Archives

By Julia Dunn The Washington Times May 14, 2004 One of the largest and most liberal Episcopal dioceses in the country is banning its clergy from solemnizing same-sex "marriages" in anticipation of Monday, when the Massachusetts Judicial Supreme Court has said homosexual couples will have the right to "marry." The decision was announced in a May 6 letter by Massachusetts Episcopal Bishop Thomas Shaw to clergy in the 79,000-member diocese, the country's third largest after Virginia (89,000) and Texas (86,000). "I have ... advocated for the full civil rights of gay and lesbian people and their families," Bishop Shaw wrote. However, "there is a contradiction between what our civil laws will allow and what our canons and the Book of Common Prayer state, which is that marriage in the Episcopal Church is between a man and a woman." This was a surprise decision because Bishop Shaw and his two assistant bishops openly support homosexual "marriage," as do a majority of Episcopal delegates who voted at a March 13 diocesan convention to approve the state Supreme Court's ruling. However, anyone who signs a marriage license and conducts an actual marriage ceremony, rather than a church "blessing," for a same-sex couple as of Monday will be breaking church law and subject to defrocking. "Maybe this is a sop to the people like myself who feel badly as to what's going on and who are splitting from the Episcopal Church," said Gerry Dorman, a board member for the Massachusetts chapter of the American Anglican Council, an Episcopal group that opposes same-sex unions. "They've been ordaining gays and blessing same-sex unions here for a long time," he said of diocesan officials. "The diocesan directory lists same-sex spouses as well." Several dioceses in the Episcopal Church routinely "bless" homosexual couples who are not permitted to "marry," such as a much-publicized rite last month in San Francisco involving a retired Episcopal bishop, the Rev. Otis Charles, who "married" his male partner. The diocese retaliated a day later by revoking his license to officiate and removing him as an assistant bishop. The dioceses of Delaware, Nevada, Massachusetts and New Hampshire have official same-sex "blessing" ceremonies. Similar rites for the Long Island, Hawaii and Washington dioceses are being developed. However, only in Massachusetts will clergy be able to perform the legal functions of solemnizing a marriage, which includes the signing of a marriage license. "The question is," said the Rev. Ian Douglas, professor at the liberal Episcopal Divinity School (EDS), a seminary in Cambridge, Mass., "can priests be legal agents of the state if their own church says no?" A lesbian professor at EDS, the Rev. I. Carter Heyward, told the Boston Globe that she plans to defy church law and perform two lesbian unions this month. She did not respond to a phone inquiry yesterday. The Diocese of Massachusetts also did not respond to inquiries on how Miss Heyward would be disciplined for her act. A minister with the New England synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America informed Bishop Margaret Payne of an intent to disobey, according to the Globe. The synod declined to release the name of the clergy in question, but did say in a statement that the denomination does not even have rites for same-sex blessings. Pastors also may not officiate at a same-sex "marriage," the statement said. Episcopal clergy who disobey any orders from their bishop are subject to "inhibition," which means they are not allowed to function as a pastor for a set amount of time, usually six months. If they have not changed their actions, the bishop can then file a "presentment against them in an ecclesiastical court, where they will be defrocked if found guilty." Most Christian denominations forbid same-sex blessing ceremonies, as do Orthodox and Conservative Jewish groups. However, the Reform and Reconstructionist Jewish groups do. The Unitarian Universalist Association, which is based in Boston, not only allows the practice but has scheduled dozens of same-sex "weddings" at its churches across the state. Meanwhile in Boston, a federal judge yesterday declined to grant an emergency stay on same-sex "marriages," and conservative legal groups said they were taking their case to the federal appeals court. "We will appeal this case as far as necessary to ensure that the separation-of-powers principle is upheld in Massachusetts. The Republican representative form of government must be restored so the people can have a chance to define marriage," said Matthew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, one of several conservative groups representing 11 Massachusetts lawmakers and a Catholic activist. In arguments Wednesday before U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro, the plaintiffs said the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court overstepped its authority when it unilaterally redefined marriage law to allow same-sex "marriage" in its Nov. 18 Goodridge decision. The Massachusetts attorney general's office and lawyers with the Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders said the high court was within its purview in its decision.

By David Quinn Religious Correspondent Irish Independent May 14, 2004 Divisions over homosexuality emerged yesterday as the three-day annual General Synod of the Church of Ireland drew to a close in Armagh. Delegates publicly disagreed over how homosexuality should be regarded by the Church, with some arguing for a more inclusive attitude and others insisting that the Church had to remain faithful to the teaching of the Gospel. The disagreements are a sign of the splits within the Anglican communion worldwide that have become more visible since the election of an openly gay man as bishop of New Hampshire last year. The bishops had not intended that the issue of homosexuality would be raised at the Synod but several delegates were provoked into speaking when Dr Joan Turner of the Church's marriage council pleaded for a re-consideration of the Church's traditional teaching on homosexuality. In an official presentation, she urged delegates to "reconsider our understanding of the concept of personality, including sexuality". She said "this will involve careful re-analysis of what we mean by homosexuality while adhering to the Christian ideal of marriage as a life-long commitment of one man with one woman." However, Dermot O'Callaghan, a delegate from the diocese of Down and Dromore, said that she had "undervalued marriage" by describing it as an ideal, "as though it is unattainable" and he was "concerned that the concept of showing generosity towards homosexual practice will weaken marriage". Mr O'Callaghan was backed by Stephen Crowder of Clogher diocese, who said that "just because someone has a genetic disposition to violence does not make it right. Nor does it make sexual conduct of various kinds right." However, Dean Michael Burrows of Cork diocese said he did not want the public to think "that the Synod is attentive only to the side represented by Mr O'Callaghan".

