Archives

By Uwe Siemon-Netto UPI Religious Affairs Editor WASHINGTON, March 30 (UPI) -- Editor's note: This is part two of the UPI series on the new schism running horizontally through most Christian denominations. In this installment, theologians argue that the rift constitutes the Church's Third Gnostic Crisis, which is as menacing as were its predecessors 1,000 and almost 2,000 years ago. When Don Westblade, a religion professor, tries to explain the Gnostic crisis of the early church to his students at Hillsdale College in Michigan he points to a stunning parallel in modern times. The moral dilemma plaguing most denominations in modernity and postmodernity, he says, is rooted in the same heresy that almost destroyed the Church in its infancy. Westblade describes it as "a perspective on God that divides deities into two levels." Gnostics came into prominence within Christianity in the second century. They distinguished between the Demiurge, or creator God, and the supreme remote and unknowable Divine Being. In the 12th and 13th centuries, a related theology of the Cathars in Germany and France was perceived as a major threat to Catholicism and therefore brutally suppressed. Some of the early Gnostic sects, such as the Nicolaitans and the Ophites, did not bother much with the Demiurge, whom they thought was in charge of matter. Since matter was sharply opposed to spirit, the property of the higher deity, bodily actions were indifferent. Therefore licentiousness was wholly admissible. As Westblade sees it, contemporary Gnosticism, including Jungian psychology, feminism and the homosexual lobby within the church, operate along these lines. "They don't like to associate with the Demiurge. They like to be with the God who is overhead." More concretely, while Scripture says that homosexual practices are an abomination, an "allegedly more enlightened view puts us in touch with the true God and not with the 'patriarchal and bigoted position' of the Demiurge," according to Westblade. To William H. Lazareth, a former Lutheran bishop of New York and currently professor at Cathage College in Kenosha, Wis., this "Gnostic apparition of hedonism" is of course "an ontological absurdity." The Rev. Gerald E. Murray, a canon lawyer and parish priest in New York, believes that the moral crisis in the Roman Catholic Church in the United States is very much part of this neo-Gnostic phenomenon. The discovery that 4,292 deacons and priests were implicated in 10,667 cases of abuse over the last 50 years suggests to him that "people have taken to objectify their bodies, using their bodies as entities separate from themselves. Their rationale is, 'My intentions are not evil, therefore I can do what I want.'" Christian anthropology holds of course that "body and soul are a composite making up a whole person who will have to act in accord with God's law," says Murray. But this anthropology is as embattled in the Church's current Gnostic Crisis as it was 1,000 and 2,000 years ago. Don Westblade even goes as far as to say, that while Gnosticism appears to be peaking once again, "Gnostics have been with us throughout church history." Churchgoers, he believes, "often take a more Platonic than Biblical view of things." With Plato, and like the Gnostics, they think that the body doesn't matter much and can be dealt with at will, even though they say every Sunday in church when they speak the Apostles' or Nicene Creeds that it will be resurrected. In other words, differences over the importance of the body are the wedge that drives most denominations apart -- with the result that traditional Roman Catholics have more in common with Southern Baptists than with their Gnostic brethren and evangelical Anglicans are closer to the Eastern Orthodox than to their "revisionist" coreligionists. The moral issues of the Gnostic crises today as almost 2,000 years ago contain a fascinating theological twist, however. In the very first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, the apostle Paul reveals that the abuse of the body is the consequence of God's wrath against idolatrous mankind. "Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another," writes Paul (Romans 1:24). The exegetes of the early church commented this in terms sounding strangely familiar to postmodern ears. "Paul tells us... that a woman should lust after another woman because God was angry at the human race because of its idolatry," wrote the mysterious 4th-century exegete Ambrosiaster, whose real identity remains unknown. "When God abandons a person to his own devices, then everything is turned upside down," mused St. John Chrysostom (ca. 347-407 A.D.). "Men with frenzied lusts rush against men. Things are done which cannot even give pleasure to those who do them," remarked St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage (died 258 A.D.). And Origen (185-254 A.D.), the famed though controversial Alexandrian Bible scholar, preached on the Epistle to the Romans in words that send chills down the spine of those deploring today's gender war: "The normal desire for sexual intercourse united the sexes to one another. But by taking this away and turning it into something else, the devil divided the sexes from each other and forced what was one to become two, in opposition to the law of God ... The devil was bent on destroying the human race, not only by preventing them from copulating lawfully but by stirring them up to war against each other." Origen concluded from this: "Paul goes straight to the source of sexual evil: ungodliness which comes from twisted teaching and lawlessness which is its reward." Twisted teaching, traditionalist theologians such as Thomas C. Oden of the United Methodist say, has contributed greatly to the current crisis in the church. Worse still, it has lethal results. "You are literally killing us," archbishop Peter Akinola, primate of the 18 million-member Anglican Church of Nigeria chided his North American Episcopalians, who have succumbed to the Gnostic temptation. What he meant was this: When photographs are flashed around the world of a homosexual bishop's consecration with his male lover holding his miter; when churches, such as the Episcopal diocese of Washington, develop liturgies for same-sex weddings, then Muslim extremists feel confirmed in their view that Christianity is moribund. Hence their conclusion: Why not give Christianity a coup de grace and slaughter its faithful wherever they are? Next installment: North-South schism.

