California Supreme Court says breakaway parish can't take national church's property

Reporting from San Francisco and Los Angeles -- Rebellious congregations that part ways with their denominations may lose their church buildings and property as a result, the California Supreme Court said Monday in a unanimous ruling.

The state high court decision came in a case involving the Episcopal Church, but lawyers said it would apply to other denominations as well.

Several Protestant denominations, including United Methodists and Presbyterians, have faced upheaval over gay rights issues. Monday's ruling, along with similar victories that the church leadership has won in other states, is expected to dampen enthusiasm for such separations.

In a decision written by Justice Ming W. Chin, the court said the property of St. James Anglican Church in Newport Beach was owned by the national church, not the congregation. The congregation split away after the national church consecrated a gay man, V. Gene Robinson, as bishop of New Hampshire in 2003.

"When it disaffiliated from the general church, the local church did not have the right to take the church property with it," Chin wrote for the court.

The ruling follows a decision last month by 700 conservative Episcopal congregations to form a separate church in North America. The move -- driven partly by four breakaway Episcopal dioceses, including one in the Central Valley -- probably will trigger new disputes over church property.

The bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles applauded the ruling even as he held out an olive branch to St. James and other parishes sued by his office

The Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno said the diocese was "overjoyed" and predicted that the ruling would encourage disgruntled congregations to remain united with their mother churches.

Although the ruling came in a lawsuit over St. James parish, Bruno said it also would affect property disputes involving St. David's Church in North Hollywood and All Saints Anglican Church in Long Beach.

"We look forward to the possible reconciliation with these congregations," Bruno said.

Because the ruling could affect other denominations as well, several churches joined the Episcopal hierarchy in arguing against the Newport Beach congregation. They included United Methodists, Presbyterians and Seventh-day Adventists.

"The other denominations who were with us were very pleased," Bruno said.

But some breakaway parishes remained defiant.

The Rev. William Thompson of All Saints Anglican Church in Long Beach called the ruling "a disappointment," and said that reconciling with the Los Angeles diocese was not an option for his parish of 350 to 400 members. 

 See California Supreme Court says breakaway parish can't take national church's property

Landmark case: California Supreme Court rules ant-gay Episcopal congregations can't take it with them

In a landmark ruling that could have national implications, the California Supreme Court on January 5 upheld an earlier court decision that buildings and property do not belong to dissident congregations but to the Diocese of Los Angeles and the general Episcopal Church.

Associate Justice Ming W. Chin, writing for the court, said the diocese held the property and buildings in trust for the wider mission and ministry of the church.

The ruling affects St. James Church in Newport Beach, All Saints Church in Long Beach and St. David's Church in North Hollywood.

A majority of members at the three churches had disagreed with the Episcopal Church's decision in 2003 to approve the election of an openly gay bishop. Members of all three realigned themselves with the Anglican Province of Uganda, attempted to amend articles of incorporation and retain the property.

Chin acknowledged that while the court cannot decide church doctrinal matters, it could decide property disputes, using a "neutral principles of law" approach. In rendering its decision, the court examined property deeds, local church articles of incorporation, the general church's constitution, canons and rules, and relevant statutes and concluded "that the general church, not the local church, owns the property in question.

"Although the deeds to the property have long been in the name of the local church, that church agreed from the beginning of its existence to be part of the greater church and to be bound by its governing documents," Chin wrote.

"These governing documents make clear that church property is held in trust for the general church and may be controlled by the local church only so long as that local church remains a part of the general church. When it disaffiliated from the general church, the local church did not have the right to take the church property with it."

Bishop Jon Bruno of Los Angeles said in a statement that he is "overjoyed" and called it a decisive ruling. "We have prevailed in all areas of the law addressed in this case." He added that he will issue a pastoral letter to the congregations and "invite reconciliation and people coming back" but declined to speculate further
He added that he also wanted to assure "this diocese and the people of the Episcopal Church that we will continue mission and ministry in the areas these congregations serve."

Bruno added that the court decision "establishes a precedent. We further note the pastoral concerns at this time within the Episcopal Church, which continues in its mission of service, especially in providing food, shelter, medicine, and pastoral care to those in greatest need locally and globally, respecting the dignity of every human being."

John R. Shiner, chancellor for the diocese, said the ruling "will apply to all parishes throughout the state of California" and influence church property disputes nationally. "The decision, which upheld a 2007 appellate court ruling, is "final, conclusive, definitive," he added.

In response to a question at a news briefing, Shiner said he doubted the ruling could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. "Of course, anything's possible, but today's ruling is so definitive," he said.

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori's office issued a statement calling the decision "a ringing endorsement of this country's history of religious freedom, explicitly recognizing that judicial respect for a denomination's internal polity and rules is required by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and is fully consistent with the application of the 'neutral principles' analysis."

The decision's "unequivocal reasoning applies generally throughout The Episcopal Church" and added she is hopeful it will bring remaining property disputes in California and elsewhere to a speedy conclusion.

The statement added: "We look forward to working with affected dioceses toward reconciliation and on a continuation of the Episcopal Church's mission priorities."

"We also are grateful for the ongoing faithful work of Bishop Jon Bruno and the Diocese of Los Angeles throughout this long and difficult process," the Presiding Bishop said. "Their continued dedication to the mission and ministry of the diocese in the midst of the litigation is commendable."

The Rev. Charles Robertson, Canon to the Presiding Bishop, said the ruling serves as a reminder that "we are stewards of the precious heritage that we maintain for future generations of the Episcopal Church."

But attorney Eric Sohlgren, who represented the congregations, said the case "is far from over."

"What's good about the decision from the perspective of St. James is that the court has adopted a rule of neutral principles of law in that church property disputes will be resolved by neutral, nonreligious factors," said Sohlgren in a telephone interview.

He said the case will be sent back to the original trial court, which ruled in favor of the Newport Beach congregation "because the Episcopal Church has never obtained a judgment in the court in its favor." An appellate court vacated an Orange County Superior Court ruling in favor of the congregation.

"The other decision being contemplated and it's too early to decide … is whether to take an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court." Sohlgren said the appeal would be based on a constitutional issue, of a court "enforcing a church rule that purports to create a trust interest in local property when other people in our society who are not churches cannot do so."

