Until the past few years, almost all Americans—and especially Presidents and candidates for President—firmly believed that America had earned God’s blessings. Now, secularists and even some Presidential candidates question this bedrock belief of religious Americans. The naysayers may unwittingly prove to be correct—if they are successful in imposing their secular agenda on the majority. From the religious point of view, same-sex marriage and its public sanction of homosexuality will desecrate God’s name. On a much larger scale, it will also risk the loss of His blessings on the United States—so eloquently requested by President George Washington in his first Inaugural Address (1789): “It would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect—that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes.” — Samuel Silver is Chairman of Toward Tradition (www.towardtradition.org), a national movement of Jewish and Christian cooperation, fighting anti-religious bigotry and secular fundamentalism. END

Who are the ultimate victims? On a micro level, our children are the victims—but on a macro level, our free society will be the victim. As President John Adams said in 1798: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” [39] George Washington expressed this same idea in his 1796 Farewell Address: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness—these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.” [40] In other words, our secular form of government was designed only for a non-secular people. 150 years later, President Harry Truman confirmed that a moral and religious people were still necessary for maintenance of our free society: [41] “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul… If we don’t have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State.” Adams, Washington, the other Founders, and Presidents through George W. Bush understood that a limited Constitutional government of the people, by the people, and for the people could work only if society is primarily self-policed—based on a common moral code that served as an invisible net of social stability. In America, this has always been the Judeo-Christian values derived from the Bible—most recently expressed in the phrase “one nation under God.” Some argue that to officially state the United States is “one nation under God” or to publicly recognize Judeo-Christian thought as the source of our legal and political systems violates the rights of atheists and non-monotheists. But the very concept of rights in the United States presupposes belief in the God of the Bible—not by every citizen, but at least by the majority. Like homosexuals, atheists want to invent a right to force their neighbors to lock their religious beliefs in the closet—so no one except the religious ever feels uncomfortable. To accept the assertion that public sanction of religion violates the rights of atheists and non-monotheists, one must completely ignore the Declaration of Independence, the history and writings of the Founders, and our nation’s history until the last 50 years. If ignored, then this discussion is not about the United States—but a completely new country. How can the greatest nation in the history of the world allow judges and special interest groups to completely redefine the nature and character of this great country without ascertaining the will of the majority through a democratic process? [42] Do we really believe that the Founders—who created this revolutionary concept of rights and the greatest Constitutional system yet devised by mankind—did not understand what they were doing? Contrary to a historical myth perpetrated by secularists, America at the time of the founding included atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, etc., [43] and the Founders knew that it was only this unique form of government—based on individual rights from God—that would protect people of all beliefs. As historian David Barton explains, the Founders were all religious Christians, but they did not oppose pluralism—as long as the beliefs of other religions did not threaten the stability of civil society. [44] In fact, the Founders believed that pluralism survived only within the concept of religious liberty espoused by American Christianity, [45] uniquely different from European Christianity—and based on what we now term the Judeo-Christian Ethic. [46] The opposite is not necessarily true. As Rabbi Hirsch taught us about the secular fundamentalist: “There will be no well-being and no peace as long as his convictions have not become the only ones recognized as right and valid.” He cannot tolerate a religious worldview outside the confines of church or synagogue. Sadly, the history of 20th-century Europe and the secular liberalism of 21st-century American academia confirm both his prediction and the Founders’ understanding: pluralism of belief will not survive in a secular society. People yearn for predictability in their lives and communities—and this invisible net provides that predictability. If predictability is lost to chaos, they often turn to dictators or other forms of totalitarian government to restore it. Without a moral public culture—shared by the majority of citizens—to provide the invisible net of social stability, government could not be limited and would have to encroach into every citizen’s life and freedom. Instead of a free society of cooperation between individuals, more and more human interaction would have to be decided by the legal system and bureaucrats. Morality would be replaced by legality—which helps explain why the judicial system is taking control of our government and our lives. Without a commonly accepted morality, there is no basis for human cooperation other than force. Freedom would rapidly morph into tyranny. As Rabbi Lapin has explained: [47] “One unintended side effect of the secular fundamentalism sweeping America is how it erodes the rules that hold together the invisible net of social stability. By encouraging unfettered personal license, secular fundamentalism helps collapse civilized norms… When young people no longer see their maturation leading naturally toward marriage—and when marriage itself becomes threatened by cultural ridicule and purported alternatives—parents feel unmoored… Many Americans feel resentment and alienation.” This is obviously not to suggest that the hobby of shattering traditional rules… is going to endow America with a future dictatorial tyrant. It can eventually, however, infect ordinary Americans with docility about further Federal control beyond that necessary to protect us from our enemies. In a desperate attempt to recover some sense of normality and predictability in our lives, we might be tempted to embrace expanded government influence over how we live, earn, and worship. We would yearn for the predictability and normality that used to be supplied by those traditional rules that many Jewish and Christian Americans of faith remember increasingly nostalgically. Biblically-based faith helps to maintain freedom by holding together the invisible framework of social stability. The Founders understood this lesson well—but we have strayed. Our free society—as the Founders dreamed it and we once knew it—will be lost forever unless Americans make a political stand to preserve this endangered invisible framework of social stability. That stand must begin with protecting children from the Trojan horse of secular fundamentalism—expressed in such formerly unthinkable legalisms as same-sex marriage. The secular fundamentalists leading this assault on Judeo-Christian values understand very well that the children are their point of attack. If you doubt that children are the intended victims, read the words of an openly homosexual woman who was formerly an insider in the leadership of the feminist and radical gay rights movements—until she realized these movements were no longer based on the ideal of civil rights, but on socialism, the foundational model of the Far Left. [48] Her comments about efforts to end anti-gay bias in K–12 schools: [49] “For people whose entire identity and reason to live is based in their sexuality, what do they need to do in order to fit comfortably into our society? They must work to sexualize every part of society—and, as every good marketer knows, that effort must begin with children.” “The efforts of gay establishment organizations, if the future is really their concern, should be focused on persuading the horde of bacchanalian boys to change their lifestyle. Instead, they are demanding that we accept their degeneracy, and the destruction of our future in the process. We dare not judge them. We dare not question their actions. And we are to hand the nation’s children over to them.” This is why a free society such as the United States—where the vast majority believe in Judeo-Christian values—can tolerate unrestricted private sexual activity between consenting adults, but cannot allow public sanction and endorsement of homosexuality as a cultural norm.

As Benjamin Franklin wrote to Thomas Paine in an attempt to persuade Paine to abandon his anti-religion essays: “If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it.” [25] Fallacy #3: Same-sex Marriage Is A Private Act Between Consenting Adults “The hidden [sins] are for Hashem, our God, but the revealed [sins] are for us and our children forever, to carry out all the words of this Torah.” (Deuteronomy 29:28) The sages explain that Moses is teaching: hidden sins are the province of God alone, and He holds no one responsible but the sinners themselves. But everyone is obligated to safeguard against openly committed sins. [26] Thus, homosexual activity between consenting adults practiced in privacy is primarily a sin against God, and He will deal with it. It is not a matter for government regulation. The same cannot be said about same-sex marriage. Most people may be surprised to know that the debate over same-sex marriage is not new. As the wise King Solomon taught us, “There is nothing new under the sun.” The Bible teaches that God brought on the Flood in Noah’s time because “all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth.” [27] A fascinating Midrash (ancient rabbinic commentary on the Bible) teaches: “The generation of the Flood was only blotted out from the world because they wrote marriage contracts for males and for females.” [28] Later, the Talmud teaches that Noahides (monotheistic non-Jews) who did not observe all of the Noahide laws at least did not write a marriage contract for males. [29] In explaining this discussion, Rashi, the great 11th-century commentator on the Bible and Talmud, points out the vital distinction between private actions and public policy: “Even though they are suspected of homosexuality and sequester themselves with males for intercourse, nevertheless, they are not so irresponsible about this commandment that they would write a marriage contract for them.” There are serious consequences to a society that officially sanctions activities the vast majority of its citizens accept as immoral. We ignore, at our own peril, the infinite difference between acceptable private and public behavior—especially for families raising children with a focus on future generations, a challenge very few homosexuals share. To publicly sanction same-sex marriage is to implicitly sanction the short-term outlook on life inherent to homosexuality. A perfect example of the disastrous public policy effects of this short-sighted viewpoint was the father of FDR’s New Deal, economist John Maynard Keynes. A major flaw in Keynes’ thinking was his concentration on the short-term. He thought that focus on the long run was utterly futile and one of the great mistakes in economics. He abhorred “savings,” thought the “abstinence” of people impedes the growth of wealth, and believed savings are always a potential threat to economic progress. One of the leading economists of the 20th Century, Joseph Schumpeter, noted the connection between Keynes’ flawed ideas and his “childless and essentially short-run philosophy of life” when he said, “For a person committed to homosexuality, who is without descendants, there is little for them to focus the future on.” [30] It is not a coincidence that the Hebrew word in the Bible for children is linguistically the same as builders. As economist and political philosopher Thomas Sowell explains: [31] “Marriage is not an individual right. Otherwise, why limit marriage to unions of two people instead of three or four or five? Why limit it to adult humans, if some want to be united with others of various ages, sexes, and species? Marriage is a social contract because the issues involved go beyond the particular individuals. Unions of a man and woman produce the future generations on whom the fate of the whole society depends. Society has something to say about that.” If society elects not to say anything about it and abandons the primacy of the traditional family—with its focus on children and future generations—we also abandon our connections to past generations, traditions, and history. All we will be left with is a present filled with hedonistic irresponsibility. And we don’t have to wait too long—just look around! This current attempt at a perpetual age of adolescence, if not halted soon, will lead at an increasingly rapid