Archives

David Williamson The Western Mail May 8, 2004 Former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey yesterday warned that unless Britain reclaimed its spiritual heritage the challenge of terrorism would plunge the nation into despair and cynicism. Speaking yesterday at his home on Gower he said, "I think we have got to pay attention to the very dangerous world we live in where terrorism is now a reality of our times. "This is not the fault of ordinary Muslims but Islam is being used by very evil people to do a great deal of damage. "I think the real challenge is to be rooted in these universal values that make life worth living and work honourable. To reconnect with that great story of what Christ has done for us is the only antidote to despair and cynicism." Lord Carey is today in Llandrindod Wells where he will deliver an address on the theme Mastery and Mystery: The Power of the Bible in the Church and the Individual. His concern at the way in which Islam has been manipulated by extremists was echoed yesterday by Sheikh Said Ismail, imam of the South Wales Islamic Centre. He said, "We are against all these killings. We can understand why it is being done but that still doesn't make it lawful. Muslims should be people who are merciful and reasonable and compassionate. Then you have the people who interpret things differently and the people who are egging them on and are exploiting the name of Islam. "God is not pleased when you kill his children." Within the Welsh Muslim community, he said, there was great frustration that the violence of a few had damaged the reputation of the many. "Instead of people loving us they have got further away from us," he said. "These are the things which are hurting us very much inside." Lord Carey will call on the church in Britain to bring the study and the appreciation of the Bible back into the heart of its corporate life. He compared the lacklustre preaching in many churches with the fervency with which Muslims cherished the Koran. He said, "[They] have a great devotion to the Koran and study it avidly. That used to be the situation here." Sheikh Said described the central place the Koran still held in a Muslim's life. "We have to pray five times a day so it's a connection with God five times a day," he said. "We are never out of the vicinity of God." At the conference, organised by the Evangelical Fellowship in the Church in Wales, Lord Carey will examine the causes of "the decline in Bible knowledge" and suggest ways forward. He said, "I'll offer some reasons for this and go on to talk about the failure of the church to make the Bible central to our liturgy and preaching today. "I want to explore that and give some examples of the richness of the Bible and how we may be encouraged to return with a greater commitment and a deeper devotion." Lord Carey said the writings contained in the Bible had been "the backbone of British culture since the Reformation" and had inspired some of the greatest storytelling of the 20th century. "Lord of the Rings was written by a profoundly Christian man," he said. "You can't really understand Lord of the Rings without understanding the world of evil and good upon which it draws." The success of The Passion of The Christ, he suggested, showed the continuing power of religious stories in the present day. "I've been quite reluctant to see The Passion because it focuses too much on the physical sufferings of Christ ... but it's amazed me, the interest it's created around the world. "In Qatar, the Emir has allowed The Passion to be shown for one month. Of course, Muslims have a great admiration for Jesus Christ." Lord Carey hopes people will take the opportunity to discover the Bible for themselves. The number attending weekly services has dropped sharply in recent decades, but he suggested that people today had a chance to read its stories with a freshness other generations might not have enjoyed. "There's still a very deep interest in Jesus Christ as a person," he said. "Perhaps the chasm that's opened up between the knowledge of the Bible and popular culture has given many people a fresh opportunity to look at it in a fresh way outside the church stronghold."

By Rev. Leander S. Harding, Ph.D. The current debate in the church about homosexuality is often presented as an issue of justice. Clearly the church should be on the side of respect for individual civil rights and upholding the innate dignity of all human beings as made in the image of God. Often this discussion is focused solely on the rights of adults to free expression and to have equal access to the goods of society and to the goods of the church including the controversial issue of access to the sacramental rites of Holy Orders and Holy Matrimony. In these discussions, the issue of the origins of same sex attraction is often bracketed. It is argued that it matters little whether same sex attraction comes from nature or nurture if homosexual orientation is experienced as a fixed and defining element of an individual's identity. The justice issue that presents itself is how to treat this identity group with equity. But there is another justice issue which presents itself and will be easy to miss in a society that routinely overlooks the suffering of its children. For this issue the origins of same sex attraction cannot be bracketed but must be vigorously investigated. This is the issue of doing justice to the suffering of little children. A number of clinicians who work with homosexual clients believe that painful interactions in very early childhood between the child and the parents of both the same and opposite sex contribute to homosexual development. They also believe that for some children experiences of sexual abuse by older children and adults may also be a factor. If these observations are at all credible, and vigorous investigation can in principle corroborate these clinical observations, the church should be very wary of saying explicitly or implicitly by its actions that homosexual orientation comes from God or nature when in fact it may come in no small degree from the experience of suffering in childhood. Children may suffer as a result of intentional abuse or neglect. Children may also suffer as a result of the unintentional and inadvertent actions of their parents. Children are very resilient. They can recover from many of the challenges and difficulties they encounter in life. Keen observers of children know what many therapists know and what many who work for justice know; that the beginning of justice, reconciliation and healing is the willingness to witness to the truth. This can be something which both victims and victimizers resist and all the more so when witnessing to the truth requires us to confront the unintentional harm we do our children. The church should suspect the agenda of any ideology or theology which pronounces, with little evidence and in such a way as to discourage further investigation, that the cause of homosexual orientation is nature or God (or some other code word for Fate) as being in the interests of a society which routinely overlooks the suffering of its children and desires to spare the feelings of parents at all costs. Such ideas should be suspect as ideological blinders to the truth of the suffering of little children and should be subjected to the most rigorous testing. It is a matter of justice. Dr Leander is an Episcopal parish priest in the Diocese of Connecticut who holds a Ph.D. from the Institute For Religious Education And Pastoral Ministry at Boston College. His doctoral research was on the theology and psychology of childhood and he regularly writes about the relationship between theology and psychology.

