11-25-10

+Minns: Give Thanks IN All Things

“Give Thanks IN All Things”
A Meditation on Philippians 4 for Thanksgiving Day 2010
by the Rt. Rev’d Martyn Minns

---

Philippians chapter 4:
4 Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! 5 Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. 6 Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. 7 And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. 8 Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.

Paul writes to the Christians in Philippi that rejoicing is to be in the Lord and in all circumstances. He urges them to be gentle in their dealings with others — they are not to stand on their “rights” but instead must be gracious and magnanimous towards others. He advises them to stop worrying about their problems — for to worry is to show a lack of confidence in God’s care and power. Instead, he invites them to pray with thanksgiving.

Paul is not asking them to give thanks FOR all circumstances but to give thanks IN all circumstances as they bring the issues that trouble them to the Lord. He also reminds them that as they turn to the Lord in prayer they will be able connect with the peace that God offers and that will transform their hearts and minds. Finally, he urges them to think about positive moral virtues and to put into practice the commands of God.

Thanksgiving and Peace and Joy do not come automatically. They will be constantly challenged by the world around us, which is why we have to take control over the way that we think. It isn’t easy but it can be done. Part of the problem is that our contemporary North American culture bombards us around the clock with materialism, violence, sexual lust, and with all kinds of stuff that is counter to the Kingdom of the Triune God.

The antidote is to do what Jesus did: to think differently — on "whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable". Thinking this way does not come naturally or easily but requires discipline and a dependence on the Spirit of God. However, Paul makes it clear that HOW we think — and WHAT we think about — profoundly affects our ability to rejoice in the Lord and to give thanks.

Paul also deals with something else that affects our joy and that is our attitude towards possessions so lets take a look at the next few lines of his letter to the Philippians:

4:10 I rejoice greatly in the Lord that at last you have renewed your concern for me. Indeed, you have been concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it. 11 I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. 12 I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. 13 I can do everything through him who gives me strength.

Paul is grateful for their care and their remarkable generosity — they were the only church that supported him! — but he also wants to make the point that possessions will never bring true joy and contentment.

He also challenges a false teaching that still afflicts large sections of today’s church: “more is better and less is bad.” Paul teaches a very different message: contentment in any and every situation and being able to endure all hardships through Christ. This strikes at the heart of the so-called "prosperity gospel".

An important truth that Paul has internalized is that all that we have comes as a gift from God. This is a lesson that he learned as a boy from his study of the Torah: " . . . Be careful that you do not forget the LORD your God . . . but remember the LORD your God . . ." (Deuteronomy 8). This is a lesson that we all need to keep relearning.

As we close out the church's liturgical calendar with this past Sunday's celebration of Christ the King and look forward to a new beginning with Advent, let us ask the Holy Spirit to open our eyes, renew our mind, and transform our lives with a fresh appreciation — a fresh thanksgiving — for all of the eternal truths, goodness, and beauty God has given us. For, living lives full of thanksgiving will speak volumes to those who live lives empty of such thankfulness. And on this Thanksgiving Day, let us turn our attention to the Triune God and declare with a hearty voice, “Thanks be to God!”

The Archbishop of Canterbury Addresses Synod

from BabyBlueOnline by BabyBlue

From here:

John Wesley began his great sermon on 'The Catholic Spirit' with a text from II Kings 10.15: 'He greeted him and said, "Is your heart true to mine, as my heart is to yours?" Jehonadab replied, "Yes." "If so," Jehu said, "Give me your hand."' As so often with wonderful texts from Scripture, the context makes you scratch your head a little (look it up). But – as I suspect all serious readers of Scripture would agree – one of the striking things about scriptural texts is that they grow beyond their context in the light of the Spirit's work of interpretation. And Jehu's question is one that we should hear the Holy Spirit putting to us every time we meet as a Synod. Because our hope must be that the loyalty of heart to heart in Christian community will constantly enable us to join hands in the work set before us for the sake of the Gospel.

That work has been explored and reflected upon a good deal in the last couple of years by an Archbishops' Task Group looking at the use of our resources, and through discussion in the House of Bishops, especially in their Standing Committee. Three main themes have emerged with absolute clarity. We are called –

(i) To take forward the spiritual and numerical growth of the Church of England – including the growth of its capacity to serve the whole community of this country;

(ii) To re-shape or reimagine the Church's ministry for the century coming, so as to make sure that there is a growing and sustainable Christian witness in every local community; and

(iii) To focus our resources where there is both greatest need and greatest opportunity.

In a way, everything else I have to say will be quite insignificant compared with those agreed priorities and with the exhortation from Scripture about our hearts being true to each other. But I hope you won't stop listening just yet. John Wesley in the same sermon is painfully realistic about the fact that we 'cannot all think alike, and in consequence...cannot all walk alike.' The greatness of this particular sermon of his is to challenge us to recognise that what he calls the Catholic Spirit is neither a climate of imposed universal agreement nor a free for all held together by mutual tolerance ('Observe this, you who know not what spirit ye are of: who call yourselves men of a catholic spirit, only because you are of a muddy understanding'). Wesley wants us to be settled in the basics of our faith, 'fixed as the sun' in our allegiance to the creed and the doctrine of a free and God-given atonement for sin. But this is consistent with two things that might strike us as unexpected in their context. First, it is consistent with readiness to hear arguments against what we believe without panic; and second it is consistent with acknowledging that opinions vary even where doctrines are shared. And how do we know that something is an opinion not a doctrine? An opinion is something 'compatible with a love to Christ and a work of grace', he writes in a letter; something which visibly grows out of the basic commitment to a divine Saviour, yet which can be denied without undermining that commitment. As he writes to a nephew who had embraced Roman Catholicism, what we need in our discussion is a fierce eagerness to clarify and explore the unfathomable wonders of what it is to be an adopted child of God through the Holy Spirit; and if we then have any energy left or nothing better to do, then, he says, we can argue about purgatory or whatever.

If we are to flesh out the vision that has been defined for us of growth, ministerial effectiveness and the concentration of resources where there is need and opportunity, we shall need something of Wesley's Catholic Spirit. How eager are we to explore what it means to believe in a divine Saviour as a priority for our work in this Synod? How far do we yield to the temptation to postpone this until we have sorted out everything else? What I have often called the real rather than the virtual church seems often to live at this level. And at the moment, our society is calling out to the real Church with a new urgency. We are going to be discussing the language of the Big Society in this group of sessions. And if such language means anything – as I believe it does – it looks to an ideal that Wesley would have recognised easily: men and women determined to enhance each others' lives by building up their freedom to shape their future and their communal life with fairness and generosity; people for whom responsibility is not a grim and repressive word but a joyful acknowledgement of what we owe to each other. This will of course be in many areas a task to share with our friends of other denominations and other faiths; and I am specially glad to be able to welcome the representatives of other communities of faith here today as guests and observers along with our ecumenical friends. But that should not take away from the fact that, if we are going to be both positive and critical partners in this process, we need some of that 'settledness' Wesley speaks of; some degree of freedom from the clash of opinion that will enable us to join hands.

