Archives

How defensive responses and controlling personal agendas lay the groundwork for a schism, in the church   By David W. Virtue   What made five parishes and seven clergy leave the Diocese of the Central Gulf Coast and affiliate with the Anglican Mission in America in the year 2000? Was it simply a matter of bad theology, a mediocre bishop, a morally and theologically bankrupt Episcopal leadership? Or was it something more than that? The Rev. Dr. David McDowell-Fleming thinks he knows what the problems are and he may be right. The priest is no arm-chair systems management wonk. He's an active priest in the diocese and holds a Ph.D. on the whole subject of institutional management. He's also a deeply committed orthodox and Evangelical Catholic priest, a graduate of Duke University Divinity School and General Theological Seminary and he has been in the thick of things in that diocese for more than 17 years. He has written a book on the crisis that hit the Diocese of Central Gulf Coast and he offers this as his central thesis. "When members and leaders of a denomination react defensively and respond with controlling management styles to enthusiastic expressions of piety and worship styles, consistently over a periods of time, they lay the groundwork for significant schismatic outbreaks in the life of that denomination." The priest cited three areas of concern: Firstly, leadership in the church fails the gospel if it is dominated by the norms of management. Secondly, the spiritual experiences of the people of God are a life force to be nourished and guided, not suppressed. That is, the spiritual life must be led, not managed. Thirdly, when the predominant theme is that of suppression and control, schism may be the most natural outcome and indeed, a forerunner of a form of reformation. For 20 years, he writes, the Diocese of the Central Gulf Coast was fueled by the inflammatory capacity for disharmony in the church community which led finally to the parishes and priests leaving. He cites four areas where the community added to the fuel of schism. The use of derogatory generalizations of Christian brothers and sisters; by controlling the information and presenting only that which compliments a corporate image; by manipulating data, events and people with public relations strategies and by allowing individuals to work their personal agendas for significant social change in ways that were not open to public discussion and challenge. "What is significant is that for 20 years in the Diocese there was a residue of animosity towards a large group of congregations and priests who were charismatic," writes McDowell-Fleming who cited the actions of General Convention on voting for resolution D039 and the accusation of 'Neo-Fundamentalist' aimed at the AMIA as fueling the problems. The priest noted that Bishop Charles Duvall's predecessor, the Rt. Rev. George Murray urged the various diocesan factions to keep communications open. "We won't always agree, but we surely can try to understand one another. And we need one another's ideas and opinions," he wrote at the time. In the new Episcopal Diocese of the early 70s, a parallel dynamic took place. The bishop had a radical reputation for being a very active civil rights activist, trying to forge a diocesan identity amongst strong rectors who refused to relinquish theirs. Part of this power struggle involved opposition to renewal movements. The newly formed Diocese of the Central Gulf Coast saw a convergence of the Anglo-Catholic and Charismatic traditions, which became the story of one church, the Episcopal Church in Destin, Florida. But many of the rectors demonstrated an unwillingness to compromise their independence. "Structurally Anglican comprehensiveness became nothing more than obvious congregationalism. A significant Episcopal parish in Mobile had the nickname as the largest Presbyterian Church in Mobile." Labels like "fundamentalist"; "charismatic" thrown about along with the "authority of Holy Scripture" only polarized the diocese. The word "historical" became an insult conveying intolerance, rigidity and an unwillingness to buy into the "political correct." In time the notion of, "In things essential, unity; in things doubtful, liberty; in all things charity," began to fade. There was, writes McDowell-Fleming, "little liberty in accepting either debate or difference and worst of all there was a major failure of charity." At the end, the cycle of renewal/consolidation/stagnation/deterioration became the norm. Bishop Duval tried to be a consolidator but he lacked an understanding or even an appreciation of the Charismatic Movement. Instead of a renewal cycle beginning in the diocese, five congregations pulled away. Thus began the long painful cycle of charismatic and anti-charismatic fighting, but the emphasis in time moved to the role Cursillo would now play in the diocese. Bishop Murray was not to be in office as the history of Cursillo evolved. He retired and it was Duvall who took up the cause. The diocesan office produced a form document that outlined the movement and how it was to be implemented. The new bishop Charles Duvall came in on the old style Evangelical tradition representing the Low Church party who saw themselves as safeguarding the causes of the Reformation. Yet he was not closed to ritual when it would compliment the cause of the gospel. Duvall's main opposition was to a sacerdotal understanding of ministry in which bishop and priest over valued their self-importance. But Duvall inherited the whirlwind, and it was left to him to initiate the major structural shift in the power structure of the diocese. In his involvement with Cursillo the new Bishop chose to participate only at the level of being the celebrant and preacher at the Closing if each and every Cursillo weekend. Duval attempted to move the participants away from Roman Catholic and Charismatic extremes. The truth is Duvall was straight Low Church, mild evangelical emphasis, of the Virginian Seminary and South Carolina school. He become less and less interested in the charismatic movement in his clergy and expressed over time, a certain repulsion towards it. What happened to these clergy? Because of the climate of control, their presence and passion was no longer acceptable to the Diocese. Staff was appointed who were compliant but also added the bishop's negative reactions to individuals who were in any shape or form extreme in their desire for renewal or were public in their conservative orthodox expression of the faith. These clergy who thus were marginalized in the process became the nucleus of the later movement that led to the deconstruction of the