DUNCAN SAYS PARSLEY "MISCHARACTERIZES" NETWORK A STATEMENT FROM BISHOP ROBERT W. DUNCAN, ACN MODERATOR, IN RESPONSE TO BISHOP PARSLEY'S LETTER TO THE CLERGY OF THE DIOCESE OF ALABAMA I read with deep concern Bishop Parsley's statement and letter of Pastoral Direction to the clergy of the Diocese of Alabama. In this communication, Bishop Parsley described the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes (commonly known as the Anglican Communion Network) as a "divisive organization outside the canonical structures of the Episcopal Church, the charter of which is undermining of the good order and mission of this church." As Moderator of the Anglican Communion Network, I must address these serious mischaracterizations Bishop Parsley has made. The Episcopal Church violated its own Constitution by its decisions at General Convention 2003 resulting not only in intractable divisions within the Episcopal Church, but also within the Anglican Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury first recommended formation of a network of "confessing" dioceses and congregations. In response to that call, the Anglican Communion Network is developing as a biblically-based missionary movement dedicated to upholding a faithful expression of Anglicanism in North America. The creation of the Anglican Communion Network, quite contrary to Bp. Parsley's assertions, has enabled many orthodox Episcopalians to justify remaining in the Episcopal Church during this time of crisis. I am extremely confused about why Bishop Parsley expresses such hostility to a network which was conceived by Archbishop Williams and is recognized by 14 Anglican Primates, serving as the only American connection to Anglicanism in the eyes of some primates. Bishop Parsley voted against innovations in sexuality at General Convention and is on record for orthodox Christianity. I would have expected him to embrace the Network rather than condemn it, and I invite him to have conversations with me and other ACN bishops so he can better understand the mission and ministry we offer. We would be delighted to address his concerns point by point. In the meantime, I urge him to reconsider his Pastoral Directive prohibiting association with Anglican Communion Network as well as well any potential actions against his clergy and laity. Attempts to use Episcopal power as a means of limiting the freedoms of faithful Episcopalians have proven utterly bankrupt over the last 30 years, leaving disunity and broken fellowships wherever they have been put in place. As a policy tool, I suspect they will serve a "basically" conservative bishop like Bishop Parsley no better than it has the radicals with whom his votes at General Convention are in such sharp disagreement.

Special Report By David W. Virtue 5/13/2005 FIVE bishops who participated in the irregular confirmation of 110 persons at a multi-congregational action in Akron, Ohio recently, have replied to a letter from the President of the Presiding Bishop's Council of Advice, saying they would assent to a meeting if it was "honest and open" not done in secret and that 10 additional people be invited to listen to the discussion but not to participate. The five bishops include C. FitzSimons Allison, Maurice Benitez, William J. Cox, Alex B. Dickson and William C. Wantland. In their letter to Bishop Charles E. Jenkins, the orthodox five said the Council of Advice would choose five and they would choose five. "Our hope and prayer is that our meeting can in some way help facilitate a reaffirmation of the Christian faith as the indispensable basis of our unity." The five bishops then launched into what they viewed as the central issue regarding faith and order in The Episcopal Church. "We appreciate your letter saying that you recognize that our commitment is to Christian Faith and Anglican Doctrine but your suggested agenda seems not to reflect this concern." The five bishops argued that being "accountable to one to another" should be subordinate to the much more serious matter of our common accountability to the faith which we as bishops, have sworn to guard. "Your claim that 'faith and order' are 'givens' and 'cannot be considered apart from one another' is generally and desirably the case. It is not true, however, of the history of Christianity in which catholic Christians, including St. Athanasius, clearly honored faith over territorial order in cases of heretical and schismatic bishops (cf. the Arian and Donatist schisms among others)." "Since the time of Bishop Pike the House of Bishops has tended to reduce essential and substantial theological concerns to mere matters of 'how we treat each other' (to quote your concerns) and in the case of Pike, from his denial of Christology and Trinity, to his 'tone and manner.' Your suggestion of inviting a 'facilitator' ('with no theological agenda'), and the Presiding Bishop's assistant for 'Pastoral Development' seems to follow this same line of thinking. We do not wish the issue of faithful doctrine to be reduced to mere interpersonal relations. Our primary concern is not personal; and pastoral, as important as that may be, but objective, impersonal, and classical concerns for the faith that has been entrusted to us as bishops." The five orthodox bishops sad they were willing to meet with the Council of Advice if "we are all committed to a discussion of the faith of the Church as the essential principle of unity." Note: If you are not receiving this from VIRTUOSITY, the Anglican Communion's largest and most widely read biblically-orthodox online news service, then you may subscribe FREE at www.virtuosityonline.org. Virtuosity has had more than 1.6 million hits at its website. Readers can be found in 45 countries on six continents.

