BONUS REPORTS, April-June ’07 CHRISTIAN CHALLENGE

 

8,000 Anglicans Added Daily Across World, Conference Told

 

By David W. Virtue

 

The Church of Jesus Christ is growing faster now than at any time in its 2,000-year history, some 1,000 missionary-minded Episcopalians and Anglicans were told at a New Wineskins for Global Missions conference at Ridgecrest, North Carolina in April.

 

Globally, more than 90,000 new converts receive Christ each day, with 20,000 of them confessing him daily in Africa, and 28,000 coming to Christ daily in China.

 

The Rt. Rev. Derek Eaton, former Bishop of Nelson, New Zealand and now Assistant Bishop in the Diocese of Egypt, told conference participants that, despite Western timidity and the deconstructionist gospel being purveyed by and foisted on the U.S.-based Episcopal Church (TEC), there are 8,000 new adult Anglican believers coming to Christ each day across the globe.

 

"We are seeing 400 new Anglican churches open each week around the world. In the Province of Nigeria there are more Anglicans in church on Sunday than all the U.K., North America and Australasia put together," he told a stunned audience, many of whose bishops no longer proclaim a biblical gospel.

 

The newly installed Middle East bishop said that without mission there would be no Christianity.

 

"We have a gospel for the whole world. Since Jesus is unique, he has universal and global significance and therefore he must be made known to everyone in the world," said Eaton, who described himself as New Zealand's only Evangelical bishop.

 

"Christian mission is rooted and grounded in the very nature of God himself. Mission is indispensable to Christianity. It is rooted in the triune God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God has created a missionary church, and He is working towards a mission consummation. We worship and serve a missionary God...

 

"Mission is taking place," Eaton continued. "The question we must ask is, do I want to participate and be a part of the global plan or remain parochial? In the Province of Nigeria they have consecrated 20 new bishops and created 20 new missionary dioceses in the past year. The Church is not dying, it is growing; let us be encouraged.

 

"In Indonesia, the Church has seen a 500 percent growth in 20 years. In South Korea more than 30 percent of the population is Christian. Ethiopia has more than 7,000 new congregations. In Tunisia, there were only about a dozen or so Christians; now there are several hundred Tunisian Christians, and some are worshiping openly. There is now an Arabic service. The truth is there are many exciting stories to tell of God's missionary plan to extend His Kingdom globally.

 

"We are called to be his missionary people," Eaton said. "The God of the Old Testament is the Father and maker of the universe. The Old Testament begins with Adam not Abraham, not with a covenant but with creation, not with a chosen race but with the human race. God's purpose and promise was to bless all the nations of the earth. In the New Testament we see the Christ of the Gospels as a missionary Christ. God had only one Son and he was a missionary and a physician. The Holy Spirit of Acts is a missionary Spirit; nobody can be indwelt by the Holy Spirit and keep that Spirit to himself. Where the Spirit is He flows forth and if there is no flowing forth He is not there. The Church of St. Paul's letters is a missionary church."

 

Citing Archbishop William Temple's dictum, Eaton said, "The Church is the only society on earth that exists primarily for the benefit of...non-members. We've got to turn the Church inside out to serve the world out there. It is a world that needs Christ. Each local church is to exhibit the `missionary' character of the Church Universal...

 

"We need to repent of our indifference. Have we resisted the missionary call? Here it is afresh. Our god…loves the world he has made and we are called to be his missionaries. Equal to anything that God calls us to be or to do are His resources. Let us do it."

 

See more stories by David Virtue at www.virtueonline.org

 

THE TIMES AD: Trading In Dead Men's Morality

 

Commentary By Canon Gary L'Hommedieu 

5/25/2007

 

In the present trauma of Western Christendom one particular scenario has become familiar, and here again The Episcopal Church makes an important study in culture. The scenario is known by an unflattering shorthand: trading in dead men's money.

 

It is the irony of long established religious institutions being able to pay bills long after they're unable to fill pews. The old families have moved out of the old neighborhoods into new developments, where they're barely reproducing at replacement levels. A new religion is preached in the old churches and, while it is received politely, it doesn't exactly draw a crowd -- even among the preacher's peer group. The new residents could care less about the old institutions and less still about the new religion, except in some instances to lay claim to an historic prize. To their credit, the residents can't be bothered to maintain somebody else's landmark. As a result churches are closing. With the age of the average Episcopalian somewhere in the sixties, the prognosis of the institution is that in twenty or so years The Episcopal Church will be one giant, ornately carved headstone.

 

The Episcopal Church, like other cherished institutions, is indwelt by a transcendent force that promises life beyond the grave for its present membership: namely, the massive financial contributions squirreled away by its ancestors -- the enormous inventory of tax exempt properties, bank accounts, trust funds, artifacts and other historic treasures of generations long deceased. In this Church the dead could go on burying their dead for generations to come before anyone noticed. This is what it means to trade in dead men's money.

 

What an exquisite irony that today's leftward leaning elites, who make up the leadership class of The Episcopal Church, must vent their contrived fulminations in deserted palaces built by feudal barons and industrial tycoons, now maintained by Capital. In light of this the present generation of prophets can be seen for what it is: a species of scavenger feeding off the rancid meat of its own decaying carcass, all the while complaining about a sour stomach. This also explains the tortured conscience of today's "prophet".

 

Some critics opine that the "new religion" being preached in the old churches is just that -- a new faith. They insist that the faith of TEC today, for example, is demonstrably not the same faith presupposed in that Church's formative charters and documents. Archbishop Drexel Gomez in his recent visit with the clergy of Central Florida noted the bitter irony that dead orthodox Episcopalians, who subscribed to the same faith as orthodox Episcopalians now living, were now underwriting lawsuits by revisionists who seek to capture the property along with the name of The Episcopal Church. While the Archbishop winced when I mentioned from the floor that this "might be a form of theft", he agreed without hesitation that "the question of property is a moral one."

 

The present drama over property reveals the power of dead men's money.

 

It is indeed ironic that orthodox Episcopalians must go into a form of exile, abandoning the properties of their orthodox forbears, as a price paid simply to maintain their orthodoxy; and that documentation can be produced by novices and rabble rousers to make this transfer a form of "justice". That is not the crowning irony. Just as the present generation of TEC's leadership is stealing the property of an old religion, along with its history, so now are they are laying claim to its soul.

 

Today, The Episcopal Church is using dead men's money to sponsor a campaign to rewrite the history of these honorable dead, in order to create the perception that TEC is the same historic entity that occupied their properties four centuries, or even four decades, ago. In the security of its massive endowments TEC, a denomination in rapid numeric decline, invested $51,000 from its operating budget for an ad that appeared in the New York Times on May 7.

 

On the surface, the purpose of the ad was to defuse the perception that something is rotten in the state of TEC, referring to "family struggles" that "occasionally make the news." There are other more subtle strategies in place. By the time TEC is expelled from The Anglican Communion the American public will have been introduced to The Episcopal Church as a rival communion, found "in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, as well as... in Belgium, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Germany, Guam, Haiti, Honduras, Italy, Micronesia, Puerto Rico, Switzerland, Taiwan, Venezuela, and the Virgin Islands." One worldwide organization cannot be kicked out of another worldwide organization. When it finally happens sometime later this year or next, it will appear as a simple non-sequitur from the point of view of the general public. It will leave no impression.

 

The ad is a classic example of revisionist history making. The long term purpose of the article is to enable TEC to reinvent itself, by claiming a direct line between the Jamestown pilgrims in 1607 and Greenwich Village lesbigay activists in 1969. I'm sorry -- the ad didn't call them "pilgrims" as they are commonly known, but "a small but hopeful group of English Christians", thus removing every trace of historical context. The real pilgrims of course were English Calvinists, who fled to this continent to escape the first Episcopal Establishment.

 

These hopeful generic Christians did not come here to "engage" the Bible in some leisurely quest, but braved a hazardous journey and a harsh environment in order to fashion their lives by its text. Nor did they consider their historic lineage as a "heritage" (the language of demographics), but as a spiritual lineage with Abraham, Moses, Jesus and the Apostles. These first Virginia secessionists have more in common with today's Virginia secessionists than they do with the Established Church.

 

The rest of the ad is an attempt to amalgamate today's limousine leftists with the Daughters of the American Revolution. Cesar Chavez is cut from the same cloth as Paul Revere. The signers of the Declaration, the original American elite, are linked with today's campus elites. And by implication those who would oppose TEC's pansexual agenda today are of the same spirit as those who a century and a half ago sought to shut down the underground railroad.

 

Episcopalians have a right to be proud of their heritage in radical politics. These were bold and costly adventures that did enormous good for the greatest number of people in human history. What is offensive about the New York Times ad is that it sponges off the righteousness of earlier generations to establish a fictitious righteousness for the current generation of Episcopal pretenders. And it does this to justify future dissembling, at the heart of which will be legal battles, where the sympathy of an unwitting public will be an important strategic asset.

 

This is trading in dead men's morality, which itself is an act of a moral nature, and not merely the outworking of lifeless capital. The heroes named in the pirated history appearing in the Times earned their stature by heroic action. They were not rabble rousers on the dole of glutted institutions. These were men and women who spoke real truth to real power and without exception paid a real price for it. They were not dissembling narcissists who needed to erect a cover for future dissembling.

 

Today's Episcopal elites have denigrated at every opportunity the American exceptionalism for which these same heroic characters are typically cited. The comments about upholding the age old tradition of "valuing diversity", and the self-congratulatory "welcoming with open arms" dissenters who return to the fold, are brazen lies. Ask Susan Russell how happy she is to be part of an organization that "includes" Keith Ackerman, and how fervently she will pine for his return when the time finally comes for him and "his kind" to leave.

 

The greatest lie of all is that TEC is committed to justice. Whether or not departing Episcopalians fight to retain their properties, they must refuse to yield the tradition of Christian social witness to the present generation of usurpers. For the sake of the justice that has been hard won over the years by sincere Christians who were also proud Americans they must refuse to give the justice talkers a pass.

 

Today's orthodox Episcopalians must turn the present argument on its head: the next time the scavengers shriek and whine about "justice", ask, "Show me the justice since 1976. Not samples of letterhead with female clerics, nor the 'diverse' nationalities of leaders in an historic Anglo church. Show me healthy churches, filled with people who care enough about their faith that they are driven to give it away.

 

They don't feel guilty about the Great Commission, nor do they need to be initiated by a fictitious “baptismal covenant” into the UN and its gospel of Millennium Goals in order to feel “saved.” Where people are coming into faith, reconciliation is happening, stewardship is being practiced, money and service are being given away, shattered lives are being restored -- all this whether ministerial careers are advanced or not.

 

In recent years TEC has made a career of talking justice while walking cheap politics and cheesy power games. At most they have achieved a "symbolic justice" -- that is, an ecclesiastical bureaucracy that plays war games on paper. While these are useful for setting up the next prophetic outburst, their gradual effect has been to demoralize the church, adding further to its demographic decline. While there are generous acts of service offered in liberal congregations, the numbers of these are dwindling along with the congregations themselves. Evangelical Christianity generates more Christians, and thus is a more effective engine for generating the raw materials for restored lives than is its liberal counterpart. For this they should be praised by the "justice" crowd, if world transformation is really what they care about.

 

The moral capital of an historic institution and of a nation is being squandered before our eyes, while the public are taken for chumps. That is the strategic meaning of the ad on May 7. TEC elites are mobilizing for their own clandestine future. A chapter of revisionist history was published by one of the world's great newspapers so that the present leadership of another great institution can bury the dead while laying claim to their spiritual treasure. This is the first thing in a long time dead Episcopalians didn't pay for. We did.

 

---The Rev. Canon J. Gary L'Hommedieu is Canon for Pastoral Care at the Cathedral Church of St. Luke, Orlando, Florida. He originally wrote this column for VirtueOnline (www.virtueonline.org).

 

 

ACC, APCK Leaders Issue Statements On Unity

EDITOR'S NOTE: Voicing frustration with disunity among Continuing Anglicans, Bishop Rocco Florenza of the Anglican Province of Christ the King (APCK), a leading Continuing Church body, recently declared unilaterally that his diocese is in full communion with the Anglican Church in America (ACA), another salient Continuing Church body. (A "late news" report on this appears on Page 46 of the April-June '07 issue of THE CHRISTIAN CHALLENGE.)

 

After a long lull marked by a lack of effective movement to consolidate the mainstream Continuum, Florenza's action appears to have stirred statements on unity from the former and current metropolitans of the Anglican Catholic Church, and from the new Archbishop of the APCK, James Provence. The statements are noteworthy in part because that from Archbishop Provence appears (if TCC’s memory serves) to be the first public tip of the hat by the APCK to the ACC in decades. The ACC has long claimed that the Continuing Church subsists in the ACC, the APCK and the United Episcopal Church in North America. However, while the UECNA and ACC have recently formally renewed their communion relationship, the APCK has never entered into a communion agreement with the ACC; likewise, it has never (to the best of our recollection) reciprocated the ACC's claim that the APCK is a sister church - until now. The referenced statements from ACC and APCK leaders follow.

 

TO ALL BISHOPS OF CHURCHES ADHERING TO THE (1977) AFFIRMATION OF ST. LOUIS

 

In the love of Christ and with all fraternal respect.

 

Brethren,

 

It has become a matter of urgency to me that I write to you concerning unity among Continuing Anglicans. As age wearies and I find my physical faculties diminishing, I am constantly reminded that there is less time ahead of me than behind me. While I am now retired and no longer a Bishop Ordinary, it remains the case that by year of consecration I am the senior bishop of the Continuing Churches. This is no cause for pride or self-assertion, but I do feel that it lays upon me the responsibility of doing whatever I can in the time left to me to break down barriers between us, foster concord and repair communion.

 

What divides us?

 

Is it dogma or doctrine? Surely not, for we are all committed to the Affirmation, which in turn commits us, not to yet another confessional statement in the history of the Church, but to Scripture as interpreted by Holy Tradition, that is the Consensus Patrum and the Seven Ecumenical Councils common to East and West. Is there any dispute among us as to the great and foundational dogmas of the Creed, summarizing the eternal Gospel? Do any of us deny the doctrines of Apostolic Succession, Eucharistic Sacrifice, or the Real Presence? Do any of us reject the truth of traditional Catholic teaching on prayer for the dead, the invocation of Saints, or the Blessed Virgin's divine maternity, perpetual virginity, immaculacy and present glory? Indeed, is there any element of the Faith we would vainly wish to filter out in the name of private interpretation, presuming to "correct" the Church Universal? Are any of us "cafeteria Catholics"?

 

If the answer to these questions is no, as it must be among those who lay claim to the Affirmation of St. Louis, then the way is open to reconciliation. However, there are some critics of the Affirmation that have claimed to see some customary Anglican ambiguity in it. I would contend that their interpretation is strained and uncharitable, but let us deal with it, nonetheless. The Affirmation states that we witness to Tradition as an "essential principle" in the following terms: 'The received Tradition of the Church and its teachings as set forth by "the ancient catholic bishops and doctors," and especially as defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church, to the exclusion of all errors, ancient and modern.' Some have said that the phrase beginning with the word "exclusion" qualifies in an open-ended way our acceptance of Tradition, as if we were saying, "We accept Tradition, except for the parts we deem heretical." Of course, this is hardly the natural reading, and the phrase in fact refers to ancient errors condemned by the Councils rather than any purportedly set forth by them, as implied by the reference to the Vincentian Canon earlier in the Affirmation.

