| 8. Bonus Stories (Website Only) |
|---|
|
Convention Afterthoughts: "Autonomy Uber Alles"; And, What Did The Evangelical Say To The Lesbian Priest? Challenge Commentary
On the whole, it probably got a B- for effort.
Yes, June's Episcopal General Convention at least tried to sound accommodating and compliant with some of the 2004 Windsor Report recommendations. For example, in resolutions specifically linked with Windsor, it committed the Episcopal Church (TEC) to the "interdependent" life of the Anglican Communion and backed the Windsor-recommended development of an inter-provincial covenant aimed at ensuring unity and accountability in the global church.
Yet, as has been widely recognized, the convention was faithful in demonstrating in more or less obvious ways what it was really thinking. In the more obvious category, of course, was Resolution B033, asking the church not to consent to the consecration of any candidate "whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church," which had to be force-fed to the convention in its closing hours in order for it to pass. Glaringly, as well, the church was unable to muster a response to the second moratorium requested by the Windsor Report (TWR), that on public same-sex blessing rites.
Quietly adopted, and virtually unnoticed (until we came across it in our post-convention legislative review), was Resolution B032, which was not a part of the original set of resolutions designated as Windsor responses. B032 underscored the fact - lest any begin to doubt it - that "no resolution of the General Convention is intended to affect either the historic separate and independent status of the churches of the Anglican Communion or the legal identity of the Episcopal Church." The resolution was sponsored by Florida Bishop Samuel Johnson Howard (who has seen a number of congregations in his diocese leave for alliances with other parts of the Communion over the last year).
Asked about the background to this resolution, one clerical delegate told TCC that it was "put forward in the House of Bishops after the language was removed from one of the amendments to other Windsor Report resolutions, either A160 or A161 (on the Windsor-requested moratoria). [The House of Deputies] got it after B033 was passed. It is another declaration of autonomy uber alles."
So much for "interdependence."
MEANWHILE, what did the Evangelical say to the lesbian priest?
Let's go back to Resolution B033, feverishly pushed through General Convention at the 11th hour by the present and future presiding bishops. Remarkably, Australian writer John Sandeman, writing in the Diocese of Sydney publication, Southern Cross, saw from that far-flung venue the same thing that came clear to us, sitting in the convention center in Columbus, Ohio, and even before that: Episcopal leaders desperate to get B033 passed were not thinking so much about the possibility of TEC getting kicked out of the Anglican Communion for its pro-gay policies as of something else.
Sandeman recounted the fact that, just after the passage of B033, Evangelical Angela Minns (wife of Martyn Minns of Virginia, lately consecrated to help shepherd Nigerian Anglicans in America) wrote a note to the Rev. Susan Russell, president of the Episcopal gay group, Integrity. The note read: "The gays and lesbians in this church have been sold out for a tea party at Lambeth."
As Sandeman observes, liberals had split over demands by the Communion that TEC conform to the Anglican consensus on the gay issue. A last-minute maneuver by "institutional liberals" led by bishops had outflanked Russell's "revolutionary liberals" with a motion which rather ambiguously pledged that the Episcopalians would not advance any more gay bishops, Sandeman wrote.
"Angela Minns doesn't support the election of gay bishops. But she found the liberal bishops' desire for a trip to Lambeth at all costs, distasteful. All for a tea party."
Sandeman and Mrs. Minns meant the Lambeth Conference, the once-a-decade meeting of the world's Anglican bishops in England - which usually does include a tea party with the Queen at Buckingham Palace. The next Conference is scheduled for 2008.
"There's good evidence that the American bishops had received a message from England that they better get a motion passed to say, `no more gay bishops' or no cucumber sandwiches would be on offer," Sandeman wrote. "Clearly the American bishops like Lambeth. It gives their denomination, small by U.S. standards and shrinking, a sense at least of historical importance."
But for all the Episcopal bishops’ efforts, it is not clear whether coveted invitations to Lambeth will arrive once more, and they will again process in Canterbury Cathedral in all their ecclesiastical finery. In fact, with international Anglican opinion about TEC’s hierarchy currently so negative among bishops of the Third World Evangelical provinces that now dominate Lambeth – it appears at this moment that an appearance by liberal Episcopal bishops at Lambeth '08 would likely result not in pomp but in pandemonium.
Quotations From The New Presiding Bishop
Nevada Episcopal Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori is to be installed as the Anglican Communion’s first female provincial leader in rites November 4-5 at Washington National Cathedral. Presiding Bishop-elect Jefferts Schori has naturally given several interviews in the weeks since her election at June’s General Convention. Here follows a sampling of her remarks from interviews with Time, The Living Church, CNN, Religion & Ethics Newsweekly, The Oregonian, and the Albert Mohler Program.
On Church Mission and Faith:
Q. What will be your focus as head of the U.S. church? Katharine Jefferts Schori: Our focus needs to be on feeding people who go to bed hungry, on providing primary education to girls and boys, on healing people with AIDS, on addressing tuberculosis and malaria, on sustainable development. That ought to be the primary focus.
Q. Is belief in Jesus the only way to get to heaven? KJS: We who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box.
Q. So what happens after I die? KJS: What happens after you die? I would ask you that question. But what’s important about your life? What is it that has made you a unique individual? What is the passion that has kept you getting up every morning and engaging the world? There are hints within that about what it is that continues after you die.
Q. What informed your faith? KJS: From the time I was a child I had a curiosity about the created order. I was fascinated by the diversity of life in the sea. I think my scientific training gave me gifts in looking at the world...I tend to come to a situation with a hypothesis, rather than a set-in-stone agenda. It's a spiritual practice of mine to hold my convictions lightly in order to be open to the leading of the Spirit.
On Her Ecclesiastical Experience:
Q. Some have questioned whether your lack of parochial experience as a rector will be a handicap. How would you respond to that? KJS: I think that experience is a rather narrow perspective. Before ordination, I was very active as a layperson both in my church and in the diocese. I served as both senior and junior warden. As a scientist, I developed experience managing grants and a laboratory. I have some questions whether leading a parish is all that helpful to being a diocesan bishop. A bishop is not resident in one place, for example.
On Women’s Ordination:
Q. Will you be the only woman sitting at [the] global table of primates? KJS: Yes. But I've spent most of my adult life as a woman in occupations that are primarily male-dominated. It's where I've always functioned. Q. Will you be invited to the next Primates' Meeting? KJS: I don't have any indication otherwise.
Q. What about those both in the Episcopal Church and the rest of the Anglican Communion who cannot accept your ordained ministry out of theological conviction. How, for example, would you deal with a diocese which elected as a bishop someone who does not believe that God has called women to ordained orders; would you insist on being the chief consecrator? KJS: They are a relatively small minority of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. There are plenty of ways to handle situations like that pastorally… I can understand that my presence among the rest of the primates is going to challenge some of them, and that it might make the Archbishop of Canterbury's job harder. Q. What message does your election send to all quarters of the Episcopal Church? KJS: This is not your grandmother’s church anymore…
Q. Once the voting began, did you think about withdrawing because of the tension your election might create? KJS: No. If you say yes to being nominated, you are saying yes to the movement of the Spirit.
On Homosexuality and the Anglican Communion
Q. Is [homosexuality] a sin, is it against God’s will, is it wrong to be gay? KJS: I don't believe so...I believe that God creates us with different gifts. Each one of us comes into this world with a different collection of things that challenge us, and things that give us joy and allow us to bless the world around us. And some people come into this world with affections ordered toward other people of the same gender and some people come into this world with affections directed at people of the other gender.
Q. As presiding bishop, will you need to set aside your personal convictions on gay rights for the greater good of the church? KJS: That is a piece of who I am. I am not going to set that aside. It is a piece of my vocation.
Q. [Do you] care what other churches think? KJS: Absolutely…and I think our most recent General Convention was very clear about the fact that we are very concerned about our membership in the Anglican Communion and our relationships with other parts of the Anglican community… I hope that our decisions at…General Convention [convey to the wider Communion] that we are incredibly anxious to…continue to be, part of the Communion; that we are fully committed to partnerships across the globe; that we firmly believe that all people need to be included in the reign of God that is being built; that people of all colors and races and nations and language groups and sexual orientations are fully part of this creation that God has blessed us with.
Q. What message do you hope [General Convention] sends to people who are very upset about the consecration of Gene Robinson and are really opposed to same-sex, the blessing of same-sex unions? KJS: That there is room for them at this table as well.
Q. And what about for gay and lesbian members of the church who are concerned that maybe there is a backing away, that maybe they're being…called to make sacrifices for the sake of unity that aren't just, for a church that's emphasizing justice? What do you hope they hear from this? KJS:The same message, that there is room for them at this table as well, that God calls all of us to this bountiful table to share in the riches of creation that were given for all.
Q. There've been some pretty pointed statements publicly from some of the conservative bishops and other leaders of that wing of the church, really raising questions about whether indeed everybody can stay at the table and whether this is a time when that is no longer possible. Do you feel that reconciliation is still possible, and what will you do to try and make that happen? KJS: Reconciliation is always possible. The Christian faith is about the eternity of hope. Once we give up hope, I think we cease to become active, engaged Christians. If we have no hope, we have repudiated the basis of our faith. There is always the possibility of reconciliation, resurrection, renewal. And once we lose a sense of that in a very deep way, we have challenged the very foundations of our faith. [The] resurrection, the reconciliation may come beyond the grave, but we insist that it is always possible.
