Archives

By Jonathan PetreThe Telegraph — September 8, 2004 A delegation of American bishops flew into London for talks with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, following reports that they could face discipline by the worldwide Anglican Communion. The bishops are concerned they may be barred from Anglican summits after backing Anglicanism’s first openly gay bishop. The delegation has the support of the Presiding Bishop of the American Episcopal Church, Frank Griswold, who presided at the consecration of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. Sources say the bishops intend to express their anger over suggestions that the Episcopal Church could face sanctions for defying the Anglican majority on homosexuality.

Dear Members of the Eames Commission, Greetings and blessings to you in the name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. You have accepted a calling to do what some might consider impossible—to reconcile two sides on a very divisive issue. We praise you for your willingness to serve and ask that God bless you with His infinite wisdom as you seek a resolution. We are a small group from across Canada who have long felt like voices in the wilderness. We are people who were once active in homosexual behavior or who have struggled with exclusively same-gender attractions. We represent a much larger group than appears on this paper. We have understood and accepted God’s biblical condemnation of such activity as sin, and in some cases we have experienced His loving and merciful healing of the brokenness that led to our involvement in such activities. Individually we have often been cowed into silence by those who seek to revise biblical teachings on this issue. When we have had the courage to speak out, we have been ignored, dismissed, or overruled. What we ask is that our stories be heard. We believe the church should offer and promote God’s healing of human brokenness rather than enabling behavior that Scripture calls sin. God loves us as we are—but loves us too much to leave us that way. We pray that you will have the courage to proclaim God’s Good News and call for reunification of our church under the authority of God’s Holy Word—the Bible. Please be assured that you remain in our thoughts and prayers as you complete your task. (Signed by clergy and lay representatives from Anglican dioceses across Canada.)

“Those made alive by the Spirit grounded in sacred scripture come to these times confidently.” — Methodist theologian Thomas Oden Dear Brothers and Sisters, Panic, or perhaps the realization that the days of denial are over, has finally dawned on Frank Griswold, the Episcopal Church’s Presiding Bishop. Confirmed reports say that Griswold is flying to London tomorrow to consult Archbishop Rowan Williams over the looming crisis. While he is scheduled to preach at St. Paul’s next Sunday, there can be little doubt that he will be talking at length with Dr. Williams about the consequences for himself personally of the Lambeth/Eames Commission report. Two stories—one written by your scribe about the Lambeth Commission and another by Ruth Gledhill of The London Times—document the inside story, and it does not make for pleasant reading for ECUSA’s pansexualists. The plain facts are that the Lambeth/Eames Commission report will not be an Anglican fudge. The report is going to have teeth; it will be disastrous for the Anglican Communion’s pansexualists. There will be some kind of formal suspension of The Episcopal Church, following which there will be a radical restructuring of the Anglican Communion that could see the dissolution of the Anglican Communion Office in London because of its ultra-liberal pro-Western stance. The Queen has apparently made it clear to Dr. Williams that she will not permit the breakup of the Anglican Communion over the gay issue, and that Williams must do everything to see that the orthodox are not penalized for their views, sources in London told Virtuosity. Clearly the Primate of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, is not to be trifled with. At the end of the day he might have more power than Dr. Williams. He can galvanize 50 million African Anglicans. Williams cannot. And to add to the pyrotechnics of the whole situation, Primate Henry Orombi of Uganda will consecrate Sandy Millar of Holy Trinity, Brompton, as “Bishop in Mission” to serve in London to look after the Alpha churches. The Rev. Millar has helped pioneer the Alpha course that has revived evangelical Christianity in Britain and worldwide. What is going on here is a quid pro quo for evangelicals who are furious over the appointment of Jeffrey John as Dean of St. Alban’s. Perhaps ECUSA’s revisionist bishops could take a lesson from the Bishop of London’s Book of Inclusion about how to handle marginalized orthodox priests in the U.S. He has clearly taken the high road and is prepared to make compromises in the name of greater unity. Stay tuned.

by Peter Moore Danielle Pletka, in an article in the New York Times, 8/11/04, claims that "Arabs (are) on the Verge of Democracy." She affirms this administration's desire to "propagate democracy" in the Arab nations, even though the "Palestinian problem" remains unsolved. She also claims that "democracy is now at the center of debate in Arab capitals." The following talk, given in late July, 2004, at the Chautauqua Institute, sketches some of the options for dialogue on democracy among Arabs (Muslims) and the West (Christians). What I hope to do in this talk is begin with some preliminary remarks about the nature of interfaith dialogue, as I understand it, then proceed to talk about where such dialogue — between Muslims and Christians — might begin. I suggest that we might begin by each side talking about its historic failures, and some of its historic successes — stressing especially the failures. I then take a look at one possible topic for dialogue: our respective approaches to the issue of democracy. In doing so I try to dispel some myths about how Christianity and Islam have each related to governments over the centuries, and I cite some of the current obstacles that exist for each faith community to think together about this subject. Along the way I will have comments to make about our respective ideas about the place of law and war, and about how Muslims and Christians approach their Scriptures differently. I conclude by talking about some specific ways we can build bridges to one another, and why the issue of human rights must be on the agenda. Let me begin, then, with a personal story. I was walking through a particularly beautiful village in the mountains of Morocco, some years ago, and I was chatting with my twenty-something guide, a very talkative young man who seemed unusually eager to find out as much about me as he could. "Are you American?" He asked, right off the bat. "Yes," I said. "Are you Christian?" "Yes" again, I answered. "Are you Protestant?" Once again I said "Yes." "Wonderful," he said. "We have these two English missionaries here in the village who are teaching us the Bible." I was surprised on a number of counts. First of all, I wasn't aware that there were Christian missionaries in Morocco, nor that they could openly teach the Bible, nor that a bright, eager young man like this would be attracted, even if such were allowed. But this all happened in 1960, and a lot has changed in the world since then. As we walked on, we continued talking. He began to reveal such enthusiasm for what he was learning, and such intellectual curiosity about Christianity, I asked him point blank if he were a Christian. "No," he said. "Why not?" I asked. "You seem so interested in it." All he answered me was: "My father is a Muslim." That conversation happened on the very first day I had set foot on the soil of an officially Muslim country, and I was at the time a graduate student in England — very green, somewhat naive, and certainly not accustomed to what one might call interfaith dialogue. Since then I have been to several Muslim countries, and have engaged in many conversations with Muslims — although I profess no special expertise on the subject of interfaith dialogue. Others here, I suspect, have had much more experience in formal inter-faith dialogues than I. I am a pastor and seminary educator with my own store of personal experiences in this fascinating world of interfaith dialogue — some more fruitful than others. I am also an Episcopalian, and an evangelical — a combination that might surprise some here who aren't aware of the broad spectrum of views that go under the general rubric of Anglican. DIALOGUE AND MISSION Being an evangelical means that I believe in mission. Therefore I believe in Christian missions in a Muslim context. If this disqualifies me, in your point of view, from saying anything useful on the subject of dialogue, so be it. But my point today is not to talk about mission. I take it as axiomatic that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism — at least in its Old Testament context — are universalizing faiths, and hence all have a missionary vision. "I have set you to be a light to the nations," says the Lord to Israel in Isaiah. 42:6. Judaism strongly attracted many Gentiles. The simple but majestic worship of one God, the lofty ethics, the generally high standards of family life, brought many, including people of rank, to the synagogues at the time the New Testament opens. A little later, by the time of Paul's journeys, there were many Gentiles in synagogue attendance as 'God-fearers'. Interestingly, one of Britain's leading Rabbis, who teaches at the University of Kent, argued that it's pointless to tell Christians not to evangelize Jews, because it was in the nature of Christianity to share the Good News with everybody. "Just do it with sensitivity, and with respect, and with an appreciation of the heritage of those to whom you are speaking," he asked. (Rabbi Dan Cohn-Sherbok, Church Times, July 1991) But interfaith dialogue is not evangelism. It may be the prelude to evangelism — on both sides. But it is not evangelism. When I was a pastor in Toronto two young Somali men appeared in church one Sunday and afterwards asked if they could speak, as Muslims, to my congregation. I invited them to a mid-week Bible study, and said that if they would come and join us, I would give them equal time at the end of the study to share their own views. They came, respectfully listened to our study, and then each spoke and answered questions. They began by saying that Islam had a more exalted view of Christ than any other religion in the world, which is quite true. The Qur'an speaks of Jesus as the "Son of Mary," as born of a virgin, as "messiah", as a prophet, as having power to cure the lepers, give sight to the blind, and bring the dead to life. Sufi Muslims take Jesus as a "rule of life." Our people listened respectfully that evening, though a couple of our Pakistani immigrants urged me to be cautious. We pressed our Muslim visitors with questions, and they in turn asked us a few, and then left saying cordially that we understood more about Islam than they thought we would. This is the sort of dialogue that I have in mind as I approach my subject today, not a formal interfaith consultation with experts lined up on