But Shiner, chancellor for the diocese, reiterated the opinion, noting that when the court applied the neutral principles of law approach it concluded that when the congregation "disaffiliated from the general church, the local church did not have the right to take the church property with it."

The ruling goes into effect within 30 days; the congregations have 15 days in which to petition the court to reconsider. Six of the court's seven members joined in the opinion. Associate Justice Joyce Kennard issued a separate opinion in which she concurred with the overall court's ruling but disagreed with some of the court's reasoning.

A dispute involving another congregation, St. Luke's of-the-Mountain Church in La Crescenta, is also pending before the California Supreme Court.

-- The Rev. Pat McCaughan is Episcopal Life Media correspondent for the dioceses of Province VIII and the House of Bishops. She is based in Los Angeles.

* Tags = gay religion gay Christian gay jew gay mengay men

Anglican Church in North America: A new province or a new church?

Leaders of the Common Cause Partnership, a coalition of conservative Anglicans in Canada and the U.S., released a draft constitution on Dec. 3 for a new Anglican province that they propose will be defined by theology rather than a geographic location.  

Gathered in Wheaton, Ill., leaders of the partnership, which they say represents about 100,000 Anglicans (3,000 in Canada) – those who have left the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church in the U.S. largely over blessing same-sex unions and the ordination of an openly gay bishop – outlined their vision for the new Anglican Church in North America.

According to Bishop Robert Duncan, who led the diocese of Pittsburgh out of the Episcopal Church in the U.S. and is the provisional leader of the new province, the future of this new body may go further than being a parallel province operating in the same geographic regions as the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada; it may become a rival church. "I think what the Lord is doing is that the Lord is displacing the Episcopal Church," Bishop Duncan said.  "The Episcopal Church has been in extraordinary decline," he added. "We are a body that is growing, that is planting new congregations, that's concerned to be an authentic Christian presence in the U.S. and Canada."

Bishop Duncan acknowledged that the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada are still the only churches recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the structures of the Anglican Communion. But he said there is a new emerging reality, referring to support from conservative national archbishops who met in Jerusalem for the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) in June and who asked the Common Cause Partnership to create a constitution for a new province.

Soon after the announcement, the GAFCON primates, whose provinces comprise up to 40 million  Anglicans, mainly in Africa, issued a statement of support and blessing for the formation of the new province.

Common Cause leaders hope that GAFCON primates will advocate for the new province when the primates meet in Egypt in February.  Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC) Bishop Donald Harvey recently warned of dire consequences for the global communion if the primates meeting in Egypt reject the idea of the new province. "It would be painful and cause decisions to be made that would be unfortunate for the communion as a whole. It would cause more fragmentation," he said.

Bishop Duncan said the new documents will be sent to Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams. "What the Archbishop of Canterbury will do as this province emerges is for him to say," he said. Leaders of the partnership have said that they would like to have the blessing of the Archbishop, but they will move forward even without it.

A spokesperson for the Archbishop of Canterbury responded to news of the formation of a new province: "There are clear guidelines set out in the Anglican Consultative Council reports, notably ACC 10 in 1996 (resolution 12), detailing the steps necessary for the amendments of existing provincial constitutions and the creation of new provinces," the spokesperson said. "Once begun, any of these processes will take years to complete. In relation to the recent announcement from the meeting of the Common Cause Partnership in Chicago, the process has not yet begun."

Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, recently said that he finds the idea of creating a new province defined by theological differences "disturbing." And he was critical of the plan to proceed with or without the blessing of the Archbishop of Canterbury. "Part of the essence of being Anglican is that you are in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury," he said.

Archbishop Hiltz added that it is an assumption, perhaps a "huge assumption," to think that the views of the GAFCON primates accurately represent the views of the millions of Anglicans in their provinces. He asserted that many other views were represented at the Lambeth Conference (the decennial meeting of Anglican bishops around the world), which he characterized as having a spirit of openness, good will and a general determination to find ways to keep the communion together. "It has become more and more clear that those associated with GAFCON are not so committed to building bridges and keeping in conversation but rather to separation," he said.

Despite such objections, plans for the new province continue. Canon Charlie Masters is the general secretary of the Common Cause Partnership and also serves as the executive director of ANiC, which held its first synod in November in Burlington, Ont.  ANiC members are excited about the new province, he said.  "We feel that this province represents Anglicanism at its best." Mr. Masters expressed ANiC's gratitude to Archbishop Gregory Venables, who made a controversial decision to take clergy and congregations leaving the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church in the U.S. into his jurisdiction in the Southern Cone. "We've always known that the offer of care which came through Archbishop Venables and the Southern Cone was, by definition, temporary and emergency."

Mr. Masters noted that the constitution won't be ratified until delegates at the provincial assembly in Texas vote on it in the spring. 

Canadian diocese may authorize same sex marriage rites if General Synod approves

The diocese of Rupert's Land synod has passed a resolution authorizing the rites of blessing for civil unions of same-sex couples if the Anglican Church of Canada's General Synod, which meets in 2010, passes "an enabling doctrinal resolution" that would allow it.

The synod, which met Nov. 6 to 8, approved the resolution in a secret ballot vote, and clergy and laity voted separately. Clergy approved the resolution by 58 per cent, or 32 in favour and 23 against; laity approved it by 57 per cent, or 69 in favour and 51 against.

The diocesan bishop of Rupert's Land, Donald Phillips, said he would wait for General Synod's decision but that "even then he would not necessarily take action," reported the Rupert's Land News, the diocese's newspaper. "He would concur in the diocesan synod vote as a valid advisory expression of the synod's discernment of the leading of the Holy Spirit."

The synod also passed a resolution of "general principles" governing its role in relation to same-sex unions.

Meanwhile, the bishops of the ecclesiastical province of Rupert's Land have issued a message committing themselves "individually and collectively" to honour calls for moratoria on the blessing of same-sex unions, cross-border interventions, and the consecration to the episcopate of priests in same-sex relationships.

Huron bishop not yet acting on same-sex blessings

The newly-elected bishop of the diocese of Huron, Robert Bennett, says that he has not yet acted on the diocesan synod's motion in May asking the bishop to give clergy permission to bless same-sex marriages. "Nothing has happened," said Bishop Bennett. At the fall meeting of the house of bishops he said that "I'm here to listen." Bishop Bennett issued the clarification in reaction to a story and editorial published in the December issue of the Anglican Journal that included Huron among dioceses that came to the house of bishops with requests to allow them to bless same-sex unions.