And it may help us too to be reminded that the Church's growth has always been in some ways haphazard and diverse. God gives increase in unexpected places – and, by his grace, such growth is already going on in unexpected places in our Church, both in 'inherited' forms of Church life and in Fresh Expressions. For God's sake, don't let us waste time and energy talking or behaving as if there were competition going on here. The truth is that this diversity offers an opportunity for exactly the shared exploring of our common gift that Wesley writes about. 'In both ways, whether with false motives or true, Christ is proclaimed, and for that I am happy', says St Paul (Phil.1.18). And there is another text that we might well hang on our walls for the coming quinquennium.

You see, what I should really love to see in this Synod is all of us disappointing expectations. What plenty of people expect – people in the media, people in the pews, perhaps even some of us – is that a Synod elected in the middle of several tough political rows in the church is going to be a body consistently pulled away from the hope of joined hands, let alone joined-up thinking, a body in which the Catholic Spirit is invisible. So I am urging you to surprise those who are looking on, to surprise them by your loyalty to each other: 'Is your heart true to mine?' That loyalty grows and flourishes when we spend time together exploring what has brought us together; which is God. It happens when we pledge ourselves to seek out those we disagree with and work till it hurts on finding ways of sharing prayer and fellowship with them in and around the life of the Synod. It may mean something as trivial as not always sitting with your friends and allies, or something as long term as a prayer partnership. If our hearts are true to each other, different things become possible; and I think there is a certain urgency about getting this right at the very beginning of the life of a Synod.

Part of what that means too is (remembering Wesley yet again) the willingness to hear the arguments. I don't think I'm alone in feeling some anxiety about the degree to which strongly-worded exchanges outside this Synod, and the zero-sum atmosphere of campaigning and pamphleteering, can feed a climate in which people are almost expected to arrive in Synod with minds made up on everything, even with a feeling of party lines being defined and voting 'packages' created. I don't think we are doing the job for which God has called us here if we reproduce the worst aspects of secular partisanship. It ought to be possible for us to arrive here ready to discover something, rather than simply determined to win.

And that requires us also to be ready to look at how we 'do' Synod. For all the enthusiasm of many members, there is also a widespread unease about some aspects of our practice, an unease shared by a lot of people in our Church. It has something to do with the way in which a packed legislative programme leaves us less time than we need to think together, to do theology together. And the effect of that is to reinforce the tribal tendencies that always recur in bodies like this. When I hear people saying after a debate, 'That was Synod at its best', it is usually after a session in which people have spoken out of their experience and expertise, when we have not felt driven towards closure on a matter we need to approach reflectively, when there has been a manifest willingness to learn on all sides. Happily there are a good many such moments. But we could do with more, and I hope that in this quinquennium we continue to look at ways of relaxing our rhythms a bit to allow more of this. I should add that, after a good deal of work on the patterns of meetings for the House and College of Bishops, the same questions about the frequency and character of meetings of the Archbishops' Council are under discussion so that we can somehow find the reflective time we need.

All this is relevant to how we approach the most sensitive areas of our decision-making. As we proceed towards a decision about the ordination of women as bishops, it is important that, here and in the dioceses, we should not be afraid of discussions that clarify the theological issues. It will be a great pity if we come to our final decision without having confidently articulated why women bishops would be theologically in tune with our deepest commitments. As I've said more than once before, I believe that the ARCIC Agreed Statement on ordained ministry offers a clear basis for argument and a clear common ground on which we can continue discussion with our ecumenical partners, whatever the tensions. Those like myself who believe women bishops to be a development both good and timely for the Church and wholly consistent with its mainstream understanding of ministry and sacraments should be ready to make the argument in the strong theological terms in which it can be made. And those who do not share these convictions have both the right and the responsibility to articulate the theology of the Church and its authority which makes them hesitate, because listening to these points is a necessary part of the whole body's discernment.

Of course it is a matter of real sorrow that some have already decided that they cannot in conscience continue this discussion within the Church of England. They remain in our prayers and we continue to give thanks for the ministry they have offered all of us. And I must add that, despite continuing sensationalism about the effect of this on the main work of ecumenical relations, the planning of the next round of ARCIC has been developing constructively; and I was told last week in Rome at the highest level that the membership of the Commission is at last practically finalised. The remit of this next Commission is – appropriately – to look at exactly this question of the authority belonging to the local Church and its relation to the universal Church.

The other issue, still bitterly divisive in the Communion, is that of our approach to same-sex unions. It is inevitable that, whether in open debate or in general discussion, this will be around during the lifetime of this Synod. I shall make only a brief comment here, having said a fair amount on the subject this time last year and in other settings. And it is that this has become a cardinal example of how we avoid theological debate. The need for some thoughtful engagement that will help us understand how people who read the same Bible and share the same baptism can come to strongly diverse conclusions is getting more urgent, because I sense that in the last few years the debate on sexuality has not really moved much. It is unthinkingly treated by some as almost the sole test of biblical fidelity or doctrinal orthodoxy; it is unthinkingly regarded by others as one of those matters on which the Church must be brought inexorably into line with what our culture can make sense of. Neither side always has the opportunity of clarifying how they see the focal theological issues – how one or the other position relates to our belief in a divine Saviour. And if we are not to be purely tribal about this, we need the chance for some sort of discussion that is not dominated by the need to make an instant decision or to react to developments and pressures elsewhere.

Let me be clear. I don't in the least mean to say that there is a lack of theological work on either side. Comments I have made on this subject in communications with the Communion, in which I stressed that what had to make up our minds should be theology not social convention, have been interpreted as ignoring or dismissing the quantity and quality of existing work. This is not at all my point. Of course there is a formidable literature in this area, with much theological sophistication; but in the debates we involve ourselves in, in and out of Synod, here and elsewhere in the Communion, the prevailing tone is often rather different. If you think that there is no respectable debate to be had, or if you think that the debate is entirely over, it is unlikely that there will be a useful exchange. But this means that our disagreement will too easily become just that familiar struggle to win leverage rather than to arrive at shared understanding. I'm told fairly often that the lack of advance in nurturing this debate properly is a serious failure in the leadership of the Church and the Communion. I am bound to accept my share of reproach; but I would want to invite you all to help me do better by working with me to create the ambience where better understanding may happen. I hope that Synod will not be averse to thinking about how we can take this forward, without the pressure of feeling we have some single and all-important decision to make. Happily we can point to the methods currently being developed in the 'Continuing Indaba' project, with its success in creating many such spaces for face-to- face discussion across cultures. This project, which is considering a wide range of actually and potentially divisive matters, has been pursued with heroic energy and imagination by many people of profoundly diverse convictions in the Communion and needs prayer and support.

This in turn takes us to one of the more sensitive areas we have to look at – how we handle the Covenant proposals. One or two things need saying here. This is by no means the first time we have discussed the Covenant in Synod or in the Church of England. Our input into the process has been considerable, and it has come from theologians of widely divergent views. The Covenant text itself represents work done by theologians of similarly diverse views, including several from North America. It does not invent a new orthodoxy or a new system of doctrinal policing or a centralised authority, quite explicitly declaring that it does not seek to override any province's canonical autonomy. After such a number of discussions and revisions, it is dispiriting to see the Covenant still being represented as a tool of exclusion and tyranny.