each side. I am more interested in building bridges between ordinary believers of all faiths — for several reasons. RATIONALE FOR DIALOGUE First of all, not to convert — though that may be a long-term aim. Conversion is never the primary goal of dialogue. "Attention," says M. Scott Peck, "is that form love takes in our modern fast-paced society." When people are driven by a desire to convert they usually do not really pay attention, and hence they usually do not communicate love. Listening is an essential component in any genuine cross-cultural communication. Nor, secondly, is dialogue aimed at conquest — as if the point were to prove the superiority of my culture, or my religion, or my ethics, or my world view. Even in Nigeria where Christians and Muslims are vying for political ascendancy, even on that very fault-line where the two cultures intersect, and even in a context where proselytization on both sides zealously takes place, it is possible for Christians and Muslims to sit down and talk with one another as friends. Nor, I would add, is dialogue aimed at mere clarification — as if "understanding" were the essence of each religion. In the orthodox Christian tradition belief is often a prelude to understanding ("I do not understand that I might believe; but I believe that I might understand," St. Anselm). Similarly, in Islam understanding is never to precede submission. The idea that understanding is somehow the essence of religion gets us closer to Gnosticism than it does to either Christianity or Islam. The goal of dialogue, I believe, is to clear away misconceptions, and demolish stereotypes so that each member of the faith community can be free to be themselves: to be a "non anxious presence," if you will, in one another's company. When dialogue does not happen, the other remains a stranger, and hence under suspicion. Dialogue levels the playing field so that the game of communication can begin. PERSUASION AND TOLERANCE And the goal of that game, as I see it, is persuasion. Persuasion is the ultimate aim of all rational discourse because if there is no point in talking, no aim, no ultimate goal towards which one wishes to move the other, then why bother to talk at all? Why make an effort to communicate? But how does persuasion relate to tolerance? Persuasion and tolerance are never mutually exclusive. Tolerance will always be an important component of any interfaith dialogue, but it cannot be ultimate. Tolerance always plays a secondary role. After all, people don't tolerate ideas with which they agree. They only tolerate ideas with which they disagree. By its very nature tolerance assumes difference, disagreement, and conflict. Tolerance is simply another way of speaking to the other with respect. Furthermore, tolerance is only required when dialogue is assumed to be taking place on my turf. It's when we make up the majority that dialogue is a test of our tolerance. But on those occasions when we are in the minority, tolerance becomes a test of our courage. Tolerance assumes that while I show respect, I claim the freedom to disagree. Hence, if we are to have a level playing field, the most fruitful dialogues will ideally take place on some neutral turf — which, for those of us living in the West, is frequently difficult to find. But, let us assume for a moment that we are sitting on the deck of an ocean liner, or chatting on an airplane — some neutral place — across from a Muslim brother, or sister. Where might we fruitfully begin? Since leading from weakness often elicits an honest reaction, I suggest that we begin by admitting some of our separate failures and some of our collective successes. Stereotypes flourish when we magnify another's failures, and forget another's successes. So, why not begin by a little bit of honesty? CHRISTIAN FAILURES Bernard Lewis, the Princeton professor who has become one of the foremost interpreters of Islam to the West, and vice versa, argues that viewed historically, Christianity has been more violent than Islam — a fact that might surprise us. He says that this is particularly true when one thinks of Christian on Christian violence: Protestant versus Catholic, Catholic versus Protestant. For centuries Europe was awash with Christian blood spilled by other Christians. Nothing, he says, like this is true of Muslims who historically have tolerated a variety of expressions of Islam, except when an expression is considered too far from the mainstream such as the Aga Khan's Ismaili Muslims, the Ba'hais and the Sufis, to name three that have all experienced persecution. It must also be admitted that professing Christians have not always been tolerant of other religions: the Crusades are the prime example, still very fresh in Muslim minds. However much the Crusades were limited in their scope and a response to Muslim invasions of formerly Christian lands, the fact is that they are a blot on our historical record. There are other unfortunate examples. One thinks of Pizarro's conquest of the Incas, and pogroms against the Jews. All these acts of violence paint an unflattering picture of the church when it held political power, or when one section of the church had political power over the others. Viewed historically, the church's record in tolerating slavery, relegating women to second-class status, and mistreating homosexuals, has left a great deal to be desired — even though, to be fair, it has often been reformist Christians guided by fresh biblical insights who have caused the church to rethink its former harshness and alter its behavior. And how well has Christianity fared in shaping personal morality, or redeeming the social order? Divorce is as common among church people as it is in the population as a whole. The same goes for pre-marital sex if the statistics we read are accurate. What of chemical dependencies? Suicide? Or what of broad social indicators like: Crime? Racism? Child abuse? Gambling? Corporate wrongdoing? We could all come up with our own list. Has Christianity made the impact it should have in the West, given our numerical strength and majority status? Or have we succumbed to the ravages of secularism? To what extent do people's beliefs truly shape their behavior? So, to sum up so far, dialogue might begin with a frank admission of Christian failures. What about Muslim failures? MUSLIM FAILURES Some would argue that it's a lot easier for those of us in the West to confess our corporate sins than it is for those in the Muslim world to confess theirs. One finds many fewer voices of self-criticism in the Muslim world than one finds in the Judeo-Christian world. This, in part, is because of the cultural hegemony of the West, and because militant, political Islam feeds off of Western failures — both perceived and actual. But occasionally one finds Muslims who are able to be honest about their own failures. When they do so, dialogue is greatly enhanced. Is our Muslim friend, sitting beside us on the boat or the plane, willing to speak out against extremist tendencies within his own Muslim community? A group of Muslim scholars signed a statement following 9/11 that condemned the violence against innocent civilians. Would our friend be willing to echo those sentiments? What about lamenting the decline of Islamic influence in Western culture, following its glory days in the Middle Ages. There was a time when Islamic scholars were in the forefront of scientific investigation and philosophical learning. "No people in the early Middle Ages contributed to human progress as much as did the Arabs," wrote the historian Philip Hitti. (The Arabs, A Short History, Regnery, 1996, p.5) Today the whole Islamic world is in serious cultural decline. Take just the Arab world. The entire Arab world translates a little over 300 books into Arabic a year, one-fifth the number of Greece. This indicates a serious lack of cultural interaction. Bernard Lewis puts the issue even more strikingly: since the ninth century, the total number of books translated into Arabic is approximately 100,000. That's the average that Spain translates into Spanish in a single year! (The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror) One Muslim scholar writes: "Islam is probably the only monotheistic religion in which scholarly exploration is systematically discouraged, if not forbidden, since rational analysis would not serve the purpose of the despots." (Fatema Mernissi, Islam and Democracy, p.24) Would our Muslim friend admit that this was a problem? What about the Islamic record on human rights, the treatment of women, the relegation of non-Muslims in Muslim lands to dhimmi or second-class status? What about the use of force to subjugate peoples and compel conversions to Islam? What about present day slavery in certain parts of the Muslim world? What about Muslim-inspired terrorism? Are any of these justified in his mind? Unless there is a willingness to acknowledge some of these as problems, our chances of dialogue are slim. Fortunately, there are some Muslims who are willing to look critically at their own tradition and yet still speak from within it. One such person is the Moroccan sociologist Fatema Mernissi who teaches at University Mohammed V in Rabat. She writes of several fears that she sees lying deep within the Muslim soul: • First, fear of having a personal opinion. When Mohammed conquered Mecca, the Meccans renounced their freedom to think and to choose their gods. The 360 gods of the Ka'ba were dethroned. Since then, "under the terror of the sword," Mernissi writes, "political despotism has obliged Muslims to [simply] defer discussion about responsibility, freedom to think, and the [dangers] of blind obedience." (Islam and Democracy, p.19) • Second, fear of the feminine. Mernissi points out that among the 360 gods of the Ka'ba which Islam replaced on the Arabian peninsula, the most powerful were goddesses. This, she says, is partly why the triumph of monotheism is so tied up in the Muslim mind with the invisibility of the feminine. Encouragingly, she argues that now women are challenging centuries of misogyny, insisting on regarding women as equals, and leaving many faithful baffled. • Third, fear of modernity and all it promises. To understand this fear, Dr. Mernissi says, we have to try to understand the nature of the deep underlying anger towards the West among young, and especially poor, Muslims. This anger isn't just a declaration of war against the wealthy Western world, and its allies in the Middle East. Rather, she says, it's a deep anguish over being "forgotten in the great feast of knowledge which is the promise of modernity." (p.88) She calls "the outcry [of these young] the plaint of the unloved child of the family cut off from modern knowledge and its sciences that promise work and dignity." (p.88) • Fourth, fear of individualism. Since "Supremacy, greatness, strength, and sheer power belong only to God," says Mernissi, individualism is thought to lead to the elevation of some over against the many. So individualism is deeply suspect. Islam is one long "outcry against arrogant individualism." When the Prophet Mohammed conquered the aristocratic Arabs, in the Seventh Century, he gained their undivided submission as the price to build an egalitarian community. But did this annihilation of individuality