Q. What was your immediate reaction when you realized that you might actually be elected and when did you first allow yourself to believe that it might come true? KJS: I was surprised when I led after the first ballot. By the third ballot I had a real sense that it might actually happen. Afterward I was filled with a heavy weight, a sense of gravity. The Episcopal Church is rich with possibilities. There is plenty of work to do and now that convention is over there is a clear sense of the direction in which to go. The Anglican Communion is not just the Windsor Report and the primates. There were some really interesting resolutions that the [Anglican Consultative Council] passed. We have simply entered the next chapter in the process. The resolutions that we passed (at General Convention) were the best that we could do in a limited period. We wrote in stone where we were at that time, but we will be wrestling with this for years. That was the clearest message from the Archbishop of Canterbury for me. That and the fact that he won’t try to settle it for us.
Female Ex-Episcopal Cleric: Why Women Should Not Be Priests
Ed. Note: On the day that noncelibate homosexual cleric Gene Robinson was consecrated as Bishop Coadjutor of New Hampshire in November 2003, Alice Linsley resigned as a rector of a downtown Episcopal parish in the Diocese of Lexington, Kentucky - home to recent presiding bishop candidate, the Rt. Rev. Stacy Sauls. She has since renounced her Episcopal ministry, having come to the conclusion that women should not be priests. Here, in an interview widely circulated on the Internet, Alice Linsley answers questions put to her by Wim Houtman, editor of Nederlands Dagblad, a newsletter for Dutch Protestants.
Wim Houtman: When and how did you come to realize that women should not be priests? Was it a sudden stroke of insight, a gradual process, a conscious decision of the will? Alice Linsley: Throughout my 18 years as a priest in the Episcopal Church USA (TEC) I have had nagging and periodic doubts about women and the priesthood. I never felt free to discuss my doubts openly because dialogue in [TEC] on questions of gender and catholic orders has been difficult and unfruitful. I began to reconsider the question of gender and [TEC’s] claim to have "catholic orders" after the consecration of V. Gene Robinson, the first partnered homosexual to become bishop in the [U.S.]. It was apparent that [TEC] is not catholic because it has departed from the most fundamental principles of the historic catholic faith. Of the three churches that stand in the catholic tradition, Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Anglicanism, only the Episcopal Church USA ordains women and homosexuals to the priesthood. My doubts are not about the ability of women to function in the priestly office. I have friends who are women priests and they are more conscientious in the performance of their duties than many male priests. So the issue for me is not the ability of women, but rather God's design for the sexes and how, as a faithful Christian, I am to understand that design and its boundaries.
WH: You mention the importance of Tradition, but ultimately Tradition is rooted in Scripture, so how do you read Scripture on this matter? AL: The two male priests who helped me discern my call to ordination in the mid-1980s were both godly men and students of the Bible. They concluded that Paul's instructions concerning women are prescriptive. In those days I agreed with this view that Paul restricted women's leadership because he wanted order in the churches. Today, after 25 years of research on Genesis, I have come to a different conclusion. Paul's thoughts on gender are formed by his biblical Tradition. He recognized that the Hebrew Scriptures teach a permanent binary distinction between men and women. This binary distinction is fixed by God as much as the distinctions of east and west, night and day, and hot and cold. When we ignore the binary distinctions established by the Creator for our benefit, there is disorder in our thoughts and actions, and humans become lost. This suggests strongly that Paul's teaching on gender was not merely to address a social problem limited to that time and place. Paul wanted gender roles in the Church to reflect God's order in creation as a way of honoring the Sovereign Creator. After all, does mankind have the power to change night to day, or east to west? Choosing to have sexual relations with a same-sex partner is defiance of God's sovereign order of creation. It is not a new thing. It is as old as the first rebellion.
WH: You say that the Church has for almost 2,000 years refused to ordain women. Equally it could be said that it has taken the Church that long to gain insight, same as it has taken a long time in matters of racial equality and slavery. AL: The larger question is why [TEC] began ordaining women as priests. The bishops who encouraged this innovation were children of the rights movement of the 1970s. This movement took the 1960s civil rights movement for racial equality to a more radical position by attempting to impose a legalistic insistence on unlimited individual rights. The question of divinely set boundaries was not thoughtfully addressed in the rush to tear them down. In [TEC] a new Prayer Book (1979) reinforced this rights agenda contrary to biblical and historic Anglican teaching on sin and grace. [Episcopalian] advocates of equality for homosexuals point to the ordination of women as a landmark for their cause. They correctly perceive that once catholic orders are abolished, there is nothing to hold them back.
WH: Where do you differ from the traditionalists' presentation you mention in one of your statements (where you mention Peter Toon)? AL: Dr. Peter Toon (English-born, orthodox writer/author and president of the U.S. Prayer Book Society – Ed.) mentored me for one year in my preparation of a study on the Book of Common Prayer (editions of 1549-1928). I have great respect for his profound knowledge of the Anglican Way. I don't differ from Anglican traditionalists on catholic orders or on the necessity of holding Scripture and Tradition in tension. I differ in that my conclusions on gender roles are drawn from anthropological study of Genesis and the conviction that Genesis is foundational to the Bible and to Christian theology.
WH: Where do Evangelicals who support women priests go wrong in your view? AL: The irony of Evangelicals is that they say they believe in the authority of Scripture but then allow cultural accommodation in their interpretation of Scripture. This happens because they do not maintain the proper tension between Scripture and Tradition, as did St. Paul and the other Apostles.
WH: What made you go for women priests in the first place? AL: The failure of men to lead in my family and in the congregation. God uses those who are available and willing to serve. When a generation of men fails in service to God, God allows females to serve. This is his permissive response throughout Scripture and history.
WH: How can you be so sure of your point now, where you were probably equally sure then? Is it possible you will be sure of yet another view in some years' time? (Forgive me, I don't want to sound rude, I'm just putting questions to you that your decision may raise.) AL: I am sure of only one thing: that God, the Good Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is sovereign over all and in all, and though I am unworthy, He holds my soul secure. This is for me what cogito ergo sum was for Descartes.
WH: Does your resignation have anything to do with the way you felt you functioned as a priest? AL: I resigned as rector of St. Andrew's Episcopal Church in Lexington, Kentucky on the Sunday that V. Gene Robinson was consecrated. My ministry at that church and at all my former cures had been effective and well received. I am single, so my only source of income is from my work. Once I opposed my bishop's social engineering agenda my life became very difficult. I lost jobs, had to sell my small farm because of lack of income, moved into an abandoned house without heat and windows, and endured two years of being ostracized by former friends and colleagues. I have no regrets. My relationship with God is stronger now than at any time in my life. I am in awe of how God has so generously provided for me and confirmed my decision.
WH: Do you think it likely you'll end up in the Roman Catholic Church? Is Presbyterianism an option? Would you have a problem in principle to be in any Church that has women in ministry? AL: My paternal grandmother was a Baptist minister, ordained in 1929 by the Northern Baptists in southern California. Her name was Alice Linsley. I am named after her. I have no problem with women in ministry as preachers, teachers and pastors. This is beside the point, as we are not speaking [in those examples] of catholic orders. My doubts surround women priests, and even on that matter I recognize that God's call on a women to be a priest may be authentic. However, speaking from personal experience, it cannot be authentic if it is based upon a church's dishonesty, manipulation and failure to deliberate openly. I am as yet uncertain where I will go, but it will not be to a denomination that is likely to give in to pressure to accommodate the Gospel to social pressures. In this country that doesn't leave many options.
WH: Does the whole gay issue have anything to do with your decision? AL: Inasmuch as the homosexual lifestyle falls far short of the biblical teaching on holy living and God's sovereignty, yes. But, apart from this issue, the question of women priests is really [one] of maintaining the apostolic tension between Scripture and Tradition.
Contacted TCC in September, Ms. Linsley said that she is worshiping at an Antiochian Orthodox parish. "I am now a catechumen and will probably join the Orthodox Church as there are very few options here in Lexington...and I have found the liturgy spiritually healing and beneficial” she said. She has get-by employment but is watching for God's call to some significant new work.
Episcopal Church Upholds Sanctity of Abortion
By Georgette Forney
Ed. Note: As we noted in the last issue of THE CHALLENGE, a move to rescind the Episcopal Church’s membership in the pro-abortion Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) failed at June’s Episcopal General Convention. Georgette Forney of NOEL – the National Organization of Episcopalians for Life - here provides the details behind the efforts to get the Episcopal Church out of RCRC.
As Sheila and I drove to General Convention (GC) on Sunday, June 11 we prayed for courage to uphold the sanctity of life in the midst of many who believe in a woman’s right to abort her unborn baby.
Each day in the exhibit booth we faced people who glanced at us and then looked away with disgust, often rolling their eyes and moving to the far side of the aisle. But many people did visit with us, taking literature and signing up to receive our informative newsletter, the NOEL News…There were also a number of people who didn’t stop to visit but gave us a thumbs-up and said they were glad we were there.
