April 17, 2004 A coalition of clergy from the Dioceses of Athabasca and Edmonton has issued a formal statement opposing the Anglican Church of Canada’s proposed Framework for the Blessing of Same-Sex Unions, citing five theological and pastoral grounds: Christian Love True love calls us to holy living. To advise otherwise—even in the name of inclusion—offends both the love of God and neighbor. Christian Repentance The Church has failed to offer adequate pastoral care and support to those seeking to leave homosexual practice. We have silenced the Gospel of healing and transformation. Communion & Fellowship The Framework admits we “differ on our reception of the apostles’ teaching”—yet hopes to maintain unimpaired fellowship. But unity not grounded in agreement on the truth of Scripture is illusory. Honesty “Blessing of committed same-sex relationships” is a euphemism. Many such couples are civilly married. To pretend otherwise is dishonest. The real issue is same-sex marriage—and it must be named. Christ’s High Priestly Prayer Jesus prayed not only for unity, but for truth and holiness (John 17). To prioritize unity over truth is idolatry. As the Book of Common Prayer implores: “Grant that all they that do confess thy holy Name may agree in the truth of thy holy Word, and live in unity and godly love.” Where truth is abandoned, unity is a façade. Faithfulness in Discipleship New believers ask us: What does it mean to follow Christ? To compromise biblical sexual ethics “for the sake of inclusivity” betrays their trust and endangers their souls. Signed by 31 clergy from Edmonton and Athabasca, including the Very Rev. Greg Kerr-Wilson, the Rev. Canon Fraser Lawton, and others listed in full in the original.

By David W. Virtue April 17, 2004 “We will not, on the altar of money, mortgage our conscience, mortgage our faith, and mortgage our salvation.” —Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria African Anglican Primates meeting in Nairobi have issued their strongest warning yet to The Episcopal Church (ECUSA): repent within three months of the consecration of Gene Robinson—or face formal consequences. Their statement preempts the Lambeth Commission’s report (due late 2004) and demands immediate action. They further declared they will no longer accept funding from ECUSA, stating it is neither “morally right nor spiritually proper” to take money from those who “have failed to respect the Word of God.” Approximately 70% of CAPA’s funding comes from Western sources—primarily the U.S. Meanwhile: Ohio: Bishop Mark Hollingsworth was installed on April 17. Within ten days, he was scheduled to address a revived chapter of Integrity, the Episcopal LGBT advocacy group, at a special Choral Evensong. Five Northeast Ohio parishes have asked him not to visit; their future worship sites may include movie theaters and high school gyms. Illinois: Assistant Bishop Victor Scantlebury told conservatives at St. Mark’s, Glen Ellyn, to “work within the framework of ECUSA”—then claimed no canonical barrier exists to ordaining active homosexuals. A laywoman reminded him of Resolution 1979-A59, which prohibits such ordinations. He ignored her. Florida: The sanctuary of the Episcopal Church of the Holy Spirit in Tallahassee—recently vacated by 80% of its congregation and its priest over the Robinson consecration—was destroyed by fire, ruled arson. Investigation is ongoing. Rio Grande: Revisionist leaders, fearing the election of an orthodox successor to Bishop Terence Kelshaw, enlisted retired Bishop John Shelby Spong—a leading theological revisionist—for counsel. His advice? Wait. Time, he promised, would prove orthodox believers “out of date.” New Hampshire: Bishop Robinson, addressing a crowd in Nashua, framed his consecration as “the end of patriarchy”: “For a very long time, straight white men have pretty much run the world… I knew that the liberation of people of color in the ’60s, and women in the ’70s, would somehow become linked to my liberation.” Many Black Episcopalians were angered by the equation of racial justice with homosexual practice. London: Jeffrey John’s appointment as Dean of St. Albans—confirmed in this digest—drew immediate condemnation from global conservatives. Canada: Svend Robinson, MP and chief sponsor of Bill C-250 (which would criminalize “hate speech” against sexual orientation), admitted to stealing a $50,000 ring. He blamed workplace stress—including opposition to his bill. His partner offered moral support: “Svend’s inner strength must be applied to a very personal inner challenge. I have every confidence he will overcome.” France: A new Anglican parish—Christ the Good Shepherd—has been inaugurated in Poitou-Charentes, serving ~25,000 British expatriates across a region the size of Wales. Canada (Primate Election): Of four candidates, only two (Victoria Matthews and Ron Ferris) may be remotely orthodox—but sources doubt either has a viable path. Michael Ingham of Vancouver remains on the