Diocese. A bishop who had come in as a moderate now began to display tendencies towards a more liberal line, which would, in time manifest itself in very illiberal forms. But what gave the orthodox clergy initial heart was the revelation that Bishop Duvall had signed onto the Irenaeus Fellowship. A group was formed and began discussing the issues and spending time praying for each other's ministries. Then a surprise came when Duvall withdrew from this Fellowship saying they were "mean-spirited". Because of a personal set back, from that point on he no longer wanted to be identified with the conservative fellowship of bishops. Duvall went a stage further. He made sure that any priest associated with the Irenaeus Fellowship would never get a diocesan appointment to offices of leadership. He had turned. The diocese's finances proved the point. The diocese and the bishop maintained the status quo even as the Florida Panhandle was busting at the seams economically as people were discovering it as a plum retirement area. Visionary leadership complete disappeared. The Diocese of the Central Gulf Coast that was highly resistant to the Bishop Murray, under Bishop Duvall proved no more successful than his predecessor. At the end of Duvall's reign the constituency was ready to elect a maintainer without any conscious reflection as to the disaster that had resulted from similar decisions more than 20 years prior. He made sure that no resolutions were ever put forward that involved dissenting points of view. Stick with issues about HIV/AIDS where no one would dissent and all would be well. It was a foolish mistake. The diocese which should have embraced leadership through constructive or adaptive change had chosen instead, management. Duvall had chosen to live with "ambiguity", but seven of his priests and large parts of five congregations decided they could not. The bishops, who once had the confidence of conservative clergy, now publicly took a position that seemed to be in compromise with culture. By the time a new bishop was to be chosen, any effort to choose a person of orthodox persuasion was not even on the playing field. A case in point was the deconstruction of Canon Bill Atwood, EKKELSIA president and an out and out Evangelical who said he would, if elected bishop, immediately lift the sentences of deposition pronounced upon those who had departed. Atwood was classified by one diocesan liberal as one of "those fundamentalist schismatics" who had left the church (it was a lie), adding of the departing AMIA clergy, "these people should be defrocked!" The national church got in on the act when Bishop Clayton Matthews, the Presiding Bishop's man for pastoral development charged that Atwood had considerable credit card debt. Atwood said he had four times the amount to pay for it (he buys plane tickets on the points), but the damage was done. Atwood never had a prayer. The job went to the moderate The Rt. Rev. Philip M. Duncan II. But the history of "moderate" bishops is always the same. Without a clear fix on the gospel and the authority of Scripture, such moderate men become liberals and quickly turn into revisionists. It has never been otherwise. Never. McDowell-Fleming concludes his book by saying that "history only will confirm if the AMIA in any way turns out to be a Coast Guard Cutter!" Can American Anglicanism as expressed in the Episcopal Church, rediscover a true sense of comprehensiveness? The old analogies of churchmanship of High, Low and Broad are now blurred and belong to an earlier age. Yet there seems to be a dividing line between those who are comfortable with an effective engagement of their faith and those who would prefer to keep it at an intellectual level. Both are needed says the priest. The question at this 11th hour of the Episcopal Church is whether the two will still be together after February 2005. The Rev. Dr. David H. McDowell-Fleming is rector of St. Monica's Episcopal Church in Cantonment, Florida in the Diocese of the Central Gulf Coast. His book may be purchased by going to www.iUniverse.com 122pp. $13.95. *

(NOTE: Virtuosity contacted Mainstream Coalition and learned that a number of Episcopalians are actively monitoring conservative churches)   OVERLAND PARK, Kan. (AP)   A recent Sunday found Tina Kolm changing her morning routine. Instead of attending a Unitarian Universalist service, she was at the Lenexa Christian Center, paying close attention to a conservative minister's sermon about the importance of amending the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage. Kolm is one of about 100 volunteers for the Mainstream Coalition, a group monitoring the political activities of local pastors and churches. The coalition, based in suburban Kansas City, Kan., says it wants to make sure clergy adhere to federal tax guidelines restricting political activity by nonprofit groups, and it's taking such efforts to a new level. The 47-year-old Kolm, from Prairie Village, Kan., said keeping church and state separate is important to her. She doesn't want a few religious denominations defining marriage -- or setting other social policy -- for everyone. "What it's all about to me is denying some people's rights," she said. But some local clergy think the Mainstream Coalition is using scare tactics designed to unfairly keep them out of the political process. "Somebody is trying to act like Big Brother when there's no need for Big Brother," said the Rev. James Conard, assistant pastor at the First Baptist Church of Shawnee. "It's obviously an intent to intimidate." Kansas isn't the only place in this election year where church-state separation has become a hot issue, but the Mainstream Coalition's efforts are more intense than most. Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed a complaint this month with the Internal Revenue Service against the Rev. Jerry Falwell over a column endorsing President Bush on his ministries' Web site. Falwell said the group was waging a "scare-the-churches campaign." Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United, said local chapters have sent volunteers to church services the Sunday before an election, but he said the Mainstream Coalition's efforts are more sustained. Some conservatives are upset. "These people will stop at nothing to silence churches," said Andrea Lafferty, of the Washington-based Traditional Values Coalition, which says it represents 43,000 churches. The catalyst for the Mainstream Coalition's campaign in Kansas was the debate over gay marriage. In May, the Kansas House rejected a proposed amendment to the Kansas Constitution to ban gay marriage. Dozens of pastors then joined a statewide effort to register 100,000 new voters and elect more sympathetic candidates -- a move similar to one in Washington state, where an Assembly of God pastor is leading an effort to register 60,000 new voters and re-elect Bush. Charles Haynes, a senior scholar with the nonpartisan First Amendment Center in Arlington, Va., said Mainstream's tactics only added to the tension in Kansas. "If we want to escalate a cultural war, this is a good way to do it," he said. But Mainstream's executive director, Caroline McKnight, said her organization is only trying to make sure that churches follow federal law. The group has not yet filed any complaints, she said. McKnight said Mainstream Coalition volunteers visit houses of worship of all types. Said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the conservative American Center for Law and Justice, of Virginia Beach, Va.: "Who deputized this group and its members to be thought police in Kansas -- or elsewhere?" *