By Uwe Siemon-Netto UPI Religious Affairs Editor WASHINGTON, March 25 (UPI) -- Editor's note: The Christian Church is in the process of a new schism running horizontally across the denominations. The dividing issue is truth -- is truth eternal or is it temporal? What follows is the first installment of an open-ended UPI series on the many ramifications of this religious phenomenon. In Canada, a medical student, who is a devout Christian, will not be allowed to graduate because he refused to perform abortions, according to LifeSiteNews.com, a Toronto-based Web site. Meanwhile, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, has appointed the Rev. Ignacio Castuera of Los Angeles communicator of a "theological justification for choice," reports Agape Press. Castuera, a Methodist, stated that the Jesus of the Bible "would indeed support a woman's right to choose." This begs the question: Since both men claim to be Christians, which of the two is authentic? Nothing illustrates more clearly the new division within the "Body of Christ" as the difference between the student and the pastor. It is a schism that runs horizontally across all Protestant denominations and even Catholicism, a divide infinitely more severe than all previous splits in church history. In the past, antagonists battled over truth, to be sure, but still upheld the ancient faith statements of the Church -- the Apostolic, the Nicene and the Athanasian creeds. Today, on one side of the battle lines are the faithful, chiefly laity, affirming the authority of the Bible. On the other side are those bishops and theology professors who say that truth cannot be eternal but is always subject to continuing revelation, shifting with the spirit of the time. Both sides celebrate the same liturgies, sing the same hymns, and are often held together by the same administrative structures. Beyond that, however, they have little in common. Indeed, growing numbers of orthodox Christians believe that their kind is, or will soon be, persecuted -- with the help of their "revisionist" brethren. This has happened before in totalitarian times, and may already be taking place in democratic societies. The Rev. Raymond J. de Souza, a Catholic priest of the Archdiocese of Kingston, Ontario, warned in the monthly magazine, First Things, of the danger of tyranny in his country. "As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism," wrote de Souza, quoting pope John Paul II. De Souza then cited examples: British Columbia denied Trinity Western University, an evangelical institution, the license to certify teachers because it prohibits homosexual behavior among its students. (Canada's Supreme Court ultimately overturned the provincial government's decision.) The Ontario Human Rights Commission fined Scott Brockie, owner of a printing business, $5,000 for refusing to print the letterheads and cards for the Canadian Gay and Lesbian Archives; Brockie stated that promoting homosexuality was against his Christian conscience. In some Scandinavian countries, legislation is being prepared proscribing anti-homosexual sermons from the pulpit. According to de Souza, a similar state intrusion into matters of faith may be in the offing in Canada, where the government has asked the Supreme Court whether a proposed exemption of clergymen from the duty of having to solemnize same-sex union was compatible with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. "The fact that the question is even being asked is an ominous portent," wrote de Souza in First Things. "So advanced is the totalitarian impulse in Canada that advocates of the federal redefinition of marriage positively boast of how broadminded they are in allowing churches to administer their own sacraments as they see fit." De Souza then developed a "worst-case scenario of state expansion": "First it will be churches forced to rent out their halls and basements for a same-sex couple's wedding reception. Then it will be religious charities forced to recognize employees in same-sex relationships as legally married. ... Then it will be a hierarchical or synodal church not being allowed to discipline an errant priest or minister who performs a civilly legal but canonically illicit same-sex marriage." In a related context, the Rev. Thomas C. Oden, a theology professor and leader of the Confessional Movement within the United Methodist Church was asked how long he thought he could remain in a denomination where a jury of pastors has just found a Lesbian colleague not guilty of "practices declared ... to be incompatible with Christian teachings." Having "married" her partner in a civil ceremony, this minister, the Rev. Karen Dammann, is sharing her parsonage with her in Ellensburg, Wash. "This is extremely embarrassing to most Methodists -- but not to the point of calling on them to leave the church that baptized them," Oden told United Press International. "We have decided to stay and struggle even under highly ambiguous circumstances. We are ashamed of our church -- ashamed because it cannot enforce its own church law." But then Oden went on, "It is still a church as long as sacraments are duly administered and the word gets to be preached, ... I can still preach in Methodist pulpits Christian doctrine and sexual morality." But what if, as in the Rev. de Souza's Canadian scenario, the state coerced ministers to act against their Christian conscience? "In such a situation one would have to be willing to go to prison. It's possible we'll see Canadian pastors in jail. Their witness would be tremendously important for world Christianity." Oden is known to be one of the most courageous defenders of orthodox faith in U.S. Protestantism. But his choice not to quit his denomination where he has watched "radical secularists take over the seminaries" is controversial in other Christian quarters. For example, the statement by Peter Lee, Episcopal bishop of Virginia, that "schism is worse than heresy," prompted this outburst by Auburn Faber Traycik, editor of The Christian Challenge, a feisty conservative Anglican journal: "What a ridiculous notion! Shall we be proud for having chosen heresy over schism?" Throughout Western Protestantism the dispute rages over whether the de facto split between orthodox and revisionist Christianity has not already long occurred. David Virtue, the inveterate chronicler of the travails of world Anglicanism, believes it has. "Anglicanism in North America is in the toilet," he said. "Of the world's 38 Anglican primates, 21 have either broken communion with the Episcopal Church USA or called the communion impaired" (after the consecration of the openly homosexual Canon Vicki Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire). While bishop Lee seemingly downgraded the significance of heresy, the Rev. William T. Kump, a pastor of the breakaway Reformed Episcopal Church in Newport News, Va., told United Press International how the regular church folk feel about this. "It eats them up. It sucks them up. It drags them down. They feel deeply hurt. They feel burned. They flee to our church and require a lot of pastoral work. "My impression is that there is no room for compromise with heresy. You have to get completely away from it in order to feel safe." Next installment: "You are literally killing us."

Declaration of the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church of the Central American Region (IARCA) Peace and hope to the Churches of Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama and the Provinces of the Anglican Communion. We, the Bishops that make up The Anglican Church of the Central American Region (IARCA) gathered in Managua, Nicaragua have made a space for reflection and biblical analysis and shared our individual concerns and experiences of our ministry as pastors and spiritual leaders of our clergy and people. We are convinced that the Holy Spirit has taken over and manifested a presence in this meeting and has guided us on the search for the necessary process that will help us improve our relationship and to identify the guidelines that will support our common ministry. During this Lenten Season and in preparation to celebrate the resurrection on Easter, we reflected seriously regarding the future of our relationship as bishops and ministers of God. We are united by the common purpose of providing guidance for our people in the midst of difficult times in which we live: violence and incomprehension, disintegration in the family structure and the lack of interest in seeking God's Kingdom; all of which challenges the systems that shape our destinies as societies. The reflection has led us to understand that the central emphasis of Lent and of our lives during this season is forgiveness and reconciliation. These two primary values and teachings, which were given to us by Christ, along with his Message, are still relevant and basic for the understanding of the love of God and his justice. As living testimonies of Christ we should be role models of His actions and message; we wish to give testimony of his love and of his message of reconciliation as we accept as our principal goal the restoring of the good relationship that has been the characteristic with which we began together the project of the Anglican Church in the Central American Region and for which we are and will continue to be united for the development of the mission that God had given to us to serve his people. Moreover we will try to be a channel for reconciliation and forgiveness. We thank our Primate his Grace Martin J. Barahona, for the leadership he has provided during this process. We have encouraged one another to be one in Christ so that the actions that we take and the decisions that we make on a personal level or in the representation of our churches will not