before Allah ultimately bring the classless society Mohammed envisioned? And does the lingering fear that some new false prophet might elevate himself over against the multitude, justify the annihilation of individualism? • Finally, fear of the West. Mernissi writes: "The powerful, monolithic West... that haunts our Arab imagination... is more fiction than fact... Torn by ethnic and regional rivalries... the West is disintegrating before our eyes. Nevertheless, for us Arabs this West, splintering into a myriad of conflicting interests, still has power over our daily lives. It crushes our potentialities and invades our lives with its imported products and televised movies that swamp [our] airwaves. Seen from the Arab side of the Mediterranean, the West (more exactly, Europe), however splintered and divided... is a power that crushes us, besieges our markets, and controls our merest resources, initiatives, and potentialities." Well, those are considerable admissions coming from the Muslim side. If our friend can echo some of those sentiments, we are beginning to establish a level playing field, by admitting some of our weaknesses and past misdeeds; and inviting him or her to share some reflections on Islamic weaknesses and mistakes through the centuries. We have begun building a bridge without condemnation or superiority. MUTUAL SUCCESSES We might then proceed to talk about some mutual successes. Both Islam and Christianity (as well as Judaism) acknowledge one another as "people of the book." It is for this reason that Muslims grant Jews and Christians a privileged, although not equal, status within an Islamic society. Both Islam and Christianity (as well as Judaism, of course) have sought to maintain a monotheistic faith in the midst of a pluralistic world — with some success. Both Islam and Christianity (and Judaism once more) have spawned a cultural tradition that has altered and shaped the lives of millions — perhaps billions. And, both have seen a recent revival of religious enthusiasm in the midst of an increasingly secularized world — some might say in reaction to secularization. Conservative Islam and conservative Christianity are both experiencing a remarkable resurgence at just the time when they were thought to have become passe. However, the fact is that Muslims and Christians remain deeply suspicious of one another. Years ago I was living in a high rise in Harlem and heard a knock at my door. My next-door neighbor stood there dressed in a tuxedo and wearing a very worried expression on his face. "My daughter is getting married, and the guests have all arrived;" he said, "but something has gone terribly wrong. The priest is not coming. Reverend Moore, would you be willing to marry them?" I found out that he meant right now! After asking various questions such as: "Do they have a wedding license? Have they been married before? Are they members of a Christian church?" and receiving positive answers to all my questions, I agreed. Within minutes, I was in clericals, performing a wedding in the apartment right next door to my own. After it was over, and photographs had been taken, I said my goodbyes and returned to my apartment. A couple of hours later, there was another knock on the door. This time it was the groom. "I've come to pay my debt," he said, in a rather hostile voice. I said "Look, keep your money, I just want you and your wife to have a blessed marriage." "It will be blessed," he said, again with a strong note of hostility, "Because it will be lived under the universal spirit." I'm not sure what made me ask him, but I then said: "Are you a Christian?" "No," he said emphatically. "Are you a Muslim?" "Yes," he said. "Is your wife a Muslim?" Again, "yes." "Well, you lied to me," didn't you," I said. "You've gone against your own religion." He had a curious reply: "We don't believe in living in sin." I guess he meant by that that lying to me was less of a sin than adultery or fornication. Therefore, getting married legally was an absolute necessity, and hence the wedding had to go on. "Would you promise to come back and talk with me about this sometime?" I asked. He said he would; but never did. This was a rare experience, to be sure. But it does underscore the fact of deep suspicions between Muslims and Christians, and the continuing tensions — I guess we should say the mounting tensions — between us. How, then, do we continue to build bridges even in the midst of mutual suspicion and mounting tensions? This is a question that simply must be faced. So I asked myself, is there a subject that might bring more light than heat to an authentic Christian/Muslim dialogue — one that is relevant and where each side has something to contribute? And I came up with the subject of democracy. Most likely it's those within the Muslim community who are most eager for democracy who will be most interested in dialogue. But here we face a paradox. ISLAM AND DEMOCRACY Bernard Lewis puts the paradox well in an article in the Atlantic Monthly: On the one hand, from an historical perspective, of all the non-Western civilizations in the world Islam is closest to the West, because it shares so much of the Judeo-Christian as well as the Greco-Roman heritage that helped form our modern civilization. Therefore, we might assume a potential openness to democracy, which is the political fruit of that heritage. But on the other hand, from a political perspective, Islam seems to offer the worst prospects for liberal democracy. "Of the forty-six sovereign states that make up the international Islamic Conference, only one, the Turkish Republic, can be really described as a democracy in Western terms." (March 16, 2004) And yet, it is precisely those voices within the Islamic world that are calling for democracy that we need to dialogue with at this point in time. These Muslims are caught in a tension between two movements that are happening simultaneously: a religious resurgence on the one hand, and democratization on the other. As the authors of a recent book on Islam and Democracy put it: "In [some Muslim] areas, movements of religious revival coincide with and sometimes reinforce the formation of more democratic political systems. But in other areas, the two dynamics are in conflict. In the Muslim world, these issues are raised with special force because of the paradoxical strength of the Islamic resurgence on the one hand and the intensity of the demands in recent years for greater participation in the political process." (John L. Esposito, John O. Voll, Islam and Democracy, Oxford, New York, 1996, p.3) These authors, both Georgetown professors, are worried about the potential for a global confrontation that will no longer be between superpowers or nation-states, but between civilizations. (p.192) They find this to be all the more reason for us to talk to one another. CHRISTIANITY AND DEMOCRACY Today, in the West, Christianity is almost synonymous with democracy. The vast majority of Christians in the West would argue that a government that exists "of the people, and for the people, and by the people", a government that respects the rule of law, recognizing itself to be in some sense "under God", a government that embodies checks and balances against the emergence of absolutism, and a government that constitutionally guarantees basic human rights is about as compatible as anything we know with the faith we hold to be true. We may not go as far as Francis Fukuyama who argued that democracy was the "end of history", that no better form of government now need be sought for. But as Ali Mazuri, a Muslim professor at Binghamton University, put it: "democracy is the most humane system of government that the human race has so far invented." (Address: "Islam In Search of a Muslim Path to Democracy") However, we have to admit that Christianity has co-existed with a wide variety of political and economic systems. Over the years it has coexisted with absolute monarchies and constitutional monarchies, with dictatorships and oligarchies. It has coexisted with socialism and laissez-faire capitalism. It has coexisted with systems where racial minorities, ethnic minorities, and women have been relegated to second class-status. For not a few centuries it coexisted with the practice of slavery. The coexistence Christianity has had with all these political systems does not mean that Christians have approved of all the practices in these systems. Sometimes Christians prophetically strove against many practices they considered to be evil, while at other times they acquiesced in them. This ambivalence perhaps comes from the Bible itself where two verses seem to be at odds. On the one hand is the word of Jesus: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." (Mt. 22:21) But then, there is St. Paul's statement about the state being "God's servant" and the civil authority "not bearing the sword in vain." (Rom. 13:3,4) The Bible, then, makes room for a multitude of political systems within which the church can live, but at the same time upholds the sacred responsibility of government to be God's instrument for justice and peace. ISLAM AND GOVERNMENT Similarly, Islam has also existed under a variety of political systems, and continues to do so today. It has co-existed with absolute monarchies, and constitutional monarchies. It has been a minority group within non-Muslim states, and as with Bosnians and Kazaks, it has existed under communist and socialist systems. Today it coexists in Turkey and perhaps Indonesia, with democracies. But two things make it difficult for Islam to affirm the tolerant pluralism that Christians today assume to be of the essence of civilized society. First, there is no such thing as separation of church and state within Islam. In fact, there is no "church" at all, if you mean an institutional apparatus with clergy and such as we know in the West. Islam in its pure Qur'anic form is co-terminus with the state. Religious authority and state authority go hand in hand. And concurrent with this is the assumption, indeed the mandate, that all Muslims live within a Muslim state. It is fascinating to see how that is being modified in recent years as increasing numbers of Muslims have chosen to immigrate to and live in the democratic West. But the original mandate was that Muslims live in a Muslim state, with Muslim laws, etc. And second, there is no affirmation within the Qur'an that there can be peaceful co-existence and equality under the law between Muslims and non-Muslims within a Muslim state. It is true that in the beginning, when Mohammed fled to Medina in 622 AD and acquired temporal power, he established what is called the Constitution of Medina — a covenant with the people there, Jews especially, in which all the religious communities were put on an equal footing. There were other such constitutions and covenants. But as Islam spread, and became dominant in the region, a system was established where Christians and Jews were protected, on condition that they accepted second-class status. They were Dhimmi — a word meaning "responsibility". The Muslims had responsibility towards those protected, and vice versa. But there was no equality. WHAT ABOUT SHARIA? Dr. Robert Carle, in a paper prepared for Columbia University Press, describes the rights of non-Muslims