Archives

Special Report By David W. Virtue KAMPALA, (7/22/2004) — A missionary couple appointed by the American Episcopal Church have been told by the Primate of Uganda that they can no longer minister to his people because his province is in a state of broken communion with the ECUSA. In a letter to the couple, The Most Rev. Henry Orombi wrote to Phil and Jennifer Leber praising them for their work and ministry, but said that in light of the state of broken communion with ECUSA, and the deadlines established by CAPA and the Lambeth Commission, "I am compelled to advise you to explore alternative oversight and funding for your missionary work in Uganda. Consider transferring your affiliation to another mission agency as soon as possible." "We feel very strongly that God intends for us to remain in Uganda to continue the work we have been doing since 1998. It is clear that we can no longer serve as Appointed Missionaries from ECUSA, but we are assured that the Lord will faithfully provide for our ministry through other means," said Leber in a personal note to Virtuosity. Said Orombi: "The Primates of the Council of the Anglican Provinces of Africa (CAPA), on 19 April 2004, issued a very strong statement regarding the position of ECUSA in violation of Lambeth resolution 1.10 of 1998. The Church of Uganda endorses the CAPA statement in its call for discipline of ECUSA in the event ECUSA refuses within three months to repent of its decision to permit the consecration of a non-celibate, openly homosexual priest as Bishop. "I am committed to prayerful support for the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lambeth Commission set by him to report, by September, 2004, on the appropriate action recommended to be taken against ECUSA by the Anglican Communion as a whole. "As you know, the Church of Uganda has previously communicated that it is in a state of broken communion with ECUSA over this issue, and that we will no longer accept funds or missionaries from ECUSA. You are currently assigned as Appointed Missionaries from ECUSA to the Provincial Office of Missions and Evangelism. The Church of Uganda recognizes your unwavering commitment to the Word of God, and we greatly appreciate your years of service to the people of Uganda. We strongly desire that you will continue standing with us as we carry the Light of Christ throughout Uganda and beyond. "May our Father richly bless you as we join hands to reach the people of Uganda with the love of Christ." In a subsequent letter the Archbishop strongly endorsed the ministry and mission of the Lebers and urged faithful Episcopalians to provide the financial support for the missionary couple to carry on saying, "We need them to continue standing with us as we carry the Light of Christ throughout Uganda and beyond." "The Church in Africa has boldly proclaimed the authenticity of Scripture and we stand firm in guarding our faith. We are determined to be a steadfast voice of Truth and righteousness, and we will not compromise the integrity of the Gospel. In fact, the Church of Uganda has severed its relationship with the Episcopal Church of America (ECUSA) due to its actions at General Convention last summer." The archbishop went on to express his deep appreciation for Phil and Jennifer Leber, who are mission partners with the Church of Uganda. "The Lebers have a firm commitment to the orthodoxy of Scripture, and we need them to continue standing with us as we carry the Light of Christ throughout Uganda and beyond." The Primate said he first met the Lebers in 1995, when Phil accompanied him as he ministered in the U.S. Since that time, their families have developed a strong friendship. In 1998, they joined the staff of the Provincial Office of Missions and Evangelism as mission partners. The focus of Phil's ministry is to encourage the renewal of worship that is Biblically rooted, culturally relevant and energized by the power and presence of God. Jennifer has a heart for discipling young women who will be future leaders of Uganda, and she has a vital ministry to orphans and street girls, said Orombi. "Phil and Jennifer have my full support and blessing in their ministry. Their lives exhibit a deep love for the Lord, and they share a passion to teach the Word. We are very blessed by their unwavering commitment to the Word of God and their love for the people of Uganda." "I am aware that the position of ECUSA will have significant financial impact on the Lebers' mission, as they will no longer be associated with ECUSA as Appointed Missionaries. They are seeking a replacement sending agency, and I am asking that faithful churches continue to support their work here. If you are not a part of their network of prayer and financial supporters, please consider joining their team. Support for the Lebers is support for Uganda." For those interested in supporting the Lebers they can be reached at: leber@ugandamission.org. Their website can be accessed at www.ugandamission.org. END