To: The Clergy of the Diocese of Alabama A Statement and Pastoral Direction by the Bishop of Alabama May 5, Eastertide 2004 On April 20 I was advised that the vestry of one of our parishes voted on April 19 to join the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes. This decision was taken in spite of my clear and public counsel that I did not support the work of the Network and would not support their joining it. In my judgement the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes is a divisive organization outside the canonical structures of the Episcopal Church, the charter of which is undermining of the good order and mission of this church. There are several reasons for this judgment, as follows: The Network charter states that it will "operate within the Constitution of the Episcopal Church," a statement that conspicuously omits reference to the Canons. The Canons enable the Constitution and are essential for the good order of the church. Its charter also seeks to appeal directly to the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury and of other Anglican provinces, rather than the Episcopal Church. This is not in keeping with historic Anglican polity. The Network charter further states that the congregations within it "shall come under the spiritual authority of a bishop approved by the Steering Committee [of the Network]." This is a violation of the Constitution and Canons of our church, as well as the repeated resolutions of the Lambeth Conference supporting the geographical boundaries of dioceses, each under one bishop, in the Anglican Communion. The theological statement of the Network, "Confession and Calling of the Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes," is of a confessional nature foreign to Anglican tradition and beyond the scope of the Book of Common Prayer and its adherence to the historic Creeds and doctrine of the Church. Its Charter states that "all assets, of every kind and nature, held by the Network are and shall be dedicated and inured to the benefit' of the Network. This has the effect of diverting finds from the Episcopal Church and could potentially be interpreted to alienate property, contrary to the Canons of this church. A letter written by the Rev. Geoff Chapman of Sewickley, PA about the emerging strategy of the Network reveals its plans to undermine and attempt to supplant the Episcopal Church with "a 'replacement' jurisdiction with confessional standards." This letter has not been officially disclaimed by the network leadership, even though there has been adequate opportunity for them to do so. Many of the essential points of Chapman's letter are reflected in the charter. I have no choice but to believe that it accurately describes the Network's intentions. The Network consistently exhibits a disturbing pattern of secrecy that is in conflict with the great tradition of our church, which is committed to face to face, prayerful discussion of the tough issues of Christian faith and life. As you can see, the above concerns have serious implications, which must be addressed. The resolution passed by the vestry does affirm that they continue to submit our parish to the canonical authority of the Bishop of the Diocese of Alabama and to engage our parish as an active member of our diocese. This is an encouraging word and I acknowledge the vestry's good intention and faithfulness in stating this. Certainly this commitment is my desire and expectation for every parish in this diocese. Nevertheless some of the implications of the charter of the Network are in troubling conflict with this stated intention. I wish to be clear that I do not welcome or support the work of this Network in the Diocese of Alabama. Neither this diocese nor I have presented any cause for such affiliation by our votes at the General Convention or by the policies and practices of this diocese on matters of human sexuality being debated in this church. We have striven to be faithful to the counsel of the 1998 Lambeth Conference and the established teaching of the church in these matters, and to respect the dignity of all. While I well understand the disagreement within our church over certain actions of the General Convention and support open discussion at all times, I do not believe that the Network is a canonical or helpful response. A special commission appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury is presently addressing these matters. This and the next Lambeth Conference will give us important guidance and significant work is being done in many quarters to address the important theological and moral questions that our church and society are facing. Our Lord promised that the Holy Spirit will teach us all things (John 14:26), and I trust in the time tested structures of the church to help us discern the mind of Christ. In the days to come I will be taking prayerful counsel to seek ways to work with this congregation and its rector and vestry to ensure its health and good order as a parish of this diocese. It is my hope that they will reconsider their decision to join the Network and be an ever more faithful and vital parish in full communion with this diocese. At Clergy Conference I was unexpectedly informed of another parish that has joined the Network without my knowledge. I will be addressing them in a similar way. I ask for your prayers in these efforts. Furthermore as provided in the Canons, I give Pastoral Direction to the rectors of the parishes of the Diocese of Alabama that they are neither to join the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes in their capacity as rector, nor as rector to sign a parish application to affiliate with the Network, and, if they have done so, to remove their signatures thereto. I also direct any priest who may have an inclination to join the Network to speak to me before making any decision or taking any action to do so. Finally, as the Bishop of Alabama I cannot support the decision of any vestry to affiliate with the Network. Please know that I am always available to talk with any and all of you about these important matters. Let us all pray, in the words of our Prayer Book, that our Risen Lord will fill his beloved church with all godly union and concord. Faithfully yours in Christ, Henry N. Parsley Jr.