under Sharia. Sharia is the name given to the law of Islam, applied to every facet of life. It is based on the Qur'an, which is the revelation to the Prophet; but also on the Hadith, and the Sunnnah — the sayings and actions of the Prophet, recorded later. Under Sharia, hands and feet are to be cut off for various infractions, stoning and floggings are prescribed for others. Women as well as non-Muslims are second-class citizens. "Women can't marry non-Muslims; and in a court of law a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man's. A woman is allotted half the inheritance of her brother. Polygamy is permitted, as is the beating of disobedient wives. Christians and Jews are permitted to practice their religion, but they must pay a tributary tax (jizya). Until the 20th Century, this tax was to be paid publicly, and with humiliation. Non Muslims are not allowed to hold political office, serve in the military, or share their faith with Muslims. Pantheists, pagans and atheists have no rights at all." (Paper: "Revealing and Concealing: Islamist Discourse on Human Rights," Robert Carle) Sharia was the standard rule within the Muslim lands up until the rise of nationalisms in the 20th Century. Then with the rise of Turkish nationalism, and even Arab nationalism, Islam began to be understood as a subset of culture — an important and essential component, but not absolutely central. Sharia law was abandoned. Hence we have the Turkish experiment where Islam coexists (somewhat uneasily) with a secular democratic state. Interestingly, when a large number of the Islamic states wrote their constitutions in the 1940s, '50s and 60s, there were numerous Christians in each of these countries who made significant contributions to the political process. But then things began to change as nationalism receded and the Cold War came to an end. Increasingly, outspoken voices within the Islamic world began saying that the problems besetting the Arab and Islamic lands were the result of an abandonment of true Islam. And so the resurgence began. Today throughout the Islamic world one finds the most prevalent view being that Islam (not nationalism) can provide all the answers for polity, for the economy, and for living together. One of the most vocal proponents of this was Sayyid Qutb (pronounced KUH-tahb), a brilliant Egyptian scholar who the New York Times cites as the intellectual father of Islamic radicalism. Qutb, who was executed by Nasser in '66, believed that the fundamental problem in the world was traceable to the Christian separation of the sacred and the secular. By putting the spiritual world in one corner, and the secular in the other, Christianity opened up the way for the malaise of modernity where man is cut off from his true nature. Only the reinstitution of Sharia and the full conquest of Islam will correct this "hideous schizophrenia" of modern life. Qutb's cry was that we must re-institute Sharia wherever possible, and millions of intelligent Muslims are now echoing his ideas. JIHAD Related to Sharia is the knotty problem of Jihad, which has two meanings in Islam. The Greater Jihad is a spiritual and ascetical struggle within the individual. It is a struggle to live a faithful and God-honoring life. The Lesser Jihad is war against the enemies of Islam. The Qur'an insists that Muslims "fight against the friends of Satan" (Sura 4:76) and "slay the idolaters wherever you find them." (Sura 9:5) This fight can be waged with the weapons of apologetics and debate. But it can also involve the force of arms, and has often been understood that way. A number of Islamic commentators bent on portraying Islam as essentially peace-loving try to dispel the idea that this means taking up arms against anyone perceived to be opposing Islam. However, the more militant definition seems to be the common currency of the day within the Muslim world. The Qur'an does say that "there [must be] no compulsion in religion," (Sura 2:256). However, historically Christians and Jews have frequently been presented with the stark option of conversion or the sword. You find nothing like Jesus' words, "Turn the other cheek" or "Resist not evil" in Islamic theology. The problem that the modern Muslim has with these elements in his or her heritage, indeed within the Qur'an itself, is that there is simply no acceptable way of re-interpreting these more stringent and more militant teachings of Islam. To be faithful means that one accepts them literally. INTERPRETING SCRIPTURES What I mean is that there is no understanding in Islam of what Christians call "progressive revelation." Take, for example, the way Christians read the more militant parts of the Old Testament. They are understood as sui generis — as pertaining to a previous time, and a previous moment in the history of redemption. The Hebrew conquest of Canaan and the punishments for various infractions of the biblical law, are like the dietary and ceremonial laws in the Bible. They have all been set aside by Christ, and are no longer applicable to Christians today. Jesus said, "You have heard, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth; but I say unto you, resist not evil." Also, St. Paul said, "Christ is the end of the Law." Therefore, while the moral law is still revered as eternal by Christians, the ceremonial and judicial laws of the Old Testament are no longer valid. Many Jews take a similar approach to Old Testament rules and regulations. But within Islam there is no such progression. What was true then is true today. If macabre punishment is demanded for stealing, that has to be as true today as it was yesterday, or so say the most vocal exponents of Islam, those who want to reinstitute Sharia. Efforts to promote a more rational interpretation of the Qur'an have appeared among Muslims from time to time. And our hope is that those who strive for a more nuanced interpretation will win the day. But this is hard, given the Muslim insistence that the Qur'an is perfect, dictated to Mohammed by the Angel Gabriel. The Qur'an is not, like the Jewish or Christian Scriptures understood to be the Word of God filtered through the words of men. It is pure word of God. Indeed the Qur'an is actually more than even a revelation to Mohammed. The Qur'an is eternal, say orthodox Muslims. Hence it must be literally truthful in all its statements. In the 8th and 9th Centuries AD there was a movement aimed at tempering the aggressive understanding of the Qur'an. It swept through the Islamic world at the time. (The Mu'tazilites, "the Separated Ones"). A group of scholars were uncomfortable with the literal readings of the Qur'an, and they sought to bring respect for reason to bear on its interpretation. But there was an orthodox reaction, and the reaction led to a full-fledged inquisition. The movement was squashed. From then on even to say that the Qur'an was created became a crime punishable by death. This incident makes it all the more difficult for moderate Muslims today to update their approach to the Qur'an. So, where does this leave us? What wiggle room do we and does our Muslim friend have, as we sit down next to each other on our boat or plane and discuss democracy. More than might appear. BUILDING BRIDGES We both know that there is a great debate within the Muslim world about whether Islam is compatible with democracy at all. Nevertheless, some — perhaps most — Islamic states want to justify their own systems by some appeal to democratic principles. Even within repressive Iran one will find functioning executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government. In Iran there is an elected president and a parliament that engages in lively debate. And within limits there is freedom to disagree with current leadership. Turkey is, of course, both a fascination and a threat to the rest of the Islamic world. Even there, democracy is a work in progress. In Algeria, to take a different example, democratic elections in 1990 and 1991 led to a victory by an overtly Islamic party, which was then squashed by the military. The military feared that democracy would be wiped out — that Algeria would become the victim of: "One man, one vote, once." That would be it. The 1991 repression in Algeria has led some to conclude that democracy cannot be thought to have arrived in any country until at least two successive free and peaceful elections have occurred. In some other Muslim countries democracy is still a far off hope — a thin veneer where there may be elections and representative assemblies, but one party rule is firmly and rigidly imposed. Not surprisingly, many Muslims seem to misunderstand our Western forms of democracy. For example, a Muslim visiting the House of Commons in England was appalled at the bickering and bantering that was part of the political process. To him this was a sign of social instability, and a clear indication that Islam and the West have very different views of law. "You argue and debate with one another because you believe that laws are created by men. We Muslims do not behave like this because we believe that laws come from God." How might you try to tell your Muslim friend that this is a sign of the strength of our systems, rather than of their weakness? The fact is that there is more wiggle room on the subject of democracy within Islamic history and even within the Qur'an, than some hard-liners on both sides might think. SEEDS OF DEMOCRACY • There is the idea that the law, given by God, is transcendent and that rulers and politicians are to be judged by it. They cannot manipulate the law for their own ends. • There is the view that says that the Qur'an must be seen as a "constitution" for Muslim societies. Therefore, the idea of constitutional order, as opposed to authoritarianism, is rooted in the Islamic system. • There is the idea that consensus (ijma) and consultation (shurah) are both rooted in the Islamic tradition. The idea of disagreement (ikhtilaf) is also historically and explicitly allowed. All three of these concepts work against authoritarianism. • There is the fact that certain rights and roles of minorities within Islamic society are spelled out — especially for other "people of the book" — Jews and Christians. Dhimmi, while totally inadequate to our ears, is in fact the contract through which the Muslim community accords hospitality and protection to members of other religions. Might this be extended to genuine reciprocity? If Muslims can have a mosque in Sydney, why could Christians not have a church in Riyadh? • There is the place of legitimate differences within the Muslim community as reflected in the different strands of legal tradition. For example, within Sunni Islam there are four schools that understand the fundamentals of Islam differently. Therefore the idea that Sharia is a "given" that cannot be changed in any way, might yield to a more flexible approach. • There is a recognition of the right to form separate organizations that could restrain the functioning of rulers — a kind of nascent separation of powers. No Islamic state yet has a full separation of the political, legislative, and judicial branches of government. But historically Islam has allowed associations of learned people who were acknowledged as providing consensus and balance to the powers of the Caliphs. • Even