By Michael F. Bird Word from the Bird March2, 2026 Introduction The Jerusalem Statement emerged from the 2008 Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) as a rallying cry for orthodox Anglicans who felt increasingly alienated from the direction of parts of the Anglican Communion, particularly regarding attitudes to biblical authority, apostolicity, and catholic unity. Born from frustration with what many saw as theological drift in Western provinces, this fourteen-point statement seeks to articulate a robustly orthodox Anglican identity rooted in Scripture, the historic creeds, and traditional Christian ethics. The Jerusalem Statement represents more than conservative reactionism, it’s an attempt to forge a coherent theological vision for twenty-first-century Anglicanism that is defined by courage rather than capitulation to a post-Christian culture. While critics dismiss it as American fundamentalism imported into Africa, in actuality, it is a restatement of the “faith delivered once for all to the saints” over and against an Anglican establishment that can be ideationally vacuous: who stand for nothing other than repeating certain political platitudes. The declaration draws deeply from Anglican formularies whilst addressing contemporary controversies head-on, particularly around marriage and sexuality. Whether one agrees with its positions or not, the Jerusalem Statement has undeniably reshaped global Anglican politics, creating new networks, partnerships, and new lines of division. Understanding this document is essential for grasping the current state of global Anglicanism. What follows is a commentary on articles 1 and 2 1. Gospel and Grace We rejoice in the gospel of God through which we have been saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Because God first loved us, we love him and as believers bring forth fruits of love, ongoing repentance, lively hope and thanksgiving to God in all things. In my mind, a good theology begins with the gospel, because the gospel is the boundary, centre, and integrating point for all theology. So I’m impressed with the centrality of the gospel in the Jerusalem Statement (see my Evangelical Theology, Five Views on the Gospel, and my gospel summary video). The opening move of the Jerusalem Statement is to set out the gospel: salvation by grace through faith, energized by the Holy Spirit. The language echoes Ephesians 2:8-9, whilst emphasizing the transformative nature of genuine conversion. Notice the role of the Holy Spirit – often neglected – there is no gospel or transformation without the Holy Spirit. Notice too the progression: God’s prior love elicits responsive love, which produces practical fruits including repentance, hope, and gratitude. This is Calvinistic grace united with Wesleyan piety: what a combo! This isn’t cheap grace or abstract theology, it’s practical Christianity, faith that transforms lives. The emphasis on “ongoing repentance” signals that the Christian life involves continual reorientation toward God rather than static decision-making. I love the mention of “lively hope,” it is N.T. Wright-esque, and captures the eschatological dimension of the Christian life, looking forward to Jesus’ return whilst living faithfully in the herein now. By beginning here, the Jerusalem Statement roots everything that follows in the gospel itself. Which goes to show that the Jerusalem Statement isn’t about Anglican politics, but about God’s grace, love, and hope that meets us in Jesus and is sealed by the Holy Spirit. The Anglican faith is the gospel of God’s love and the story of our common hope! 2. Biblical Authority in the Anglican Church We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God written and to contain all things necessary for salvation. The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading. Here we encounter what many consider the Statement’s most controversial yet foundational claim: Scripture contains “all things necessary for salvation” and must be read in its “plain and canonical sense.” This affirmation draws directly from Article VI of the Thirty-nine Articles, asserting Scripture’s sufficiency and clarity. Notice the absence of the words “inerrant” and “infallible,” not because those terms are rejected (though they can be problematic), but because the issue of biblical authority is not be framed in terms of the American “Battle for the Bible” that shaped US denominations in the twentieth century. As I’ve argued here, global Christianity does not need to Americanize it’s language to maintain a high view of Holy Scripture. Otherwise, see my contribution to the book Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy. The phrase “plain and canonical sense” attempts to navigate between wooden literalism and interpretive free-for-all, suggesting Scripture possesses an intelligible meaning accessible through a careful reading within the church’s interpretive tradition. The reference to “the church’s historic and consensual reading” acknowledges we don’t interpret Scripture in isolation but within a community of interpretation stretching across centuries. Critics argue this masks interpretive diversity and privileges particular readings as “plain” when they are actually contested positions. True, what is “plain” can be subjective. But I would counter that core Christian doctrines emerge clearly from Scripture when read faithfully. There is room for diversity in secondary and tertiary matters – GAFCON includes numerous views about the inclusion of women in Holy Orders. But the Trinity, Jesus’s divinity, and atonement are not up for negotiation or negation. In many Anglican provinces, where Orthodoxy was made optional, it was soon mocked, and then proscribed. That is precisely what the Jerusalem Declaration seeks to address. The five-fold emphasis on Scripture, i.e. translate, read, preach, teach, and obey, stresses Scripture’s practical role in Christian formation. This isn’t Bible-as-museum-piece but Bible-as-living-authority. The Bible is not an authority because it is a magical book, but because God the Holy Spirit speaks in it (WCF 1.10). The Jerusalem Statement stakes everything on Scripture’s veracity and authority, making this point foundational for all that follows.