News Analysis By David W. Virtue A leak from the Lambeth Commission this week suggests that the Anglican Communion must face the inevitability of a formal split because it cannot agree on the rightness or wrongness of homosexual behavior by segments of the Communion, and the fulfillment of the latter in the consecration of an avowed homosexual to the American episcopacy. The unidentified source told Ruth Gledhill of the TIMES that a proposal was on the table to turn the Anglican Communion into an Anglican confederation. What apparently is now on the table is a confederation, modeled along similar lines to the Geneva-based World Lutheran Federation. What this means is that relations between provinces would be freed up, with new loyalties based on differing theological and moral principles. The one unifying principle for both conservative and liberal Anglicans is that they remain in communion with the mother Church of England through the Archbishop of Canterbury. Furthermore, where a national church went too far in embracing modern secular mores, it could be reduced to an observer status or not invited at all to meetings such as the Lambeth Conference, held every ten years. Such a system, the source said, would placate the conservatives who have been demanding disciplinary measures against churches such as those in the United States, which ordained an openly homoerotic bishop, and Canada, where same-sex blessings have been authorized. It would permit provinces effectively to excommunicate each other by refusing to recognize their priests or bishops, but they would remain tied in a loose international Anglican confederation by remaining in communion with Canterbury. Canon lawyers are preparing documents they will present next month in Kanuga, NC to see if the Lutheran model is viable. In a letter sent over the weekend to all the primates and moderators of the Anglican Communion, Dr Robin Eames, the Primate of Ireland, who chairs the Lambeth Commission, pled strongly with conservatives not to split by forming new provinces or dioceses until the commission has completed its work at the end of this year. In a subsequent article by Jonathan Petre of the TELEGRAPH following another leak, or perhaps a continuation of the trial balloon being floated, an all-powerful "star chamber", headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury would be created under proposals to avert the collapse of worldwide Anglicanism over homosexuality. The blueprint drawn up by advisers, would grant Dr Rowan Williams significant new powers, though not enough to transform him into an Anglican "pope". The archbishop would preside over a final court of appeal, allowing him to exercise the "judgment of Solomon" over warring factions in the 77-million strong Church. Now the idea of a federation is not entirely new. A paper drawn up last year by Professor Norman Doe, a commission member and the director of the Centre for Law and Religion at Cardiff University had already suggested that provinces should be prevented from acting unilaterally against the greater good of the communion as a whole. Doe's commission paper argued that when disputes arose, a final appeal could be made to the Archbishop of Canterbury, assisted by a "bench" of senior churchmen and theologians. Any province acting in defiance of the archbishop's judgment could be expelled. So what does all this mean? Clearly, at one level, liberals and revisionists would be the obvious losers in any break up of the Communion. Pansexualist Anglicans have become the most aggrieved group since they aired their feelings at Lambeth '98, and any attempt to discipline them will be met with great resistance. In provinces like the ECUSA and Canada they will demand that they are autonomous with provincial and national canons and constitutions that are not subject to international discipline. On the other hand, Western orthodox Anglicans would see a plus because it would enable them to recognize only these provinces, individual dioceses and parishes that are faithful to the received doctrine and teaching of the church and reject those "pluriform" dioceses that have rolled over to the secularizing forces of post-modernity. Interestingly enough some 21 provinces have already declared themselves to be in impaired or broken communion with Frank Griswold and the American Episcopal Church over the Robinson consecration, and this would be codified, legitimizing what has de facto occurred. Another plus is that the formation of the Network (NACDP), in hindsight a brilliant move by Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan, would be recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury as the authentic voice of Anglicanism in North America, in effect isolating the bulk of ECUSA's bishops