 

Nevertheless, our assurance of this does not rest on the Affirmation alone. And it is here that our early history, despite its many false steps, mutual misunderstandings and mis-communications, despite its being marred by human frailty and pride, can provide both clarification and a common foundation. For at the 1978 Dallas Synod, even amongst confusion and acrimony, while the Continuers were still one and newly renamed the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC), a Solemn Declaration and Preamble to the Constitution were agreed to. The Preamble says, inter alia, 'This Church accepts as binding and unalterable the received Faith and Traditions of the Church, as set forth in the Holy Scriptures; the Creeds; the writings of the "ancient Catholic Bishops and Doctors"; and especially as defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church' [emphasis added].

 

Thus, barring heretical statements elsewhere in the nascent ACC's formularies, of which there were none claimed by anyone, we see that at this point the die was cast and Continuers had formally ratified unambiguously their Catholic identity and epistemology. Henceforth, whatever imperfections may have existed in the Constitution and Canons, and whatever personal errors may have later caused some individuals to advocate protestant, minimalist positions or sow discord in other ways, the ACC was irrevocably and undeniably a Catholic jurisdiction. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that division has occurred for fundamentally theological reasons, as the only justification for separation over matters of faith is if one of the bodies formally embraces heresy. That this is not the case according to those who left the ACC is proven by the fact that there were later Episcopal co-consecrations involving them and ACC bishops. Such shared acts are inconceivable without mutual admission of orthodoxy, as is admitted by all. And so we come back to the question, what divides us?

 

Is it liturgical churchmanship? Hardly, for all our jurisdictions contain many parishes which use the Missal and some which prefer the simpler BCP Mass, the latter being in our eyes no less Catholic due to its simplicity than is Novus Ordo. Is it differences in standards of discipline? Unlikely, since all of our Churches aim for high standards but must admit to having licensed, ordained, or even consecrated men who we have belatedly discovered to be of questionable character or stability.

 

Many years ago, I was asked in a public forum if I could explain how Christians in general had come to be so divided. I rose, went to the microphone and said one word: "Sin." I believe this answer also holds the key to our present state of disunity.

 

Yet I am far from implying that the fault lies only with those who have left the ACC. An unbiased investigation of our history as Continuing Anglicans does not allow any of us to escape blame. Nor do I wish to pretend that every division or schism has been due solely to clashes of personality, power-seeking or trivialities.

 

No, all of us must frankly examine ourselves and admit where we may have failed the tests of charity or straightforwardness. We must also all remember that, in the absence of a solution to the initial ECUSA descent into heresy authorized and imposed "from above", Continuers were forced to solve the problem themselves by voluntary association. While this was unavoidable in the emergency situation they faced, and thus actions normally impermissible and irregular were covered by the doctrine of economy, there can be no doubt that such a beginning made later divisions much easier. (It may well be that only by re-establishing communion with other branches of the Catholic Church, and so making ourselves more directly accountable to a wider Communion, will this flaw that was present ab initio be overcome.) And we must face up to the one issue of genuine substance that remains to keep us separate.

 

I refer to our different policies on the limits of communio in sacris. While this is not an area of difference in dogma strictly speaking, it is an important area of what we might call "applied ecclesiology" that makes closer relations difficult by its very nature. It has become increasingly clear to us in the ACC that the only way for those Catholic traditionalists still in the Anglican Communion to be fully faithful to their beliefs is to make a clean and public break with it. Vague statements about "impaired communion" are not enough: public, clear, and complete repudiation of heresy and sacramental communion with heterodox Anglican provinces is what is required at the very least. Better still, all except unavoidable historic association with the Canterbury crew should be rejected. Rather than encouraging those left in the mire to retain some attachment to it, we must confront them with the need to make a choice.

 

Quite apart from questions of sacramental integrity, there is the matter of providing an honest witness to the world. Similarly, it is surely important that Continuing Anglican Churches which can lay claim to the doctrinal heritage of the Affirmation and the jurisdictional continuity of the "Chambers Succession" avoid establishing full communion with bodies of vagantes or heterodox origins until we are quite sure, with moral certainty, that these bodies have abandoned earlier errors and, if necessary, had their Orders regularised.

 

I beg that as fellow Pastors of the flock we set our house in order, discuss and overcome any theological differences that might remain, make the necessary apologies and present a unified and forthright position to Anglicans who remain in the chaos. My own experience, having remained in ECUSA longer than was tolerable, assures me that providing them an escape route back to the Church is our duty. Leaving them where they are is simply not an option. Yours in Christ, Archbishop John-Charles, F.O.D.C

 

ACC ARCHBISHOP MARK HAVERLAND ON SEEKING UNITY

 

For the past twelve years, the Anglican Catholic Church (ACC) has had an official policy of seeking unity among Continuing Anglicans in general, but of seeking it first with the Anglican Province of Christ the King (APCK) and the United Episcopal Church of North America (UEC), which are the other two Churches that share our beginnings in the Congress of St. Louis (1977), in the Affirmation of St. Louis, and in the "Chambers Succession" of consecrations of bishops in Denver (1978). In part, this beginning point rested on a judgment of principle, namely that the unfulfilled hopes of 1977-1978 should be realized as soon as possible. In part, this judgment rested in the practical expectation that Churches with so much in common might find it easier to unite than would bodies with less in common.

 

In any case, it seems to us now desirable to state firmly and clearly the following points:

 

1. The ACC believes itself to be in state of full communio in sacris with the APCK and the UEC;

 

2. The ACC believes that anything which divides these three bodies from each other is regrettable and should be stopped or overcome;

 

3. The ACC believes that anything that undermines the internal unity and stability of any of these three bodies harms us all and harms the cause of unity among Catholic and Orthodox Anglicans. In particular we believe that one cannot serve the cause of unity by undermining or dividing any of the foundational Churches of the Continuing Church movement;

 

4. And, finally, the ACC believes that we cannot be in a state of full communion in sacris with any ecclesial body which is a member of the Lambeth Communion or which is in communion with any body that has such membership.

 

I now call upon the bishops of the UEC and the APCK to join me in affirming these points. I pledge to assist them in sustaining their own unity and stability. And I pledge to work with them, quietly and patiently, in order to build full organic unity amongst ourselves.

 

[The Most Reverend] Mark Haverland Archbishop and Metropolitan

 

RESPONSE FROM THE ANGLICAN PROVINCE OF CHRIST THE KING TO THE ACC STATEMENT ON CHURCH UNITY

 

As one of the original jurisdictions stemming from the Chambers Consecrations and the Affirmation of St. Louis, the Anglican Province of Christ the King fully agrees with and supports the statement regarding unity issued by The Most Rev. Mark Haverland of the Anglican Catholic Church. The APCK, the ACC and the UECNA represent the three main branches coming from the root of the Chambers Succession. We share a responsibility to the trust that Bishop Chambers placed in us to be a beacon for unity among traditional Anglicans in the United States. The Anglican Province of Christ the King will do all that we can to foster that unity.

 

The Most Rev. James E. Provence, Archbishop Anglican Province of Christ the King July 10, 2007 San Francisco, California

 

 

Continuing What? The spiritual roots and justification of the Continuing Church movement

 

By Stephen Cooper

 

This year marks the thirtieth anniversary of what had promised to be a strong force for unity and hope among the oppressed faithful - the St. Louis Congress that launched the greater part of the Continuing Church. The following piece identifies the sources for what is probably the most troubling and indefensible aspect of the Continuing Church - its persisting fractured, diminutive, and essentially helpless condition, a condition which renders it of minimal effect in this hour of need on the part of growing numbers of faithful Episcopalians and Anglicans for whose benefit the movement was created. The Continuum, however, holds in its hands the keys of its own restoration. These are the same keys that form the cornerstone and foundations of the worldwide Anglican Communion - namely, the Faith of Jesus Christ set forth in Holy Scripture, and the doctrines of Scripture set forth for our use and edification in the Anglican Formularies: the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion and the classic 1662-1962 Book of Common Prayer together with the Ordinal. These are the teaching authority - the "magisterium" - and the unifying principle of Continuing Anglicanism, which can and will be effective - but only if honored in truth and in practice as well as in word.

 

-The English Reformation: Key to the Continuing Church- The Continuing Church's Commitment to the English Reformation, and The Destructive Effects of Forsaking that Commitment

 

Virtually from the beginning, the most obvious characteristic of this part of the Christian family called the "Continuing Church" has been its divided state, coupled with its endemic proliferation of bishops with competing jurisdictions. Each jurisdiction asserts the orthodoxy of its faith and practice - its total unity with the Church of the ages, through time. But most also destroy their claim of orthodoxy by their inability to maintain the central quality of Christians for which Christ prayed most earnestly before He went to die for them - unity. Unity must reach the Church in the present as well as the past, starting with the multitudinous jurisdictions that claim the title of Continuing Anglicans. The purpose of this Continuing What? series is not to add another denouncement of this state of affairs to the many that have been offered, but to assess the situation accurately, to identify its causes and to suggest where the solution lies. Disunity and competition within the Continuum stem from the convergence of these two factors: 1. The old human impulse to engage in struggles for power and supremacy; and 2. Fundamental disagreement as to the character and purpose of the Continuing Church, which provides the occasion and the fuel for this ancient and ungodly contest. These things are all too likely to occur in any group. The twelve disciples, even at the Last Supper, fought over "who should be accounted the greatest." (Luke 22:24) The issues that have kept the Continuing Church divided are many. In a struggle for supremacy, any issue will serve the purpose. The issues keep changing, while competitive plotting and division remain constant. Polity, the manner in which the Church is governed, has been a bitter point of contention. But a still deeper cause of division, less openly asserted in the past, is becoming more evident, namely, disagreement with the English Reformation, and with the Continuing Church's commitment to this central feature of the Anglican Tradition. This forces the Continuum to face and to resolve finally and authoritatively the fundamental issue of the original purpose for its existence if it wishes to avoid oblivion and to serve that purpose effectively. Will the Continuing Church continue its received Faith and Worship, that of the English Reformation, set forth with clarity and authority in the Anglican Formularies we profess to uphold? Or will it seek to abandon this spiritual heritage for other theologies that conflict with it? This issue will be life-threatening to the Continuum until it is resolved.

 

-The Continuing Church, Actually and by Profession, is Committed to the English Reformation-

 

The central Formulary of the English Reformation is the Book of Common Prayer of 1549, 1552, 1559 and 1662. The faithful pre-1970s Book of Common Prayer is foundational to most branches of the Continuum that arose in the 1960s and '70s. Further, the doctrines contained in these classic editions of the Prayer Book are in total agreement with those in the Ordinal also produced early in the Reformation for clergy ordinations, and in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion of 1571. To espouse the Book of Common Prayer, as do Continuing Anglicans, is to espouse also the doctrines of the Ordinal and the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion. These are the three primary Formularies of Anglicanism, and are usually bound together as one book. One of the larger segments of the Continuum on this continent, the Traditional Anglican Communion, in its Concordat binds itself to retain "the formularies of the classical Anglican tradition" that preceded the errors of the 1970s. These expressly include the Book of Common Prayer of 1662 (the current English edition) and 1928. It establishes these as "the standard of Faith and Worship." The Anglican Church in America sets the same standard. It submits to the Concordat and it vows to uphold the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal and the 39 Articles of Religion - all three of the "classic Anglican Formularies." Churches that lack these commitments cannot truthfully claim to be continuing or traditional Anglican churches. The Church in the Anglican tradition which this movement professes to continue ("Continuation, Not Innovation," we were assured) is both Catholic and Reformed. Its origins are neither Roman nor Protestant. It is more ancient than both its Protestant and Roman connections, having been in Britain 400+ years before Rome came in 597. Its authority is not institutional, but biblical and spiritual. It is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic (Second Office of Instruction, 1928 Book of Common Prayer, p. 291). Its biblical and also Anglican character speak through the dying words (1711) of Thomas Ken who for conscience' sake sacrificed his office as Bishop of Bath and Wells: "I die in the Holy, Catholic and Apostolick Faith, professed by the whole Church before the division of East and West. More particularly I dye in the Communion of the Church of England as it stands distinguished from all Papall and Puritan Innovations, and as it adheres to the doctrine of the Cross." In professing to "continue" in this Anglican tradition, and in solemnly adopting its truths and Formularies, the Continuing Church has committed itself to the "Faith and Worship" of the English Reformation. We can and should unite in the truths of our professed Formularies, study them and unreservedly uphold and teach them. With and under the authority of Scripture, they are the unifying principle that warrants our continued existence and which alone justifies our claim to be the standard bearer for all Christians in the Anglican tradition. That tradition does not support the phenomenon of groups devising their own ideal church organizations and formulating faith and worship allegedly in the Anglican tradition, without submission to the established body of Anglican spiritual authority. The Anglican tradition and its Formularies provide authority in those matters. Yet some in the Continuum reject these Formularies, hope for their demise, and work against them. While this lasts, the Continuing Church will remain at cross-purposes internally and will continue to dissipate its energy in fragmentation as it has for three decades. That such self-destructive cross-purposes are actually at work within the Continuum is indisputable.

 

-The Continuum's Theological Rift- At a recent meeting of Episcopalians and Anglicans concerning church unity, there occurred an exchange to the following effect between a continuing Anglican bishop and an Episcopal priest. Bishop: The Anglican Communion doesn't exist, because it has no "magisterium" [i.e., a teaching authority in matters of doctrine, like Rome's claimed authority of the Pope and his bishops]. The Emperor has no clothes. Let's face this, and not hold onto things that no longer exist. Priest: We respectfully disagree: The 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion are the magisterium. This is similar to the arrangement in Orthodoxy. There is a patchwork in Orthodoxy, this not being so legal a concept as in Rome. Bishop: I don't think you can rebuild Anglicanism on two opposite theologies of Catholic order. The priest, though an Episcopalian, spoke as a "continuing Anglican", one who attributes doctrinal authority to the biblical faith set forth in the Anglican Formularies he cites. He is not alone. Robert Duncan, Episcopal Bishop of Pittsburgh, corroborates this conviction: "Part of Anglicanism's magisterium was its fundamental submission to the theological and moral teachings of Scripture . . . . 

Anglicanism's practical magisterium - its reliable teaching authority - has been its Book of Common Prayer, . . . reasserting the theological propositions of medieval Catholicism as reshaped by the English Reformation, best represented in the prayer book of 1662 . . . ." (The Mandate, Jan.-Feb. 2007, published by the Prayer Book Society, Philadelphia , Pa.) Former Bishop of London Graham Leonard has attributed the elusiveness of Anglican unity first to "an undermining of the ultimate authority of Scripture as symbolized by the loss of place of the Articles of Religion" (indicating the scriptural foundation of the Articles), and to the effective loss of the classic Book of Common Prayer; also to the ordination of women, and the "substitution of the authority of national synods for the authority previously accorded to Scripture." (Id.) On the other hand, the continuing Anglican bishop's charge that Anglicanism has lost its magisterium negates at least the function of the Anglican Formularies as the teaching authority in matters of doctrine. 

Yet their authority is derived from Scripture. Thus, the Anglican Communion has its magisterium, its teaching authority, but without Rome's system of using 'infallible' decrees of popes and councils to add to the "faith once delivered unto the saints." (Jude 3) It also lacks Rome's enforcement mechanism, the Inquisition, but that is distinct from the magisterium and involves a different issue, one that is as much a matter of polity as theology. To hold that the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the Articles of Religion are the Anglican teaching authority on doctrine is the theological "opposite" of this bishop's view. These opposites, he says, cannot effectively work together within Anglicanism. The extreme terminology conveys more than a mere difference of opinion about church organization. It also implies a doctrinal dispute with the Anglican Formularies and the English Reformation. If anyone questions whether a purpose exists within the Continuum to reverse the English Reformation, all doubt of it was cleared up recently by John Hepworth, Archbishop of the Traditional Anglican Communion, in terms that permit no mistake: "We have no doctrinal differences with Rome which would prevent us from being in full communion with one another. . . . 