affect the life or development of the mission in the Province, or at the Diocesan level and/or at the personal level. We have established guidelines that will permit us to make decisions in the framework for the consensus of the group. We take this opportunity to reaffirm the declaration given by us to the Primate and presented to the Primates and other Provinces of the Anglican Communion in relation with the election and consecration of the Rev. Canon V. Gene Robinson as Bishop Coadjutor of the Diocese of New Hampshire. In that document we resume and make known our feelings and thoughts on the decision of The Episcopal Church in the United States of America. At this time, this is the stand we take on this matter. We will also state that in the midst of the ill-feelings and division that we are experiencing in our Anglican Communion, we reaffirm the Love of God toward all humanity and that this love represents the symbol of unity for all human beings that are called to be in union with God and for whom Jesus gave his life. This is the love that moves us and helps us to understand that sin is what separates us from God and does not allow us to have a full relationship with him or with others. This is our task: to fight against sin and proclaim life. We are committed to give the House of Bishops in IARCA the place that it deserves in the pastoral mission of our church. We have established at least two times in the year to meet as a collegial body, one time during Lent and another during Pentecost, so that we can give some continuity to our lives as bishops and our mission in the Anglican Church of Central America. We will also begin a process of continuing education for ourselves and to keep updated on the most important issues that affect and/or challenge the mission of the Church, directly or indirectly. We encourage all people and the Clergy to pray fervently without ceasing, and to journey with us in the search for new experiences in the mission of Christ, the mission that he has given to each of us through his passion, but also through his resurrection. It's our hope, that by getting to know God better and getting to know each other better, as we begin and maintain a joint process of continued education, of interrelation, of common prayer and of seeking a closer relationship with each other; these efforts will help to restore the unity which has been part of the foundation that gave birth to the conformation of the Anglican Church of the Central American Region. Given on the sixteenth day of the month of March in the year of Our Lord two thousand four. The Rt Revd Martin J. Barahona Episcopal Church of El Salvador, Primate of IARCA The Rt Revd Julio E. Murray Episcopal Church of Panama The Rt Revd Sturdie W. Downs Episcopal Church of Nicaragua The Rt Revd Armando R. Guerra Episcopal Church of Guatemala The Rt Revd Hector F. Monterroso Episcopal Church of Costa Rica

By James Murray, Religious Affairs Editor THE AUSTRALIAN April 01, 2004 Priests in Australia's largest Anglican diocese are being forced to fill out a detailed and highly personal questionnaire about their sexual history, including relationships outside marriage, as part of a crackdown on child abusers in the church. The Sydney diocese questionnaire also asks about any involvement in the occult, whether priests have been cruel to animals, their attitudes to alcohol and any convictions for driving offences. The use of internet chat rooms and pornography comes under scrutiny in the eight-page document approved by the diocese's professional standards committee, a copy of which has been obtained by The Australian. Under a section called child protection and criminal conduct, priests are asked whether they have ever been charged with an offence or been the subject of an investigation, faced a traffic offence in court, had their driver's licence revoked or suspended or been the subject of an apprehended violence order. Other questions include any history of gambling, homosexual relationships or charges of sexual misconduct with persons under the age of consent. Compulsory for prospective priests and those transferring to the diocese, the questionnaire, introduced in recent weeks, will also be given to priests and deacons wanting to renew their licences to preach and administer the sacraments. Applicants answering yes to some of the questions could be rejected. The questionnaire has been criticised by some bishops as being too intimate and precluding any thought of repentance, forgiveness and healing, as well as fears it could lead to dishonesty rather than frankness. Philip Gerber, of the child protection committee of the Anglican General Synod, said the Sydney diocese thought it best to introduce the questionnaire "sooner rather than later". But he said not all of the 23 Anglican dioceses in Australia would follow suit. A police check of prospective priests is common practice even in states where the law does not make it obligatory, especially if they will be working with children. A debate on the recommendations of the General Synod's working group will take place in October, and an attempt made to have a unified national approach. It is expected some dioceses will want modifications, but general agreement is expected. The questionnaire comes after the National Council of Churches called 60 representatives together in Canberra recently from the Anglican, Catholic, Uniting, Lutheran, Salvation Army, Greek Orthodox, Quaker, Churches of Christ, Coptic Orthodox, Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist and Presbyterian churches to discuss sexual abuse. Council general secretary John Henderson said the churches were "now ready to come together around the table and tell their stories, listen more intently to victims, and to develop a positive culture in which abuse and misconduct will not take place".

By William A. Wheatley 2/4/2004 Recently I made a trip to the Republic of Sudan, and wish to report on the conditions I witnessed while I was there. I was in Khartoum from Tuesday, 24 February 2004, until the evening of Wednesday, 03 March 2004. While the purpose of my trip was to scout for business opportunities for a client once the US sanctions are lifted, I was also very curious and concerned about what I have read in the press regarding the treatment of Christians in Sudan. My client is a Saudi Arabian company that is investing heavily in Sudan - something American companies are prohibited from doing because of unilateral US sanctions imposed against Sudan by President Clinton. Upon arrival, I was met at the airport by Waiel, one of my clients partners. Waiel is Sudanese, the son of the head of the Nubian tribe. The Nubian tribe is the largest of the Sudanese tribes. You may remember from the Bible that Moses first wife was a Nubian. Much of Nubia is in what was the Lower Kingdom of the ancient Egyptians. Most Nubians today are Islamic, although a number are also Coptic Christian. Waiel is well educated, holding a Doctorate in Nuclear Science from a Russian university and a Doctorate in economics from a German University. While in Russia he met his wife, a charming young woman from Finland, a Christian. He is rearing his children as Christians (her condition for marrying him). He said his father was a bit put off by that but came around and is a doting grandfather. My understanding prior to going to Sudan (and Waiel confirmed the information) is that the lighter-skinned Arabised, Sudanese, which include the Nubians, occupy predominantly the north of the country and are predominantly Islamic, with a mix of Anglican, Roman Catholic, Coptic and Protestant churches operating in the North. The further North one goes, the more Coptic Christians one finds. The South and Southwest are the regions that have been at war with the central government until recently. The South is darker skinned - so dark as to appear black on the border with purple. The Southwest, the Dafur region, is lighter skinned than the South but still definitively black by comparison with the north. However, there are many blacks from the South and Southwest in Khartoum, where they fled to escape the fighting. The south is a mixture of Animist and Christian tribes, and the Southwest is a mixture of Animist, Islamic, and Christian tribes. Waiel's tribe, and especially his family, have set up free clinics and schools to provide medical care and education for them as well as job training. Waiel himself is running a program that finds maintenance and interior construction work for them. He formed a number of corporations to do this contracting, in each of which six blacks from the south are equal partners with him. He pays the overhead (salaries, etc.) and hopes to be reimbursed when they turn profitable. Of the ten companies he formed, two are now profitable, three are at break even, and he has great hopes for the rest. "If we of Islam do not show charity towards our Christian brothers, we will never have peace," he told me. "If we of Islam are to prosper, we must help the Christians to prosper, too." The country has been in a state of civil war almost since the British abandoned the country in 1958. According to the Sudanese, they petitioned the British for a movement towards self-government, and the British just left. A military junta took control, and the country has been ruled by a series of military dictators since. In the 1990s, with Osama Bin Laden in residence in the country, it became designated as a State Sponsor of International Terrorism. In 1997, after finding that the policies and actions of the Government of Sudan, including continued support for international terrorism, ongoing efforts to destabilize neighbouring governments, and the prevalence of human rights violations, including slavery and the denial of religious