Real was decimated by Schimpfky reducing the numbers from 30,000 to 12,000 and Grew (Ohio) has seen his numbers fall from 40,000 to 24,000. As Robert England, a traditionalist Episcopalian and journalist who documented the decline of the Diocese of Newark under Jack Spong noted, "Bishop Schimpfky was one of Bishop Spong's darlings when he was in the Diocese of Newark. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. No surprise that membership in the Diocese of El Camino Real collapsed under Schimpkfy's tenure -- it did the same under Spong in Newark." As one Virtuosity reader noted. "You reap what you sow. Thirty years of lawlessness practiced by bishops doing their own thing, instead of teaching basic Christianity, and accepting Anglican Communion guidelines, has taught many people that doing your own thing is best. On territorialism: "It seems as if many bishops are only interested in protecting their territory. They can't stand competition." Meanwhile Griswold and his flak, Dan England keeps talking up reconciliation as though nothing was really wrong. Reconcile what? Reconciliation dialogues are little more than smoke and mirrors attempts to patch up the unpatchable. Those attending them don't see much point either. All the talk seems to create more anger and frustration, acting as a reminder of underhanded and manipulated results. At the end of the day it might well be that the revisionists would sooner destroy the church than acquiesce to orthodoxy in faith am morals. IF YOU THINK THE NUMBERS ARE BAD IN THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH, a Church of England Bishop, the Rt. Rev. Nigel McCulloch, Bishop of Manchester, says that if present trends continue the CofE "could disappear within a generation or two." Already there are only 800,000 churchgoers regularly attending Sunday services — fewer than the number of Muslims attending mosques. In all, the number of church worshippers has fallen more than a million since 1990. The latest ECUSA figures show that between 700,000 and 800,000 attend church regularly, the much vaunted 2.5 million figure is wildly exaggerated unless you count cemetery headstones. SEWANEE TO GIVE HONORARY DOCTORATE TO ROBINSON! The beginning of the campaign to give him the degree is underway. An inside source at Sewanee says that the University of the South will be forced into atoning for its past sins of orthodoxy by awarding its next honorary degree to the homosexual alumnus. He has 9 of Sewanee's 28 bishops on his side, and they are a very powerful and political block, and they can prove they were right if Sewanee shows the world that it too loves Gene. "Safe Space = Safe Space for him and his boyfriend." Will Sewanee continue to embarrass itself? Stay tuned. AND THE DIOCESE OF MASSACHUSETTS APPROVED A CIVIL MARRRIAGE RESOLUTION at its recent day-long convention. No surprise there. The resolution was passed by a large majority of the 391 voting members—clergy and lay delegates representing the diocese's 194 congregations. And they did it in an hour and a half. The Convention, which brought together more than 650 Episcopalians, focused on the fantasy notion of evangelism through music, but most of the time, however, was spent singing up on the well-orchestrated resolution concerning marriage. Shaw was also the featured speaker at a demonstration for legalized gay marriage. Meanwhile, a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as heterosexual was endorsed jointly by heads of the state's four Roman Catholic dioceses, the Greek Orthodox metropolitan, prominent black and evangelical leaders, heads of the Islamic Council; and several mainline Protestant and Jewish clergy. Shaw is not working off the same page as Scripture or, it would seem, his ecumenical partners. AND THIS FROM A VIRTUOSITY READER WHO HAS A GRIP ON THINGS. "Christian liberalism enters upon spiritual waters with its opposition to the voice of authentic Gospel, though coming from a huge diversity of ill-informed and muddle-headed points of view. It is utterly consistent and coherent in one respect and one only: it hates the truth about Jesus and the cross. Even those who don't know this truth have been (spiritually) conditioned to respond to it, as if by instinct. "Liberal Christianity promotes itself as saving the world FROM Jesus and the cross. That has become its only asset, its only "gospel". Everything it does supports this. If the rallying cry is "inclusiveness", it means including those who felt themselves excluded because of Christian morals. If it is "justice", it means opposing the free market economy which, while not itself Christian, could only have been born and can only thrive in a once-Christian culture. Even the call for "conversation" anticipates the need to neutralize the legitimate claims of a Creator and Savior God. "Revisionist Christianity is not bastardized, watered down or dumbed down Christianity. It is Antichristianity. It is organized around a spirit that opposes Jesus, even if the ecclesiastical lackeys who support it haven't got a clue." I AM POSTING A NUMBER OF STORIES TODAY including an interview with retired Bishop William Wantland (Eau Claire) regarding the Ohio confirmations and more. THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION INSTITUTE will hold its Colorado Spring Conference under the banner, ANGLICANISM: HISTORY AND HOPE: The Future of World Anglicanism in North America. April 20-23, 2004. Among the speakers will be Dr. George Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury, Professor Editor Humphrey, The Rev. Dr. John Karania, The Rev. Dr. Robert Prichard, The Rev. Dr. Jeremie Begbie and the Rev. Dr. Ashley Null. You are warmly invited to attend this conference. This writer will be in attendance. You can sign up by writing to: The Anglican Communion Institute, 601 North Tejon Street, Colorado Springs, CO 80903. The Rev. Don Armstrong. IN THE DIOCESE OF NIAGARA (CANADA) they will hold a General Synod Children's Program, 2004 under the Banner, "See, I'm Making All Things New." The program is for children aged 5 through 12. Along with story-telling, puppets, crafts, music, parachutes and