rate to the uncontrollable destruction of civil society. The Emperor Nero reportedly went so far as to write a marriage contract for one of his favorite male lovers. [32] Do we really want to follow the Roman Empire into decline and ruin? It is critical to recognize the essential difference between a society where homosexuality is practiced privately and one that actually gives it official sanction and recognition. Fallacy #4: Economic Benefits For Homosexuals Can Only Be Obtained By Government Force Proponents of same-sex marriage claim all they really want are equal rights for homosexuals who live together as couples. This is very appealing to Americans, who have historically been tolerant and fair—but it is a false argument. Before new rights are created, it is only logical to ask: what is their source? The revolutionary achievement of the Founders of the United States was their recognition that neither they nor any government could create rights. This was in complete contrast to the historic Divine Rights of Kings or the modern systems of man-made collective rights, such as in the former Soviet Union. The individual rights of man were from God, as the Declaration of Independence clearly states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” President John F. Kennedy confirmed the divine source of these rights in his Inaugural Address: “The same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.” Same-sex marriage, by any stretch of the imagination, is in complete contradiction to God’s Instruction Manual—so if the rights of man come from the hand of God, it is inconceivable that God would view same-sex marriage as a right. If proponents of same-sex marriage truly want just the economic benefits (not rights) that heterosexual couples have, those benefits can easily be provided in the free market on a voluntary basis—without the use of government force. Many corporations, such as Disney, General Electric, and Wal-Mart, accommodate their employee benefit programs for homosexuals and many already include insurance coverage for domestic partners. Just as voluntary sexual activity should be a private matter, economic benefits for private sexual relationships should be voluntary. This may entail modifications in some state laws concerning contracts and benefits, but it does not require laws destroying the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman—that has been the cornerstone of civilization for over 5,000 years. A Final Fallacy: Same-Sex Marriage Hurts No One In America, we believe in Live and Let Live—so who is hurt if two boys or two girls want to marry each other? Live & Let Live is a great hallmark of American political life, but it is only effective in matters between fully developed adults. The introduction of children and a concern for future generations change the equation. This is especially true when it comes to public sanctions and forced indoctrination of children in the public school system. Parents should not be forced to teach their children that a fundamental religious and moral prohibition—one that has been a standard of Judeo-Christian morality for thousands of years—is not only condoned, but is publicly sanctioned by their government. Many homosexuals—such as those with a religious worldview, and especially those with children or strong family ties—understand and accept the position that same-sex marriage will be harmful to society; yet it is understandable that many other homosexuals might not see the harm in it. But why do so many heterosexuals support same-sex marriage? It seems apparent that most are misled by the nice-sounding—but intentionally false—idea that government force is necessary to eliminate hatred, uncomfortable feelings, and differences in economic benefits. What about those leading this battle and intentionally misleading the public? Why are they so vociferously demanding the right to impose this potentially disastrous policy on the majority of Americans? The answer lies in the fundamental difference between the secular and the religious worldviews; therefore, it is not unimportant that the vast majority of Americans hold a religious outlook on life. The third chapter of the Talmud, Pirkei Avos (Chapters of the Fathers), asks three of the most critical questions humans grapple with. [33] As Rabbi Daniel Lapin explains, each of these transcendental questions can be answered in two primary ways—defining the difference between the two worldviews. [34] 1. How did human beings come to be on this planet? Religious: God created us in His image and placed us here. Secular: By a lengthy, random process of unaided materialistic evolution, primitive protoplasm became Bach and Beethoven. [35] 2. Where is the human race headed? Religious: To an ultimate day of God’s choosing, when a grand Messianic redemption will take place—resulting in the whole world recognizing God and His truth. Secular: To an ultimate day of destruction and oblivion that will wipe us out through overcrowding, poverty, global warming, acid rain, nuclear explosion, off-course meteorites, or any combination of the above. 3. What are we supposed to be doing here? Religious: We are supposed to be developing our relationship with God and becoming closer to Him—through studying and following His Torah and obeying His mitzvot. In other words, we have a set of objective ethics to live by. Secular: There are no objective ethics, so everything is subjective and relative. “Anything goes” is good enough as far as our personal lives go! Our primary focus on the future is to head off the threats to humanity in the secular answer to question #2. If they are too formidable for us to solve alone, we should urge our government to solve them. If they are too much for one government to solve, we should urge governments to cooperate through the United Nations. Monotheists—such as Jews and Christians—would be in basic agreement with the religious answers, albeit with variations in the details. Secularists eschew objective values and ethics, [36] and look at the future as extremely tenuous and limited to only this world. The ultimate day of destruction and oblivion is rapidly approaching—and there is nothing after that! Thus both homosexual and heterosexual secularists, based on their secular worldview, can very easily fall into the trap of supporting same-sex marriage. To do so, they intentionally ignore the serious problems they are imposing on parents with a religious worldview—parents trying to teach their children Judeo-Christian values. Secularists truly believe religious people are ignorant, intolerant, homophobic, racist, and generally dangerous; so they believe it is only social justice to destroy any public acceptance of the religious worldview—even by undemocratic means. The leaders of the secular movement are strident atheists who cannot tolerate religious people—a constant reminder of everything they reject. Instead of being religious fundamentalists, they became secular fundamentalists. Through propaganda and ridicule, these fundamentalists have also convinced a minority of Americans—who believe in God—to fear religion more than secularism, in complete disregard of the barbaric reality of the 20th century. After the fall of Nazism and Communism, the secular fundamentalists focused primarily on post-Christian Europe and American academia—turning both into hotbeds of anti-religious bigotry and virulent anti-Semitism. These self-proclaimed progressives espouse diversity, but are in fact very close-minded and hostile to all political, cultural, and especially religious opinions with which they disagree. Over a century ago, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch anticipated modern secular fundamentalism with prophetic precision. [37] “It is now no longer enough for the apostate to be able to live undisturbed according to his convictions, as he calls them; to him there is no well-being and no peace as long as his convictions have not become the only ones recognized as right and valid.” He sees in the Law an intellectual slavery… In Torah-loyalty, he sees superstition, backwardness, and at the same time a calamity… He sees in liberation from the yoke of the Law a goal so high and humanitarian that every means… must be employed… He has reached the stage of waging fanatical campaigns of persecution against those loyal to the Law. Extremists on either side can be dangerous—if initiation of force is not limited by a strong Constitutional defense of individual rights and religious freedom. [38] The secular side, however, offers the greatest risk to society. It contains no internalized mechanism for an objective moral code of human cooperation and must rely solely on the collectivized, legalistic force of government for citizens to defend themselves. It also contains no effective, common moral foundation for raising children—especially in a vacuum without an existent moral culture passed down from previous generations of religious tradition.

FROM THE MANUFACTURERS INSTRUCTION MANUAL March 2004 By Samuel Silver The debate about legal recognition of same-sex marriage is ultimately grounded in our understanding of human nature, values, and the role of human relationships in creating and defining the type society we desire. For the vast majority of Americans, these issues are understood in the context of the Bible and religious traditions, the Instruction Manual provided by our manufacturer. This critical debate is not truly between homosexuals and heterosexuals; it is between two opposing worldviews, one secular and the other religious. Approximately 80% of Americans hold a religious worldview, but the secular left has done an excellent, yet nefarious, job of dividing those with a religious worldview through false stereotyping. Their manipulative divide & conquer strategy has led many religious people to erroneously fear other religious people more than they fear the secular fundamentalists set on destroying religion and Judeo-Christian values. Thus, many Americans are understandably confused about the same-sex marriage issue and its ultimate driving force, secular fundamentalism. Everyone does not fit neatly into the purely religious or purely secular worldviews, but sitting this one out is not a viable alternative. The stakes for our families and free society are too great. We have to join one team or the other, so we must each choose which team is closer to our own personal values, or which team is further from our values. To avoid a choice is still a choice - one for the other team. THE RELIGIOUS POSITION Everyone knows the secular and radical gay rights side of the argument; the public schools, universities, and mass media faithfully present it to us. Fewer understand the religious side of the argument, which is falsely portrayed as ignorant, bigoted, hateful, intolerant, and homophobic. A proper understanding of the religious position is necessary if a real debate is to take place prior to the destruction of a 5,000-year-old institution by a minority of citizens, against the will of the majority. To discuss the religious view of human nature is not to ignore science, which also informs the opinions of Americans. Many people may not be aware that modern science is belatedly learning that the Biblical view of human nature is more accurate than the views that have been the foundation for most of secular liberalism. In his courageous new book, The Blank Slate, The Modern Denial of Human Nature, MIT professor Steven Pinker, himself a secular liberal, concludes the theory of human nature coming out of the cognitive revolution has more in common with the Judeo-Christian theory of human nature than with behaviorism, social constructionism, and other versions of the Blank Slate. Those that think religion is just ancient superstition should take a second, or in many cases, a first look. To discuss the religious view in dealing with matters of public policy is also not to ignore Separation of Church and State, a 19th century metaphor mistakenly assumed to be in the U.S. Constitution. Unlike humans who are born morally tabula rasa with a blank slate, the United States was not created morally tabula rasa as a secular nation. The unifying moral principle of this country's founding was a religious faith in a divine Creator and the freedom of each individual to practice his or her religion (or no religion) without interference from the government. The Founders believed that religious faith, particularly the Judeo-Christian tradition, provided the objective ethical basis needed for a free society to properly function. To this very day, the majority of Americans share this belief, so to ban religion from the public square is to radically redefine America into a secular nation in opposition to both the principles upon which it was created and the wishes of the majority of its citizens. The government, as defined in the First Amendment and explained by its author James Madison, must remain neutral between various sects of religion, but is not required to remain neutral between religion and irreligion. In the wise words of Thomas Jefferson, so frequently and erroneously presented as an atheist, The God who gave us life, gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God. A review of traditional Judaism's opposition, to homosexuality and most importantly its public sanction