the concept of Jihad may be capable of some fudging. What might come of a frank Christian/Muslim discussion of the virtues of Jihad over against the traditional Christian concept of the Just War? HUMAN RIGHTS Finally, there is the issue of human rights — the stickiest issue of all. Clearly within the Islamic community one finds a great unease about this subject. Nearly all Muslim states signed the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. They had to do so to be seated in the United Nations as signatories to all the conventions. But since then, there have been two influential Islamic statements on Human Rights — the Universal Islamic Declaration on Human Rights, and the Cairo Declaration. Both these appear to follow the wording of the United Nations Declaration very carefully, but then both add amendments and reservations that according to Moroccan sociologist Fatema Mernissi "camouflage all the legal texts that come into conflict with obedience to Islamic authority." For example, women's rights are not guaranteed in the Islamic statements on human rights. Nor is the freedom to practice and to change one's religion. Apostates from Islam may be punished by losing hands and feet — before being killed. Female apostates are to be imprisoned until they change their minds. The right to marry must be "in conformity with one's religion." In effect the Sharia law is given supremacy over the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Dr. Mernissi comments, the "rejection of the principle of equality is a grave malady the Arab states suffer from... For Arab countries, the United Nations, with its charter and conventions, is an arena for manipulation and hypocrisy." Clearly this cannot be something with which the rest of the world, much less Christians or Jews, can be comfortable. And we must believe that many Muslims are not comfortable with it either. So, while there definitely is wiggle room, there are problems to discuss. What I think must be abandoned is the frequently heard idea that we in the West must persuade Muslims to adopt a post-modern pluralism that accords equal validity to all religions. This cherished secularized Western idea will not be acceptable to devout Muslims nor to traditional Christians for that matter. Neither group is likely to accept a bland kind of universalism that robs them of the fundamental missionary impulse that is inherent in both their faiths. But we can hope that despite disagreements, we can live together, listen to one another, and learn from one another. How will we know when progress is being made? Obviously, the end of terrorism will be one huge sign. But another sign might be for both sides to have the ability to poke fun at our own inadequate expressions of democracy. We know that democracy in the West is imperfect. It is a "work in progress." Democracy in any form for most of the Muslim world is still a frightening though fascinating possibility. It would be wonderful if we could hear that coming from them more. As one American commentator put it: On our side, "We need to promote the moderate interpretation of Islam by emboldening and empowering Islamic reformers to instigate a self-criticism within the Islamic world. We need to see an Islamic reformation. And how will we know there is a reformation? One very telling indicator will be the appearance on TV of Muslim comedians." (Bill Steigerwald, "How To Win The Terror War", Pittsburgh Tribune Review) Dr. Peter C. Moore is the former President of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry. He is based in Sewickley, Pennsylvania. SOURCES Barber, Benjamin R., Jihad Vs. McWorld, Terrorism's Challenge to Democracy, New York, Ballantine, 1995. Berman, Paul, "The Philosopher of Islamic Terror," New York Times Magazine, March, 2003. Carle, Robert, "Revealing and Concealing: Islamist Discourse on Human Rights", for Columbia University Press, 2002. Craner, Lorne, "Building Democracy in the Muslim World", Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, Washington, 2003. "Documentation: Christianity and Democracy", First Things, Eds. October 1996. Esposito, John L. and Voll, John O., Islam and Democracy, New York, Oxford, 1996. Hatch, Nathan O., The Democratization of American Christianity, New Haven, Yale, 1989. Huntington, Samuel P., The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1996. Lewis, Bernard, "Islam and Democracy", Atlantic Monthly, February 1993. Lewis, Bernard, The Political Language of Islam, Chicago, University of Chicago, 1988. Lewis, Bernard, What Went Wrong? New York, Oxford, 2002. Maritain, Jacques, "Christianity and Democracy", December, 1949. Mazrui, Ali A., "Islamocracy: In Search of a Muslim Path to Democracy," Institute of Global Cultural Studies, Binghamton University, New York. Mernisi, Fatema, Islam and Democracy: Fear of the Modern World, Cambridge, Perseus, 1992. Nakhleh, Issa, Holy Islam, New York, 2002. Nazir-Ali, Michael, "A Future Free from Terror?", An address to Opportunity International, UK. Pickthall, Mohammed Marmaduke, tr. The Meaning of the Glorious Koran, New York, Mentor (Penguin). Spencer, Robert, Islam Unveiled, San Francisco, Encounter, 2002. Van Jenerette, "Will The Real Islam Please Stand Up", sociology teacher, Southeastern Community College, Senior Policy advisor to U.S. Rep. Henry Brown. Wisdom, Alan F. H., Christian-Muslim Dialogue: A Guide for Churches, Faith and Freedom, Summer, 2003.

Archbishop Orombi responds to Louie Crew By David W. Virtue The Anglican Province of Uganda and its Primate, Henry Luke Orombi is rejecting and returning all monies being sent to it by the North American Episcopal Church. In an Open letter to the Archbishop by Dr. Louie Crew, the Episcopal Church's leading homosexual who also sits on the Executive Council, asked the orthodox Primate, "is the Church of Uganda rejecting ALL funds from The Episcopal Church, or just selected ones?" Virtuosity wrote the Archbishop and received a reply saying, "The provincial leadership continues to identify support from ECUSA and refuse it." The problem is one of time, distance and getting timely information from all parts of Uganda where money is being sent, and communication is often very difficult, said a spokesperson in Kampala. United Thank Offering (UTO) grant requests have a long planning curve, and e-mail efforts by this writer to reach Canon Patrick Mauney, the Episcopal Church's Director of Anglican and Global Relations & Provincial Secretary have not been responded to, about just how much has been sent to Uganda and how much has been returned. "The grant requests were received at the UTO office before the House of Bishops made its decision to stop receive funding, and the grants were made automatically," said the Kampala spokesperson. The Archbishop's office said, "Louie Crew continues to misrepresent the situation, not to mention that he totally changed the subject and, once again, is shifting blame." Dr. Crew does not seem to understand or comprehend the seriousness of the Global Anglican situation. It is not primarily about money, but about the faith of the church. Recently the African Archbishop told an American missionary couple that they would have to receive alternate funding if they wanted to stay in Uganda as missionaries. Orombi wrote to Phil and Jennifer Leber praising them for their work and ministry, but said that in light of the state of broken communion with ECUSA, and the deadlines established by CAPA and the Lambeth Commission, he told they would have to explore alternative oversight and funding for their missionary work in Uganda. "Consider transferring your affiliation to another mission agency as soon as possible." Archbishop Orombi reiterated that "The decision [to break ties with The Episcopal Church] has meant that we are no longer receiving funds as a means of making it clear to the Episcopal Church of the US that such a deliberate action on their part affects the whole of Anglican Communion. It also serves as a wake-up call on our part to find ways to sustain ourselves honourably." On 19 April 2004 the Primates of the Council of the Anglican Provinces of Africa (CAPA), stated that you would "no longer accept funds from the Episcopal Church." Last November Archbishop Orombi's predecessor refused gifts from The Episcopal Church before they could be delivered in honor of his own consecration. END

Case Has Implications For ECUSA, CLI Says By The Rev. Charles H. Nalls The Christian Challenge (Washington, DC) August 18, 2004 Following on a Maryland Court of Appeals decision two years ago involving the African Methodist Episcopal Church, the United Methodist Church has suffered a sound defeat in a church property matter in California. The case involved the issue of who controls a local church's property when the congregation ends its affiliation with a national or worldwide religious body. As such, the case has implications for other denominations, particularly the U.S. Episcopal Church (ECUSA), which claims a trust over parish properties based on an internal church rule. The decision in California-Nevada Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church et Al., v. St. Luke's United Methodist Church (Slip Op. F041778 9; Ca. App. 2004) marks the reaffirmation of the "neutral principles" analysis of the 1981 Barker case — an action in which three of four defendant parishes avoided the effect of ECUSA's claimed trust. The St. Luke's case also involved the application of specific provisions of the California corporate code and trust law. Thus, those seeking to apply it in other states should examine whether analogous provisions exist in their state codes. As for the facts of the California case, they are familiar in church property cases. St. Luke's, a congregation in Fresno with substantial holdings, left the main denomination over a doctrinal dispute and an attempt by the bishop to replace the pastor. The Court of Appeals took pains to avoid describing the doctrinal issue, or the positions of the parties as to the issue. The underlying litigation began when St. Luke's was sued by the California-Nevada Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church (a non-profit, religious corporation and a regional body of the United Methodist Church, hereinafter the "Annual Conference"), Bishop Talbert (the bishop responsible for oversight of local churches within the geographical area of the Annual Conference, including St. Luke's), and Rev. Healy (the District superintendent for the Fresno District of the Annual Conference). The action sought injunctive relief and damages. St. Luke's filed a cross-complaint against the Annual Conference, Bishop Talbert and Rev. Healy seeking a declaration that the cross-defendants had no interest in the property, and that St. Lukes could revoke any trust interest which might exist in the real property by recording grant deeds (prepared and attached as exhibits to the cross-complaint) by which St. Lukes would deed the real property to itself, without any trust language. After a non-jury trial, the trial court ruled that the local church held the church property in trust not only for the use and benefit of the local church, but also for the use and benefit of the United Methodist Church. The court also ruled that the local church could not revoke