By Terry Mattingly   George Gallup Jr. has been studying the numbers for a half century and nobody knows better than he does that they just don't add up. Most of the familiar, comforting statistics that describe public religion remain remarkably stable from poll to poll. Somewhere around 86 percent of Americans say they believe in God and another 8 percent or so in a "higher power" of some kind. Sixty percent say faith is "very important" in daily life and another 15 percent say it's "fairly important." In the typical poll, around 80 percent identify themselves as some brand of Christian and claim membership in a congregation. Somewhere between 41 and 46 percent of Americans say they attended church or synagogue in the previous week. Can religious faith answer all of today's problems? Six in 10 say "yes." Throughout the 1990s, nearly two in three affirmed that "God really exists and I have no doubt about it." But there is another side of this religion equation, said Gallup, during a recent address at Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary outside Boston. "Sadly, our society continues to be wracked by domestic problems," he said. "Four in 10 American children go to bed without a father in the home. One-third of teens have been physically abused in the home. One-fourth of all Americans say that drinking is a problem in their home and half of all marriages this year will end in divorce. "What lies ahead? Will democracy remain viable? ... How can our faith make a difference? How can it sustain us?" That final leap of logic -- linking morality, politics and faith -- may seem strange to those who have followed his meticulous work as America's most trusted brand name in public information and the author of 16 books. But Gallup is convinced that most Americans believe that the state of the nation is closely tied to its spiritual health. Now, the 74-year-old pollster has officially retired. But this doesn't mean Gallup will disappear. As a young man with a religion degree from Princeton University, he considered entering the Episcopal priesthood. No one expects him to stop asking questions about the role of faith in American life. Truth is, Gallup has more questions than answers. But he said being retired will allow him even more time and freedom to discuss the strategies he thinks clergy should adopt if they want to help the faithful follow the doctrines they claim to believe. "Surveys reveal an unprecedented desire for religious and spiritual growth among people in all walks of life and in every region of the nation," he said. "There is an intense searching for spiritual moorings, a hunger for God. It is for churches to seize the moment and to direct this often vague and free-floating spirituality into a solid and lived-out faith." The key, he said, is that too many pastors naively assume that church members know and understand the core doctrines of their own faith. "For example, half of all Protestants have no idea whatsoever what the word 'grace' means and what it has to do with their salvation," he said, in an interview not long after the Massachusetts address. "Now, that's pretty basic doctrine. Pastors today assume that their people know the basics. They don't." Clergy assume that believers are familiar with the contents of those Bibles sitting on their bookshelves. They assume church members understand the teachings of other major religions and can hold thoughtful, respectful conversations about the differences between these faiths. Many even assume their members sincerely want to repent of their sins, amend their lives and become serious Christians. Gallup said he is constantly shocked to hear that few pastors ever ask members -- person to person, face to face -- about the status of their faith and personal lives. Many pastors no longer see the need to openly discuss the impact of sin. "Someone has to challenge people to be true disciples of Christ," he said. "Someone has to ask the hard questions. If we don't talk about the whole dimension of sin, repentance, grace and forgiveness, what is the faith all about? What are we doing? ... Without true discipleship, the church can simply turn into a social services agency." Terry Mattingly ( www.tmatt.net ) teaches at Palm Beach Atlantic University and is senior fellow for journalism at the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities. He writes this weekly column for the Scripps Howard News Service. *

By Geoffrey Kirk 23 July 2004   'These hands have ordained women and I am comfortable with that', Bishop Peter Beckwith told delegates to the Forward in Faith North America National Assembly in Bedford, Texas. It was an unfortunate way of putting things. Unfortunate because it was a scarcely veiled allusion to the so-called 'Doctrine of Taint', of which Forward in Faith has often been accused, but which it has never held. And unfortunate in the way in which it seemed to belittle the importance of the very issue which had brought the delegates of that conference together. 