with the legal recognition of same-sex marriage, will highlight the fallacies many well-meaning people, Jew and non-Jew, have apparently accepted. (Judaism will guide this discussion, although the general ideas should be in agreement with traditional Christianity.) To have compassion and tolerance for all of God's children is admirable and a mitzvah (commandment) under Jewish law, but there is no way Jewish law and tradition can be perverted to endorse and publicly sanction same-sex marriage. The Instruction Manual is clear and unequivocal. You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, it is an abomination. The ultimate punishment for homosexuality along with the other sexual sins listed in this section, such as bestiality and incest, is kares; Gods cutting off their souls (spiritually) from the midst of their people. Kares is generally understood to be exacted after death, and is considered one of the most severe punishments for a sin. In Judaism, the harshness of the punishment assigned to a sin, whether or not meant to be carried out by humans, helps us understand the relative seriousness of the sin. Obviously, sexual immorality is a very serious matter for Jews, but Judaism also teaches that sexual immorality, including homosexuality, is universally prohibited to all humans as one of the seven Noahide Laws, Gods natural law for all mankind. The very first commandment in the Bible comes immediately following Gods creation of human beings, male and female together and equally in His image. God commands us to Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it. The great 19th century sage, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch describes this fourfold mission as a guide to the whole free-willed moral development of the human race: Fruitful is marriage, multiply is the family, fill the earth is society, and subdue it is property, i.e. the mastering, appropriating and transforming the earth and its products for human purposes. Rabbi Hirsch further points out the critical nature of heterosexual relationships, based on the Commandment for man to leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife, and they will be one flesh. Man is not unique among living beings in having a sexual life. But other creatures require mating only for the purpose of breeding; because male and female were created simultaneously, they can function independent of one another. Man is different: woman was created from man to show that only in a partnership do the two of them form a complete human being. While a small percentage of humans may subconsciously desire a same-sex relationship because it is less complex and challenging, God warns us to consciously overcome that desire and understand that He created the female to be a helper corresponding to the male. As the sages explain, A wife is neither mans shadow nor his servant, but his other self, a helper in a dimension beyond the capability of any other creature. Interestingly, the Hebrew word, kinegdo, here translated as corresponding to him, may also be translated as against him or opposite him; reflecting the built-in complexity and difficulty of the complementary relationship between man and woman. So humans, originally created as male and female, then separated, must rejoin not just physically, but spiritually to create a civil and prosperous society. Our Creator did not design us to achieve this necessary spiritual unity with same-sex relationships. But humans do not like rules defining and inhibiting our behavior, so we use our God-given ability to rationalize almost anything and accept erroneous ideas in order to ignore those rules. FALLACY #1: NATURAL INCLINATION EQUALS ACCEPTABLE PUBLIC BEHAVIOR Whether a homosexual inclination is caused by genetics, hormonal changes in the womb, psychological development, or mere whim is completely irrelevant. The Creator of human nature would not have prohibited homosexual activity if He did not design this inclination to be controllable by human free will. He gave us free will to control the multitude of inclinations that we all possess to varying degrees. Some are extremely difficult to control, but we are discussing human behavior, not a passive trait such as skin color. God also gave we mortal and physical humans commandments to guide us in the choices we make, in order to elevate ourselves spiritually - not to live as instinctual animals, but as rational human beings created in His image. And our volitional efforts are necessary so the spirituality we attain will have a distinct human involvement. As Maimonides (1135-1204), one of Judaism's greatest philosophers and legal codifiers, taught: It is possible for a person to be born with a tendency to one of the virtues or one of the shortcomings i.e., conduct [representative of this trait] will come easier to him than other types of conduct. He should not say that these shortcomings are already ingrained in his character and cannot be removed. For in every situation a person has the choice of changing from good to bad, and from bad to good. The choice is in his hands. Without free will, there is no basis for morality or for that matter Judaism or Christianity; so to argue that homosexuality or any prohibited behavior is OK because it is a natural inclination is an oxymoron. After all, some scientists believe that people are born with inclinations to be violent or criminal or even pedophiles. Do we then condone and sanction these anti-social actions because they were born that way? Those who believe modern science has proven homosexual activity is impossible to control, resist, or even change; and believe that people who disagree are ignorant and homophobic, should be more open-minded and check their premises. Regardless of propaganda in the mass media, there is no scientific evidence demonstrating that homosexuality is either innate or immutable. FALLACY #2: OPPOSITION TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS HATEFUL HOMOPHOBIA Many view the legalization of same-sex marriage as eliminating discrimination in a desire not to make anyone feel uncomfortable, as if there is a Constitutional right not to feel uncomfortable. They even tie-in discussions of same-sex marriage with hate crimes legislation. Therefore, it is important to distinguish between hating the sin and hating the sinner. The idea that opposition to homosexual activity and its public sanction is equivalent to or leads to hatred of individual homosexuals is a big lie created to demonize, intimidate, and silence opponents of the gay rights agenda. And the data confirms the big lie. Every crime of violence against another human being is reprehensible, but according to the latest FBI Hate Crimes statistics, it is estimated that less than 0.0001 of homosexuals were victims of violent assaults; not exactly an epidemic of homophobic rage spreading across America. In one of the founding documents of the gay liberation movement, published in the mid-1980s, the National Gay Task Force laid out their plan to create this big lie. The first order of business is the desensitization of the American people concerning gays and gay rights. Almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to it enough. The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome. Where we talk is important. The visual media, film and television, are plainly the most powerful imagemakers in Western civilization. The average American household watches over seven hours of television daily. Those hours open a gate: the private world of straights, through which a Trojan horse might be passed. As far as desensitization is concerned, the medium is the message of normalcy. Portray gays as victims. In any campaign to win over the public we must be cast as victims in need of protection, so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of the protector. We can undercut the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters badly out of step with the times. At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights, it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified. The public must be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust Middle America. These images might include: the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burnt alive or castrated; bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged. These images should be combined by a method propagandists call the bracket technique. The propagandists have been extremely successful! We let their Trojan horse enter our homes unabated, and we let them infect the minds of our children. But it is still a lie, built on anti-religious bigotry. Judaism and Christianity both abhor the sin of homosexual behavior, but only teach love, respect, and toleration for individual fellow humans - all created in the image of God. Religious people who believe homosexual behavior is a sin and oppose same-sex marriage can sincerely say, Some of my best friends are gay! The fact is that a person practicing homosexuality has committed a religious sin, a very serious one in Gods eyes, but so has a Jew that doesn't keep Kosher, observe the Sabbath, or violates any of the Commandments. They are no less Jewish, and society lives and deals with these sinners in a variety of amicable, tolerant, and neighborly ways without creating special legal rights. This same tolerance applies to homosexuals. Truly religious people are tolerant of others with whom they disagree and can live peaceably and neighborly with them in a free society. This is especially true in America where the political environment has always been one based on respect for and protection of individual rights. But the gay rights movement does not want tolerance; they want nothing less than forced acceptance of their lifestyle as normal, healthy, and moral; a position most religious people must reject for themselves and their children. And this is where the problems arise. This undemocratic use of government force by a minority of citizens is at its most despicable when public schools are used to impose these ideas on children of religious families. And as if this use of public schools for ideological indoctrination were not enough, they then use judicial activism to control private organizations, such as the Boy Scouts, which are only remotely connected to the government. Are there intolerant religious people? Of course, but they represent only a small minority not fully observing a basic tenet of both Judaism and Christianity, Love thy neighbor as thyself. Their religious practice, however flawed, at least constrains their behavior, and in the long run it is an effective tool for improving their humanity. On the other side, without religion as the basis for the public moral culture, what will constrain behavior and lead to an improvement of humanity? What will restrain secular intolerance from infecting not a small minority, but a large majority? History's grand experiment with a secular society, Communism, was an evil and dismal failure that killed approximately 100 million innocent people in the 20th Century. Add to that the Holocaust perpetrated by the socialist, neo-pagan Nazis. All of the (Judeo-Christian) religious wars in the history of the world pale by comparison. Could a secular society result in a nation as great as the United States? Anything is possible in a perfect world, but in our imperfect world, no such society has yet approached the freedom and the spiritual and material prosperity of the United States. Those who wish to ban religion from the public square and impose secularism on the majority of Americans would do well to rethink their position. Those who wish to ban religion from the public square and impose secularism on the majority of Americans would do well to rethink their position the grass is not always greener on the other side As Benjamin Franklin wrote to Thomas Paine in an attempt to persuade Paine to abandon his anti-religion essays: If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it. [25] Fallacy #3: Same-sex Marriage Is A Private Act Between Consenting Adults The hidden [sins] are for Hashem, our God, but the revealed [sins] are for us and our children forever, to carry out all the words of this Torah. (Deuteronomy 29:28) The sages explain that Moses is teaching, hidden sins are the province of God alone, and He holds no one responsible but the sinners themselves. But everyone is obligated to safeguard against openly committed sins. [26] Thus, homosexual activity between consenting adults practiced in privacy is primarily a sin against God, and He will deal with it. It is not a matter for government regulation. The same cannot be said about same-sex marriage. Most people may be surprised to know that the debate over same-sex marriage is not new. As the wise King Solomon taught us, There is nothing new under the sun. The Bible teaches that God brought on the Flood in Noah’s time because, all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth. [27] A fascinating Midrash (ancient rabbinic commentary on the Bible) teaches: the generation of the Flood was only blotted out from the world because they wrote marriage contracts for males and for females. [28] Later, the Talmud teaches that Noahides (monotheistic non-Jews) who did not observe all of the Noahide laws at least did not write a marriage contract for