Archives

By Michael J. McManus 7/22/2004 After a very heated debate, the House of Representatives overwhelming voted on Thursday to strip all federal courts - including the Supreme Court - of their power to make one state recognize another state's same-sex marriage. It is the most important victory of the marriage movement, and came only a week after the Senate voted 50-48 to defeat consideration of a Federal Marriage Amendment that needed 60 votes to close debate and 67 to pass it. The House vote was 231 to 194, with 25 Democrats joining 204 Republicans to pass the bill while 15 Republicans voted with 176 Democrats in opposition. Conservatives only needed a majority vote on this measure, with a similar vote in the Senate. There passion on each side was partisan. "This is an extraordinary piece of arrogance to strip the right of Americans to go into court to have their concerns addressed," said John Dingell, D-MI. "Shame! Shame! Shame! It is a precedent we which we will live to regret." Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-WI, replied, "The framers of our government provided in Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution, a check by the legislative branch on the judicial branch....The judicial power is not unlimited." That section states the Supreme Court "shall have appellate Jurisdiction...with such Exceptions and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Republicans and Democrats argued over whether the provision had ever been used. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-CA, said "You have to go back to 1803 in the case of Marbury vs. Madison" to see that the Supreme Court has the right to overrule Congress. Sensenbrenner cited 11 recent cases, such as the Patriot Act, in which Congress said the provisions could not be reviewed by the federal courts. Rep. John Lewis, D-GA, who was beaten up during Civil Rights marches, was angry: "For me this is unreal. It is unbelievable. Those of us who came through the Civil Rights Movement found federal courts sympathetic to our pleas for justice. If I had not been able to go to federal courts, we would be legally segregated in America. I would not be standing here today." Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-AL, argued "This decision defines us as Americans. It is about who we are. It is about who should make the decision about what marriage is." Should it be the courts, who voted 4-3 in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that gay marriage is legal. "Or should the people make the law through their elected representatives? This court decision could lead to a man marrying three women, or a man who chooses to marry his daughter." Normally, one state will recognize another state's granting of a marriage or driver's licence as required by the "full faith and credit" provisions of the Constitution. The Hostetler bill would forbid any federal court challenge of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA, passed overwhelmingly by Congress in 1996 and signed by President Clinton, stated that marriage is defined as one man marrying one woman. Social Security benefits, for example, could not be paid to a lesbian survivor of a lesbian couple who had a marriage license. DOMA also stated that no state has to recognize a same sex marriage of another state, despite the "full faith and credit" clause. However, a Florida lesbian couple who was "married" in Massachusetts recently filed a lawsuit challenging DOMA, demanding that Florida recognize their marriage. They are likely to cite last year's landmark Supreme Court case, Lawrence v. Texas, which says: "...liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex." Many similar cases are likely since gay couples from 40 states have trekked to Massachusetts to get "married." Even if a federal judge rejected the Florida couple's case, due to DOMA, it could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is likely to declare DOMA unconstitutional, given its ruling in the Lawrence case. That would lead to the forced recognition of "same-sex marriage" in all 50 states, even though Congress and 44 states define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The Marriage Protection Act provides a remedy. It was introduced by Rep. John Hostettler who argues, "The nation's founders never intended for the judiciary to be the most powerful branch of government." That will be debated in the weeks ahead. At present, the bill has no chance in the Senate, where court-stripping is seen as a radical step. But it requires only 51 Senators to pass it. This column put a spotlight on the Hostettler bill as an alternative to the Federal Marriage Amendment last November.

Diocesan Budget Challenges Continue By David Catron Most people know, only if anecdotally, that, with the sale of St. Mark's Hospital in 1987, the Diocese of Utah went from penury to affluence almost overnight. Logically, then, many want to know, "Why has the diocesan budget been cut? Where has all the money gone?" The proceeds from the sale of the hospital were placed in several trusts, the largest of which, the Perpetual Trust of St. Peter and St. Paul, had $102,367,112 in assets as of December 31, 2003, up 2% from $100,348,226 at the end of 2002, but still more than 8% below assets of $111,461,790 at the end of 2001. Under the somewhat complicated terms of the Trust Agreement, the Trust is able to distribute about 5% of its assets to the diocese in any one calendar year. In 2003, this distribution amounted to $5,521,603. In 2004, the budgeted distribution is $5,267,655, a drop of just under five percent. Combined with other revenue shortfalls, total diocesan income in 2004 is projected to decline six percent from 2003. (Currently we project a Trust distribution between $5.0 and 5.1 million for 2005, a drop of 3-5% from 2004.) Why a 5% decline in trust revenue if trust assets rose 2%? Because the allowable distribution percent is calculated on a rolling 48-month average. This means a big drop in Trust assets in one year, say 10% from 2001 to 2002, is softened by gains in previous years. That's the good news. The bad news is if the assets grow with improved market performance, say 2% from 2002 to 2003, the allowable distribution is dragged down by the underperformance of preceding years. This system is designed to avoid abrupt changes, and it is working well. Trouble is, if markets go up, people want distributions to keep pace, and they don't. The budgeted $5.3 million distribution for 2004 from the