'The Network', whatever it stands for (and that is by no means clear), has drawn its line at the consecration of Gene Robinson, and so, by implication, declared other contemporary innovations in the life of the Episcopal Church to be secondary or subsidiary. It is therefore important to ask: Why this line in the sand and no other? It has to be said, with frankness, that it does not appear to be a very tenable line. What, after all, is wrong with the ordination of Gene Robinson? Is it that he is a practising gay bishop? But he was a practising gay priest before he was a practising gay bishop. Why is now so much worse than then? Is it that, as a bishop, he exercises a teaching role in matters of doctrine, which as a cathedral canon he did not exercise? Then why did those who object to the consecration of Gene Robinson not seek the deposition of Jack Spong (whose doctrinal defections were at least as flagrant as Bishop Robinson's?) Is it that Gene Robinson has separated from his wife to embrace a life style excoriated by the scriptures? Certainly he has; but is it clear (Article XXVI and all) that his sacramental acts are defective and that his ministry should therefore be shunned? Frankly, a man's bedroom activities are an uncertain foundation on which to build an ecclesiology -- especially those of a man as uncertain in his mores as Bishop Robinson. He has already forsaken a gay lifestyle for matrimony and deserted matrimony for a gay lifestyle. Who is to say that he will not change his mind again and confound his critics with repentance? Is it because a majority of ECUSA bishops consented to his consecration, so signalling their departure from scriptural fidelity and the constraints of the tradition? They did so, of course. But the challenge is to say why this is a defining moment. Does anyone believe that a majority of ECUSA bishops was faithful to scripture and the tradition up to the moment of the Robinson consecration? Those in the Episcopal Church who have opposed the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate for the last thirty years (and have been marginalised in that Church as a result of their principled stand) have earned the right to ask these questions and more. Forward in Faith maintains that the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate is contrary to the clear teaching of scripture, and is repeatedly and unreservedly condemned in the tradition. We hold that the exegetical sleights of hand which allow women's ordination to be portrayed as consonant with scripture are precisely those which are now being employed in condoning homosexual practice. We believe, moreover, that the two matters are related, not only by the exegetical methods used to uphold them, but by a doctrine of personal rights and freedoms which is itself unevidenced in scripture and inimical to orthodox Christianity. It will be seen that an alliance with those who oppose the homosexualist agenda is one which Forward in Faith can undertake with enthusiasm. It will be equally clear that we cannot do so in terms which will in any way compromise our stand on what is, in our view, the clearest and most fundamental ecclesiological issue in the present debate. We believe that matters of sexual ethics, especially when they set aside (or seek to trivialise or compromise) the marriage bond, seriously affect the integrity of the Church as the Bride of Christ [Ephesians 5: 22-33] and the Household of Faith [Galatians 6: 10; Ephesians 2: 19]. These are matters of great importance. The Apostle Paul, more than once, links sexual license with idolatry. [Romans 1:18-24; Galatians 5:19-20; Colossians 3:5] But the ordination of women (setting aside, as it does, the free, gracious and sovereign action of the Lord in his choice of male Apostles [Matthew 4: 18-22; Mark 1: 16-20]; the deliberate continuation of that choice by the Apostles themselves [Acts 1:15-26]; and the specific and clear prohibitions of Paul in his Apostolic charge to those who were to succeed him [I Timothy 2:11-15]) is graver still. The ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate is for us a salvation issue. By this we mean that it calls into question the apostolicity, continuity and reliability of those sacraments upon which eternal life and salvation depend. ('Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you do not have life in yourselves. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day'. [John 6:53-54]) We do not mean by this, as some have perversely misconstrued, that those who have ordained women or have received their ministry are damned: simply that their actions endanger the salvation and spiritual well-being of others. Women's ordination is also a primary ecclesiological issue, since it is the vocation and purpose of the Church to guard the authenticity of the sacraments of the Lord, until the Lord himself comes and all sacraments are done away. The Church does not authorise the sacraments; in Christ the sacraments constitute and authorise the Church. Because of the ecclesiological implications of the ordination of women it has been the consistent aim of Forward in Faith to establish a free and independent province of the Anglican Communion in North America which would continue the priesthood and episcopate of the Catholic Church as the Episcopal Church received them. Such a province would, as a matter of course, uphold the Church's teaching on the sanctity and indissolubility of the marriage bond, and other dependent issues in human sexuality. It is not presently clear what the ultimate ecclesial aims of the Network are. We are grateful for the generosity of those who have assured a secure and respected place within it for those opposed to women bishops and priests. But such assurances do not diminish our aims and objectives. Ours is the majority opinion in the communion and in the wider church. It would be foolish, therefore, to allow impaired communion with those within the Network to dictate for us the nature and extent of our fraternal relations with fellow Anglicans opposed to women's ordination -- and our ecumenical opportunities with respect to the great churches of East and West. The Rev. Dr. Geoffrey Kirk is the secretary of Forward in Faith UK *

By Frederica Mathewes-Green Starring: Denzel Washington, Liev Schreiber, Meryl Streep Judging from audience response, the tale told in "The Manchurian Candidate" still packs a wallop. Twists in the plot were met by gasps, and a retaliatory punch in the nose with applause. It seems to have everything a summer thriller needs. I have to say "seems to have" because I'm a fan of the original version, released in 1962. Instead of being surprised by turns in the story I kept waiting for them to happen, which kind of takes the sock out of suspense. And without suspense, this version doesn't have much going for it. It's a spectacle of noise and blood, without the psychological subtext that made the original far more disturbing. That may sound like cinema-snob whining, but a quick trip through the earlier version discloses far too many superior points. Both films were based on a Cold War era novel by Richard Condon, and the 1962 film, unsurprisingly, stuck to a Cold War time frame, while the new one is set in the present day. It imagined that an Army unit (then, in Korea; now, in the Gulf) was kidnapped and brainwashed, and returned to the