But the truth is that it does mark the seriousness of our current situation. It is an illusion to think that without some changes the Communion will carry on as usual, and a greater illusion to think that the Church of England can somehow derail the entire process. The unpalatable fact is that certain decisions in any province affect all. We may think they shouldn't, but they simply do. If we ignore this, we ignore what is already a real danger, the piece-by-piece dissolution of the Communion and the emergence of new structures in which relation to the Church of England and the See of Canterbury are likely not to figure significantly. All very well, you may say; but among the potential casualties are all those areas of interaction and exchange that are part of the lifeblood of our church and of many often quite vulnerable churches elsewhere. These relations are remarkably robust, given the institutional tensions at the moment, and, as I've often said, many will survive further disruption. But they will be complicated and weakened by major fracture and realignment.

The Covenant offers the possibility of a voluntary promise to consult. And it also recognises that even after consultation there may still be disagreement, that such disagreement may result in rupture of some aspects of communion, and that this needs to be managed in a careful and orderly way. Now the risk and reality of such rupture is already there, make no mistake. The question is whether we are able to make an intelligent decision about how we deal with it. To say yes to the Covenant is not to tie our hands. But it is to recognise that we have the option of tying our hands if we judge, after consultation, that the divisive effects of some step are too costly. The question is how far we feel able to go in making our decisions in such a way as to keep the trust of our fellow-Anglicans in other contexts. If we decide that this is not the kind of relationship we want with other Anglicans, well and good. But it has consequences. Whatever happens, with or without the Covenant, the Communion will not simply stay the same. Historic allegiances cannot be taken for granted. They will survive and develop only if we can build up durable and adult bonds of fellowship. And in this respect, the Church of England is bound to engage in this process as one member of the Communion among others. The fact is that the mutual loyalty of the Communion needs work, and the Covenant proposals are the only sign at the moment of the kind of work that has to be done.

Back to Wesley. He knew quite well that in a world of theological confusion, political manoeuvring and historical memories, Christian divisions are going to happen and to persist, and he himself was quite clear why he thought Baptists and Calvinists seriously wrong and why he could not join them in visible unity until things had been sorted out (he thought Calvinism a grave problem in effective evangelisation). What he is concerned to safeguard is what he calls heart being true to heart. There may be divisions, old and new, and no Christian should be complacent about that or step back from the hard work of visible reconciliation. But there is a kind of mutual loyalty that allows mutual respect to underpin even these separations, the loyalty that comes from recognising in the other Christ's loyalty or faithfulness to them. I want to encourage this Synod as forcefully as I can to maintain this level of loyalty to each other – and to the whole Anglican family. Because, if the three great priorities earlier identified are the right ones, we are called on to be loyal in Christ's name to the whole society in which he has called us to serve. It is a society that finds trust difficult, a society in which there is a widespread sense that other people and institutions and classes cannot be relied on to be faithful to the common good. We have the extraordinary opportunity of showing what a faithful community might be, in which no-one is forgotten – that is our version of 'Big Society' language. But we shall be set free for this if our mutual faithfulness here in this part of Christ's Body that is the General Synod becomes a daily reality. 'Let all these things stand by,' says Wesley; 'we will talk of them.' But the question that cannot wait until we have 'talked of them' remains: and I end by quoting it as Wesley does in the language of the King James Bible, and repeating it as the agenda for this Synod's life and work: 'Is thine heart right, as my heart is with thy heart?'

NOT AS I DO

from Midwest Conservative Journal by The Editor

Given the vital importance of Big Homosexuality to the Episcopal Organization and the rest of the Anglican left, the following will, as they say, leave a considerable mark:

Last week, the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly voted on a special resolution addressing extrajudicial, arbitrary and summary executions. The resolution affirms the duties of member countries to protect the right to life of all people with a special emphasis on a call to investigate killings based on discriminatory grounds. The resolution highlights particular groups historically subject to executions including street children, human rights defenders, members of ethnic, religious, and linguistic minority communities, and, for the past 10 years, the resolution has included sexual orientation as a basis on which some individuals are targeted for death.

The tiny West African nation of Benin (on behalf of the UN’s African Group) proposed an amendment to strike sexual minorities from the resolution. The amendment was adopted with 79 votes in favor, 70 against, 17 abstentions and 26 absent.

A collection of notorious human rights violators voted for the amendment including Afghanistan, Algeria, China, Congo, Cuba, Eritrea, North Korea, Iran (didn’t Ahmadinejad tell the world there were no gays in Iran?), Egypt, Malaysia, Pakistan, Russia, Sudan, Uganda, Vietnam, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.

Add to this Bahamas, Belize (where you get 10 years for being gay), Jamaica (10 years of hard labor), Grenada (10 years), Guyana (life sentence), Saint Kitts and Nevis (10 years), Saint Lucia (10 years), Saint Vincent (10 years), South Africa (Apartheid? What apartheid?), and Morocco (ruled by a gay monarch!). They are all on the list of nations that do not think execution of gays and lesbians is worthy of condemnation or investigation.

Those against the amendment include every European nation present, all Scandinavian countries, India, Korea, most of Latin America, all of North America, and only one Middle Eastern nation:

DAH-DAH-DAH-DAH DAH-DAH-DAH DAHHHHHHHHHH!!

Israel.

NEW ANGLICAN BUZZWORD ALERT

from Midwest Conservative Journal by The Editor

There are two criteria for a successful Anglican buzzword. It must be a term that (1) intentionally tries to sound impressive and thus comes off as stilted and pedantic and (2) communicates next-to nothing. In the midst of a speech about the Anglican Covenant, John Saxbee, Anglican Bishop of Lincoln, comes up with a pretty good one:

In relation to the Anglican Covenant, I’m on record as saying in this synod that I entirely support the process, as long as it never ends. Let me explain what I mean. The Anglican Communion doesn’t need a Covenant because Anglicanism is a covenant. It is a way of Provinces listening, living distinctively apart from each other whilst remaining part of one another. That is a way of doing difference differently from the ways in which groups and individuals usually do difference. It is predicated on grace and goodwill, and if there is grace and goodwill then a covenant will be unnecessary and if there is no grace and goodwill then a covenant will be unavailing.

Granted, it’s no “live into.” I sort of understand what my gracious lord of Lincoln is getting at here. But one doesn’t do difference. One differs. There is no process involved; you’re either in agreement with someone about something or you are not.