News Analysis By David W. Virtue The Bishop of Utah, Carolyn Tanner Irish, recovering alcoholic and an ex-Mormon who never got baptized as a Christian, says that from a biblical perspective there is very little to support current views of marriage and family. "Many Christians speak of marriage as a 6,000-year-old tradition. But historical and cultural evolution challenges that view and the Latter Day Saints (Mormon) tradition is a prime example of that." The "sacramentality" that religious faiths now claim for marriage has also evolved. It is doubtful that Jesus would even recognize our institution of marriage as it is, she writes in an Op-Ed article for the Salt Lake Tribune. "Further, one must look elsewhere than the Bible to support the vague category called 'family values.' I know of no consistently good 'family values' stories in the Hebrew or Christian Scriptures. Support for marriage as we define it hard to find in Scripture," she says. The way we view marriage and family itself has evolved over centuries, says the bishop. "Propagation of the species was, of course, its biological foundation, but culturally it was property arrangements among tribes or clans that followed, and persist in many cultures to this day." Tanner said that some people believe that homosexuality is a moral issue, not a given orientation. "This implies that these citizens are, in some situations, 'undeserving' of certain political recognition and protection. To others such a view smacks of ignorance or intolerance, sustaining the idea that 'these people would be better if they were more like me [us].' Similarly, some married heterosexuals believe they and their families would be threatened by legal partnerships for same-sex couples and their families. Why? How? Is there any factual basis to support such fear?" Morality doesn't "belong" to any group on the basis of their sex, their religion or political alliances, said the bishop. Infidelity, exploitation, abuse, oppression and harm -- or their opposites -- can be found among people of either sexual orientation. Morality consists principally of values, which may be shared, upheld and lived by a broad range of people and institutions. The civic ordering of a democratic society should seek support for such common values as widely as possible, she said. Ms. Tanner is clearly not familiar with the theology of marriage as it is given to us in Holy Scripture. 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, says Dr. Robert Gagnon, a prominent Presbyterian theologian. "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." "Gay marriage" is a contradiction in terms, says the orthodox theologian. "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." "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." "By definition homosexual desire is sexual narcissism or sexual self-deception. There is either (1) a conscious recognition that one desires in another what one already is and has as a sexual being (anatomy, physiology, sex-based traits) or (2) a self-delusion of sorts in which the sexual same is perceived as some kind of sexual other." Gagnon says that 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)." Gagnon says that idolatry and same-sex intercourse constitute a frontal assault on the work of the Creator in nature. Those who suppressed the truth about God transparent in creation were more likely to suppress the truth about the complementarity of the sexes transparent in nature, choosing instead to gratify contrary innate impulses. "There is good evidence that societal approval of homosexual practice may increase the incidence of homosexuality and bisexuality, not just homosexual practice." Gagnon says that since the homosexual life is characterized by a comparatively high rate of problems in terms of sexually transmitted disease, mental health issues, nonmonogamous behavior, and short-term unions -- even in homosex-affirming areas of the world -- an increase in homosexuality and bisexuality will mean more persons affected by such problems. "Gay marriage," as the ultimate legal sanctioning of homosexual behavior, will bring with it a wave of intolerance toward, and attack on the civil liberties of, those who publicly express disapproval of homosexual practice, says Gagnon. "Gay marriage" is wrong because 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. By definition same-sex erotic attraction is predicated either on the narcissism of being attracted to what one is as a sexual being or on the delusion that one needs to merge with another of the same sex to complete one's own sexual deficiencies." Gagnon says that "gay marriage" is also wrong because, rather than moderating the excesses of homosexual behavior, it will weaken the institution of marriage. If Ms. Tanner still believes that any alternative to heterosexual marriage is biblically permissible then she ought to resign her office. To go against 2,000 years of historical biblical and theological teaching is to violate her teaching and pastoral office.