Perpetual Trust constitutes 94% of the operating income of the diocese. By any measure, both of these are big numbers. They attest to the incredible abundance we have to support the work of the diocese and its congregations, work that would be impossible under any other conditions. In addition, a significant portion of the annual distribution from the Trust is restricted for parish support and community outreach. Of the $5,267,655 coming from the Trust in 2004, $2,338,317 is restricted and "passes through" the diocesan budget specifically for parishes and outreach. About $1.5 million of diocesan revenue in 2004 will go directly to congregations in the form of diocesan grants. This amount represents an increase of 3% in budgeted congregational support from 2003, so we have found a way to absorb the revenue decline in other areas. For example, personnel expense (largely diocesan staff) has been cut by 10%, and Communications (which produces this newspaper) by 9%. Other cuts have occurred in much-needed ministries: Camp Tuttle has been cut by 6%, Latino ministries by 12%, and Episcopal Community Services by 15%. Still, given the millions in the Trust, people want to know: Why, if we have a budget shortfall, can't we just make it up from the Trust? Well, we actually do. As stated above, trust assets declined by 10%, but the distribution declined by only 5%. Why can't we take more? Because the framers of the Trust envisioned it as a perpetual trust, to be forever available to the people of the Diocese of Utah. They feared if we started down the slippery slope of spending what we wanted, the Trust would eventually disappear. A decent compromise allows us to take more in distributions than the trust has gained in assets in bad times, but only up to a point. Also, Trust framers operated from a theology of stewardship. Not only was the diocese to be a responsible steward, but congregations were to be encouraged to provide a measure of support as well — currently about 4% of the diocesan budget. This seems modest enough when compared with other dioceses. Congregations are welcome to become more self-sufficient if they like. Using the oft-cited number of 6,000 communicants, someone observed that if each were to contribute an additional $5 per week, total congregational revenue would increase by $1.5 million! Coincidentally, that is the same amount given this year in parish grants. When I became a candidate for this office, I stated in my profile that my goal was to see congregations as owners, willing to share out of abundance. I cited an example from The Active Life by Parker Palmer in which the author imagines the miracle of the loaves and fishes came about because people were willing to share in community. I believe we are on the verge of seeing this happen in the Diocese of Utah with our new governance and emphasis on improved communication. There is new energy, renewed commitment to ministry, heartfelt willingness to share. For example, two congregations gave up any claim to diocesan support this year. And congregations have repaid a remarkable $260,800 to the diocese for Project Jubilee grants since 1999! David Catron is Diocesan Treasurer for the Diocese of Utah.

By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent THE TELEGRAPH 7/21/2004   Heaven may have many mansions but Church of England bishops are queuing up to dispose of their imposing residences.   The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, the Rt Rev John Packer, yesterday became the latest prelate to announce plans to move to more modest accommodation.   Bishop Packer wrote in his diocesan magazine that he felt impelled by the gospel to quit Bishop Mount, his six-bedroom Victorian house in Ripon, so that he could be closer to his flock in Leeds.   The Bishop described his present home, which is valued at £1 million, as "delightful", but admitted that it was too large and costly to heat and had extensive grounds that meant paying and housing a full-time gardener.   He is not alone in his desire to "downsize" and his move comes amid a review of bishops' palaces and houses by their landlords, the Church Commissioners, which is expected to result in a number of sales.   The Bishop of Southwell, in Nottinghamshire, the Rt Rev George Cassidy, has indicated his willingness to move out of the 22-bedroom Bishop's Manor, which was built in the ruins of the Old Palace next to Southwell Minster in 1907.   Like the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, Bishop Cassidy, who lives in a six-bedroom wing of the manor, is now negotiating with the commissioners and the diocese about his future arrangements.   "I want to do my best to ensure that my successor will have the least disruption in his or her ministry from the word go," said the bishop, who is four years from the normal retirement age of 65.   The Old Palace, the hall of which is part of the new building, dates back to the 1400s. Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, Henry VIII's minister, spent his last summer there in 1530 and Charles I retreated to the palace after defeat in the battle of Naseby in the English Civil War in 1645.   The Bishop of Bristol, the Rt Rev John Price, is already installed in a new home after the commissioners sold the traditional residence, the Grade II-listed Queen Anne Bishop's House in Bristol, for more than £1.5 million.   The Church's portfolio of episcopal residences is worth an estimated £80 million but some members of the Church fear that the buildings encourage a misleading impression that bishops live in grandeur.   Of the 44 diocesan bishops' houses, the majority are listed: 13 are classed as heritage properties and nine as palaces. Since 1948, about 30 have been sold, including those in Ely, Gloucester, Lichfield, Norwich and Bristol.   New guidelines on suitable accommodation for bishops recommend five bedrooms, two bathrooms, two reception rooms able to hold 12 diners or a buffet for 30, a study, three offices, a staff kitchen and cloakroom, a family-sized garden and parking.   The commissioners say that the future of each house will be reviewed when the resident bishop is 62, in consultation with him, his family and the diocese. Nearly half of the bishops are over 60.   Properties that could be on the market include Auckland Castle, the Bishop of Durham's residence; Hartlebury Castle, home to Bishops of Worcester for more than 800 years; and Rose Castle, the Bishop of Carlisle's fortified manor, which has a chapel and listed wallpaper.