Our booth featured two rocking chairs, lots of great information, and literature including a poster with beautiful drawings of the monthly stages of a baby’s development in the womb. We gave away hundreds of the matching brochure. We featured two posters: one that highlighted the Episcopal Church’s pro-abortion/choice position and another that noted that racism comes in many forms (a very important GC issue). The text explained that since 1973 abortion killed more African Americans than violent crimes, heart disease, AIDS, accidents and cancer combined.
The rocking chairs served as a magnet to those who were wearied by the activities and attitudes at GC ,and we were blessed on many occasions to pray with women and men who needed prayer, including some who sought help for their abortion.
I submitted NOEL’s resolution that asked the GC to rescind the Executive Council’s decision to join the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), which NOEL Board Member, the Rev. D. Lorne Coyle officially sponsored (D063). Two similar resolutions were also proposed by the Diocese of San Diego (C047) and the Diocese of Tennessee (C048). Bishop Keith Ackerman of the Diocese of Quincy also sponsored a resolution proposed by NOEL establishing a Policy on Affiliation (B026). It sought to address the problem of how the Episcopal Church decides which organizations it affiliates itself with, because currently there is no policy to guide the decision making process.
With cooperation from the Social and Urban Affairs Committee Chair, JoAnn Jones, a lay deputy from the Diocese of Pennsylvania, hearings for our resolutions were finally scheduled for 7:30 am on Monday, June 19. Fr. Coyle addressed D063, stating that “the Executive Council’s decision to renew its affiliation with RCRC was unnecessarily provocative. In a time when the Episcopal Church is divided internally and faces alienation of the global Anglican Communion, the church’s support for abortion seems to drive a wedge in those relationships.”
Next [was]John Vanderstar, a lay deputy from the Diocese of Washington who is the member of Executive Council who spearheaded the church’s affiliation with the RCRC. He also sits on RCRC’s board and GC’s Social and Urban Affairs Committee. Mr. Vanderstar spoke in support RCRC, stating that the church and RCRC both support a woman’s right to choose abortion, and that he had several papers written by clergy and biblical scholars in support of abortion.
It was then my turn to address the committee. I noted that personal agendas should not control the direction of the Episcopal Church, and the issue should be put before the entire GC to vote on; and I gave three examples…of how the RCRC publications make statements that are counter to the Episcopal Church’s statements of belief found in the Book of Common Prayer, Lambeth [Conference] resolutions, and [convention] resolutions.
The Rev. Canon Elizabeth Kaeton from the Diocese of Newark (also a…member of [RCRC’s board] and the Social and Urban Affairs Committee) was the next speaker. She referred to a quote by Martin Niemoller, and then said, “while abortion may not be favored by local churches, we are deputized to follow the Holy Spirit, not the wishes of the folks back home.”
NOEL’s Administrative Director, Sheila Bracken, speaking for the first time before a GC legislative committee said “RCRC does not encourage parental involvement in the issue of abortion. They encourage girls to seek truth from within. This is out of alignment with both society and the Episcopal Church, as a recent Zogby poll showed that 69 percent of Americans support parental notification of abortion, and Resolution A094 affirms the role of God, parents, and spiritual advisers to guide women before considering abortion.”
I also addressed B026, stating that “establishing policies that have benchmarks and procedures to guide entities has become common management practices for those who seek to be the `best.’ As the Episcopal Church, it should always be our goal to adopt `best’ management practices that serve all those in the Church. This resolution gives the Church the opportunity to adopt a ‘best’ practice policy in relation to how we as the ‘church’ approve affiliation with other organizations.” Mr. Vanderstar also addressed B026 and said that the Executive Council discussed the development of a policy with the national Episcopal Church staff, but the staff felt it required too much paper work and therefore didn’t recommend or support the proposal
As we walked out of the hearings, I saw two “friendly” deputies who had sat listening to all the testimony with tears in their eyes, one of them said, “I am in the wrong church.” He couldn’t believe what he had witnessed. As we walked backed to the exhibit booth, Sheila said it reminded her of our lobbying experience in Washington D.C.; “they listen but they don’t hear you.”
On Tuesday, I was advised that both B026 and D063 were sent to the House of Bishops (HOB). Bishops Ackerman, Mathes and Packard spoke in support of B026, but when the ballots were counted it lost by 5 votes. Bishops Lipscomb, Herzog, Little, Beckwith, and Herlong urged the HOB to support D063, and rescind the church’s RCRC membership; but a motion to table…was passed and the opportunity for the church to uphold the sanctity of life died because of the choice made by the majority of bishops. C047 and C048 were both discharged, for procedural reasons.
As I reflect back on our prayer at the beginning of GC, I praise God because He graciously answered it. We spoke boldly and tirelessly to everyone we could about the value of life, the importance of protecting it from fertilization to natural death. We spoke to the youth about abstinence and STDs, we spoke to the elderly about euthanasia. When we heard about the task force being formed to research the declining population in the church, we laughed; and when we realized that the Episcopal Church chose to uphold the sanctity of abortion, we cried.
KENYA: Archbishop Says Global South Leaders Will Determine Lambeth 2008 Agenda Bishop Gladwin’s Visit Unspun
By David W. Virtue
NAIROBI, KENYA, (8/6/2006)--The Archbishop of four million Kenyan Evangelical Anglicans, recently returned from a meeting of East African Primates in Tanzania, says that the 2008 Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops will not be controlled by the Anglican Consultative Council, and that procedures will be flexible for everybody, so that there will be more contributions by participants expressing themselves in their mother tongues.
Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi of the Anglican Church of Kenya (ACK) said he did not totally rule out the possibility that the Africans will have their own Lambeth in 2008, because of the recent actions of the American Episcopal Church's General Convention in Columbus, Ohio, and its failure to obey the demands of the Windsor Report…
The archbishop also said that growing diocesan and parish split-offs in the Episcopal Church (TEC) demand something more radical than coming under various Global South bishops, and that the orthodox in TEC need to find a resolution to their own problems, suggesting, that a "body" was necessary quickly as a way to move forward.
David Virtue: The Episcopal Church General Convention has come and gone. From where you sit as a leader in the Global South, how do you see what happened there as significant for the future of the Anglican Communion?
ARCHBISHOP NZIMBI: It makes me even more worried about the routes our brothers are taking. The Windsor Report asked the American church to regret, but that word is not in the Bible; it is repentance that should have been asked for - turning to God. This is what we expected to see... putting things in their right way. We wanted them to come out and openly say that intentional acts of marriage are between a man and a woman; teachings supported by Jesus. The convention decided to take its own route and not to abide by the Anglican Communion resolution 1:10 and repeated calls by the Primates. By going their own way they pose a danger of splitting the Anglican Communion.
Virtue: How are you viewing the increasing splits by dioceses and parishes from the Episcopal Church?
NZIMBI: Let me say that we offered pastoral oversight to churches in America because they came to us. We did not go to them. My desire is always to help as many churches in America by giving them oversight as much as possible, but my recommendation is that a body is formed in America where these churches are, and we can strengthen this body to deal with their problems. We believe the Archbishop of Canterbury would approve this and be involved in this. This needs to be dealt with quickly and not be the problem of any one African province. We love our American brothers and sisters and we want to help them as much as we can. Finally I want to tell the Americans to be strong and of good courage, the Lord is going to bring them out of this situation faithful to the teachings of Christ.
Virtue: The Episcopal Church has elected a revisionist woman Presiding Bishop to lead the church. How do you think that will go down with the other primates, especially as many do not believe in women's ordination?
NZIMBI: We need to be sensitive to the feelings of the other primates, especially those who don't believe in women's ordination. At the same time I am convinced that the real issue is what does she believe in? For some of us it is about the consecration of women priests, but this particular concern is with her teaching. If she says people of the same sex can marry, we would worry about what that means for our future together.
Virtue: What is your personal view of that, especially as she does not hold to basic doctrines of the Christian faith and believes the primary focus of the church should be on more socially driven issues like the Millennium Development Goals of the UN and not the gospel of Jesus Christ?
NZIMBI: If that is the case we have different beliefs, we are not going to have a communion.
Virtue: Are the attitudes of African Anglican Archbishops hardening towards the TEC?
NZIMBI: If somebody's heart is according to the truth of the Bible that is the area we need to organize around in America. We should not be hard on the American church altogether because there are many people in America who share the same beliefs we have. It is the leadership that has the problems. We are concerned about the church in America, it should repent, and if the leadership repents I am sure the American Episcopal Church is going to have a revival.
Virtue: You recently had a run-in with Church of England Bishop John Gladwin and you politely told him to go home because he was compromised on sexuality issues; did he understand that his understanding of mission and your understanding of mission were really quite different?