shortlist. Atlanta vs. Plano: A comparative study in this issue examines two large parishes—one thriving under orthodox leadership, the other declining post-Robinson. Encouragement: Dr. Michael Green reports that Archbishop Rowan Williams, at a recent UK mission, delivered “a fresh explanation of the gospel and a strong ransom theory of atonement”—leading several to commitment. Welcome to Virtuosity—now publishing daily. Visit www.virtuosityonline.org for updates. Financial support sustains this ministry during this critical year for the Anglican Communion. Donate via PayPal at the website, or send checks to: VIRTUOSITY 1236 Waterford Rd., West Chester, PA 19380 (UK donors: c/- Brycedale, 105 Ridgeway, Northaw, Herts EN6 4BG) All blessings, David W. Virtue, D.D. END

The Most Revd Rowan Williams Canterbury Cathedral Easter Sunday, April 11, 2004 A good many years ago, I heard a distinguished American scholar of ancient history comment on how the proclamation of the resurrection would have sounded in the classical world. “If an educated Greek or Roman had been told that someone had been raised from the dead,” he said, “his first question would have been: ‘How do you get him back into his grave again?’” For the ancients, resurrection was not joyful hope—but a grotesque or even terrifying disruption. The dead belonged to Hades, a shadowy half-life of yearning. To return was unnatural: boundaries between worlds existed to be preserved. Even the ancient Hebrews, who first envisioned resurrection as a future hope—reward for the righteous, punishment for the wicked—would have found the claim of present resurrection deeply unsettling. St. Matthew’s account of holy ones rising from their tombs in Jerusalem after Christ’s death is not a scene of reunion, but an earthquake in the cosmic order. So why was resurrection so alarming? Because, in the ancient world, the dead—especially victims of imperial violence—were meant to disappear. Empires thrived by treating human lives as expendable. What if they did not vanish? What if the firstborn from the dead was not a hero—but a crucified criminal, executed by Rome? The Gospel announces: this man is now the messenger of God’s peace to his killers. And he is only the first. His resurrection guarantees that no life will be forgotten—no victim erased. Christianity introduced an irreversible shift: every life has inalienable dignity. Not because of utility, status, or virtue—but because God remembers. And if God can raise one subjected to Rome’s dehumanizing machinery of death, then imperial power has reason to tremble. We do not live under that empire—thank God. Yet the 20th century witnessed regimes that assumed, as blandly as Rome, that the dead could be buried and forgotten: Auschwitz, the Gulag, the Killing Fields, Rwanda. And today? While we did not wield the machetes in Rwanda ten years ago, the world stood by. In Northern Uganda, children are still abducted to serve as soldiers—and their suffering barely registers in Western headlines. Nearer home, who remembers the aged dying alone? The homeless addict? The mentally ill, isolated from human contact? Easter tells us: God does. Not as an excuse for our indifference—but as a call to service. His justice rebukes our forgetfulness. In Argentina and El Salvador, Christians developed a powerful liturgical response to state terror: as names of the “disappeared” were read, the congregation cried out, ¡Presente! — “Here!” When we pray “with angels and archangels and the whole company of heaven,” we echo that cry. With the thief crucified beside Jesus—and the thousands of nameless thieves Rome crucified. With the Rwandan mother, the Ugandan child, the widower with Alzheimer’s, the young woman lost to overdose. With Christ our Lord—the firstborn from the dead—who leaves no soul in anonymity, but gives each a name, a place, a presence. He is risen: ¡Presente! END

By Ruth Gledhill The Times April 17, 2004 Dr. Jeffrey John, the openly gay canon who withdrew from appointment as Bishop of Reading under pressure in 2003, has been named the next Dean of St. Albans—a senior post in the Church of England that will likely reignite global controversy. Conservative evangelicals, already on the brink of schism over the consecration of Gene Robinson in the U.S. and same-sex blessings in Canada, called the move “outrageous” and warned it brings the Anglican Communion one step closer to fracture. John, in a celibate relationship with another Anglican priest, is widely regarded as one of the Church’s most gifted preachers and theologians. His candidacy for Reading last year sparked fierce opposition, despite his adherence to the 1991 Issues in Human Sexuality guidelines. Archbishop Rowan Williams personally urged him to step aside for the sake of unity. Now, his appointment to St. Albans—reportedly backed by Downing Street—is seen as a quiet reinstatement and possible prelude to future episcopal roles. Christina Rees, a lay member of the General Synod, praised him as “an excellent theologian” with “very good pastoral and interpersonal skills.” But David Virtue, evangelical commentator and editor of Virtuosity, retorted: “This is an outrageous appointment. It is a backdoor attempt to make homosexuality mainstream in the Church of England.” The move also defies the spirit—if not the letter—of the Lambeth Commission, established by Archbishop Williams to mediate the crisis. Its report is not due until late 2004. END