that trust. The trial court's ruling was based largely on its understanding of the meaning of subdivisions (c) and (d) of Corporations Code section 9142. On appeal, the local church contended that (1) the court erred in concluding that a trust existed in favor of the United Methodist Church, and (2) even if such a trust existed, the local church could and did revoke that trust. The Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court that the evidence presented at trial supports the trial court's conclusion that a trust in favor of both churches was created. Significantly, however, the appellate court sided with the congregation and found that it could and in fact did revoke the trust which had existed in favor of the United Methodist Church. The case hinges on California Corporations Code section 9142, subdivisions (c) and (d) — sections which the court specifically noted that "may well be of particular importance to churches which now are, or in the future will be, experiencing difficult doctrinal disputes among their members." Certainly, this does not bode well for "Dennis Canon" claims by ECUSA in California. Indeed, the court found that: (1) subdivision (c)(2) of Corporations Code section 9142 does not authorize a general church to create a trust interest for itself in property owned by a local church simply by issuing a rule declaring that such a trust exists; (2) a local church's creation of a trust interest in favor of the general church — including a trust interest created by the local church's agreement to a general church's rule calling for the local church to hold property in trust for the general church — may be revoked by the local church unless that church has expressly declared that trust to be irrevocable. Interestingly, while the litigation was pending, and before the trial began, St. Luke's amended its Articles of Incorporation to state a change in the purposes of the religious corporation. Its purposes became "to establish and maintain a church which shall follow the tenets of Methodism, but which shall not be subject in any manner to the articles, rules, usage, discipline, or jurisdiction of the United Methodist Church or any organization or other entity which is part of and/or affiliated with the United Methodist Church." St. Luke's also purposed "to acquire, manage, and hold in trust for the sole benefit of this Corporation property of every kind and nature, both real and personal ..." In short, St. Lukes would not be affiliated with the United Methodist Church and would hold its property in trust for itself only. Thus, the charter amendment was actually effected while the case was pending! As there are pending matters in which CLI has been asked for assistance, the Institute will not undertake state-specific analysis at this time. However, CLI believes that the reaffirmation of Barker, the Court of Appeals analysis of trust theory, and the trust revocation analysis, are all cause for optimism for those representing individual parishes and congregations in property disputes. Finally, CLI urges reading this case together with the analysis in From the Heart Church Ministries, Inc. v. African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, No. 3 September Term, 2000 (Md. 07/24/2002) END

Why the rhetoric doesn't stand up under scrutiny. By Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott Now that gay marriage is our most talked-about domestic policy issue, it is time to rebut faulty arguments that bedevil it. While we could provide biblical and theological grounds for what follows, we will focus on the practical and social effects of changing society's first and most basic institution. Bad argument No. 1 "Gay marriage is a basic human right." There are huge differences between constitutional rights with few restrictions (such as the rights to life or free speech) and other rights with important restrictions, which do not carry the right of universal access. We already recognize that not everyone has the right to enlist in the army, but that one must be of the proper age, physical condition, citizenship, and philosophy — anarchists and pacifists need not apply. We also agree that certain persons do not have the right to marriage — children, multiple partners, family members, and those already married. Bad argument No. 2 "Gay marriage is a civil right." This is based on the false assumption that homosexuality is the same sort of human difference as race. But while the difference between sexual orientations is profound (one desires the opposite sex and procreates while the other does neither), racial difference has no intrinsic bearing on love and marriage. This is why philosophically opposed African American leaders such as Shelby Steele and Jesse Jackson agree that "gay marriage is simply not a civil rights issue." Bad argument No. 3 "Opposition to gay marriage is discrimination." Let's not mistake rational restriction for unconstitutional discrimination. Just as we rightly restrict marriage against polygamists, there is no constitutional reason why we cannot continue to restrict marriage to what all civilizations have defined for millennia: the union of a man and woman. This does not deny anyone the "equal protection of the laws," since this restriction applies equally to every individual. Bad argument No. 4 "Marriage has changed through the centuries, so gay marriage would be just another development in its ever-changing definition." True, our understandings of sex and the role of women in marriage have grown. While these changes are important, they are trivial when compared to the agreement across time and from East to West that the social institution of marriage is about the union of sexual opposites for, primarily, the procreation of children, as well as intimate companionship. Bad argument No. 5 "Opposition to gay marriage is a violation of the separation of church and state." It is true that Western marriage and family law stem in part from the Judeo-Christian tradition, as do many of our other laws. But the separation of church and state (assured by constitutional law) is different from the enforced separation of religion and politics, which is forbidden by the First Amendment. Bad argument No. 6 "Marriage is necessary for gays to gain important legal benefits." Homosexuals don't need marriage to gain most significant legal benefits. For example, hospital visitation depends on the wishes of the patient. If families disagree about medical treatment, even marriage won't solve the problem, as the Terry Schiavo case has demonstrated. The answer is medical power of attorney, which is open to anyone regardless of sexual orientation. Another example is Social Security benefits. Children's benefits are not dependent on the marital status of their parents, and the only certain benefit is a one-time death benefit of $255. A wife can access her deceased husband's Social Security, but if she has had her own work history, her Social Security benefit would usually be higher than the survivor's benefit — and she must choose one or the other. Most other benefits are based on work history. Bad argument No. 7 "There is no proof that gay marriage would change the marriages of heterosexuals." If marriage is all about fulfilling human desires and not parenting (as many proponents of gay marriage argue), it makes sense to dissolve marriages that don't seem fulfilling. Recent experience in Scandinavia suggests that when a society reduces marriage to this minimalist definition, families dissolve more quickly. British demographer Kathleen Kiernan has shown that since gay marriage came to Scandinavia in the early '90s, the out-of-wedlock birthrate has leaped significantly, and the family dissolution rate has risen. Only where the gay marriage movement had little success has the out-of-wedlock birthrate remained low. Marriage has virtually disappeared in the most gay-friendly districts of Norway, formerly the most conservative of the Nordic countries. Bad argument No. 8 "Social science shows that gay parenting is no different from heterosexual parenting." Many studies have claimed this, but, according to University of Chicago's emeritus professor of ethics and social sciences Don Browning, none of these studies was rigorous or large-scale. Stephen Nock, scholar of marriage at the University of Virginia, writes that every study on the subject of gay parenting "contained at least one fatal flaw," and "not a single one was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research." Other studies show that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, had homosexual experiences more frequently, and suffered a greater rate of molestation by members of their families (Adolescence, 1996; Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1986; American Sociological Review, 2001). Bad argument No. 9 "The fact that many married couples do not have children proves that marriage is not intrinsically related to procreation." Yet the fact remains that most married couples either have had or will have children. The exceptions prove the rule: Being married tends to prevent a person from having a child with someone other than his or her spouse. In all cultures, even if some couples are childless, marriage as an institution is principally concerned with children and, therefore, society's future. Bad argument No. 10 "Heterosexuals have done a terrible job at marriage. Who are they to speak?" It is true that half of all new heterosexual marriages end in divorce. But far more than half have succeeded, if you count marriages established before the divorce boom of the '70s and '80s. Yet the point is not how many are successful, but what marriage means. To accommodate gays, marriage would have to change into something it has never been: an institution for same-sex love without the biological possibility for children. It will probably not require sexual fidelity, which even the majority of unfaithful heterosexuals have conceded is the ideal. Some of the most prominent proponents of gay marriage, such as Andrew Sullivan, say the ideal needs to change, since gay understanding of fidelity includes other sexual liaisons. Bad argument No. 11 "The resistance to gay marriage is motivated by fear and loathing for homosexuals." While no large group is free of hate-mongers, the vast majority resist because they strongly believe in the positive features of traditional marriage. They have experienced the benefits of the lifelong union of two persons who are complementary in many important ways — biological, psychological, temperamental, and spiritual — and who, because of this complementarity, have a unique capacity to bear and nurture children. It is appreciation for the unparalleled success of this complementarity — not fear or hatred for gays — that motivates most Americans to oppose gay marriage. Bad argument No. 12 "Those who resist gay marriage are irrational, Neanderthal, and bigoted." The gay marriage movement is only a few decades old. Could it be that billions of people who for millennia upheld traditional marriage were really irrational and bigoted? On the contrary, we would argue that a common-sense understanding of life leads in the direction we have argued. Further, it seems clear that reason without religious vision misses the depth dimension of human life. It tends to dissolve basic human institutions into contracts between persons who make whatever they want of them, to the detriment of children and society. Bad argument No. 13 "The legal issue of gay marriage ought to be left up to the states." Quite the opposite, we need a national definition of marriage. Without a public definition embodied in a constitutional amendment, activist judges at various levels will undo the conviction of the vast majority of Americans. Some already have, in defiance of state defense-of-marriage acts. Precedent for a national definition is ample — the federal government outlawed polygamy in the 19th century and the Supreme Court has ruled in the 20th century on many cases regarding marriage. In sum, there are many bad reasons for supporting gay marriage. In contrast, there are many good reasons for protecting historic understandings of marriage, a public institution whose fate will determine the future of our society. Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott both teach religion at Roanoke College in Virginia. Benne is a lay Lutheran theologian and McDermott is an Episcopal priest. Copyright © 2004 Christianity Today. September 2004, Vol. 48, No. 9, Page 51 END