NZIMBI: The British newspapers, The Observer and Guardian did not tell the truth about what happened…When Bishop Gladwin became Bishop of Chelmsford, the bishops here did not know him well and so he was invited by a partner diocese. When he arrived here we welcomed him and had lunch with his 20 curates. No one talked about sexuality issues, nobody was thinking about those kinds of beliefs. But a newspaper, The Nation, said that Gladwin was a patron of an organization called Changing Attitudes, which fights for the rights of gays. Bishop Gladwin was asked if he supported the gay position. He said he did not come here for such talks, but came here on a mission with his partner diocese. He did not say yes or no to our questions. He came for mission, he said. I wrote a press release and tried to get him on the phone but could not reach him. We then released it saying we were unable to continue with the lined up activities in various dioceses. We did not want the newspapers to call and ask us if our stand on homosexuality had changed. We believe homosexuality is wrong and marriage is between man and a woman. I made it clear that my stand had not changed. I told my bishops that Bishop Gladwin and his curates could still continue with their visit but to do so quietly, that they should be given food and accommodation and try to avoid taking a stand on the issue. But the Observer and the Guardian said that we were being nasty to Bishop Gladwin and that he had been abandoned…in the middle of Africa in a place called Embu infected by cholera and malaria. When I saw what the media had done I talked with the bishop and said I was very unhappy with the newspaper accounts. Embu is not in jungle and is not infected by malaria and cholera. I made it clear that they were welcome unofficially but not officially.
Virtue: A recent article in the Economist magazine about religion in Kenya said the Anglican Church of Kenya was the church of choice for Kenya's influential country-club set, but it was losing out towards more revivalistic Pentecostal churches. How are you countering that image?
NZIMBI: This was something happening a few years ago, we were losing young people to Pentecostal churches; our young people were looking for services full of life and where their needs are met. We had to train a new leadership to reach them. Since then we have discovered our shortcomings and put more stress on the youth of the church, we have come up with slots in the services that are appealing to youth and now they have their own services where they can lift up their hands and dance. We are known for our order but a lively service was missing. Now we are better off. Many young people are coming back to the Anglican Church. But we still have services using the 1662 Prayer Book for people who like tradition. We are out of the box but under authority.
Virtue: You are four million strong, according to Canon Rosemary Mbogo. Are you still growing or have you evened off? What are your goals for church growth in Kenya?
NZIMBI: We are growing as a church; the livelier services will cause churches to grow faster, and look at church structures which support mission work. Our target is on the youth and Sunday school so that the right kind of teaching is there. We have leaders of today for tomorrow with clear budgets for these departments. We have 5,000 clergy in 30 dioceses with some 8,000 evangelists.
Virtue: You have 16 former [Episcopal] parishes under your care; what are you doing to nurture those relationships?
NZIMBI: We are putting these parishes under specific dioceses. We want to have a desk in the provincial office [that] will deal with international affairs; that is our goal.
Virtue: Some eight Episcopal dioceses are seeking alternative primatial oversight from the Archbishop of Canterbury; would you be prepared to be a primate that would offer yourself to Dr. Williams as a haven of ecclesiastical refuge for these American dioceses?
NZIMBI: There is no reason why we should not do that. We want to snatch these faithful Christians from the fire and any person who is looking for help from us, because he is having problems and wants to be faithful to the Word of God. We are ready to give that diocese pastoral oversight.
Virtue: Do you see an inevitable split in the Anglican Communion as the TEC seems bent on continuing its rebellious slide away from biblical faith and towards post-modernism?…
NZIMBI: For the gospel to be still heard they need to be recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury and also other provinces. Giving them a province will care for the needs of the faithful. 815 has taken a different route.
Virtue: If push comes to shove and the Archbishop does not discipline the revisionists or engage orthodox Episcopalians in TEC with hope for a place of refuge from the onslaught of pansexuality, could there be two communions in the foreseeable future?
NZIMBI: Many of the churches in Africa believe that what the revisionists are saying we cannot agree with. We have said no to financial partnerships and direct financial aid from the Episcopal Church. I want to caution the leadership about the right use of power and right use of money. The key thing in that the leadership should repent and having a contrite heart which God shall not despise.
Virtue: I must ask you bishop about corruption in the African Church. It has come to my attention that there is considerable corruption among some African bishops and clergy [in regard to] money…coming from the United States.
NZIMBI: There is corruption at two levels; national corruption which involves a lot of money and also church corruption. National corruption [is very] big and it is coming from the west. Europeans and Americans show African politicians where to hide the money. There is involvement in banks, so we are calling upon the western leaders to help to retrieve money back from these banks to the nations of Africa.
On church corruption. This is a fair question. There is church corruption when the leadership misappropriates the funds which have been brought for a specific designation, and it used for something else. I am appealing to African leadership to direct funds to the right project. Bishops should not be bishops of the church to lead the church if they are corrupt. They should be brought up before a tribunal and tried. That is what we would do in Kenya.
Virtue: What do you see as the central issue facing your church?
NZIMBI: Our church must be proactive and not simply reactive. We have six committees to deal with different issues that include doctors, professors and a wide range of other persons. There are six vital issues: Health and HIV; governance and policies and inter-government relations; education and theology; food, hunger and famine…and other areas of concern in this nation. We are providing a voice through lectures which are then repeated in 29 dioceses by different people around the country.
Virtue: Thank you for your time Your Grace.
East Africa: Anglican Church Preaches Gospel With Joy And Power
News Analysis By David W. Virtue
MT. KILIMANJARO, TANZANIA (8/11/2006) ---Joy. It is the infectious quality of the African church. In the midst of suffering, pain, poverty and HIV/AIDS, there is joy unspeakable.
Nothing can hold it down; it spills out in hours of worship, in the daily grind of life, and while driving along roads with potholes the locals call "Hippo ponds" they are so deep...but there is always joy.
The East African Revival is alive and well; millions are coming to Christ in the midst of grinding poverty. Evangelists fan out across Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania with barely enough money to survive, bringing the Good News of Jesus to tribal groups, Islamic communities and to anyone who will listen.
Schools are built, children educated and fed, health care is provided, and the parents, mostly illiterate, learn from their children. The "Jesus Film" is shown and slowly it dawns on them that these Christians have come with love and learning, care and comfort in their hearts to tell them the ageless story of Jesus and His transforming love.
There is no mincing of words. The great God of the universe sent his Son to this earth to live and die among us to free us from our sin. That is the message repeated in one form or another every hour of every day on crowded city streets in Kampala, Nairobi and Arusha, in poor villages, on rainy mountainsides, on Masai steppes, burgeoning urban slums, in dusty deserts, in many languages to many tribes in the teeth of growing Islamic strongholds...the simple message is repeated over and over again: repent, believe and receive, and go forth to tell others. It is also a race against time: Will it be the caliphate or Christ?
And whether it be Anglican Church evangelists or para-church ministries like Youth With a Mission or Here's Life, with its cadre of on-fire evangelists armed with videos and Bibles, the message is the same: God loves you, Jesus, His Son, was sent to die for you, therefore repent and believe in the gospel and receive his Holy Spirit. It is a message of transformation; it is a message of life eternal.
And it is why the Anglican Church in Uganda is 9 million strong and the Anglican Church in Kenya is 4 million strong and the Anglican Church in Tanzania is over 2 million strong, and they are all growing and will continue to grow till the Parousia.
And it is why the Episcopal Church in America is all but dead, because it has no vibrant life-changing gospel, just some nonsense about inclusion that embraces everyone but transforms no one. And it is why a transforming message of God's grace makes churches grow in Africa and an inclusive message stultifies and finally kills churches in America. Gay and lesbian priests, girly-men priests, compromised bishops and a feminized church will not draw robust American families…
The Episcopal Church is incapable of having any role in building the kingdom; in fact it has now become an impediment to the gospel, a pretend church that actually despises the teachings of Christ. By contrast the African church grows by leaps and bounds because men lead and the women and children follow and they preach an unswerving message of God's redeeming love and grace.
In Africa diversity does not mean how many brands of sexual behavior (sin) you can include in the church; it means bringing all people to the truth of the gospel - every nation, every tribe, every kindred and every tongue. That's true diversity.
And it is why the African church is growing and the Episcopal Church is dying. And it is why, at the end of the day, (perhaps by 2020 the fabled year in which the Episcopal Church was supposed to have doubled) TEC will be little more than a shadow of its former self, with two overweight revisionist bishops, on Prozac, crammed into a telephone booth talking about the Church Pension Fund.
The Episcopal Church is imploding and dying while the African Anglican Church is exploding with new growth. God is a gentleman and His Holy Spirit will not go where He is not wanted, and He is not wanted in The Episcopal Church where personal 'rights' are more important that obedience to God's revealed Word One church is a rich but dying Brontosaurus, the other church is poor but alive in Christ…
When I look into the faces of Anglican African archbishops and bishops, priests and church leaders of one stripe or another, there is a palpable joy even as they grapple with what to do with children made homeless by AIDS, grandmothers raising grandchildren, abject poverty, joblessness and more; there is still hope, because hope is borne of God and God does not disappoint…
When I sit down and talk with the Archbishop of Kenya, Benjamin Nzimbi, and other bishops and church leaders in East Africa, there is joy and expectation in their faces as they talk of mission to reach the lost, but then I ask how the American Episcopal Church is impacting their ministries and suddenly all is changed. The light goes out of their eyes, their faces fall, a cloud descends over them and they drop their heads. Then they quietly tell me that the Episcopal Church's innovations and direction, the consecration of an openly homosexual bishop living with his lover, is hurting them and their ministry. They tell me how they are mocked by other church leaders, threatened by Islamic mullahs and church-planting stumbles. It is…unrepentant sexual sin in one corner of the communion affecting mission efforts in another…
Equally offensive is the $9 million dollars spent on TEC’s recent General Convention…money that could have been spent on spreading the Good News of the gospel in Africa, paid for tens of thousands of scholarships, built entire seminaries, provided thousands of anti-viral doses of HIV/AIDS cocktails and so much more.