who are liberal and revisionist. The Anglican world could then watch as they slowly withered and died with an inclusive "gospel" built on the foundation of diversity and pansexuality. Another plus for the orthodox in the United States and Canada would be the break up of geographical lines and the ease with which bishops and archbishops will be free to cross diocesan lines to minister to those persecuted parishes in revisionist dioceses like the Diocese of Pennsylvania. Some problems will still persist. If there is no uniform canons and constitutions that can be agreed upon by the whole communion, and clearly this is not in the Episcopal Church's best interests because it is run by revisionists who view the glue of the church in terms of monies and properties, then it will require a brave orthodox parish who is prepared to sue his diocese over the validity of the Dennis Canon. The issue of who owns the properties will need to be confronted, and the validity of the Dennis Canon will need to be challenged. One parish, The Church of the Good Shepherd in St. Louis is doing just that in the Diocese of Missouri, and it will be interesting to see how that all plays out both in St. Louis, their State Supreme Court and ultimately the Supreme Court – the Rev. Paul Walter is ready to go to the mat with Bishop Wayne Smith. There is also another problem and it is this. Will the African bishops remain in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury if he still remains in communion with the likes of Frank Griswold? The jury is still out on that, but I wouldn't bet ECUSA's Trust Funds that a merger of pan-African bishops, Southern Cone bishops, South-East Asian bishops, doesn't just up and pull the plug on the Anglican Communion and reject Dr. Williams leadership altogether. Impossible you say? Perhaps, but a realignment is underway that not even Dr. Williams can stop, and the growing momentum by the orthodox in the ECUSA has made it clear that business as usual with ECUSA's revisionists is well and truly over. Both Canon David Anderson of the American Anglican Council and Canon David Roseberry, facilitator of the Plano gatherings, are way beyond arguing with Griswold, their only question is what a future Episcopal Church will look like. Whatever finally emerges from the leak, and the possibility of a new confederation, one thing is for sure, the Anglican Communion is moving closer to the edge of the abyss and unless the revisionists repent of their moral apostasies and theological heresies, then one way or another it is all over for the Anglican Communion.

Church of England Newspaper Evangelical leaders will meet with the Bishop of St Albans next week after about 40 clergy and laity protested against the appointment of Canon Jeffrey John as Dean of St Albans. A number of clergy and parish leaders are talking of quota-capping or of not inviting the Bishop to do confirmations. Canon John's appointment has brought divisions to the diocese which are unlikely to be overcome easily. Philip Lovegrove, chairman of the Diocesan Board of Finance for over 30 years, and a lay canon of the Cathedral, is among those heading the protest. He said that a delegation of five or six leaders meeting the Bishop next week were likely to begin by pressing him on how he can now be a focus for unity in the diocese after making such a controversial appointment. He predicted that while there has been much chat about capping parish share an organised campaign was less likely to development. "Big givers will leave the Church of England or put their collection money to other sources," he said. The statement by the Diocesan Evangelical Fellowship called the appointment "a serious error of judgement." They said: "We are aggrieved that the diocesan bishop, who has also called on people not to take precipitate action, should have agreed to the appointment, thus creating division within the Diocese and the wider Anglican Communion." They also repudiated the statements in support of 'gay unions' by Canon John and the Bishop of St Albans as "wholly erroneous and contrary to scripture, tradition and reason." The open evangelical grouping 'Fulcrum' this week supported the appointment of Canon Jeffrey John this week. While questioning the "insensitive timing" and lack of consultation, Fulcrum promised to pray for him as he took up his new ministry. The group said that the appointment of a Dean and Bishop were different matters. "Dr John's position as a Dean means that those disagreeing with his point of view will not be asked to swear an oath of canonical obedience to him; his role will not be a 'focus of unity'." Fulcrum also welcomed Jeffrey John's commitment to uphold rather than campaign against the church's teaching and to live within its guidelines.