As you can see from that first sentence, the rest His Grace’s speech is the usual stupid crap about how we

Archbishop of Canterbury's visit to Athens

from ACNS News Digest

By Lambeth Palace press office The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams is making a pastoral and fraternal visit to the Archdiocese of Athens from 25 to 28 November, at the invitation of Archbishop of Athens and All Greece Ieronymos. In accepting Archbishop Ieronymos's invitation to be his guest, Archbishop Rowan hopes to learn more about the witness and outreach of the archdiocese, to strengthen the friendship between the Church of England and the Church of Greece, and to reflect together on some of the pastoral issues that the two churches face in seeking to serve the common good in their respective societies. The Archbishop's programme will include meetings with the President of the Hellenic Republic Mr Karolos Papoulias, the Prime Minister Mr George Papandreou, the Education & Religious Affairs Minister Mrs Anna Diamantopoulou and Deputy Foreign Minister Mr Dimitris Dollis. He will also meet with the Archbishop of Athens and All Greece Ieronimos and other representatives of the Greek Church, as well as paying pastoral visits to a number of Orthodox parishes and social projects around Athens. Dr Williams will celebrate Advent Sunday with the Anglican community in Athens, and also be present at a celebration of the Divine Liturgy. During his visit the Archbishop will be awarded a doctorate honoris causa by the University of Athens for his work as a theological scholar and teacher. This is the third such official visit by an Archbishop of Canterbury: Dr Michael Ramsey in 1962, and Dr George Carey in 1996.

A Church Times Article on the Upcoming Anglican Primates Meeting

from TitusOneNine by Kendall Harmon

In the statement, which came out of a meeting of the GAFCON Primates’ Council in Oxford in October, but was released only on Wednesday, five Primates — Dr Justice Akrofi of West Africa, Dr Valentino Mokiwa of Tanzania, the Most Revd Nicholas Okoh of Nigeria, the Most Revd Henry Orombi of Uganda, and Dr Eliud Wabukala of Kenya — say they “join with other Primates from the Global South in declaring that we will not be present”.

They acknowledge the Anglican Covenant is “well-intentioned” but say they “have come to the conclusion the current text is fatally flawed”.

In response, Canon Kenneth Kearon, sec retary general of the Anglican Communion, said: “The decision whether to come remains a matter for the Primates.”

The Oxford statement also reveals that GAFCON plans to build partnerships with other denom inations that “share their con victions”.

Read it all.

Covenant/Synod/GAFCON voting shell game continues

from The Lead by Torey Lightcap

BBC Radio's "Sunday" program this week offered an extensive hashing-out of the Anglican Covenant by a number of individuals.

Thinking Anglicans has it:

First, Stephen Bates of the Guardian gave a brief outline of the significance of the GAFCON announcement. This is 6 minutes into the programme, and lasts for about 4 minutes.

Noted and quoted in the Bates interview:

For [GAFCON primates] to turn round and say, "Sorry, it's not appropriate, it's not acceptable to us," is really at best, I think, discourteous, and at worst positively malign....

I think they'd reached [this] conclusion a long time ago... One is left wondering what, exactly, their game is and why they should adopt these tactics at this stage.

So then...

[S]tarting at about 33.5 minutes in, and running to the end of the programme, i.e. for about 10 minutes, there is a longer discussion about this. It features in turn the retired archbishop Lord Carey, then Bishop Martyn Minns of ACNA and GAFCON, and then Bishop Graham Kings of the Church of England.

This should be listened to in full.

Bear in mind that ACNA is not a member of the Anglican Communion although it is a member of GAFCON.

Graham Kings noted that GAFCON is not the same as the Global South Anglican movement, and at least three GSA primates (Chew of SE Asia, Anis of Jerusalem and the Middle East, and Ernest of the Indian Ocean) are themselves moderates in favour of the Covenant. He also argued that the GAFCON primates cannot speak for their provinces until their provinces have actually considered the Covenant themselves.

It also appeared from what he said that the Sudan province, whose primate was a member of the GAFCON council (is he still?), has already voted at least once, if not yet definitively, in favour of the Covenant.

Confused yet? You should be.

As to the issue of the poor timing of those issuing the statement (or thoughtless timing, or malevolent timing, or whatever it is) here's Minns:

The decision [to release the statement] was simply frankly providential. There was no attempt to time it. We've tried to work hard to make sure that with documents of this sort, that everyone who's name is listed, has had time to reflect, take advice, and to agree to the wording - and every time that happens, it's complicated and long. It just so happens it was done on the day; there was no planning, coordinating that at all.... I think most [signers] had no idea Synod was even meeting.

Tosh, you say? Yeah, well, probably. If you had a chance to divert a conversation in a relevant matter, and you could do that at the closest possible minute to a decision being made, wouldn't you do it?

Empty seats in Dublin as Primates opt out

NOTE: Virtueonline first broke this story several weeks ago in South Africa when Uganda Archbishop Henry Orombi told VOL that orthodox archbishops would not attend the Primates meeting in Dublin

by Ed Beavan
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=104604
November 26, 20010

AT LEAST ten Primates from the Global South are now expected to boycott the Primates' Meeting in Dublin in January.

In a statement released on Wednesday, five African Primates, members of the GAFCON Primates' Council, confirmed that they would not attend the two-yearly meeting. In addition, it is understood that the Primate of South-East Asia, Dr John Chew; the Primate in Jerusalem & the Middle East, Dr Mouneer Anis; and the Primate of the Indian Ocean, the Most Revd Ian Ernest, will not go to Dublin.

Furthermore it is expected that two new Primates, Presiding Bishop Tito Zavala, Primate of the Southern Cone, and the Most Revd Onesphore Rwage, Primate of Rwanda, will also boycott the meeting.

In the statement, which came out of a meeting of the GAFCON Primates' Council in Oxford in October, but was released only on Wednesday, five Primates - Dr Justice Akrofi of West Africa, Dr Valentino Mokiwa of Tanzania, the Most Revd Nicholas Okoh of Nigeria, the Most Revd Henry Orombi of Uganda, and Dr Eliud Wabukala of Kenya - say they "join with other Primates from the Global South in declaring that we will not be present".

They acknowledge the Anglican Covenant is "well-intentioned" but say they "have come to the conclusion the current text is fatally flawed".

In response, Canon Kenneth Kearon, sec retary general of the Anglican Communion, said: "The decision whether to come remains a matter for the Primates."

The Oxford statement also reveals that GAFCON plans to build partnerships with other denom inations that "share their con victions".

Oxford Statement November 24, 2010

Introduction

The leaders of the GAFCON movement are keenly aware of the crises of conscience that are pressing some people to shift their membership and ministry from the Anglican Church.

While we are greatly sympathetic that there are many areas of crisis that assault conscience, once again, we would offer that the theological clarity of the Jerusalem Declaration offers a solid foundation on which to engage with other Anglicans in the pursuit of Gospel mission.

Being able to link with those who not only form the majority of Anglicans in the world, but also those who affirm Biblical theological foundations of what Anglicans have always believed and practiced can provide concrete relationships and meaningful partnerships that are of more substance than the structures that have shown themselves to be flawed or compromised.

GAFCON provides a way to share Biblical Anglicanism that is in concert with what Anglicans have always believed, taught, and practiced.

We believe that Anglicanism has a great deal to offer in the pursuit of reaching the world for Christ. While we wish those who are departing the Anglican Church well, we do not believe that it is necessary to depart from what Anglicans have always believed to remain faithful. At the same time, we understand that some structures have become so compromised that some have been pressed by conscience to separate from their national structures - such as in North America.