But of course the African Anglican leaders are rejecting The Episcopal Church's money along with its proxy donor, Trinity, Wall Street, and the United Thank Offering (UTO), because it is tainted by unrepentant sexual sin that actually stifles and prevents the Word from going forth in great power. The Africans want none of it. And those that do accept their money (and the TEC exploits it for PR purposes with photo ops and more) become pariahs in Africa. Ironically, those few African churches that do accept TEC’s money are the rare churches in Africa that are not experiencing any growth. Regrettably there is corruption among a number of African bishops who get money from American Episcopal churches.
The African churches are also willing as Christian brothers to rescue their orthodox brothers in America and Canada, but this is a drain on them. They also believe that TEC’s orthodox need to step up to the plate and form a new province so they can provide their own pastoral care, thus freeing up the African church to continue to do it does best, reaching its people with the gospel, particularly at this critical time, when they are in a battle with Islam for the soul of Africa.
What is making the church truly effective in evangelism is that they are willing to live in abject poverty, forego buildings, food, comfortable beds and fancy diocesan headquarters; and they don't understand why the orthodox in America cherish property over preaching the gospel to the unreached in America…
Jesus died with nothing; no property, no pension, no "rights" and He had “nowhere to lay his head.” The fear of the Dennis Canon stifles mission because orthodox bishops grimly hang on to their cozy buildings…with fence-sitting Windsor Bishops unsure which way to fall, while millions in America never get to hear the Good News. That is a sin of the highest magnitude. And they will be judged for it.
In the timeless words of Mary's Magnificat, "He is feeding the hungry with good things (the African church) and the rich (The Episcopal Church) he has sent empty away."
UGANDA:
American Theologian-Educator Makes Impact in Burgeoning African Anglican
University
If you would
like to support this ministry and enter into a dynamic partnership with UCU you
can do so by sending your tax deductible gift to:
Pioneering Same-Sex Couples Split And Other Recent News On Gay Marriage
The culture war over same-sex unions continues unabated, in the churches and in the secular world. Conflict has also reached two pairs of same-sex pioneers, leading to the split-up of the first American couple joined in a civil union, and the separation of a couple at the heart of the case that led to gay marriage in Massachusetts.
Carolyn Conrad and Kathleen Peterson, a lesbian couple that had been the first to enter into a civil union in Vermont in 2000, were granted a dissolution by a judge on August 23. One partner had obtained a restraining order against the other, accusing her of punching a hole in the wall during an argument and threatening to harm a friend.
Beth Robinson, Chairwoman of the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force, maintained that the end of the partnership was evidence that Vermont’s civil union law was working: “One of the goals was to create a mechanism to protect people in a relationship and create a mechanism to help people dissolve relationships…Same-sex relationships are no different than heterosexual relationships. Sometimes they last, sometimes they don’t.”
According to The Associated Press, by summer 2006, more than 7,500 civil unions had been formed in Vermont since the end of 2004, and around 80 had been dissolved.
And, Hillary and Julie Goodridge, who participated in the lawsuit that prompted the Massachusetts Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriage in 2003, have separated.
Shannon Minter, spokesman for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said that the breakup was “very sad news,” but “same-sex couples are no more immune to the possibility of divorce than heterosexual couples.” Jan LaRue of Concerned Women for America said, “I think it demonstrates again why we are so concerned for children in inherently unstable relationships.” The conservative activist added that recent court decisions have recognized that homosexual unions “are not the equivalent of heterosexual marriage…It’s better for children to be in stable, heterosexual marriage with a mom and a dad.”
The Goodridges had been together as a couple for 17 years before their May 17, 2004, union, and were among the first to be married in Massachusetts. According to a survey by The Boston Globe, about 7,300 same-sex couples married in Massachusetts between 2004 (when the first such unions occurred) and summer 2006; 45 had formally dissolved their unions in that period.
MEANWHILE, a lesbian couple from Rhode Island won the right to marry in Massachusetts, holding their wedding ceremony there on October 8.
After being denied a marriage license in Massachusetts, Wendy Becker and Mary Norton challenged a 1913 state law that bars out-of-state residents from marrying if the union would not be recognized in their home state. They argued that same-sex marriage was not specifically banned in Rhode Island, and Superior Court Judge Thomas Connolly agreed.
In an interesting twist in Massachusetts, though, gay staffers at The Boston Globe were warned in July that, as of January 1 2007, domestic partner benefits (i.e., coverage for health and dental insurance) will end. Homosexual employees who wish coverage for their partners must marry by the end of this year.
An attorney with the Sullivan & Worcester law firm explained that gay staff were originally offered benefits for domestic partners because they couldn’t legally marry. Since gay marriage is now legal in Massachusetts, companies that offer benefits to gay employees’ partners risk discrimination suits from unmarried straight couples. Steve Behenna, the Globe’s compensation and benefits director, said that these concerns played a role in the policy change at the Globe. Paul Holtzman, an employment law attorney, expects more Massachusetts companies to change their benefits plans in the same fashion.
ON THE OTHER COAST, the Washington State Supreme Court has upheld the state’s 1998 Defense of Marriage Act, which bans same-sex marriage. The 9-member court split 5-4 in the July 26 decision. Three of the justices in the majority suggested that the legislature re-examine the effect of the same-sex marriage ban on homosexual couples; the other two majority justices’ opinions were strongly against gay marriage.
The court’s ruling was the latest in a series of setbacks for supporters of gay marriage. Earlier in July, the Supreme Court in New York State had issued a similar ruling.
And at deadline, a state appeals court in California had upheld the state’s definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. In reversing the March 2005 ruling of a San Francisco trial judge, the 1st District court of Appeal agreed with the state’s attorney general, who argued that it is up to the legislature, not the courts, to decide the definition of marriage. The decision is expected to be appealed to the California Supreme Court.
In all, 45 states have banned same-sex marriage.
Outside the U.S., a lesbian couple that had been legally married in British Columbia in 2003 failed to gain recognition of their marriage in England and Wales. Under English law, same-sex marriages contracted overseas are deemed to be civil unions, which have been legal in the U.K. since 2005.
Sir Mark Potter, the judge who issued the July ruling in the case, said, “Parliament has not called partnerships between persons of the same-sex `marriage,’ not because they are considered inferior to the institution of marriage, but because, as a matter of objective fact and common understanding…they are indeed different”; in civil partnership legislation, the government had “declined to alter the deep-rooted and almost universal recognition of marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman, but without in any way interfering with or failing to recognize the right of same-sex couples to respect for their private or family life…Not only does English law recognize and not interfere with the right of such couples to live in a very close, loving and monogamous relationship, it accords them also the benefits of marriage in all but name.” The couple is allowed to appeal the ruling, but was ordered to pay 25,000 pounds for the government’s legal costs.
ON THE ECCLESIASTICAL FRONT, delegates to the convention of the Eastern Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada voted 197-75 In July to allow individual congregations to decide whether to perform blessings for same-sex couples. Pastors who wish to do so must consult their bishop, and there must be a two-thirds vote of approval by the congregation. Other major church bodies in Canada that allow gay unions are the Anglican Diocese of New Westminster, and the United Church of Canada.
And a stunner came in June from Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the recently retired Archbishop of Washington, DC. In a June Situation Room TV interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Cardinal McCarrick supported gay civil unions, but stood against redefining the sacrament of marriage.
McCarrick said “we really have to continue to define marriage as we’ve defined marriage for thousands of years, as a union between a man and a woman.” But when Blitzer asked, “You think that you could live with - you could support civil unions between gays and lesbians, but you wouldn’t like them to get formally married, is that right?” Cardinal McCarrick replied, “yes.”
McCarrick added that the ideal for everyone would be “a union with a man and a woman” that would “bring children into the world.” But, “If you can’t meet that ideal, if there are people who for one reason or another just cannot do that or feel they cannot do that, then in order to protect their right to take care of each other, in order to take care of their right to have visitation in a hospital or something like that, I think that you could allow, not the ideal, but you could allow for that for a civil union.” According to LifeSiteNews, the Cardinal’s spokeswoman, Susan Gibbs, denied on June 8 that the Cardinal supported homosexual civil unions.
But LifeSite charged that “The Cardinal’s statements as transcribed by CNN are at odds with the official Catholic teaching on the matter. In his famous November 4, 2000 address to the world’s politicians, then-Pope John Paul II counseled them, `with regard to all laws which would do harm to the family, striking at its unity and its indissolubility, or which would give legal validity to a union between persons, including those of the same sex, who demand the same rights as the family founded upon marriage between a man and a woman ... Christian legislators may neither contribute to the formulation of such a law nor approve it in parliamentary assembly.’ The same point was made in the 2003 Vatican document put out by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (CDF) which was, at the time, headed up by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the current Pope. That document, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons, stated that `under no circumstances can they [homosexual civil unions] be approved.’”