By Peter Toon | What kind of evidence would indicate that it is under the blessing of God in 2004? Since the sixteenth century, Anglican Churches, first in Britain and then in other countries, have claimed that together as a Communion they represent a legitimate jurisdiction within the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. The form of Christianity to which they are historically committed may be described as a biblically based Reformed Catholicism. The Church of England, known for centuries before the Reformation as Ecclesia Anglicana, claimed that what happened to her in the sixteenth century was a washing of her dirty face, a restoring of her original faith and practice, not the adoption of a novel religion. However, Anglicans have always been aware of the fact that any one or more of their Churches or Provinces, or dioceses therein, could reject or revise the received, historic Faith and thereby enter the slippery slope into apostasy. There are grave warnings in Holy Scripture of the danger of apostasy and the history of the Church provides examples thereof. In 2004, the claim of many Anglicans worldwide and an increasing minority of American Episcopalians, who still belong to dioceses or parishes of the Episcopal Church of the U.S.A., is that this Church as a whole in terms of both its governing Convention and many of its dioceses and parishes has crossed the line from error to apostasy. The reason for this amazing claim is the embracing by the General Convention of the ECUSA of a series of innovations in doctrine and morals, culminating in the acceptance of same-sex marriage and the consecration of a "gay" priest as a bishop - and all this without as yet the slightest sign of repentance, despite calls to this from all over the Anglican world. This minority of Episcopalians within the ECUSA is united under the banner of "The Network." But this group is certainly not the sole representative that is claiming to express an authentic form of the received Anglican Way in the U.S.A. We need to be aware that at least since the 1970s there have been secessions from the Episcopal Church and these have led to what we may call Extra-Mural Anglican groups, and they are organized in a variety of small jurisdictions (e.g., the Anglican Church of America and the Anglican Mission in America) which now exist alongside the Reformed Episcopal Church, which originated in the nineteenth century. Let us now return to the question with which we began: What kind of evidence would indicate that this motley crowd of Episcopalians and Extra-Mural Anglicans, seen as a whole, is under the blessing of God and is in some way or another an expression of the genuine Anglican Way of Christianity in the multi-cultural society which is America? For the motley crowd of jurisdictions, missions and societies really and truly to be a genuine expression of the Anglican Way I suggest that the following principles must be evident in and amongst them: 1. That they are fully aware of and committed to the classic foundations of the Anglican Way, that is to the Scriptures as the Authority for Faith and Conduct, and to the historic Creeds and Formularies as the standards of worship, doctrine and discipline. 2. That they recognize that there is a genuine comprehensiveness in the Anglican Way and within it there is a full place for both Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics, Charismatics and others. 3. That they are doing all they can to promote centripetal spiritual and moral forces leading to dialogue, a growing cooperation, fellowship and common worship. And that they are doing all they can to minimize centrifugal forces leading to the majoring on minors and to a growing apart. 4. That they are doing all they can to deal with the culture, context and failures which allowed the acceptance of innovations in doctrine and morality within the ECUSA and the liberal north American denominations. 5. That they are seeking to cut down the number of bishops being consecrated and making efforts to have fewer bishops who are then accepted across the jurisdictions. 6. That when there is a meeting where members of diverse groups are present the primary acts of worship should be based upon services in the classic Formulary or on services whose style and content are agreed in advance by all parties. 7. That they are seeking together to communicate with leaders from other parts of the Anglican Communion, to share what is going on, and making sure that visits from overseas Anglican bishops are made to a variety of jurisdictions and not only to present or former ECUSA congregations. This is not a complete list but what it attempts to do is to indicate that certain signs must surely be present for a movement/jurisdiction to claim to be, as a movement/jurisdiction, under the blessing of God and a genuine constituent member of the authentic family of jurisdictions which make up the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church on earth. A corollary of this argument is that if the above signs are not present and not likely to be present (for whatever reasons) then the Anglican Way in the U.S.A. is no longer viable and that its members ought to seek another valid jurisdiction of the Church of God on earth and to do so in the fear of the Lord and for the salvation of their souls. The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.), is rector of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor & St Anne's, Brown Edge.