We are glad that GAFCON exists and provides links to remain Anglican when people have been unable, for conscience, to remain in their Province.

In England (as well as other areas), we invite people to re-affirm what we have always believed in Anglicanism by adopting the Jerusalem Declaration as a statement of their own faith and join with us in partnership in working to win the world to Christ. It is with that perspective that the leaders of GAFCON met recently in Oxford and they share their thoughts from that gathering in the attached document.

The Most Rev. Gregory J. Venables,
GAFCON Chair

The Statement

1. The GAFCON/FCA Primates' Council met in Oxford from October 4th through October 7th, 2010. We gathered as Bishops in Council and as the elected leaders of provinces and national churches of the Anglican Communion representing more than forty million Anglicans. We know that many of our people confront a fallen world where sin abounds; the economy is troubled and resources are scarce; disasters loom and governments often seem impotent and helpless and yet even in the midst of all these things "our hope is in the Name of the Lord" and we are filled with hope and vision.

2. We are thankful for God's hand in establishing GAFCON and the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans. We rejoice in God's guidance from the Scriptures, the gift of the Holy Spirit to strengthen us, and the provision of a godly fellowship to sustain us. In this context we have met in Oxford, a city that has seen many critical events in Anglican history, and are grateful for the men and women who have given their lives to protect the faith that has given us eternal life.

3. We believe that we are now entering a new era for the Anglican Communion. New ways of living out our common life are emerging as old structures are proven to be ineffective in confronting the challenges of living in a pluralistic global community. We rejoice in the call of the Jerusalem Declaration for a renewed commitment to the authority of scripture and the centrality of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Sadly the rejection of these historic anchors to our faith has brought us to a crisis in the life of the Communion.

4. As we have made clear in numerous communiqués and meetings those who have abandoned the historic teaching of the Church have torn the fabric of our life together at its deepest level. We have made repeated attempts to bring repentance and restoration and yet these efforts have been rejected. We grieve for those who have walked apart and earnestly pray for them and the people under their care.

5. For the sake of Christ and of His Gospel we can no longer maintain the illusion of normalcy and so we join with other Primates from the Global South in declaring that we will not be present at the next Primates' meeting to be held in Ireland. And while we acknowledge that the efforts to heal our brokenness through the introduction of an Anglican Covenant were well intentioned we have come to the conclusion the current text is fatally flawed and so support for this initiative is no longer appropriate.

6. We also acknowledge with appreciation the address to the Nicean Society meeting in Lambeth Palace on September 9th of His Eminence, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, Chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate's Department for External Church Relations. We welcome his call to all churches of the Anglican Communion to step back from the abyss of heresy and reclaim the revealed truth that is at the heart of our historic understanding of Christian faith and moral order. We share with him the conviction that failure to do so will endanger our common witness and many important ecumenical dialogues but we would also point out that there are many within the Anglican Communion who have not 'bowed the knee' to secular liberalism and who are determined to stay true to the 'faith once delivered to the saints' whatever the cost.

7. The Primates Council, as bishops of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, wish to affirm the reality of human sin and divine judgment, the only way of salvation from sin through the death of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross, the sufficiency and clarity of Holy Scripture as the revelation of God's will, and the transforming power of the Holy Spirit as he brings new birth and holiness of life.

8. As many people in the nations where we serve experience new economic challenges, we affirm that the Church has been entrusted with the task of holding before all people the truth of the gospel of the kingdom of God revealed in Jesus Christ, the key to human well-being and the hope of creation. While we know well the scourge of poverty and the despair it produces, we call on our churches to remember this unique calling and not be seduced by those who would argue that economic development is our only goal. The destiny of humanity is not limited to this present world but to live the resurrection life in the new heavens and new earth.

9. We are, however, determined to lead our churches away from unhealthy economic dependency and to teach our people the importance of becoming effective stewards of their own resources. We must reclaim a vision of financial self-sufficiency. We are grateful for reports of several initiatives that are building capacity for economic growth in our various provinces and commit ourselves to making this an essential dimension of our continuing work. We also believe that a vital part of our witness is the integrity of our marriages and families and our care for the most vulnerable among us, our children. We welcome recent initiatives to encourage the ministry of women in leadership by CAPA - the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa.

10. We are also grateful for the recent conference sponsored by CAPA in Entebbe, Uganda, where we witnessed the growing strength of the Anglican Churches in Africa and their commitment to wholistic mission. We believe that GAFCON/FCA must expand its ministry through the inclusion of other Anglican provinces that share our faith conviction and love for the Communion. We also applaud the efforts of the Global South Provinces to find common ground and opportunities for common mission. We are committed to doing all that we can to strengthen our common witness.

11. We remain convinced that the unique character of GAFCON/FCA with its diversity of cultures and its embrace of the Jerusalem Declaration as a common theological confession is a vital contribution to the future of the global Anglican Communion. We are persuaded that we must offer new initiatives to more effectively respond to the crises that confront us all. We must strengthen our communication capabilities and we are also looking to build partnerships with other denominational churches that share our faith convictions.

12. Specifically, we are planning a leadership conference in the latter part of 2011 that will focus on the need to "Contend for the Faith in the Public Square." We are also beginning preparations for an international gathering of Primates, Bishops, Clergy and Lay leaders in 2012, provisionally designated "GAFCON 2". To support all of this we have approved the expansion of the Secretariat.

13. Finally, we acknowledge that it is only by God's grace that we can accomplish any of this and so we call on all those that acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord to join us in prayer for our world and for the raising up of many initiatives that will bring the redeeming and transforming love of God to all those in need.

14. To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy - to the only God our Saviour be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore. Amen.

The Primates Council:

The Most Rev'd Gregory Venables, GAFCON/FCA Chair
The Most Rev'd Justice Akrofi, Archbishop, Anglican Province of West Africa
The Most Rev'd Robert Duncan, Archbishop, Anglican Church in North America
The Most Rev 'd Emmanuel Kolini, Archbishop, Anglican Church of Rwanda
The Most Rev'd Valentino Mokiwa, Archbishop, Anglican Church of Tanzania
The Most Rev'd Nicholas Okoh, Archbishop, Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion)
The Most Rev'd Henry Orombi Archbishop, Church of Uganda
The Most Rev'd Eliud Wabukala, Archbishop, Anglican Church of Kenya

The Most Rev'd Peter Jensen, Archbishop,
Diocese of Sydney, Secretary

Why the Primates have said the Covenant is "fatally flawed" - Martyn Minns

from VirtueOnline

Why the Primates have said the Covenant is "fatally flawed" Martyn Minns

November 28th, 2010

Listen to the interview on BBC Radio 4 here 33 minutes into the programme

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00w6pk6/Sunday_28_11_2010

END

Read the full story at www.VirtueOnline.org

In Tasmania Anglicans are attracting people from all walks of life for ministry

from TitusOneNine by Kendall Harmon

From Gen Ys to grannies, the Anglican Church in Tasmania is attracting people from all walks of life keen to take on ministries.