My broad vision is to see the end of the Reformation of the 16th century." (The Christian Challenge, September-October 2005, p. 30). No doubt Rome would disagree. The statement appears to conflict with Anglican and/or Roman doctrine. That, and the rejection of the Reformation, including the English phase, present an irreconcilable conflict with the mission of the Continuing Church, and with any organization that calls itself "Traditional Anglican". This seems not to have occurred to church leaders. When a related error appeared in the Continuing Church 25 years ago, the Church's voice of conscience spoke with clarity: "This, then, is the crux of the problem. Are we seeking to teach the faith and to be comprehensively Anglican, or are we seeking to wrench the continuing Anglican movement out of its matrix and context and to return to the pre-Reformation Church as it existed in England before 1534, with all its errors and abuses? . . . 

[This is] a perversion of the spirit in which this continuing Anglican Church found form at St. Louis." (A Declaration of Conscience, June 18, 1982, by Perry Laukhuff, who presided at the 1977 St. Louis Congress; he provided his Declaration personally to this writer.) The Continuum's first leader thus confirms with authority that the English Reformation is the matrix and context of the spiritual heritage which the Continuing Church is to continue. Pre-Reformation "errors and abuses" and "papall innovations," although unimportant to some, were of such consequence to the Faith that the effort to right them cost Archbishop Thomas Cranmer and other faithful shepherds in the 16th century their lives. For anyone to hold the contrary commitments expressed by +Hepworth and yet remain in a position of leadership in the continuing Anglican movement is impossible to defend morally. "Every city or house divided against itself shall not stand." (Matt. 12:25) 

Any refusal of submission to the scriptural authority set forth in the Anglican Formularies negates the Church's unifying principle. If the Church lacks this ground of its own internal unity, it has no realistic hope of fulfilling its calling to unify the larger Church. Unity is spiritual. It does not arise from man-made authoritarian structures, but from general acceptance of the authority of Scripture as stated in the Formularies. Without this, the Church is, at best, an aggregation of jurisdictions with varied theological professions, under no generally acknowledged authority, having rejected the Anglican authorities it claims to uphold. This fosters a kind of "free enterprise Anglicanism," each part building a structure of its own ideal design, and ever subdividing into further competing jurisdictions. The Continuing Church professes what it should profess - its commitment to the classic Anglican Formularies as stating the truths of Scripture. The Church has its unifying principle in these authorities, but it divides over whether, in belief and in practice, it will be as good as its word. Tragically, that is the stalled condition of the divided Continuum now. Just when it is most needed as a credible alternative to the failing Episcopal Church, it offers nothing to the purpose. It is virtually invisible on the ecclesiastical landscape in this country, and it contributes little or nothing to the solution of current ecclesiastical and theological problems. It has faithfully served the spiritual needs of a small part of Christ's flock. Apart from this, its most noteworthy effect has been to keep Anglican Christians divided for 30 years.

 

-The Truth of the English Reformation-

 

To ask how the English Reformation is important to us and how adhering to its truths can heal the divisions of this troubled Church, is to ask a more fundamental question, that may be put in different ways: What are those doctrines of our "precious faith" (II Pet. 1:1) that were in peril of being lost, and had to be recovered (not created anew) in the 16th century, and restored to the Anglican faithful, as of old? What theological truths were of such gravity and in such stark conflict with established beliefs and practices that their proclamation caused the death by fire of the compiler of our Book of Common Prayer and several other Bishops and churchmen? What was this spiritual and theological divide that produced specifically Anglican martyrs, whose blood hallowed and confirmed their testimony and became the seed corn of the English Reformation - the tradition and heritage which we profess to continue?

 

The foregoing first appeared on VirtueOnline (www.virtueonline.org).

 

STEPHEN COOPER is a member of the Church of the Redeemer, Anglican, Fairbanks, Alaska, a Continuing Anglican parish, and its publication, The Sojourner. Mr. Cooper is a layman and an attorney, federal prosecutor and former state District Attorney. He was National Chancellor of the American Episcopal Church from 1987-1988; Chancellor of the Diocese of the West (AEC and Anglican Church in America) from 1986-1995; and Provincial Chancellor, ACA's Province of the West, from 1993-1996. He is author of "Reclaiming Our Heritage -- A Call to Return to the Original Mission of the Continuing Church.

 

 

 

England: Gay Dean Creates Flap Over Comments On Crucifixion And Atonement

 

By Lee Penn

 

As Christian subjects go, the deep and complex meaning of the Cross is a really tough one, probably topping or rivaling attempts to explain the Trinity.

 

So it was perhaps not too difficult for the Church of England's gay Dean of St. Albans, Jeffrey John, to stir up a robust round of controversy over the Crucifixion and Atonement in an April 4 BBC Radio broadcast, even though his stated view of these acts of Christ is commonplace in Eastern Orthodoxy and in the writings of the Church Fathers.

 

John riled some of his listeners by denying the idea of substitutionary penal atonement - the notion that Christ suffered our punishment - St. Anselm's specific theory about Christ's saving actions, and a view that Evangelical Protestants consider to be an essential Christian doctrine.

 

The debate over John's speech was fanned by pre-broadcast stories from the British press, which excerpted the seemingly radical parts of the talk. Asking what "Jesus took our place" really meant, John said: "Does it mean, then, that we are back with a punishing God after all, and that the Cross is somehow to be understood as God's ultimate punishment for sin? That's certainly what I was told in my Calvinistic childhood. The explanation I was given went something like this: God was very angry with us for our sins, and because he is a just God, our sin had to be punished. But instead of punishing us he sent his Son, Jesus, as a substitute to suffer and die in our place. The blood of Jesus paid the price of our sins, and because of him God stopped being angry with us. In other words, Jesus took the rap, and we got forgiven, provided we said we believed in him.

 

"Well, I don't know about you, but even at that age often I thought this explanation was pretty repulsive as well as nonsensical. What sort of God was this, getting so angry with the world and the people he created, and then, to calm himself down, demanding the blood of his own Son? And anyway, why should God forgive us through punishing somebody else? It was worse than illogical, it was insane. It made God sound like a psychopath. If any human being behaved like this we'd say they were a monster.

 

"Well, I haven't changed my mind since. That explanation of the cross just doesn't work, though sadly it's one that's still all too often preached. It just doesn't make sense to talk about a nice Jesus down here, placating the wrath of a nasty, angry Father God in heaven."

 

Instead, John offered a Patristic view - one which his critics seemed to mistake as liberal universalism: "Christians believe Jesus is God incarnate. As he said, 'Whoever sees me has seen the Father.' Jesus is what God is: he is the one who shows us God's nature. And the most basic truth about God's nature is that He is Love, not wrath and punishment...

 

"The cross, then, is not about Jesus reconciling an angry God to us; it's almost the opposite. It's about a totally loving God, incarnate in Christ, reconciling us to him. On the cross Jesus dies for our sins; the price of our sin is paid; but it is not paid to God but by God. As St. Paul says, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. Because he is Love, God does what Love does: He unites himself with the beloved. He enters his own creation and goes to the bottom line for us. Not sending a substitute to vent his punishment on, but going himself to the bitter end, sharing in the worst of suffering and grief that life can throw at us, and finally sharing our death, so that he can bring us through death to life in him...

 

"On the cross God absorbs into himself our fallenness and its consequences and offers us a new relationship,” John said. “God shows he knows what it's like to be the loser; God hurts and weeps and bleeds and dies. It's a mystery we can hardly glimpse, let alone grasp; and if there is an answer to the problem of suffering, perhaps it's one for the heart, not the reason. Because the answer God's given is simply himself; to show that, so far from inflicting suffering as a punishment, he bears our griefs and shares our sorrow. From Good Friday on, God is no longer 'God up there', inscrutably allotting rewards and retributions. On the Cross, even more than in the crib, he is Immanuel, God down here, God with us." (The Orthodox bishop Kallistos Ware offers a similar discussion of the Crucifixion in The Orthodox Way, a summary of Eastern Christian teachings.)

 

Evangelical bishops responded angrily to John's speech, based on the red flags waved in front of them by The Sunday Telegraph. The paper's headline for its March 31 story was "Easter message: Christ did not die for sin." The story lead went for maximum shock value, giving the impression that John was contemptuously rejecting Christian teaching about Christ's redemptive act: "The Church's traditional teaching of Christ's crucifixion is 'repulsive' and `insane', a controversial cleric will claim on the BBC this week. The Very Rev. Jeffrey John, who had to withdraw before taking up an appointment as bishop of Reading in 2003 after it emerged he was in a long-term homosexual relationship, is set to ignite a row over one of the most fundamental tenets of Christian belief." The Telegraph story was quickly picked up, in similarly incendiary terms, by World Net Daily.

 

The Bishop of Durham, Tom Wright, accused John of attacking the essential message of the Gospel. "He is denying the way in which we understand Christ's sacrifice. It is right to stress that he is a God of love but he is ignoring that this means he must also be angry at everything that distorts human life."

 

Bishop Pete Broadbent of Willesden and Bishop Wallace Benn of Lewes denounced John's speech for similar reasons. The Rev. Rod Thomas from Reform, a group of 600 Evangelical clergy, accused John of "attacking the fundamental nature of the Gospel." Thomas added that "denying the 'wrathful' nature of God was an attempt to play down the importance of sin and allow a more liberal approach to sexuality."

 

Jeffrey John had been the first vocal supporter of same-sex unions to be nominated for an Anglican bishopric in the U.K. After it also became known that he was in a long-term gay relationship, albeit one he claimed was now celibate, Archbishop Rowan Williams required John to decline the appointment as Bishop of Reading in July 2003. John has since entered into a civil partnership with his male companion. He is among the founders of the Affirming Catholicism movement in the U.K., which supports a liberal variant of Catholic tradition.

 

Sources: Wikipedia, Anglican Mainstream, BBC, The Sunday Telegraph, World Net Daily, Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way; N.T. Wright, The Cross and the Caricatures

 

Cayman Petitions Canterbury And Panel Of Reference Islands Seek A Father-In-God In England

 

Commentary Report By Dr. Peter Toon

 

The small Anglican Church in the tiny Cayman Islands ("The Church of England in the Cayman Islands") appealed earlier this year for genuine pastoral care and practical, ecclesial oversight to the Panel of Reference, set up by the Archbishop of Canterbury to look into petitions from those in the Anglican family who believe they require justice.

 

This church in the British dependency (where the police are "the Royal Cayman Police" and where the Queen is represented by a governor) is in three islands best known both as the place of major offshore banking groups and also as a favorite place for the visits of cruise ships (as many as seven a day!). It is near to Cuba geographically, but far away and apart in terms of economics and politics.

 

In its petition, sent on March 15 to Lambeth Palace and the Anglican Communion Office in London, the Cayman Church requested that: (a) the Diocese of Jamaica and the Province of the West Indies cease to claim that the Cayman Islands are within the Jamaican diocese; (b) the Church of England, via either the Bishop of London or the Archbishop of Canterbury, assume its historic and legal role as caring for the Cayman Islands, in much the same way as the C of E cares for the Falkland Isles and Bermuda.

 

The desire of a church in a British colony to be tied to the Mother Church in the homeland is natural; and the Queen is both Head of State in Britain and the colonies and Governor of the Church of England in both England and abroad.

 

There is also a significant doctrinal and disciplinary matter that motivates the Cayman Church to seek its Mother for protection and care. The Province of the West Indies ceased in 1995 to be based on the classic and historic formularies of the Church of England and of the Anglican Way. Like The Episcopal Church of the USA, it created new formularies based upon a totally new kind of Prayer Book, which in the West Indies is wholly in contemporary English and which has a variety of services with varied doctrines.

 

The Cayman Church uses the classic Book of Common Prayer (1662) and also Common Worship (2000) of the C of E, and it desires to be part of a church which does the same - that is, the Church of England. It could not use the West Indian Prayer Book for liturgical, doctrinal and legal reasons. For too long the Cayman Church has been left alone by its Mother and sought after by its neighbor, Jamaica (one hour away by air).

 

So that the Cayman Church may grow in maturity and numbers and may truly minister to the Cayman Islands, with their 40,000 or so people, it needs stability and a permanent resting place; and that is surely under the care of the Bishop of London or the Archbishop of Canterbury!

 

The Rev. Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil (Oxford) is President of the Prayer Book Society of the U.S.A. (www.pbsusa.org). His article first appeared on VirtueOnline. To see more stories from this source please visit www.virtueonline.org.

 

 

Nigerian Bishop's Wife Tells Story Of God's Deliverance; Bishop Issues Strong Call For Evangelism

 

By David W. Virtue

 

The wife of the Rt. Rev. Ben Kwashi, Anglican Bishop of Jos, Nigeria, spoke movingly to a U.S. gathering of 1,000 in April of being sustained by God's power and grace while she and her family were assaulted by thugs at their diocesan compound in February 2006, during which siege she was brutally beaten and nearly killed.

 

The home of Bishop Kwashi, his wife, Gloria, and six children was broken into in February by a gang of people looking for the bishop, who had been preaching so vigorously about Jesus and the gospel that she grew afraid for his life. "The bishop was out of town at the time. He was booked for a wedding and could not return," Mrs. Kwashi told participants in a New Wineskins Conference on Global Missions in North Carolina.

 

"The house was well fortified, but they smashed down the door. I knew anything might happen. I prayed and kept on praying. They started shouting and calling for my husband. It was 2 a.m. To allay my young son's fears I told him we had strange visitors. I phoned everyone I knew including the police. Help came from nowhere. They broke into the house. They said they were looking for the bishop. My husband, who is chairman of the Christian Association of Nigeria, is well known across the country. They kept yelling where is the CAN chairman, where is the bishop?

 

"We were helpless. They came into the house with guns. They asked my son where he was and then they hit him on the head. He went blank. They dragged me into the bedroom. I told them to take me and leave the children alone. I said they could take any money they could find and the car. The leader said they were not there for the money. They dragged me into our bedroom. They pushed me onto the bed and said 'You will die silently. We won't waste a bullet on you.'"

 

Mrs. Kwashi said that as they dragged her down God gave her his strength and joy in suffering for the gospel. Finally, when they could not find the bishop, they left.

 

"I couldn't walk. But suddenly I felt wind and power coming into me. I was bleeding from head to toe profusely, but I was able to walk three miles to get help. I thank my God I could share this with you."

 

Mrs. Kwashi said this was not the first time her husband and family had faced violent opposition. "Several years ago our house burned down. We came through that."

 

When Muslims burned down their house and church, Bishop Kwashi said he and his wife walked through the charred remains. "She said to me, 'You said heaven and earth pass away...if it doesn't start with you it won't happen..."

 

IN A FIERY LECTURE to the evangelical Episcopal and Anglican audience, Bishop Kwashi said, "We are too much kept in the church when we should be out telling people about Jesus. We should be looking out as God sees the world. If I am alive I preach the gospel..."

 

The bishop said the church was growing in Nigeria by leaps and bounds because of a push in mission and evangelism which has led to a multiplication of dioceses. "Archbishop Akinola has pursued a policy of evangelism and discipleship. All the bishops and archbishops are evangelists at heart,” he said. Kwashi noted that his own diocese had been cut up several times to create new expanding dioceses in the northern half of the mostly Muslim country.

 

"Evangelism for (Anglican) primates is a way of life, in the church and for the church, and it is essential for each Christian. For the last two years we have been inspired by a 113 policy for reaching the whole world"; "Mission 113" means that every bishop and Anglican church member must know how to lead one person to Christ every year, and disciple and nurture that person, he said. "The bishop is the leader in mission and he maintains the apostolic focus on prayer, word and mission. Every youth conference is an outreach place. Every Sunday service is [an] opportunity to proclaim Christ and call people to know and follow Jesus Christ. Even an ordination service is used as a place to ground people in the gospel of Jesus...