Says Lambeth Report May Bring Structural Change or Division in Its Wake By Jim Brown, AgapePress July 21, 2004 A conservative Anglican theologian is lamenting the latest fallout from the Episcopal Church's approval of an openly homosexual bishop and so-called 'same-sex blessing' ceremonies. North Carolina Bishop Michael Curry recently told churches in his diocese they were authorized to bless homosexual unions. His announcement follows similar moves by Episcopal leaders in Nevada, Utah, Los Angeles, Washington, DC, and Vermont. American Anglican Council member Dr. Kendall Harmon, who serves as Canon Theologian for the Diocese of South Carolina, says Curry is the first southeastern bishop to okay same-sex blessings since the denomination's General Convention in Minneapolis, Minnesota. "It's discouraging," Harmon says, "because a lot of his diocese is opposed to his vote, and now he's not simply voted for the New Hampshire election, but he's going further than that. And it's going to further divide the diocese." The Anglican leader advises conservatives in Curry's diocese to network among themselves and "prayerfully prepare" for the October Lambeth Commission report, which will address the rift in Anglicanism over homosexuality. He says Anglican conservatives need to be ready to move into a realigned future, the exact shape of which may not be clear until the Lambeth report is released. Harmon feels too many church-going Episcopalians are being passive in what he calls "the American sense," which he describes as "basically sitting in the chair and pressing the remote." What they should be doing, he says, is actively waiting, according to the biblical understanding of what it means to wait. He points out, "Isaiah 40 says, 'They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength. They shall mount up with wings like eagles.' And biblical waiting is strategic networking, prayerful thoughtfulness -- you know, serious preparation." The Anglican Council spokesman sees two possibilities for the future of the Anglican Communion. Either a major structural response can be expected, internationally, to the Anglican crisis in America, or a "sad bifurcation," Harmon says.

By Carolyn Tanner Irish The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/20/2004 "Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?" -- from the Baptismal Covenant, Episcopal Book of Common Prayer Recent statements of Utah leaders in both the dominant church and the dominant political party supporting a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage prompt me to respond publicly. I do so as a leader in the Episcopal Church but I do not speak for this church or its members. My intent is to broaden the religious and civil context of this debate. Many contend religion and politics shouldn't mix. The fact is they do mix and always have. Nothing could more clearly illustrate such a "mix" than marriage customs, especially in eras and cultures where property is the primary "stake" in both marriage and governing systems. Then, too, the value of justice is integral to both religious and political traditions. For Utah, the separation of church and state is something of a facade. Even so, it is helpful to acknowledge these do represent different perspectives -- and yes, power bases -- between both such institutions, whether or not they "mix." Some people believe that homosexuality is a moral issue, not a given orientation. This implies that these citizens are, in some situations, "undeserving" of certain political recognition and protection. To others such a view smacks of ignorance or intolerance, sustaining the idea that "these people would be better if they were more like me [us]." Similarly, some married heterosexuals believe they and their families would be threatened by legal partnerships for same-sex couples and their families. Why? How? Is there any factual basis to support such fear? Morality doesn't "belong" to any group on the basis of their sex, their religion or political alliances. Infidelity, exploitation, abuse, oppression and harm -- or their opposites -- can be found among people of either sexual orientation. Morality consists principally of values, which may be shared, upheld and lived by a broad range of people and institutions. The civic ordering of a democratic society should seek support for such common values as widely as possible. The way we view marriage and family itself has evolved over centuries. Propagation of the species was, of course, its biological foundation, but culturally it was property arrangements among tribes or clans that followed, and persist in many cultures to this day. In the West, the Renaissance gave rise to romantic, courtly love and some sense of romance still abides. Yet arranged marriages persisted through the 18th and 19th centuries with extended family groups then becoming the norm. Our present notion of "the nuclear family" is a very new (post-World War II) development, as the metaphor "nuclear" itself suggests. Now, excessive individualism and the equality of women have radically reshaped our contemporary understandings of marriage and family, which are of course more independent of each other than ever before. From a biblical perspective there is very little to support our current views of marriage and family. Many Christians speak of marriage as a 6,000-year-old tradition. But historical and cultural evolution challenges that view, and the LDS tradition is a prime example of that. The "sacramentality" that religious faiths now claim for marriage has also evolved. It is doubtful that Jesus would even recognize our institution of marriage as it is. Further, one must look elsewhere than the Bible to support the vague category called "family values." I know of no consistently good "family values" stories in the Hebrew or Christian Scriptures. Instead, such narratives tell of disobedience, jealousy and murder; rape, incest and infidelity. Nor was Jesus promoting "family values" in such a statement as, "Whoever loves father or mother . . . son or daughter . . . more than me is not worthy of me" (Matthew 10:37). What Jesus did do was redefine the nature of "family" -- beyond blood or tribal loyalties. He said, rather, "Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother" (Matthew 12:50). What a radical shift from his religious culture! Thus, from a practical perspective, I have to wonder if this whole debate isn't mere election strategy playing on fear and prejudice. Do we think that a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is really going to defeat love? Home? Family? A desire to share life together? Election politics -- perhaps -- or, more seriously, a giant distraction, so that we won't get down to dealing with the real issues and genuine needs of our society. They are many. The Right Rev. Carolyn Tanner Irish is bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Utah.