Conservative, West Coast Episcopalians plan meeting By Sandi Dolbee UNION-TRIBUNE RELIGION & ETHICS EDITOR May 13, 2004 Seven months ago, Episcopalians upset over the election of an openly gay bishop gathered in Plano, Texas, to take a stand for their beliefs. Next month, a West Coast offshoot of that meeting will be held in Long Beach. Among the goals: preparing "for the emerging realignment of an orthodox and vital Anglicanism in the United States." The focus of "Plano-West," to be held June 3-4 at the Long Beach Convention Center, is on mission and evangelism, said the Rev. Tony Baron, an Oceanside priest and one of the organizers. But a key element will be an opportunity for like-minded conservative Episcopalians to support each other. "This is a chance for us to see who's out there and who does feel the same," said Baron, who is rector of St. Anne's Episcopal Church. It also will be an opportunity for participants to discuss a recently formed maverick network that is challenging the authority of the U.S. Episcopal Church. Launched in January, the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes was set up to offer disgruntled churches alternative "spiritual authority." Under the network's plan, these parishes would break away from their local bishop and realign themselves with bishops approved by the network. The reason for this chasm centers around the consecration of Bishop V. Gene Robinson in New Hampshire. Robinson, a priest who is divorced and living with a longtime same-sex partner, was elected bishop by his diocese last June. Two months later, his election was confirmed by a majority vote at the denomination's national meeting in Minneapolis. The repercussions have been divisive both in the 2.3 million-member Episcopal Church and the worldwide, 77 million Anglican Communion to which the U.S. denomination belongs. Much of the Anglican Communion opposed Robinson's consecration. Baron said the election shunned conservatives. "What I object to more than anything else is the process," he said. "The process violated what we are as Anglicans. It was a command decision where a consensus decision was needed." No churches in the Episcopal Diocese of San Diego have formally aligned themselves with the breakaway network, and the region has so far avoided some of the open fractures occurring elsewhere. But that could change, depending upon who becomes the new local bishop. San Diego Bishop Gethin Hughes, a conservative, is retiring, and an election for his replacement is scheduled in the fall. While Hughes voted against Robinson's elevation, he also has called for maintaining unity. The emphasis appears to be on maintaining the status quo — at least for now. "We love Bishop Hughes," Baron said. "We're going to honor him. This is his last year. We want to make his transition a joyful one and a peaceful one." "Plano-West" is being sponsored by the Los Angeles chapter of the American Anglican Council, a conservative group that also helped organize the network. Baron expects from 1,200 to 2,000 clergy and lay people — including about 30 local priests — to attend the Long Beach gathering (an East Coast version held in Virginia drew more than 2,600 participants). A spokesman for the diocese said Bishop Hughes does not plan to attend. To register for the conference, participants must sign a "statement of faith," which includes that "all Scripture is God's Holy Word" and that "God set aside marriage to be between one man and one woman." Meanwhile, splits within the Episcopal Church are continuing to occur. Among the recent ones was in Robinson's own diocese in New Hampshire, where about 40 parishioners have left to form a breakaway parish. Two other churches there have taken steps to affiliate with the conservative network but have not quit the diocese. In New Jersey, St. Anthony of Padua Church in Hackensack has applied to the Newark Diocese to be led by Wisconsin's retired Bishop William Wantland, a network supporter, instead of resident Bishop John Croneberger, who backed Robinson. These fractures may be a sign of things to come in other Protestant denominations whose rules are set by democratically styled elections. Last week, some conservatives in the United Methodist Church suggested that it study ways to execute an "amicable separation" because of deep divisions over homosexuality and other issues. While delegates to the Methodists' General Conference in Pittsburgh instead endorsed a last-minute statement on unity, the battle is not over. As one conservative leader put it: "The division of our church has already happened. It just hasn't been named or formalized yet." The Associated Press and Religion News Service contributed to this report.