Seven new church leaders were ordained yesterday by Anglican Bishop of Tasmania John Harrower during a special service at St David's Cathedral in Hobart....

Bishop Harrower said there had been a steady stream of new Anglican Church leaders ordained over recent years.

"We are blessed with men and women of wide experience and different gifts, younger and older, who are taking up the challenge of serving their church and local community in these new roles....

Read it all.

More Anglican primates indicate they will not attend Dublin meeting

from The Lead by Nicholas Knisely

It appears that there are now ten primates (just about a quarter of the total number) who have indicated that they will not attend the scheduled regular meeting of the Anglican Primates (one of the "Instruments of Unity" listed in the Windsor Report).

The Church Times has the list with some new names, in particular the Primate of the Southern Cone and the Primate of Rwanda.

"[I]t is understood that the Primate of South-East Asia, Dr John Chew; the Primate in Jerusalem & the Middle East, Dr Mouneer Anis; and the Primate of the Indian Ocean, the Most Revd Ian Ernest, will not go to Dublin.

Furthermore it is expected that two new Primates, Presiding Bishop Tito Zavala, Primate of the Southern Cone, and the Most Revd Onesphore Rwage, Primate of Rwanda, will also boycott the meeting.

In the statement, which came out of a meeting of the GAFCON Primates’ Council in Oxford in October, but was released only on Wednesday, five Primates — Dr Justice Akrofi of West Africa, Dr Valentino Mokiwa of Tanzania, the Most Revd Nicholas Okoh of Nigeria, the Most Revd Henry Orombi of Uganda, and Dr Eliud Wabukala of Kenya — say they ‘join with other Primates from the Global South in declaring that we will not be present’."

More here.

That last paragraph quoted above points out that the Oxford Statement (a communique by the GAFCON Primate's Council which rejects the Anglican Covenant) was apparently held secret for roughly a month before being released on the morning that the Church of England's General Synod was voting on whether or not to take the first steps toward ratifying the Covenant.

UPDATED: Thinking Anglicans has this round up of stories on the Primate's meeting that were posted this morning, with some additional coverage by the Church of England Newspaper.

Release Sherif - The Persecution of Christians in Egypt

from Stand Firm by David Ould http://www.davidould.net

It's not often I write a post like this, but for the last few days I've received a number of disturbing emails from a good friend back in London. My friend has his own remarkable story - son of an Iraqi communist who fled from the Ba'ath party to Czechoslovakia, he subsequently moved as an adult to London where this atheist Arab was converted to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. He know works in gospel ministry and keeps us informed of the persecution of Christians all over the Middle East.

And here is his latest news.

Sherif Hassan Abdelwahab Mohamed is an Egyptian citizen with no criminal record married to an English woman, Emma. Sherif and Emma are Christians. Since 9 November 2010 he has been in detention in Egypt. The website www.releasesherif.com has the details:

Emma & Sherif were married in Summer 2010 at All Souls Langham Place, London.

They were visiting Egypt after a death in the family so that Emma could meet Sherif’s wider family.

Tuesday 9th November 2010

• Sherif & Emma Hassan arrived at 4pm at CAIRO AIRPORT on BMI Flight BD771


• As they approached the Passport Control area, Sherif was led away by a security official. Emma was immediately deported and put back on the plane they had arrived in.


• Sherif has NOT BEEN SEEN SINCE...


• WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO SPEAK TO SHERIF SINCE...


Monday 15th November 2010
Emma Hassan visited both the Egyptian Embassy and Egyptian Consulate in London, in order to ask about the situation and to provide a written request for information.

• The Consulate has not contacted Emma since with any information


Saturday 20th November 2010
Having not heard from him for 10 days, an email came from his account saying that he was in detention, had been questioned, and was writing under supervision and so could not say much. He asked for prayers as he was very ill.

Monday 22nd November 2010
At 7am, there was another email from Sherif’s account. He said that he was now released and would be with an aunt. He said that he needed rest but would be in contact.

Tuesday 23rd November 2010
The last email from his account said he was still not allowed to say much but he hoped to be able to travel soon. He said that he would call with more details after an appointment with the Security Police on 24th November


• THERE HAS BEEN NO WORD SINCE...


• We are seriously concerned that he has been detained again.


• OR that he had never actually been released previously...

So what can we do?

Well, first and foremost we can pray for Sherif and for his wife Emma and for all those other Christians persecuted in Egypt. And then get on the bandwagon - write and publicise. All the necessary details are on thewebsite. I'll also be writing to the Egyptian ambassador to Australia. You may wish to write to the ambassador in your own country.

A Living Church Article on the Covenant Process Being Voted For at Church of England General Synod

from TitusOneNine by Kendall Harmon

The Bishop of Bath and Wells, the Rt. Rev. Peter Price, insisted that the Covenant process was underway well before the election of Gene Robinson in New Hampshire. He referred to an Anglican Consultative Council document, Belonging Together (1992), which had a direct influence on The Virginia Report, much of which formed the basis of Covenant drafts.

Traditional Catholics, in the persons of the Bishop of Blackburn and the Rev. Simon Killwick (leader of the Catholic Group), signalled support for the Covenant as a means to provide greater coherence and integrity in Anglicanism.

A succession of speakers aired doubts. Would the Covenant undermine the autonomy of the Church of England or its prophetic spirit? Some thought that Covenant language like “relational consequences” spells a legalistic threat. Foremost among the doubters was the soon-to-retire Bishop of Lincoln, John Saxbee, who thought a Covenant is unnecessary since “Anglicanism is a covenant.”

Canon Elizabeth Paver, a member of the Anglican Communion’s Standing Committee, introduced a note of realism: in practice the Covenant will advise, never dictate; and it is vital that the Church of England “give some leadership” on the matter.

Read it all.

The Orthodox-Anglican Divide

from VirtueOnline

The Orthodox-Anglican Divide
A Commentary on Metropolitan Hilarion's Address at the Nicean Club at Lambeth Palace held on September 9, 2010

By the Rev. Prof. Stephen Noll
November 8, 2010

I must confess that I seldom read ecumenical addresses and agreements because they are so encumbered with diplomatic jargon and a spirit of deference that one hardly knows what if anything was said, much less accomplished. They read like the closing statements of the G8 meeting, where whatever may have been said behind closed doors comes out sounding like "everyone has won and all must have prizes."

Not so with His Eminence, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, Chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate's Department for External Church Relations, in his address at the Nicean Society banquet held at Lambeth Palace on 9 September, in the presence of Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Metropolitan Hilarion begins his address with a series of thanks. He thanks the Archbishop of Canterbury for the invitation to speak. He mentions Rowan Williams's "personal contribution to inter-Christian dialogue" and "commitment to keep the Anglican Communion together." He acknowledges Abp. Williams's "love of the Russian Orthodox Church, of its saints and great theologians, of its spiritual tradition," and he offers his prayers and support.