drama, there are other activity themes that include, "What's a Primate," "Native Jubilee" and "Same-Sex Issues." What in heaven's name is someone doing teaching same-sex issues to pre-teens! One hopes the Police have been alerted. IN OTHER NEWS the Diocese of the Central Gulf Coast approved a policy that opposes both ordination of noncelibate clergy and blessing rites for same-sex couples. And the Diocese of the Mississippi rejected proposals to declare that a breach exists between itself and the Episcopal Church, and to withhold money to protest Robinson's consecration. CORRECTION: In my last digest I said on my Ohio story that, "None of the priests were from the six parishes." What I should have said was, "None of the priests from the six parishes were vested for the service. (They were instructed not to wear their vestments. Each parish was represented by its priest.) I AM IN LONDON for a few more days assessing the Church of England situation. I will have more news in the days to come. PLEASE SUPPORT VIRTUOSITY with your tax deductible dollar. Without your support I cannot exist. Please be generous. You can use PAYPAL at my website: www.virtuosityonline.org, or you can send a snail mail check to VIRTUOSITY, 1236 Waterford Rd., West Chester, PA 19380. Thank you for your support. All blessings, David W. Virtue DD

AN INTERVIEW WITH BISHOP WANTLAND, OHIO CELEBRANT Bishop William Wantland, retired bishop of Eau Claire, now lives in Oklahoma. He is a long-time FIF/NA Council Member and FIF/NA Chancellor. He was chosen to be the Celebrant at the historic Confirmation Service for the "Ohio Cluster" of parishes on March 14, 2004. forwardNOW! interviewed the Bishop shortly after the event. forwardNOW! - How were the Bishops chosen to provide the "Ohio cluster" with these "emergency measures" this past Sunday? Who did the asking? Do you think that this will give other bishops courage to step out and repeat this in other parts of the country? How important is it that an overseas bishop be a part of these actions. Bishop Wantland: Several of us were asked to be a part of this effort, and the initial request came from St. Luke's Church, Akron, in concert with five other congregations. I was asked if I knew other senior bishops who might take part. There were five of us available, and several more who wanted to take part, but were already committed for March 14. I do think this will encourage others to take part in the future, should this be necessary. I am not sure it is essential to have overseas bishops present, but Bishop Cavalcanti wanted to be a part of this historic occasion. forwardNOW: With your legal background, do you fear any reprisals or hostility from the House of Bishops meeting on March 19-25? From any other group? Bishop Wantland: While reprisals may well come from revisionist bishops, I don't know of a one of us who fears such action. I would not be surprised to see the ViaMedia groups trying to make presentations, or possibly Integrity. forwardNOW: Will one of you be appointed as an on-going spiritual overseer of the "Ohio cluster?" Bishop Wantland: We did discuss an ongoing relationship with the six congregations, but I am not sure how that will be handled at present. There will be further discussion with involved parties in the near future. forwardNOW: Since Forward in Faith has chosen to partner with the American Anglican Council and is a member convocation of the "Network," what do you say to those FIF/NA members who fear that we have compromised our principles to associate with groups that ordain women? Are we still able to "commit to the Church's historic position on Holy Orders as an integral ingredient for the realignment of orthodox Christianity and the Anglican tradition" as Fr. Moyer says? Bishop Wantland: If I am not mistaken, FiF/NA claims to be a part of the Anglican Communion, which includes groups that ordain women. If one wishes to be entirely free of any such association, then one must join Rome or Orthodoxy and leave the Anglican Communion. I would hope that it would not be necessary to refer to the fact that FiF/NA has its own Convocation in the Network; that the Network Charter recognizes our right to proclaim our understanding of ordained ministry; that the Network is committed to an in-depth study of the question (something ECUSA has never done); and that we were a part of the study of this question done by AMiA, resulting in a decision NOT to ordain women to the priesthood or episcopate. Our situation is so much better in the Network than at present in ECUSA, with our right to proclaim our understanding of Apostolic Ministry fully assured. To refuse to work with those who support us, even if they do not yet agree with us, is short-sighted and dangerous. forwardNOW: Some parishes and clergy are intentionally not talking about the events of the wider church in order to "protect" and "isolate" their parishioners. They want to focus on evangelizing, prayer, and Christian Education and not get caught up in the politics of the church. What do you say to them? Bishop Wantland: Only ostriches bury their heads in the sand, and not to any good purpose. You cannot ignore the reality of what is going on. How can one focus on evangelizing, prayer or Christian Education, if one ignores the blatant attack on the Christian Faith which is the basis for evangelization, a full prayer life, or Christian Education. Those who try to ignore what is going on and just "do the Lord's work" are NOT doing themselves or their people any favors. They are encouraging the forces of revisionism by pretending the problem does not exist. forwardNOW: How does it feel to be a part of a history-making event by taking part in these confirmations? 110 — Is this the largest group of confirmands for whom you have ministered? Bishop Wantland: I only wish so many more people could have been present. The congregation of about 1,000 was so full of the Spirit, and everything, music, sermon, liturgy, was fantastic. I have been part of Confirmations for 60 or so people, but this was the first time I took part in a service for 110 confirmands. I was truly blessed to be a part of all this.