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.

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.

What kind of evidence would indicate that it is under the blessing of God in 2004? By Peter Toon 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 (= Synod) 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. There are some signs of cooperation and inter-communion not only between some of these bodies but also with yet another grouping, Pentecostalists on the Canterbury trail (e.g. the Charismatic Episcopal Church). What they all have in common is the belief that the ECUSA is either apostate or virtually so and that they are preserving the whole or major aspects of the genuine, historic Anglican Way. 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? Let us be clear that this is a different question to: Are there individual parishes and congregations faithfully worshipping, witnessing and working for the Lord? We can all agree that seen as isolated units not a few of the local churches in this motley crowd are fellowships where God is truly honored and people are genuinely blessed. But let us remember that one unit is neither a jurisdiction nor a communion of churches. 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 [classic BCP, Ordinal & Articles of Religion] 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. 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 there 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.

Black & Right WORLD, July 24, 2004 By Gene Edward Veith 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. Griswold did that all by himself without any help from a single African bishop. 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." Trinity Church Wall Street might be the richest church in the world, but it is the financial hand maiden of ECUSA, and its buildings will, in time, be little more than a tourist drop off as people come to see the rebuilding of the downed towers as having more to offer than this church's millions. Their stated policy that if an African province criticizes ECUSA over its sexual policies, funds will dry up, shows you that they think money is more important than truth-telling. 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. And what investment has the TEC made in Africa that has brought returns of love and affection? - Integrity's attempt to gain a foothold in Uganda by trying to buy pansexual acceptance from a sympathetic African bishop? Mercifully that fell apart. Or the money ECUSA has poured into Africa in order to buy into ECUSA's bankrupt morality. Everything comes with a price tag with ECUSA, and that price tag is high, just ask Archbishop Ndungane of Southern Africa. He is the only holdout on the African continent that still believes in ECUSA with his 'please don't interfere with ECUSA's internal affairs' approach. I know, I asked him. And he continues to receive bounty from ECUSA's Trust Funds. On education. Bishops and seminary professors like Ian Douglas of EDS make forays into Africa to get students to come to US Episcopal seminaries so they can be filled with gay and liberal agit poop, and return and infect their own people with the spiritual HIV of ECUSA. But the Africans are catching on. They are not only refusing ECUSA's millions of dollars they are not sending their students to most of ECUSA's seminaries. Who deliberately goes to another country to pick up a spiritual disease that could damn you for all eternity? 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 (read lesbitransgay) behavior and its failure to affirm major doctrines of the faith at its last General Convention. Crew writes, "Anglicans outside TEC who are not saying anything one way or the other right now have a stake if TEC is booted out or even more badly bruised, but they seem not to have awakened to that." And what is it exactly that they should be awakened too? What stake is there? ECUSA's deviant sexuality, or if you go along with our post-modern morality there will be a check waiting for you at the end of the rainbow coalition? This is a fiction. It isn't going to happen. And to compare the "stigmata" of Christ identifying with the "despised and rejected minority" [of ECUSA's pansexualists] is the biggest lie of all. The "despised and rejected" ones in ECUSA today are the church's Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals who have been, and continue to be, marginalized by bishops like Bennison, Shaw, Dixon, Chane, Leidel, Parsley et al. For Crew to say or hint that it is the Episcopal Church's pansexualists who are being marginalized is totally laughable if it wasn't so damnably untrue. Ask the Rev. Michael Hopkins, Integrity's leading sodomite if he feels at all marginalized in the Diocese of Washington and then go ask the Rev. Thomas Logan or the Rev. Al Zadiq, two orthodox priests, how the feel as an orthodox minority in that diocese, and they will tell you a completely different story. Ask pastor Logan of Capitol Hill Episcopal parish who challenged the Diocese of Washington with a resolution rebuking same-sex "marriage," and scheduled a debate in his church but