Bishop Bennett said in a telephone interview that the diocese had been "in a transitional and crisis mode" after Bishop Bruce Howe announced in June that he was retiring effective Sept. 1.

Bishop Bennett, pointed out that he was elected diocesan bishop only two days before the house of bishops met in October.

"The diocese has been good not to put pressure when I said I'm not prepared to do anything just yet on whether we're moving ahead or not," said Bishop Bennett.

Bishop Howe earlier said he "gave concurrence" to the motion based on the large percentage of votes in favour (72 per cent in both clergy and lay houses), but that he intended to consult with other bishops before acting on it.

Pastors hurt Cleveland with battle against domestic partner registry

David Fitz

God has placed us now as a mighty fortress for Him in this community . . . to show this community His love and compassion. I am asking each member and those who want to be a part of this awe-inspiring vision to give a sacrificial gift of $1,000."

Thus wrote the good Rev. C. Jay Matthews of the Mount Sinai Baptist Church on his church's Web site. He goes on to articulate a commendable vision to "revitalize the community surrounding his church" - a community historically plagued by crime, foreclosures and struggling schools. Every Cleveland neighborhood needs strong leaders with the charismatic personality, compassionate vision, moral fiber and fund-raising prowess of a Rev. Matthews.

And like other leaders in struggling Cleveland neighborhoods, I'm sure Rev. Matthews could use some help from those beyond his immediate congregation to realize his vision. I want to help the Rev. Matthews improve his community. In return, I ask only that he abandon his (and seven other pastors') myopic movement to repeal Cleveland's domestic partner registry.

Cleveland's future rests on its ability to retain what's left of its declining population and attract new residents. By campaigning to eliminate the opportunity for gay, lesbian or unmarried couples to register their partnership status with the city of Cleveland, Rev. Matthews is not helping his community or Cleveland slow its economic free fall into a perilous abyss. He's keeping Cleveland hopelessly positioned in the past by sending the wrong message about our city to the rest of the world - a world where gays have been quietly improving the quality of life of their neighborhoods and bolstering the local government tax rolls.

I can't convince Rev. Matthews that there is nothing immoral about same-sex relationships. I can't convince him that the Bible, as Newsweek recently showed, is not the best defense against same-sex unions or gay marriage because, when one pounds the Good Book with righteous conviction about such an "abominable act," one also risks slipping on a much steeper slope.

But perhaps Rev. Matthews and I can have a moral conversation about the economic realities facing his community and Cleveland. Perhaps we can agree that Cleveland remains one of America's poorest cities with dwindling resources, high crime, poor education and few tools to rebuild. Perhaps he'll keep an open mind about how same-sex (and unmarried) couples can improve our city, whether he, or his God, agrees with "that lifestyle."

Cities with successful economic strategies know that being gay friendly is a necessity. In just the last decade, the number of cities marketing to gays has exploded from five to more than 75. Philadelphia, a city that moved from the verge of bankruptcy in the early 1990s to experiencing remarkable expansion, has spent its marketing dollars on a national campaign to attract gay tourists, earning a "$153 return for every dollar spent." San Francisco now faces intense competition against its longstanding role as America's most gay-friendly city.

For Clevelanders weary of following trendy coastal cities, they can look to Detroit, which is working to become a "mecca for gay living," hosting tours of five of its neighborhoods for gay couples. Columbus' successful Short North neighborhood is another example of how the gay community can help a city's economic expansion. I commend Mayor Frank Jackson for supporting Cleveland's bid to host the Gay Games, potentially bringing millions of dollars to the city, and ultimately benefiting Rev. Matthews' community.

Rev. Matthews is fighting the wrong battle. The reality is that the domestic registry legislation merely gives same-sex and unmarried couples a simple, legitimate way to document their relationships to employers, hospitals, schools and others. Frankly, the registry doesn't go far enough. Cleveland, like countless other cities, should offer domestic partner benefits to its employees. I hope that's next on the agenda for our progressive leaders who voted in favor of the registry.

I wish Rev. Matthews and others understood that accepting a progressive economic strategy to give basic rights to same-sex or unmarried couples is not the same as condoning gay marriage or couples living out of wedlock. I wish he understood how a gay-friendly Cleveland actually benefits his community.

Rev. Matthews, along with his fellow pastors, is not showing love and compassion for Cleveland by calling for the repeal of the domestic partner registry. He should dedicate his resources and time to defeating a host of other moral crises destroying Cleveland communities. And if he abandons his misguided mission and focuses instead on his community vision, I will offer my own gift of $1,000 to his church's efforts to revitalize the surrounding community.

The return for my family and our city's future is well worth the investment.

Fitz is a Cleveland resident and vice president of public affairs for University Circle Inc.

 See Pastors hurt Cleveland with battle against domestic partner registry
The Plain Dealer - cleveland.com, OH

Inviting Warren fits Obama's inclusive ideals

By ANTHONY B. ROBINSON
GUEST COLUMNIST

SHOULD RICK WARREN be giving the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration?

You might think that after the months-long saga surrounding Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, the president-elect would do whatever he could to avoid further pastor-politics dramas.

Apparently not. Inviting Warren, pastor of Saddleback Community Church in Orange County, Calif., and popular author of the "Purpose-Driven Life" series of books, has touched off a controversy.

During the Jeremiah Wright controversy I suggested that Wright needed to be seen within the context of the black church experience. In a similar way, it seems important to set Rick Warren within the context of evangelical Christianity in the U.S.

Warren embodies what many see as the new evangelical spirit. As an evangelical Christian, he is clear about his commitment to Christ and about conversion as the path. But Warren has parted company with fundamentalism and its political arm, the religious right, over its mean-spirited approach to politics and its fixation on abortion and homosexuality as the be-all and end-all.

Warren has emerged as an evangelical who puts both mouth and money on the line for AIDS prevention and care, issues of poverty and the global gap between rich and poor, and climate change. For this evolution Warren has incurred the wrath of those on the religious right. In the larger scheme of things, Warren represents an important shift in the influential evangelical world. This shift meant Obama captured support among young evangelicals who care about poverty, social justice and climate change.