By Ruth Gledhill Religion Correspondent THE TIMES 3/19/2004 VACANT: one see with large house, £30,000 stipend, 70 priests, 7,000 souls and thousands more sheep. Must be able to speak Welsh. Hoffwch chi fod yn Esgob Bangor? For the first time in its history, the oldest diocese in the country has failed to elect a bishop. After a three-day conclave, the electoral college of the Church in Wales last night failed to reach a decision over who should succeed the Right Rev Saunders Davies as Bishop of Bangor. Bangor, the oldest continuous see in Britain, founded more than 1,450 years ago, could now be without a bishop for months or even years while the five other diocesan bishops decide what to do. Insiders were last night speculating that the diocese could even be merged with neighbouring St Asaph, placing its 70 parishes in the care of the Right Rev John Davies. The electoral college, made up of representatives from Bangor and the wider church, had to find a two-thirds majority for a new bishop within three days at their meeting this week at St Deiniol's Cathedral, Bangor. No electoral college meeting has taken longer than two days since the disestablishment and separation of the Church in Wales from the Church of England in 1920. The college has never before failed to reach a decision, which has resulted in the referral of the vacancy to the bench of bishops. The difficulties at Bangor are symptomatic of the problems facing the Anglican church throughout Britain. At the root of the problem is the declining number of priests and worshippers. As fewer high-calibre graduates experience a vocation to the ordained ministry, the number of clergy suitable for elevation to the episcopacy is diminishing fast.

Tuesday, March 23, 2004 ENS 032304-1 [ENS] In response to the different points of view that exist in the dioceses and congregations of the Episcopal Church concerning issues of human sexuality, the House of Bishops, meeting March 19-25 in Camp Allen, Texas, have issued a document entitled "Caring for all the Churches." The full text follows: CARING FOR ALL THE CHURCHES A Response of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church to an expressed need of the Church The church is the Body of Christ. Our life in this Body is a continuing action of God's grace among us, by whose power alone we are "joined together" in Christ and grow "into a holy temple in the Lord" (Eph. 2:21). Through the church's common life in Christ, God intends to signify to the world the beginning of a new and reconciled creation. [Document continues with full text as provided in original...] The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church 23 March 2004 BRAZIL: PRIMATE ESCORIATES FELLOW BISHOP FOR OHIO ACTION A Letter from the Primate of Brazil to the Most Revd Frank Griswold March 22, 2004 (ACNS) PORTO ALEGRE [Full letter content as provided...] Most Revd Orlando Santos de Oliveira Primate of the Province of the Episcopal Anglican Church of Brazil. END WASHINGTON, DC: EPISCOPAL SAME-SEX RITE WILL BE DEVELOPED BY REVISIONISTS By Julia Duin THE WASHINGTON TIMES The Episcopal bishop of Washington has named two priests — the former national chairman of the church's homosexual caucus and a divorced mother of two sons — to head a new diocesan task force on same-sex blessings. [Article continues with full text...] END ECUSA: OFFICIAL PASTORAL CARE STATEMENT BEING CONSIDERED BY HOB Submitted by David W. Virtue SUPPLEMENTAL EPISCOPAL PASTORAL CARE [Full document text as provided...] ---END--- CAMP ALLEN: NEW OVERSIGHT PLAN 'DEAD ON ARRIVAL' BISHOPS OFFER NEW PLAN TO GAY DISSENTERS RICHARD N. OSTLING Associated Press Winding up three days of closed-door talks, the Episcopal Church's bishops offered a new plan Tuesday for ministering to conservative congregations that feel bound to reject the leadership of bishops who support gay clergy. [Article continues with full text...] NACDP: HOB OVERSIGHT PLAN WILL TAKE 'EXTRAORDINARY NEW LEVELS OF TRUST' NACDP NETWORK: HOB OVERSIGHT PLAN WILL TAKE 'EXTRAORDINARY NEW LEVELS OF TRUST' 3/24/2004 Network members, moderator, respond to ECUSA plan [Article continues with full text...] END

By Frederica Mathewes-Green The term "high concept" refers to a movie with a striking plotline that can be described in one sentence (eg, Danny DeVito and Arnold Schwartznegger are long-lost "Twins"). In high-concept movies things explode. Screenwriter Charlie Kaufman specializes in another kind of high-concept movie, one in which a strange premise unfolds in surreal ways. Things don't explode; they melt, like Dali's watch. His first film, "Being John Malkovich" (1999) sought to answer the perennial question, "What would it be like if a secret door in my office led to a ride inside John Malkovich's brain?" as well as the obvious followup, "Could I make money selling these rides?" (And you thought you were the only one wondering about that.) "Adaptation" (2002) gave us boxes inside boxes: Charlie Kaufman was hired to adapt the book "The Orchid Thief," and turned in a script about a screenwriter named Charlie Kaufman trying to adapt the book "The Orchid Thief." Charlie is a sad sack who can't complete the job, immobilized as he is by lofty artistic standards that resist crowd-pleasers like plot, character, and a conclusion. Finally his (imaginary) brother Donald Kaufman takes over and supplies a Hollywood-style ending. "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" has as its strongest element a succinct concept: a company named Lacuna, Inc., can erase past painful memories, for example those of a lost love. (A nifty element of the film's publicity is a convincingly realistic website for