freedom, constituted an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, President Clinton issued Executive Order No. 13067, declaring a national emergency to deal with that threat. The Sudanese government has gone through several internal upheavals and changes since then. Soon after President Clinton imposed sanctions, a new Sudanese government rounded up Osama and his followers and offered them to the US, but the US refused to receive them, so Sudan expelled them and they went to Afghanistan. The rest is history. US Government officials recognise that the Republic of Sudan has made great strides toward ending the strife, opening its markets and establishing democracy. There is now an elected legislature, and as a result of peace negotiations sponsored by the US, the cabinet is now a mix of politicians from the North and the South. All major issues in the civil war have been settled, and final signature on the final peace agreement is expected any day. Last week, Sudan arrested a number of military officials and politicians who have been sponsoring the Islamic militias that have been terrorizing Christians in the Dafur region. At one time allied with the government, they remained in the region after government troops withdrew and continued their marauding. Now there are hopes that they will finally be stopped. During my trip I met with a number of government officials, and had the opportunity to discuss frankly with them the religious issues that have received so much coverage in the American press. As the business that took me to Sudan involves airlines, the first government official with whom I met was Eng. Joseph Malwal Dong, a black Christian from the South. He told me that the reports of atrocities against Christians, while containing truth, were much exaggerated. He pointed out that they occurred only in the areas that were in rebellion against the central government, and not against Christians in the North. "They were killed because they were fighting. While the militias were brutal and involved civilians, they were attacks against villages that were fighting and in rebellion. They did it not because the village was Christian but because it was in rebellion. There were equal atrocities committed against Islamic villages that were in rebellion in Dafur." I asked him about the stories of captives being pressed into slavery. "Sure, some of that went on," he said. "But again it is much exaggerated in your press. American evangelists come over to buy slaves and free them, and the villages quickly figure out a scam. They round themselves up, dress one of themselves as Islamic, sell themselves to the evangelist, and then when he has freed them and left, they divide up the money and go home." He admitted that while real slavery did exist in parts of the south and southwest, the government was trying to suppress it, and once the peace was established and government control of the areas established, it would be eradicated. He said he knew of no slaves being kept in the North, although there are blacks from the south working at very small wages in the north. "But there are northerners working at very small wages, too," he added. I attended Ash Wednesday services at the large Anglican church in Khartoum (I was told it is the Cathedral, but I could not read the Arabic sign in front, and I don't know whether my informer understands what a cathedral is. He referred to the Presbyterian church as a cathedral, as well.). I saw many people on the streets, in offices and stores during the day wearing the ashes on their foreheads. Attendance at the Ash Wednesday services at the Roman Catholic Cathedral was so large, they held the services in the square in front of the Cathedral. The next day, my friend took me to the largest Mosque in Khartoum which has a large and beautiful arcaded courtyard. In the courtyard, the Imam and the Roman Catholic archbishop were working together, gathering medical supplies, clothing and foodstuffs to be trucked as relief aid to the South. Sudan Airways has stopped flying regularly scheduled flights to the South - partly because of the war, but mostly because US sanctions do not permit it to get spare parts for its aircraft. It was struggling to keep international flights operating while I was there, and ran out of money and ceased operations a few days after my return to the US. The President of Sudan issued a plea to the US government to lift the sanctions so that US investment in Sudan can help to cement the peace. They need such investment, but more importantly, they need the parts to get the airline flying again to speed the delivery of relief supplies to the South. At present, the sanctions are hurting only American businesses and the poor in the Sudanese south. Being in Khartoum gave me a different picture of the state of affairs in the country than one gets from the American press especially the Christian press. Yes, conditions for Christians have been very bad in the past; but they have improved dramatically in the last year and official persecution has vanished. I believe it is now time to lift the sanctions and let Americans help Sudan build democracy and rebuild their infrastructure. Let us all pray for the coming of peace and freedom to this troubled region. Mr. Wheatley is a Philadelphia-based businessman. He is an Anglo-Catholic and an active member of the Church of the Good Shepherd in Rosemont, PA.

By Cal Thomas March 20, a lesbian Methodist pastor was acquitted on charges stemming from her sexual orientation and will continue her ministry. A jury of pastors in Bothell, Wash., deliberated 10 hours before a majority ruled the homosexual relationship between the Rev. Karen Dammann and another woman, who recently "married," is allowable under church social principles, although the Methodist Book of Discipline declares homosexual practice "incompatible to Christian teachings." Should anyone be surprised? Having abandoned Scripture and the teachings of Methodism's founder, John Wesley, who believed the Bible was God's infallible Word to man, it is a short step to rejecting all statements, "doctrines" and "principles" based on eternal truths. If the church can't uphold an eternal principle involving sexual expression and male-female relations, it puts everything up for negotiation in our increasingly relativistic age where the truth can never be objectively determined. The conservative wing of the Methodist Church, known as the Confessing Movement, has it right. Its Web page (www.confessingumc.org/tract3.html) says: "The moral relativism of our time rebels against Jesus Christ's gracious rule over human sexuality. This relativism and rebellion have found their way into the United Methodist Church. There are those in the church who understand marriage as a short-term contract, who desire to legitimize homosexual practice, and who care little about protecting the unborn child and mother. In some quarters of our denomination, premarital sex, extramarital sex and serial marriage are silently tolerated. A confusion has arisen in our church between the Lordship of Christ and the reigning cultural virtue of tolerance. The Confessing Movement challenges the misuse of the principle of tolerance to set aside the authority of Scripture and [the] church's teaching on human sexuality." In his closing arguments at the church trial, Miss Dammann's counsel, the Rev. Robert C. Ward, articulated a doctrine more befitting "the church of what's happenin' now" than the historical and once doctrinally strong Methodist Church: "We need to be careful about creating rules that exclude people." I guess he has never heard of the separation of sheep from goats, wheat from tares, the saved from the unsaved and the afterlife separation of dwellers in heaven from residents of hell. Would Mr. Ward include in his doctrine of inclusiveness practicing adulterers (who, along with all other unrepentant sinners, are listed as people who have no hope of attaining heaven)? How about murderers, thieves and liars? They are on God's exclusionary list, too. It is too late for the Methodist Church (as with Episcopalians and their heretical brethren). All of the "confessing" movements and attempts to turn things around are unlikely to succeed. Once a denomination starts down the road of compromise, caring more about what the world thinks than what God requires, it is nearly impossible to bring it back. Only Southern Baptists in modern times have succeeded in reversing a liberal trend, but not without a bruising fight. The only course for people who still care what God thinks is to follow the instructions of Paul the Apostle: "Come out from among them and be separate." John Wesley believed in absolutes that those who claim him as their spiritual ancestor have abandoned. He wrote: "But the Christian rule of right and wrong is the word of God, the writings of the Old and New Testament; all that the Prophets and 'holy men of old' wrote 'as they were moved by the Holy Ghost'; all that Scripture which was given by inspiration of God, and which is indeed profitable for doctrine, or teaching the whole will of God; for reproof of what is contrary thereto; for correction of error; and for instruction, or training us up, in righteousness." (A reference to 2 Timothy 3:16.) Miss Dammann isn't the first lesbian ordained in the Methodist Church, but she should be the last tolerated by church members faithful to something higher than the shifting winds of cultural change. At the Methodist Church trial, a majority of jurors failed their God and Methodism's founder. They have lost their authority to speak for God or to man on God's behalf. Methodists would be well advised to seek a denomination where God and not man is the supreme authority. Cal Thomas is a nationally syndicated columnist.