males [29] In explaining this discussion, Rashi, the great 11th century commentator on the Bible and Talmud, points out the vital distinction between private actions and public policy: Even though they are suspected of homosexuality and sequester themselves with males for intercourse, nevertheless, they are not so irresponsible about this commandment that they would write a marriage contract for them. There are serious consequences to a society that officially sanctions activities the vast majority of its citizens accept as immoral. We ignore, at our own peril, the infinite difference between acceptable private and public behavior, especially for families raising children with a focus on future generations, a challenge very few homosexuals share. To publicly sanction same-sex marriage is to implicitly sanction the short-term outlook on life inherent to homosexuality. A perfect example of the disastrous public policy effects of this sort-sighted viewpoint was the father of FDRs New Deal, economist John Maynard Keynes. A major flaw in Keynes thinking was his concentration on the short-term. He thought that focus on the long run was utterly futile and one of the great mistakes in economics. He abhorred "savings," thought the "abstinence" of people impedes the growth of wealth, and believed savings are always a potential threat to economic progress. One of the leading economists of the 20th Century, Joseph Schumpeter, noted the connection between Keynes flawed ideas and his "childless and essentially short run philosophy of life" when he said, "for a person committed to homosexuality, who is without descendants, there is little for them to focus the future on." [30] It is not a coincidence that the Hebrew word in the Bible for children is linguistically the same as builders. As economist and political philosopher Thomas Sowell explains, [31] Marriage is not an individual right. Otherwise, why limit marriage to unions of two people instead of three of four or five Why limit it to adult humans, if some want to be united with others of various ages, sexes, and species. Marriage is a social contract because the issues involved go beyond the particular individuals. Unions of a man and woman produce the future generations on whom the fate of the whole society depends. Society has something to say about that. If society elects not to say anything about it and abandons the primacy of the traditional family, with its focus on children and future generations, we also abandon our connections to past generations, traditions, and history. All we will be left with is a present filled with hedonistic irresponsibility. And we dont have to wait too long - just look around! This current attempt at a perpetual age of adolescence, if not halted soon, will lead at an increasingly rapid rate to the uncontrollable destruction of civil society. The Emperor Nero reportedly went so far as to write a marriage contract for one of his favorite male lovers. [32] Do we really want to follow the Roman Empire into decline and ruin It is critical to recognize the essential difference between a society where homosexuality is practiced privately and one that actually gives it official sanction and recognition. Fallacy #4: Economic Benefits For Homosexuals Can Only Be Obtained By Government Force Proponents of same-sex marriage claim all they really want are equal rights for homosexuals who live together as couples. This is very appealing to Americans who historically been tolerant and fair, but it is a false argument. Before new rights are created, it is only logical to ask what is their source. The revolutionary achievement of the Founders of the United States was their recognition that neither they nor any government could create rights. This was in complete contrast to the historic Divine Rights of Kings or the modern systems of man-made collective rights, such as in the former Soviet Union . The individual rights of man were from God, as the Declaration of Independence clearly states: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights President John F. Kennedy confirmed the divine source of these rights in his Inaugural Address, the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God. Same-sex marriage, by any stretch of the imagination, is in complete contradiction to Gods Instruction Manual, so if the rights of man come from the hand of God, it is inconceivable that God would view same-sex marriage as a right. If proponents of same-sex marriage truly want just the economic benefits (not rights) that heterosexual sexual couples have, those benefits can easily be provided in the free market on a voluntary basis, without the use of government force. Many corporations such as Disney, General Electric, and Wal-Mart accommodate their employee benefit programs for homosexuals and many already include insurance coverage for domestic partners. Just as voluntary sexual activity should be a private matter, economic benefits for private sexual relationships should be voluntary. This may entail modifications in some State laws concerning contracts and benefits, but it does not require laws destroying the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman that has been the cornerstone of civilization for over 5,000 years. A Final Fallacy: Same-Sex Marriage Hurts No One In America , we believe in Live and Let Live, so who is hurt if two boys or two girls want to marry each other Live & Let Live is a great hallmark of American political life, but it is only effective in matters between fully developed adults. The introduction of children and a concern for future generations change the equation. This is especially true when it comes to public sanctions and forced indoctrination of children in the public school system. Parents should not be forced to teach their children that a fundamental religious and moral prohibition, one that has been a standard of Judeo-Christian morality for thousands of years, is not only condoned, but is publicly sanctioned by their government. Many homosexuals, such as those with a religious worldview and especially those with children or strong family ties, understand and accept the position that same-sex marriage will be harmful to society; yet it is understandable that many other homosexuals might not see the harm in same-sex marriage. But, why do so many heterosexuals support same-sex marriage It seems apparent that most are misled with the nice sounding, but intentionally false idea that government force is necessary to eliminate hatred, uncomfortable feelings, and differences in economic benefits. What about those leading this battle and intentionally misleading the public Why are they so vociferously demanding the right to impose this potentially disastrous policy on the majority of Americans The answer lies in the fundamental difference between the secular and the religious worldviews; therefore, it is not unimportant that the vast majority of Americans hold a religious outlook on life. The third chapter of the Talmud, Pirkei Avos, (Chapters of the Fathers), asks three of the most critical questions humans grapple with. [33] As Rabbi Daniel Lapin explains, each of these transcendental questions can be answered in two primary ways, defining the difference between the two worldviews. [34] 1. How did human beings come to be on this planet Religious: God created us in His image and placed us here. Secular: By a lengthy, random process of unaided materialistic evolution, primitive protoplasm became Bach and Beethoven. [35] 2. Where is the human race headed? Religious To an ultimate day of Gods choosing when a grand Messianic redemption will take place resulting in the whole world recognizing God and His truth. Secular To an ultimate day of destruction and oblivion that will wipe us out through overcrowding, poverty, global warming, acid rain, nuclear explosion, off- course meteorites or any combination of the above. 3: What are we supposed to be doing here? Religious: We are supposed to be developing our relationship with God and becoming closer to Him through studying and following His Torah and obeying His mitzvoth. In other words, we have a set of objective ethics to live by. Secular: There are no objective ethics, so everything is subjective and relative. Anything goes is good enough as far as our personal lives go! Our primary focus on the future is to head off the threats to humanity in the Secular answer to question #2. If they are too formidable for us to solve alone, we should urge our government to solve them. If they are too much for one government to solve, we should urge governments to cooperate through the United Nations in order to solve them. Monotheists, such as Jews and Christians, would be in basic agreement with the religious answers, albeit with variations in the details. Secularists eschew objective values and ethics, [36] and look at the future as extremely tenuous and limited to only this world. The ultimate day of destruction and oblivion are rapidly approaching, and there is nothing after that! Thus both homosexual and heterosexual secularists, based on their secular worldview, can very easily fall into the trap of supporting same-sex marriage. To do so, they intentionally ignore the serious problems they are imposing on parents with a religious worldview - parents trying to teach their children Judeo- Christian values. Secularists truly believe religious people are ignorant, intolerant, homophobic, racist, and generally dangerous; so they believe it is only social justice to destroy any public acceptance of the religious worldview, even by undemocratic means. The leaders of the secular movement are strident atheists who cannot tolerate religious people; a constant reminder of everything they reject. Instead of being religious fundamentalists, they became secular fundamentalists. Through propaganda and ridicule, these fundamentalists have also convinced a minority of Americans, who believe in God, to fear religion more than secularism, in complete disregard to the barbaric reality of the 20th century. After the fall of Nazism and Communism, the secular fundamentalists focused primarily on post-Christian Europe and American academia, turning both into hotbeds of anti-religious bigotry and virulent anti- Semitism. These self-proclaimed progressives espouse diversity, but are in fact very close-minded and hostile to all political, cultural, and especially religious opinions with which they disagree. Over a century ago, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch anticipated modern secular fundamentalism with prophetic precision. [37] It is now no longer enough for the apostate to be able to live undisturbed according to his convictions, as he calls them; to him there is no well-being and no peace as long as his convictions have not become the only ones recognized as right and valid. He sees in the Law an intellectual slavery from which it is the Godly task of a second Moses to redeem his unfortunate brothers. In Torah-loyalty, he sees superstition, backwardness, and at the same time a calamity which is to blame for all the miseries of the past. He sees in liberation from the yoke of the Law a goal so high and so humanitarian that every means which seems capable of bringing about progress toward this great goal must be employed. He has reached the stage of waging fanatical campaigns of persecution against those loyal to the Law. Extremists on either side can be dangerous if initiation of force is not limited by a strong Constitutional defense of individual rights and religious freedom. [38] The secular side, however, offers the greatest risk to society. It contains no internalized mechanism for an objective moral code of human cooperation and must rely solely on the collectivized, legalistic force of government for citizens to defend themselves. It also contains no effective, common moral foundation for raising children, especially in a vacuum without an existent moral culture passed down from previous generations of religious tradition. The Ultimate Victims Who are the ultimate victims On a micro level, our children are the victims, but on a macro level, our free society will be the victim. As President John Adams said in 1798, We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. [39] George Washington expressed this same idea in his 1796 Farewell Address to the Nation: Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. [40] In other words, our secular form of government was designed only for a non-secular people. 