 

"Our call is simple," Kwashi said. "We challenge everyone; if you are converted I don't understand how you can't talk about Jesus. It is an encounter you cannot keep to yourself. Tell people what has happened to you. Just go; simply go. We want people to get on God's bandwagon. The fashion of God is mission and evangelism."

 

The bishop said such discipleship is costly. "It can bring loss of job, the burning of property, losing family and sometimes death, but that risk will not stop the work of the gospel. There are eternal consequences, so get on with the work and trust that God will bring it to fruition, even if it leads to [your own] death."

 

Kwashi recounted a story of the Fox missionary brothers, one a doctor, who came to Nigeria in the 19th Century and brought the gospel with them. They both died quickly but not before they passed the gospel along to his father, who in turn passed it on to him. "Their graves are with us to this day. One day I will go and thank these missionaries. They have given me a good life..."

 

He said that persecution is "part of the package" of being a Christian believer. "We have no permanent comfort here."

 

And he cautioned not to think that Islam is only somewhere else, but right here. There are thousands of Somalis living in Minnesota, for example, he noted. They need to be evangelized now that they are away from their hometowns. "When they become Christians they can go back as new Christians and became evangelists.

 

"A church that fails to evangelize and indigenize is weak," the bishop insisted. "The (cause of the) demise of the Christian Church in North Africa in the first centuries was that it lost its position in the world and gave up its life. It was not a united church; it was not a witnessing church. It also had more regard for Islam and class attitudes than the gospel. The result is that all of North Africa today is Muslim. The fault is the Christian Church, not Islam...

 

"What many people today need is a clear presentation of this exciting gospel," the bishop said. "Vague presentations of the gospel [are] not impressive to people. Evangelism is about eternity - see Matt. 25:14 -30. We should not worry about what people say. The days of ceremonial bishops in Nigeria is over. Every bishop who is not prepared to be a madman for God should leave the place. Oftentimes we are too sophisticated, citified, civilized and superficial. We should get down to the business of bringing the Good News to people. A day of accounting is coming. Evangelism is about eternity. The Parable of the Talents is applicable here. To whom much is given much is required."

 

Speaking pointedly to the American audience, Kwashi said: "Is Jesus happy with your church and diocese? What did the missionaries have when the came they came to our country? They had no retirement plans, no big salaries, and no pensions...nothing. They came with Jesus on their lips and died with his name on their lips. The salvation of souls depends on us. This type of evangelism is not being done during office hours and with committees. This kind of evangelism concerns who we are."

 

"If the love of Jesus is in your heart it will ooze out and touch people. We must say with the Apostle Paul, 'I consider everything as loss, I consider them rubbish, the righteousness we have comes from God and comes by faith,'" concluded the bishop.

 

Read more stories by David Virtue at http://www.virtueonline.org

 

Pawley's Island: AMiA Gets The Buildings, TEC Gets The Squirrels

 

There was another development recently in a dispute that has pitted conservatives versus conservatives in South Carolina.

 

A court ruling seemingly dealt a setback to the majority membership of the ex-Episcopal All Saints' Church, Waccamaw, on Pawley's Island, South Carolina, in early May, but the parish's attorney says the outcome actually amounted to a win for All Saints', which houses the headquarters of the Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMiA).

 

The one thing certain is that the conflict that has arisen over this property is unusually complicated. The history of All Saints', which lies between Charleston and Myrtle Beach, dates back to Percival Pawley's 1745 grant of a 50-acre tract to benefit the inhabitants of the local region by providing a parish of the Church of England. At the beginning of the 20th century, the parish chartered a corporation subordinated to the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, but apparently there is no record of the original property ever having been conveyed to the new corporation.

 

All Saints' is a flagship parish of the AMiA, the U.S. initiative backed by the Anglican province of Rwanda. Its former rector and AMiA chief, Bishop Chuck Murphy, still lives in Pawley's Island and the church campus houses AMiA's offices. The ownership of the 50-acre property has been a bone of legal contention since the Episcopal diocese, nervous about the possibility that the parish's holdings might be conveyed to the AMiA, filed a public notice in 2000 that, under canon law, the property is held in trust for it and The Episcopal Church (TEC) jointly. In a countersuit, All Saints' sought to have the notice disallowed and claimed that ultimate legal title to the property belonged to the parish, not the diocese. Its prior conformity to diocesan canons was described as a "matter of courtesy," rather than a practice that in effect conveyed the title to the property.

 

A majority of All Saints' members voted in 2003 to amend the parish's articles of incorporation to remove references to The Episcopal Church and to separate the parish from it. Their right to do so was asserted on the basis that the parish's charter predates the diocese by about a century.

 

South Carolina Bishop Edward Salmon refused to recognize the action, and put the remnant of the congregation that wished to remain in TEC under his direct supervision. He oversaw the organization of a new vestry, which in December 2003 filed a suit against the vestry of All Saints' Anglican Church, which by then was aligned with the AMiA. In the suit, the Episcopal vestry sought recognition as the parish's legal representatives and as the rightful owners of the name and property of the parish.

 

Conservative Anglicans inside and outside TEC found the fracas to be disturbing embarrassing, and unedifying, in that it pitted against one another two entities (the Diocese of South Carolina and the All Saints' Parish) which had no substantial differences on matters of faith. The diocese was seen by some as acting as an inadvertent water-bearer for the increasingly anti-orthodox national church in its struggle with a faithful mission having support from significant Anglican primates overseas. Attempts at mediation have so far failed.

 

After hearing testimony in the suit in March 2006, Judge Thomas W. Cooper of the 15th South Carolina Judicial Circuit decided that, under state law, TEC is "hierarchical" and that "the voluntary act of joining a hierarchical denomination subjects the local church to the rules and regulations of the denomination." He determined that neither the South Carolina diocese nor TEC had an interest in the parish's property - except for a 1.7-acre parcel acquired by the corporation formed under its 1901 charter – but that the corporation had acted inappropriately in seeking to amend its charter without first getting the permission of the diocese. He ordered that the vestry members elected by the majority (AMiA) congregation to cease representing themselves as officers of the (Episcopal) corporation and using the name of the parish; that the South Carolina secretary of state cancel the amendments made to the parish's certificate of incorporation, and that the majority congregation be ejected from the property.

 

Attorneys moved for reconsideration of Judge Cooper's order and presented arguments for that in April 2006. After the lapse of a year, the judge reaffirmed his original decision, clearing the way for an appeal to a higher court by lawyers for the diocese and the national church. At this writing, TEC's notice of appeal had been filed; a similar notice from the Diocese of South Carolina was expected.

 

Although said in some reports to be a loss for the AMiA congregation, this outcome actually amounted to a win for All Saints' Anglican Church, according to parish attorney and senior warden Dan Stacy. He said the effect of the ruling is that the original 50-acre tract and what is on it remain in the possession of the Anglican congregation. Only the 1.7 acre tract acquired in the 1980s is owned by the Episcopal corporate body formed in 1901. Since this parcel is an unimproved wooded lot, the portion of the judge's order directing the ejection of the Anglican group from the Episcopal property would seem to be a practical, if not a legal, nullity.

 

Sources: standfirm.org, Dan Stacy Esq., VirtueOnLine, Episcopal News Service, Christian Post, The Washington Post, The Associated Press, Charleston (SC) Post and Courier

 

 

 

ANGLICAN NETWORK NEWS:

 

Network Launches Three New Ministry Initiative Websites

 

The conservative, U.S.-based Anglican Communion Network (ACN), representing conservatives within and outside of The Episcopal Church, has launched three new websites: anglican-church-planting.org, anglican-evangelism.org and anglican-missions.org. These new sites will inform Anglicans of upcoming events and conferences, connect leaders in each of these ministry areas to one another, and link to other related ministry tools and resources. These websites will also be a primary communications tool for the Network's Church Planting Initiative, Good News Initiative and Global Missions Initiative. "The work of the Network has grown so quickly that rather than people having to dig down through several layers of our main site, we thought that having separate sites would be more user-friendly," said the Rev. Canon Daryl Fenton, the Network's chief operating officer. "If we were to send out a press release on every event that we are sponsoring, people would be inundated with information. 

We want these sites ultimately to be online communities serving all Anglicans where real networking and resource-sharing can occur between and among leaders in each of these important ministry areas." Already the Anglican Relief and Development Fund, one of the Network's first ministry initiatives, has its own website and can be found at www.anglicanaid.net. Another Network initiative, Children and Youth, is set to launch its new site in early summer. "In my ministry area, the Network Task Force on Church Planting is sponsoring church planting foundations seminars, sending new church planters to boot camp, doing assessments of new church planting candidates, and offering coaching workshops in different cities all across the country," said the Rev. Tom Herrick, ACN Director for Church Planting. "We hope that all Anglicans in the Common Cause movement interested in church planting will regularly check our site." 

The Good News Initiative is the newest of the ACN initiatives, but already several "Sharing Our Faith" evangelism conferences have been held or are pending in cities across the nation.. Evangelist, the Rev. Canon Dr. Michael Green, is speaking at each of these events along with a team of other evangelists. "With the leadership of Dr. Green, we are working to re-focus the Anglican Church in this country on the need for effective evangelism," said Jenny Noyes, ACN's Coordinator for Evangelism. "By training the clergy and laity in how to share their faith with others and doing hands-on outreach, we hope to see revival in our churches. 

This new website will help us all keep track of dates, event registration and details as well as link people to other evangelism resources." Finally, the anglican-missions.org website will be managed by the Network's Global Missions Initiative Director, the Rev. John Cruikshank. "This new website will help us build the relationships necessary in today's cross-cultural missions," said Cruikshank. "This is accomplished through the networking and resource-sharing among the 30 mission agencies and mission-minded parishes and dioceses that make up the Anglican Global Mission Partners, and eventually through matching up U.S. parishes with overseas partner parishes. The basic site is up, but the potential is unlimited in terms of what we can do with it in the years to come." All of the new sites are linked to the Network's main website of www.acn-us.org.

 

Source: Anglican Communion Network

 

Anglican Relief and Development Fund And Solar Light for Africa Partner To Help Uganda's Kalungi Medical Clinic

 

The Anglican Relief and Development Fund (ARDF) of the Anglican Communion Network (ACN), an alliance of faithful Anglicans/Episcopalians, has partnered with Solar Light for Africa (SLA), an Anglican Global Mission Partner, to provide $51,574 in grant monies for new equipment and electricity for a Ugandan medical clinic sponsored by the diocese of West Buganda. The Kalungi Clinic is located south of Kampala, Uganda, in an area that lacks basic healthcare facilities. With the nearest hospital almost three hours away by automobile and 12 hours by bicycle, the church-sponsored clinic provides quality medical care and vaccinations to over 5,000 people, many of whom have easily-treatable medical problems. 

The ARDF/SLA grant replaced a kerosene-powered refrigerator with solar-powered units, enabling the clinic to store vaccines, medicine and blood for longer periods of time. The grant also provided funds to replace kerosene lamps and candles with electric lighting, allowing extended and more effective clinic service hours. "When people get sick, some of them die because they have nowhere to go. No one else has tried to start a clinic. The people demanded it by bringing sick people on bicycles," said the Rt. Rev. Samuel Semakula Kamya, West Buganda diocesan bishop. "Now, the people know the church runs the clinic. They know when God is behind it, everything can operate." 

The clinic is paired with local village churches whose members serve the clinic by providing shelter and food to those who have traveled great distances to receive medical care. "These medical clinics promote the diocese's Gospel-sharing efforts as people see God's love in action," said Canon Nancy Norton, ARDF Executive Director. "This project ramped up healthcare services in a region of 10,000 people, bringing the people served into contact with the spiritual and physical power of Jesus, and surrounding them with the love and care of a Christian community." 

The ARDF project - one of a number that ARDF has supported in the developing world since it was founded a few years ago - also helped leverage funds from other agencies to partner with Solar Light in Africa. The Coca-Cola Company and the United States Agency for International Development provided additional funds expanding the project to provide clean drinking water using solar-powered pumps. This project provided not only clean water for the clinic, but also installed three spigots in the local community to give the residents access to clean, potable water. To find out more about ARDF or to see a current list of approved projects, go to www.anglicanaid.net. For questions about ARDF or to adopt a specific project, contact Canon Nancy Norton at nancy@anglicanaid.net. ARDF is the relief and development initiative of the Network. The Network encompasses ten Episcopal dioceses, 900 parishes within and outside of The Episcopal Church (TEC), and 2,200 clergy.

 

Oxford: Atheist V. Former Atheist

 

Crusading pro-evolution scientist Richard Dawkins had his anti-religious claims ridiculed during a recent Oxford debate with a theologian who once was an atheist like the evolutionist, who is devout in his public denunciations of religion.

 

"Having been an atheist, I discovered religion was in fact an enormously powerful, transformative power for good," said Alister McGrath, Oxford University's professor of Historical Theology.

 

"The claim that the scientific explanation ends everything ignores fundamental realities. There's a whole range of human experiences, often involving a longing for something beyond us which brings legitimacy to our core notions and philosophical ideas," McGrath said.

 

The 54-year-old Anglican priest was debating with Dawkins during Oxford's Literary Festival in March. Dawkins' post as professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford is funded by Hungarian-born Microsoft millionaire Charles Simonyi. His attacks on religion are frequent, and he set up a foundation in December to send atheist books and DVDs to schools in Britain and the United States.

 

"Far from being enriching, religion is stultifying, impoverishing and limiting," said Dawkins, whose book, The God Delusion, has sold a million copies since publication in 2006. "Science and religion both attempt to answer the same questions - the difference is that religion gets the answers wrong," the atheist campaigner asserted.

 

McGrath said, however, that science is unable to provide a "guiding moral vision." He noted that non-believers such as the writer Iris Murdoch had agreed on the necessity of a transcendent basis for ethical decisions.

 

"Although I can't prove Christianity, as I can prove the structure of DNA is a double helix, it is a hypothesis which makes perfect sense, and which gives direction and animation to life," said McGrath, who became a Christian after studying chemistry and molecular biophysics.

 

He recently published The Dawkins Delusion as a riposte to the scientist's book. "Belief in God creates an explanatory framework, which enables you to appreciate and value the sciences while also seeing beyond the beauty and glory of the world to something enriching and ennobling," contended McGrath.

 

Describing his book as a "consciousness-raising exercise," Dawkins belongs to the London-based National Secular Society, which has since the 19th century campaigned to make Britain atheist. In his speech, Dawkins said he had "disposed one by one" of arguments for God's existence, and believed it was "a form of child abuse" to assume children inherited their parents' religion "without consent."

 

Rejecting this, McGrath argued that Dawkins had ignored "the dialectic between proving and giving reasons for something," and had falsely assumed that science eliminated "the conceptual space for God...” “Religion has the capacity to go seriously wrong - it can be dogmatic, intolerant and aggressive, as can other worldviews," he said. "But it can also provide a moral stimulus and raise our imaginative capacities to new heights. For every grand tragedy involving religion, there've been ten thousand acts of personal kindness and social good."

 

Source: Ecumenical News International

 

 

 

OXFORD: This isn't the Anglican split

A row over 'theological extremism' at an Oxford college seems little more than a personality clash

 

ED. NOTE: There have been a slew of stories in recent weeks putting Richard Turnbull, principal of Wycliffe Hall - the Anglican Evangelical theological college at Oxford - on the hot seat, amid claims that a hardening conservatism at the school had led to a culture of homophobia and misogyny, and the bullying and intimidation of staff. Dr. Turnbull has maintained that Wycliffe Hall retains its openness to debate and academic independence. Here JONATHAN AITKEN, a former student at Wycliffe, gives his reading of the situation July 5 in The Guardian.