While people on the fundamentalist religious right are incensed that Warren would agree to take part in the inauguration and give his blessing to a president who supports choice on abortion, folks on the other side are ticked off by Obama's choice of the bearded, aloha shirt-clad pastor from Southern California because Warren has questions about gay marriage.

While Warren was not out in front on this, he supported Proposition 8 in California's recent election, a measure that took back what California courts had granted, the right of gay people to marry. Warren is concerned about "redefining the 5,000-year-old institution of marriage," which he sees as a foundation of human civilization. This has elicited charges that Warren has "defamed" gays. Others tagged Obama himself a bigot for daring to invite Warren.

Here's what I think. Obama is doing what he said he would do, namely, reach across the culture-war divides, across the polarized minefield of American political life, to invite to the party someone who doesn't agree with him on every issue. Some argue that Obama lacks the courage of his convictions on full inclusion of gays. It seems to me, rather, that Obama is remaining true to his convictions of a post-partisan, nonideological approach and style. After all, inclusion doesn't really mean much if you include only those who already totally agree with you.

This is, remember, the man who wrote "The Audacity of Hope."

"I believe any attempt by Democrats to pursue a more sharply partisan and ideological strategy misapprehends the moment we are in," he wrote. And, "it's precisely the pursuit of ideological purity, the rigid orthodoxy and the sheer predictability of our current political debate that keeps us from finding new ways to meet the challenges we face as a country." Inviting megachurch pastor Warren, who is also challenging old orthodoxies, fits these sentiments.

Personally, I can think of people I would prefer to Rick Warren for the role of inaugural prayer-giver. But Obama's choice seems to me consistent with what he has said and his operative philosophy. Moreover, the attempt to reach out to more centrist evangelicals, whom Warren represents, is important. To claim that because Warren has questions about gay marriage means that he's a bigot or that he has "defamed" gay people is a stretch.

Finally, it is important to note that Rick Warren is not being asked to take up a cabinet post or otherwise make or administer policy. He's been asked to give a prayer. My hunch is that if this country has a prayer, it will be because we do find a path beyond ideological purity and rigid orthodoxy.

In closing, a personal note: I lost one of my most faithful readers last Sunday when 95-year-old Jim Jambor of Olympia died. Jim watched for this column, "the Saturday Special" as he called it, and seldom failed to comment. We'll miss you, Jim!

Anthony Robinson, a pastor of the United Church of Christ, is a speaker and teacher. He can be reached at anthonybrobinson@comcast.net.

 See Articles of Faith: Inviting Warren fits Obama's inclusive ideals
Seattle Post Intelligencer 

The Anglican Communion will finally split in 2009

Paul Handley in the guardian.co.uk writes:

 

"

A silence has descended on the Anglican Church in the United States – or should that be, Anglican Churches? Since the foundation of the conservative Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) at the start of December, all has gone quiet. Too quiet. Why is this, and how can we then predict what might happen in 2009? Is this, finally, going to be the year of the great schism?

First, a bit of theological background. Jesus made unity an intensely personal thing. St John quotes him praying to God the Father that his disciples "may be one, even as we are one". St Paul took up the theme: "We, being many, are one body in Christ." It is impossible to be a biblical Christian and not make unity a priority.

The reason that unity is such a good thing is that it affirms that Christ's Spirit is in everyone, however uncongenial they may seem. It is a fundamental belief that all are equally sinful and in need of God's grace (which is given freely). A schism occurs when one group believes itself to be better than another. There's a difference between unity and uniformity – everybody who shops around for a church he or she feels comfortable in, rejecting the ones that don't feel right, is indulging in schismatic behaviour to a degree; but because there isn't a group thing going on, this can be a mild, neutral judgement.

As soon as there is a group of people involved, however, all sorts of dynamics are created: the breakaway group almost always defines itself by contrast with the group that has been left behind; there is a need to cohere rapidly, and this means renouncing bonds with the former group; uncertainty and doubt are discouraged, since these suggest a lack of commitment to the new group; and so on. When these forces come into play, you can say farewell to the friendliness and humility which, incidentally, are all you need to keep a church together.

For these anthropological reasons as much the theological ones, it is safe to say that church splits are always a bad thing, in the same way that divorce is always a bad thing. It's just that marriage can be a worse thing. Conservatives and liberals in the United States have been locked in a loveless marriage for some years. The Lambeth Conference has, in the past, functioned as some sort of self-help group, but ten years is a long time between counselling sessions, and in 2008 the conservatives decided not to show up. Besides, the marriage had become abusive, and, as everybody knows, being stuck in such a relationship can be a bleak, bleak experience.

Getting out, then, could be seen as the lesser of two evils. A clean break. The chance to begin life again with a positive outlook, free from all the wrangling of the past. This might be sound advice if the conservatives were happy just to walk away. But there's the family home to fight over, and custody of the children. The members of ACNA are darned if they'll sit back and watch their former partner, now free to indulge in unrestrained intimacy with the liberal spirit of the age – gay sex, abortions, feminist theology, concessions to other faiths, more gay sex – and doing so in the churches built with their money, and thus leading the American public further astray.

So, the ACNA has bigger plans: to become the new, official Anglican province in the US, and watch the old, liberal province shrivel up and die."

More of The Anglican Communion will finally split in 2009

Is heresy better than schism?

On his TNR blog, Damon Linker flags the schism withing the Episcopal Church as the most important and worrying religious development of the past year. Here's an excerpt:

With 100,000 members, the schismatic Anglican denomination is so far quite small, though it may well grow if conservative dioceses around the country decide to take the option now presented to them and bolt from the Episcopal Church. But regardless of the numbers involved, the rupture in the church is historically significant and culturally troubling. The Protestant mainline that once ruled and to some extent united the nation continues its decline, split into squabbling factions facing each other across a cultural chasm. Arrayed on one side are liberals of every theological stripe; on the other are defenders of orthodoxy and tradition. The first views the second as ignorant bigots; the second sees the first as moral degenerates. Barack Obama may have managed to win 53 percent of the popular vote last month, but that doesn't mean the country's division into "red" and "blue" spheres of cultural influence has come to an end. Indeed, the split in the Episcopal Church indicates that it persists and may even be deepening.