150 years later, President Harry Truman confirmed that a moral and religious people were still necessary for maintenance of our free society. [41] The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. If we don’t have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State. Adams, Washington, the other Founders, and Presidents through George W. Bush have understood that a limited Constitutional government of the people, by the people, and for the people could work only if the society is primarily self-policed, based on a common moral code that served as an invisible net of social stability. In America this has always been the Judeo-Christian values derived from the Bible, most recently expressed in the phrase one nation under God. Some argue that to officially state the United States is one nation under God or to publicly recognize Judeo-Christian thought as the source of our legal and political systems violates the rights of atheists and non-monotheists. The very concept of rights in the United States presupposes belief in the God of the Bible, not by every citizen, but at least by the majority. Like homosexuals, atheists want to invent a right to force their neighbors to lock their religious beliefs in the closet, so no one except the religious ever feels uncomfortable. To accept the assertion that public sanction of religion violates the rights of atheists and non-monotheists, one must completely ignore the Declaration of Independence, the history and writings of the Founders, and our nations history until the last 50 years. If ignored, then this discussion is not about the United States , but a completely new country. How can the greatest nation in the history of the world allow judges and special interest groups to completely redefine the nature and character of this great country without ascertaining the will of the majority through a democratic process [42] Do we really believe that the Founders, who created this revolutionary concept of rights and created the greatest Constitutional system as yet devised by mankind, did not understand what they were doing. Contrary to a historical myth perpetrated by the secularists, America at the time of the founding included atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, etc., [43] and the Founders knew that it was only this unique form of government, based on individual rights from God, that would protect people of all beliefs. As historian David Barton explains, the Founders were all religious Christians, but they did not oppose pluralism, as long as the beliefs of other religions did not threaten the stability of civil society. [44] In fact, the Founders believed that pluralism survived only within the concept of religious liberty espoused by American Christianity, [45] uniquely different from European Christianity and based on what we now term the Judeo-Christian Ethic. [46] The opposite is not necessarily true. As Rabbi Hirsch taught us about the secular fundamentalist, there will be no well-being and no peace as long as his convictions have not become the only ones recognized as right and valid. He cannot tolerate a religious worldview outside the confines of the church or synagogue. Sadly, the history of 20th century Europe and the secular liberalism of 21st century American academia confirm both his prediction and the understanding of the Founders that pluralism of belief will not survive in a secular society. People yearn for predictability in their lives and communities, and this invisible net provides that predictability in their everyday lives. If predictability is lost to chaos, they often turn to dictators or other forms of totalitarian government to restore predictability. Without a moral public culture shared by the majority of citizens to provide the invisible net of social stability, government could not be limited and would have to encroach into every citizens life and freedom. Instead of a free society of cooperation between individuals, more and more human interaction would have to be decided by the legal system and bureaucrats. Morality would be replaced by legality, which helps explain why the judicial system is taking control of our government and our lives. Without a commonly accepted morality, there is no basis for human cooperation, other than force. Freedom would rapidly morph into tyranny. As Rabbi Lapin has explained: [47] One unintended side effect of the secular fundamentalism sweeping America is how it erodes the rules that hold together the invisible net of social stability. By encouraging unfettered personal license, secular fundamentalism helps collapse civilized norms. Then, when people dress with deliberately provocative vulgarity and they express themselves loudly and obscenely in public, hardworking, family-minded citizens are left with a growing feeling of unease. When young people no longer see their maturation leading naturally toward marriage and when marriage itself becomes threatened by cultural ridicule and purported alternatives, parents feel unmoored. When public institutions depict religion as only for the emotionally needy and the intelligence impaired many Americans feel resentment and alienation. This is obviously not to suggest that the hobby of shattering traditional rules that seems to delight so many journalists, academics, and intellectuals is going to endow America with a future dictatorial tyrant. It can eventually, however, infect ordinary Americans with docility about further Federal control beyond that necessary to protect us from our enemies. In a desperate attempt to recover some sense of normality and predictability in our lives, we might be tempted to embrace expanded government influence over how we live, earn, and worship. We would yearn for the predictability and normality that used to be supplied by those traditional rules that many Jewish and Christian Americans of faith remember increasingly nostalgically. Biblically-based faith helps to maintain freedom by holding together the invisible framework of social stability. The Founders understood this lesson well, but we have strayed from that lesson. Our free society, as the Founders dreamed it and we once knew it, will be lost forever unless Americans make a political stand to preserve this endangered invisible framework of social stability. That stand must begin with protecting children from the Trojan horse of secular fundamentalism expressed in such formerly unthinkable legalisms as same- sex marriage. The secular fundamentalists leading this assault on Judeo-Christian values understand very well that the children are their point of attack. If you doubt that children are the intended victims, read the words of an openly homosexual woman who was formerly an insider in the leadership of the feminist and radical gay rights movements, until she realized these movements were no longer based on the ideal of civil-rights, but on socialism, the foundational model of the Far Left. [48] These are a few of her comments about their efforts to end anti-gay bias in K-12 schools. [49] For people whose entire identity and reason to live is based in their sexuality, what do they need to do in order to fit comfortably into our society They must work to sexualize every part of society and, as every good marketer knows, that effort must begin with children. The efforts of gay establishment organizations, if the future is really their concern, should be focused on persuading the horde of bacchanalian boys to change their lifestyle. Instead, they are demanding that we accept their degeneracy, and the destruction of our future in the process. We dare not judge them. We dare not question their actions. And we are to hand the nations children over to them. This is why a free society such as the United States , where the vast majority of the people believe in Judeo-Christian values, can tolerate unrestricted private sexual activity between consenting adults, but cannot allow public sanction and endorsement of homosexuality as a cultural norm. Will God Continue to Bless America Until the past few years, almost all Americans, and especially Presidents and candidates for President, firmly believed that America had earned God’s blessings. Now, secularists and even some Presidential candidates question this bedrock belief of religious Americans. The naysayers may unwittingly prove to be correct if they are successful in imposing their secular agenda on the majority of Americans. From the religious point of view, same-sex marriage and its public sanction of homosexuality will desecrate Gods name. On a much larger scale it will also risk the loss of His blessings on the United States, so eloquently requested by President George Washington in his first Inaugural address (1789): It would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes. Samuel Silver is Chairman of Toward Tradition (www.towardtradition.org), a national movement of Jewish and Christian cooperation, fighting anti-religious bigotry and secular fundamentalism. END

“The Episcopal Church desperately needs intervention” By David W. Virtue “If it be hard to endure, it must be more hard to endure hard things; and of all things hard to be endured, the hardest is death. And that if He endured, and no more but that, it might suffice; it is worth all we have, for all we have we will give for our life. But not death only, but the kind of death is it. Morten, morten autem crucis, saith the Apostle, doubting the point; ‘death He endured, even the death of the cross.’” — Lancelot Andrewes (1555–1626) Dear Brothers and Sisters, INTERVENTION. It is what friends, family, and loved ones do to an alcoholic who cannot see what he or she is doing to themselves, to friends, family, and loved ones, and to those with whom they work in the wider world. It is tough love, but for the sake of the person involved it must be done—or the repercussions of inaction will ripple in all directions, wreaking havoc on everyone. The Episcopal Church desperately needs intervention. It is sick unto death. It is sick because of the continual compromises made over faith and morals by the House of Bishops—and because it is patently obvious to anyone that unless there is intervention, the ECUSA is on the verge of imploding. Around the country, in one diocese after another, there is tension, anxiety, and despair. Calls for reconciliation grow more shrill, demonstrating they are as fictional as Frank Griswold’s Affirming Catholicism. The consecration of an openly homoerotic bishop has brought nothing but bitterness, anger, and cries for help. This week it reached right into the Diocese of New Hampshire, Robinson’s own diverse backyard. Several parishes said openly and determinedly that they will not have Robinson reign over them. And so the proverbial you-know-what hit the fan. The laity in one parish is holding Robinson’s feet to the fire and they want an answer in two weeks about alternative episcopal oversight. ECUSA’s revisionist leaders fatuously believe that they can dismiss the orthodox as just a bunch of homophobic fundamentalists unfairly trying to thwart their own enlightened minds as they jackboot their way into a progressive future—a future that looks more like the Third Reich army on retreat to Berlin. The future grows increasingly bleak with each passing day. The choice is between Holy Scripture and anal sex. There is no middle ground. Intervention is desperately needed. Two possibilities present themselves. The first is, of course, the conclusions of the Lambeth (Eames) Commission due out later this year. Will this be the much-needed intervention for ECUSA? But what if the results are less than adequate or salvific? The second possibility—and one that appears more likely—is that the African bishops, led by Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola, will launch their own salvos with more deadly accuracy, piercing the theologically and morally bankrupt, paper-thin armor that no longer hides Frank Griswold’s karma—a karma which long ago ran over Biblical dogma. The attempts to hold the unity of the church on the basis of territory while jettisoning the sworn commitments to the Christian Faith will not hold the church together. Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola was in the US recently, for less than 48 hours, but managed to deliver himself very succinctly about where he stands—and he said he would never break bread again with Frank Griswold. And if Akinola lines up the other African Primates behind him, then the Primates’ annual gatherings won’t be worth going to—and Frank and Rowan will be looking at each other across a less-than-crowded room. Akinola laid it on the line when he was here. He argued that the liberal factions that had captured the leadership and bureaucratic machinery of several Western Churches must “either repent and come back to the fold, or give up on the Anglican family.” He also stated that unless the leadership of the American Church repented in its advocacy of the homosexual agenda, he would not attend pan-Anglican gatherings where they would be present. Africa’s continuing place in the Anglican Communion will come under sharp scrutiny April 14–16 when the leaders of the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa (CAPA) meet in Nairobi. The summit will draw the 12 African Primates and the Bishop of Egypt, the Archbishops of Southeast Asia, South America, the West Indies, the Philippines, Pakistan, and New Guinea—along with other Anglican leaders. Observers say that it is the most significant gathering of Primates since the emergency meeting held at Lambeth on October 14–15. This is called laying it on the line. Clearly, Mt. CAPA is ready to blow—and you can be sure the smoke and ashes will be felt for miles in all directions. But Akinola is not the only one announcing his displeasure with the direction of Western liberal morals and theology. In New Hampshire, orthodox Episcopalians said they will not have the homoerotic Robinson reign over them—and Redeemer Episcopal is giving him two weeks to come up with a suitable bishop to provide ALTERNATIVE Episcopal Oversight—not the HoB DEPO “fudge” proposal. In Connecticut, a priest there says the revisionist Bishop Andrew D. Smith laid down the law about what DEPO really means to all the rectors and wardens—but it involves lots of money, and he is being challenged by parishes in the AAC-Connecticut family, and they will not bend to his will. Total withholding from the diocese is over $700,000 so far. In the Diocese of Florida, the newly anointed Samuel Johnson Howard is starting to play hardball with parishes that don’t cough up their full assessment. One of the larger Network churches in the Diocese of Florida, All Souls’ Jacksonville, resolved to send 9% of its 10% assessment to the Diocese of Florida and to redirect the additional 1% to the Network. While the Diocese of Florida has always retained only 9% of the 10% assessment—with the 1% to be directed either to the ECUSA or to missionary work outside of the diocese—Bishop Howard wants it all. All money is to go through him. No local options. When All Souls’ sent their 9%, Bishop Howard returned their check. Five parishes in the Diocese of New York are withholding nearly $300,000 from their bishop, Mark Sisk. The American Anglican Council president took more swipes at ECUSA’s liberal leadership this week. The AAC and Network have clearly dug in for the duration—and they will fight Griswold and the revisionists all the way to Lambeth Palace and Lagos, if necessary, before they cave in to liberal tyranny. David C. Anderson and the AAC are soldiers in a battle for the soul of the Episcopal Church. The Diocese of the Rio Grande has received the necessary consents for the election of a new bishop to succeed Bishop Terence Kelshaw—this, despite a formal request from the local pro-gay advocacy group Via Media requesting that consents be withheld. This revisionist gang doesn’t want another orthodox bishop to succeed Kelshaw; they’d like a liberal who believes in pansexuality. They lost in their demand. The Diocese received a sufficient number of canonically required consents from both bishops and standing committees to hold an election for bishop coadjutor. But the standing committees of Atlanta, Olympia, and Western New York refused. Of course. They are among the worst of the revisionist bishops in the ECUSA—and would probably have refused consents to Jesus if he were running for Bishop of Nazareth, no doubt for his lack of inclusivity of the Pharisees and Sadducees. In San Diego, Virtuosity asked if the orthodox Gethin Hughes replacement would be orthodox. Back came the answer: “No—the revisionists beat us to death at the Diocesan Convention in February. They out-politicked us—and, at least among the clergy, outnumber us. They know all the nuances of Constitution, By Laws, and Robert’s Rules of Order—and they buried us.” Said the source: “We are trying to get more political wisdom—but we all have the same problem in devoting so much energy to the political process. Pray for us—and for the Global South Primates to act forcefully, quickly, and successfully.” In the Diocese of Southern Virginia, the Diocese cut its budget by $400,000 to offset a drop in contributions from parishes upset with the national church’s endorsement last summer of a gay bishop. The diocese plans to spend $1.35 million this year. Last year, it budgeted $1.76 million, but saw revenue fall short by $200,000 when some parishes didn’t fulfill their pledges. Concerned Episcopalians of Rhode Island (CERI) will host a gathering at The Church of St. Andrew and St. Philip, Coventry, for those RI Episcopal Church members who are distressed about the direction of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (ECUSA), Saturday, April 24. The mission of the group, comprised of lay and clergy leaders, is to provide information and hope for those church members in Rhode Island who are concerned about recent events in the church and who may be in search of opportunities for traditional, Biblically based worship and teaching. In addition to worship together, the one-day conference will feature a number of presentations for those seeking a better understanding of what has happened and what the future holds. The presentations will cover the evolution of ECUSA to its current revisionist stance, and the exciting developments now unfolding within the Anglican Communion that will provide organizational, spiritual, and pastoral care for all Episcopalians seeking to proclaim Jesus Christ and move forward with the true mission of the Church. Speakers include The Rev. Mark Galloway, The Church of St. Andrew and St. Philip, Coventry; The Rev. Canon Jonathan Ostman, The Church of St. John the Evangelist, Newport; The Rev. Dr. Gary C. Lemery, The Church of the Transfiguration, Edgewood; The Rev. William Fraatz, St. Barnabas, Warwick; and The Rev. Donald Parker, St. James, Woonsocket. Lay leaders from CERI will give a presentation on the resources that are available and actions that can be taken by individuals and parishes. For more information about the CERI conference and to register, log on to www.CEofRI.org or call 401-734-9619. The liberal Bishop Geralyn Wolf is not amused. In the Diocese of Caledonia, Prince Rupert, B.C., the Bishop, William Anderson, came under fire for licensing an orthodox ECUSA priest in the Diocese of Wyoming recently—because the priest in question could not, in conscience, live with the Robinson consecration. The bishop took the priest under his wing because, in his view, it was a moral and spiritual response which should always outweigh a bureaucratic response—particularly if it is intended to support a man who is trying to live faithfully according to Scripture, the teaching of the Anglican Communion, and his ordination vows. In taking the American priest under his wing, he violated canons on both sides of the border. The media picked up on the story—as did Virtuosity—as there were threats to discipline and depose the bishop. However, the bishop writes that the possibility of discipline, while raised, has gone nowhere: “I have not been contacted by the Metropolitan to discuss this, nor have I been informed of any possible proceedings, impending or otherwise.” A Church of England Bishop, N.T. Wright (Durham), has come out attacking low levels of “biblical literacy” that is affecting even established congregations in England. Tom Wright said that, together with a number of other factors, this is affecting the way people view the Church. The situation is so poor that he says he wants to walk down Fleet Street carrying a large banner proclaiming that the Gospel of Jesus is alive and well in his diocese. In a wry comment in Newslink he says: “The Church has had one bitter snowfall after another. Fewer people come to worship. Money is scarce. The national media rubbish us. Biblical literacy is low—even in established congregations.” He goes on: “Many clergy are disheartened. And now the Anglican Communion is threatening to break up. Many feel as though, like people driving through thick snow, we’re skidding this way and that, hardly able to see where we’re going, resigned to the fact that we’re probably going to end up in a ditch.” In the ECUSA, biblical illiteracy works in favor of the revisionists. Their hope is that the less people know about what the Bible really says, the better they can sell their doctrines of niceness, inclusivity, and diversity—none of which has anything to do with the really Good News. Their fear is that when and if people start reading their Bibles, they might become acquainted with the Scriptures—which could make them “wise unto salvation”—and sodomy, a more dismal prospect cannot be imagined for revisionist bishops and their acolytes. Hundreds of Episcopalians have written Virtuosity asking for a list of ministries and organizations they can give their monies to now that they are being diverted from their revisionist bishops and dioceses. I have provided such a list for you in today’s digest. In Canada, the Senate delayed voting on Bill C-250, which would have made any criticism of homosexuality a hate crime punishable by imprisonment. Most Senators support the bill, so it was expected to pass into law. However, two amendments were introduced in the Senate on April 1, preventing Bill C-250 from being passed—just when all the activists anticipated it would be slipped through. The Senate has recessed for Easter break until April 20. Due to the amendments, debate and voting on the bill is rescheduled for April 20. If the Prime Minister calls an election before then, the bill will die. Orthodox Anglican and Roman Catholics are thankful for the delay—and they are hopeful for the complete failure of Bill C-250. “Freedom of speech and religion have not yet been oppressed by Bill C-250, and we remain optimistic,” said a source. The Sudan story I posted in the last digest provoked a storm of protest from Faith McDonnell of the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD). This in turn provoked a counter-response from Mr. Wheatley. Both sides are presented in today’s digest. Basically, what she reports is true, up to the middle of last year, when the government troops withdrew, says Wheatley. “There are still militias operating in Darfur—and many blame the government for not reining them in. The government this week arrested the political and military leaders who were allied with the militias. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported it as the arrest of opposition leaders who were then charged with plotting a coup. They are former government leaders ousted as part of the peace process to make room for SPLA representatives in the cabinet.” Clearly, the Sudanese situation is fluid—but there is light at the end of the tunnel. The Passion is playing in Egypt and Qatar, much to the surprise of Christians in the Middle East. The crucified Jesus is the talk of the whole world. A Virtuosity source in Cairo wrote to say that “every day, for the past many weeks, newspapers and TV talk shows in Egypt have been talking about Jesus, and Him crucified! If you had ever told us that this would have been possible, we would have replied, ‘Not in our lifetime!’ But—like the unexpected fall of the Iron Curtain a few years ago—God is constantly surprising us by what he is doing! The shocking pictures of Jesus’ suffering as depicted in The Passion of the Christ movie have become a common sight throughout the world, including the Middle East.” “This is surprising not only because we are in a Muslim region where talk about Jesus is not common, but also because Muslims have generally interpreted the Koran as claiming that Jesus was NOT crucified. (The official reason why the movie has gotten so much attention in the Arab world is because of the opposition of many Jews to its screening!) Pirated CDs of the movie are in many homes in Egypt—and—whether or not people will get to see it in the theatres where it opened on March 31—thousands have seen and will see it in their homes!” The All-New Episcopal Church Annual – General Convention Issue – 2004 is out. One interesting statistic that emerges is that the Average Sunday Attendance based on a 52-Sunday average, reported for 2001, was 860,686. In 2002, that figure had dropped to 846,640—a drop of more than 14,000 or 1.63 percent. There can be little question that in 2003 that figure will be down another 20,000—with 2004 seeing a massive cliff-edge drop owing to the Robinson consecration and the siphoning off of large congregations to the Anglican Mission in America. The Anglican Church of Canada has been losing an average of 20,000 congregants a year—so it would not be an exaggeration to say that unless there is massive spiritual renewal and a return to the gospel and proclamation of non-pluralist Good News, both churches will be virtually extinct by 2040. The Episcopal Church will still have a lot of buildings and, presumably, a Pension Fund. The Church Annual is the most comprehensive, updated reference book available on the Episcopal Church. Contains more than 500 pages of well-organized information and current statistics, including the names and addresses of 17,300 Episcopal clergy, 7,300 Episcopal parishes and missions, and hundreds of church-related organizations. Also includes the names of newly elected and appointed committee and commission members for the current Triennial and contact information for Lutheran bishops and synods. It is available for $34.95. Contact Jeff Hamilton, Director of Sales & Marketing (717) 541-8130 ext. 703; fax: (717) 541-8136; jhamilton@morehousegroup.com. CORRECTION. In my last digest I said that Alan Jones was the Dean of Grace Cathedral in San Diego. Incorrect. He is the Dean of the Cathedral in San Francisco. I do hope you all had a blessed Good Friday and a glorious Resurrection Sunday. “Christ our Passover Lamb was sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Feast!” (1 Corinthians 5:7–8) Virtuosity wishes all its readers a very blessed Easter. WELCOME TO VIRTUOSITY. If you are a first-time reader, a very special welcome. If you see a story you like, please feel free to forward it to your friends that you think might interest them. Invite people to join Virtuosity or go to the website at www.virtuosityonline.org. To keep this ministry going, Virtuosity does need your support. Please give generously. Make the long days and nights worth it to keep you informed. You can make a tax-deductible donation at PayPal at the website: www.virtuosityonline.org—or you can send a snail-mail check to: VIRTUOSITY 1236 Waterford Rd. West Chester, PA 19380 If you are in the UK, you can send your tax-deductible cheque to: VIRTUOSITY c/- Brycedale 105 Ridgeway Northaw, Herts EN6 4BG Thank you for your support. All Blessings, David W. Virtue, DD END