COMMENTARY By David W. Virtue The House of Bishops has more double standards than former US president Bill Clinton. Consider the following. The president of the Presiding Bishop's Council of Advice Bishop Charles E. Jenkins calls on the carpet five orthodox bishops for participating in an irregular confirmation in the Diocese of Ohio lead by Clark Grew who managed, during his tenure, to reduce the diocese by more than half. This is no no said the Louisiana Bishop to the five bishops. He demanded they appear in Atlanta, at their expense, and face whatever retribution he and his fellow revisionist bishops planned to dole out to the uninclusive five. The five blasted back with a letter saying that if they were in trouble how about those bishops who have publicly denied or attempted to rewrite the faith. Or those 84 bishops who voted against the HOB Resolution B001 and by doing so refused to affirm the authority of Scripture, the Creeds, Sacraments, and the Apostolic Ministry thereby denying the vows they made at their consecration as Bishop. So, not being able to affirm the doctrines of the Bible, but affirming non-biblical sex is okay? What sort of logic or morality is this? Or take the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) which sponsored the "March for Women's Lives" on the Mall in Washington, DC recently. One of the primary purposes of RCRC outlined in its mission statement is support of the constitutional right to abortion. Participants carried signs with slogans demeaning the sanctity of life. Both the Episcopal Church USA and the Episcopal Women's Caucus are members of RCRC and were listed as co-sponsoring organizations for the event. The Episcopal Church is supposed to uphold life, especially the life of the unborn, but it doesn't, and in the face of this American holocaust, Frank Griswold, ECUSA's Presiding Bishop blasts President Bush for his Iraq policies that has seen less than 800 die to free a nation from tyranny! The Episcopal News Service ran a story applauding participation by individual Episcopalians that included the Rev. Margaret Rose, director of the Episcopal Church Office of Women's Ministries; Executive Council members Louie Crew and John Vanderstar; long-time women's rights activist and General Convention deputy Marge Christie; and Maureen Shea, director of the Government Relations Office. They marched under the banner of "justice" according to the Episcopal Church's official news service. So "justice" and a woman's "rights" take precedence over the rights of the unborn; unborn that Jesus specifically tells us to protect and nurture. This was nothing more than participation in a blatant pro-abortion activist rally. The Episcopal Church thought the opposite. Forget the unborn, the rights of aggrieved Episcopal women and sodomites like Louie Crew matter more. Or what about a lesbian priest in the Diocese of New Jersey whose partner, a fellow lesbian priest and she have just had a baby, cheered along by a lot of impressionable teenagers, and the baby is baptized by the bishop two Sundays later. The woman heads Youth Ministries for the Diocese! This is perversion and illegitimacy all rolled into one…and she gets it all with the bishop's blessing! Or take Bishop Spong…oh please, whose 12 Theses is a slam dunk against 2,000 years of church teaching, and does the HOB even slap him on the wrist? Not a chance. Frank Griswold told orthodox Bishop C. FitzSimons Allison that he (Spong) has been responsible for people staying in ECUSA, Spong's worldview being more acceptable that those orthodox bishops. Those bishops who support Spong's nonsense would be perjuring themselves if they now changed their minds and said anything that was remotely orthodox. And another blatant act of immorality took place On November 2, 2003 when the Episcopal Church abandoned the clear teaching of Holy Scripture as well as the faith and order of Anglicanism by consecrating a non-celibate homosexual to the episcopacy. Only weeks before that Frank Griswold signed off on a document at Lambeth saying he would abide by the Lambeth Resolution on human sexuality. Did he? Of course not, he went right ahead with the consecration, raising his middle finger to his fellow primates. As a result Peter Akinola Primate of Nigeria got so mad he swore he would never sit down with Frank again, demanded he repent and told him what he could do with all his money. Since then unfolding events in ECUSA are demonstrating that the situation is getting worse with revisionist bishops coming down hard on orthodox parish priests in half a dozen dioceses, and the hammer lock grip is spreading like Hitler's SS troops across Europe. The worst theatrics occurred this past week in California when a retired ECUSA bishop announced he was marrying another man, thus speeding up the slide into a secularized religion that scarcely resembles anything like the spiritual and moral foundation upon which Christ formed His Church. The bizarre sight of a 78-year old retired bishop of Utah and former seminary president "marrying" his homosexual partner in an Episcopal Church in California, wearing crowns of laurel wreaths like latter day portraits of Dante Aligheri only mocks great scholars, artists, soldiers, and those athletes who won in competitions and were given the laurel wreath as seen as a symbol of excellence. This is beyond this writer's ability to parody. The bishop said he was "guided by his belief that all human beings are called upon to live as fully as they can." Ironically news reports failed to note that marriage is a holy institution ordained by God - a sacramental union of a man and a woman. What the bishop and Felipe did was a mockery that would have the Church Fathers rolling over in their graves. And the irony of it all is that his bishop, William Swing (the perfect name for a California bishop) pulled his license to assist him saying he never approved of Otis's "marriage", it was only supposed to be a "blessing". Not according to Charles and Felipe. One wonders if PUNCH magazine were still around (it died in 2002) what a writer like Malcolm Muggeridge would have done with this absurd nonsense. One hopes a writer for Saturday Night Live is now, even as we speak, mugging up some lines for an obvious take off of the whole thing. One can imagine a number of writers working on a script called "It's All About Love": A Celebration of Music, Orgasms and Equal (just give me MOE…) Sex for all, by something calling itself Claiming the Blessing and for a donation of $10,000 you get two tickets for a private dinner with V. Gene Robinson!!! It's not possible to out satirize this stuff? The sitcom possibilities are endless. And then when all else fails in The Episcopal Church, and the revisionists think they might not get their way before a resolution is passed at a General Convention, the pansexualists stamp their little feet and bleat 'local option'. And lo and behold whatever aggrieved whiner has a behavior problem, the rage rises, there is much gnashing of teeth and hey presto the behavior is immediately ratified to include his or her diverse needs. This begs the question, what about 'local option' for three dioceses who do not want to ordain women to the priesthood? Not a chance, they get paid a visit by a nasty group of aggrieved women in ECUSA (armed with an appropriate resolution) demanding that the bishops be obedient to the House of Bishops or else. Canonical fundamentalism to the end and to hell with history, tradition, reason and Scripture. For orthodox Anglicans, these events illustrate unequivocally that we face an unparalleled attack not only on the sacrament and sanctity of life and marriage in both civil and religious arenas, but on the doctrine that maintains it all and the discipline to enforce it. The revisionist Bishop of Vancouver Michael Ingham predicted correctly that the horizon holds a not too distant battleground centered on the exclusivity of Christianity — is Jesus truly the way, the truth and the life, or will He be reduced to "one of the ways" to fulfillment and self-actualization? We know what side he and 62 revisionist ECUSA bishops have chosen. The only question now is how the Episcopal Church will be divided up. One hopes and prays that the Lambeth Commission and the Primates of the worldwide Anglican Communion will see what is truly being wrought in the name of "inclusivity" and sexual diversity and be prepared to come down like a ton of bricks on the whole rotten situation and declare Ichabod — the glory has departed - over the whole charade called The Episcopal Church.