Lacuna, Inc., including a self-test to see if you'd benefit from memory erasure.) Heartbroken Joel (Jim Carrey) decides to undergo the process, and then changes his mind in midstream; in the surreal realm of dreams he fights to hold onto memories of Clementine (Kate Winslet) so he can find her again when he awakes. Joel is a shlub, a shy, worried fellow, somewhat depressed and somewhat wrinkled, who likes people who are "nice." (Yes, they cast Jim Carrey in this role). Clementine (Kate Winslet) is a terror, a woman at least a decade younger who is angry and flirtatious, unrelentingly self-centered, and a heavy drinker. If Americans think the most shameful condition for a man is depression and for a woman is alcoholism, Kaufman has scored a twofer. These two strike up a relationship-it would be a stretch to say "fall in love"-- and all you want is rescue poor Joel from this dangerous, destructive woman. Winslet deserves applause for her courageous portrayal of Clementine, a character whom we never have any reason to trust. Carrey does fine in a role that is, for him, unusually subdued, though he never moves us to love this generally bland character. Elijah Wood appears as a Lacuna employee who falls in love with Clementine. Most interesting was Tom Wilkinson as Dr. Howard Mierzwiak, founder of Lacuna, Inc. The usual line calls for this person to combine oily ingratiation with the delusions of a mad scientist. Howard instead is the most grounded, authentic character in the movie, and appears to be genuinely compassionate (more so than he appears in the movie ads, for some reason). This is a problem, actually. He's the most likeable person in the movie, and the movie is not about him. What steals the scene is the scenery. Once Joel is asleep and decides that he wants to resist the erasure of Clementine's memories, he cuts back and forth through time inside his own head, trying to find a place where he and she can hide until the procedure is over. Thus we have rain falling inside his apartment, which turns into the back yard of his childhood, and a cartoonish scene in which he hides under the kitchen table as a four-year-old. As the relentless process destroys his memories of Clementine, we see him walk with her down streets where the signs are going blank, stand in a bookstore where the covers are turning white, hesitate in a beach house while it crumbles around him. These are extraordinary effects, visually rich, and so fluid that it is impossible to savor them all. But since they could all be filed under "surreal dream sequence," they have an essential sameness. During this part of the movie nothing is happening to advance the plot; we're in limbo. For roughly an hour we have the equivalent of Joel and Clementine running through a tunnel holding hands. What happens when they come out? The movie ends, but without much havinghappened. Joel has not changed and neither has Clementine, and there is still no reason for them to be together. It turns out that there's a reason satisfying stories show characters that grow, a plot that enables them to, and a conclusion that draws it all together. We don't need to watch aimless, confused people dither their lives away. People know how to do that already. What storytelling has done, from time immemorial, is to show characters who either find a way to make their lives make sense, or fail movingly. It's not selling out to write a screenplay that answers this human hunger. We spend enough time stumbling in the mist of dreams. Frederica Mathewes-Green www.frederica.com

By Julian Coman in Washington The Telegraph 3/21/2004 The fierce battle over same-sex unions, which has split American public opinion during the past month, has now pitched the Vatican into an unlikely alliance with Islamic countries against officials of the United Nations. A proposal by the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, to extend spousal benefits to the partners of gay UN officials has outraged representatives of the organisation's 51 Islamic nations, some of which outlaw homosexuality altogether. The Vatican's envoy to the UN has also expressed dismay, prompting fears among Mr Annan's aides of a joint Roman Catholic-Muslim crusade. According to an internal UN bulletin issued in January, any "legally-recognised domestic partnership" will now qualify for the same UN employment benefits a conventional married couple would receive. The move has come as President George W Bush is proposing a constitutional amendment to prevent gay marriages in the United States. In the corridors of the UN, similar proposals are being mooted by conservative groups. Only nine of the UN's 185 members recognise same-sex partners. They include Australia, Canada and France. Similar legislation is expected to go before Britain's Parliament this spring. In Morocco, by contrast, homosexual acts are punishable by between six months and three years in prison. Mr Annan's rule change means that a gay French or Australian UN employee should now be able to claim for his or her partner the same travel expenses, assistance with visas and pension plans as an ordinary husband or wife - or, for that matter, the multiple wives of diplomats from countries that permit polygamy. Gay lobby groups claim that in the past relationships have broken up when UN employees re-located and same- sex partners were unable to follow. For nationals of countries where same-sex partnerships are not recognised, the new benefits would not apply. Traditionally liberal members of the UN general assembly have heartily approved Mr Annan's move. Canada's representative, Jerry Kramer, said that he "saluted" the new ruling. But the beginnings of a