Damon is troubled, and understandably so, by the fact that American churches are breaking apart based on positions congregations and individuals within them hold on culture-war issues. I don't see how any serious believer, whichever side he takes, can be cheered by schism. But I am inclined to think of schism as the second-worst option, if the only other is to accomodate one's church to a serious heresy.

As Damon notes, the stance a believer takes on issues like abortion, homosexuality, order and authority in the family, and a related constellation of concerns, typically places one within one camp or the other. It's no accident that there's a thread connecting stances on both sides; i.e., there's a reason why Christians who oppose abortion rights are more likely to oppose same-sex marriage rights, and vice versa. It all comes down, in the end, to Authority.

If you believe that Scripture, or Scripture and the institutional Church, is the Authority for deciding questions of meaning and morality, then you are far more likely to fall on the traditionalist side of these questions. If you believe that individual conscience is the Authority, then you are likely to be a progressive.

I don't see how the two can be reconciled, unless it is agreed by a majority that the church in question doesn't really stand for anything beyond itself. If you really do believe that Scripture and Tradition are wrong about same-sex relationships, and that it is a matter of basic justice that the teaching be changed, then you aren't going to stop fighting for that change within the church. If you believe that we are not free to throw off the authority of Scripture (and Tradition) in such matters, then to have your church declare these matters open to negotiation would be to hollow out the meaning of what the church is supposed to stand for, all for the sake of a superficial unity.

The question ultimately is this: Are there matters over which there can be no compromise, and in which a compromise would destroy the essence of the institution? If there are, then schism is better than agreeing to disagree for the sake of keeping the family together. Right? If schism is always worse than heresy, then how can it be possible to draw any boundaries beyond which individuals and congregations, progressive or traditional, will not go?

 See  Is heresy better than schism? Beliefnet.com

Will a Fierce Battle Over Gay Rights Split the Anglican Church?

BUENOS AIRES, Dec 22 -- On the brink of a split in the global Anglican Communion that no one is eager to enlarge on, the Province of the Southern Cone of South America has become a temporary refuge for conservative bishops from the United States who refuse to countenance the liberal positions taken by the Church in their country.

The crisis began when gay bishops and same-sex unions, including clergy, were accepted in Anglican (or Episcopal) provinces in Canada and the United States. Conservatives who disapproved of these developments fell out with their church communities and sought pastoral oversight from South American provinces, further away geographically but theologically more compatible.

"Nobody (in the Anglican Communion) wants to say let's get a divorce, but when a relationship isn't working, someone has to decide whether or not they stay together, and no one here wants to make the decision," Gregory Venables, the primate (presiding bishop) of the Province of the Southern Cone, which includes the dioceses of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay, told IPS.

In 2007, Venables took on pastoral responsibility for the conservative bishops of four dioceses that left the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (ECUSA). "We had certain links, and after talking with (the Archbishop of) Canterbury, we decided to offer them emergency oversight until there is a more solid structure to contain them," he said.

Venables, who was born in the U.K. but has lived for 30 years in Latin America, said that ECUSA is pressing lawsuits for millions of dollars against the "dissidents," who paradoxically are followers of the orthodox traditions of the Church. There are properties at stake, and bishops who leave ECUSA forfeit their homes and stipends, he said.

The Anglican Communion is a fellowship of Anglican churches with some 77 million faithful in 160 countries. Each of the 38 existing provinces is self-governing, but they are all in communion with Canterbury, the founding see of this church and the residence of its spiritual leader, Archbishop Rowan Williams.

"The problem is that we have no mechanism for solving crises," said Venables. "We don't have a leader or an authority like the Pope (in the Roman Catholic Church) who can take decisions that are binding on other countries. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the first among equals, but the primates of the 38 provinces have full autonomy."

The Anglican Church of England separated from the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century, and soon after expanded into Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and the United States. Millions of new converts were made through missionary efforts in Africa and, to a lesser extent, Asia and Latin America.

At present there are 20 million Anglicans in Nigeria alone, more than in all the Anglo-Saxon countries put together. However, bishops in countries of the developing South have relatively little decision-making power compared with their colleagues in industrialized countries. For instance, their repudiation of the consecration of a gay bishop in the U.S. state of New Hampshire in 2003 was ignored.

"It's not so much about homosexuality as about as how decisions are taken," Venables complained. "Twenty years ago, when ECUSA decided to ordain women, it did so in such a way that dissent was stifled, and many church members don't wish to remain a part of a church that takes liberal decisions."

 See Will a Fierce Battle Over Gay Rights Split the Anglican Church?
AlterNet, CA -

Bishop Robinson comes to Seattle

With support and sponsorship from the church in Western Washington, Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson will speak and worship in Seattle over the two day period of January 12 and 13.

Robinson, the Bishop of New Hampshire, is the first acknowledged, non-celibate gay man to lead a diocese in the Episcopal Church. He was confirmed in office by a vote of America's bishops at the 2003 General Convention of the church.

The bishop will begin his visit by celebrating and preaching at a eucharist for the Feast of St. Aelred at St. Mark's Cathedral at 4:30 p.m. on Monday, January 12.

Robinson will then deliver a community speech, "Civil Rights in the 21st Century: Why Religion Matters" at Town Hall Seattle. Tickets are $15, with $10 admission for students and seniors. Contact www.brownpapertickets.com or phone 800-838-3006.

The bishop's public events will conclude with a choral evensong and sermon on Tuesday, January 13, at 7 p.m. at St. Andrew's Episcopal Church in Seattle. The Rt. Rev. Greg Rickel, Episcopal Bishop of Olympia, will preside.

The Robinson visit is being sponsored by St. Andrew's Parish, the Episcopal Diocese of Olympia, and Integrity, a nationwide organization of gay and lesbian Episcopalians. Proceeds from the bishop's Town Hall speech will go to support Integrity's supper ministry at Lambert House and its low-income counseling program.

Robinson has been a vortex for controversy in the Episcopal Church as well as the worldwide Anglican Communion.