U.S. with a story that Sgt. Raymond Shaw (then, Laurence Harvey; now, Liev Schreiber) had heroically saved them. But some of the men have nightmares of a very different series of events. The unit's commander, Maj. Bennet Marco (then, Frank Sinatra; now, Denzel Washington), becomes convinced that his memories of Shaw's valor are false, and the nightmares are trying to tell him something true — something that becomes increasingly urgent. Shaw's scheming mother (then, Angela Lansbury; now, Meryl Streep) has political ambitions, and it begins to appear that the wartime brain-altering has dark connections to the upcoming presidential election. The new film sticks to that outline, but boy has it been updated, and rendered a PC flourish wherever possible. Where Angela Lansbury was the wife of a doltish Senator whom she played like a puppet, Streep is a senator herself. (Streep wisely chose to not view the original before making the film, to avoid being influenced by Lansbury's extraordinary performance, which won her an Oscar nod. The character herself, however, demands to be played in certain ways, and Streep's version is inevitably similar. It's well done, but Lansbury's was better, thanks to her babyfaced softness which made the evil more chilling.) Another female character has been turned from a romantic interest into a special agent, charging up the stairs with a gun. But the biggest change is in who the bad guy is. The original offered a truly surprising twist: it turns out that right-wing conservatives are right after all. Communists really are infiltrating the country and plotting to take over the government; that's what the title means. The ingenious smoke screen is that Lansbury's husband, Sen. Johnny Iselin (James Gregory — this character was eliminated from the new movie), is a drunken buffoon who keeps alleging that there are exactly 104 communists operating in the government, or maybe 254, or maybe 57, after he looks at a bottle of Heinz. Iselin is so laughable that being wary of communism looks stupid. Meanwhile, Mrs. Iselin is pulling exactly the strings she wants. Transferred to present day, the story should have run: the men are kidnapped and brainwashed by Muslim terrorists; Shaw's mother is associated with hawks so extreme they make preparation for defense look absurd; in the end we learn that our clever enemy has arranged to have their own candidate elected as our president. But that pleasing symmetry is lost in this new version, where the enemy is not people who are actually shooting at us, but a big, bad corporation. "Manchurian Global" does all kinds of nasty things, though not in pursuit of any particular political aim ("It's been a geopolitical extension of policy for every president since Nixon," which sounds mighty bipartisan of them). Their goal is solely desire for money, a sentiment no one in the audience must share. It's perplexing why an audience would believe that our greatest danger is from a corporation, when Americans are dying on the other side of the world. Especially considering that these two short hours of entertainment can only come to us through the cooperation of a great many corporations, who spent lots of money to do so and hope to make more in return. If we should hate and fear corporations, how come we go along with this? It's the "Look over there!" strategy employed so elegantly by Mrs. Iselin in the first film, and it seems it still works just fine. Every change in the new film is a change for the worse. The brainwashing scenes in the original were profoundly creepy (you'll never look at a women's garden club the same way again), and in the new they are just bloody. The idea of brainwashing itself, of coaxing, confusing, and altering a person's mind, is pretty creepy in itself; now the men are controlled by tiny metal implants. The first movie was a psychological thriller, and this one is a robotics thriller. These implants figure in several leaps of implausibility. Marco discovers a lump in his shoulder while showering and cuts out the metal capsule with a knife. Later, he rips off Shaw's shirt and bites the implant out of his back — yes, really. Although this implant turns out to bear technology that was thought impossible, no one finds it of interest (one investigator refers dismissively to "evidence you chewed out of a man's back," as if that's the most boring kind). And, finally, removing the implants makes no difference in the behavior of either Shaw or Marco. So what were they there for? And wouldn't the bad guys at Manchurian Global be tracking these implants, and aware when they went missing? And wouldn't the implants have shown up any time the guys went through a metal detector? And how could you miss noticing a lump in your shoulder for a dozen years? There are points where this plot is just weak, and then there are points where it crosses over to dumb. It's tempting for me to go on comparing the two films, but much better for you to do so. If you have never seen the original "Manchurian Candidate," you are in for a scary treat. It's not a summer action movie; it's a smaller, more thoughtful, more provocative film, and one that will haunt you a long time. Rent it before you go to your local giant corporate theater chain to watch the new corporately-financed version — unless, of course, you agree with this movie's message and think such things are the greatest evil we face. Frederica Mathewes-Green  www.frederica.com — END —

By Jean Torkelson Rocky Mountain News — July 27, 2004 A new Episcopal parish in Jefferson County may close in January because pledges to the Episcopal Diocese of Colorado have plunged 25 percent, which is nearly $500,000 this year. Traditionalists say the drop in donations is meant to send a message to the bishop to stop backing same-sex blessings. "New Life Church has no money in the budget from the diocese for next year — zero," said the Rev. Chuck Reischman, pastor of New Life Episcopal Church, 11195 W. Belleview Ave. New Life stands to lose $147,000 in funding in 2005, according to an overview of the proposed budget sent last week to the diocese's standing committee by its chief financial officer, Bob Leaman. New Life is one of two "start-up" churches. The other, Briargate in Colorado Springs, faces a $50,000 loss. Leaman laid out details of a slimmed-down $1.6 million budget last week for the committee, an advisory body to the bishop. The budget will be voted on at the diocesan convention in October. In order to erase a projected 10 percent deficit of $160,000 and balance the budget, the diocese would have to pull support for Reischman's church as well as Briargate. In addition, Leaman wrote, "assume a