Sudan rebels capture bishop, missionary Believed to be 'renegade element' charging men with treason April 11, 2002 By Art Moore © 2002 WorldNetDaily.com Rebel forces in southern Sudan detained an Anglican bishop and a missionary on charges of "treason and insurrection," according to a U.S.-based evangelical Protestant group. Rev. Peter Hammond, director of Frontline Fellowship, and Bishop Bullen Dolli of the Episcopal Church of Sudan were arrested Saturday in Yei Province by the Public Security Office of the SPLM, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement, said In Touch Ministries International of Tempe, Arizona, a sister organization to Frontline Fellowship. Frontline Fellowship announced today that the two men have been released. On Saturday they were dragged out of a church seminar at which they were teaching and interrogated for three hours by military intelligence of the Sudan Peoples Liberation Army, according to Frontline Fellowship. Hammond's affiliate called the charges "trumped-up." "Such an accusation needs only to be stated to be dismissed as ridiculous," said Bill Bathman, president of In Touch Ministries International, or ITMI. Kristi Messick, ITMI administrator of African affairs, told WorldNetDaily she believes the arrests were made by junior officers of the SPLA, against the wishes of senior officials. In January, a "renegade element" of the SPLA arrested ITMI missionary Tim Keller of Arizona, Messick said. He was released in 24 hours after being marched 20 miles by gunpoint. Hammond and Dolli might have been detained by a similar element, Messick suspects. "My opinion is that this must have to do with money," she said. Messick explained that Frontline Fellowship, which has helped train chaplains for the SPLA for the past seven years, has been viewed by the rebel army as a friend. The SPLA is fighting for autonomy from Khartoum's militant Islamic regime, which has declared a jihad against the mostly Christian and animist south. Since 1983 about 2 million people have died from the fighting and war-related famine. The brick cathedral in Lui where Bishop Dolli ministered was bombed into rubble last year by Khartoum forces. His brother was taken from home by government agents who tied a rope around his neck and dragged him from a military jeep for three miles. With skin ripped to shreds, agents poured gasoline over him and burned him alive. Dolli now cares for his brother's four children. Hammond has helped bring attention to the Khartoum regime's "holy war" against the south, which has been characterized as genocide. Last year the government issued a personal threat, warning that he should expect to be bombed and shot when in the country.

By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent THE TIMES LORD CAREY OF CLIFTON, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, launched an unprecedented attack on Islamic states last night, saying that the world was in great peril. In a lecture that will anger Britain's allies in the Middle East, he said that countries in the Islamic world do not reflect "the true values of Islam". In his second attack on Islamic countries in two months, he was careful to differentiate between the religion, which he praised, and its contemporary political expression, which he once again criticised. "I am talking rather about a sharp ideological tension that separates the West from another world, that we call Islamic," he said. This Islamic world, he went on to argue, "does not reflect the true values of Islam". Calling for more elasticity between doctrine and science, he said: "The challenge to Muslim countries, it seems to me, is to create environments where learning — religious and theological, scientific, artistic and literary — can flower unrestricted and be open to women as well as to men." Lord Carey, in the seventh annual Sternberg lecture to an audience of academics and students at Leicester University, said that there was a failure of understanding between the West and Islam. The lecture, the fourth in a series on Islam by Lord Carey, was endowed by Sir Sigmund Sternberg, the philanthropist who helped to found the International Council of Christians and Jews. In the third lecture in the series, at the Gregorian University in Rome in March, Lord Carey provoked anger in the Muslim community for his accusation that Islamic societies had become authoritarian and committed to power and privilege. The former Archbishop declined to apologise and raised similar concerns as he did in March. He said that his fears arose "from deep appreciation of Islam and indeed of all mainstream religions and, yet, from an increasing frustration that we have not yet managed to achieve a real and fruitful dialogue based upon understanding and truth." He challenged the association of the West with decadence in the Muslim mind and of Islam with terrorism in the Western mind. He had become aware of deep-rooted Islamaphobia in Britain. He said that it was not effective to dismiss such worries as nonsense. Lord Carey also voiced disquiet about America's policy in Iraq and the abuse of Iraqi prisoners. He described the decapitation in Iraq of Nick Berg as barbaric but added: "In our disgust the West must resist the temptation to take the moral high ground." Iqbal Sacranie, secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "The real problem is that he fails to recognise the sovereignty of Muslim countries and their right to govern their affairs according to their own genius, their own culture and their own faith." Dr Zaki Badawi, principal of the Muslim College, said: "I feel his diagnosis is not totally correct. George is a great friend of mine. I am going to send him a library on Islam dealing with the areas where he thinks there is a conflict."