Read the full story at www.VirtueOnline.org

REALISM

from Midwest Conservative Journal by The Editor

Remember where you were and what you were doing when you read this but an Anglican liberal and I completely agree about something. The Rev. Lesley Fellows thinks that’s it’s high time for both wings the Anglican Communion to stop pretending that they have anything in common anymore:

The first time I went to marriage counselling I was terrified. I had been unhappily married on and off since the day of our marriage, and I had spent eighteen years trying to fix it and to make myself stay. Although my ex is a good man and I am delighted that we had our three boys, the marriage itself had exhausted me and I was ‘all cried out’, I couldn’t go on any more, the eighteen years had cost me very dearly.

So I was terrified that somehow the marriage counsellor would manage some guilt trip that would cause me to stay in a broken relationship. The first thing she said to us was that there were two good outcomes – a good marriage or an amicable separation, and that not every relationship can end in a good marriage but that an amicable separation should always be possible. I was so thankful. I could wholeheartedly say ‘yes’ to a good marriage or an amicable separation. We met five times and it soon became clear that separating was the only option, painful as that was.

I think the same result was inevitable in the Anglican Communion. For some time GAFCON have been very unhappy with other parts of the Anglican Communion, and it has been like watching a couple row.

It sounds like they are packing their bags and moving out. ++Rowan has been desperate to keen the two sides together, but sometimes this is impossible, and it doesn’t represent a failure on his part, the difference between the worldviews of the two sides is massive and growing.

So let us work towards an amicable separation, let us bless each other and ask for God’s joy and peace for each other, and let us try to put the pain of the past behind us as we look forwards to a new future.

I honestly can’t argue with any of that. I’ve believed for a long time that if what now describes itself as “conservative” or “traditionalist” Anglicanism wants to have a chance at survival, it’s going to have to completely reinvent itself.

And that reinvention is going to have to start with the “connection” to the See of Canterbury. Since it’s a historical contrivance that only dates back to the 1500′s and no farther, I’m entirely willing to let the Anglican left have it.

Complete reinvention often necessitates discarding associations that tie one down, hold one back, or are no longer of any use. But Chris, if the Canterbury connection is broken, traditionalist Anglican churches and provinces will no longer be Anglican!

So what? What are we supposed to be about here? The proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ or the advancement of the glory of British Christianity?

It’s like I’ve said here over and over. I’ll go to the ends of the Earth to tell one person about Jesus Christ but I wouldn’t cross the street merely to make someone Anglican. If the term “Anglicanism” is eventually replaced by “Ugandanism” or some similar word, I, for one, would boast about that title.

IRD President Answers His Episcopal Critics. Reflects on Mainline Decline

Virtueonline Interviews Mark Tooley

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
November 26, 2010

Mark Tooley is the president of the Washington DC based Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD). IRD describes its mission as Christians working to reaffirm the church's biblical and historical teachings, strengthen and reform its role in public life, protect religious freedom, and renew democracy at home and abroad and to lead the fight rallying Christians to champion biblical, historic Christianity and its role in democratic society, and to defeat revisionist challenges.

His primary area of concern is to direct the United Methodist committee (UMAction) ministry for traditional United Methodists working to reclaim America's third largest religious body for historic Christian beliefs. Mark is the editor of UMAction Briefing and the author of "Taking Back The United Methodist Church." His articles about the political witness of America's churches have appeared in "The Wall Street Journal", "The American Spectator", "The Weekly Standard", "Human Events", "The Washington Times", "Touchstone", "The Chicago Tribune", "The New York Post", and elsewhere. He is also a frequent commentator on radio and television. He currently attends Washington Street United Methodist Church in Alexandria, Virginia.

He recently became the target of the Episcopal Diocese of New York, an ultra-liberal Episcopal Church diocese that has accused IRD of punishing the Episcopal Church by supporting the seizure of church property and other assets.

VOL spoke with Mr. Tooley about this and other issues facing mainline Protestant denominations that are in general decline.

VOL: The Episcopal Diocese of New York recently passed a resolution at its diocesan convention saying IRD posed a threat to religious freedom. They want TEC's General Convention to authorize creation of a joint task force to mitigate such threats, which, they say, also affects Presbyterian, and United Methodist denominations. What is your response to that?

TOOLEY: It seems very over the top and paranoid and fulfills a lot stereotypes about the liberal fringes of the Episcopal Church being somewhat divorced from reality and looking for hobgoblins to blame for their denomination's deep rooted schisms.

VOL: The Episcopal diocese also wants to ascertain the cost to the three denominations to date of litigation to prevent the alienation of church property and other assets. What is your response to that?

TOOLEY: It might interest a lot of people to learn how much the Episcopal Church has spent on litigation against local churches and dioceses.

VOL: The diocese maintains that for nearly 30 years, IRD has publicly stated its goal of "reforming" the Episcopal, Presbyterian, and United Methodist churches along "orthodox" lines, even though it is not accountable to any of those churches? How would you respond to those charges?

TOOLEY: All of these denominations have a host of caucus groups, conservative and liberal, contending for various causes. IRD is just one of many. We are no more or less accountable to the official denominations than any of the other caucus groups. In what sense should an independent group be "accountable" to a denomination whose officials it critiques? The underlying assumption of this supposed concern is that official denominational structures should be immune from criticism.

VOL: Each denomination has produced films, documentaries, and exposés about IRD's damaging activities, but each continues to treat the problem as internal discontent rather than as a coordinated assault on religious freedom. Would you agree?

TOOLEY: The idea that there is a coordinated assault on religious freedom in the mainline denominations is ridiculous, of course. Nobody questions the civil right of Katherine Jefferts Schori or other bishops to say and do ridiculous things. The question that IRD and other renewal groups have raised is whether church officials are morally accountable to historic Christian doctrines and to the membership of their churches. IRD was founded in 1981 primarily to critique the public witness of Mainline churches, especially their disregard for international human rights and religious liberty in favor of friendly accommodation with, initially, communist regimes, and now increasingly with Islamist movements. IRD is somewhat unique because we continue to care about the social witness of Mainline churches, when almost everybody else across the political spectrum is now indifferent, since Mainline church officials have only a fraction of the influence they had several decades ago. If and when mainline denominations halt their 45-year membership decline, we hope and pray that a more thoughtful social witness will accompany their revival.

VOL: You responded saying the Diocese of New York is one of the most liberal and fastest declining areas of the liberal controlled and fast declining Episcopal Church. Blaming the 29-year old IRD for Mainline Protestantism's 45-year membership spiral is convenient but nonsensical. Do you still stand by that statement?

TOOLEY: Yes.

VOL: United Methodist Annual Conferences (regional bodies roughly approximate to dioceses) in New York and the Desert Southwest passed similar anti-IRD resolutions in 2007/2008. They never made it out of committee at the United Methodist General Conference. How do you respond to this?

TOOLEY: Some liberal church elites are unable to explain their almost continuous five-decade membership decline of mainline denominations except by faulting abstract demographic forces or blaming the critics of mainline church policies who merely point out the obvious. Like the New York Episcopal Diocese, the New York and Desert Southwest (Arizona) annual conferences of United Methodism are very liberal and fast declining. Their appeals for the 2008 General Conference to condemn IRD were rejected.