payroll freeze at all levels" for 2005. He added that revenue from congregations' pledges will be flat next year, too. The diocese had expected nearly $1.8 million in pledges but will likely receive less than $1.3 million this year, according to figures distributed to the committee. The diocese said Leaman was on vacation. He could not be reached for comment. Traditionalists blame the decline in giving on the Episcopal Church USA's endorsement last year for openly gay bishop Gene Robinson and same-sex blessings. Colorado Bishop Rob O'Neill also supports gay rights. But he's moved slowly in implementing them because of conservatives' ire, which they are demonstrating by reducing their financial pledges to the diocese. O'Neill is out of town this week and did not return calls to his cell phone. "It is absolutely unprecedented to cut the funding of a mission church that has become successful" like New Life, said the Rev. Don Armstrong, a conservative leader and member of the standing committee. The 50-member New Life church would have gone in the red in September, but received $11,500 in emergency funding from the Episcopal Foundation, said Reischman. Now, he said, "We can keep the lights on till Christmas." Reischman was brought to Colorado from Ohio in 2001 by now-retired Bishop Jerry Winterrowd, who sought out Reischman and his wife, Gina, because they had founded a vibrant youth ministry, Joshua Force. Winterrowd wanted the Reischmans to fill St. Nicholas Episcopal Church, which lost its pastor and most of the congregation in 2000. They were among the first wave of Episcopalians to leave over the issue of expanding homosexual rights in the church. The Reischmans agreed to come to Colorado to start New Life Church. They also have continued to run Joshua Force. Reischman said his church is healthy and growing this year — which is why he hopes the diocese can find a way to continue its support. Thanks to the diocese's current funding, New Life was able to distribute 5,000 information packets in the neighborhood, which yielded 13 new visitors last Sunday. "We find ourselves in the middle of a battle that the whole denomination finds itself in," Reischman said. "But this is a vibrant, growing congregation, and new families are coming every week and are excited about being at a Christ-centered church. Somehow, we will find a way to continue. I just don't know what that 'way' will look like." Budget Summaries for Episcopal Diocese of Colorado 2003 Actual Results Total revenues: $1,868,496 Total expenses: $2,037,929 Deficit: $169,532 2004 Revised Budget Total revenues: $1,650,525 Total expenses: $1,796,510 Projected deficit: $145,985 2005 Proposed Budget (after adjustments) Total revenues: $1,625,200 Total expenses: $1,649,200 Projected deficit: $24,000 — END —

By Andrew Carey 7/26/2004 A nasty piece of spin in the Sunday Times this week. Readers will need to know that Christopher Morgan is an old friend of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, and was in fact his best man. A pattern is emerging that new initiatives from Lambeth Palace are trailed by Christopher Morgan in The Sunday Times — a seeming favouritism that other newspapers deeply resent. Morgan reveals that the Archbishop of Canterbury is marking the third anniversary of 9/11 with a speech to praise Islam at Al-Azhar university. Morgan even apparently knows the content of the speech stating that the Archbishop will speak to his Muslim congregation of the common ground between Christianity and Islam through their shared inheritance as "children of Abraham." The story it must be said, is genuinely newsworthy and controversial because it marks the anniversary of the Islamist terror unleashed on the United States of America. But the whole tone of the report suggests that this lecture is of groundbreaking significance, whereas in fact Rowan's predecessor, who is criticised later in the article, lectured twice at Al-Azhar University (in 1994 and 1999) and established several important dialogues with Islam, including the Building Bridges seminar which Morgan disingenuously credits to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair. It is in this sense that I believe it to be a nasty piece of spin. Readers will expect me to say that given my relationship to Rowan's predecessor. Naturally enough I object to this from Morgan's report: "Muslim leaders believe Williams' address will repair some of the damage done to relations by a critical lecture from Lord Carey, his predecessor. Earlier this year at a seminar in Rome, Carey accused Muslim societies of being authoritarian and committed to power and privilege. He also criticised Muslim leaders who failed to condemn suicide bombers unequivocally. "In a rare clash among the higher echelons of the two faiths, Muslim leaders rounded on Carey, accusing him of bigotry and religious prejudice. Carey seemed bemused by the reaction." The report aids and abets this strange idea that criticism of Islam is out-of-bounds. So-called Muslim moderates need to have the maturity to accept well-intended criticism rather than petulantly claiming victim status every time someone points out a few home truths. After all, Islamic leaders throughout the world are only too happy to attack western values and describe America as "the Great Satan." I cannot believe for a moment that Archbishop Williams will duck the issues by delivering a lecture which minimises the major points of difference between our faiths. If he does then he will let us down badly. A speech which only emphasises our common inheritance and points of agreement will amount to nothing less than a betrayal of Christian minorities persecuted in countries like Nigeria, Pakistan and indeed deprived of their human rights throughout the Middle East. — END —