By David Yonke The Blade, Religion Editor April 17, 2004 The Rev. Mark Hollingsworth, Jr., bishop-elect of Ohio, planned an “inclusionary” consecration service in Cleveland on April 17, 2004—inviting priests and bishops to process with their wives, husbands, children, and “partners.” This breaks with tradition: consecration processions are typically reserved for ordained clergy alone. The explicit inclusion of “partners” is widely seen as a public affirmation of gay clergy during a period of deep denominational division. One local priest, speaking anonymously, declined to serve as a Eucharistic minister at the service over this invitation. The Rev. Brian Wilbert, rector of Christ Church, Oberlin, and co-chair of the transition committee, explained: “Bishop-elect Hollingsworth wants to be ‘as inclusionary as possible.’ Families can be defined as your spouse, your partner, your children—about the only thing we’re not allowing is four-footed friends.” Hollingsworth, 50, formerly Archdeacon of the Diocese of Massachusetts, was elected in November 2003 as the 11th bishop of Ohio—a diocese covering northern Ohio, with 27,700 members in 105 parishes. During his finalist forum in Toledo last November, he stated plainly: “I don’t believe homosexuality is a sin or an obstacle to any ministry, lay or ordained. That’s my belief, founded on lots of prayer and study… I’m a heterosexual, married, white male, and I don’t understand heterosexuality, let alone all sexuality.” He and his wife, Sue, parent a blended family of four children (ages 4–13). Thirty-two bishops accepted invitations to the service—including Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, Hollingsworth’s personal friend and the Episcopal Church’s first openly gay bishop. Even before his installation, Hollingsworth faced resistance: in March 2004, five Ohio congregations hosted an unauthorized confirmation service near Akron, led by six retired bishops (five from Ohio, one from Brazil). Under canon law, such services require the local bishop’s permission. Both outgoing Bishop J. Clark Grew and Hollingsworth condemned the event. Hollingsworth remarked: “I am disappointed that the parish priests and bishops involved chose to begin their relationship with me—not with direct and honest dialogue—but by acting in this manner.” END

By David W. Virtue April 17, 2004 Orthodox Episcopalians in Southern California will gather for a major conference—dubbed Plano-West—at the Long Beach Convention and Entertainment Center on June 3–4, 2004. Hosted by the Los Angeles Chapter of the American Anglican Council (AAC), with support from the San Diego Chapter, the event—An Historic Gathering of Anglicans Committed to the Great Commission—serves as a follow-up to the original Plano conference in Dallas (October 2003, 2,700 attendees) and Plano East in Woodbridge, Virginia (January 2004, 2,600 attendees). Keynote speaker is the Rev. Canon Dr. Michael Green, senior research fellow at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, and one of the world’s leading evangelists. Also featured: The Rev. Canon Dr. Kendall Harmon — theologian and leading voice for historic orthodoxy The Rev. Canon Dr. Alison Barfoot — co-rector of Christ Church, Overland Park, Kansas, and incoming assistant for international relations to Archbishop Henry Orombi of Uganda The Rev. Chuck Reischman — vicar of New Life Episcopal Church in Littleton, Colorado, ministering primarily to youth and families in the wake of the Columbine tragedy Local organizers include the Rev. Dr. Ron Jackson (St. Luke’s, La Crescenta), the Rev. Bill Thompson (All Saints, Long Beach, and Dean of the Western Convocation of the ACN), the Rev. Dr. Tony Baron (St. Anne’s, Oceanside), and the Rev. Praveen Bunyan (St. James, Newport Beach). Said Jackson: “It’s time to move forward. This conference is about providing a place for faithful, orthodox Episcopalians to minister in the power of Jesus Christ. We’re focusing on the Great Commission—Jesus’ command that all believers share the Good News with the world. It is also another opportunity to take a strong, unified stand against the recent grievous actions of the national Episcopal Church. I am convinced this conference will change lives.” Four goals of Plano-West: Declare steadfast commitment to the Gospel within the Anglican Communion Prepare for the emerging realignment of an orthodox, vital Anglicanism in the U.S. Equip the church for missionary engagement and Great Commission fidelity Inspire and train the next generation to seek God, stand on His Word, and proclaim Christ Youth (ages 15–21) are a priority: Thursday evening’s plenary—led by Fr. Reischman—will focus on them, with music by the Justin Fox Band. Registration: Adults: $70 Youth/Seminary students: $10 Evening-only (Thurs & Fri): $30 For details: www.aacla.org Media: Cynthia Brust, AAC Director of Communications — (202) 296-5360 or cbrust@americananglican.org END