By Daniel Pipes FrontPageMagazine.com May 11, 2004 "Europe becomes more and more a province of Islam, a colony of Islam." So declares Oriana Fallaci in her new book, La Forza della Ragione (The Force of Reason). And the famed Italian journalist is right: Christianity's ancient stronghold of Europe is rapidly giving way to Islam. Two factors mainly contribute to this world-shaking development. *The hollowing out of Christianity. Europe is increasingly a post-Christian society, one with a diminishing connection to its tradition or its historic values. The numbers of believing, observant Christians has collapsed in the past two generations to the point that some observers call it the "new dark continent." Already, analysts estimate Britain's mosques host more worshippers each week than does the Church of England. *An anemic birth rate. Indigenous Europeans are dying out. Sustaining a population requires each woman on average to bear 2.1 children; in the European Union, the overall rate is a one-third short, at 1.5 per woman, and falling. One study finds that, should current population trends continue and immigration cease, today's population of 375 million could decline to 275 million by 2075. To keep its working population even, the EU needs 1.6 million immigrants a year; to sustain the present workers-to-retirees ratio requires an astonishing 13.5 million immigrants annually. Into the void are coming Islam and Muslims. As Christianity falters, Islam is robust, assertive, and ambitious. As Europeans under-reproduce at advanced ages, Muslims do so in large numbers while young. Some 5 percent of the EU, or nearly 20 million persons, presently identify themselves as Muslims; should current trends continue, that number will reach 10 percent by 2020. If non-Muslims flee the new Islamic order, as seems likely, the continent could be majority-Muslim within decades. When that happens, grand cathedrals will appear as vestiges of a prior civilization (the jahiliya?) — at least until a Saudi-style regime transforms them into mosques or a Taliban-like regime blows them up. The great national cultures — Italian, French, English, and others — will likely wither, replaced by a new transnational Muslim identity that merges North African, Turkish, subcontinental, and other elements. This prediction is hardly new. In 1968, the British politician Enoch Powell gave his famed "rivers of blood" speech in which he warned that in allowing excessive immigration, the United Kingdom was "heaping up its own funeral pyre." (Those words stalled a hitherto promising career.) In 1973, the French writer Jean Raspail published Camp of the Saints, a novel that portrays Europe falling to massive, uncontrolled immigration from the Indian subcontinent. The peaceable transformation of a region from one major civilization to another, now underway, has no precedent in human history, making it easy to ignore such voices. There is still a chance for the transformation not to play itself out, but the prospects diminish with time. Here are several possible ways it might be stopped: *Changes in Europe that lead to a resurgence of Christian faith, an increase in childbearing, or the cultural assimilation of immigrants; such developments can theoretically occur but what would cause them are hard to imagine. *Muslim modernization: For reasons no one has quite figured out (education of women? abortion on demand? adults too self-absorbed to have children?), modernity leads to a drastic reduction in the birthrate. Also, were the Muslim world to modernize, the attraction of moving to Europe would diminish. *Immigration from other sources. Latin Americans, being Christian, would more or less permit Europe to keep its historic identity. Hindus and Chinese would increase the diversity of cultures, making it less likely that Islam would dominate. Current trends suggest Islamization will happen, for Europeans seem to find it too strenuous to have children, stop illegal immigration, or even diversify their sources of immigrants. Instead, they prefer to settle unhappily into civilizational senility. Europe has simultaneously reached unprecedented heights of prosperity and peacefulness — and shown a unique inability to sustain itself (one demographer, Wolfgang Lutz, notes that "Negative momentum has not been experienced on a large scale in world history"). Is it inevitable that the most brilliantly successful society also be the first in danger of collapse due to a lack of cultural confidence and offspring? Ironically, creating a hugely desirable place to live would seem also to be a recipe for suicide. The human comedy continues.