By Michael J. McManus Ethics & Religion This week the Senate began debating re-authorization of Welfare Reform that includes a "Healthy Marriage Initiative" to increase the percentage of couples who marry - and enjoy healthy marriages. The House passed its version of the bill a year ago. Only 54 percent of adults are married today and half of new marriages end in divorce. When Welfare Reform was passed by Congress in 1996, it was denounced by Sen. Pat Moynihan as "the most brutal act of social policy since Reconstruction." Marion Wright Edelman of the Children's Defense Fund, called the law "an outrage...that will hurt and impoverish millions of American children." However, Welfare Reform has been spectacularly successful at two levels. First, welfare rolls have plunged by 60 percent, as welfare recipients were required to go to work and day care was provided for their children. Even during the recession, when experts predicted that welfare rolls would grow again - they continued to fall. Second, the poverty rate has fallen. In 1996, 40 percent of black and Hispanic children were poor. In 2002, the percent fell to 31.5 among blacks and 28.6 of Hispanic kids. And the percentage of single mothers in poverty fell from 50.3 to 39.8. People earn more working than on welfare. On the other hand, welfare reform had no impact on out-of-wedlock births, which grew from 1.26 million to 1.35 million children. A third of all births are now to unwed parents. Therefore, President Bush proposed a "Healthy Marriage Initiative" to reform Welfare Reform that would earmark $120 million a year of federal grants to promote marriage education and another $120 million a year if states put up $120 million. "The President feels strongly...about the need to increase the number of children who are growing up in healthy, married households. They do far better than on every measure of child welfare compared to children growing up in unmarried households," said HHS Assistant Secretary Wade Horn at a press conference Wednesday. Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback provided evidence: "Children growing up without fathers are five times more likely to be in poverty, are two to three times more likely to suffer from emotional and behavior problems as teenagers and to drop out of school. They are more likely to commit crime, engage in early promiscuous behavior and substance abuse. "By contrast, marriage is a good way out of poverty. It would lift 70 percent of those in poverty out of it if two people are working in a family rather than one." How marriageable are the poor, and are they even considering marriage? "Fragile Families" research of 4,700 new and unwed parents in inner cities found that at the birth of the child, half are living together, and another quarter are romantically involved. Furthermore, the fathers are much more "marriageable" than has been thought. Some 82 percent are employed and earn $17,500 on average. Two-thirds have at least a high school education. Only 2 percent had hit or slapped the mother. And most important, four out of five of mothers and fathers are considering marriage. But a year after the child's birth only 15 percent are married. The Healthy Marriage Initiative would provide funds to help those couples improve their skills of conflict resolution so they might actually marry - and be equipped to build a healthy marriage. Those skills can be taught by mentor couples in churches for free. But for the non-religious, counselors would be paid. "The need is clear," observed Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. "For every $1,000 we spend on public programs addressing the breakdown of the family, we only spend $1 trying to prevent that breakdown in the first place. The President's initiative puts the emphasis in the right place - prevention." The funds can also be used to help those in the middle class build, enrich and restore marriages. This is a way to prevent families from falling into poverty. However, passage of welfare reform with the Healthy Marriage Initiative ground to a halt Thursday when Republican leaders were unable to get 60 votes to cut off debate. Democrats who opposed the bill in 1996 oppose this bill too. However, they know if they were recorded as voting against a bill to strengthen marriage, that would not look good. So they filibustered. It is tragic that partisanship kills this bill that could lift millions out of poverty. END TXT. Copyright 2004 Michael J. McManus

Rift in church growing Some Episcopalians want a new bishop By ANNE RUDERMAN Monitor staff April 04. 2004 7:03PM Conservatives don't want to recognize Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop, as their leader. ROCHESTER - Conservative New Hampshire Episcopalians who opposed the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson said yesterday they would like to be reorganized under the jurisdiction of a more orthodox bishop from another diocese or even another country - so they could remain a part of the church without recognizing Robinson as their leader. "We haven't left the church. We're still part of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire, and that's the problem," said Lisa Ball, a vestry member of the Church of the Redeemer in Rochester. "We don't want to follow Gene Robinson." Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in church history, has been at the center of international controversy since New Hampshire Episcopalians first nominated him last summer. Since then, conservative parishes around the country have wrestled with how to respond. Yesterday's 75-person meeting in Rochester marked the first gathering of the New Hampshire cluster of the Anglican Communion Network, a national orthodox organization started in January in response to Robinson's appointment. A grassroots effort, the Network functions as a shadow organization to the Episcopal structure, coordinating parishes and individual Episcopalians who feel the church has strayed too far from the dictates of Scripture. "We're raising the voice of loyal Episcopalians throughout the state of New Hampshire who have had no opportunity to voice their dissent in the diocese," said the Rev. William Murdoch, rector of the All Saints' Episcopal Church in Massachusetts and head of the New England chapter of the Network. Although the Network is a new organization, it is very closely aligned with the American Anglican Council, an established conservative group within the Episcopal church. Members said they hoped the international church organization will allow them to circumvent Robinson and choose a bishop from another place, like New York, Canada or even somewhere in Africa or Latin America, to be their leader. That solution - which would be unprecedented - was first proposed among conservative bishops in March but was voted down during a national bishops meeting. Robinson said yesterday he was against the idea of organizing bishops on ideology and not geography because it would reverse the entire history of Anglican Communion organization. Plus, he said, it would be entirely impractical. "It begins to be completely chaotic to try to organize completely under ideology," he said. Robinson said he is willing to offer conservative parishes like-minded bishops for counseling and leadership. But in the end, he is still in charge. "I'm willing to do all kinds of things to provide the pastoral care they think they need, including letting another bishop come in, but he won't have jurisdiction over that congregation," Robinson said. Some conservative church members have already started voting with their feet. A southern New Hampshire contingent has already split off from several Episcopal churches to form the Seacoast Missionary Fellowship, and the Church of the Redeemer in Rochester has come out publicly against Robinson. "We thought there was no way Scripture and the vote for Gene could be reconciled, and we thought scriptural authority was more important than this new doctrine of inclusiveness," said Joel Hansford, 41, who now belongs to the Seacoast Missionary Fellowship. The conservative wing of the Episcopalian church objects to Robinson on the grounds that he is divorced and openly gay, living with his longtime partner Mark Andrew. Conservative parishioners say they accept gay members in their churches but consider homosexuality a sin that demands repentance. "The problem is we hold our spiritual leaders to a higher plateau," said Richard Ellwood. "We expect them to admit their sins, rather than flaunt them." Still, church leaders yesterday said it was not the Network's intention to split with the Episcopal Church over Robinson. "The language of leaving the Episcopal Church is not what this is about," Murdoch said. But some parishioners, like Les Hanscom, 66, weren't as sure. He said he thought it would be best for conservative Episcopalians to split from the Episcopal Church altogether. "This is something most people here never thought they'd be included in; it's a minor revolution," said Hanscom, a member of the Seacoast Missionary Fellowship. "You didn't think there'd be conflict in the church." Rochester's Church of the Redeemer has been an epicenter of that conflict. Parishioners there have made a point of their opposition to the bishop, even though the church itself hasn't made a formal split. Robinson plans to meet with the church's vestry, or board of directors, tomorrow night to discuss how they might patch up relations. "I'm going to sit down with the people of the parish of Rochester, and we're going to talk about how we can live with one another," he said. "In dealing with parishes like Rochester, we'll bend over backwards to give them the care they need." But if Episcopalians at yesterday's meeting were confident of one thing, it was that there are a lot more like-minded parishioners out there who haven't yet had the courage to voice their dissent. "There are many people and parishes in New Hampshire that are scared to stand up and do what we're doing," Ball of Redeemer Church said. END