Archbishop Gregory Venables Replies to Frank Griswold May 7, 2004 The Most Revd Frank T. Griswold Presiding Bishop ECUSA Dear Bishop Frank, In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. I write in response to your letter of May 5th. Since it has found its way all over the internet, I am constrained to respond more broadly than just in a personal note. With great respect it must be said that considering what you now write in the light of what you have already done brings to mind the old cliche of Nero fiddling while Rome burns. It's like the doctor telling the grieving family that the operation was a success even though the patient has died. You speak with clarity about your grief over the pain your actions have caused and yet you proceed with your relentless agenda. Do you not see that there is an enormous contradiction here? The key path to alleviating that pain is repentance. It is simple to turn around and join the spiritual and doctrinal direction of the Anglican Communion and the overwhelming majority of the Christians of history and the world today. When one considers that you were advised by the Lambeth Bishops Conference, the ACC, the Primates, and the Archbishop of Canterbury that to proceed would bring a harvest of pain, it is hard to see why you find the consequences you now experience surprising. You indicate that the action of the General Convention was constitutional. Of course I am not an expert in the Constitution and Canons of ECUSA, but I do remember the commitment of your General Convention to initiate an "inter-Anglican and ecumenical dialogue on human sexuality issues which should not be resolved by the Episcopal Church on its own (B-020)." Many colleagues have also reminded me that you were clear that the official position of ECUSA was parallel to that of Lambeth I. 10 at a number of Primates meetings. When was that changed, or was it just ignored? Of course there is pain when you moved ahead in violation of your own Convention decisions. In addition, I saw the broadcast of objections to Gene Robinson's consecration which were simply and totally ignored. How can these be constitutional actions? You cling to the statement that "what we hold in common is much greater than that which divides us..." That statement was made before you chose to be the chief consecrator at an event you knew would "tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level." At a time like this, simply celebrating what we hold in common is like a man arguing before a judge that his offence should be overlooked because he hasn't broken other laws. You cannot offer a band aid to a person who needs open heart surgery. The situation must be addressed at the root of the disorder. You don't heal a disease by treating its symptoms. You tell us that "Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight" is moving toward solving the problem in your province. It is not so. First of all it leaves the decisions in the hands of the offending bishops and does not give any substantive protection to parishes that maintain Anglican teaching and practice. In addition, we are aware of ECUSA clergy and parishes who have been ordered by their revisionist bishops not to ask for alternative oversight, threatened if they do, or who live in areas where bishops have publicly stated that they will not allow it. The fact that "some" bishops will arrange for Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight does not mean at all that it can be put in place where it is really needed. And when did those who hold to the apostolical, biblical faith and practice of Christianity as accepted for 2000 years suddenly become "dissidents"? You now say that you want to be in conversation. In the light of your previous great reticence to discuss the matter in our meetings this is tragically late in the day. ECUSA's actions have caused a great and unnecessary crisis in the Anglican Communion that has spilled over into culture, ecumenical affairs, and even interfaith relations. It is tragic and painful indeed. It is the result of your actions and it is also reversible. You have insisted on autonomy from the Lambeth resolutions, from the Archbishop of Canterbury's plea, from the ACC, and from the Primates to pursue an agenda that is absolutely scandalous to most Christians. That view of autonomy is the opposite of everything Anglicanism has always stood for. Why would you still want to call yourself Anglican? May I urge you either to live as an Anglican conforming to Anglican norms or admit that you have left us and closed the door behind you. May God guide us in love and truth at this crucial and sad time. +Greg The Most Revd Gregory J. Venables Primate of the Southern Cone of the Americas

Archbishop Gregory Venables Replies to Frank Griswold May 7, 2004 The Most Revd Frank T. Griswold Presiding Bishop ECUSA Dear Bishop Frank, In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. I write in response to your letter of May 5th. Since it has found its way all over the internet, I am constrained to respond more broadly than just in a personal note. With great respect it must be said that considering what you now write in the light of what you have already done brings to mind the old cliche of Nero fiddling while Rome burns. It's like the doctor telling the grieving family that the operation was a success even though the patient has died. You speak with clarity about your grief over the pain your actions have caused and yet you proceed with your relentless agenda. Do you not see that there is an enormous contradiction here? The key path to alleviating that pain is repentance. It is simple to turn around and join the spiritual and doctrinal direction of the Anglican Communion and the overwhelming majority of the Christians of history and the world today. When one considers that you were advised by the Lambeth Bishops Conference, the ACC, the Primates, and the Archbishop of Canterbury that to proceed would bring a harvest of pain, it is hard to see why you find the consequences you now experience surprising. You indicate that the action of the General Convention was constitutional. Of course I am not an expert in the Constitution and Canons of ECUSA, but I do remember the commitment of your General Convention to initiate an "inter-Anglican and ecumenical dialogue on human sexuality issues which