 

I spent two of the best years of my life as a student at Wycliffe Hall, the Oxford theological college recently in the headlines for "unholy rows", bullying, homophobia, misogyny and staff intimidation, and mirroring the worldwide splits in Anglicanism. As these strongly denied allegations are likely to be repeated this weekend when the Church of England's General Synod publicly discusses them during its equivalent of Question Time, perhaps it is a good moment to offer a fresh analysis of the controversy.

 

When I arrived at Wycliffe...I thought I had come to the only establishment in Britain that had worse food and plumbing than HMP Belmarsh. But Wycliffe had its virtues. They included a diverse and talented student body, a prayerful spiritual life at the heart of the collegiate regime, and a special commitment to training students for lay and ordained ministry.

 

Has all this been lost amid the current disputes? Absolutely not, I can say with the conviction of a grateful ex-student who stays close to the college as a regular visitor and intermittent lecturer. The clash between Wycliffe's principal and some members of staff is real; but before examining those issues it is useful to take an overview from four other important perspectives - of the student body, the governing body, the university, and the church inspectorate.

 

Wycliffe's 150 students appear to be solidly supportive of their principal, Richard Turnbull. Presidents of the student common room have backed his leadership with written accolades. Women students – 30 percent of the enrollment - to whom I talked were outraged by the reports of homophobia, misogyny, bullying and theological extremism, which they say are nonexistent in the college's culture. Wycliffe's governing body, the hall council, is equally steadfast in rejecting these allegations and expressing full confidence in the principal. Oxford University is not involved in the staff disputes. The rumor that because of them Wycliffe was about to lose its status as a permanent private hall of the university is unfounded. The rumor started because, coincidentally, a panel is in the final stages of a review of all permanent private halls. Those who have seen the first drafts of the review say it is favorable to Wycliffe.

 

To understand the disputes' origins it is necessary to appreciate the impact of a confidential Church of England report on Wycliffe following a visit by inspectors in 2004. They recommended an overhaul of the management in order to make "ministerial formation central rather than peripheral to both the ethos and the managerial structure of the college"; a business plan; an improvement in chapel services; and the direct accountability of certain tutors, particularly the director of ministry, to the principal. The hall council decided a new broom was needed to make the changes, so they appointed Richard Turnbull, a former Hampshire vicar, a church historian and chairman of the business committee of the General Synod.

 

Turnbull swept vigorously. Only time will tell whether his new staff appointments, which look good on paper, will succeed in practice. But those who opposed his right to change staff were surely fighting on the wrong battlefield. This is where personal grievances, sometimes bitterly expressed, entered the equation. At the heart of the controversy lies a personality clash between Turnbull and a part-time Wycliffe research fellow, Elaine Storkey, who is now the subject of disciplinary proceedings. She has surprised even the most neutral observers with the vehemence of her attacks not only on Turnbull, who she publicly compared at a meeting attended by staff and students to "one of the Nazi defendants at Nuremberg ", but also on the chairman of the Hall Council, Bishop James Jones.

 

Such tensions are sad in a Christian community, but my prediction is that the temperature will return to normal when Wycliffe starts the new academic year with a full complement of staff and students. As for the present troubles, the more I hear about them, the more they seem to reduce the dispute to the level of personal resentments.

 

For what is at stake here are not substantive issues of conservative versus liberal Anglicanism, nor questions of academic freedom, nor even the right of a college principal to be ultimately responsible for staff appointments and managerial decisions. At the end of the day this is a shake-out of half a dozen academics who did not like doing what the principal, the governing body and the church inspectorate wanted the college to do. The row may be noisy but Wycliffe's primary mission, to train future ministers of the church, will not be affected.

 

---Jonathan Aitken is a former cabinet minister; his books include Porridge and Passion: An Autobiography, and Prayers For People Under Pressure

 

Williams: Christian Belief In Sinful Behavior

Not An Expression Of Hate

 

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has recently argued that the belief among conservative Christians that some behavior is sinful does not amount to an expression of hate.

 

The comments were made after some student unions in Britain had withdrawn recognition from religious societies, largely over the gay issue.

 

"What is still puzzling about the debate over Christian unions in some colleges and universities being refused recognition by student unions is the underlying assumption that seems to be at work. It's as if these student unions are saying that disagreement itself is disturbing - that having different convictions is so violently disruptive that no open exchange can be allowed. To avoid conflict and offense, there must be no possibility of certain views surfacing in the public sphere," Williams wrote in part in December.

 

He conceded that some restrictions on expression are legislatively applied, for example in cases of racism and Holocaust denial. "But beyond this, we sometimes seem to be unclear. Quite often in discussion of Christian attitudes to homosexuality (and this is often the presenting issue where Christian unions are concerned), it is taken for granted that any statement that a form of behavior might be sinful is on a par with the expression of hate, so that it is impossible for a conservative Christian, Catholic or Protestant or, for that matter, an orthodox Muslim to state the traditional position of their faith without being accused of something akin to holocaust denial or racial bigotry...

 

"The danger in issuing sanctions against a body whose views you disapprove of," Williams said, is that it looks like a fear of open argument. If disagreement is to be silenced because offense may be caused, that is not good for intellectual life; it personalizes and "psychologizes" all conflict of ideas and denies the possibility of appropriate detachment in debating issues, he said.

 

Influential Theologian, John Macquarrie, Dies

 

The Rev. Prof. John Macquarrie, one of the best known and most influential theologians of his time, died recently at age 87.

 

He began life as a Scottish Presbyterian and taught for some years at Glasgow University. But during his time as Professor of Systematic Theology at the Union Theology Seminary in New York he became an Anglican and was for 16 years Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at Oxford.

 

A prolific writer with more than 20 books to his credit, Macquarrie was a very successful mediator between the academic world and the parishes, and although his theology was by no means conservative, he retained a deep commitment to the traditional practices of the church.

 

An Oxford chair linked to a canonry of Christ Church, and a world-wide reputation, did nothing to spoil his homely and friendly style. He retained the best traits of the Scottish parish minister he had once been and was revered by his pupils whose careers he followed and furthered until the end of his life.

 

Macquarrie's own special interest for many years was the forging of a link between existentialist philosophy and Christian theology in the expectation that this would produce a credible expression of faith for the modern mind.

 

As a young scholar his fluency in German took him into the sphere of existentialism long before it had entered the British theological scene, and he played a significant part in its importion. His translation into English of Heidegger's Being and Truth (1962) introduced the German philosopher to a much larger audience, and two earlier books, An Existentialist Theology (1955) and The Scope of Demythologizing (1960), drew the attention of the English-speaking world to the work of the German theologian Rudolf Bultmann. Like Bultmann, he had for a time served as an army chaplain - an experience which led both men to perceive the urgency of finding more contemporary expressions of faith.

 

In Twentieth Century Religious Thoughts (1963) and Principles of Christian Theology (1966) Macquarrie attempted such an expression in two major works which ran to several editions and were widely read by clergy and students of all traditions. By this time he was being greatly influenced by the work of Karl Rahner, the German Roman Catholic theologian, and John Knox, an American New Testament scholar. Just how successful his attempt to combine existentialism and Catholic Christianity proved to be is still a matter of debate in theological circles.

 

A common view is that he scored a highly commendable "near miss," but several generations of students owe a debt of gratitude to Macquarrie for helping them to understand and express their beliefs in language and thought forms that did no violence to their intellect. God Talk (1967), published in the wake of Bishop John Robinson's controversial book Honest to God, was also very influential at the time, and God and Secularity, published in the same year, marked his return to a more orthodox position.

 

In Search of Deity (1984), which were his Gifford Lectures, and Jesus Christ in Modern Thought (1990), another major work, indicated however that he was not prepared to give up the quest for an irresistible contemporary theology, and several of his smaller books, Paths in Spirituality (1972), The Concept of Peace (1973), Christian Unity and Christian Diversity (1975), and Theology, Church and Ministry showed a distinguished theologian tackling some of the lesser practical issues facing the church.

 

Formal retirement did little to halt his work and he continued to publish extensively. A new edition of Mary for All Christians (1991) was issued in 2001, and he wrote On Being a Theologian in 1999 and Stubborn Theological Questions in 2003. Two Worlds Are Ours: an introduction to Christian mysticism appeared the following year.

 

He is survived by his wife Jenny, and by two sons and a daughter.

 

Source: The Daily Telegraph

 

Jamestown Quadricentennial - Corrected

In apparent setback for revisionist historians, officials at the Jamestown historical sites recently gave a memorandum to guides who work there, asking them to point out the importance of religion in the settlement's foundation.

 

The document, entitled “Teaching About English Motivations for Settlement in Virginia,” politely asks guides to "make a concerted effort to become comfortable with the changes, and begin including them immediately. We can always improve the scope and accuracy of our presentations, and in this case the changes achieve both these goals."

 

The original Jamestown charter of 1606 listed three purposes for the enterprise: (1) to spread the Christian faith among native peoples, (2) to make a profit, and (3) to find a river route through North America to the Pacific Ocean. (A second charter issued in 1609 repeated these items and added another purpose, which was to seek survivors from the "Lost Colony," founded in 1585 at Manteo in what is now North Carolina.)

 

The changes are apparently a response to widely disseminated concerns expressed by two persons. California Pastor Todd Dubord entered into discussions with the site management (which receives both private and public funding) after a tour group he was leading through the area noticed that the guides were unwilling to discuss the religious roots of the settlement, instead focusing on the economic objectives.

 

"As one of the tour guides was leading us through the very heart of the replica of the community, the Anglican Church," Dubord reported, "we asked if she could speak about the significance of the three religious plaques on the wall in the front of the church: the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the Apostles' Creed." The guide would only identify them as "religious."

 

Meanwhile, Vision Forum Ministries president Doug Phillips expressed outrage over the widespread removal of references to Christianity from the official 400th anniversary events, which included a recent visit to the settlement by Queen Elizabeth II (the Supreme Governor of the Church of England). He insisted that the conflict over the accuracy and completeness of the historical presentations at the site "is one of the most significant battles of our day. It is the battle for our history."

 

The restoration of discussion of the Evangelical purpose of the settlement is welcome but not adequate, says Phillips. He contends that organizers of the commemoration were still pushing a kind of pluralism that means that "every religious bent, except the really historic Christian one, is going to get its day in court."

 

Joseph A. Gutierrez, Jr., senior director of the Jamestown-Yorktown Foundation, tells a different story. In addition to new instructions for guides, the Foundation's board approved "supplemental interpretive program plans for 2007, which included new church-based programs."

 

One of the augmentations, he indicated, is "Tolling of the Bell: Religion at Jamestown" which is being added to the existing church programming, "The Law and the Lord," and "Rule of Law."

 

Two other programs in the offing are "Jamestown Sermons" and "Origins of the Anglican Faith," he said.

 

Further, a new introductory film, “1607: A Nation Takes Root”, and new galleries that "trace the central role Christianity played in life in the 17th century" are being developed.

 

Gutierrez recently told staff at the site that the "perception that somehow staff [was] minimizing the Christian religious heritage of the Jamestown settlers, or the role of faith in the colony [was] a significant concern...It should be remembered that one of the first actions taken by the English settlers when they came ashore at Cape Henry was to erect a cross, and one of the first actions taken when they arrived at Jamestown was to build a church."

 

For its part, The Episcopal Church prepared for the commemoration by issuing a series of bulletin inserts for use in November and December of 2006. These described the Anglican role in the foundation of the colony, the parish church in the life of the colony, the relationship between the English colonists and the local Indians, and the history of the dioceses of Virginia.

 

Sources: World Net Daily, Episcopal News Service

 

'Partial Birth' Abortion Ban Upheld by Top U.S. Court

By Greg Stohr

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aPpyqGiTGYTo&refer=home

 

April 18 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a nationwide ban on "partial birth" abortion, marking a shift on the high-profile issue and underscoring the impact of President George W. Bush's two high court appointments.

 

The justices, voting 5-4, refused to invalidate the 2003 law even though it lacks an exception for cases posing a risk to the mother's health. The court also rejected claims that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act is so vaguely worded it would force doctors to forgo a commonly used, constitutionally protected abortion technique for fear of prosecution.

 

The decision heralds a more receptive approach toward abortion restrictions from a court that in 2000 overturned a similar Nebraska law. Bush's appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, helped turn the tide in today's case, joining Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

 

The court stopped short of overruling the 2000 case, Stenberg v. Carhart, saying the Federal statute was narrower in key respects than the Nebraska law. The majority also left open the possibility that doctors could ask a judge for permission to use the disputed procedure for particular medical conditions that pose a health risk to the mother.

 

The law, which has never taken effect, is the first federal abortion restriction since the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision established the constitutional right to end a pregnancy. The case didn't challenge the validity of Roe.

 

The measure outlaws procedures in which a fetus is partially removed from the mother before being killed. Although the law is aimed primarily at a procedure known as intact dilation and extraction, or intact D&E, critics faulted the statute for not tracking the medical definition of that technique.

 

Intact D&E is a relatively rare technique used by some doctors in the second trimester of pregnancy. The vast majority of U.S. abortions are performed during the first trimester.

 

In signing the measure into law in 2003, Bush said that "a terrible form of violence has Been directed against children who are inches from birth." Doctors who violated the law face as much as two years in prison

 

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens and David Souter dissented.

 

The cases are Gonzales v. Carhart, 05-380, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, 05-1382.

 

Views on Bush stem cell veto split along party lines

 

By Hana Bieliauskas

 

(AXcess News) Washington - President Bush vetoed a bill June 20 that would have loosened restrictions that he placed on stem cell research in 2001, when he banned federal funding of studies that would intentionally destroy human embryos. The House and Senate passed the bill, but there were not enough votes in the Senate to override a veto.

 

"Compelling American taxpayers to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos would be a grave mistake," Bush said in an executive order. "I will not allow our nation to cross this moral line. For that reason, I must veto this bill."

 

Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, said Bush has slowed progress toward life-saving cures, and called it a "sad day."

 

"More than 200,000 Ohioans have Alzheimer's disease. More than 40,000 have Parkinson's disease. More than 685,000 have diabetes," Brown said in a statement. "Looking at these conditions alone, it's clear there are monumental stakes involved when federal actions delay the moment when embryonic stem cell research produces its first human treatment."

 

Proponents of the bill, like Brown, say the embryos would be destroyed either way, and not being able to use them in research prevents potentially lifesaving research.

 

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said in a briefing that scientific advances mean that human embryos are no longer the place to find "pluripotent" cells.

 

"More recently, there seem to be some indications, based on research, that one can derive these pluripotent cells - that is a cell that can transform itself into any other kind of cell within the body - not necessarily from embryos, but from other sources, including skin cells," Snow said.

 

The office of Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, released a statement saying she, too, applauds the president's veto.

 

"We strongly believe that there is now cutting edge science to accomplish all the potential goals of curing disease without using embryonic stem cells, and science itself is solving this problem," she said.

 

Bush said he will continue to encourage scientists to conduct research using stem cells that do not come from embryos.

 

"We're already seeing remarkable advances in the science and therapeutic uses of stem cells drawn from adults and children, and the blood from umbilical cords - with no harm to the donor," Bush said during remarks in the White House East Room following his veto. "Scientific advances like this one are important and should give us hope that there's a better way forward than scientific advances that require the destruction of a human life."

 

In an executive order, Bush gave the Department of Health and Human Services 90 days to develop alternative approaches to funding stem cell research.