News Analysis By David W. Virtue The Episcopal Church’s Presiding Bishop, Frank T. Griswold, recently viewed Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ and reflected on it in the April 2004 issue of Episcopal Life: “Having heard so much about the film, I was quite curious to see what my own reaction would be. I wondered if I would be moved, or repelled by the violence. I also wondered if I would find myself seeing the film at variance with my own understanding of the Passion. What was clearest to me as I left the theater was how much my understanding of the Cross derives from a sense of its life-givingness rather than the extremity of Jesus’ suffering.” A conservative observer quipped: “I figured that’s where it came from. The scene is Golgotha. At the foot of Christ’s Cross circles Frank Griswold like an art instructor, stroking his chin in faux thoughtfulness, saying ‘Hmmm’ every so often—then finally looking up and saying, ‘Interesting approach. And I think I see where you’re going with it. But don’t you think you could have been a whole lot more, you know… upbeat?’” Griswold continues: “This life-givingness is made clear in the film when the centurion who pierces Jesus’ side with a spear is bathed in the torrent of water that issues forth. The baptismal imagery at this point is unmistakable.” This moment, however, exists only in Gibson’s cinematic vision—not in Scripture. No Gospel account describes the outflowing water as baptismal imagery, and no theological commentator (to date) has interpreted it as such. Griswold’s reading is a theological extrapolation far beyond the text. In truth, baptism in parts of the Episcopal Church has become heavily politicized—its original theological grounding obscured or abandoned. Griswold contrasts Gibson’s portrayal with the 12th-century San Damiano Cross—the icon before which St. Francis of Assisi reportedly heard Christ say, “Rebuild my Church”: “The image itself is devoid of suffering, though Jesus is clearly crucified. His arms are extended in such a way as to suggest an embrace in which he is gathering to himself all that lies before him… Beneath the arms of Christ are panels depicting the Blessed Virgin Mary, John the Beloved Disciple, and Mary Magdalene.” For Griswold, this “passionless” Christ—eschatological, open-armed, non-penal—is central to his mystical vision of Christianity. Notably absent is any notion of substitutionary atonement: the idea that Christ bore God’s wrath in our place finds no resonance in his theology. Indeed, Griswold appears to reject suffering—not only for himself or the institutional church, but even for Christ—preferring what one wag called a “Pinot Grigio Christ”: passionless, inclusive, mildly fruity. He quotes the Book of Common Prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, you stretched out your arms of love on the hard wood of the cross that everyone might come within the reach of your saving embrace…” Then adds: “As I pray this, I know that I too am caught up in that saving embrace, as indeed is the whole of humanity.” But here lies a critical divergence from classical orthodoxy: the efficacy of Christ’s “saving embrace” depends on personal response. One thief was saved; the other was not. If Griswold means all humanity is saved regardless of faith or repentance, he has departed from the exclusivity of the Gospel. He elaborates: “To be enfolded in Christ’s embrace is both consoling and challenging… Left to my own devices, my capacity to embrace is partial and incomplete. It is beyond my ability to embrace everyone. But, as Christ’s Spirit moves within me, I am enabled to extend my arms and welcome all that stands before me… I am only able to embrace all others when I allow myself to be drawn into Christ’s embrace and then ask Christ to embrace the others through me.” Note: he uses the word embrace eight times in that paragraph. As another observer remarked: “Here Frank gets in touch with his inner Leo Buscaglia.” Later, Griswold cites Jesus’ words: “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself.” He interprets this as evidence that the Cross is ultimately about divine magnetism—“a transforming and deathless love which reorders all things… makes all things new.” He speaks of “the triumphant Christ drawing the world to himself.” Yet he seems embarrassed by the suffering Christ—eager to rush past the cross to the crown. But Scripture insists: glory follows suffering. Griswold’s “reordering” has, in fact, produced chaos: 18 provinces have declared broken or impaired communion with him over