By Jay Tokasz News Staff Reporter The Buffalo News 4/2/2004 The Episcopal Diocese of Western New York is facing a major budget deficit caused in part by the withdrawal of more than $100,000 in pledges from parishes that disagree with the confirmation last summer of a gay bishop. At least five parishes are withholding most of their "fair share" gifts to the diocese in 2004 because of the national church's confirmation of the Rev. V. Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire. An additional 22 parishes - out of 63 in the diocese - have yet to submit a pledge or have pledged less than the diocese requested. The total revenue deficit - including shortfalls stemming from other reasons - is more than $200,000 in a budget of about $1.1 million, said Bishop J. Michael Garrison. The bishop cited a combination of economic difficulty within many parishes and a "significant amount of protest" over the approval of a gay bishop. The shortfall will lead to the imminent layoffs of the equivalent of two full-time diocesan employees, and reductions in part-time staff, he said. The layoffs could come within a few weeks, he said. The diocese currently employs 11 people in its offices on Delaware Avenue and five field staffers. The Episcopal Church USA affirmed Robinson, who is openly gay and involved in a long-term relationship with another man, at its general convention last August. Garrison was among a majority of bishops nationwide who voted to confirm Robinson. The confirmation shocked and outraged church members who view it as an affront to Scripture and historical church teaching, and bishops across the country are now struggling to mend fences with many parishioners. Garrison said he was saddened by the stance of the five parishes in Western New York: St. Stephen's in Niagara Falls, St. Bartholomew's in the Town of Tonawanda, St. Michael and All Angels in Buffalo, St. Mary's in Salamanca and St. Mark's in Orchard Park. In a column he wrote for the diocesan newspaper, Church Acts, he chided the parishes for their "childish act" and urged them to reconsider. Garrison also sent strongly worded letters warning the parishes that they could be designated "dependent" and "delinquent" for their failure to support the diocese. Those designations would mean the loss of autonomy in making decisions such as who serves as clergy. The diocese currently operates on an annual "fair share" pledge system. Each year, it requests a gift of about 15 percent of a parish's revenues averaged over three years. St. Bartholomew's, for example, had average revenues of $436,849 for the last three years. The diocese's fair share was set at $67,565 for 2004. Last fall, the St. Bartholomew's vestry, a council of 11 members that governs church finances, voted to hand over only a small percentage of that amount. "We didn't believe that the national church was headed in the right direction," said James Glownia, senior warden for the parish. "It was the only thing we could really do to protest against it, so to speak." Glownia said giving at the church actually has increased since the vestry voted not to send the money to the diocese. The gifts are being passed on instead to six local Christian ministries and to the American Anglican Council, a national network of parishes and individuals opposed to Robinson's confirmation. The Diocese of Western New York is one of a few in the country that do not have required assessments on its parishes, and Garrison has proposed amending the diocesan canons to make the "fair share" mandatory. Such a change would have to be approved by a vote of the Diocesan Convention, which meets this fall. Garrison said he would work to mend the gap between the diocese and those parishes that have publicly disagreed with him on the Robinson vote. But clergy from those parishes said the bishop's stance on finances does not seem conciliatory. "As far as I'm concerned, money should never be the basis for our union," said the Rev. Arthur W. Ward Jr., rector of St. Bartholomew's. The vestry of St. Stephen's in Niagara Falls also voted to redirect the parish's giving to other ministries. The Rev. Richard Molison, rector, worries that the diocese will try to recoup fair share giving from the first quarter of 2004 - money that already has been spent elsewhere. "The people have a right to choose how they want their money spent," he said. "How can we now go back to our parishioners and violate the ethical contract we've entered into with them?" Acknowledging discontent by some parishes, Garrison said most congregations had put the vote last summer behind them. "As I go around the diocese," he said, "in most places, it's water under the bridge." END

A Contra Perspective By David Thorman I do not intend this to be an argumentative response to Bob Seitz's case study, but I had to add a few things from where I sit. I am friends with people on both sides of the current issues at Grace Episcopal Church in Tampa, Florida. I hope by writing this I have not offended any of them. That is not my intention. As a point of clarification, My wife and I are individual members of the AAC. I was the first of the speakers at the March Vestry meeting where the resolution to join the AAC was defeated in a 6-6 tie. I was and am still in favor of the resolution which would have made our Parish a confessing member of the AAC. Bob Seitz and I are on the same side of this issue, although I am not as well spoken or well read as he. I have remained at Grace where some of my closest friends and brothers in Christ have left. I have been offered and accepted one of the vacated Vestry seats. I see the Episcopal world through different eyes than most of my counterparts in this debate. I was raised Jewish and brought to Christ at Grace just over 3 years ago. It was through the efforts of a loving Rector and the Alpha course that I gave my life to Christ. To both Father Bob Cain and Nicky Gumbel, and others, I owe my salvation and my heartfelt thanks. These teachings molded me into what I now see to be an Anglican, as I can find little similarity between what I was taught and the current position and beliefs of many ECUSA leaders. I know with all my heart and all my soul, that in the darkest moment of my life, God led me to Grace, and there he saved me from myself. Most of the people who ended up fighting for the resolution to make our Parish a confessing member of the AAC were happy members of the blissfully unaware until the events of the General Convention of last year. I too, was oblivious to the actions and beliefs of the leadership of ECUSA before that meeting. I was too busy running the High School Youth Group, singing in the choir, and attending Basic Anglican Discipleship classes in anticipation of my confirmation in a few weeks. What the untrained eye saw as these events developed was a small group of people meeting in private homes, although their purpose was unknown at the time. Secret whispers in private after services on Sunday. These meetings seemed to be almost dubious until I did what most of the congregation at Grace did not do, I showed up at one. I found a group of passionate and caring individuals truly concerned about the future of our church and more importantly the faith family we had come to love. Recently elevated to parish status, and currently starting the search for a new Rector, Grace hardly needed another issue to contend with, but the decision of the General Convention demanded action among some of our congregation. Even after numerous pleas from the retiring Rector to wait until the new Rector was found to address this issue, this group pressed on with getting this resolution before the Vestry to be decided. It was only recently that the urgency of this decision seemed to cool in my mind. We were in such a rush to make a statement, to help the AAC to cause reform in ECUSA that we didn't recognize what I see as two crucial things. If the AAC which was formed in 1995 to give a voice to the members who spoke for orthodoxy and realignment had not in 9 years been successful in stopping the events of General Convention, what made us think that in less than 5 months we could energize the apathetic masses to this cause and get this vote passed in our own Vestry? The only people showing up for the discussions were those who had clearly made a stand, not the people who needed to be informed