 

Source: Scripps Howard Foundation Wire

 

Stem Cell Debate Could Be Recast By New Use of Skin Cells 

Three teams of scientists said June 6 that they had coaxed ordinary mouse skin cells to become what are effectively embryonic stem cells without creating or destroying embryos in the process -- an advance that, if it works with human cells, could revolutionize stem cell research and quench one of the hottest bioethical controversies of the decade.

 

The scientists described a method for turning back the biological clocks of skin cells growing in laboratory dishes. Thus rejuvenated, the cells give rise to daughter cells that are able to become all the parts needed to make a new mouse.

 

If the process also works with human cells, as scientists suspect it will with some modifications, it would mean that a person's own skin cells could be converted directly into stem cells without having to collect healthy human eggs or destroy human embryos -- steps that until now have been required to obtain embryonic stem cells. Those stem cells could then be used to make a wide variety of personalized replacement tissues.

 

The findings generated tumult on Capitol Hill, where the House was set to vote on a bill that would loosen President Bush's 2001 restrictions on the use of human embryos in stem cell research. Acutely aware that their new work could undermine that key political goal, the scientists cautioned that their success with mouse cells does not guarantee quick success with human cells. They called for Congress to pass the bill, which would give federally funded researchers access to embryos slated for destruction at fertility clinics. (Congress passed the bill, but the Senate was unable to override Bush’s veto.)

 

But opponents of human embryo research said the findings bolster their argument that stem cell science can progress apace without harming human embryos.

 

"Morally and practically, this new approach appears to be far superior," said Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

 

In nature, human embryonic stem cells are found nestled inside five-day-old embryos, which are about the size of the period at the end of this sentence. Since the cells can make every kind of human tissue, scientists want to use them to study development and to grow replacement parts for ailing patients. Until now, however, retrieving them required destruction of an embryo. And creating the cells in the lab required collecting healthy human eggs from women donors, a process that poses medical risks.

 

Source: The Washington Post

 

Lesbian Publisher Renounces Homosexuality

 

After 29 years as an active lesbian, the publisher of a gay magazine, Charlene Cothran, has publicly renounced the gay movement and same-sex activity, following a conversion experience.

 

Cothran has published Venus magazine, aimed at the gay and lesbian black community, since 1993. She turned away from the lifestyle, though, after a life-changing conversation with an Evangelical pastor, and an unexpected encounter with God in mid-2006. Venus remains in existence, but is now aimed at African-American homosexuals who wish to renounce same-sex practices and leave the gay community.

 

A recent feature article for Cothran's magazine is "Redeemed! 10 Ways to Get Out of the Gay Life, If You Want Out." In it, she said, "I must come out of the closet again. I have recently experienced the power of change that came over me once I completely surrendered to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

 

"As a believer of the word of God, I fully accept and have always known that same-sex relationships are not what God intended for us. I was minding my own business one fine New Jersey morning when I received a call from a local pastor, the Rev. Vanessia M. Livingston. I don't remember how we got on the subject of salvation but she could not have known how much I had been struggling with trying to reckon my spiritual upbringing with my lesbian lifestyle. The pastor prophetically confirmed what I've known for years, `one day you will come out of the world and bring many gay and lesbian souls out with you.' As I blurted out that I was a proud card-carrying lesbian, the pastor reminded me that God's mercy allowed me to survive my experiences as He developed my gifts, all as a part of His plan to lead others to Him, others who will not perhaps hear her or other ministers who have not lived this experience."

 

After this talk, Cothran went out to her car - and encountered God: "The spirit of God spoke directly into my soul and said you will choose this day who you will serve and if you make the wrong choice, I will allow you to drift so far away from me that you will never hear my voice again. I gave God my heart and soul in the parking lot of the mall, right there in my car. A river of tears flowed as Jesus washed me and forgave me and redeemed me for His work.

 

"I intend be just as 'out' about my transformation as I was about my lesbian life. I have given every gift I have back to God, including Venus magazine. The target audience will remain the same but the mission has been renewed. Our new mission is to encourage, educate and assist those in the life who want change but can't find a way out. My brother, my sister, please follow me out of this."

 

She concluded her article with ten steps that those who seek salvation - including an exit from homosexuality - should take.

 

In a January 2007 interview with a Chicago-area gay newspaper, Cothran said that her message is not widely accepted in black churches: "Don't think that I'm being welcomed with open arms now in black churches, because I'm not. I'm in a place where it's just me and God. Black churches are still like, 'Lord, how is she going to be gay all these years and then just stop on the dime?' My voice to them is, `You have been vilifying black gays and lesbians for so long, and this is why they go on to gay churches and don't go to church at all.'"

 

The Windy City Times reporter commented, "Cothran's stance against vilifying the community she once worked so hard to give a voice has put her in a lonely position. She stands outside of the Black Church, who isn't willing to embrace her. She also stands outside of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered) community she was for years a large part of."

 

Sources: Venus, The Windy City Times.

 

Lawmakers' Block Of Amendment Likely To "Export" Marriage Destruction, Some Say

The Massachusetts legislature voted June 14 to deny voters the chance to decide whether same-sex "marriage" should be banned in the state, a decision that a pro-family group said would encourage "the destruction of marriage across state lines."

 

Fifty votes were required to place the issue on the 2008 statewide ballot, but only 45 votes were recorded in favor of the move, with 151 opposing it. Homosexual activists were elated.

 

The vote means that Massachusetts remains the only state in the nation to allow same-sex couples to marry. And that is "only the beginning," said Matt Daniels, president and founder of the Alliance for Marriage, which drafted the federal marriage amendment before Congress.

 

"Radical activists will now move to strike the 1913 law in Massachusetts requiring state residency for a marriage license, in a determined effort to export the destruction of marriage across state lines," Daniels said.

 

"As designed, activists from all 50 states will travel to Massachusetts, obtain a marriage license and then sue in federal court to strike down any laws (or state amendments) protecting marriage in other states," he predicted, adding that activists are trying to make same-sex marriage "the new social norm for America."

 

"This is nothing short of a plan to create a national blitz of lawsuits challenging state marriage laws, state marriage amendments, and the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act," Daniels said.

 

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins accused the three branches of government in Massachusetts of conspiring "to deny the people their right to vote."

 

"The legislature's obstruction of the democratic process further deepens the threat to marriage, ensuring this will remain a key issue to values voters in the presidential race," he said. "I call on all of our national leaders to declare how they will lead to protect marriage."

 

Daniels said while the majority of Americans believe "that gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose," they disagree that homosexuals have "a right to redefine marriage for our entire society."

 

He said the only way to stop the nation from continuing "on a collision course with the courts over the future of marriage" is to approve the federal Marriage Protection Amendment.

 

The proposed constitutional amendment, which seeks to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman, was shelved a year ago after the U.S. Senate failed to muster the votes required to proceed.

 

Source: CNSNews.com

 

 

 

Canadian Conservatives Apologize For Gay "Marriage" In Their Nation

Canadian conservatives and traditional family activists recently responded internationally to what they say is an attempt to use Canadian law permitting same-sex "marriage" to change marriage rules in other countries.

 

The Canadian Parliament voted to allow same-sex marriage nationwide in 2005, and in December 2006, the House of Commons voted 175-123 to defeat a motion by the new Conservative government to limit marriage to opposite-sex partners. Canada also does not require residency for same-sex unions. As a result, some same-sex couples from overseas have entered into a legal union in Canada, returned home, and demanded that their home country recognize their new marital status - despite domestic laws and traditions defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman. Pro-family activists say that Ireland and Israel have had their marriage laws challenged in this way.

 

As part of the conservative response to this tactic, 11 organizations joined together in April this year in publicly apologizing to the world for "harm done through Canada's legalization of homosexual marriage. We are grieved and troubled as we consider the impact this is having in weakening the fundamental institution of marriage in countries and cultures around the world."

 

"We understand," the groups continued, "that Canada is seen by people around the world as a country in which public policy is developed carefully and judiciously. It would, therefore, be a natural assumption that in legalizing homosexual marriage our government and courts thoroughly considered the implications of this action through proper and extensive study of social sciences and facts. But it is essential that the people of the world understand that this was not the case. Our government and courts only considered adult `rights.' Among other things, the impact on children's rights, children's education, parental rights, religious rights, adoption, the economy and family law were never fully considered. Changes were thrust upon us by court actions followed by a vote that did not allow for a free vote of every member of our federal parliament. Our warning to you, the people of the world, is to learn from our mistakes and avoid repeating them in your own countries."

 

According to LifeSite News, the signers of the apology included Canada Family Action Coalition, REAL Women of Canada, United Families Canada, British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life, Alberta REAL Women, Christian Heritage Party of Canada, Third Watch Ministries, United Mothers, Fathers & Friends, Dawn Stefanowicz, MY Canada Association, and Father's Resting Place.

 

Sources: Wikipedia, United Families International, LifeSite News, World Net Daily

 

 

 

Culture War Skirmishes Seen In U.K. Before and After Passage of Gay-Rights Law

 

By Lee Penn

 

Cultural radicals in the United Kingdom have stated their approval of the recent Sexual Orientation Regulations (SOR) enacted there, and expressed impatience with the churches' ongoing resistance to the new law.

 

A Parliamentary human rights commission also has supported a sweeping definition of the scope of the SOR, including a ban on any school curriculum that "teaches a particular religion's doctrinal beliefs as if they were objectively true."

 

Early this year, Tony Blair's Labor government used its powers under the Equality Act of 2006 to issue the far-reaching set of SOR, banning discrimination against homosexuals in the provision of goods, services, facilities, education, and public functions. These rules, which have been in force in Northern Ireland since January 1, took effect on April 30 in England, Wales, and Scotland. The Blair regime refused calls to restrict the application of SORs in the case of churches and church-provided charities, causing widespread fear among traditional religious believers that they will be criminalized for acting according to the moral teachings of their faith. The Church of England has warned that under SOR, vicars might be sued if they refuse to bless same-sex civil partnerships; churches might also be compelled to rent out halls for “gay wedding” receptions, critics say. The government will enforce the SOR for adoption agencies, so that faith-based adoption services may not refuse to allow homosexual couples to adopt children. This is the most controversial part of the proposed regulations, and has brought forth ecumenical - and unavailing - opposition.

 

After the passage of the SOR, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor said on March 28 that religious freedom "is the freedom to serve the common good according to the convictions of our faith. It seems to me we are being asked to accept a different version of our democracy, one in which diversity and equality are held to be at odds with religion...My fear is that, under the guise of legislating for what is said to be tolerance, we are legislating for intolerance. Once this begins, it is hard to see where it ends. My fear is that in an attempt to clear the public square of what are seen as unacceptable intrusions, we weaken the pillars on which that public square is erected, and we will discover that the pillars of pluralism may not survive. The secular state, which we now risk adopting in Britain, seeks a politics entirely independent of religion, in which religious principles have nothing to say in the 'real' world of political action.

 

"The choice of the State to side with the secular is said to be neutrality; and it is usually justified by an appeal to equality. But this is in itself ideology, divorcing religion from the public realm on the pretext that religion is divisive. This sets up great tensions in society. The more determinedly secular a state becomes, the more pressure mounts for religious beliefs to assert themselves. When Christians stand by their beliefs, they are intolerant dogmatists. When they sin, they are hypocrites. When they take the side of the poor, they are soft-headed liberals. When they seek to defend the family, they are right wing reactionaries."

 

In reply, two atheist pressure groups spoke against the Church.

 

Terry Sanderson, the President of the National Secular Society, denounced the Cardinal's speech as "breathtakingly manipulative," and "aimed directly at Downing Street and Tony Blair's Catholic pretensions." (Recurrent reports claim that the now-former Prime Minister will convert from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism.)

 

Sanderson said that the Cardinal's "own behavior in the past disqualifies him from lecturing others on morality - especially in relation to vulnerable children. We have yet to hear any meaningful apology from him for the disgusting cover-up he engineered for the rampaging pedophile priest `Father' Michael Hill. And as for the Catholic Church suddenly becoming a defender of democracy, what does that institution know about democracy? Its headquarters, Vatican City - a supposed independent state - is the also the only surviving theocracy in Europe. The Catholic Church has happily allied itself with just about every totalitarian regime that has emerged over the centuries in Europe. At the moment it is in bed with the crypto-fascist regime in Poland. Cardinal Murphy O'Connor has nothing to teach us about morals or democracy, nor is he qualified to lecture us on 'conscience'. The Catholic conscience seems to mean that those who have it have awarded themselves carte blanche to be as nasty and excluding as they like to those they don't approve of. Well, modern concepts of human rights must trump these claims of divine conscience. It's time for the Catholic Church - and all the other religious bodies that seek to impose their will on democratic governments - to be firmly put in their place."

 

In a March 27 press release, the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association (GALHA) echoed this bitterness against the Catholic Church. GALHA's secretary, George Broadhead, said: "We've seen homophobia in Catholic circles rising at a terrifying rate over the past few months. The Pope is almost hysterical on the topic and the British Catholic hierarchy is constantly agitating to retard gay rights. What chance have gay pupils got in schools which are run by an organization that hates them? For the sake of these children and for the community at large, which should be protected from the promotion of bigotry in schools, the Catholic Church should be stripped of its educational establishments. Let us not forget that these schools are paid for entirely by the taxpayer; in effect, we are all funding the unchecked bullying of gay children.."

 

OF FAR GREATER POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE was the late February statement issued by the Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights. It stated that the SORs offer sufficient protection for holding religious beliefs opposed to homosexuality, but that the manifestation of these beliefs in a way that might be adverse to gays is justifiably limited. Throughout the report, the committee held that the right of gay people to be free of discrimination overrides the rights of believers to manifest their beliefs.

 

"Nobody is required by the Regulations not to have beliefs about the morality of different sexual orientations, or its compatibility with the tenets of one's religion, or (to be) punished or subjected to any other disadvantage for having such beliefs," the report said. But it added that "the prohibitions on discrimination in the Regulations limit the manifestation of those religious beliefs and that limitation is justifiable in a democratic society for the protection of the right of gay people not to be discriminated against in the provision of goods, facilities and services."

 

The committee specifically considered and rejected the churches' concerns that SORs would force old-age homes to allow civil partners to have a double bed, or that the rules would force adoption agencies to allow same-sex couples to adopt children. The Parliamentary body said there should be no "exemption...provided to permit religious organizations to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation when delivering services on behalf of a public authority. Such an exemption would provide a protection not for the holding of a religious belief but for the manifestation of that belief. Where such manifestation of a belief conflicts with the right of gay people not to be discriminated against in their access to services as important as adoption services, it is in our view necessary and justifiable to limit the right to manifest the belief."

 

In the view of the British parliament's committee, the SORs should regulate all schools - including the curriculum - and "faith schools" should not be allowed to have "a curriculum which teaches a particular religion's doctrinal beliefs as if they were objectively true."

 

"Faith schools in particular are concerned that if the Regulations apply to the curriculum, they will not be free to decide what is taught and how it is taught in line with the faith basis of the school. We do not consider that the right to freedom of conscience and religion requires the school curriculum to be exempted from the scope of the Sexual Orientation Regulations. In our view the Regulations prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination should clearly apply to the curriculum, so that homosexual pupils are not subjected to teaching, as part of the religious education or other curriculum, that their sexual orientation is sinful or morally wrong.

 

"Applying the Regulations to the curriculum would not prevent pupils from being taught as part of their religious education the fact that certain religions view homosexuality as sinful. In our view there is an important difference between this factual information being imparted in a descriptive way as part of a wide-ranging syllabus about different religions, and a curriculum which teaches a particular religion's doctrinal beliefs as if they were objectively true. The latter is likely to lead to unjustifiable discrimination against homosexual pupils. We recommend that the Regulations for Great Britain make clear that the prohibition on discrimination applies to the curriculum."