had to cancel it after documents were stolen and trashed. If someone trashed Integrity's documents the screams of outrage would have been heard for months and the shrill cries of homophobia and 'they are trying to kill us' would have reverberated around the national cathedral with Bishop John Chane covering himself in sackcloth and ashes. How would Hopkins have stood up to an orthodox bishop beating him up for several years for his homosexual behavior? He couldn't have stood it. In his diocese it isn't going to happen. Then ask how Fr. David Moyer of Good Shepherd in Rosemont, PA how he feels, suffering for six months under Pontius Bennison, and while he is not suffering now, the legal battle rages on, and may go on till Bennison retires. Crew says the primates are showing "irrational behavior, but that rarely stops folks." Only love can do that, he writes. "And it seems that few in the Communion have thought to love The Episcopal Church. The test of love is always the same, and always tough: do we love only when people please us or agree with us?" Elsewhere he says, "If others outside The Episcopal Church want to change us, they are going about it all the wrong way. They might love us into their attitudes, but they will never bully us into them." The orthodox HAVE been loving ECUSA's revisionists for years, so much so that they kept drawing lines in the sand to accommodate them while praying for them, and where did it get them? NOWHERE. The revisionists kept pushing on everything from women's ordination to vile sexual behaviors and screamed 'local option' while waiting for General Convention to pass what they were already practicing. The flipside of love is law...(the orthodox should have been reading Luther instead of Countryman), and they should have stood up to Spong 30 years ago, but didn't. And today we have a total mess on our hands, and the orthodox are partly to blame for doing nothing till it was too late. (British Evangelicals are just waking up to that fact with the Jeffrey John debacle. Let us hope it is not too late for them.) No, it was not the sloppy, misused word 'love' that ECUSA's revisionists needed to hear but the tough word of God's law, which if broken brings His judgment down on them. And Crew whines that if they loved us, instead of bullying us, things might have worked out differently. Nonsense. The truth is it is revisionist bishops who are doing the bullying of their orthodox rectors and dozens of godly men are walking away in disgust and disillusionment joining other Anglican groups or going nowhere. Dr. Crew should travel to the Diocese of Connecticut and talk with the six orthodox rectors there about what Bishop Andrew Smith is doing to them, and then he should take a plane to Eastern Michigan and talk with another half a dozen orthodox rectors, three of whom have already resigned, and then he should fly out to Colorado and talk to Messrs Don Armstrong and Ephraim Radner about what Bishop O'Neill is doing to that diocese. And the list could go on and on. Till recently, until they were galvanized by Nigerian Primate Peter Akinola, the African primates have had to listen at one Primatial gathering after another to Griswold whine about sodomite acceptance, while millions died of AIDS, hunger and without Christ. And on top of it all Griswold, Spong and Bennison have all made insulting remarks about how backward African Anglicans are with their simple "fundamentalist" message, while they, the Sophisticated Ones know it all, even as their church falls apart. That is evil beyond all evil. The whole Anglican Communion's mission has been compromised while a pro-Sodomite American Presiding Bishop has demanded acceptance of lesbitransgay behavior into his church and made it the No. 1 agenda item at every recent primatial gathering. And now it might all come crashing to the ground...and maybe it should. The cup of blessing has now become the cup of God's wrath. Crew says it would be a horrible loss for the Communion to split, "but I have no illusion that one or additional papers, however well written, will make that happen or prevent it. The 'communion' we now have is not as substantial as I would like it to be; currently we have far too few exchanges disciple to disciple. Many of our structures are far too impersonal: they work well enough to allow the flow of tangible support, but we might structure more personal contact, especially with the major growth in communications and transportation over the last two decades. It would be horrible to miss the opportunity that is before us to grow in bonds of affection and ministry." 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. I know, they have told me. 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. No, Dr. Crew has it all backwards, and he has had it that way for 30 plus years, and soon he will see the bitter fruit of his pushing and teaching about gay sex come to fruition. "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 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 the 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. 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.