In Related News: “Beyond Marriage”
While church conservatives worry that approval of same-sex unions might put society on a slippery slope toward more radical changes to marriage and family life, left-wing activists at beyondmarriage.org have shown the conservatives’ fears are hardly unfounded.
On July 26, the organization issued a manifesto titled Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision For All Our Families & Relationships. The executive summary sets out a vision in which virtually any consensual grouping of people would be treated as a family, with the associated legal recognition and benefits.
The document proposes: “legal recognition for a wide range of relationships, households and families - regardless of kinship or conjugal status”; “access for all, regardless of marital or citizenship status, to vital government support programs including but not limited to health care, housing, Social Security and pension plans, disaster recovery assistance, unemployment insurance and welfare assistance”; “separation of church and state in all matters, including regulation and recognition of relationships, households and families”; and “freedom from state regulation of our sexual lives and gender choices, identities and expression.” One proposal is socialist, demanding access for all to “government support programs,” while another is radically libertarian, calling for “freedom from state regulation of our sexual lives and gender choices.”
The manifesto’s authors say that, “Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others. A majority of people – whatever their sexual and gender identities - do not live in traditional nuclear families. They stand to gain from alternative forms of household recognition beyond one-size-fits-all marriage. For example: single parent households; senior citizens living together and serving as each other’s caregivers; blended and extended families; children being raised in multiple households or by unmarried parents; adult children living with and caring for their parents; senior citizens who are the primary caregivers to their grandchildren or other relatives; close friends or siblings living in non-conjugal relationships and serving as each other’s primary support and caregivers; households in which there is more than one conjugal partner; care-giving relationships that provide support to those living with extended illness such as HIV/AIDS.” Note that the list of new family types includes “households in which there is more than one conjugal partner.” The old-fashioned terms for this were bigamy or polygamy; the new term is “polyamory.”
The authors wish for a united front against the Right. They say that conservatives’ “opposition to same-sex marriage is only one part of a broader pro-marriage, `family values’ agenda that includes abstinence-only sex education, stringent divorce laws, coercive marriage promotion policies directed toward women on welfare, and attacks on reproductive freedom. Moreover, a 30-year political assault on the social safety net has left households with more burdens and constraints and fewer resources…We must respond to the full scope of the conservative marriage agenda by building alliances across issues and constituencies. Our strategies must be visionary, creative, and practical to counter the right’s powerful and effective use of marriage as a `wedge’ issue that pits one group against another. The struggle for marriage rights should be part of a larger effort to strengthen the stability and security of diverse households and families.”
The manifesto says that “we stand with people of every racial, gender and sexual identity, in the United States and throughout the world, who are working day to day - often in harsh political and economic circumstances - to resist the structural violence of poverty, racism, misogyny, war, and repression, and to build an unshakeable foundation of social and economic justice for all, from which authentic peace and recognition of global human rights can at long last emerge…Our vision is the creation of communities in which we are encouraged to explore the widest range of non-exploitive, non-abusive possibilities in love, gender, desire and sex…and in the creation of new forms of constructed families without fear that this searching will potentially forfeit for us our right to be honored and valued within our communities and in the wider world.”
The originators of this manifesto describe themselves as “diverse group of nearly twenty LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered) and queer activists - some organizers, some scholars and educators, some funders, some writers and cultural workers.” Hundreds of people had signed the document so far. Most are little-known social activists and professors. However, some signers worthy of note include: Faisal Alam (Founder, Al-Fatiha Foundation for LGBTIQ Muslims); Michael Bronski, (professor at Dartmouth and author of The Pleasure Principle: Sex, Backlash, and the Struggle for Gay Freedom); Deborah Carney-MacFarlane (Amnesty International and the Baltimore Polyamory Network); Betty Dodson, PhD (sexologist and author of Sex for One and Orgasms for Two); Barbara Ehrenreich (socialist activist and author of Bait and Switch and Nickel and Dimed); Kenneth R. Haslam MD (founding member, Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness); Mary E. Hunt (Co-director, Women’s Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual; she identified herself as a “Catholic feminist theologian”); Rabbi Michael Lerner (Editor, Tikkun magazine, and National Chair, The Network of Spiritual Progressives), Gloria Steinem (founder and original publisher, Ms. magazine); Imam Daayiee Abdullah (a self-described “Islamic Legal Scholar” and Moderator, Muslim Gay Men); John L. Bennett (“Open-relationship activist and advocate”); and Shara Smith (Entertainment technician, polyamory activist).
LATE
NEWS: NJ Court Orders Gay Unions
Muslims Can’t Be Appeased, C Of E Bishop Says Christian-based Values Must Be Reasserted
In the aftermath of the foiled terror plot to down airliners over the Atlantic, the Church of England's Pakistani-born Bishop of Rochester said that, given the worldview underlying Muslim grievances, there "can never be sufficient appeasement," and new demands by Muslims will continue to be made.
Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali contended that the government needs "expert help" in reformulating policies to help ensure that, while Islamic cultural heritage is respected, Muslims immigrating to Britain are expected to assimilate and are in sympathy with "characteristically British values." Generally, he said, these include respect for human life and freedom. But he asserted that there should also be recognition that these values arise out of the Christian faith, which must be reasserted in the country "if our values are to be secure."
Writing in The Daily Telegraph, Bishop Nazir-Ali contended that Islamic radicalism has roots going back to the 13th century, and was energized in modern times by the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Today Islamic radical groups, which cooperate but are not under a centralized command structure, aim to impose their form of Islam on countries such as Pakistan, Egypt, Malaysia and Indonesia. "This may be why they were not regarded as an immediate threat to the West," the bishop observed.
"Their other aims, however, include the liberation of oppressed Muslims in Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya and elsewhere, and also the recovery of the Dar Al-Islam (or House of Islam), in its historic wholeness, including the Iberian peninsula, the Balkans and even India.
"In this cause, the rest of the world, particularly the West, is Dar al-Harb (House of War). These other aims clearly bring such movements into conflict with the international community and with Western interests in particular," the bishop noted.
"So how does this dual psychology - of victimhood, but also the desire for domination - come to infect so many young Muslims in Britain?" Nazir-Ali asked. "When I was here in the early 1970s, the practice of Islam was dominated by a kind of default Sufism or Islamic mysticism that was pietistic and apolitical. On my return in the late 1980s, the situation had changed radically. The change occurred because successive governments were unaware that the numerous mosques being established across the length and breadth of this country were being staffed, more and more, with clerics who belonged to various fundamentalist movements.
"There were no criteria for entry, no way of evaluating qualifications and no program for making them aware of the culture that they were entering. Until quite recently, ministers and advisers did not realize the scale of the problem, even though it was repeatedly brought to their attention. Secondly, in the name of multi-culturalism, mosque schools were encouraged and Muslim pupils spent up to six extra hours a day learning the Koran and Islamic tradition, as well as their own regional languages. Finally, there are the grievances. Some of these are genuine enough, but the complaint often boils down to the position that it is always right to intervene where Muslims are victims (as in Bosnia or Kosovo), and always wrong when they may be the oppressors or terrorists (as with the Taliban or in Iraq), even when their victims are also mainly Muslims.
"Given the world view that has given rise to such grievances, there can never be sufficient appeasement, and new demands will continue to be made," Nazir-Ali concluded. "It is clear, therefore, that the multi-culturalism beloved of our political and civic bureaucracies has not only failed to deliver peace, but is the partial cause of the present alienation of so many Muslim young people from the society in which they were born, where they have been educated and where they have lived most of their lives. The Cantle Report, in the wake of disturbances in Bradford, pointed out that housing and schools policies that favored segregation, in the name of cultural integrity and cohesion, have had the unforeseen consequence of alienating the different religious, racial and cultural groups from one another."
Nazir-Ali said the government needs "expert help" in rethinking a "very significant number of policies...There must be greater encouragement for moderate Muslim voices to be heard more clearly. All religious leaders, representing any faith, wanting to work here, must be required to show that they are properly qualified, can speak English and are willing to undertake courses in adaptation to culture in this country...Immigration policy should be shaped in such a way as to be able to discover whether potential immigrants have sympathy for characteristically British values and...the way of life here," the bishop maintained.
Immigrants to Britain should be able to take pride in their cultural heritage, he said. "At the same time, if they are to adjust to life in this country, they should be prepared to live in mixed communities, and not on their own.
"Politicians keep talking about the need to teach British values so that there can be national cohesion," Nazir-Ali went on. "But what are these values, and whence do they come? The most fundamental of these has to do with the innate dignity of all human beings, with fundamental equality, with liberty and with safety from harm. Those learning such values will know how to respect the dignity of people who are quite different from them in appearance, language or belief.
"They will not see themselves as superior because of their religious or cultural roots, but regard every human life as of equal worth. They will be committed to freedom of belief and of expression. They will know that their fellow citizens have the right to safety from harm and that this extends not only to individual security, but also the safety of those institutions, such as democracy or a free press, that make liberty possible and actual.