By Peter Toon People who have the time and inclination to read my little tracts and books will have noticed that consistently over the years I have referred to the official Prayer Book of the Episcopal Church, USA, as "the 1979 Prayer Book." This is a reasonable title to use and it is used by me for one basic reason — in order to avoid using the official title as given to it by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in Minneapolis 1979 which was "The Book of Common Prayer." Why do I seek to avoid calling this Book by its official title? The answer is simple. I cannot in conscience or historical judgment see it as "The Book of Common Prayer." It is most certainly a Prayer Book, but to my eyes it is not "The BCP." If we actually take note only of its internal contents which are characterized by variety and choice, we see very clearly and quickly that they belong to the new class of Prayer Books which were produced from the early 1970s onwards in the western/northern parts of the Anglican Communion, after the Lambeth Conference gave its moral backing to this enterprise. These new Books were intended to provide experimental, alternative forms of public services alongside the received, historical, Book of Common Prayer. Thus they usually contained the word "alternative" in their titles — e.g., An Alternative Service Book (England 1980). Therefore, as a historian of doctrine and of forms of Anglican worship, I see that the 1979 book was given the wrong title. It should have been something like, An American Prayer Book (1979) or A Book of Alternative Services (1979). When I enquire why it has the wrong title, I find a long and involved story about the ecclesiastical politics operative in the Episcopal Church from the 1960s into the 1970s and it is not necessary to tell that story here. However, looking back over the history of the Episcopal Church from the new millennium back to the 1960s, I can see clearly how so often the General Convention is driven not by a commitment to biblical truth and historical orthodoxy, but by the desire to innovate to be relevant to a fast changing society and culture. So, it seems to me, the title of the new Prayer Book was a major innovation, a novel way of using an hallowed and distinctive title in order to make easy the speedy entrance of innovation and change of doctrine. And as such it worked as bishops took up the cause and pressed its use upon all dioceses of the Church. Because its title is the wrong one does not mean that there are not useful, even good, things in the 1979 Book. I gladly accept that by it, in the hands of faithful priests over the years, many have been blessed by God. Thus, in summary, my position in terms of my relation to the Prayer Books of the ECUSA is to regard the last edition of the classic Book of Common Prayer, the edition of 1928 as the true Formulary of the Anglican Way in America and then to see the 1979 Book as the equivalent of the ASB (1980) of the Church of England and the BAS (1985) of the Anglican Church of Canada (and of others similar ones from Australia, South Africa, Wales, Ireland etc). So for me to say "the 1979 Prayer Book" is to see it as an official alternative to the classic BCP and also under the general doctrinal standard of the historic editions in the USA of the classic BCP — that is those of 1662, 1789, 1892 & 1928. When the new Prayer Book (or perhaps books and web sites of liturgical resources) of the ECUSA appears later in this decade, then I shall have to re-evaluate my position; but I expect that I shall regard the 1979 Book as conservative in comparison with the innovatory content of what will replace it by 2010! In and of itself the 1979 Book was innovatory in 1979 but such have been the changes within the ECUSA that it is now a conservative bedrock for some. (The liberals of the 1970s became the conservatives of the 1990s!) The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.), is vicar of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor & St Anne's, Brown Edge. — END —

From correspondents in London July 25, 2004 The head of the worldwide Anglican Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury, will reportedly mark the third anniversary of the September 11 attacks by praising Islam in an address from the pulpit of an Egyptian mosque. Rowan Williams had accepted an invitation to speak at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, considered by many to be the Muslim world's most important centre of learning, Britain's Sunday Times said. He would speak of the common ground between Christianity and Islam with their shared inheritance as "children of Abraham," the report said. "It is a very significant moment in the history of our two faiths and especially coming from a man of his stature and learning," Zaki Badawi, the founder of the Muslim College in London, told the newspaper. "This will cement the relationship between Christianity and Islam because he will point out those aspects which unite the two religions. "The Muslims throughout the world feel beleaguered and a comforting word from Archbishop Williams will assure our people they are not alone." Al-Azhar is considered the most important religious university in the Muslim world and is attended by 90,000 students. — END —

By Barney Zwartz SMH.COM — July 26, 2004 Fifteen Australian churches have signed a historic "covenant of co-operation" under which they will recognise each other's baptism and ministries — and even share their clergy. Some will share church buildings, different congregations filling the same pews but in separate services. The Uniting Church of Australia's president, Dean Drayton, called it "a really dramatic statement of intent and hope" that could not have happened anywhere else in the world. Australia's Catholic ecumenical leader, Townsville Bishop Michael Putney, said: "It's not rhetoric or pious talk. It's a commitment to act. This is a very significant ecumenical event in Australian church history." The churches are members of the National Council of Churches in Australia. They comprise the Catholic, Anglican, Uniting, Lutheran and Congregationalist churches, the Churches of Christ, Quakers, Salvation Army and seven Orthodox churches. The council's general secretary, John Henderson, said not every church had signed every section of the covenant, such as intercommunion. Communion is still the biggest challenge: the Catholics and Orthodox churches do not allow people not baptised into their churches to take the sacrament. Few of the 15 churches have signed that. But the churches have committed themselves to recognising each other's baptism and ministries, sometimes sharing property and clergy, and developing closer relations. "We are trying to tease out what churches mean by common faith and common cause," Mr Henderson said. He said the public would notice when churches started sharing property and clergy, which was already happening. "I recently visited a church near Perth that had both Catholic and Uniting Church signs out front, and which share equally." All but four Orthodox churches agreed to share physical resources, such as church buildings, and eight churches agreed to pursue common mission and ministry. Anglicans agreed to share ordained ministers with the Lutheran and Uniting churches, and the Uniting Church with the Churches of Christ and Lutherans. All 15 churches agreed to join in common prayer, and to seek a more visible expression of unity. Dr. Drayton said it was an enormous step for all the national churches to say they want to work towards union in the future. "It's distant, but the intention is there," he said. "I don't think this could have happened in any other country in the world. "Since the [16th century] Reformation, churches have more commonly kept on dividing and dividing again. But here are representatives of the church saying let's work towards a common goal. That's a really dramatic statement of intent and hope." The conservative leadership of the Anglican church in Sydney is likely to ignore the move towards unity taken by its colleagues around the country. The conservative Baptist, Presbyterian and Pentecostal churches are not among the National Council of Churches. But Bishop Putney, chairman of the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference ecumenism committee, said the covenant was "a serious commitment we make to each other to acknowledge where we have reached and commit ourselves to go further". Recognising each other's baptism was the foundation for everything else. — END —