the consecration of Gene Robinson and the revision of sexual ethics. Finally, he concludes: “Beyond dispute the Cross was an instrument of torture and death. But Christ, by his death and resurrection, has transformed an instrument of death into a tree of life… We must never forget that the Cross is the enduring sign of abundant life.” Yet his framing suggests the Cross’s violence was optional—perhaps avoidable, had God (or Frank) preferred a gentler path. His vision risks relocating redemption to a rarified plain “beyond good and evil”—a place clean of blood, nails, or sin’s gravity. In the end, Griswold’s ‘Passion’ is less than Gibson’s—and far less than the biblical one. It is a passion drained of penalty, a cross emptied of atonement. A Christ who saves no one concretely—only vaguely, aspirationally—is no Savior at all. END

By David W. Virtue April 17, 2004 The Episcopal Diocese of Central Florida has voted overwhelmingly to redirect funds to the Anglican Communion Network (ACN), becoming the first diocese in the United States to do so formally. Members of the Diocesan Board approved a resolution designating approximately $20,000 in retroactive funding for 2004 to the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes. The diocese has long maintained a mechanism for redirecting funds away from the national church. Following the Episcopal Church’s controversial 2003 General Convention—particularly its approval of the consecration of Gene Robinson, an openly gay bishop—the Diocese of Central Florida held a special convention in November 2003 that reversed the default funding allocation: now, vestries must actively submit resolutions to send money to the national church budget; otherwise, funds remain under diocesan control. Currently, only 15% of the national apportionment is directed to ECUSA’s program budget. The remaining 85% is disbursed by the Diocesan Board to mission partners including Honduras, the South American Missionary Society (SAMS), Anglican Frontier Missions, and Episcopal World Mission. The Rt. Rev. Robert W. Duncan, Moderator of the ACN, welcomed the decision: “I am delighted about the Diocese of Central Florida’s decision to redirect funds to the Anglican Communion Network. Such funding will greatly assist the ACN in addressing domestic needs and fulfilling its commitment to missions—both in the United States and abroad—including support for Global Mission Partners. The ACN is most grateful to receive this generous support.” Nationwide, ECUSA’s budget receipts are down at least 6%. While church officials attribute this shortfall to broader economic conditions, many dioceses report reduced giving—or deliberate redirection of funds—as a direct response to the 2003 General Convention. For example, Missouri, Colorado, West Tennessee, North Carolina, Western New York, and Virginia have seen giving drop 10–30% over the past nine months. By contrast, dioceses taking firm stands against the 2003 decisions often report relative stability or even growth: the Diocese of Pittsburgh recently announced a $130,000 surplus for 2003. END

Gay marriage debate deepens in New Hampshire Church leaders give testimony to House By Daniel Barrick Monitor Staff April 14, 2004 Two of New Hampshire’s top religious leaders—one past, one present—added their voices to the statewide debate on gay marriage yesterday. Retired Episcopal Bishop Douglas Theuner denounced a bill that would keep New Hampshire from recognizing same-sex unions performed elsewhere as “discrimination in the extreme.” “What is so insidious about (this bill) is that it seeks to deny citizens rights which they have not even been formally granted,” he said. Theuner’s testimony yesterday before the House Judiciary Committee contrasted starkly with that offered by Bishop John McCormack a few hours earlier. McCormack, the head of New Hampshire’s Roman Catholics, rejected gay marriage as undermining “the cornerstone of our society.” “Human love is between a man and a woman and results in the creation of children,” McCormack said. Current New Hampshire law already forbids gays and lesbians from marrying. But the bill’s supporters said a change was needed to close a “loophole” that could force the state to recognize same-sex unions performed out of state. Those supporters pointed to a recent decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court that essentially legalizes same-sex marriage. The Massachusetts legislature is now considering an amendment to the state constitution to forbid gay marriage, but Sen. Russell Prescott, the prime sponsor of New Hampshire’s bill, said New Hampshire could not wait for other governments to act. “We need to close a loophole that allows other states to dictate our public policy,” said Prescott, a Kingston Republican. The bill was overwhelmingly approved by the state Senate last month. Gov. Craig Benson has said he will sign the bill if it passes in the House. But many of the bill’s opponents said it claims to