globalisation of gay marriage rights, seen by many UN members as a Western aberration, has caused near apoplexy among socially conservative colleagues. Joseph Klee, the Vatican envoy to the UN, underlined last week that same-sex unions were contrary to Catholic teaching. "For us, marriage is a union between a man and a woman and is the foundation of the family," said Mr Klee. A spokesman for the Holy See told the Telegraph that if the new rule was implemented, the Vatican would attempt to block it. "So far we have made our position known informally," said the spokesman. "When the time comes for an official intervention we will make one." Iran, where homosexuality is illegal, is leading Islamic objections, strongly supported by Egypt, Indonesia, Kuwait, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Syria. The Iranian UN representative, Alireza Tootoonchian, is demanding a vote on proposed spousal benefits for homosexuals at the UN General Assembly, where a majority would almost certainly vote against the idea. As the Islamic world closes ranks, the European Union is attempting to come to Mr Annan's aid. "The European Union is satisfied with this practice and we see no reason why the secretary-general's prerogative in this area should now be contested," said a spokesman. Privately, diplomats are more wary. "This is a hell of a hornets' nest," said one Western diplomat. "The Islamic countries are furious, although they are not sure they can do anything about it. The gay lobby is asking why there is such a fuss, when the UN recognises polygamous marriages and allows benefits to be divided between such wives. The Americans, given President Bush's opposition to gay marriage, are keeping their heads down." Mr Annan has so far refused to take the issue before the General Assembly. His conservative opponents are promising to go to the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva. "This one could run and run," said the diplomat. END

COMMENTARY By Kevin Myers The Telegraph Dr. Williams has made an art of imprecision. The conversation between Phillip Pullman, the author of His Dark Materials, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, published in The Daily Telegraph last week, like almost anything emanating from the leader of the Church of England, reads like a master-class in ecclesiastical imprecision. I have read the exchange many times, and it remains as clear as porridge. Chew this: "And if the reality is my will and my thoughts. If there is somewhere a condition where I can get the body where it belongs, get it under control, then that's where I want to be. And, of course, Christians and other religious people do buy into that in ways that are very problematic." Not even dental floss will remove that. Now I know it's not fair being disrespectful of those who hold the see of Canterbury. For years now, each of them has become almost like a dotty old uncle who turns up at Christmas with a hearing trumpet and a tasselled cap on his head. No one wants to offend the old fellow, so no one has the nerve to declare that nobody's quite sure of his continuing raison d'etre. So he sits in his favourite armchair by the fire, where he spends the day babbling into the flames and drooling onto his velvet weskit, while the family members get drunk and take it in turns to roar some occasional kindness into the old codger's trumpet. Rowan Williams, moreover, resembles a Pooh Bear toy that has been savaged by terriers. Unruly tussocks of horsehair protrude from every orifice. His eyes often have the maddened glare of glass beads whose ursine dignity has been gravely insulted, and his clothes suggest he has been dressed from an Oxfam shop. You can easily imagine him as an impoverished stall-holder in an open-air books market, drinking tea out of a chipped mug and sporting an ancient, holey cardigan: certainly, the uninformed could never believe he was even a clergyman, never mind the spiritual leader of the world's 60 million Anglicans. Ah, how that term "60 million Anglicans" is so easily uttered. It has as much meaning as any three unrelated words unwillingly put together - "Haitian civic spirit", say, or "Tibetan cricket team". First, the Anglican church is just about dead in England, its continuing eminence being largely hall-of-mirrors trickery in which the media and the institutions of state conspire. If you judged the Church of England as you would a football team, by the numbers of people who vigorously supported it, then Anglicanism is Accrington Stanley reserves. Anglicanism, like the English muffin, is far bigger in North America, where the vexed issue of homosexuality is one of the reasons that Pooh Bear these days so often talks porridge. Canadian and some US Episcopalians favour same-sex "marriages": but others there, and almost all African and Asian church members, are about as opposed to the notions of homosexual wedlock as they are to marriage between a human and a horse. Amidst all the porridge, I'm not sure what Pooh's position - so to speak - is on homosexual marriage. Nor am I sure on his attitude towards homosexual bishops, only that he called on Canon Gene Robinson to withdraw as bishop-elect of New Hampshire last year. This was not, I suspect, because of his personal dislike of having a mitre-biter in the Episcopal palace, so much as the volcanic anger that the issue was causing in Africa. For poor Pooh Bear has arrived at the head of the Church of England just as it was being riven asunder at the San Andreas Fault of sexuality. So it's no wonder that in addition to the terrier attack, he looks at times as if he has the mange, or that whenever he opens his mouth, he speaks in