By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent THE LONDON TIMES Evangelicals in the Church of England are planning to boycott and withhold funds from bishops who support gay priests. Dr. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is among those bishops whose views on gay sex are considered "problematic" and who could see his ministry rejected by evangelical clergy. The plans, published yesterday, have been drawn up by Reform, the influential conservative evangelical grouping that represents up to a third of the 9,000 stipendiary clergy in the Established Church. If the proposals are endorsed, as expected, at the Reform conference in October, evangelical parishes whose bishops support the liberal gay agenda will refuse to allow them into their churches to perform confirmations and other services. They will also channel funds away from the diocese and into Reform's evangelical mission. Reform leaders denied last night that they were instituting schism. However, the plans are particularly serious because, although fewer than one third of Church of England clergy would count themselves as supporters of Reform, these parishes are the wealthiest in the Church. The precise sums have not been calculated, but if all the country's Reform parishes decided to withhold funds it would cost the Church millions of pounds a year. The plans make clear the growing fears among evangelicals around the world that the Lambeth Commission, set up by Dr. Williams to resolve the crisis, will fail adequately to discipline provinces such as the US and Canada, which have taken the lead on the gay issue. The first openly gay bishop, Dr. Gene Robinson, was consecrated in New Hampshire and the Diocese of New Westminster, Canada, authorised the first same-sex blessings rite. The liberal bishops who have already earned the opprobrium of evangelicals in England by coming out in support of the celibate cleric Dr. Jeffrey John include the bishops of Hereford, Leicester, Newcastle, Ripon and Leeds, St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, Salisbury, Truro, Worcester and Oxford. The report says: "Sadly, there are also problems in Canterbury, where the Archbishop holds that homosexual relationships can be compatible with Christian discipleship." The report continues: "It is incumbent on each congregation to stand firm in this current crisis and safeguard their Anglican heritage." — END —

By Associated Press CONCORD Unable to accept their bishop's homosexuality, some Episcopalians have left their church. To others, Gene Robinson's consecration last year served as a powerful magnet. "It was a very strong symbol to us of the inclusiveness of the Episcopal Church, and that is important to us," said Martha McCabe. McCabe of Bow said she left the Catholic Church over the priest sex abuse scandal. She and her husband, who was raised a Methodist, had started looking at other denominations for a church their family could attend. Robinson's consecration drew them in as it did Maria Easton of Hillsboro. Easton had stopped coming to the church, but returned after Robinson became bishop. Her sister is gay, which made the decision personal. "For me, it was really a reminder of one of the things I like so much about the church: its inclusiveness," she said. "I always loved the fact that women could be leaders in the Episcopal Church." Church officials say they don't have a count, but they don't think a large number have joined because of Robinson. "It's a mix," said the Rev. David Jones, rector of St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Concord. "Some are old members who have just started attending again. Others have never been to the Episcopal Church or to church at all." Robinson's election and consecration last year as the Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire caused a stir inside and outside the Anglican community. Religious leaders and church-goers in several denominations denounced the move and said it would cause the church to split. So far, about nine of the country's 107 dioceses and more than 30 congregations have joined the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes, a traditionalist group opposed to Robinson's consecration. Members of the Church of the Redeemer in Rochester cut ties to the diocese and now hold services in the basement of a nearby Baptist church. A small group continues to meet every Sunday at the Church of the Redeemer and several faces are new. April Pirsig of Dover has been attending services for a month, ever since the majority left. Raised a Lutheran, Pirsig had attended Unitarian churches for years, but decided to start attending the Episcopal Church to show support for Robinson. Last week, she filled out a card to become a member. Pirsig says the furor over Robinson is a growing pain similar to the outrage over women becoming ministers. "It makes me angry that people would leave the church over something like this," Pirsig said. "As far as I'm concerned, it's the kind of attitude that goes back to the Civil War, when blacks weren't considered real people, or women weren't allowed to do certain things." Years ago, her mother was forced to give up her position as a Lutheran pastor when it was discovered she was gay. "To me, it doesn't make any sense," said Pirsig. "God loves all his children. I've never seen it written, 'Unless they're bisexual or gay.'" McCabe said she definitely likes what she's seen of Robinson. As far as she's concerned, he is a quintessential spiritual leader: wise and thoughtful, kind and well-spoken. "I think people's obsession with his homosexuality is so out of proportion it borders on ridiculous," she said. — END —