Meeting with new Canadian ambassador VATICAN CITY (AP) (9/6/2004) — Pope John Paul kept up his campaign against gay marriage Saturday, telling the ambassador from Canada — where some provinces allow same-sex couples to wed — that such unions create a "false understanding" of marriage. In past months, the Pope urged authorities to stop approving gay marriages, saying that they degrade the true sense of marriage. The Pope spoke Saturday to Donald Smith, the new Canadian ambassador to the Holy See. "The institution of marriage necessarily entails the complementarity of husbands and wives who participate in God's creative activity through the raising of children," said the pontiff, according to the text of the speech released by the Vatican. "Spouses thereby ensure the survival of society and culture, and rightly deserve specific and categorical legal recognition by the state. "Any attempts to change the meaning of the word 'spouse' contradict right reason: legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, cannot be applied to unions between persons of the same sex without creating a false understanding of the nature of marriage." Three Canadian provinces, accounting for about 70 per cent of the country's 31 million people, allow same-sex marriage: Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. The ruling Liberal Party has promised legislation legalizing gay marriage, perhaps next year after Canada's Supreme Court gives a nonbinding opinion on a tentative bill. Speaking to another newly appointed ambassador to the Holy See, Philip McDonagh of Ireland, the Pope called on the European Union to keep a policy of openness and acceptance of immigrants. Ireland held the EU rotating presidency until the end of June. "The plight of refugees and those displaced by poverty, war or persecution is particularly dramatic and calls for special consideration and generosity," John Paul said. "The Holy See hopes that the steps taken during the Irish presidency of the European Union in favour of policies of openness to other peoples will continue to inspire the community's attitude to immigrants from other continents and cultures." © The Canadian Press 2004 END

St. James members in Newport express unity in break from national group. By SUSAN GILL VARDON The Orange County Register NEWPORT BEACH — (9/6/2004) — No church-goers were locked out of the three Sunday morning services at St. James Church. No prayer books were confiscated or sermons interrupted. Instead, church-goers and the visiting Rt. Rev. Maurice Benitez, a retired bishop from the Diocese of Texas, reveled in the Newport Beach church's rebellion — breaking away from the national Episcopal Church over divergent views on biblical interpretation and homosexuality. Wearing a red and white vestment, his voice soft and soothing, Benitez played cheerleader to a congregation whose actions stunned national church leaders. "Now I turn from the present circumstance and urge each one of you ... to focus not on the past, where you have been, but focus on the future, on what lies ahead," said Benitez, an outspoken critic of the confirmation last year of an openly gay bishop in the New Hampshire Diocese. "Pray fervently for the Episcopal Church, that it may be an instrument for the furtherance of God's kingdom," he said to an outburst of applause from the congregation. The Los Angeles Diocese has fired back at the decision by St. James and two other rebel churches — All Saints in Long Beach and St. David's in North Hollywood — to align themselves with the Luweero Diocese of the Anglican Church of Uganda, an order 9,500 miles away that mirrors their conservative beliefs. On Friday, the diocese informed officials at the three churches that new Episcopal clergy have been put in charge of their congregations. The Rt. Rev. Robert M. Anderson was appointed priest-in-residence at St. James, officials wrote. The previous week, the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, bishop of the Los Angeles Diocese, had ordered the parishes to give up their church buildings, financial records, even prayer books and hymnals. "I believe today, as I did when I was first ordained, that the Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation," Bruno wrote to the parishes. "Yet I will not let the Holy Scriptures be compromised by those who seek to make their literalist and simplistic interpretation the only legitimate one." St. James officials said Sunday that no one from the diocese has come to the 55-year-old, white-stucco church situated near shopping areas and the beach on Balboa Island — or talked to anyone there. Even if they did, they would have no authority because the churches are separate California religious corporations, said Eric Sohlgren, a church attorney. "They can rattle all they want, but they have no control over us anymore," said Jim Dale, senior warden at St. James, after the 9 a.m. service. At that service, the full chapel seemed at times abuzz with excitement. The 290 audience members gave Benitez a standing ovation. They cheered at what they said was a higher-than-usual number of visitors. Several said they came from as far as Bakersfield to voice their support. They expressed solidarity with the congregation's interpretation that Jesus Christ is the Lord and savior and the "only way to salvation," and that the Bible should not be changed to fit the cultural climate. "Praise God for this church. Don't be afraid," said John Chandler of Yorba Linda. Claude Potter of Huntington Beach talked of how he has seen the same debate at his church, Faith Lutheran. "To me it's remarkable," Potter said after the service. "To take a whole congregation like this and walk away from what's going on in the United States. They're truly taking a biblical path." John Gobbell, a member at St. James since 1988, said the years leading up to the split were "gut-wrenching." "It took the life out of the church," said the novelist from Laguna Niguel. "I am so happy that we're doing this — taking a stand." END

By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent THE LONDON TIMES 9/6/2004 THE Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has given his blessing to an extraordinary scheme for an African archbishop to consecrate a leading evangelical clergymen as a bishop to work as a missionary in Britain. The Most Rev Henry Orombi, Archbishop and Primate of Uganda, is to consecrate the Rev Sandy Millar, former Rector of Holy Trinity Brompton, as a Bishop in Uganda. Mr Millar, who helped to pioneer the Alpha course that has revived evangelical Christianity in Britain and worldwide, will serve in Uganda and London, where he will be titled Bishop in Mission. An announcement is expected from Lambeth Palace later this week. The scheme is understood to have been worked out by Dr Williams and the Bishop of London, the Right Rev Richard Chartres. It will reward Mr Millar and appease evangelicals who are furious about the advancement of the liberal agenda throughout the Church of England. Evangelical churches that disagree with their diocesan bishops on gays and were thinking of importing conservative African or Asian bishops for confirmations and other services will now be able to call on Mr Millar, one of the international evangelical movement's most respected figures. The appointment — disclosed on the Virtuosity evangelical website — comes on the eve of the meeting in Windsor of the Lambeth Commission set up by Dr Williams to resolve the gay crisis. Dr Williams is desperate to keep the Church united and is expected to go as far as possible in appeasing evangelicals in order to prevent their departure. The Episcopal Church of America is expected to be penalised for its consecration of the openly gay Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. END

A Prelate of Evangelical Intensity Ugandan berates the American church and says it's departed from historic teachings. By Larry B. Stammer, Staff Writer LOS ANGELES TIMES When three conservative Southern California parishes fled the Episcopal Church in the culture wars over homosexuality and biblical interpretation, they sought the equivalent of political asylum from the Anglican Church of Uganda. The welcome they received from Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi, Anglican primate of all Uganda, didn't surprise those who knew him. Orombi, 55, has a reputation for two things: welcoming refugees from the civil war and ethnic strife in neighboring Congo and preaching fiery sermons against what he sees as the Episcopal Church's fall from historic Christian teachings. In the confrontation over the three breakaway parishes All Saints in Long Beach, St. David's in North Hollywood and St. James in Newport Beach, Orombi is pitted against Los Angeles Episcopal Bishop J. Jon Bruno. Whereas Bruno speaks of the church's mission in terms of inclusion, Orombi is ardent in his defense of tradition and in his belief that by deciding last year to approve the ordination of an openly gay priest as a bishop, the Episcopal Church in America has departed from it. The Episcopal Church in the United States and the Anglican Church in Uganda are both part of the Anglican Communion, which claims 77 million members worldwide. "There is a tradition on human sexuality that was passed to us by the apostles, and if we're an apostolic church, how come the Episcopal Church claims they are better than St. Paul?" Orombi said in a telephone interview from Kampala, the Ugandan capital. "Why do they turn their back on the faith their grandparents brought to us?" The Anglican Church arrived in Uganda with English missionaries in 1887. Uganda became a British protectorate in 1893 and achieved independence in 1962. It was a few years after independence when Orombi, at age 18, heard someone preach Jesus' parable about the prodigal son. In the biblical story, found in Luke 15:11-32, the son asked his father for his inheritance and left home, only to squander it on sinful pursuits. Eventually homeless and desperate, the son returned home, expecting to go to work as a