tongues, mellifluously, certainly, and beardedly, naturally, but in tongues none the less. For babble is safe. Babble baffles. It doesn't divide. If he were to say anything about sex that anyone could actually understand, one side or the other, or even both, might secede. The real miracle is less that the Church has not yet divided totally over sex so much as that its opinions still attract as much media attention as they do, given that it has fewer active followers than does the Chief Scout of Britain. And if female pensioners were disqualified from worship, the Anglican churches of England (though with some vigorous exceptions) would be almost empty. Yet Pooh merely has to open his mouth and utter screeds of melodious impenetrability to get yards of respectful press coverage. He is at once very powerful and almost powerless, as the yawning breach in the heart of the Anglican community attests. Avoiding an unpleasant decision on homosexuality, marriage and the ministry will not spare him an unpleasant outcome; sooner or later, his verbal Quaker Oats and syntactic Ready Brek will probably collapse under their own glutinous weight, vanishing down the chasm in the centre of the Anglican communion. END

By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent The TIMES 3/20/2004 THE Church of England could disappear "within a generation of two" without an immediate change of direction, according to a senior bishop. The Bishop of Manchester, the Rt. Rev. Nigel McCulloch, said that the Established Church was in danger of becoming a minority sect. "We will, unless there is a turn in the tide, be a church that gradually disappears from this land," he said. Bishop McCulloch said clergy were being diverted from their true mission of evangelism by the debate over sexuality, 25 years of church legislation and increasing red tape caused by secular regulations. "It is almost as if the Devil is in this. It distracts people from what they are meant to be doing," he said. "Far too many of us are being forced into managing an institution rather than engaging with souls." The moment that an institution goes down that road, he said, it "has lost its heart, the purpose it was created for." Bishop McCulloch said: "The agendas which are imposed on most churches these days are almost deliberately designed to veer them away from what the spiritual issues need to be." He was speaking to The Times after the latest figures showed plummeting membership across all the churches. Figures published in the UK Christian Handbook: Religious Trends show that at the current rate of decline, total church membership across Britain will have fallen to 5,598,000 by 2005, down by more than a million people in 15 years. Over the same period, the number of church buildings will have fallen by 1,400 to 48,600 and the number of ministers will have dropped by 1,000 to 35,400. Even if the rate of decline does not increase, the figures mean that by the turn of the next century, there will still be thousands of churches and ministers, but they will have no Christians to minister to. The declining interest in organized Christianity contrasts with the findings of the 2001 Population Census, which included a voluntary question about religion for the first time. In the census, 72 percent of the population said they were Christians. The Handbook acknowledges an "obvious yawning gap" between profession and commitment in terms of church attendance. Writing in the foreword to the Handbook, published by Christian Research, Bishop McCulloch said: "The overall picture presented by this book serves to highlight the dilemma which Christian churches in the United Kingdom currently face. It has long been said that there is a yearning for spirituality across our countries, but until now the evidence has been largely anecdotal. "What the census has shown is that a huge majority of our population, in the privacy of their own homes and without any external pressure, have expressed a personal allegiance of some kind to the Christian faith. Unfortunately, as the trends noted in this book ably demonstrate, there is a seeming inability on the part of most Christian churches to understand and engage with that opportunity." Bishop McCulloch said: "At its earthly heart are the faithful few who gather for worship and scatter for service. The fact that, in so many places, they are becoming even fewer is a matter of the deepest concern." END

The Rev. Dr. Ronald Moore Dec 08, 2025   It is tempting to believe that the decline of the Church means the decline of Christianity. That is the mistake the Church of England’s recent statistics make—and the same illusion many American denominations are beginning to share. A reduction in attendance is not always evidence of a waning faith; sometimes, it signals that the Spirit has moved elsewhere.   According to the Bible Society’s new report The Quiet Revival, church attendance among young adults in England has grown dramatically over the past six years. But the Church of England’s own numbers tell a different story: congregations are smaller, children fewer, and the long-term decline continues. So which is true?   Both—and neither. The Church of England may not be growing, but Christianity is not dead. What is happening in the United Kingdom is a re-alignment, not a recession. The revival is real; it has simply gone outside the walls.   The Spirit Moves, Even When the Institution Does Not The Holy Spirit is not confined to a chancery office or a cathedral nave. He moves through the streets, the campuses, the living rooms, and even the digital commons where hungry souls gather to pray and learn. History has never known a true revival that began in the bishop’s palace. Every great awakening began with repentance among ordinary people—fishermen, farmers, students, and outcasts—who rediscovered the holiness of God and the authority of His Word.   