By Gene Edward Veith | WORLD | July 24, 2004 The Methodists fought, the Presbyterians (USA) dithered, and the Episcopalians gave in as their national conventions struggled over what to do about homosexuality. But the African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME), the largest black church in the country with 2.5 million members, voted in its national convention unanimously not to allow pastors to perform same-sex marriages. Black Americans tend to be liberal politically. They are the most reliable components of the Democratic Party's base, with the possible exception of gays, whose causes Democrats and liberals are championing. And yet, black Americans are among the demographic groups most opposed to gay marriage. This frustrates gay activists and their allies. African-Americans have experienced terrible discrimination. Why aren't they more sympathetic with the discrimination that gays experience? There used to be laws against blacks marrying whites. Just as those racist laws needed to be repealed, surely the laws against men marrying men also need to be repealed. Blacks and gays should be natural allies, liberals are saying. Of course, some black leaders - like former presidential candidate and ordained minister Al Sharpton - follow the party line of the liberal establishment. But across the country, black pastors have been staging rallies against gay marriage. African-Americans bitterly resent the attempt by homosexual activists to appropriate the civil-rights movement for their cause. Even the extremely liberal Congressional Black Caucus has denounced comparisons of the gay-marriage movement to the civil-rights struggles of the 1960s. "Why are blacks, who know so well the reality of discrimination, so uniformly unsympathetic to the case that the gay community is making?" That question is raised by Star Parker, a black evangelical, in a column for Scripps Howard News Service. She says that the main reason is that the civil-rights movement depended on objective moral truth. Homosexual marriage, on the contrary, depends on a rejection of objective moral truth. "It is not just that they know when their movement is being hijacked," she quotes Wilfred McClay, history professor at the University of Tennessee, as saying. "It is that the religious sensibility that animated the civil-rights movement, and that is still very much alive in the American black community today, is bound up in a biblical worldview that would no more countenance the radical redefinition of marriage than it would the re-imposition of slavery." "Blacks know instinctively that the debate on gay marriage is the symptom and not the problem," says Ms. Parker. "They know that the root problem is the implicit de-legitimization and marginalization in the United States today of traditional standards of right and wrong." She argues that it was just such a marginalization of right and wrong that allowed slavery. "Without an anchor in ultimate standards, blacks know that the best politics and law, even in as great a country as ours, can lead anywhere." Concepts such as justice, freedom, and human rights depend on a worldview that recognizes transcendent, objective, moral truths. If morality is just something that we can construct and reconstruct according to our own preferences, as postmodernists believe, then justice, freedom, and human rights will be in jeopardy. To reject universal teachings about sexual morality and to presume to redefine marriage to include homosexual relationships may seem kind and tolerant. But that comes with a horrible price, the repudiation of the very moral framework that makes kindness and tolerance possible. One might say that black Americans are suffering the consequences of the sexual revolution. The whole culture has drifted away from sexual morality, and African-Americans have been paying the highest price, in the troubled children, the crime, and the poverty that accompany communities that do without marriage. But whites as well as blacks are affected by the moral breakdown. Among white women, Ms. Parker points out, the incidence of out-of-wedlock births is 25 percent - what it was for black women 40 years ago. The civil-rights movement of the 1960s was moral. The gay-rights movement is not. It is that simple. Perhaps African-Americans and their churches could start exerting the moral leadership that our whole country desperately needs.

News Analysis | By David W. Virtue The Episcopal Church's leading lay revisionist thinker believes that primatial road rage against the ECUSA is a vicarious way of getting back at the ugly American image, and is not primarily about homosexuality at all. Dr. Louie Crew, the Episcopal Church's pioneer homosexualist, says some of their primatial disengagement "stems from an over-identification of TEC with the US Government and more specifically with the American Empire, whom the world rightly resents." It's easy to get into an 'anti-American' mindset, especially when TEC, like the USA, comes across as some sort of "Super Power" or "Super Church," he said. Writing on the House of Bishops/Deputies listserv, Dr. Crew said he also believes the Episcopal Church will not voluntarily leave the Communion on its own initiative "unless the terms of remaining become intolerable, such as yielding any part of our jurisdiction." The Integrity founder also said that the TEC will probably participate less and less in forums where abuse occurs, and "collaborate where we are welcome." Painting ECUSA as the victim in Christ like categories, Crew said the TEC is investing its considerable resources in sharing the stigma of a despised and rejected minority. That is not new in Christianity: Jesus experienced his own first successful missions with outcasts in Samaria, he said. "I think TEC will be patient, but to a limit yet to be determined. If the mud-slingers don't slack off in time, I cannot imagine TEC remaining a willing target of abuse indefinitely. We are funding right at 30% of the bureaucracy to manage the bilge, and we could spend that money much better in meeting the material needs of people whose bishops are neglecting them by spending time and money attacking us." Dr. Crew couldn't be more wrong. First of all no one has done more to disparage the United States to the world and the Anglican Communion than Frank T. Griswold, ECUSA's Presiding Bishop. He brought the wrath of former U.S. President George Bush down on his head by blaming the tragic events of 911 on American foreign policy and Islamophobia. Furthermore it is the height of arrogance to think that the Global South has now or ever has had that much respect for the Episcopal Church to regard it as a "super power" or "super church." If it held it in any kind of respect those days are long gone. The ECUSA might be financially rich but numerically it is a pin prick in terms of the greater Anglican Communion. Its influence is considerably greater than its numbers warrant, and with its fading glory, the Africans are now saying, "your money perish with you." The respect African and Asian bishops have had for the West was strictly in relationship to the gospel western missionaries brought to their lands and for whom they gave their lives. There is still enormous respect for these men and women whose portraits often line the walls of African bishops' studies. The rejection of The Episcopal Church, the Diocese of New Westminster and specifically the New Hampshire bishop has nothing to do with a post colonial angst, money, power or anything else; it is the total betrayal and reversal of Holy Scripture and 2,000 years of church teaching on faith and morals that has done ECUSA in with the CAPA bishops. No, what Crew calls an 'anti-American' mindset is an 'anti-ECUSA' mindset brought about by the American church's sellout of the gospel to pansexual behavior and its failure to affirm major doctrines of the faith at its last General Convention. The sad truth is that the Primates have had more personal communication than they can stomach from Western bishops talking about sodomy. They are sick and tired of it. They have had enough. They want to see the salvation of souls, not the sickness of sodomy talked about. They believe in regeneration not degradation, salvation not salivation, sanctification not perversity. "We are never going to capitulate to those who do not have jurisdiction here, and if the Communion reconstitutes itself to seize the powers of a Curia, few Episcopalians will want to be a part of it," says Crew. They won't need to, because the Global South IS the majority, and the West are the minority who have no gospel except inclusion, and they are heading right over the edge of the cliff and into the abyss.