“Orthodox will not accept less than we have demanded from gay bishop,” says lay leader Special Report by David W. Virtue ROCHESTER, NH—Hundreds of orthodox Episcopalians in five parishes in the Diocese of New Hampshire vow they will not give in to the demands of the homoerotic bishop V. Gene Robinson, and they will reject his ministry and have notified him of the parishes’ wishes not to pass through their doors to celebrate or confirm. “We will not give up and we will not accept anything less than we have demanded,” said Jerry DeLemus, senior warden of Redeemer Episcopal Church in Rochester, NH. “We want alternative episcopal oversight, nothing less. We don’t want the watered-down episcopal care options of the ECUSA leadership or Robinson,” said DeLemus in a phone call to Virtuosity. Despite talks with the bishop and a stage-managed media invitation at the church last week, nothing has been settled, said DeLemus to Virtuosity yesterday. “We don’t believe we will get from Robinson what we want, but we will stay and fight to defend Holy Scripture—for us and other Episcopalians. We want to be a light to stand. This church does not belong to him; it belongs to Jesus—and we are standing firm for Jesus Christ and His gospel and against the apostasy that is being put upon us from The Episcopal Church’s leadership. Where is Archbishop Rowan Williams on this issue? We are in perilous times and are asking for him to support us in this attack by the apostates that are supporting this blasphemy on us?” DeLemus said he would welcome Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola and plans to invite him to come and speak—and would like him to perform eucharistically and confirm. “It’s obvious that Archbishop Akinola is not ashamed of Christ’s word,” he said. DeLemus said that a month ago Robinson’s Canon to the Ordinary, Tim Rich, called to say Robinson wanted to set up an appointment with them, which they agreed to. “We said we were looking for alternative episcopal oversight and we want to come under an orthodox diocese. Robinson was offering pastoral care. It was not good enough—and we rejected it.” When we met last Monday at the Church of the Redeemer in Rochester, we—as a vestry—gave him two names: Albany Bishops Dan Herzog and David Bena, with two weeks to contact them. Right away Robinson said no. Later he said he would be willing to talk with them and get back to us with a list of 20 bishops he feels are orthodox. Mind you, Bishop Robinson said that he considers himself to be very orthodox. DeLemus said only two parishioners currently attending services at Redeemer supported Robinson. “We are 99 percent united.” The parish has a supply priest—a British evangelical, Gordon Allen. “As a supply priest he functions at the mercy of the bishop,” said DeLemus. DeLemus said the vestry presented the bishop with a letter regarding the situation at Redeemer and for all the orthodox in New Hampshire. “We are still waiting for a reply to our letter. Until we do, nothing is settled.” DeLemus said he has asked Robinson to his face to repent. “Robinson told me, ‘I don’t need to repent on the issue of my homosexuality as I don’t feel God is asking me to.’ If Gene would repent, it would put an end to this—and be a blessing for him as well as us.” END

By Uwe Siemon-Netto UPI Religious Affairs Editor WASHINGTON, April 7 (UPI) — Editor’s note: Part three of the UPI series on the schism running horizontally through most Christian denominations addresses the very center of the Christian faith—the Good Friday question: Why did Jesus die on the cross? Diametrically opposed views on original sin separate the parties in this dramatic dispute. As the world’s 2.2 billion Christians entered this year’s Holy Week, ABC contributed one of its most astounding programs ever—Peter Jennings’ three-hour report on Jesus and Paul. Eminent theologians assessed Christ and the church’s first theologian from many perspectives. Jesus was portrayed chiefly, though not exclusively, as a social reformer; Paul—correctly—as apostle to the gentiles. “Was Paul a homophobe?” the sages were asked. Was he misogynous? Was he an anti-Semite? To their credit, they answered these questions mainly in the negative. But amazingly they barely touched on the crucial aspect of Paul’s ministry—his explanation of what Christ’s sacrifice was all about. “Righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe,” reads Paul’s liberating message. “There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through the faith in his blood” (Romans 3:21–25). This is what orthodox Christians of all denominations bear in their hearts as they strip their altars, say their prayers, and chant their mournful hymns on Good Friday. This is also the very text whose rediscovery by Luther brought about the 16th-century Reformation. It is the very essence of the Reformers’ doctrine of justification by grace through faith, which Roman Catholics have also affirmed in 1999. Contrast Jennings’ oeuvre with Mel Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ, whose very motto reads: “He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities” (Isaiah 53:5), and you have contemporary Christianity’s horizontal schism in a nutshell. The underlying issue is none other than original sin—in the sense of man’s purposeful disobedience to God—a fundamentally theological conception that must not be confused with moral “sins,” which are the fruits of original sin, just as good works are the fruits of faith. The disparity between progressive and traditionalist theologians of the same denominations on this topic is severe. On the one hand, there are the likes of John S. Spong, the former Episcopal bishop of Newark, N.J., who declared: “Human beings did not fall from perfection into sin, as the church had taught for centuries; we were evolving, and indeed are still evolving, into higher levels of consciousness. Thus the basic myth of Christianity that interpreted Jesus as a divine emissary who came to rescue victims of the fall from the result of their original sin became inoperative.” On the other hand, most believers—especially the faithful of the burgeoning churches in the southern hemisphere, whose theologians Spong often belittles as intellectually backward—agree with this doctrine articulated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Only the light of divine revelation clarifies the reality of sin and particularly of the sin committed at mankind’s origins.” The Augsburg Confession of 1530 defines sin as the innate inability to fear and trust God, plus concupiscence (desire). To this Paul Tillich added another important element—hubris, or self-elevation: man puts himself in the place of God. Theologically speaking, spiritual darkness, nihilism, and hatred for one’s fellow man are expressions of sin. This is why God makes himself small and goes to the cross for suffering humanity—why he suffers with us, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer phrased it. Canadian theologian Douglas John Hall calls this gift most Christians commemorate on Good Friday “Christ’s priestly act of solidarity.” On the other side of the theological divide—which is numerically withering—secular culture has eclipsed and virtually displaced the Christian concept of sin, as theologian Robert R. Williams observed already more than 20 years ago: “Secular culture perceives evil no longer as a theological problem but rather as a problem of human institutional and social arrangements. Divine aid is felt to be either unnecessary or not among the real possibilities available to resolve the problem. Instead, evil calls for intelligent human action.” “Thus while orthodox Christians continue to see themselves as sinners in need of a gracious God,” says the Rev. Christopher Hershman, a pastor and psychologist, “revisionists have bought into a therapeutic notion. They don’t see sin as a violation of God’s rules but as a glitch on the track of self-actualization.” The objective, in other words, is simply to get back on the road to self-fulfillment. The Catechism of the Catholic Church addresses precisely this point: “Without the knowledge revelation gives of God we cannot recognize sin clearly and are tempted to explain it as merely a developmental flaw, a psychological weakness, a mistake, or the necessary consequence of an inadequate social structure.” In this context the orthodox side of the horizontal divide within the Church would doubtless agree with a quip by Lutheran theologian Louis Smith: a Christian’s task is not so much to “understand scripture as to stand under scripture.” There is no room for accommodation here with views such as the one expressed by the Rev. Mark S. Hanson, presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, at a recent pastors’ theological conference. According to participants, Hanson said his denomination was not going to make decisions on homosexuality based solely on seven Bible verses—which prompted one minister to tell a colleague: “Seven verses? That’s more than we have on the Lord’s Supper.” Ordinary Christians don’t buy into man-made formulae for salvation. The North American and Western European churches dominated by theologians, bishops, and ministers denying the reality of sin are all shrinking dramatically. At the same time, confessional groups within these denominations are growing. The same goes for conservative groups, such as the Presbyterian Church in America, which is rapidly expanding, in contrast to the more liberal Presbyterian Church USA. More stunning still is the growth of Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and other churches in Africa, where the concept of original sin makes a great deal of sense to everybody, says Yale University church historian Lamin Sanneh. “It makes sense because it has always been part of popular religion,” explains Sanneh, a Gambian nobleman and convert from Islam. “In African thought—including pre-Christian thought—sin has three characteristics: One, sin haunts you. Two, sin contaminates. And three, sin can be cleansed by sacrifice. Therefore, Africans find it easy to relate to Christ’s sacrifice for human sin.” On this Good Friday, hundreds of millions of Africans will commemorate this sacrifice without wasting any thought on therapeutic solutions to evil, just as Europeans have for almost 2,000 years—until a concept such as Spong’s sprang up: a belief in an evolution to higher levels of consciousness. In the eyes of Christopher Hershman, this is an immensely foolish notion: “The human condition is the same as 3,000 years ago. We are still struggling with the same issues and still need a gracious God.” On the other hand, “What Spong says is of no relevance in Africa,” according to Sanneh. What is it, then, that attracts Africans to Christianity? “The message of the Bible—unfiltered by the West,” he says. END

Some revisionist bishops already moving to frustrate plan Special Report by David W. Virtue The president of the American Anglican Council, Canon David C. Anderson, says that it is important to recognize the difference between the Anglican Communion Network and the AAC, as the two will work separately but remain in conversation. The Network (NACDP) will press for Adequate Episcopal Oversight for orthodox parishes under siege in revisionist dioceses. The Primates called for adequate provision, and any provision that frustrates, delays, or denies the process isn’t adequate. The AAC, on the other hand, will work in a grassroots manner to help orthodox ECUSA congregations that are already known to the bishop apply for DEPO. Although the AAC doesn’t believe that DEPO is adequate, it is the vehicle produced by the House of Bishops, and AAC wants to see it in action. For those who apply for DEPO, any delays designed to frustrate or stretch out the process—or any denials or additional requirements laid on by the local bishop—will be seen as a bad faith gesture. The Network and AAC will be deliberately working off of different pages for this crucial time. The Network will be working on ecclesial connections and recognition, and the AAC will be in the trenches trying to help liberal revisionist bishops understand why it is in their own best interests to cooperate with the true intentions of the Primates. In a phone interview with Virtuosity, Anderson said that a number of bishops would be willing to provide pastoral care to the beleaguered and harassed orthodox congregations. Anderson said that DEPO solved only the HoB’s own perceived problems—to satisfy the Primates as well as remove pressure from Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold—but it failed to do anything for orthodox parishes in hostile dioceses. “We were never consulted before any of this happened. Faithful Episcopalians are no further ahead than they were before DEPO. It won’t solve pastoral issues of calling new priests, or gaining access to the ordination process for local orthodox aspirants, nor necessarily provide for confirmations, let alone provide for property issues. The Episcopal Church