When a church becomes more concerned with affirmation than salvation, it ceases to be a vessel of grace and becomes a monument to its own decline. Yet even there, God does not leave Himself without a witness. When the institution falters, the remnant rises.   The Remnant Pattern This “revival outside the walls” is part of a larger, biblical pattern. When Israel turned to idols, God sent prophets to the wilderness. When the Temple became corrupt, Christ went to the mountains and the shore. When medieval religion hardened into superstition, reformers preached in fields and taverns. God has never needed a bureaucracy to be believed; He has only needed hearts that tremble at His Word.   The West’s ecclesiastical decline, then, is not the end of Christianity—it is the pruning that precedes fruit. It is the moment when the living branches of the vine must push beyond the old latticework of institutional religion and bear fruit in the open air.   It may look disordered to the statisticians, but heaven recognizes it as growth.   A Word for America This same movement is quietly beginning on our own shores. While the mainline churches shrink and some evangelical movements chase trends, a quieter stream of believers is returning to historic faith, liturgy, and Scripture. They are not leaving the Church; they are leaving the show.   And in that return, a new strength is forming. Like England, our own revival will not begin in conference halls or denominational offices, but among those who kneel, repent, and believe again that God is holy and His Word is true.   The quiet revival is not confined to one country. It is the sound of dry bones stirring across a weary West. The numbers will never capture it, because it is happening where statisticians rarely look—in hearts made alive again by awe.   END

By Peter C. Moore The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown's blockbuster novel, gives us a hauntingly mystical view of Christ. In The Code, Jesus is married to Mary Magdalene and has children with her. Along the way, he also spawns a cult of secret goddess worshippers. According to the novel, in the modern age, the rigidly orthodox Catholic order of Opus Dei fanatically suppresses a group of cultists who keep alive Jesus' ancient and "true" vision of Christianity. If you suspect that this plot line is too absurd to gain attention, consider that the novel has spent 52 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list and is currently at the top. One of Brown's astonishing claims (presented as fast-paced truth) is that Jesus was never considered divine until, at the Emperor Constantine's insistence, the Council of Nicea voted him so in 325 A.D. Brown doesn't explain why Christians of that day never noticed this sudden change in their doctrine of Christ. Why should we be surprised by the public's fascination with unorthodox theses on the nature of Jesus Christ? Colorful advocates have promoted these sorts of claims for centuries. In the 19th century, cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Science sprang into existence asserting that Jesus was less than the unique Son of God. The idea they exploit is, of course, far older. In the 4th century, Arius, a presbyter in the Church of Alexandria, nearly caused a major schism by claiming that Christ was less than the Father. Fifteen emperors, five popes, scores of patriarchs, hundreds of bishops, innumerable priests, and even fervent street mobs took sides for or against Arius. Thirteen church councils hashed through the problem until it was eventually settled with the Nicene Creed. The heresy of subjectivism Today there is a new spin on these old heresies, arising from our culture's fascination with religious pluralism. Along with a widespread loss of belief in absolutes, we see a loss of faith in objective truth. People now hesitate to say that any religious convictions represent literal facts. They prefer to think that all beliefs are subjective. This allows them the benefit of holding on to beliefs that offend no one. Thus, these people can appear religious but tolerant. One of the most vigorous proponents of this new heresy is the controversial Canadian bishop Michael Ingham. He precipitated an international Anglican crisis by promoting the ordination of active homosexuals and performing same-sex blessings. Consequently, one third of the laity of his diocese (10 parishes) have left him and sought protection from the wider Communion. Theological warfare A few years ago, Bishop Ingham sponsored a debate on the topic, "Is Jesus Christ the only way to God?" The debaters were American Bible scholar Marcus Borg and British theologian Tom Wright, presently the Bishop of Durham. Four hundred people packed the auditorium, and 300 more were turned away; so clearly the subject was important to Anglicans in the Vancouver area. During the debate, Borg claimed that it was acceptable for Christians to reject the traditional belief that Jesus Christ is the only way. He warned against Christians making "triumphalist and provincial claims" that Jesus is the only way. Wright, on the other hand, quoted John 14:6, "I am the way and the truth and the life, no one can come to God except through me." He defended the "scandal of particularity" that asserts the politically incorrect view that Jesus is "the climax of God's story in the cosmos." The two scholars frequently appear on the same platform. I heard them debate at Chautauqua a couple of years