The Associated Press The United States will no longer be a majority Protestant nation in years to come, due to a precipitous decline in affiliation with many Protestant churches, a new survey has found. Between 1993 and 2002, the share of Americans who said they were Protestant dropped from 63 percent to 52 percent, after years of remaining generally stable, according to a study released today by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. At the same time, the number of people who said they had no religion rose from 9 percent to nearly 14 percent, and many are former Protestants, the survey's authors said. The study was based on three decades of religious identification questions in the General Social Survey, which the opinion center conducts to measure public trends. The United States "has been seen as white and Protestant," said Tom Smith, director of the General Social Survey. "We're not going to be majority Protestant any longer." Respondents were defined as Protestant if they said they were members of a Protestant denomination, such as Episcopal Church or Southern Baptist Convention. The category included members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and members of independent Protestant churches. Among the reasons for the decline were the large number of young people and adults leaving denominations as the number of non-Protestant immigrants increased, comprising a greater share of the population. Also, a lower percentage are being raised Protestant, Smith said. Smith said it is also possible that some former Protestants are now identifying themselves only as "Christian," a choice on the survey. The Roman Catholic population has remained relatively stable over the period, making up about 25 percent of the U.S. population. People who said they belonged to other religions - including Islam, Orthodox Christianity or Eastern faiths - increased from 3 percent to 7 percent between 1993 and 2002, while the share of people who said they were Jewish remained stable at just under 2 percent.

By Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D. | July 2004 Advocates of homosexual practice often argue that "gay marriage," or at least homosexual civil unions, will reduce promiscuity and promote fidelity among homosexual persons. Such an argument overlooks two key points. "GAY MARRIAGE" AS A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS First, legal and ecclesiastical embrace of homosexual unions is more likely to undermine the institution of marriage and produce other negative effects than it is to make fidelity and longevity the norm for homosexual unions. We will come back to this later. Second, and even more importantly, homosexual unions are not wrong primarily because of their disproportionately high incidence of promiscuity (especially among males) and breakups (especially among females). They are wrong because "gay marriage" is a contradiction in terms. As with consensual adult incest and polyamory, considerations of commitment and fidelity factor only after certain structural prerequisites are met. The vision of marriage found in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures is one of reuniting male and female into an integrated sexual whole. Marriage is not just about more intimacy and sharing one's life with another in a lifelong partnership. It is about sexual merger - or, in Scripture's understanding, re-merger - of essential maleness and femaleness. The creation story in Genesis 2:18-24 illustrates this point beautifully. An originally binary, or sexually undifferentiated, adam ("earthling") is split down the "side" (a better translation of Hebrew tsela than "rib") to form two sexually differentiated persons. Marriage is pictured as the reunion of the two constituent parts or "other halves," man and woman. This is not an optional or minor feature of the story. Since the only difference created by the splitting is a differentiation into two distinct sexes, the only way to reconstitute the sexual whole, on the level of erotic intimacy, is to bring together the split parts. A same-sex erotic relationship can never constitute a marriage because it will always lack the requisite sexual counterparts or complements. SCRIPTURE, CREATION, AND A TWO-SEXES PREREQUISITE The New Testament recognizes the importance of the Genesis creation stories for establishing a "two-sexes" or "other-sex" prerequisite for marriage. St. Paul clearly understood same-sex intercourse as an affront to the Creator's stamp on gender in Genesis 1-2. In his letter to the Romans, Paul cites two prime examples of humans suppressing the truth about God evident in creation/nature: idolatry and same-sex intercourse (1:18-27). THE SOCIAL-SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST "GAY MARRIAGE" Returning to the first point, the social-scientific evidence to date does not encourage the notion that validating homosexual unions is a win-win situation. A series of articles in 2004 by Stanley Kurtz, a Harvard-trained social anthropologist and fellow at the Hoover Institution, show that the introduction of same-sex registered partnerships in Scandinavia has coincided with a sharp rise in out-of-wedlock births. In Denmark about 60% of firstborn children now have unmarried parents. Since the introduction of registered partnerships in the Netherlands in 1997, out-of-wedlock births have increased annually there by two percentage points - double the average annual increase of the previous 15 years. Moreover, a 2004 study of divorce rates for same-sex registered partnerships in Sweden from 1995 to 2002 indicates that, compared to opposite-sex married couples, male homosexual couples were 1.5 times more likely to divorce and female homosexual couples 3 times more likely. CONCLUSION In sum, why is "gay marriage" wrong? Most importantly, the idea of "gay marriage" is an oxymoron and a rejection of a core value in Judeo-Christian sexual ethics. Marriage requires the two sexes to reconstitute a sexual whole. © 2004 Robert A. J. Gagnon