should not be resolved by the Episcopal Church on its own (B-020)." Many colleagues have also reminded me that you were clear that the official position of ECUSA was parallel to that of Lambeth I. 10 at a number of Primates meetings. When was that changed, or was it just ignored? Of course there is pain when you moved ahead in violation of your own Convention decisions. In addition, I saw the broadcast of objections to Gene Robinson's consecration which were simply and totally ignored. How can these be constitutional actions? You cling to the statement that "what we hold in common is much greater than that which divides us..." That statement was made before you chose to be the chief consecrator at an event you knew would "tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level." At a time like this, simply celebrating what we hold in common is like a man arguing before a judge that his offence should be overlooked because he hasn't broken other laws. You cannot offer a band aid to a person who needs open heart surgery. The situation must be addressed at the root of the disorder. You don't heal a disease by treating its symptoms. You tell us that "Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight" is moving toward solving the problem in your province. It is not so. First of all it leaves the decisions in the hands of the offending bishops and does not give any substantive protection to parishes that maintain Anglican teaching and practice. In addition, we are aware of ECUSA clergy and parishes who have been ordered by their revisionist bishops not to ask for alternative oversight, threatened if they do, or who live in areas where bishops have publicly stated that they will not allow it. The fact that "some" bishops will arrange for Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight does not mean at all that it can be put in place where it is really needed. And when did those who hold to the apostolical, biblical faith and practice of Christianity as accepted for 2000 years suddenly become "dissidents"? You now say that you want to be in conversation. In the light of your previous great reticence to discuss the matter in our meetings this is tragically late in the day. ECUSA's actions have caused a great and unnecessary crisis in the Anglican Communion that has spilled over into culture, ecumenical affairs, and even interfaith relations. It is tragic and painful indeed. It is the result of your actions and it is also reversible. You have insisted on autonomy from the Lambeth resolutions, from the Archbishop of Canterbury's plea, from the ACC, and from the Primates to pursue an agenda that is absolutely scandalous to most Christians. That view of autonomy is the opposite of everything Anglicanism has always stood for. Why would you still want to call yourself Anglican? May I urge you either to live as an Anglican conforming to Anglican norms or admit that you have left us and closed the door behind you. May God guide us in love and truth at this crucial and sad time. +Greg The Most Revd Gregory J. Venables Primate of the Southern Cone of the Americas

We note with great interest that Bishop William Swing of California has revoked Otis Charles' license to officiate and also dismissed him from his position as assisting bishop in the diocese. Details of the story, reported by The Living Church last evening, are sketchy with regard to why the measures were taken, but it appears to be a result of Charles' "marriage" to Felipe Sanchez Paris on April 24, 2004. The Executive Office of the Diocese, the Rev. Michael Hansen told The Living Church that same sex-blessings must be approved by the Bishop of California and should not "resemble a marriage." He also noted that the matter is "under investigation" with regard to possible clergy violations of diocesan guidelines. If the punitive measures reported reflect an attempt to restore some semblance of order and discipline in ECUSA, we welcome such action, particularly if it represents a new trend in the Church. Such a trend might extend to the Diocese of New Hampshire which elected a practicing homosexual as bishop, and to the Diocese of Washington where Bishop John Chane has proposed moving far beyond General Convention's resolution on same sex blessings, proposing such rites be extended to couples for whom marriage is not an appropriate or desirable step. While a new trend toward moral discipline in ECUSA would indeed be encouraging, is it likely? We are left with numerous questions in the California situation. Were the grounds for Charles' dismissal centered in morality or authority? Did he simply irritate Bishop Swing because he didn't get permission and go through the right channels or is it possible that the enormity of the crisis following actions of General Convention 2003 has had an effect? In the current climate in ECUSA with the report of the Lambeth Commission looming, was Charles' ceremony simply too hot to handle? Are the decisions in the Diocese of California based on expediency rather than a moral outcry? We at the American Anglican Council continue to call on ECUSA to repent - laity, priest and bishop, diocese by diocese that this beloved church might experience renewal and restoration.

In England about 40 angry evangelicals will meet with the Bishop of St Albans over the appointment of Jeffrey John. Watch for the sparks to fly. ADDITIONAL READING Among the stories posted today, Dr. Robert Sanders, Virtuosity's resident cyber theologian raises the question of who we are and who we are not in communion with. "What does Nicea teach us? It teaches us that believers need to come under the oversight of bishops, that they cannot receive from heretical bishops, and therefore, orthodox bishops must officiate in dioceses headed by heretical bishops. In short, if Nicea means anything, there must be a network." Dr. Leander Harding raises the issue of Homosexuality, The Church, and Truth and Justice for Children. An excellent read. And there is much more. If you can't read them all at once, take time to read a few stories each day before the next digest comes down. Please feel free to forward them to your friends. With the INTERNET nobody needs to stay in the dark anymore. Tell your friends to join by going to the website: www.virtuosityonline.org and signing up, or you can simply read the stories at the website.