defend against a threat that does not even exist. Marcus Hurn, a law professor at Franklin Pierce Law Center, dismissed talk of a “loophole” as overblown and legally unsound. “If it exists, it is a very tiny and, as a practical matter, inconsequential loophole,” Hurn said. “This is a shotgun aimed at a hypothetical fly.” The Massachusetts attorney general said last month that his state’s law would not allow gays and lesbians from other states to obtain a marriage license there. Other opponents of the bill said the federal Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, already permits states to refuse to accept same-sex unions performed elsewhere. Yesterday’s hearing was in Legislators’ Hall—the only room in the State House large enough to accommodate the crowd. Some people quoted Scripture to support their points; some relied on statistics. Some appealed to “enduring moral values” while others railed against “activist judges.” Theuner and McCormack, the two bishops, also had contrasting interpretations of how gay marriage related to the decades-long fight to expand civil rights. Theuner referred to a 1997 law that expanded the state’s civil rights law to include gays and lesbians. The current bill would undermine the progress achieved in that law, Theuner said. “If the rights of any of us are at risk, so are the rights of all of us,” he said. McCormack referenced that same 1997 law, but he said it proved that restrictions on same-sex marriage did not subvert civil rights. “We can respect the rights of all and still preserve and uphold marriage as it has always been understood,” he said. “In fact, we are compelled to protect individual rights—but I urge you to protect the common good of our society.” END

News Analysis By David W. Virtue This is a tale of two churches. By any standard, they would be considered successful. Both churches are large with significant ministries. Both are wealthy and both are powerful forces in their communities. One is old money, one is new. They are landmark churches in their dioceses, and at least one rector is the apple of his bishop’s eye. Their rectors are known nationally and each is respected for their work and ministry in the circles they travel. But now all that is changing. Recent events in the Episcopal Church—the consecration of an openly homoerotic bishop—is profoundly affecting the unity of the church and the polity of the worldwide Anglican Communion. It has also affected both these churches, but in vastly different ways. Here are their stories. The Very Rev. Samuel G. Candler is the Dean of the Cathedral of St. Philip in downtown Atlanta. The cathedral is an historic landmark erected in 1848 and was consecrated as the first Episcopal Church in Atlanta. It is much respected for its place in the community. The cathedral is also the epicenter of the Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta’s pansexual community. Furthermore, Dean Candler is an extremely vocal advocate of the church’s doctrine of inclusion of homosexuals and has done yeoman’s work in the diocese and in cathedral publications justifying his views. He has traveled extensively around the Southeast speaking his mind on the issues and has the ear of Bishop J. Neil “Heresy is better than schism” Alexander—this bishop voted last fall in favor of Robinson’s ordination and consecration. But the effect of Dean Candler’s push for homosexual acceptance has come with a large price tag. His cathedral is in financial free fall. As one observer noted, “Candler’s gas allowance is about to go down, as the downtown homosexual community hasn’t been able to make up for the financial losses from the few remaining orthodox members at the cathedral.” In the cathedral newsletter, Candler whines about the church’s declining finances and asks the question: Is the Cathedral a Rich Church? He asks, “Will our parish be able to make ends meet in 2004?” The answer it would appear is no. Pledges, he says, are down 3.5% from last year. “This is more than disappointing to me.” As a result, there will be no general staff raises, a reduction in requested diocesan pledging, and no replacement of vacant staff positions that he says “are desperately needed.” Furthermore, several staff positions will remain vacant—including an administrative assistant, registrar, and information technology—so “our staff will continue to work with the discouraging squeeze of more demands and less support.” Candler then went on to cite increased expenses, including increased property insurance of $54,000 (and more to come), utility increases of $36,730 (and more to come). Then he drops the big news: he says that the cathedral has lost more than $200,000 in reduced pledges from folks upset with the Episcopal Church General Convention’s actions on sexuality. “Some of those folks have told me that they want to make a financial protest.” Candler then says, “But that statement does not directly affect places like New Hampshire—it directly affects