By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent | THE TELEGRAPH | July 20, 2004 Proposals to divide the Church of England into two - one part with female clergy and one without - are being discussed by Church leaders to avert an exodus of traditionalists when women become bishops. The Archbishop of York, Dr David Hope, has told friends he believes such a scheme, though highly controversial, is probably the only way to hold the Church together if it decides to consecrate women. He has privately won support from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, who agrees the options facing the Church are limited. Both are worried that more than 300 traditionalist clergy could quit in protest, potentially costing tens of millions of pounds in hardship payments to those who leave. Dr Hope is keen to encourage a compromise between die-hard traditionalists and middle-of-the-road Anglicans that will minimise the structural divisions within the Church. The diehards are demanding a "third province", a church-within-a-church with its own archbishop, bishops and training colleges operating in parallel with the remainder of the Church, but with no female clergy. As The Telegraph disclosed in January, the third province option has been included in the unpublished official report on women bishops by a working party headed by the Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali. But Dr Hope prefers a scheme which, rather than creating parallel structures, enshrines the rights of traditionalist parishes that could find themselves in dioceses headed by women bishops or liberals. Under such a scheme, parishes opposed to women's ordination would be able to reject the pastoral care of their diocesan bishop if they found them unacceptable. Such parishes could choose to be ministered to by a like-minded traditionalist bishop, who could visit them, if necessary, from outside the diocese. Parishes can already opt for "flying" bishops under provisions introduced for traditionalists when women were ordained priests 10 years ago. At present, diocesan bishops retain their authority over their dioceses and operate a "gentleman's agreement" that they will not block flying bishops from operating in their territory. Although this system has worked satisfactorily, Dr Hope fears it will come under such strain when women are consecrated as bishops that it will need bolstering. Critically, diocesan bishops would lose their right to block traditionalist bishops if parishes opt for them. The proposals are designed to allay the fears of many conservatives that liberal diocesan bishops will gradually undermine the current agreement, and traditionalists will find themselves being squeezed out of the Church. The General Synod is within its rights to make no concessions to the traditionalists, leaving them either to put up with women bishops or leave without hardship payments. But the measure will have to pass through Parliament and MPs could reject the whole reform if there is no adequate package of payments attached. Dr Hope and other Church leaders are convinced that the Synod will baulk at the sums involved - the Church paid £26 million to clergy who left over women priests - and his proposals will gain in popularity.

By Raymond J. Keating | NEWSDAY.COM | July 20, 2004 When the world looks at Christians, it often sees disunity. Some differences merely reflect denominational specialties while others expose deep cracks in the church. Regarding certain niches, Anglicans - including the Episcopal Church in the United States - often excel in architecture and worship. One of the loveliest churches on Long Island has to be St. Ann's Episcopal Church in Sayville. The elegance of its stone, castle-like exterior is rivaled by the interior's gorgeous Tiffany stained glass windows. At St. Mary's Church in Amityville, this past Sunday's "Choral Eucharist" combined with the beauty of the sanctuary in such a way as to foster reflection about and praise of God. But Anglicans are being ripped apart. And they are not alone, as most Christian denominations struggle with a fundamental question about faith and society: Should the church go along with shifting cultural views of morality or teach enduring truths? Consider the ongoing debate over how to define marriage. Last week, delegates at the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod's national convention in St. Louis voted by a 1,163-to-22 margin to affirm "marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one woman." Given what the Bible says and the church has taught throughout the centuries, such a declaration should be obvious. That's increasingly not so, though, in society and for some within Christianity. The consecration last year of V. Gene Robinson as the Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire served as a signal. Robinson is the first openly gay bishop, and a divorced father of two. He told Newsday earlier this year that, if gay marriage were allowed in New Hampshire, he and his partner would "be married in a minute." Robinson's installation sent waves of tumult throughout much of the Christian world, but he has claimed that "10 years from now, we will wonder what all the hullabaloo was about." I spoke with a couple of Episcopal priests on Long Island last week who see matters differently from Robinson. The Rev. Randolph Jon Geminder, the rector at St. Mary's, explained: "The leaders of the Episcopal Church that tend to be in the majority now in their hearts really feel that the church needs to mirror society." In contrast, Geminder noted, the traditional view is that "the church must lead the world to mirror the church's teachings." He adds that traditional-minded Episcopalians in America "are in spiritual lockstep with 90 percent of the rest of the Anglican world," and that "just shy of two-thirds of the entire Anglican world has broken communion" to one degree or another with the Americans due to Robinson's installation. Cutting across denominations, the most substantive split in 21st-century Christianity promises to be between liberals, who have chosen to eliminate or redefine sin to fit personal preferences and cultural trends, and more orthodox or traditional Christians who hold to the authority of Holy Scripture, and respect the long tradition of the church. The Rev. Jim Byrum of St. John's Episcopal Church in Huntington placed the controversy within the larger context of Christianity's mission. He observed: "Once you start subjectively recategorizing sin, you effectively for the church eliminate the need for a savior." Christians, Byrum continued, are "a group that believes God sent his Son to redeem us from ourselves, from the dark side of ourselves. Well, if all of a sudden everyone is saying there is no dark side to ourselves, then what the heck does anyone need a Messiah for." Both men worry that traditional Christianity today often gets portrayed as lacking compassion. To the contrary, in speaking with each, Christian love and warmth were evident. Geminder told me: "The church is a place where everybody is welcome. But we just don't feel we have the power to add to what the Lord taught us." He added: "Toleration does not equate itself with endorsement." That is essential to Christianity. As the old saying goes, hate the sin, love the sinner - and we are all sinners. Copyright 2004, Newsday, Inc.