From the United Methodist Church national conference held in Pittsburgh comes news that United Methodist delegates had voted 579-376 to hold the line on homosexual behavior. "The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching." They also voted 527-423 to defeat the resolution that "Christians disagree on the compatibility of homosexuality with Christian teaching and affirm that God's grace is available to all." The Methodists have become the first Mainline Church to oppose same-sex marriage. This is an important development with practical relevance to the Lambeth Commission, to the Primates, and to the pending decision regarding the tragic division that has occurred within the Communion. The United Methodist Church, a body that is four times the size of the Episcopal Church, USA, in America, is saying in effect that it agrees with the incompatibility of homosexual practice and Scripture (Lambeth 1998). The U.S. Methodists are also saying to the world, "The Biblical position is so clear that Christians cannot agree to disagree on this subject - and the church need not accommodate American culture on this subject." The necessity of accommodation to American culture, which is the major argument of the Episcopalian leadership ("please make an exception for us because of our culture"), is repudiated by the Methodist's vote. These votes show a consensus among Christians throughout the world on these issues, including the Roman Catholic Church, the Russian Orthodox, Baptists, the majority of Anglican bishops at Lambeth, and the orthodox Episcopalians who have dissented from the actions of their General Convention. The United Methodist Church vote aligns the US Methodists on this issue with the American Anglican Council and the Network of Anglican Dioceses and Parishes in the United States. What is going on among mainline Protestants is this: Minister violates Scripture, minister brought to church trial, church jurors decide church law doesn't mean what it says, minister let off the hook, other churches upset, journalists ponder possible "schism" in the denomination. DIOCESE OF UTAH ALLOWS SAME-SEX BLESSINGS From the Diocese of Utah comes word that Bishop Carolyn T. Irish will allow procedures for holding same-sex blessing services in her diocese. "After discussion with clergy, Diocesan Council members, and others, I have now set the following policy for our Diocese to allow same-sex blessings. It is important that bishops formulate such policies, not only for authorization of liturgies not provided in the Book of Common Prayer, but also to share with the clergy the responsibility for such occasions. It is possible that a later bishop may change this policy." One hopes. This was the same bishop who "converted" from Mormonism but was never re-baptized as a Christian. On same sex marriages she had this to say, "In Anglican tradition we can live with such diversity. Each diocese was left to sponsor further conversation, develop policies, and gather liturgical materials for such blessings, as seemed appropriate to their situation." This is the kind of thinking that drives Global South Primates to their knees and then rise up in wrath to say they are no longer in communion with the likes of Ms Irish. CHANGING OF THE GUARD AT TRINITY EPISCOPAL SCHOOL FOR MINISTRY There's a changing of the guard at Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry (TESM) in Ambridge, PA. The Rev. Dr. Paul Zahl has resigned as Dean of the Cathedral Church of the Advent in Birmingham, Alabama to accept the position of Dean/President of TESM, effective August 1. He succeeds Dr. Peter Moore who is retiring. Zahl is an excellent choice. (See full story in today's digest). He writes: "On Tuesday morning May 4th, I accepted the unanimous call of the search committee of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry in Ambridge, Pennsylvania, to be their new Dean/President. This is an awesome decision for Mary and me, a decision to which we came finally with complete clarity, and joy. I shall remain Dean of the Advent through July 31st. We hope to move to Pittsburgh during the first two weeks of August." Henry Parsley, the Bishop of Alabama is no lover of orthodoxy and he has publicly condemned the Network and is threatening those who would join. (See digest for full statement). As deans are appointed by bishops not vestries you can be sure that Parsley will never allow someone with Zahl's orthodoxy or scholarship to replace him. Zahl was under enormous pressure by the bishop and by dissidents in the cathedral. Parsley will no doubt use this as an opportunity to put a liberal in his place. If that happens you can be sure hundreds will leave. Two of Alabama's three churches that allowed redirection of funds are now looking for new leadership. With Parsley preparing to crack down hard on John Michael and the Ascension in Montgomery for joining the network, the bishop appears to be succeeding in driving out the orthodox voices in his diocese.