the spirit and the life of our parish.” There you have it. The sins of New Hampshire are visited upon Atlanta, and Candler is feeling the pain. And to add fuel to an already blazing fire, Candler announced that he needs another $70,000 in pledged income to meet new interest costs on new construction. He whines that the church has no “sugar daddies” and says that the problem might be that the church is perceived as rich in “both material and spiritual resources”—but it is only a perception, with the result that people are spiritually lazy, he says. In 2003, the budget was $3,647,000, with expenditures and costs $3,515,000. The year ended with a surplus of $132,000. Average Sunday attendance for 2003 was 1,262. But now all that is crashing and burning. The church has built a whole new wing that has cost $17 million. So far the church has raised $10 million and needs $7 million to complete it. A source said that it is very unlikely that he will ever get that kind of money again. It is believed that Candler’s family money is Coca-Cola. The interest alone is causing a headache for the church. But what Candler won’t admit is that it is not just demographics and an aging Episcopal Atlanta population that is doing him in—but his theology on human sexuality. He just doesn’t get it. Blessing sodomy is not a draw card for white or black middle-class, upwardly mobile Atlantans. They like their sexuality straight up—and, er… straight. Now consider another church in another part of the country. This church is growing and thriving because it has a different theology and a different understanding of sexuality and mission. This one is in Plano, Texas, and it is called Christ Church, and its rector is Canon David Roseberry. Roseberry is making a name for himself, having sponsored the Plano gathering earlier this year that drew several thousand orthodox Episcopalians following General Convention’s affirmation of Robinson’s unbiblical lifestyle and his elevation to the episcopacy. But unlike the Cathedral of St. Philip’s in Atlanta, the Robinson consecration has not affected Christ Church, Plano, because Canon Roseberry has a different gospel—with an age-old message that he won’t change to suit the passing fashions of our times. “The Robinson consecration has galvanized the church to take a biblical stand for orthodoxy,” said Roseberry to Virtuosity. “If there is one thing I have learned about ministering in a large church, it is that large churches thrive on clarity and Christology. We have to be clear about who Jesus is and the effect he has on personal life transformation. That is what the Good News is.” People come to church to find out what God has to say about pressing social issues, said the canon—one of Bishop James Stanton’s outstanding priests. “The Bible is very clear on what the most important subjects are. People can find out what the world believes from magazines and a newspaper rack—but what God believes in, what Holy Scripture declares, is a wholly different matter. The church has a theology and a moral responsibility to share that Good News with its people.” And as a result, his church is growing nicely and his budget is up. “Attendance figures are up. Week by week we see 2,200 people coming to four services. Our projected giving for the whole year will be $4.2 million.” According to figures released by the church, in 2003 the total pledged budget was $2,950,000. In 2004, pledges will reach $3,362,000, said Roseberry. Total giving will be over $4 million, making it one of the most prestigious and powerful parishes in the Episcopal Church. The parish income alone is bigger than some whole dioceses. “The average donation in 2003 was $4,545.00; in 2004 it will be $4,865.00—and that is in a down economy,” said Roseberry. So why is one church successful and the other failing? “To the extent that we are faithful, people will come. God will always send His people where they can be cared for,” said Roseberry. That might be a lesson Dean Candler could learn as he watches pansexuality ravage his cathedral. NOTE: If you are not receiving this from Virtuosity, the Anglican Communion’s largest orthodox Anglican Online News Service, then you may subscribe for FREE by going to www.virtuosityonline.org. Virtuosity’s website has been accessed more than 1.4 million times. When you sign up, a weekly digest of stories will come directly into your email. END FAREWELL TO THE FOURTH CRUSADE News Analysis By Uwe Siemon-Netto UPI Religious Affairs Editor WASHINGTON, April 15 (UPI) — In the face of the contemporary challenge by radical Islamists, Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism are bidding farewell to the hatred caused by the Fourth Crusade exactly 800 years ago. The spiritual leader of the Orthodox faithful formally accepted an apology Pope John Paul II offered in 2001 for the three-day sacking of Constantinople in April 1204. The city, until then the wealthiest in Christendom, never recovered from this event, which