News Analysis by David W. Virtue Bill Clinton's former Labor Secretary Robert Reich predicts there will be a religious war in America. Writing for the liberal magazine The American Prospect, former U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich calls for a war against conservative (read Evangelical) religious believers. "The great conflict of the 21st century will not be between the West and terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic, not a belief," he writes. "The true battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modernists; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority; between those who give priority to life in this world and those who believe that human life is mere preparation for an existence beyond life; between those who believe in science, reason, and logic and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma. Terrorism will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism itself is not the greatest danger we face." Reich has been calling for — or at least predicting — this war for a long time. In the past, his use of war language has seemed rhetorical and metaphoric, but now it seems we should take him literally if not seriously. Mr. Reich has it all wrong. There is indeed a serious culture war going on in America, a culture war that was started by those dissenting from absolute moral norms that have been the staple of Western Civilization for more than 2,000 years. Our understanding of the family, marriage, law, what is right and wrong have been shaped by the West's reading of the Bible, its understanding of the ancient Mosaic texts, reflected further in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. It is the abandonment and violation of these laws that has brought about the current culture wars in the West, the infiltration of which has permeated not only society but the historic mainline Christian churches as well. Mr. Reich says that the outcome of the 2004 presidential election will depend partly on what happens between now and Election Day in Iraq and to the U.S. economy. "It will also turn on the religious wars — fueled by evangelical Protestants, the ground troops of the Republican Party," he wrote in December. It is apparent Mr. Reich doesn't know very much about Evangelicals in America. Evangelicals are not a homogenous group; they are as diverse as any group could be. Jerry Falwell (a Republican) calls himself an Evangelical and so does Jimmy Carter (a Democrat). In fact Carter gave cachet to the term "born again" when he became president. Billy Graham is an Evangelical and so is Dr. C. FitzSimons Allison, a retired Episcopal Bishop. Furthermore there is a whole history of left-wing Evangelicalism in America found in such persons as Jim Wallis of Sojourners magazine, Dr. Tony Campolo, a former professor at Eastern University and chaplain to Clinton, and Dr. Ron Sider who heads Evangelicals for Social Action. They are all left-of-center Evangelicals and you can be assured they will vote for the Democratic Party in November. There is of course a right-wing Evangelicalism in America that will vote for George W. Bush. That is their right. For Mr. Reich to cast "Evangelical Protestants" as the "ground troops of the Republican Party" is just plain nonsense. Millions of Southern Baptists are Democrats. They are not uniformly Republican. Writes Reich: "Democrats can hold their own in these wars — if they respond vigorously to the coming assault. Democrats should call all this for what it is — a clear and present danger to religious liberty in America. For more than three hundred years, the liberal tradition has sought to free people from the tyranny of religious doctrines that would otherwise be imposed on them. Today's evangelical right detests that tradition and seeks nothing short of a state-sponsored religion. But maintaining the separation of church and state is a necessary precondition of liberty. The religious wars aren't pretty. Religious wars never are. But Democrats should mount a firm and clear counter-assault." This statement is not only inflammatory, it is wrong. Many Evangelicals now believe that their own liberties are under assault by the tyranny of liberals and the abandonment of once-held cherished beliefs, and the Federal Marriage Amendment Act is a case in point. Mr. Reich says evangelicals want a "state-sponsored religion" or a theocracy. That's nonsense. No Evangelical or Evangelical publication that this writer knows of — including Christianity Today, WORLD, Charisma, or even Focus on the Family — has ever called for a theocracy. All Evangelicals want is the right to call sin by its name and call people to repentance. Furthermore, to call Evangelicals "anti-modernists" is arrant nonsense. Evangelicals have been in the forefront of science, business, the environment, foundations, and care for the poor that makes liberal efforts pale by comparison. Liberal church organizations have nothing to compare with movements like the Salvation Army, World Vision Int., Food for the Poor, and a whole array of institutions, schools and universities begun by evangelicals — including Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Reich talks rubbish about Evangelicals. In the Episcopal Church, for example, Evangelicals have for more than 40 years backed away from advances made by liberals in theological and moral innovation. Today they stand with their backs to the wall as revisionist bishops beat orthodox rectors into the ground, inhibiting, deposing and taking their parishes from them in the name of their "liberal" revisionist god. The truth is the emerging tyranny is coming from the left, not the right. Is opposing gay marriage, abortion, and the free exercise of religion in public schools so terribly un-American? "Democrats should be clear that the issues of abortion and stem-cell research are about religious liberty," Reich says. If either of these is limited in any way, he suggests, America becomes a theocracy — and that, the logic necessarily follows, demands a revolution. Can Reich really mean what he says? Ramesh Ponnuru in National Review Online writes: "His most recent column is a denunciation — as a graver threat than terrorists — of people who believe that the world to come is more important than this world, or that all human beings owe their allegiance to God. Many millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other religious believers will reject Reich's witless rhetorical oppositions. One can believe in the political 'primacy of the individual,' the obligation of all people to answer to God, and the wrongness of any governmental attempt to make them answer to Him, all at the same time. But if our choice is between the primacy of individuals and the primacy of God, then the vast majority of traditional religious believers would have to choose God. All of us, for Reich, are the enemy." The deeper truth is that if a war is coming it will be between Islam and a morally bankrupt West that Islam sees as weak and therefore vulnerable. If that is true, then Mr. Reich may well be grateful for "Evangelical Protestants" when that time comes, because it will be they who will be the nation's storm-troopers as the West fights for its very soul.