 See Bishop Robinson comes to Seattle
Seattle Post Intelligencer 

Episcopal Church Splits Over Gay Equality

In the past five years, the Episcopal Church has found itself pushed to the forefront of the culture wars. After Gene Robinson, an openly gay man with a longterm partner, was elected Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003, Anglican bishops from all over the world quickly decried the move. Conservative congregations in the US and Canada left the national churches. Some aligned themselves with the Anglican Church of Nigeria and its outspoken homophobic leader, Archbishop Peter Akinola. On December 3 of this year, these conservatives announced the creation of a new denomination, one that will compete openly with the Episcopalians for congregations and tithes. While not recognized by the Anglican Communion, the New York Times described this latest move as "the biggest challenge yet to the authority of the Episcopal Church," which "threatens the fragile unity of the Anglican Communion."

Share this article

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Related
• Also By

• The Kiss

  Sex & Sexuality

  JoAnn Wypijewski: Let us pause, amid the muddle of the moment in this season of renewal and fresh starts, to consider fundamental things.

• Good God, Bad God

  Gay & Lesbian Issues & Activism

  Richard Kim: If Rick Warren, Barack Obama and the gay community can find common ground, it'll be on civil, not religious, grounds. So let's separate church and state.

» More

• Episcopal Church Splits Over Gay Equality

  Religion

  Drew Haxby: The Episcopal Church's promotion of an openly gay clergyman has created a serious rift within the religious community, threatening the future of the denomination.

• Nepal's Evolving Identity

  Foreign Affairs

  Drew Haxby: Pushpa Kamal Dahal, newly elected Maoist Prime Minister of Nepal, provides insight into his country's political dilemmas.

The Anglican conservatives have argued that the Episcopal Church acted too rashly in its acceptance of gays and lesbians into the leadership of the church. Archbishop Gregory Venables of the Southern Cone of America, called Gene Robinson's election "a slap in the face of the Anglican Church around the world." Reverend Nyhan of St. James the Just described it as "hubris of Biblical proportions, and that's a polite way of saying diabolical."

But in fact, Robinson's election was less an example of cavalier decision-making than the outgrowth of a long and thoughtful debate within the church. Following a request from the Lambeth Commission, the Episcopalian Church published a 135-page document etitled "To Set Our Hope in Christ," which detailed how the church had come to include homosexuals as equal members of the congregation. Presenting both a theological and legislative argument for gay and lesbian equality, the document includes a long list of commission findings and carefully worded resolutions stating repeatedly how the Episcopal Church is "not of one mind" on matters of sexuality but is committed to "promot[ing] the continu[ed] use of dialogue." There's the 1976 Commission on Human Affairs asserting that "homosexual persons are children of God, who have a full and equal claim with all other persons on love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church," or the creation of a moderately liberal guide on sexuality in the 1980s.

One rare moment of drama came in 1995, when the Bishop of Newark was put on trial within the church for his ordination of an openly gay priest. Again, the Episcopal leadership looked to find a middle way: while "not giving an opinion on the morality of same-gender relationships," it refused to convict on the grounds that "there is no core doctrine prohibiting the ordination of a non-celibate homosexual person living in a faithful and committed sexual relationship," and that "the Anglican tradition has encouraged theological diversity."

This glacial move towards equality did not sit well with conservatives within the church, a testament to the inevitable shortcomings of compromise and incrementalism. In 1997 yet another Commission stated in despairing tones: " 'Dialogue' has become, for many people, a code word for deadlock," and "Mandated dialogue on human sexuality has run its course." Unable to convince conservatives within the church of the basic equality between heterosexual and homosexual relationships, and unwilling to abandon its tradition of plurality and legislative democracy, the Episcopal Church found itself confronted by an irreconcilable crisis despite its many efforts to avoid one. As Rev. Susan Russell, President of the Episcopalian LGBT group Integrity, put it: "The number of conferences, of consultations, of opportunities for us to come together in different formations, to talk across the divide, meet at round tables, to talk about what unites us instead of what divides us, to find resolutions that have compromised language, that give local options... all of those were never acceptable to the religious ideologues."

And so it is that, among those Episcopalians who've been involved with this conflict, the general attitude is one of frustration. Rev. Ian Douglas is a professor at the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and is quick to disparage the conservatives' move to bring in the African churches. "I find it fascinating," he said, "that those who claim to be traditionalist, particularly when focused on matters of human sexuality, which I would grant they are, have been drawn to a radical innovation in Anglicanism that contravenes the ancient councils of the church." In the Anglican Communion (the international confederation of churches that trace their ancestry back to the Church of England) the individual provinces operate more or less autonomously. As Rev. Douglas notes, the conservatives' inclusion of likeminded African churches is in violation of this tradition, a reworking of the most basic structure of the church.

Still, the fact that the conservatives were forced to do this is telling in itself. Roughly 100,000 Anglicans in the United States and Canada have left their respective national churches, less than five percent of the 2.3 million members. "It's a tiny fraction of the church," said Jim Naughton, of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington. "Yet it's being played as if the church is splitting." As many Episcopalians have pointed out, the conservatives did not have the internal backing to overturn Robinson's election--even with the efforts of the African Churches and several fundamentalist lobbies. Their recent decision to disaffiliate is a last ditch gamble to assert their preeminence in North America. How it will play out remains to be seen, but in the meantime the Episcopal Church might finally start to move on.

• Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 75 cents a week!
• If you like this article, consider making a donation to The Nation.

About Drew Haxby

Drew Haxby, a former Fulbright scholar in Nepal and MFA graduate, is a Fall 2008 intern at the Nation magazine and a freelance journalist based in New York City. more...

Advertisement

 See Episcopal Church Splits Over Gay Equality
The Nation., NY

Women reach for bishops' chairs in Church of England as last barriers fall

When traditionalists mutter that dark forces are plotting to undermine the tradition of men-only bishops in the Church in England, they are closer to the truth than they know.

The first woman bishop is likely to be drawn from a group of senior Anglican women priests that goes by the name of Darc - deans, archdeacons and residentiary canons - and meets twice a year to offer mutual support.

Since women were first ordained in 1994, about 4,000 have been priested. Of those, nearly 3,000 are still active in the ministry, representing about a third of the total number of serving priests. Women priests are likely to outnumber men within a few years.

To these women, and many of the worshippers who have experienced their ministry, an episcopacy without women is unthinkable. One by one, the provinces of the Anglican Communion are succumbing. In 1988 the first women bishops were elected in the United States and New Zealand. Barbara Harris, the American bishop, turned up to that year's Lambeth Conference.