permanently weakened the Greek Empire—a bulwark that had protected Europe for centuries against Muslim incursions. “The spirit of reconciliation is stronger than hatred,” said Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople during a liturgy attended by Cardinal Philippe Barbarin, archbishop of Lyon, France, considered to be a potential successor to the present pope. “We receive with gratitude and respect your cordial gesture for the tragic events of the Fourth Crusade,” said Bartholomew, the titular head of Orthodoxy. Referring to the Easter season, Bartholomew added, “The spirit of reconciliation of the resurrection incites us toward reconciliation in Christ.” Two years ago, the pope had asked for God’s forgiveness for the “sins of action and omission” Catholics had committed against the Orthodox—including the destruction of Constantinople, an event whose cruelties ended all attempts to overcome the great schism between the Western and Eastern Church 150 years earlier. Much of the Vatican’s contrition over this butchery has to do with the appalling comportment of Catholic clergymen during the siege of the center of Eastern Christianity. The Crusaders were reluctant to attack fellow Christians, but the clergy convinced them that the Orthodox Byzantines were almost as bad as the Muslims. They had allied with Saladin against the Third Crusade and had done nothing to aid the Second Crusade; they should be punished for their lack of support. During the rampage—in which even the Crusaders’ cooks participated, wearing their pots as helmets—ancient works of art were annihilated. The Crusaders returned to Europe brimming with plunder, including a novelty for the West: wallpaper, a Chinese invention that until then had made its way to Constantinople, but no further. “Between the plunder and the fire… Constantinople was ravaged so badly that it never recovered,” writes Ellis “Skip” Knox, who teaches history at Boise State University in Idaho. “It would not return to anything like its former glory until the Ottomans had conquered it and turned it into a great Muslim city.” “Maybe recent events (meaning terrorist acts by Muslim extremists) have lent urgency to recent attempts at healing the rift between the Eastern and Western Church—including the pope’s apology and now its acceptance by Bartholomew I,” Knox suggested in a telephone interview. The Rev. Emmanuel Clapsis, dean of Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology at Brookline, Mass., was even more outspoken. “We have to see to it that the Christian Church reconciles and recovers its broken unity,” he told United Press International Thursday. “That’s the will of Christ. Christianity’s division is a scandal.” “The Church must breathe again with both lungs,” said Clapsis, using a term John Paul II had coined during his pilgrimage to Greece in 2001. The pontiff’s encounter with Greek prelates went surprisingly well, as did his subsequent meetings with Orthodox prelates in Syria, the Ukraine, and other countries. However, the intransigence of the Russian Church has so far proved to be a seemingly insuperable hurdle in the pope’s quest for Christian unity. A recent visit by Cardinal Walter Kasper, the Vatican’s chief ecumenical officer, with the Russian hierarchy “accomplished nothing,” according to Claus-Peter Clausen, publisher of a Catholic newsletter in Germany and a specialist on the tensions between Rome and Russian Orthodoxy. The main obstacle is the existence of Catholic “uniate” churches, which are loyal to Rome but have maintained rites identical to those of the Orthodox denominations. The uniate have been around since the 16th century. “But with the liberation of Eastern Europe, their existence created unexpected difficulties,” said Clapsis, one of Orthodoxy’s foremost ecumenists. “However, I am very optimistic that by God’s grace and our determination we will overcome these temporary obstacles,” he added. “If we allow God’s grace to overcome our human reservations, we can resolve problems even with Russia.” “After all,” he went on, “both the Holy Father and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew are committed to the unity of the Christian Church.” Could this happen during this pope’s lifetime—which may not be very long anymore? “This is an active and real possibility,” the Greek Orthodox scholar replied. “Unexpected things may occur—since we are in the sweep of the resurrection.” END

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 God’s name. On a much larger scale it will also risk the loss of His blessings on the United States—as 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 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 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 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 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. 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 nation’s 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.