 

Fr. Tim Finigan, founder of the Association of Priests for the Gospel of Life and pastor of Our Lady of the Rosary Catholic parish in Blackfen, warned that this interpretation of the SORs may represent the end of freedom of religious expression in Britain's schools: "Make no mistake, this proposal will make it illegal for Catholic schools to teach that the Catholic faith is true. If the recommendations of the Committee are accepted, it is difficult to see how Catholic schools could continue in Britain."

 

*A GAY MAN FROM WALES recently pressed discrimination charges against the Hereford Diocesan Board of Finance, under U.K. gay-rights employment regulations passed in 2003. According to the BBC, "the law contains an exemption for organized religion and the tribunal is the first test case of how it applies to the Church of England."

 

John Reaney had applied for a job as a youth worker, but his application was turned down in July 2006 by the Anglican Bishop of Hereford, Anthony Priddis. According to Reaney, the Bishop quizzed him in detail during a two-hour interview about his relationship history, and his avowed willingness to remain celibate was of no avail as a reply to the bishop. Reaney "felt a heterosexual lay employee of the diocese would not have been subjected to the 'deep and probing' questioning from the bishop."

 

At the April 4, 2007 discrimination hearing, the bishop said that he learned during the interview that Reaney "had just ended a five-year homosexual relationship." The prelate said he "concluded that Mr. Reaney was not emotionally in a position to be making promises about his behavior for the future. He would not have appointed a heterosexual person to a job of such responsibility if they were involved in a sexual relationship outside marriage." After Reaney's interview, the job was not offered to anyone else, due to the diocese's financial problems.

 

During the hearing, which ended on April 16, Reaney obtained supporting testimony from Sue Johns, a member of the General Synod for the diocese of Norwich since 1990. She had known him since 1997, when he became a youth officer in her diocese. The Church could not afford to lose the work of a man of his calibre, she said.

 

In a highly noteworthy addition to her testimony, Johns told the tribunal that "The Church of England has no consistency and no firm position on homosexuality. In addition, there are vast differences from one parish to another."

 

IN A LATE REPORT, Reaney had won his discrimination case against the Diocese of Hereford. An employment tribunal found in July that "the respondents discriminated against the claimant on the grounds of sexual orientation."  The date for the compensation hearing has not been set, but The Guardian newspaper reports Reaney "is set to secure substantial compensation after the tribunal judgment."  This finding was issued under the authority of the Sexual Orientation Regulations issued in 2003.

 

Sources: National Secular Society, LifeSite News, Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association, Joint Committee on Human Rights (House of Lords and House of Commons), icWales, BBC, Church Times, The Guardian

 

 

 

Return Of Latin Mass: A Triumph For Traditionalists

- By Patrick J. Buchanan

 

Ed. Note: In a major reform in the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI has relaxed restrictions on the use of the old Latin Mass that that was common before the Second Vatican Council 40 years ago. Here, columnist and Catholic PATRICK J. BUCHANAN talks about the historic action.   

JULY 10, 2007   

Elevated to the papacy at 78, Benedict XVI will take no action greater in significance for the Catholic Church than his motu proprio declaring that the Latin Mass must be said in every diocese – on the request of the faithful. Dissenting bishops must comply. "What earlier generations held as sacred remains sacred and great for us, too," said the Holy Father in his apostolic letter, as he authorized the universal use of the sole official version of the mass allowed in the four centuries between the Council of Trent and Vatican II. To which many Catholics will respond: "Alleluia! Alleluia!" 

And so the pope has come full circle. At Vatican II, the future Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Holy Office for the Defense of the Faith under John Paul II, went about in coat and tie and was seen as a radical reformer and modernist theologian in the mold of his friend Hans Kung. Now, Kung is silent, Ratzinger is Pope, and the Latin Mass, which had fallen into disuse with the introduction of the new rite in 1970, is back. 

Why? Because the Holy Father knows the solemnity, mystery and beauty of the Latin Mass hold magnetic appeal, not only for the older faithful but the searching young. And he acted to advance a reconciliation with traditionalists out of communion with the Holy See, including the 600,000 followers of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, excommunicated in 1988, who belong to his Society of Saint Pius X. The current head of SSPX, Bishop Bernard Fellay, has welcomed papal restoration of the Latin Mass. But he has called it a first step toward addressing all doctrinal disputes dating to Vatican II. Among these are the issues of ecumenism and religious liberty. 

If the true church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic, then not all churches are equal. Ever since Pope John Paul II issued his 1988 indult, which authorized, but did not require, bishops to allow the Latin Mass, the number of Catholics requesting the Tridentine rite – and the number attending – has steadily grown. Indeed, it was the stubborn resistance of some bishops to allow the Latin Mass to be said that brought a rising chorus of pleas to Rome from the faithful for the Pope to overrule a recalcitrant hierarchy and order them to permit the old Mass. 

And there are other reasons Benedict XVI acted. The introduction of the new Mass has been attended by a raft of liturgical innovations by freelancing priests that are transparently heretical. And the years since Vatican II and the introduction of the new Mass have been marked by a crisis of faith in Europe and the United States. Churches have closed. Faithful have fallen away, or converted to other faiths. Congregations have dwindled. Convents have emptied out. Vocations are a fraction of what they once were. Belief in the creedal truths of Catholicism is not what it was in the years before Vatican II – the halcyon days of the great Pope and future Saint Pius XII. 

One cannot know the effect of Pope Benedict's decision. But the ferocity with which it was fought suggests some bishops are aware of the power of the old Latin Mass and the appeal of its mystery and solemnity to the young. Pope Benedict, raised Catholic in Nazi Germany, once a reformer, but shaken by the events of 1968 and the social, cultural and moral revolution that followed, seems to have concluded that the Catholic Church's apertura a sinistra, its opening to the left, has run its course theologically, liturgically and morally, and failed. Restored tradition can do no harm and may offer hope for the revival of a faith that is in its deepest crisis since the Reformation. Indeed, the term "Tridentine Mass" is derived from the Latin name, 

Tirdentum, of the city in which it was declared the official Mass of Roman Catholicism. And the Council of Trent was the first major step in the Counter-Reformation. Yet the Holy Father could not make everyone happy. Liberal European bishops were said to have fought restoration of the Latin Mass. And, according to The New York Times, Abe Foxman, resident theologian at the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, is about to anathematize the whole lot of us. Declared Abe, speaking ex cathedra for ADL: 

"We are extremely disappointed and deeply offended that nearly 40 years after the Vatican rightly removed insulting anti-Jewish language from the Good Friday Mass, that it would now permit Catholics to utter such hurtful and insulting words by praying for Jews to be converted." What is Abe talking about? Does he not know that Catholics are required to pray for the conversion of all peoples to Catholicism and Christ? Who duped Abe into thinking this requirement was suspended by Vatican II? Indeed, if one believes, as devout Catholics do, that Christ and his Church hold the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, it would be anti-Semitic not to pray for the conversion of the Jews. Even Abe. 

------------------------ 

Pat Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Party’s candidate in 2000. He is also a founder and editor of The American Conservative. He is a political analyst for MSNBC and a syndicated columnist, he served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national TV shows, and is the author of seven books. For more news on liturgy in the Catholic Church, please see, “Hell Is Real, Limbo Isn’t – And Other News From The Roman Catholic Church” in this section.

 

Pope: So, you're not Catholic? Then you're not in true Church

Benedict ignites holy war of words by stating other groups 'defective' 

World Net Daily, 

July 11, 2007

Pope Benedict XVI has ignited controversy across the world by approving a document saying non-Catholic Christian communities are either defective or not true churches, and the Roman Catholic Church provides the only true path to salvation. "Christ 'established here on earth' only one church," said the document, reasserting the primacy of Catholicism. It said other Christian communities such as Protestants "cannot be called 'churches' in the proper sense" since they don't have what's known as apostolic succession – that is, the ability to trace their bishops back to the original 12 apostles of Jesus. 

The document said the Orthodox church suffered from a "wound" because it did not recognize the primacy of the pope, adding the wound was "still more profound" among Protestant denominations. It was "difficult to see how the title of 'Church' could possibly be attributed to them," said the statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, purporting Roman Catholicism was "the one true Church of Christ." 

"These separated churches and communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation," the document read. "In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church." The document, formulated as five questions and answers, repeated sections of a 2000 text the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, "Dominus Iesus," which angered Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches and did not have the "means of salvation." The Vatican's statement, signed by American Cardinal William Levada, was approved by Benedict June 29, the feast of Saints Peter and Paul in the Catholic faith. Protestant leaders wasted no time attacking the statement. "It makes us question whether we are indeed praying together for Christian unity," said the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, a group of 75 million Protestants in more than 100 countries. "It makes us question the seriousness with which the Roman Catholic Church takes its dialogues with the reformed family and other families of the church."

 

Hell Is Real, Limbo Isn't - And Other News From The Roman Catholic Church

By Lee Penn

 

The culture wars in the secularized West continue to spill over into the Roman Catholic Church. Benedict XVI and his bishops wrestle, in their disparate ways, with evolution, abortion, and same-sex unions. Meanwhile, the Vatican has restated ancient beliefs on Hell, and has cast Limbo, a theological speculation from the Middle Ages, into the ecclesiastical dustbin.

 

Sending Limbo to Hades

 

In April 2007, the International Theological Commission (ITC) - a Vatican body that has provided theological advice to Popes since 1969 - released a report, "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized," stating that Limbo does not exist.

 

In the opinion of the ITC - and Benedict XVI - babies who are stillborn or who die before baptism may attain Heaven, through the mercy of God. A member of the ITC said, "We cannot know with certainty what will happen" when an unbaptized baby dies, "but we have good grounds to hope that God in his mercy and love looks after these children and brings them to salvation."

 

The ITC report is a statement of opinion, not a definitive pronouncement of Catholic dogma.

 

The existence of Limbo has never been a defined doctrine of the Catholic Church, and the current Catechism of the Catholic Church does not mention it. Instead, the Catechism says, "as regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God - and Jesus' tenderness toward children - allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism." Nevertheless, belief in Limbo was widely held among Western theologians from the 13th Century onward, and was commonly taught to the laity until recent decades.

 

The idea of Limbo is a deduction from the teaching of St. Augustine about original sin. Augustine held that Baptism was essential to cleanse people of the inherited taint of original sin, the sin of Adam. Those who died without Baptism would necessarily go to hell, even if they were not guilty of sin themselves (as would be the case for children dying before the age of reason.) Medieval theologians pondered the injustice of this outcome, and developed the hypothesis that unbaptized children would enjoy perfect natural happiness in Limbo, on the border of Hell. However, they would - because of Original Sin - be deprived of the supernatural happiness of the Beatific Vision in Heaven.

 

There are widely divergent opinions about the importance of the ITC and its activities. In 1979 Pope John Paul II told the ITC, "Not only are you expert investigators in the field of theology, but the supreme authority of the Church has called upon you to help the magisterium, especially the Roman pontiff and the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith." But in March 2007, Fr. Paul Mankowski SJ (a member of the faculty of the Pontifical Biblical Institute) sought to dispel the public alarm that had been caused by the splashy launch of The Gospel According to Judas, a novel co-authored by Jeffrey Archer and Fr. Frank Moloney, a member of the ITC. Mankowski minimized the importance of the ITC, saying, "The International Theological Commission, of which Father Moloney was a member, enjoys the same level of teaching authority as the Philatelic Office of the Holy See - that's to say: zero."

 

EVEN IF LIMBO is now in limbo for Catholics, the doctrine of eternal torment in Hell is not. In a no-nonsense sermon at a parish north of Rome on March 25, Pope Benedict said that Jesus offers forgiveness and salvation because "He wants us all in heaven." However, "hell - of which so little is said in our time - does exist, and is eternal for those who close off their hearts to His love." According to LifeSite News, the Pope also said, God is, "above all, love..If He hates sin it is because He has an infinite love for all human beings." The Lord's aim, said Benedict, was "to save a soul and to reveal that salvation is only to be found in the love of God."

 

Gay issues: bishop against bishop

 

Despite the firm Vatican stance against homosexuality, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Westminster in Britain, gave his approval in February for homosexuals to have their own Masses in his diocese. These services are to occur twice a month at the Soho parish of Our Lady of the Assumption.

 

They had been sought by the Soho Masses Pastoral Council, a dissident gay Catholic group that had campaigned to have its own services formally recognized by the Church. For the last eight years, their services had been held in an Anglican church in West London.

 

The Archdiocese explained that "The mission of the Church is to minister to all people. The Church utterly condemns all forms of unjust discrimination, violence, harassment or abuse directed against people who are homosexual." According to London's Daily Telegraph, sources close to the Cardinal said "he was keen to authorize the services in order to be more inclusive of the gay community." The document setting up the new services was approved by Cardinal William Levada, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, after discussion and revision.

 

Despite his accommodation of this request for "gay Masses," the Cardinal remains a staunch critic of the new Sexual Orientation Regulations (SOR) recently adopted by Britain's Labor Government.

 

Papal exhortation more on liturgy than politics

 

In mid-March, the Vatican released "Sacramentum Caritatis," a Papal letter summarizing the conclusions of an October 2005 global synod of Catholic bishops. Most of the letter was an explanation of Catholic theology of the sacraments, especially the Eucharist - which the Pope described as "the sacrament of charity." Within this context, Benedict XVI made recommendations on how to improve the celebration of the Eucharist and bolster the faith among Catholics.

 

The Pope and the assembly of bishops reaffirmed the "benefits and the validity of the liturgical renewal" which began with Vatican II, despite the "difficulties" and the "occasional abuses" which have occurred. Benedict also urged "the continued inculturation of the eucharistic celebration" in order to foster "the active participation of the faithful in the eucharistic sacrifice" in all parts of the world. Whatever may be in store for the Catholic Church, it appears not to include a wholesale repeal of the post-1965 changes in the Church's worship.

 

Nevertheless, Benedict urged changes in the way that the Eucharist is often celebrated, so as to re-emphasize Catholic tradition. Giving detailed admonitions, he stressed the importance of penance, gaining indulgences, offering Masses for the dead, obedience to liturgical norms, avoidance of priestly showmanship, rigorous selection of candidates for priesthood, reverence and decorum in worship, the unique and essential role of the priest as the celebrant of the Mass, use of Latin prayers and Gregorian chant, adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, observance of Sunday as a day to attend Mass and refrain from work, and missionary effort "centered on the proclamation of Jesus as the one Savior."

 

Of the wider use of Latin (an issue on which he would speak further in July) and Gregorian chant, Benedict said: "Generic improvisation or the introduction of musical genres which fail to respect the meaning of the liturgy should be avoided." He added, "I desire...that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed as the chant proper to the Roman liturgy." Also, "I ask that future priests, from their time in the seminary, receive the preparation needed to understand and to celebrate Mass in Latin, and also to use Latin texts and execute Gregorian chant; nor should we forget that the faithful can be taught to recite the more common prayers in Latin, and also to sing parts of the liturgy to Gregorian chant." At large, international Masses, "with the exception of the readings, the homily and the prayer of the faithful, it is fitting that such liturgies be celebrated in Latin," and "selections of Gregorian chant should be sung."

 

If the instructions given by the Pope are widely observed, there would be a significant recovery of beauty and reverence in Roman Catholic worship - even without the widespread return of pre-Vatican II rites.

 

THEOLOGY, PRAYER, AND LITURGY got little attention from most reporters' accounts of the new papal exhortation. They emphasized Benedict's statements on present-day "hot button" issues, such as marital discipline and priestly celibacy, which represented no more than one-tenth of the Papal letter. On these matters, Benedict XVI reiterated Catholic teaching and custom.