This year Kay Goldsworthy became the first woman bishop to be consecrated in Australia, in the Diocese of Perth. However, in the Diocese of Sydney, the Bishop, Dr Peter Jensen, has said that if she were to visit he would not let her function as a priest or bishop.

Elsewhere, the picture is also one of division. While most of Africa remains opposed to gay ordination, women have been priested in Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, Burundi and Sudan.

The most senior women in Darc, tipped as likely bishops, are Canon June Osborne, the Dean of Salisbury, and Canon Vivienne Faull, Dean of Leicester. The group, which started life a few years ago, has another 13 archdeacons and 20 residentiary canons, including Canon Jane Hedges, at Westminster Abbey, and Canon Lucy Winkett, at St Paul's Cathedral.

Canon Celia Thomson, of Gloucester Cathedral, the convenor of Darc, said that they were all concerned to see women become bishops so that the Church can truly reflect the place of both men and women in God's creation. But they were also concerned that a woman bishop should have true authority in her diocese.

She and the other senior women will be scrutinising the new proposals for complementary bishops to ensure that they will not offer traditionalists a model for flouting the authority of future women bishops. Canon Thomson said: "There are so many parishes that would just not have a priest if it was not for the women serving the Church. Those who have experienced the ministry of women priests cannot really understand why it is all taking so long."

Even if the passage of the legislation and its code of practice is smooth, it will be the end of 2011 at the earliest, and more likely the spring of 2012, before a woman can become a bishop, and then there would have to be a suitable vacancy. A woman would also have to be successful in the Church's nominations process.

It is almost nine decades since the subject of women's ordination was first put on the agenda of the Lambeth Conference, the ten-yearly gathering of the worldwide Anglican Communion's bishops and archbishops.

That vote, in 1920, and a subsequent vote in 1930, were both lost. An archbishops' commission in 1935 also found against women's ordination. But with the war, women's emancipation and the heroism of women in promoting the war effort at home and abroad, the tide began to turn.

In 1944 Bishop Ronald Hall, in war-torn Hong Kong, ordained a female Chinese deacon, Florence Li Tim-Oi, as a priest. The Lambeth Conference returned to the subject in 1968. This time it did not reject the idea outright, but found the arguments both for and against "inconclusive". Three years later the Anglican Consultative Council, the most senior advisory body in the Anglican Communion, chaired by Dr Michael Ramsey, then the Archbishop of Canterbury, passed a resolution advising bishops that, with the approval of their province, they could ordain women to the priesthood.

As with the debate on homosexual priests, the United States took the lead. In 1974 there were worldwide protests from Anglo-Catholics when three bishops "irregularly" ordained 11 women. Just a year later the General Synod voted that there would be "no fundamental objection to the ordination of women to the priesthood". There were still many pews to jump over.

The first women were ordained deacon in 1987. Five years later the General Synod in London voted to admit women to the priesthood in a passionate and lengthy debate, where women in turn wept and sang hymns outside the synod. The necessary two-thirds majority was achieved by one vote when one woman, a former opponent, switched sides at the last minute.

Traditionalists were pacified by the creation of "flying bishops", correctly known as provincial episcopal visitors. Parishes were given the option to become women-leader-free zones under the care not of their diocesan bishop, but of one of the flying bishops.

The women waited a few years, gathered their resources once more, and then, in 2000, Archdeacon Judith Rose put down a motion in the General Synod asking for a bishops' working party to look at issues of women in the episcopate. In 2005 the synod voted to remove the legal obstacles to women bishops. It then became a question of how to appease the Catholic wing without rejecting it, or legislating more discrimination against women into the Church.The new report, with a draft of the legislation and a draft code of practice, will be much debated but the women have got what they wanted, which is true authority in their dioceses and "flying" bishops who cannot overarch them to a higher authority. The Church has dreamt up one of the most complex recipes for an Anglican fudge that has ever been created. It is a magnificent confection, one that will fuel many more decades of debate in the Synod and beyond.

Women reach for bishops' chairs in Church of England as last ...
Times Online

Pope puts stress on 'gay threat'

Pope Benedict XVI has said that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour is just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.

He explained that defending God's creation is not limited to saving the environment, but also protecting man from self-destruction.

The pope was delivering his end-of-year address to senior Vatican staff.

His words, later released to the media, emphasised his total rejection of gender theory.

Pope Benedict XVI warned that gender theory blurs the distinction between male and female and could thus lead to the "self-destruction" of the human race.

Gender theory

Gender theory explores sexual orientation, the roles assigned by society to individuals according to their gender, and how people perceive their biological identity.

 See Pope puts stress on 'gay threat'
BBC News, UK 

An Open Letter to Pastor Rick Warren

Dear Pastor Warren,

Congratulation, I suppose, are in order on the occasion of your having been invited to deliver the invocation at the historic inauguration of President Elect Obama. 

You will excuse me if I don’t stand and cheer.

Like you, I share the privilege of being a pastor. I know that, as pastors, we cannot be ‘all things to all people’. Many people have expectations for us that even Jesus himself couldn’t meet. We are God-representatives. We are not God. Alas, we are very, very human. And, therein lies the rub.

So, let me begin with the first sentence in your book, “A Purpose Driven Life.” 

“It’s not about you.”

I take comfort in that sentence whenever I think about your invocation at that historic inauguration. You are the representative of one of the largest religious groups in America. I suppose, then, it is fitting that you should lead us in prayer on what e e cummings must have had in mind when he wrote the words ‘most this amazing day’.

I thank God, however, that it’s not about you. 

I heard you laugh when Ann Curry asked if you were ‘homophobic’. And, you were right to do so. Being opposed to marriage for LGBT people does not necessarily make you homophobic. 

It does, however, make you heterosexist. 

Heterosexism is a social disease, the root cause of which is straight, white male privilege. It is the assumption that the ‘normal’ societal paradigm for marriage and family is male-female which has its basis in the ‘family values’ of scripture. 

That is a decidedly false assumption. The biblical family was hardly male and female with 2.5 children. Polygamy was the norm, and the ‘family’ included slaves, male and female, adult and child. Furthermore, miracles aside, by ancient and modern cultural standards Mary was an unwed teen and Jesus was an illegitimate child.

But we know that scripture doesn’t tell the full story. John’s Gospel ends with these words, “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” (John 21:25). 