hired hand. Instead, his father welcomed him as his son and celebrated his return. "I could identify with the prodigal son," Orombi said. "I was naughty and difficult. I ran away from my father relationship." The story, he said, took him from the nominal Anglicanism of his father and the African spiritualist ways of a grandfather who was a "medium" in his village to a life-changing faith. "I saw the joy in that story when the son came back and the father took him back," Orombi said. Originally trained as a teacher, he became an evangelist and obtained a theological degree in 1978 from the Bishop Tucker Theological College in Mukono, Uganda, now known as Ugandan Christian University. The president of the school, the Rev. Stephen Noll, is the former dean of the evangelical Trinity Episcopal School of Ministry in Ambridge, Pa., and was once a priest at Truro Episcopal Church in Virginia, one of the leading centers of conservative resistance to the Episcopal Church's stands on homosexuality. Orombi, who is married and the father of four children, one of whom has died, later studied at St. John's College in Nottingham, England, and received a bachelor of divinity degree. "I came to know that Jesus died for me personally," Orombi said. "I'm a sinner, and I admit that I am, and that his death on the cross is for my forgiveness." Father Ron Jackson, rector of St. Luke's of the Mountains Episcopal Church in La Crescenta, has traveled to Africa a dozen times over the years, including two trips last year to Uganda, where he has worked with Orombi. "He's a powerful preacher and has a tremendous heart of compassion for people of all kinds," Jackson said. As Anglican primate of Uganda, Orombi has had his own problems, some familiar to church leaders everywhere, such as raising funds for schools and parishes, building ministries for young people and women, and winning converts. But he has some that Orombi said would be hard for Westerners to understand. Last January, for example, he spoke out against those in his church who had fallen from the faith and turned to witchcraft, even human sacrifices. "Witchcraft is part of our society," Orombi said in the interview. "Western man thinks it is superstition until he gets in touch with the thing itself. For us, we know it is not superstition" — witchcraft is a real aspect of evil, he said — "but we want people to understand [that] the power of Jesus Christ is far superior to the wicked powers." Orombi has brought the same evangelical intensity to his denunciations of the American church. Last November, the Ugandan church, which claims 9 million members, broke relations with the Episcopal Church after the U.S. denomination consecrated an openly gay priest as bishop of New Hampshire, the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson. Robinson sees more than a little irony in the current situation. As a priest he led a team to Uganda in 1996 at the request of the church to set up an AIDS education program financed by the U.S. government. Until then, he said, Ugandan bishops had ignored the AIDS crisis in their country. This year, the Ugandan church took its estrangement from the American church a step further, barring the Episcopal Church from sending an official delegation to Orombi's enthronement as the seventh archbishop of the Anglican Church in the Province of Uganda. Those actions helped bring the Ugandans to the attention of conservative Episcopalians discontented with the American church. "It's not like we are hunting for parishes in America," Orombi said. The three breakaway parishes in Southern California, like other parishes elsewhere in the United States that have left the Episcopal Church, wanted to be under the jurisdiction of a "biblically orthodox" bishop, he said. "If your child is running away to your neighbors, then I would imagine your home is not peaceful," Orombi said. "We are not going to see you sink with the boat, but we are going to offer you an alternative to come to us. It's just like you have an S.O.S., a distress call. You just don't stand by, do you?" As the Los Angeles dispute continues to unfold, Orombi and Bruno in separate interviews spoke about reconciliation but from decidedly different perspectives. Speaking of the three breakaway parishes, Bruno said, "I will have my hands open to welcome them back anytime they choose to come. I hope they'll make that decision. I hope they'll move back toward this reconciliation." Orombi spoke of the entire American church. "There is an opportunity to repent and come back," he said. "There's always an opportunity if you injure your brothers to say, 'I am really, really sorry.' If this is not going to happen in the Anglican Communion, this fragmentation is inevitable." END

By Douglas Farrow "For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many 'gods' and many 'lords'), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things come and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. But not everyone knows this." What is the Church? The crisis in the Anglican Church of Canada does not concern the word Anglican -- at least not in the first instance -- much less the word Canada. It concerns the word Church. What is the church? Whatever else may be said in answer to that question, and whatever may be disputed between the churches, we must surely say at least this: The church is the community of the new covenant between God and humanity that is grounded in the self-offering of Jesus Christ and confesses him as Lord. What is happening in the Anglican Church of Canada today, as epitomized by resolution A-134, is a crisis for the faithful precisely because it reveals a different and contrary premise. I want to reiterate here the key point in my response to General Synod in the article "Different Gods," which leaned especially on a statement found in the Barmen Declaration: "We reject the false doctrine, as though there were areas of our life in which we would not belong to Jesus Christ, but to other lords -- areas in which we would not need justification and sanctification through him." This statement of denial, of repudiation of other would-be lords, is founded on an evangelical affirmation, as all good confessional theology should be. Here is the gospel with which the church has been entrusted, the gospel by which the Holy Spirit enables it to be the church, and to serve the world as only the church can. It is a gospel of deliverance and of allegiance -- of total deliverance, hence of unqualified allegiance. The church is the community of the new or renewed covenant between God and humanity that is grounded in the self-offering of Jesus Christ, the one offering that is truly acceptable to God. It is a community that owes to him its unqualified allegiance. There is no sphere of life or of death in or from which it has not been delivered by him, or in which it may own some other lord in preference to him. The Loss of Evangelical Insight Let me say at once that it is incidental that the creatures immediately at issue in our church crisis happen to be homosexuals. It is incidental, that is, to the gospel; for God loves all his creatures, including those of homosexual inclination, with perfect consistency and the mission of Jesus Christ is a mission to homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. Now it disturbs me greatly that love for our neighbours, which to be authentic must flow from love for God, has fallen so low that we have become almost incapable even of that rational concern that still marks thoughtful non-Christians. One often looks in vain, in our internal debates about homosexuality, for patient and careful questioning of popular assumptions about human psychology and biology, equality rights, the rights and welfare and education of children, the contraceptive mentality, etc., or for serious analysis of public policy questions related to the enormous cultural disaster that is same-sex marriage. Unity is Impossible To the extent that this is true, unity in the Anglican Church of Canada has become impossible. The only possible response to this sort of heresy, and to the program of moral corruption that must necessarily follow from it, is rejection root and branch. For the church that follows this path is no longer the church. We need not marvel at those plaintive voices that profess their inability to understand why unity is impossible. "We see no reason why Anglicanism should not remain united while disagreeing about the ethics of homosexuality," they say. And indeed they do not see, for their understanding of church unity, like their understanding of the church itself, is not rooted in the gospel. Unity for them is not a function of the common life in Christ, but of a conservative decision-making process which they more or less equate with the common life in Christ. What is to be Done? When Moses returned from the mountain he was instructed by the Lord to put swords in the hands of the faithful and to set them against their brothers. Woe to those who think that this is what must be done today, however figuratively -- whether externally through courts of law or internally through parish putsches. When Jesus came to fulfill the law of Moses, and to make effective the gospel of Moses, he established a new economic and strategic order. Our task is to discern together what the gospel requires of us in order to affirm ecclesial existence today, for ourselves and for the sake of our neighbours, in the face of the growing apostasy of the Anglican Church of Canada, an apostasy formalized at General Synod 2004. I venture three suggestions. First, it is right that we should offer repentance on behalf of ourselves and our churches. We are all complicit, we are all responsible for the present church crisis, in so far as we have failed fully to proclaim and to live the gospel. Second, it is right that we should be prepared to give up property and security in pursuit of "free and grateful" service to the Lord of the church. When leaders of the synagogue in Ephesus became obstinate and refused the gospel, Paul and the other believers went out to the lecture hall of Tyrannus. Third, it is right that we should renew our own devotion to Christian unity. Ecclesial existence today, in the face of local and even national apostasy, may indeed mean to become more authentically Anglican than we have been hitherto, through greater faithfulness both to the scriptures and to the Book of Common Prayer. Karl Barth wrote his famous Theological Existence Today! on the occasion of the imposition by the Nazis, in June 1933, of a new set of authority structures and authority figures in the German protestant church. But he did not write it simply to protest that imposition or to support the New Reformation movement that had arisen in defence of the church's formal independence from the state. What is at stake in our own church crisis is not mere formal independence from a body we regard as having lost the authority of the gospel, or from bishops who no longer proclaim the gospel. What is at stake is material dependence on "the one Word of God whom we have to hear, and whom we have to trust and obey, in life and in death" (Barmen). Douglas Farrow is Associate Professor of Christian Thought, Faculty of Religious Studies, McGill University. — END —