News Analysis By Uwe Siemon-Netto UPI Religious Affairs Editor WASHINGTON, May 12 (UPI) -- "God is great," the terrorists shouted as they decapitated Nicholas Berg, an American hostage, but Arab and Western specialists on Islam unanimously condemned this crime Wednesday as totally out of line with Islamic faith. "Even the most literalist interpreters of the Koran must reject the claim that this was a legitimate revenge for the abuse of detainees in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq," said Tariq Ramadan, currently the most prominent spokesman for Muslims in French-speaking countries. However, the Arab, French, German and North American scholars interviewed agreed that the news of the rape of female prisoners by U.S. soldiers in Abu Ghraib has the potential of overshadowing even this horrible deed. Pictures of the rape, which were shown to members of the U.S. Senate Wednesday, must never be published, they insisted. "These images would serve as recruiting posters for Osama bin Laden," said Antony T. Sullivan of the Center for Middle Eastern and North African Studies at the University of Michigan. Commenting on Berg's murder, Sayyid Sayeed, secretary-general of the Islamic Society of North America declared, "Islam teaches that taking the life of one person is equal to taking the life of all humanity." "Revenge must not be taken like this," he told United Press International. "No amount of previous animosity can justify killing a civilian who has done nothing wrong." Blood revenge is a concept Muslims have inherited from pre-Islamic times, explained Christine Schirrmacher, academic director of the Institute for Islamic Affairs in Bonn, Germany. "However, Islam insists that blood revenge must never be exercised privately but only under official supervision," Schirrmacher continued. According to Ramadan, no official permission was given to Berg's assassins. "How could it? This misdeed was unjustifiable." Hence the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based advocacy group, condemned "this cold-blooded murder," repudiating "all those who commit such acts of mindless violence in the name of religion." Schirrmacher, one of Europe's foremost scholars on Islam, said that Berg was perhaps chosen as victim simply because he was Jewish. "There are Muslim theologians who consider all Jews as enemies. In their minds, innocent Jewish civilians simply do not exist." In her writings, Schirrmacher has pointed out that historically Islam had been more hostile to Judaism than to Christianity, even though parts of the Koran rate both groups "people of the book" deserving special protection, unlike the heathen. Schirrmacher backed this up with a reference to a text in the Koran: "Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and the pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, 'We are Christians.'" (Surah 5:82). But Sayeed, Ramadan and Mohammed Mohammed Ali, a Shiite scholar from Iraq, insisted that from a Muslim point of view Berg's Jewish identity in no way justified his murder. "No matter what religion Berg was; he was innocent, and killing innocents is forbidden," Ali said in a telephone interview. While condemning Berg's ghoulish decapitation, the scholars voiced apprehension about the long-term catastrophic potential of the revelation that GI's raped female inmates in Abu Ghraib. "This is so horrible, one simply cannot imagine what will happen next," commented Schirrmacher. "In Islam, the woman is the bearer of family honor. Even to look at her is a crime." If the rape pictures were to be seen in Arab and other Muslim countries, "this would equal a nuclear explosion," Antony Sullivan agreed. "They would make the pictures of sexual abuse of men by women look insignificant." The photographs showing U.S. guards raping female prisoners would strike at the fundamental sanctity of Muslim and Arab culture in a way the other photographs didn't." According to Sullivan, "Whatever tactical progress the United States has made so far in Iraq, it has just suffered a great strategic defeat." "The practical consequence will be a tremendous encouragement for terrorists, resistance fighters and avengers to fight Americans at home and around the world." Sullivan called it "the saddest point that the American public is not aware of the gravity of the situation this country faces. This situation is not up front in their face, but it will be up front sooner or later." Every summer, Sullivan teaches Arab, Israeli and European students at the International Institute for Political and Economic Studies in Greece. Partly as a result of America's inability to engage with the Islamic world, "it becomes more and more difficult to teach Arabs from the Eastern Mediterranean." Sullivan said he was wondering how "I can now teach the American values to which I am so deeply committed. In the present circumstances, how can I, a believer in the reconciliation of cultures and religions, operate in the darkness that seems to be enveloping us?" Ramadan, Ali, Sayeed, Schirrmacher and Douglas Johnston, president of the Washington-based Center for Religion and Diplomacy, echoed this sentiment. All concurred with Ramadan's desperate outcry: "Please, no more pictures. It's enough!"