has left the faith and order of the Anglican Communion.” Anderson said it was still difficult maintaining consensus among orthodox Episcopalians as to how they should proceed. Bishops, priests, parishes, and attorneys have so many opinions, it is hard to get everyone to work off the same page, he said. Anderson said recent comments by Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola in an Associated Press interview provide a watershed moment for the ECUSA. Dick Ostling of the AP reported that Akinola also said: “Unless conditions change, he will not attend meetings alongside the leader of the Episcopal Church, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, or attend the 2008 meeting of the world’s Anglican bishops if the US hierarchy participates.” The orthodox global Primates are pressing the orthodox Episcopalians to do more. They are willing to act, but they want the orthodox Episcopalians to do more. “I think that everybody is underestimating the resolve that is building in Africa. They are not going to sit idly by and let Western provinces call the shots any longer. They will no longer be swayed by old loyalties and new money. Those days are gone.” Anderson said that the concordat signed recently by Southern Africa Primate Ndungane and Nigerian Archbishop Akinola was “very significant.” “Both leaders realize that they need to stand together on most issues and that the consecration of V. Gene Robinson is a communion-breaking act. Nobody in Africa wants to be isolated. They are building a consensus on that continent that they need to stand together.” Anderson said he was not at liberty to talk in detail about recent communications with the Nigerian leader, but he described his meeting as “very hopeful,” and the pan-African leader made him aware that faithful Episcopalians are not being forgotten in North America. “There is no doubt in my mind that the Global South will one day wipe their hands of the ECUSA altogether. There is tremendous frustration with the American scene, and growing frustration with the Canadian one as well. Words of caution are starting to circulate that the orthodox in North America need to pull together and work together before North America is simply written off as lost. One clear action item for the orthodox is how to work together and pull in unison clearly and publicly.” END

DIOCESE OF ALABAMA: Episcopal Theologian Lays out Network Options A Layman's reflection on what happened By Curtis M. Nordan, Jr. April 5, 2004 Church of the Ascension 315 Clanton Avenue Montgomery AL 36104 A meeting at the Church of the Ascension in Montgomery, Alabama took place on April 1st in order to learn about the new Network of Dioceses and Parishes. Dr. Ephraim Radner from the Diocese of Colorado and an orthodox Biblical scholar came to inform us of the progress and goals of the Network. Bishop Henry Parsley was also invited as an honored guest. Those in attendance hoped that one or two hours would be sufficient to learn what was going on, but the debate was extended by the Bishop and lasted for over three hours. Bishop Parsley, like a poker player, too soon revealed his hand. He denigrated those who sought solutions to the crisis within the Episcopal Church. Most of us came to learn about the Network's ideas to keep American Episcopalians in communion with the worldwide Anglican Communion, many of whom have renounced the US Episcopal Church over the consecration of V. Gene Robinson. They include The Russian Orthodox, the Roman Catholic Church, and many others who have parted ways with the ECUSA. Bishop Parsley was clearly not interested in hearing about these "solutions." Golfers have an adage, "drive for show, and putt for dough." Bishop Parsley "drove for show" by voting against Bishop Robinson. He did not "putt for dough", but only putters around while "Integrity" the gay advocacy group infiltrates Diocesan Headquarters and determines the course of the diocese. Integrity nationally, has the Church more intimidated than the Sanhedrin of Jesus' day. They maneuver and manipulate the Bishops and others to subscribe to their agenda. They want the vast majority of Episcopalians to be reasonable, and acquiesce in believing it their way. They hope to avoid conflict by giving the appearance of peace. I could not ask my question "Quo Vadis" (whither goest thou) when Christians were a small sect exercising their new found way of living at great danger to themselves. Bishop Parsley's anxiety "to get out of Dodge" ended the discussion. His concern is minister to parishioners who make up 2% or less of the population was obvious. The overwhelming 98% of us are of secondary importance to him. He showed concern about the contents of a memo from the Network, but he showed little concern for Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold's declaration that he had to apologize for being from the United States of America and his excoriating the President of the United States George W. Bush and his father. My concern is with the vast majority of Episcopalians "traveling West on Route 66 to Albuquerque" who are following Biblical teachings and historic traditions. These aren't inclined to be re-routed back East. My career in real estate taught me that all parties to a transaction are volunteers. I cannot make anyone do anything. I can only guide individuals to complete a transaction – from the sellers, buyers, attorneys, secretaries, mortgage officers, surveyors, title companies, and all others involved. Likewise, ECUSA's bishops and clergy cannot take parishioners off the bus, and push them in another direction they do not wish to go. Episcopalians are volunteers, and capable of thinking for themselves. Some seminaries are teaching students very little about what the Bible really says, and more what the world and newspapers say, but that will not feed the flock of God. Perhaps they ought to take a long hard look at themselves in the mirror and decide they are better suited doing a different line of work. Great leaders throughout the ages stood on unchangeable principles. Most of the bishops and clergy are standing on quick sand and they want to take many of us down with them. It won't work. We won't go there. END

NORFOLK – The Episcopal Diocese of Southern Virginia has slashed its budget by about $400,000 this year to offset a drop in contributions caused largely by parishes upset with the national church's endorsement last summer of a gay bishop. The diocese, which has 122 parishes, including 33 in South Hampton Roads, plans to spend $1.35 million this year. Last year, it budgeted $1.76 million, but saw revenue fall short by $200,000 when some parishes did not fulfill their previous pledges. Charles G. Pfeifer, the diocese's treasurer, said spending cuts included elimination of the only full-time staff member of the Anglican Center for Theology and Spirituality. The center, based in Norfolk, was created in 2002 to offer Episcopalians opportunities for spiritual growth. Pfeifer said the diocese also eliminated contributions to the Jackson-Field Home, in Jarratt, and to an ecumenical prison chaplaincy program in Virginia. Last year, the diocese gave $50,000 to the girls' home, which assists abused girls, and $40,000 to the chaplaincy program. Pfeifer said that as much as two-thirds of the diocese's revenue drop may be due to conservatives who are withholding contributions as a way of protesting the national denomination's approval last year of a gay New Hampshire man, the Rev. V. Gene Robinson, as a bishop. Southern Virginia Bishop David C. Bane Jr. voted to oppose Robinson's ordination. The shortfall reflects less giving by individual Episcopalians as well as by certain parishes where leaders resolved to cut donations to the diocese, Pfeifer said. Protesters who are withholding cash as a way of also punishing the national Episcopal Church might consider themselves successful: The diocese will send only $100,000 to the denomination's national office, half of the amount sent last year. Few dioceses have cut their denominational contribution as deeply, said Kurt Barnes, treasurer of the Episcopal Church. Major exceptions are the dioceses of Dallas and Pittsburgh, which have refused to send any money. Barnes also noted that some dioceses' ability to give had been hurt by bad regional economies. Nationally, a slump in revenues has forced the denomination to reduce its income forecast for this year by about 7 percent. Barnes said contributions from dioceses account for 60 percent of the national organization's revenue. With revenue falling, national church leaders approved a 5 percent spending cut that sliced into administrative operations as well as national programs promoting urban churches, summer camps for children and anti-poverty programs, Barnes said. Last month, Bane sent a letter to all Episcopal clergy and parish treasurers in the Southern Virginia diocese asking that they consider increasing their pledged contributions to the diocese. Bane said last week that the diocese had "hit bottom" financially and that Episcopalians needed to revive their sense of community and fiscal stewardship. "It's time for those of us who want to work for the future to get to it," the bishop said. Some local parishes, such as the Church of the Messiah in Chesapeake, are supporting an alternate organization, the American Anglican Council, which opposes ordaining homosexuals. In January, that group established the Network of Anglican Communion Diocese and Parishes as an advocate within the Episcopal Church for conservative views. Reach Steven G. Vegh at 446-2417 or steven.vegh@pilotonline.com © 2004 HamptonRoads.com/PilotOnline.com

April 6, 2004 Dear Marek, I am most grateful for your letter for I have not seen our situation expressed so succinctly and so clearly. You write "...Episcopalians are welcomed and entitled to differ regarding important theological and ethical matters" but that "The biggest risk I fear at this time is the destruction of our polity, which along with Common Prayer and respect for the episcopate essentially holds us together." Thus, we are "entitled" to differ regarding important theological and ethical matters" such as denying catholic Christology and the doctrine of the Trinity (Pike), theism and saving action of Christ (Spong), and Christianity itself (Carter Heyward) but we must respect bishops who currently admit they, as a House, are "dysfunctional." You see the denial of the Christian faith as an entitlement but the biggest risk is the "destruction of our polity." Jack Allin, of blessed memory, confessed in his parting address to General Convention in 1985: "I must repent. I loved the Church more than the Lord of the Church." He said if for me and perhaps for you. I am thankful that our Anglican forebears did not do the idolatrous thing in elevating polity over "important theological and ethical matters" in the Reformation that gave us our Common Prayer. I am thankful that Irenaeus did not take our contemporary priorities that you so well describe in his fight with Gnostics. I am thankful that Athanasius violated the polity of the Church for the sake of the divinity of Christ against the Arians whose teachings would justify Spong's dismissal of the Atonement as "child abuse." Perhaps you can help reduce the current hypocrisy and perjury in the Episcopal Church by substituting "We believe in our polity, Common Prayer, and the episcopate" for the Nicene Creed I thank you for your candor and clarity and will share it with some who find it difficult to believe what has become the faith of many Episcopalians. Faithfully, Fitz cc: The Rt. Rev. Frank Griswold Archbishop Rowan Williams Secretary General John Peterson

March 25, 2004 The Rt. Rev. Christopher Fitzsimons Allison 1081 Indigo Avenue Georgetown, SC 29440 Dear Bishop Allison, I write you as concerned Episcopal priest and as one who serves on several national and international boards on behalf of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, expressing my deep regret and concern for your actions in the Diocese of Ohio. Good friends and good Episcopalians are welcomed and entitled to differ regarding important theological and ethical matters. This has and always will be the case, if our tradition continues in its historic matter. The biggest risk I fear at this time is the destruction of our polity, which along with Common Prayer and respect for the episcopate essentially holds us together. When any one of us shows disrespect for the boundaries exercised by another bishop and his or her diocese, we jeopardize the very things that unite us. In closing, I acknowledge the pain that you must be bearing as you witness the Episcopal Church moving in directions counter to your own inclinations and sensibility. I know that this deeply concerns you. I pray, however, that you will be increasingly open to respecting the right of fellow bishops to govern, lead and shepherd their dioceses in ways which would not be your way and to allow them the freedom to do so. It is my deepest hope that the Communion will stand, the Church will flourish and we will not be self-consumed and broken irrevocably. I shall hold you in my prayers as we approach Easter. Faithfully yours in Christ, The Rev. Marek P. Zabriskie Rector cc: The Rt. Rev. Frank Griswold Archbishop Rowan Williams Secretary General John Petersen