of the issues and what they meant on a local level. The level of urgency created by this small group led to many unfortunate confrontations and misunderstandings. So although my own common sense said, get the resolution passed now so that an incoming Rector has a clear idea of what we expect, further reflection revealed that this would not be prudent. By slamming this through we would be creating a divide now, during a transitional period, and most likely a divide again later as well when a new Rector is chosen. If we are truly worried about what type of rector will be called to Grace I think we need not worry. If nothing else good came out of the General Convention decisions, now there is a over abundance of orthodox or conservative clergy who no longer feel as at ease serving under their revisionist leadership and seek to be in a more welcoming fold like the one we enjoy here in Southwest Florida. I would venture to guess that our new Rector, whoever he (or she) may be, will be well suited to our flock. Overall I am saddened most by the behavior on both sides. During numerous group meetings to discuss issues in an open and loving atmosphere, anyone sharing an unpopular viewpoint was subject to crowd murmur, snickering and childish gasps of amazement. Misspoken words, statistics based on fantasy, misinterpreted meaning and an emailing frenzy, which I must admit I helped fuel, full of insinuation, anger and frustration an fear further diluted the core issue into an annoyance to the general population of the church. At the Vestry meeting itself I am convinced, unfortunately, that at least one vote was swayed by the inappropriate behavior in the gallery. How sad to get so close to resolving something powerful, and falling short due to emotional outburst. I don't know which is sadder, the discontent in the gallery or the inability of the Vestry to vote on the actual issue. Either way our runaway emotions diluted the purpose we all were so passionate about. Did the Vestry truly vote in support of the revisionists that night? In my opinion, no. I have had numerous dialogues with some of the Vestry members since that night and I believe that if the vote were on the true issue, Biblical authority, not muddied by politics and bullying, and threats of departure if the vote doesn't go one way or the other, that it would have been close to unanimously in favor of the resolution. The only winner here was Satan, who managed to twist the passion of believers into anger and outrage. He managed to use the apathy of the masses to limit dialogue to a few excited individuals and swayed the debate off of the true issue and into the mire of emotional confusion and anger. A small group of concerned, faithful believers that would have been hard pressed to imagine leaving Grace five months ago, did exactly that. A few weeks have passed now, and Grace has returned to that quiet, peaceful place it once was, almost as if the debate had never existed. I don't know if I am happy or sad about that. The day after the vote I found myself reading the current issue of ENCOMPASS, the AAC newsletter where I was struck by the letter from AAC President the Rev. Canon David C. Anderson. In it he wrote, "I implore you: Do not leave your churches, do not give up; do not lose heart. Rather, take heart in the sure and certain knowledge that God will not leave us nor forsake us, if we faithfully seek his presence. Stand firm on and for your faith and await the joy of the Resurrection!" David Thorman attends Grace Episcopal Church Tampa, Florida. He has been a Christian for 3 years and spends his spare time trying to make up for lost time reading scripture and attending theology classes.

Four decades of incremental erosion of Christian faith and morals in the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC) and the Episcopal Church in USA (ECUSA) became evident in 2003 with the consecration to the episcopate of a non-celibate homosexual in New Hampshire and the approval of same-sex blessings (SSB) in New Westminster. An emergency meeting of the Primates called by the Archbishop of Canterbury to deal with this crisis issued a statement requiring the ACC and ECUSA, in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates, to provide for adequate alternative episcopal oversight (AEO) for dissenting minorites unable to accept this innovation. A request by the churches of the Anglican Communion in New Westminster to the Primate of Canada to permit immediate temporary AEO pending the outcome of the Eames Commission was ignored by Archbishop Peers. The Archbishop of Canterbury acknowledged the appeal but has not intervened. The following is a critique by members of the Anglican Communion in Canada (ACiC) of the report of the Canadian Primate's Task Force for the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada concerning Adequate/Alternative Episcopal Oversight for Dissenting Minorities, published on 3rd March 2004. Numbers in brackets refer to points in the report. The Report Legitimizes Local Option for False Teaching and Practice (6.1). This is an unacceptable way for a Province to move forward theologically. The Book of Judges is critical of the situation where "everyone did what was right in his own eyes". To abrogate responsibility as a National Synod to the level of Diocesan synods is a misuse of the principle of subsidiarity. Bp M Ingham's unilateral action in approving the blessing of same-sex unions is given legitimacy. Conservatives are expected to stay in communion, albeit in a form of parallel jurisdiction with a Bishop who has violated the Lambeth Quadrilateral. This is an attempt to add sticking plaster to the wounds created by decades of liberal theology. Parallel jurisdiction is unacceptable as it authorizes what scripture regards as sinful. Replacement jurisdiction is the only way forward. The Report falsely assumes that this is an issue over which Christians can agree to disagree and that the unity of the Church is more important than truth. There is no hint of discipline by the ACC of Bp M Ingham or his wayward Synod. The Report acknowledges a breach in Communion but sees this as something time can heal. (4.1). AEO receives only grudging acceptance and is seen as a last resort to prevent schism. The majority of those consulted "believe that AEO must be interim in nature" Is this what the Primates envisaged in London? (4.2). "AEO must be temporary in nature since to institutionalize it would de facto institutionalize schism". If provision is only to be temporary, how does this honour those of us who see this issue as one which is, in the words of (5.3), "so serious that it can place one's salvation in jeopardy"? It is assumed that over the next six years orthodox parishes will get used to the new reality and cease their protest. (5.5). The Report acknowledges that the division is so strong that "healing and reconciliation can be served best by the implementation of AEO." There is no recognition that reconciliation is contingent on repentance. Having acknowledged that for conservative Christians this is a salvation issue the report assumes it can be overcome and unity maintained despite permitting SSB's. There is no admission that the minority position in Canada is the official position of the Anglican Communion, nor that the approval of Local Option in Canada would lead to a breach in communion with the majority of Anglicans world-wide. Another assumption is that the Canadian conservative Bishops will remain in a collegial relationship with revisionist Bishops without addressing the biblical understanding of koinonia or how to proceed while Bishops are in broken communion with one another over this issue. The Report Offers 3 Models of AEO Model 1 assumes that General Synod approves local option at diocesan level. Model 2 assumes New Westminster continues with local option regardless of General Synod rejecting it. (6.1). "The task Force sees the way forward in the voluntary agreement of the bishops to some temporary ceding of jurisdiction. All of the models are premised on this "generosity of spirit. Is it enough for conservative clergy and congregations that the agreement is both voluntary and temporary when the process to date has not been characterized by generosity of spirit? We are not convinced that this is what was in the minds of the Primates when they met in London in October 2003. (6.4.1 & 6.5.3) These paragraphs make it clear that under Model 3, which it acknowledges is not AEO, the Diocesan Bishop may make "informal arrangements with a retired bishop or a bishop of an adjacent diocese to care for the needs of dissenting or distressed parishes". The danger with this model is that it allows a Revisionist Diocesan Bishop to control the process. This is not what the Primates envisaged and is similar to the ECUSA proposal of Supplemental Pastoral Care. Power is Consolidated in the Hands of Revisionist Metropolitans (6.2.1 ) Dissenting and distressed parishes are to be placed in Trust by the Diocesan Bishop and delivered into the hands of a Metropolitan. This is a worrying trend and new to Canada: that the Metropolitans are accruing power to themselves. We see this as a denial of the clear