"Values, however, are not free-standing; they are deeply rooted in a vision of society," the bishop wrote. "Whether we like it or not, characteristic British values arise out of the Christian faith and its vision of personal and common good. These were clarified by the Enlightenment and became the bedrock of our modern political arrangements. The Enlightenment, however, by consigning Christianity to the private sphere, also removed the basis and justification for these values in the public sphere.
"It is this basis and justification that needs to be recovered if our values are to be secure, and if they are to help inculcate the virtues of generosity, loyalty, moderation and love that lead to personal fulfilment and social wellbeing."
Anglican Prelates, Laity, Divided On Middle East Crisis Response
Developments over the summer in the Arab-Israeli conflict showed that the Anglican community is divided over more than same-sex unions, gay bishops, and female primates.
As these stories show, Anglican views on the Middle East crisis range from pacifism to diplomatic even-handedness to pro-Palestinian or pro-Israel zeal.
On August 21, Dr. John Sentamu, the Nigerian-born Archbishop of York, ended a seven-day vigil and fast for peace in the Middle East, spent in a tent pitched in York Minster's Chapel of St. John; during that time he took only water and glucose, and prayed with pilgrims for 15 minutes of each hour. His tent was to remain in the Cathedral until a UN peacekeeping force arrived in southern Lebanon, where Hezbollah was clashing with the Israelis in a dispute since quelled by a ceasefire.
At the end of the fast, the Archbishop said, "I have always known that violence is not on, and after seven days of fasting and praying I am more persuaded than ever that wars and violence cannot lead to a longlasting solution. Hate cannot defeat hate; the only way to overcome an enemy is to make them a friend. The road to peace is not an easy one, but we need to stick at it. The dividends of peace are incalculably greater than the wages of conflict which have been paid over decades in the Middle East in the countless widows, orphans and displaced peoples produced by conflict. The continuing tragedy makes demands of us all and underlines the need to find peacemakers and mediators from the international community who will work for conflict resolution."
"The events of the past weeks, in the Lebanon, Israel, the U.S. and Britain have demonstrated that we cannot afford any longer to leave the issues of the Middle East in the pending tray of unresolved business. There is no greater recruiting sergeant for would-be jihadists than the conflict in the Middle East. Without urgent action on our part, for their sakes and our own, the spiral of violence that has lasted longer than the whole of my lifetime - and I am 57 -will continue unabated, as new generations become mired in the enmity of their forefathers."
The Archbishop added that international intervention must preserve "the integrity and legitimacy of civil society and government in Lebanon" and give "no possible handle to the rhetoric of groups that challenge Israel's right to exist."
He warned that the British also needed to become more inclusive, lest alienated youth turn to terrorism: “It is surely fear and anxiety which leads to aggression," he said. "Our Christian calling is to cry out for those who feel outside and to nurture love within.”
On July 21, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams was interviewed on the BBC's Radio 4 Today program about the Middle East, and in particular the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah. Speaking before the ceasefire in that conflict, Dr. Williams said that "all states have a right to defend themselves and I don't think anyone disputes the state of Israel's right to exist and therefore the state of Israel's right to defend itself. But the question is, morally, whether that right of self-defense allows any and every method...the question is; what can a state morally do without subverting its own cause in self-defense?"
Williams also criticized Hezbollah, the Islamic terror group in control of southern Lebanon, for "using the nation of Lebanon as a human shield, as a set of hostages.
Williams proposed a ceasefire in the clash, something that, at the time of the interview, neither the U.S. nor the U.K. were supporting. Williams rebuked these governments, saying that they "may perhaps have to reckon with a rising level of public despair and dismay at the spiral continuing...They need to change their minds.”
The Rt. Rev. Riah H. Abu El-Assal, the Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem, would have nothing to do with the pacifism and even-handedness of other Anglican hierarchs. On July 27, he released a strongly pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel plea for help:
"For the past 40 years we have been largely alone on this desert fighting a predator that not only has robbed us of all but a small piece of our historic homeland, but threatens the traditions and holy sites of Christianity...I am saddened to realize just how much the deserved prestige of the [U.S.] and Britain has declined as a result of politicians who seem to devalue human life and suffering. And, I am disturbed that the Zionist Christian community is damaging America's image as never before...In Gaza, four and five generations have been victims of Israeli racism, hate crimes, terror, violence, and murder. Garbage and sewage have created a likely outbreak of cholera as Israeli strategies create the collapse of infrastructures. There is no milk. Drinking water, food, and medicine are in serious short supply. Innocents are being killed and dying from lack of available emergency care. Children are paying the ultimate price...
"It is family and community that has sustained these people during these hopeless times," Bishop Riah went on. "For some, it is all that they had, but that too has been taken away with the continued building of the wall and check points. The strategy of ethnic cleansing on the part of the State of Israel continues…”
He invited those elsewhere who are concerned to pray and to write the media and "every elected official you know...Speak to your congregation, friends, and colleagues about injustice and the threat of global war. If Syria, Iran, the [U.S.], Great Britain, China and others enter into this war - the consequence is incalculable...Contact us and let us know if you stand with us."
Blasting Bishop Riah's anti-Israel statements was Anglicans for Israel, a lay-led lobbying organization whose objectives are "To support the people of Israel and to secure defensible borders for the State of Israel," and "To promote bonds of fellowship and interfaith understanding between Anglicans and the Jewish people."
AFI targeted Riah's opinion that Israel is "`a predator nation, robbers, a threat to Christianity, and immoral.' How odd that Riah omits any mention of Islamic militancy!” the group said.
"We have some questions for Bishop Riah:...Why does he not seem to condemn Islamic terrorism? Why does he drop the context of the Arabs' persistent refusal to recognize Israel's democratic, moral right to exist? Why does he seem to lay all the fault for the problems of the area at the feet of the Jewish state? Why is he silent about the dhimmi status of Christians under Islam?...What is his view of missionary work among Palestinian Muslims to leathem toward Christianity? What is he doing to bring Muslims to Christ and Truth?...Does he believe that his God is Allah or does he accept that the Patriarchs, prophets and Jesus were Jews?...What is his view of the violent persecution of gays by the armed forces of the Palestinian Authority and the fact that so many of them have fled to Israel?...How does he explain the remarks reported to have been made by him in Ramallah: `Greetings of appreciation to all martyrs that were killed on the Land of Palestine,' followed by his quote of the Koran verse: `Do not consider those that were killed for the sake of God as dead, but alive with their Lord.' Does he realize that some have interpreted this as support for suicide terrorism? Does that bother him?"
Liberal Massachusetts Episcopal Bishop Bishop M. Thomas Shaw has been busy with Middle Eastern politics. In May 2005, he had made a public statement against divestment from Israel. On July 12 of this year, Shaw prayed for "the peaceful coexistence of Israel and Palestine," and condemned Israeli destruction of the power plant in Gaza as "endangering the life, health and safety of hundreds of thousands of innocent victims." On the same day, Shaw joined 100 protesters in a march in front of the Israeli consulate in Boston. He said, "I believe the best way to achieve peace in the Middle East is to allow families and businesses to live, work and operate in an environment free of danger."
Sources: Anglicans for Israel, The Church of England Newspaper, Anglican Communion News Service, Church of Ireland Gazette, The Living Church, Episcopal News Service
Anglican-Jewish Accord Reached Arab Bishop Bristles
Israel's chief rabbis and the Archbishop of Canterbury issued a joint statement September 5 that denounces anti-Semitism and establishes formal dialogue between Judaism and the Anglican Communion, along the lines of the current Roman Catholic-Jewish discussions.
Archbishop Rowan Williams and Rabbis Shlomo Amar and Yona Metzger signed the agreement before 70 British Jewish and Christian leaders at Lambeth Palace in London, condemning the current "rise of anti-Semitism" across the world, and acknowledging past church complicity in this prejudice. The signers pledged to oppose anti-Semitism "where it is fostered within communities of faith," governments and political parties.
"This is a most significant step in developing better mutual understanding and trust between the Anglican Communion and the Chief Rabbinate and worldwide Judaism," Williams said. "What we've agreed today will provide a framework within which both practical and sometimes challenging issues can be discussed on the basis of mutual trust and respect."
Rabbi David Rosen, president of the International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultations, said that the new bilateral commission would be "an important achievement for Jewish and Israeli interests and a testimony to Rowan Williams' genuine goodwill."
A dialogue meeting had been planned for May 2006, but was postponed due to a February 6 vote by the Church of England's General Synod to "disinvest from companies profiting" from Israel's "illegal occupation" of Arab territories taken in the 1967 war. Williams had endorsed this measure, but former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey denounced the decision, telling the Jerusalem Post it made him "ashamed to be an Anglican." On February 10, Williams wrote the chief rabbis that the Synod vote was "emphatically not to commend a boycott, or to question the legitimacy of Israel and its rights to self-defense."
Anglican Bishop Riah Abu al-Assal of Jerusalem told the Post that neither he or other Arab Christian leaders had been properly consulted about the new discussions with Jews. The Arab prelate said, "Senior people of the Church of England informed me that the whole event came to appease Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Israel and the Jewish lobby because of what happened at the [General Synod] regarding the issue of divestment. My personal opinion is that it is not the right time - given the events in Palestine and the Middle East at large."