Frank Griswold got a blast from Southern Cone Primate Greg Venables this week over a letter Griswold wrote trying to put the best light on his recent actions. Venables lashed out at Griswold saying, "you speak with clarity about your grief over the pain your actions have caused and yet you proceed with your relentless agenda. Do you not see that there is an enormous contradiction here?" Of course Frank doesn't. Pluriformity means never having to say you're wrong, and Griswold will fall on his sword rather than "betray" ECUSA's pansexualists. You can read both letters in today's digest. PRESSURE ON LAMBETH COMMISSION CONTINUES Continuing the pressure on the Lambeth Commission to stand firm for orthodoxy, the Rev. Canon David H. Roseberry of Christ Church, Plano reports that some 600 signatures have already been received in response to his letter, "and the list is growing daily." If you want to sign the letter you can do so by going to www@ChristChurchPlano.org. The Eames letter is also posted. OTIS CHARLES MARRIAGE SAGA CONTINUES In the continuing saga of the Otis Charles marriage, the retired Bishop of Utah, has been removed from his position as an assisting bishop of California and his license to officiate has been revoked by the Rt. Rev. William Swing after The San Francisco Chronicle revealed that Bishop Charles had been "married" to a four-times divorced man at St. Gregory of Nyssa Church in San Francisco, April 24. The matter is under investigation, said the Rev. Canon Michael Hansen, the diocese's executive officer. This qualifies as one bad act in Swing's theatre of the absurd. The California bishop who heads the United Religions Initiative, a Gnostic, pan-everything grab bag of religious impulses and "spiritual" weirdos has now sandbagged Charles from functioning as a bishop in his diocese! This is the pot calling the kettle black. Swing is as revisionist and pro-gay as the day is long and now he inhibits Charles! When you have no core doctrine anything goes, and in California it goes on all the time and now Swing fires a former bishop that, deep down, he has no disagreement with…the absurd antics of ECUSA's revisionists bishops never ceases. DIOCESE OF THE CENTRAL GULF COAST From the Diocese of the Central Gulf Coast comes this from a Virtuosity reader. A convention address of Bishop Philip M. Duncan II excoriates the AAC. "To establish an alternative ecclesiastical body either within or without the Episcopal Church has, in my opinion, not been helpful in working together to reconcile our differences and seems to be fostering its own brand of turmoil and schism. I am not in agreement with what I understand their agenda to be. They do not have my support." On same gender relationships and marriage he had this to say. "Our teaching on sacramental Christian marriage has not changed. It is a gift from God, a life long relationship between a man and a woman. Committed same gender relationships are part of our culture and are important to many living within this diocese. In my deliberate study of Scripture, I do not find that these relationships are affirmed nor are they blessed by the tradition as we have received it in this church. Neither do I find, as have some, the condemnation of homosexuality." So what do you believe bishop? "To be clear, as I have stated to the clergy and laity in other settings: the norm for ordination in this diocese continues to be a person living a single celibate lifestyle or in a heterosexual Christian marriage. I will not allow nor authorize the blessing of same gender unions within our diocese." Bishop Duncan bemoaned the downward spiraling finances of the Diocese, noting "giving is down in a number of congregations and financial support for the Diocese is down nearly $200,000. In addition, about $233,000 of pledges to the Diocese have been restricted to Diocesan use only. We are honoring those restrictions."

This week a trial balloon was floated out of England when both the TIMES and the TELEGRAPH newspapers announced, in separate stories, that plans for a formal split in the Anglican Church are being considered in an attempt to resolve differences over attitudes towards homosexuality. A proposal to turn the Anglican Communion into an Anglican confederation is being considered by the Lambeth Commission, the international body of 18 members set up last year by Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote Gledhill of the Times. Jonathan Petre of the TELEGRAPH clarified the issue saying that an all-powerful "star chamber", headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury will be created to avert the collapse of worldwide Anglicanism over homosexuality. A blueprint drawn up by advisers will grant significant new powers to Dr Rowan Williams though not sufficient to transform him into an Anglican "pope". It would be a loose federation with new loyalties and allegiances across geographic lines. Perhaps this is the moment of Acceptance or reality breaking through into the Sufi driven mind of Frank Griswold, that all is now lost and we have the ECUSA and the action of consecrating an avowed sodomite to the episcopacy to thank for the break up of the whole Anglican Communion. Said one priest to Virtuosity, "maybe it should happen. I hope it does. At the end of the day we will know who is on the Lord's side, those driven and beholden to Scripture and the traditions and doctrines of the church. If and when it happens, Griswold and his 62 revisionist bishops will be isolated and we can all watch them whither and die on the pluriform vine." He has a point. How it will all play out is still anyone's guess, but clearly Irish Archbishop Robin Eames is not succeeding in using his immense charm to hold it all together and is perhaps realizing that the days of the Communion are numbered. Clearly the noises out of Africa are less than irenic in tone and orthodox forces in the US Episcopal Church coming from the American Anglican Council and the Network (NACDP) is causing a few headaches, coupled with the steady stream of documents from groups like Plano and from individual dioceses about the state of ECUSA, is less than encouraging. The next seven months will be crucial in the life of the entire Anglican Communion, and orthodox priests and bishops are ratcheting up the pain on ECUSA's liberal and revisionist leadership as never before. Today's lead story addresses this issue. This writer has spoken in four major locations in the last ten days to several thousand Episcopalians concerned about the present state of ECUSA and many parishes are now working up strategies on what they will do and say to their bishops. These are heady days. A lot is at stake.