later. Tom Harpur, a popular Canadian author, columnist, and TV commentator who renounced Anglican orders some years ago, sees John 14:6 as a pretext for "coercion and then violence against those who [don't] happen to agree." Harpur claims that John 14:6 should not be considered historical because, in his words "the Gospel of John is not historical." However, Matthew 11:27 and Luke 10:32 say virtually the same thing as John 14:6. And so the battle is joined. Curiously, virtually all parties to the debate would doubtless claim that they are orthodox Christians. All most likely confess the Nicene Creed and the Apostles' Creed and insist that the differences between conservatives and liberals are merely differences in the interpretation of Scripture rather than a rejection of the authority of Scripture. Similarly, when it comes to the current divisive issue of homosexuality, the same argument is offered: we all accept the authority of Scripture, say those in favor of the revisionist agenda, we just differ on its interpretation. I'm frankly troubled by this claim. While the issue of Christology and homosexuality seem miles apart, I see them as two sides of the same coin. Double-think Let's look again at the issue with which I began. Both liberal and conservative Anglicans claim to be "orthodox" Christians. Why then do they come to very different conclusions about the uniqueness of Jesus Christ? How can a large number of priests and bishops say that they affirm the divinity of Jesus Christ, but refuse to say that he is the unique Son of God and the only Savior of the world? Ask your rector whether she or he believes that Jesus is the "only way." You may be surprised at the answer you get. The argument you get may sound like this: Jesus may have been the Son of God. But we cannot proclaim him to the world as anything more than "my God" or "our God." Is this muddled-headed thinking or something worse? I am reminded of George Orwell's "double-think." According to his major work, Nineteen Eighty-Four (published in 1949), double-think is the modern faculty of simultaneously harboring two conflicting beliefs! Laity, I find, are sometimes quicker than clergy to see the incongruity of affirming one thing in a creed, and then proclaiming another from the pulpit. This was proven in a study of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. by two American sociologists. They asked why a very large number in the age group 35—55 had left the denomination. The reason was not what conventional wisdom would suggest: changes in worship, controversial social stances, poor preaching, or inadequate adult education. No, most people in this age group who left the Presbyterian Church did so for only one reason: they no longer believed that Jesus Christ was the only Savior of the world. Liturgical dissonance I suspect that the figures for lay flight would be much the same for the Episcopal Church. While the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the only Savior is the Church's historic position and the only logical conclusion to be drawn from our hymns, creeds and liturgies — to say nothing of the Scriptures — many church members reject it. A friend of mine wagers, for example, that 90% of those Episcopalians who support the consecration of an openly gay bishop and the blessing of same-sex relationships would deny that Jesus Christ is the only way. Which raises the question, "What does orthodoxy mean?" Is one orthodox if one denies such a central claim of the Faith as the position of Jesus Christ? Can one say the creed, recite the prayers, sing the hymns, and claim to be orthodox, and still be unwilling to say that Jesus is the only way? Two ways can't both be right During my 25 years of ministry to students, I was frequently challenged to answer the charge: "How can you say that Jesus Christ is the only Savior?" Here's what I said: I reminded them of Jesus' parable about two men who went into the temple to pray. One thanked God that he was "not as other men." He reminded God that he tithed, fasted and prayed, and was completely different from that other man "over there" who was a sinner. Most of us would conclude that the first man was sincerely religious and moral. The other man, however, knelt, beat his breast, and prayed, "Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner." "Which one left the temple in a right relationship with God?" asked Jesus. Even his detractors had to say, "The one who asked for mercy." Jesus is talking about two fundamentally different approaches to God. The first approach relies on good works, honest intentions, and moral rectitude. The second approach is to cast oneself on the mercy of God. The first ultimately has no place for Jesus Christ, except as a moral teacher. The second will know Jesus at a glance, because Jesus embodies the divine mercy that is needed. So then, I respond to my challengers by saying that Jesus is the only Savior because he alone embodies the mercy of God. No other religious teacher or prophet ever came close to offering God's unconditional love to sinners, as Jesus did. So, if it's mercy we know we need, Jesus is the only way. And who doesn't need mercy? What of the people, then, who have never heard of Jesus? Isn't it logical to assume that, whenever they do hear of him, on this side of death or on the far side, they will recognize him as "the God they never knew?" Orthodoxy is simply the framework in which the uniqueness of Jesus Christ is preserved. That uniqueness is not something we can disperse into the mists of subjectivism. It's essential to our experience of unconditional mercy. Without it, we are all lost. With it, we are gloriously found. END