 

The papal letter also addressed, among other things, how Catholics should function in social and political spheres.

 

For the Pope, worship "demands a public witness to our faith," especially for "those who, by virtue of their social or political position, must make decisions regarding fundamental values, such as respect for human life, its defense from conception to natural death, the family built upon marriage between a man and a woman, the freedom to educate one's children and the promotion of the common good in all its forms. These values are not negotiable. Consequently, Catholic politicians and legislators, conscious of their grave responsibility before society, must feel particularly bound, on the basis of a properly formed conscience, to introduce and support laws inspired by values grounded in human nature. Bishops are bound to reaffirm constantly these values." Thus, the Pope is binding Catholic lawmakers and administrators to make public policy in conformity with Catholic moral teaching.

 

Nevertheless, Benedict said, "it is not the proper task of the Church to engage in the political work of bringing about the most just society possible; nonetheless she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the struggle for justice. Precisely because of the mystery we celebrate, we must denounce situations contrary to human dignity, since Christ shed his blood for all, and at the same time affirm the inestimable value of each individual person."

 

The Pope applied these beliefs in criticizing globalization, inequality, unrestrained consumption, and environmental destruction. He said, "We cannot remain passive before certain processes of globalization which not infrequently increase the gap between the rich and the poor worldwide. We must denounce those who squander the earth's riches, provoking inequalities that cry out to heaven. The food of truth demands that we denounce inhumane situations in which people starve to death because of injustice and exploitation, and it gives us renewed strength and courage to work tirelessly in the service of the civilization of love. The world is not something indifferent, raw material to be utilized simply as we see fit. Rather, it is part of God's good plan, in which all of us are called to be sons and daughters in the one Son of God, Jesus Christ. The justified concern about threats to the environment present in so many parts of the world is reinforced by Christian hope, which commits us to working responsibly for the protection of creation."

 

Efforts at social reform are to be guided by wide teaching of "the Church's social doctrine. In this precious legacy handed down from the earliest ecclesial tradition, we find elements of great wisdom that guide Christians in their involvement in today's burning social issues. This teaching, the fruit of the Church's whole history, is distinguished by realism and moderation; it can help to avoid misguided compromises or false utopias."

 

Benedict restated the case for religious freedom worldwide for Christians and for "the followers of other religions," saying: "In not a few parts of the world, simply going to church represents a heroic witness that can result in marginalization and violence. Here too, I would like to reaffirm the solidarity of the whole Church with those who are denied freedom of worship. As we know, wherever religious freedom is lacking, people lack the most meaningful freedom of all, since it is through faith that men and women express their deepest decision about the ultimate meaning of their lives. Let us pray, therefore, for greater religious freedom in every nation, so that Christians, as well as the followers of other religions, can freely express their convictions, both as individuals and as communities."

 

Between Darwinism and "Intelligent Design"

 

Benedict XVI has taken a nuanced stand on the debate among evolutionists, creationists, and advocates of "intelligent design." In the book Creation and Evolution, published in Germany in April, the Pope said that "science has narrowed the way life's origins are understood and Christians should take a broader approach to the question." But he said "the Darwinist theory of evolution is not completely provable because mutations over hundreds of thousands of years cannot be reproduced in a laboratory." However, he "did not endorse creationist or 'intelligent design' views about life's origins."

 

As News.com.au reported, "Benedict defended what is known as 'theistic evolution', the view held by Roman Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestant churches that God created life through evolution, and religion and science need not clash over this.

 

The Augsburg publisher Sankt Ulrich Verlag has indicated that Creation and Evolution, which includes the proceedings of a seminar held at Castel Gandolfo in September 2006 by the Pope and his former theology students on evolution, would later be translated into other languages.

 

Sources: Vatican text of Sacramentum Caritatis, News.com.au, Christian News, London Telegraph, Catholic Action UK, LifeSite News, B. C. Catholic, Sydney Morning Herald, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Catholic World News, ZENIT.

 

 

Liberal U.S. Religious Leaders Dialogue with Iranian President 

Evidently acting on their own initiative, a delegation of liberal U.S. religious leaders met with the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, earlier this year, in order to promote negotiations between the U.S. and Iran, and thereby to forestall American military action against the Islamic Republic's nuclear program.

 

The delegation included representatives of liberal and pacifist churches: the Mennonite Central Committee, American Friends Service Committee (Quakers), United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church, Sojourners, and Pax Christi (a pacifist Roman Catholic group).

 

In their press statement, the American delegation said that their meeting with Ahmadinejad was "the first time an American delegation had met in Iran with an Iranian president since the Islamic revolution in 1979. The meeting lasted two-and-a-half hours and covered a range of topics, including the role of religion in transforming conflict, Iraq, nuclear proliferation, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." The delegation said it was encouraged by Ahmadinejad's clear declaration that Iran does not intend to obtain or use nuclear weapons, and that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only be solved through political, not military means.

 

There was no indication that the delegates talked with the Iranian leader about human rights in Iran, or about his public denial of the Holocaust or call for the destruction of Israel.

 

Blasting the religious leaders for meeting with the hardline Iranian leader, Mark Tooley of the Institute for Religion and Democracy said, "The ecumenical delegation's acceptance of President Ahmadinejad's soothing assurances about peace and good will was absurd. The Iranian dictator, who presides over a vicious Shiite theocracy, has publicly prophesied...an apocalypse that concludes with the destruction of non-believers. For over 30 years, officials from these church groups have never failed to meet an anti-American dictator they could not trust and even admire. If they made any impression on Ahmadinejad at all, these church officials must have only confirmed his stereotypes about naïve and gullible Americans."

 

Sources: Institute for Religion and Democracy, National Council of Churches Interfaith Relations weblog

 

Why Europe Is Turning Muslim

Europe is turning Muslim, says German author Henryk M.. Broder, and young Europeans who love freedom should emigrate to places like Australia or New Zealand - advice that some German and Dutch citizens have already taken.

 

While some, like Pope Benedict, want to re-Christianize Europe, Broder believes emigration is the only option that young Europeans have "if they want to avoid the plagues that will turn the old continent uninhabitable." Broder told the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant last fall that Europe as we know it will not exist 20 years from now. Broder is not taking his own advice; he is 60 and "too old" to emigrate, he says.

 

Many German and Dutch citizens have not waited for Broder's advice, however. The number of emigrants leaving the Netherlands and Germany has already surpassed the number of immigrants moving in. The number of Muslims in contemporary Europe is now estimated to be 50 million, reports Paul Belien in the Brussels Journal. It is expected to double in 20 years. By 2025, one third of all European children will be born to Muslim families. Today Mohammed is already the most popular name for new-born boys in Brussels, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and other major European cities.

 

Broder is convinced that the Europeans are not willing to oppose islamization. "The dominant ethos," he told De Volkskrant, "is perfectly voiced by the stupid blonde woman author with whom I recently debated. She said that it is sometimes better to let yourself be raped than to risk serious injuries while resisting. She said it is sometimes better to avoid fighting than run the risk of death."

 

In an op-ed piece in the Brussels newspaper De Standaard last October 23, the Dutch (gay and self-declared "humanist") author Oscar Van den Boogaard said that, to him, coping with the Islamization of Europe is like "a process of mourning." He is overwhelmed by a "feeling of sadness…I am not a warrior," he says, "but who is? I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it."

 

As Tom Bethell recently wrote in The American Spectator: "Just at the most basic level of demography the secular-humanist option is not working."

 

But there is more to it than the fact that non-religious people tend not to have as many children as religious people, because many of them prefer to "enjoy" freedom rather than renounce it for the sake of children. Belien writes. "Secularists, it seems to me, are also less keen on fighting. Since they do not believe in an afterlife, this life is the only thing they have to lose. Hence they will rather accept submission than fight. Like the German feminist Broder referred to, they prefer to be raped than to resist."

 

"If faith collapses, civilization goes with it," says Bethell.

 

" That is the real cause of the closing of civilization in Europe," Belien says. "Islamization is simply the consequence. The very word Islam means `submission' and the secularists have submitted already. Many Europeans have already become Muslims, though they do not realize it or do not want to admit it.

 

"Some of the people I meet in the U.S. are particularly worried about the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe," Belien continues. "They are correct when they fear that anti-Semitism is also on the rise among non-immigrant Europeans. The latter hate people with a fighting spirit. Contemporary anti-Semitism in Europe (at least when coming from native Europeans) is related to anti-Americanism. People who are not prepared to resist and are eager to submit, hate others who do not want to submit and are prepared to fight. They hate them because they are afraid that the latter will endanger their lives as well. In their view everyone must submit.

 

"This is why they have come to hate Israel and America so much, and the small band of European 'Islamophobes' who dare to talk about what they see happening around them. West Europeans have to choose between submission (islam) or death. I fear, like Broder, that they have chosen submission - just like in former days when they preferred to be red rather than dead."

 

-Post-Secularism Gaining?

 

But is there hope for Europe, after all? Maybe. Holland, at least might be an exception to the trend.

 

A recent report from that nation indicates that - contrary to the country's reputation for secularism and liberalism - the Christian faith is making a resurgence, especially among those under age 25.

 

The authors of a recent study, The Future of God, say, "Throughout Western Europe, and also in Holland, liberal Protestantism is in its death throes. It will be replaced by a new orthodoxy."

 

Adjiedj Bakas and Minne Buwalda argue that Holland is "experiencing a fundamental shift in religious orientation."

 

Numerous signs point in this direction. More than 100 companies allow organized prayer groups to meet in the workplace, as do some government agencies and universities. Labor unions are organizing to demand government recognition of employees' rights to pray on the job. Crucifixes and other religious symbols have been restored to the classrooms of the country's Roman Catholic schools, and more youth are attending school Masses. In 2005, Holland's most prestigious literary prizes went to two books "dealing in a sympathetic way with Christian issues of faith and redemption" - one by a Calvinist, the and other by a Catholic. Since its introduction into Holland in 1997, the Alpha Course in basic (Pentecostal) Christianity has attracted 120,000 students. Attendance at youth churches has doubled, from 10,000 in 2003 to 20,000 in 2005; most of these "meet anywhere but in traditional church buildings: cultural centers, sports halls, school assembly rooms, parking lots, even in night clubs. The idea is that something that less resembles a traditional church might prove more welcoming to potential new believers."

 

Christian immigration to Holland explains part of the new vitality of the faith there. It is well known that one million Muslim immigrants have come to Holland since 1950 - but it is less widely known that 700,000 Christians have immigrated in the last decade. The Weekly Standard says, "Recent immigration reports suggest that for every new Muslim moving to Holland, there are at least two new Christian immigrants."

 

The immigrants congregate in new Pentecostal congregations; some are as large as American mega-churches, and others are house churches. The leader of the 1,800-member Maranatha Ministries, the Rev. Stanley Hofwijks, says: "If you look closely, you'll see that only the traditional churches are affected by secularization. Almost all non-traditional churches are growing, and growing strongly. The reason is simple: While the message stays the same, the methods change to suit the times. If people want it, we'll have flags, loud music, people jumping up and down in the pews, even hip-hop. But Jesus remains the same as he was 2,000 years ago. The Word never changes." Amsterdam has 170 immigrant-oriented churches, and new ones appear each month.

 

Alongside the growth of enthusiastic, non-institutional Protestantism, liberal Churches continue their decline. Membership in mainstream Protestant churches has fallen from 23 percent of the population to 6 percent now, and the government expects a decline to 2 percent by 2020. Likewise, Roman Catholic membership has fallen from 42 percent of the people in 1958 to 17 percent now, and may end up at about 10 percent by 2020. Nevertheless, the number of self-described Christians in Holland leveled off in the 1990s after years of decline, and is increasing among those under age 20. By two different census agencies' measurements, 40-50 percent of the Dutch describe themselves as Christian - but only half of them are affiliated with the established Churches.

 

Despite the signs of religious renewal in Holland, the Weekly Standard report is concerned that Christians are retreating from a public presence, while Islam advances: "If an average Dutchman has any picture of Christianity, it is of empty pews and derelict church buildings. Dutch Christians have increasingly withdrawn from the public sphere, either voluntarily - as in the case of the house churches and the youth church movement - or because they lack the confidence to speak publicly about their faith to an unbelieving audience." Meanwhile, Dutch Muslims are building large mosques and riding a wave of population growth: from less than 1 per cent of the population in 1970, to 6 percent today, with a projection of 7.5 percent in 2020.

 

However, the fear that Holland may become a Muslim nation during this century may be overstated: "Islam, at least in its Dutch variant, is not a proselytizing faith.” When asked about the importance of proselytizing, Fatih Dag, the chairman of a growing Amsterdam mosque, volunteered that, on his list of priorities, trying to convert the indigenous Dutch population comes "just about last." Even the most optimistic estimates of Dutch Muslim organizations put the number of converts to Islam at no more than a few hundred a year, said the Standard. "With immigration from Islamic countries grinding to a halt and birth rates among the Muslim community further approximating average Dutch birthrates with each new generation, it seems unlikely to say the least that visions of a caliphate in Holland will come to pass in this century—or the next, for that matter."

 

The “Greatest Offense” Against Radical Islam

By Charles Colson Breakpoint 

1/18/07

 

After Sept. 11, 2001, you may recall that many members of the press were going around asking plaintively, "Why do they hate us?" Some journalists seemed to imply that if we could just be a little nicer, a little more "tolerant," the jihadists would opt for a group hug instead of terrorism.

 

I'm pretty sure those pundits and reporters would not have expected - or liked - the answer that Mark Steyn gives in his excellent new book, America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It. As Steyn sees it, one major reason the Islamo-fascists hate us is not that our beliefs are inimical to theirs, but that more and more of us believe in nothing at all beyond self-indulgence. And they look down on us for this but they are also learning how to use it to their advantage.

 

As Steyn points out, and as my colleague Roberto Rivera has written, an important factor In radical Islam's spread is simply a matter of demographics. Native Europeans, addicted to an affluent and self-centered lifestyle, are not having babies, and radical Muslims are. But there's more to it than that. Observing the rapid growth of radical Islam in Europe, Steyn writes, "If you're a teenager in most European cities these days, you've a choice between two competing identities - a robust confident Islamic identity or a tentative post-nationalist cringingly apologetic European identity."

 

Radical Islam is not luring Europeans away from a solid belief system; it's providing many of them with the first real belief system they have ever had. It's filling a void for people who have nothing else to believe in or hold on to.

 

Secularists in Europe and in America as well do not understand this. As Steyn writes, "One reason why the developed world has a difficult job grappling with the Islamist threat is that it doesn't take religion seriously. It condescends to it." That condescension makes secularists unable to see what's going on right under their noses.

 

It's similar to the situation that's been going on in our prisons for years now, which I've talked about several times on "BreakPoint." Prisoners all share one thing: a need for something to fill the emptiness in their lives. We have seen this in the thousands of prisons we work in. Radical Islamists know this, and they have made a point of targeting prisoners for conversion. Their brand of religion offers people that sense of belonging, of something worth living and dying for, that people need the very thing that postmodern secular societies do not offer. And that's a big part of what makes radical Islam so dangerous.

 

As Steyn put it in a recent interview for our "BreakPoint" website, "[Radical] Islam is a weak enemy, and its strength is determined by what it's pushing against." The problem is that Europe and, increasingly, America are putting up very little resistance. If Christians won't stand up for our worldview, and secularists won't stand up for anything, one day we may have no one but ourselves to blame for the triumph of radical Islam. The greatest offense against aggressive Islam is a strong, vibrant Christian faith, which, of course, comes right down to you and me.

 

Source: www.floridabaptistwitness.com/6875.article

 

END

 

============