VOL: You are very involved with the gradual renewal of the United Methodist Church, are you seeing any light at the end of the tunnel in the UMC?

TOOLEY: Almost unique among the Mainline denominations, United Methodism has the opportunity for genuine renewal and return to orthodoxy. This is mostly thanks to the church's robust and growing international membership. Over 3 million United Methodists live outside the U.S., mostly in Africa. The African churches are growing and probably African United Methodists will become a numeric majority in the denomination in 15 years or so, maybe sooner. At the last 2008 General Conference, international delegates were 30 percent. At the next one in 2012, they will likely be 40 percent. This makes it almost impossible to legislatively liberalize the church's teachings on sexual ethics, because the African delegates are almost entirely theologically conservative. A gambit by the U.S. bishops to constitutionally separate the U.S. church from the Africans with a separate U.S. only conference was overwhelmingly rejected last year in votes by local annual conferences around the world. Africans voted almost unanimously against it.

The church bureaucracy is a lagging indicator of this membership shift and is still dominated by U.S. liberals. But this will change in with time. Meanwhile, U.S. church renewal groups have remained strong and work collaboratively with each other. And the evangelical sub-culture in the U.S. church has persevered despite decades of liberalism. Southeastern United Methodist is basically holding its own in terms of membership, while the much more liberal West, Northeast and upper Mid-West continue to spiral. The church's whole Western Jurisdiction, including all the West Coast and Rocky Mountain states, has lost about half its membership and now comprises about 3 percent of the denominational total. This is also the region that is ironically the loudest about being "inclusive."

VOL: I believe the United Methodist Church does support the inclusion of homosexuals in the congregation, and homosexuals can take part in sacraments and programs. However, the UMC does state that "the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching," so the church does not allow homosexuals to become ordained ministers. Is that correct?

TOOLEY: There's no official policy about homosexual practice and church membership. In recent years there's been a controversy resulting from a Virginia's pastor's refusal to grant immediate church membership to an actively unrepentant homosexual man in his congregation. The church's top court, the Judicial Council, ruled that local pastors may determine who's ready for membership. An effort to overturn the court with a constitutional amendment mandating automatic church membership failed. The church affirms sex only between husband and wife. Clergy (and hopefully laity.) are expected to be monogamous in marriage and celibate if single. Self-avowed, practicing homosexuals may not be ordained. Clergy and churches are prohibited from celebrating same-sex unions.

VOL: The UMC will not conduct homosexual marriages and will not allow them to be held in their churches. To date the UMC seems to be holding back on openly non-celibate homosexuals being or becoming pastors? Is that true and can IRD take some satisfaction that its efforts have been successful in being where the UMC now is?

TOOLEY: IRD has played a role with other renewal groups in United Methodism in affirming orthodox Christian teaching in our denomination.

VOL: Do you think the UMC can hold the line on the full homosexual agenda being implemented in their denomination? The Episcopal Church, The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church USA and the United Church of Christ have all rolled over to the zeitgeist? Are you hopeful the UMC can hold out and fight back or is the full pansexual agenda rolling over the UMC inevitable?

TOOLEY: No, uniquely because of United Methodism's large international membership, it is almost legislatively impossible to liberalize the church's teachings on sexual ethics, because 40 percent of the delegates to the next General Conference will likely come from outside the U.S. This would require 90 percent of U.S. delegates to support liberalizing the church teaching, which is very unlikely.

VOL: You said a United Methodist Church special commission has recently faulted the denomination's own failed leadership for nearly 3 million lost members and is urging, in the words of one religion writer, 'Better pastors. Healthier churches. Less bureaucracy.' Would you elaborate?

TOOLEY: A special "Call to Action" committee appointed by the bishops has constructively identified much of our church as dysfunctional and is calling for reforms centered on more accountability by official church structures. Proposals along these lines will be considered by the 2012 General Conference. It's unclear whether these proposed institutional reforms, such as eliminating guaranteed appointments to all clergy no matter their competence, will ultimately be significant. But at least even the church elites are now faulting the church's U.S. decline on the church itself, and not abstract forces outside the church.

VOL: Randall Balmer, an Episcopal Priest who teaches at Columbia University insists that IRD supports and promotes alleged U.S. government torture practices, even though you have publically condemned torture. Why is he promoting a conspiracy theory that has no basis in fact?

TOOLEY: I've challenged Randall Balmer to provide the supposed emails from IRD to him expressing support for for "torture." He could not produce these emails, ostensibly due to a computer issue. IRD does not support torture and supports universal human rights. IRD has criticized some liberal church elites who have been quick to define all of the enhanced interrogation of terrorists during the Bush Administration as "torture."

VOL: You wrote a pretty scathing review of the Paul Moore biography written by his daughter Honor Moore that appeared in the Weekly Standard.
(It can be viewed here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/439xrwit.asp

You said Moore was a closeted bi-sexual who married twice, had numerous women lovers and a male lover. He damaged his family while shedding crocodile tears over various prevailing social justice issues. Do you find this sort of hypocrisy common, that is, the separation of public and private morality among religious leaders you talk too?

TOOLEY: My review of the biography, by Moore's daughter, was actually fairly favorable. She seemed to be pretty candid in discussing her father's various issues and the anguished it caused her family and the church. For 100 years, Social Gospel liberalism has emphasized political justice while minimizing theology and personal ethics. The results have been sad and obvious.

VOL: You recently appeared alongside Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori at a recent panel discussion on immigration reform. How did that go?

TOOLEY: We did not appear in the same panel but were both quoted in a Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) newsletter about immigration. I attended a CFR panel on immigration that included her, and it was quite astounding that she and other panelists could not identify any morally justified reason for border controls except to keep out only the most egregious criminals. Like most Mainline church elites, she and other bishops seem to support almost complete open borders.

VOL: Do you think the creation of a joint task force of the Episcopal, Presbyterian, and United Methodist churches to study the question arguing that all three denominations have been "targeted for reform" by IRD for more than 20 years will go anywhere?

TOOLEY: It would be fun. But no, it won't go anywhere. Even most liberals will see it as a little crazy.

VOL: All these denominations have spent millions in legal efforts to prevent conservative dissidents from taking church property with them when they declare a formal break with the denomination. Do you see this relenting at all? Some Presbyterian churches seem to have the ability cut deals with their church leaders, but not Episcopal parishes. Which way is the wind blowing on litigation in the US?

TOOLEY: Almost all the litigation and spending seems confined to the Episcopal Church. It's all very sad and seems avoidable. There are no winners except lawyers.

VOL: Do you think IRD is making an impact and are you in this battle for the long haul?

TOOLEY: IRD was founded in 1981 primarily to critique the uncritical attitude towards Communism and the old Soviet Union by then still influential mainline church officials. Thanks to the fall of Soviet communism, that battle was won. Now we focus on many churches' similar inability to criticize theocratic Islam and its persecution of Christians and others, though there are recent glimmers that even liberal Mainline elites are starting to speak out for martyred Christians in Iraq, Pakistan and elsewhere. We hope this awakening will continue.

VOL: Thank you Mr. Tooley.

END