intent of the Primates from October 2003. AEO Bishops are nominated by the Metropolitans. The parishes have no say in the appointment of their bishop. The AEO bishop is designated as Episcopal Assistant to the Metropolitan This is to be done regardless of the theological position of the Metropolitan at large and his or her stand on the blessing of same-sex unions (SSU's). Dissident parishes could find themselves still inextricably linked to members of a hierarchy who accept the blessing of SSU's. Orthodox Parishes Must Continue to Contribute Financially to Revisionist Dioceses (6.6.4) The AEO parishes' apportionment is payable to the AEO bishop's office. However, there is still a link with the liberal Diocesan Bishop in that an agreed amount of the parish apportionment finds its way back into the local diocesan coffers. AEO parishes sacrifice their vote as to how that money is to be spent. This is taxation without representation. (6.6.5). Some of these funds will continue to finance the Provincial and General Synods. It is unconscionable for orthodox parishes to have to finance heretical institutions. (6.6.9). Property and buildings remain held in trust by the liberal Diocese on a nominal rent. AEO parishes remain subject to the revisionist Diocese's canons and regulations (including property canons) unless an agreement can be reached as to the suspension of those canons and regulations. True AEO should provide for the AEO parishes to be subject to the canons of the AEO bishop's Diocese, not those of the bishop with whom they are no longer in communion. There seems to be a strong attempt by the Bishops to keep their power base and not to see parochial or Diocesan boundaries transgressed. Orthodox Parishes Remain Vulnerable The actual nature of AEO with jurisdiction is never really explained. eg. Can they appoint new conservative priests to parishes without consulting the Diocesan? Under whose license? Can they ordain conservatives from Regent and Wycliffe without the insistence on attendance at a liberal college as well, as is required in the Diocese of New Westminster at the moment There is no provision for the selection, mentoring, formation and ordination of new clergy. Without this, orthodox clergy will be eliminated by attrition. That which is not explained in detail is open to Revisionist interpretation and the spirit of AEO from the Primates meeting of 'adequate to the dissenting parish' will be lost. (6.2.2) "The appointment of an AEO bishop must be temporary, we suggest that the appointment be for a six month term, renewable but not exceeding six years, with a review every two years". Every six months a conservative parish must vote by an unprecedented majority of 80% of those present at a meeting (see 6.6.3) to accept AEO. There is no continuity of care in this arrangement. Presumably, only a simple majority is required for a parish to perform SSB's. (6.6.7) The Diocese would be able to have a representative for every 5 parishes on the AEO Council. This would inevitably stifle the openness of AEO Council meetings as presumably a report of the proceedings would go directly to the Revisionist Diocesan. The Great Commission is Violated (6.5.1) While receiving AEO a parish agrees not to Church Plant. This means that for six years, and possibly thereafter, unless revisited by the HOB, no Church Planting can be undertaken by orthodox parishes. How can a conservative parish agree to this and yet remain true to Matthew 28? The local church is the basic unit of ministry. Only by planting new churches will the Church at large, and the Anglican expression of this, be able to reach an unchurched generation with the gospel. Conclusion We understand temporary adequate alternative episcopal oversight to mean: "temporary" is as long as necessary. (i.e. until either the Diocese of New Westminster and the ACC repent OR are evicted from the Anglican Communion, accompanied by the establishment of a Replacement Jurisdiction.) "adequate" is to be defined by those receiving it. "alternative" entails no juridical or institutional connection with apostate bishops. Episcopal oversight requires full jurisdiction. The offer from the International Primates meets these criteria. The Task Force report does not. It is for these reasons that members of the ACiC thank God for the provision of Temporary Adequate Episcopal Oversight (TAEO) that has allowed them to leave the ACC while remaining connected with the vast majority of Anglicans throughout the world. We ask for TAEO to be made permanent as soon as is it is evident that the ACC has no intention of re-affirming the historical Christian Faith. END

Special Report By David W. Virtue Five orthodox priests and a deacon in the Diocese of New Westminster resigned from the Diocese late last week over Bishop Michael Ingham's approval of same-sex unions and his support of the consecration of gay American Episcopal bishop V. Gene Robinson. Yesterday the five parish priests woke up and got on with their collective ministry despite the fact that the revisionist bishop now regards the priests as having left his diocese and the Anglican Church of Canada and says their properties belong to the diocese. The priests involved are the Rev. Barclay Mayo, rector of St. Andrews, Pender Harbour, the Rev. Silas Ng, rector of the Church of Emmanuel, Richmond, the Rev. Ed Hird, rector of St. Simon's, North Vancouver, and the Rev. Paul Carter, a priest on leave from the diocese. Four of the priests stated in letters to Bishop Ingham that they have left the Anglican Church of Canada, and now consider themselves missionaries in North America under the ecclesiastical authority of the Archbishop of Rwanda, Emmanuel Kolini. "We have not joined the Anglican Mission in America, despite what Ingham has written," said spokesperson Paul Carter. "We have formed the Anglican Communion in Canada (ACiC)," said Carter. "We have accepted the offer from the Primates of the Provinces of Congo, Central Africa, Rwanda and South East Asia of temporary Adequate Episcopal Oversight made available to the clergy and congregations of New Westminster, and to other Canadian clergy and congregations who seek such covering," said Carter. This included temporary Adequate Episcopal Oversight, as contemplated by the Primates Meeting of October 2003 offered in consultation with the Primates and the Archbishop of Canterbury. "Our administrative head is missionary Bishop T. J. Johnson of the Diocese of Rwanda who is also a bishop with the Anglican Mission in America," Said Carter. The bishop no longer considers the priests in good standing, but the wardens and the vast majority of the parishioners are solidly behind their priests, Virtuosity was told by phone late last night. In a letter to the Bishop the Rev. Ed Hird said, "I am writing to inform you that I have accepted the offer of Temporary Adequate Episcopal Oversight from the Primates of SE Asia; Congo; Rwanda; Central Africa and Kenya. I am now canonically resident in the Province of Rwanda. The Primates have invited Bishop TJ Johnston from Little Rock Arkansas to act on their behalf as my Bishop. I have now come under his authority." "As I have left the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC) terminating all my benefits, I would be most grateful if you could instruct your Diocesan Officers to close my file and return any documents to the address above." Hird then blasted the bishop saying, "your leadership and the decisions and actions of the Synod of the Diocese of New Westminster in relation to the issue of the blessing of same-sex unions, coupled with your own open support of and participation in the Consecration of a practising homosexual for the office of Bishop in the Anglican Communion, have regrettably brought the congregation of the Anglican Parish of St. Simon's Deep Cove to the place where a very difficult decision has become necessary." Bishop Ingham said that the parishes served by three of the priests remain parishes of the Anglican Church in the Lower Mainland, and those parishioners who wish to remain Anglicans in the Canadian Church will be provided with pastoral care, he said in an official diocesan statement. "While a parting of the ways is always sad, I am glad that they have finally clarified the situation and made it clear they are leaving the Anglican Church of Canada of their own volition," said the bishop. "I have been trying unsuccessfully to obtain clarification for the last two years," he added. The orthodox rectors maintain that the Bishop and Diocesan leadership have willfully and unrepentantly disobeyed Article 1 of the Constitution of the Synod of the Diocese of New Westminster, in that they no longer hold and maintain the Doctrine of Christ as the Lord has commanded and the Anglican Church has received them, and have changed, without the authority or approval of the Anglican Church of Canada and the formularies of the church. "Bishop Michael Ingham has not guarded the faith of the church, and has therefore set aside his ordination and consecration vows," said Carter. The four parishes have hired the lawyer who won the Trinity Western University case involving the accreditation of their four year teachers. END