Seabury and Other Churches Troubled by Their Leader's Support of Gay Bishop By Bethne Dufresne | The Day | July 17, 2004 Power, not sex, is the crux of a dispute within America's Episcopal Church over the consecration of the church's first openly gay bishop. So said a spokesman Friday for six churches, including Bishop Seabury in Groton, that are seeking to be led by a bishop other than the head of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut, the Rt. Rev. Andrew D. Smith, who supported the consecration. The six churches are the only ones among the state's 178 Episcopal congregations to apply for what is called "Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight." But the Rev. Mark Hansen of St. John's Episcopal Church in Bristol said it won't remove them from Smith's jurisdiction. A major concern, said Hansen, is the selection of future pastors. Church tradition says the presiding bishop must approve the parish's selection. Hansen and his group want written assurance that parishioners can "call" pastors without fear of veto by a bishop, such as Smith, who doesn't share their opposition to gay clergy. "Not one of us intends to leave the church," assured the Rev. Ronald A. Gauss of Bishop Seabury, who is on vacation and spoke via phone from Kentucky. But parishioners are "very worried," he said. "If I were to retire," he explained, "the church might not be able to call up the person they want." The global Anglican Communion, of which the Episcopal Church is a part, has been deeply divided over the consecration of the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, a divorced man who lives openly with his gay partner. Church leaders in some nations have gone so far as to suggest that the American church be thrown out of the Anglican Communion. Many in the Episcopal Church have embraced the decision to ordain Robinson, and most appear to have accepted it. But a number of orthodox Anglican parishes, including Groton's Bishop Seabury, have joined the American Anglican Council, formed in opposition to the U.S. church's liberal direction. To keep the Anglican Communion whole while a commission appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury studies the fissures, global primates mandated "adequate or alternative Episcopal pastoral oversight." This, said Hansen, would allow "biblically orthodox" parishes like his to report to a bishop in line with their thinking. But "through a sleight of hand," said Hansen, the American House of Bishops changed "alternative" to "delegated." Smith acknowledged that the two are "fundamentally different." But "we have our own policy, our own church canons," he said. "Other provinces have different procedures." Alternative oversight places a church "under the jurisdiction of another bishop entirely," said Smith. "Delegated means the diocesan bishop remains the bishop of all the parishes, but certain functions can be delegated to another bishop." As Smith struggles to keep the Connecticut diocese united, dissenting churches are seeking as much distance as possible. The group also includes Christ Church in Watertown, St. Paul's Church in Darien, Trinity Church in Bristol and Christ & The Epiphany Church in East Haven. Pastors of the six churches asked to meet with Smith as a group, but he has insisted on meeting with each individually. Hansen said this is a "divide and conquer" tactic. Smith said it's his duty to treat each parish as a unique unit. "Each parish is very different," he said, and one other bishop might not be able to meet all their needs. "This is one of the things I want to talk about," he said. Smith ignored the group's request that he apologize for his vote in favor of Robinson, and their request for "written assurance that you and the Diocese of Connecticut will not foster a ministerial environment that is hostile to our parishes' mission and ministries." Hansen will meet with Smith later this month, but Gauss said vacations — his and Smith's — might keep them from meeting until the end of August. Gauss said he was in no rush, that these things take time. Hansen was offended by Smith's terse July 9 letter to him that began, "In my capacity as canonical overseer I issue to you a Pastoral Direction." Smith went on, in three sentences, to tell Hansen when and where they would meet one-on-one. Hansen, echoing the sentiments of another of the six pastors, said it sounded like he was being "served with a subpoena." But Smith made no apologies for his directive. "It is what it is," he said. "I don't know why he won't meet with us as a group," said Gauss. "But I will obey his directive. He is still my bishop."