Anglicans for Israel, a UK-based lobbying group, praised the joint statement. AFI Director Simon McIlwaine said: "This is an historic agreement on a par with Nostra Aetate (the Vatican II decree that repudiated anti-Semitism). The communiqué is a...resounding reproach to those elements within the Anglican Communion who have been working obsessively to isolate Israel and delegitimize the Jewish State and People...The church has made it clear by these words that it will countenance no further attempts to boycott Israel, and that the Synod vote in February was a tragic aberration and is not in accordance with Anglican doctrine."
Sources: The Jerusalem Post, The Living Church, Anglican Communion News Service
Presbyterian Church Publisher Buys Bush 9/11 Plot
The publisher for the Presbyterian Church (USA), Westminster John Knox (WJK) Press, has published a book accusing the Bush Administration of engineering the September 11 attacks on the U.S. in order to build popular support for wars to take control of the Middle East.
In Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11, author David Ray Griffin concludes that "the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition, military personnel were given stand-down orders not to intercept hijacked flights, and the 9/11 Commission, ostensibly created to uncover the truth behind the events of 9/11, `simply ignored evidence' that the administration was involved in the attacks." As of mid-August, the book was in its second printing, and had sold 5,000 copies during July. As of September 9, its sales rank on Amazon was 1,091 (at a store where the sales rank can be as low as 2,250,000).
Griffin, a retired professor from the Claremont School of Theology, told Christianity Today, "I became more convinced that if the truth about 9/11 was going to be exposed, the churches were probably going to have to be involved...If we become convinced that the so-called war on terror is simply a pretext for enlarging the American empire, we have every reason as Christians to try and expose the truth behind 9/11."
Officials at the WJK Press, the publishing house of PCUSA, the largest Presbyterian denomination in the U.S., defended their decision to publish and promote Griffin's book. They have published other books by Griffin since the 1970s. Jack Keller, vice president of publishing at WJK, told Christianity Today, "We have a long tradition of being a publisher of somewhat progressive stances on theological and social issues, so it is not out of character for us to do this...Whether or not people were fully persuaded by the arguments, he was certainly raising some interesting issues."
Jack Adams, editor of the conservative magazine Presbyterian Layman, says the decision by the official church publisher doesn't reflect the values of most members of the denomination. Adams told Agape Press that the majority of PCUSA’s flock “are members of the Republican Party."
"This is as legitimate as pet rocks," Adams was quoted as saying by The Washington Times. "We are wondering why our denominational press is picking up on something like this. This was written by a process theologian, which is quite alien to reform theology, which Presbyterians believe in. Before the publisher gives the book the Westminster John Knox imprimatur, they should determine the validity of these accusations."
However, the Presbyterian Church USA, which claims 2.5 million members, is no stranger to controversy. In June, its national convention allowed leeway for local congregations to ordain gay clergy. At the same meeting, delegates voted to commend for study a document on the Trinity that would allow the Godhead to be addressed in different ways, such as "Mother, Child, and Womb."
Sources: PCUSA, Amazon.com, Christianity Today, Agape Press, World Net Daily, gaelicstarover.blogspot.com, The Washington Times, Sacramento Bee
September 11, 2006
By The Rev. Joseph Wilson
I loathe bright, cool, breezy September elevenths, for, you see, it brings the whole thing back with a rush. And the whole thing is going to come back anyway, 9/11 being 9/11, whether it snowed or there were a typhoon, not that we see typhoons in New York City. But my favorite type of day is most unwelcome on September eleventh; yet, as soon as I opened my eyes on that day this year I saw that we were having precisely that kind of weather, a beautiful, Autumn-in-New-York day, welcome on any day but September eleventh.
It was the fifth anniversary of a moment I always remember with a shudder. A strikingly crisp Fall day. It was a quarter of nine in the morning, and I was returning to the rectory, having seen the start of the school day, the kids coming in, happy, secure, another beginning. All was right with the world. And as I strode up the side steps of our rectory, reveling in the day, my cassock swirling in the wind, a lady passing by said, “Isn’t it a beautiful day!” And I replied, “Oh, who could complain on a day like this?” One of my dumber comments.
I wouldn’t know it for ten more minutes, but the first plane had already struck. And within minutes, I’d hear that the second plane had hit. And everything had changed. A few hours later I was finishing our Noon Mass, offered for a very large, tense, tearful congregation. I had spent the day running between the rectory and the school, watching the children, calming the staff. Looking out at the people after Communion I said, “Shall I expose the Blessed Sacrament?” “YES!” they said, “Please!” And it would be four hours, four hours of their quiet watching later, before I administered Benediction and reposed our Lord in the tabernacle again. They had watched prayerfully the whole time.
Five years later, the fifth anniversary, having finished our Noon Mass, I was walking down Broadway towards Ground Zero. I try to go every year, just to pray a rosary, quietly, and remember. It was a good place to be. It’s good to be with others that day, with others who remember.
Two blocks north of the site a crowd is gathered. Outside an Irish pub, a band is playing on the sidewalk; I think they are a police band, and they’re energetically belting up lively marching tunes before the appreciative crowd. It’s a gorgeous afternoon, and they’re a living testimony to the spirit of the city. A celebration of life.
The site itself is jammed with people, quiet, reflective people. All kinds of people; clearly, this crowd is the world. There are Africans and Eastern Europeans in national dress, bikers and people in t-shirts and jeans. Some have set up information sites in support of the Bush Administration and its policies, and intense discussions are going on, some in front of TV cameras. Others are wearing t-shirts imploring, “INVESTIGATE 9/11,” or are otherwise critical of the government and its policies.
And all of it is going on quietly, very peacefully, reflectively. Respectfully. There’s no tension. It’s quite impressive, real food for thought, that here, at this place, on this day, our whole society can converge, and people from all over the world as well, peacefully, mutually respectful. Coming with all kinds of different perspectives, but all belonging there, all essentially doing the same thing from their different points of view. Remembering, together.
Everywhere in that crowd one saw our police officers and fire fighters, uniformed, patient, helpful. We are well served by them. New Yorkers have always had a particular, tender regard for our firemen; I remember the awful moment when I saw the Mayor, speaking to the press that terrible afternoon, and he said, “We are afraid that we have lost hundreds of firemen today.” The bottom dropped out of my stomach; I remember thinking, “No. How could it be hundreds??” But so it was. The funerals would stretch out for months, and months.
Five years later I would gratefully see firemen in uniform from as far away as Los Angeles. There to remember.
So I walked quietly, praying the sorrowful mysteries with a finger rosary, watching. The crowds were reverent and reflective. Turn a corner, and you’d see a man, in the midst of a group, reading from a large ring-binder folder. Each page had the biography of a victim of the tragedy, and he patiently, clearly read through the story of each – who the person was, what he or she did, whether there was a surviving spouse, children; what were the person’s interests, passions, hopes, dreams that were interrupted. And there was no lack of people standing there, quietly, listening.
My rosary finished, I jumped on a train to go home. I would have a final Mass that night and I knew there would be a crowd, as indeed there was. The purple vestments, the requiem anniversary Mass texts, the exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, litany for the departed. Many, many memories.
I spoke of the dear friend whose son Matthew had loved the local firemen, who had often visited their firehouse around the corner, and was made much of, and got to wear a fireman’s hat and crawl through their fire truck. The men of that firehouse, Ladder Company 118, died on September 11th 2001, and the little boy put up their obituary cards by his bed ad kissed them every night. I spoke of our parishioners for whom that awful day would never be simply a memory, for they live with the awful death of their loved ones every day.
And then the monstrance was on the altar, and we asked the Lord Jesus for healing, and for peace. And we were privileged to remember.
Medieval Book Of Psalms Unearthed
Irish archaeologists announced in late July the "miracle" discovery of a 20-page book of psalms, dating to the era from 800 to 1000 A.D.
Trinity College manuscripts expert Bernard Meehan said this was the first discovery of an Irish document from that era in 200 years.
Pat Wallace, director of the National Museum of Ireland, said that an engineer had been digging up a bog in mid-Ireland to create commercial potting soil when, "just beyond the bucket of his bulldozer, he spotted something." The site's location is being held confidential while archaeologists continue exploring the site. Wallace said, "The owner of the bog has had dealings with us in past and is very much in favor of archaeological discovery and reporting it," Wallace said.
At the time that the book was discovered, the Israeli-Hezbollah war was at its peak, so there was a furor over reports that the book was open to a Latin version of Psalm 83. Initial news reports said that this psalm was a lament against Israel's enemies, including "Philistia with the inhabitants of Tyre" and "Assyria" - in other words, Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria, participants in the present war.
However, the following day, the National Museum of Ireland clarified matters. The ancient manuscript from the bog used the Septuagint and Vulgate numbering of the psalms. In those versions, psalm 83 - a hymn of praise to God - corresponds to what appears as psalm 84 in the King James Version and in most modern Bibles.
Sources: National Museum of Ireland, The Associated Press, MSNBC
|
| Index :: Print :: E-mail |