By Terry Mattingly From coast to coast, United Methodists are doing the math. America's third-largest flock just survived another quadrennial General Conference rocked by media-friendly fighting over sex. Now it's time to dissect the numbers. Delegates voted 570-334 to affirm the historic doctrines of the Christian faith. Efforts to back laws defining "marriage as the union of one man and one woman" passed on a 624-184 vote. Same-sex union rites fell -- 756-159. Should the church delete its "faithfulness in marriage and celibacy in singleness" standard for clergy? Delegates voted 806-95 to say "no." The big news was a 579-376 vote against weakening the Book of Discipline's law that self-avowed, practicing homosexuals cannot be clergy because homosexuality is "incompatible with Christian teaching." Delegates also rejected a resolution from gay-rights supporters that said: "We recognize that Christians disagree on the compatibility of homosexual practice with Christian teaching." That vote was 527-423. After three decades of pain, it seemed the numbers were stacking up for United Methodist conservatives, whose churches are thriving in the American Sunbelt and the Third World. But a final plot twist remained in Pittsburgh. A key church leader caused fireworks by saying it's time to end the war over the Bible and sex -- by separating the armies. "Our culture alone confronts us with more challenges than we can humanly speaking confront and challenge. That struggle, combined with the continuous struggle in the church, is more than we can bear. Our people, who have been faithful and patient, should not have to continue to endure our endless conflict," said the Rev. William Hinson, retired pastor of the 12,000-member First United Methodist Church of Houston, at a breakfast for conservatives. "I believe the time has come when we must begin to explore an amicable and just separation that will free us both from our cycle of pain and conflict. Such a just separation will protect the property rights of churches and the pension rights of clergy. It will also free us to reclaim our high calling and to fulfill our mission in the world." To understand the roots of this move -- which parallels divisions looming in other oldline Protestant churches -- it helps to dig a little deeper into the United Methodist numbers. Hinson is president of the "Confessing Movement," with 1,400 churches with 650,000 members. Gay-rights supporters have a Reconciling Ministries Network of 192 churches, with 17,000 members. But there are 35,000 congregations in all, with 8.3 million members. Sickened by decades of decline -- membership was 11 million in 1970 -- the last thing Methodists in the institutional middle wanted to hear was the word "schism." Before the conference closed, delegates linked hands, sang a hymn and passed a symbolic call for unity -- 869 to 41. And there was another number that deserved study. General Conference voted by a narrow 455-445 to clarify which Discipline violations can lead to a trial. The list of chargeable offenses now includes failing to be "celibate in singleness or being unfaithful in a heterosexual marriage; being a self-avowed practicing homosexual; conducting ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions or performing same-sex wedding ceremonies." But leaders on both sides noted that about 20 percent of the delegates this year came from Africa, Asia and Latin America -- where churches are more conservative. Efforts to enforce the Discipline's teachings might fall short, if left to delegates from North American churches. United Methodist progressives also continue to dominate the church's bureaucracies and seminaries. So be it, said theologian Thomas Oden, a former United Methodist liberal who now is a conservative strategist. The key during the next four years is for local church leaders to weigh options for how to end the national warfare over the Bible and sex. "We don't particularly care about the powers that be. What we care about is the doctrine and the Discipline in our church," he said. "That's were our focus is and that's where it will stay. … But the actual enforcement of those teachings remains a problem for us, as it is for most Protestant churches today. "We know that we will be struggling with that issue for decades. That's the question: We know what our church teaches, but do we have the will to enforce it?" Terry Mattingly (www.tmatt.net) teaches at Palm Beach Atlantic University and is senior fellow for journalism at the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities. He writes this weekly column for the Scripps Howard News Service.

Otis Charles, left, a retired Episcopal bishop, is shown marrying his partner, Felipe Sanchez Paris, at St. Gregory's of Nyssa Episcopal Church on April 24. Disclaimer: The following photo is from SFGate.com. Given the details of this "ceremony", some may wish to skip to the next story. Viewing of this photograph may cause various violent reactions. -webmaster LONDON: WRITTEN CONSTITUTION PLAN TO AVOID CHURCH SPLIT By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent, and Victoria Combe THE DAILY TELEGRAPH May 12, 2005 A written constitution is being considered by the Anglican Church in an attempt to prevent it splitting over the issue of homosexuality. The Primate of Ireland, Archbishop Robin Eames, who chairs the Lambeth Commission set up to resolve the crisis, said last night that it was examining whether a constitution could heal the rifts in the Church. But he acknowledged that there would be resistance from people anxious to retain the autonomy of the 38 individual provinces that form the worldwide Communion, and some want an even more loosely-tied federation. "The Anglican Communion is not like a golf club," said Archbishop Eames. "The question is, do you write rules and, having written these rules, then try to get agreement from those who do not want to be bound by rules? If that is done, then it will be the first time we have done it." The Archbishop's comments came at a press conference on the first day of the Church of Ireland's General Synod in Armagh, and coincided with an appeal for unity from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams. Preaching in St Patrick's Cathedral in Armagh last night, Dr Williams singled out Dr Eames's work on the commission and said that Christians who faced conflict had to try to see the position from the point of view of their enemies. "We have to let the fear and suspicion that another is going through be felt in our own hearts and minds; we have to let the world appear to us as it appears to them, and to sense and share the risks they believe they face," he told the congregation. Dr Williams, who set up the Lambeth Commission in October, said that the process was more intense for groups of rival Christians because they were rooted in the same faith. However, in fresh evidence of growing divisions, a church is to withhold its entire quota - the "tax" paid by parishes to central diocesan funds - in protest at the appointment of Dr Jeffrey John as Dean of St Albans. In what is thought to be an unprecedented act, Holy Trinity church in Barnet, north London, has told the Bishop of St Albans, the Rt Rev Christopher Herbert, that it will not pay a penny of the £33,600 the diocese expects. The Rev Charles Dobbie, the vicar, said that he blamed Bishop Herbert for approving the appointment of Dr John, the openly homosexual cleric who was forced to stand down as Bishop of Reading last summer. Mr Dobbie, a member of the conservative evangelical Church Society, said he hoped that other churches, some of whom already withhold parts of their quotas, would follow Holy Trinity's lead and pay nothing. "We were shocked and grieved by the appointment of Jeffrey John last month," he said. "We have decided to stand up and be counted." He added that he would not now expect the diocese to pay for his upkeep, and any extra money the parish held would go to a Christian charity ministering to homosexuals. Church sources said that the decision would have little impact on central finances, though the position could change if a large number of parishes followed suit.