Jesus himself said, “I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.” (John 16:12)

Gracie Allen, one of my favorite saints, is reported to have said, “Never put a period where God has placed a comma.” 

Or, to quote the opening sentence of your book, “It’s not about you.”

You would be wrong, however, to think that you are not homophobic. Your ministry with people with AIDS is deeply commendable. Admirable, in fact. But to respond to the accusation of homophobia with the defense of your AIDS ministry is to find you guilty as charged, even though you probably would not be convicted by a jury of your Saddleback peers. 

AIDS does not equal Gay. Hasn’t for a very long time, if it ever did. AIDS is now a pandemic, thanks, in part, to the homophobia fueled by the Religious Right which prevented earlier, more aggressive research and inhibited intervention.  MORE of this post @ Telling Secrets

Are gay-marriage backers making a mistake worrying about Rick Warren?

Are California gay-rights activists making a mistake by protesting Rick Warren's role in the Obama inauguration? Bob Ostertag at Huffington Post wonders why activists want to be the odd men out at the gala event -- and whether the obsessive focus on Proposition 8 makes sense:

How is it that queers became the odd ones out at such a momentous turning point in history? By pushing an agenda of stupid issues like gay marriage. "Gay marriage" turns the real issues of equal rights for sexual minorities upside down and paints us into a reactionary little corner of our own making. Yes, married people get special privileges denied to others. Denied not to just gays and lesbians, but to all others. Millions of straight people remain unmarried, and for a huge variety of reasons, from mothers whose support networks do not include their children's fathers, to hipsters who can't relate to religious institutions. We could be making common cause with them. We could be fighting for equal rights for everyone, not just gays and lesbians, but for all unmarried people. In the process we would leave religious institutions to define marriage however their members see fit. That's how you win at politics, isn't it? You build principled coalitions that add up to a majority, and try not to hand potent mobilizing issues to your opposition in the process. We have done the opposite. Instead of tearing down the walls of privilege enjoyed by the nuclear family, we are demanding our own place at the married couples' table (leaving all those other unmarried people out in the cold).

Warren spoke on the issue in a talk this weekend in Long Beach. The Times' Tina Daunt has Hollywood's take.

--Shelby Grad

 See Are gay-marriage backers making a mistake worrying about Rick Warren?
Los Angeles Times, CA 

Anglicans versus Episcopalians in America

Damian Thompson Writes:

Anglicans versus Episcopalians in America

Anglicans versus Episcopalians in America

Posted By: Damian Thompson at Dec 21, 2008 at 01:15:00 [General]

Posted in: Religion

Tags:

View More

(Arch)bishop Robert Duncan, Anglican Church in North America, anglicans, Archbishop Rowan Williams, Bishop Gene Robinson, Lambeth conference , The Episcopal Church

 

You may think that, in the United States, Episcopalians are Anglicans and vice versa. Think again, says Jordan Hylden in this eye-opening article in First Things.

In America, "Episcopalian" is coming to mean the official, gay-friendly Church that not only ordained Gene Robinson as bishop but - increasingly - thinks he is a very good thing. Its liturgy is mostly groovy Catholic-lite, its theology achingly liberal, and if Rowan Williams hadn't ended up as Archbishop of Canterbury (a job he badly wanted) then I suspect he'd feel pretty much at home there. He is, after all, essentially a supporter of a form of gay marriage, though only when the microphones are turned off.

"Anglican", on the other hand, is coming to mean conservative evangelical or traditionalist High Church, sympathetic to GAFCON but not to homosexuals. As Hylden, an Anglican in a Methodist seminary, puts it:

Some Episcopalians and Anglicans (myself included) strongly dislike these characterizations—to be genuinely Episcopalian, they believe, means to be in fellowship with the Anglican communion, and to be authentically Anglican is to be part of a global communion of catholic Christians united by creedal orthodoxy and a commitment to read Scripture, pray, and worship together in the historic Anglican tradition. But although this sounds wonderful in theory, it is simply not what has happened, by and large, in the American context. Because of what’s taken place over the past five years, Episcopalian is now understood to be a term set in opposition to Anglican, and Anglican refers not to a global catholic communion but rather to an American-African evangelical phenomenon. Whether we think the words ought to bear these meanings is not the point—my point is that this is what the words actually do mean, in newspapers and conversations and pulpits across the country.

And soon, that is what they could mean in theory as well as practice. Conservative Anglicans in America are busy building an autonomous province, the Anglican Church in North America, headed by the Most Rev Robert Duncan, who was until recently Bishop of Pittsburgh and is a completely kosher (as it were) Anglican bishop within the jurisdiction of the Province of the Southern Cone. Whether he will be an authentic archbishop of a new province is doubtful, shall we say - but, then, whether The Episcopal Church (TEC) can remain part of the Anglican Communion is also doubtful. Don't be fooled by those fancy chasubles: in many respects it's already an independent, DIY denomination whose modus operandi is closer in style to that of Unitarian Universalism than to apostolic Catholic/Orthodox Christianity. 

What we're witnessing, in other words, is a multi-vehicle pile-up on the Anglican freeway. So much for the breathing space that Rowan is supposed to have created at his triumphant Lambeth Conference.

 

 See Anglicans versus Episcopalians in America
Telegraph.co.uk

Culture War's New Bomb: The Doughnut

Parts of the left continue to give President-elect Barack Obama flack for inviting the Rev. Rick Warren, head of the evangelical Saddleback Church in Southern California, to deliver the invocation at the inauguration ceremony. But some supporters of gay marriage are giving something else to Mr. Warren: doughnuts.

The campaign stems from comments made by Mr. Warren, who opposes gay marriage, on NBC’s “Dateline” on Thursday. Asked if he is homophobic, the pastor replied: “Of course not. I’ve always treated them with respect when they come and want to talk to me. I talk to them. When the protesters came, we served them water and doughnuts.”

So one gay rights advocate is encouraging supporters of gay marriage to “return the favor” by sending Mr. Warren gift cards to Dunkin’ Donuts. The gift cards, which cost a minimum of $10, can be personalized with pictures of gay couples and supporters.

The effort was conceived by Tom Leonard, an Internet marketing consultant in Burbank, Calif., who also created ZeroH8.tv, which is working to place ads in support of gay marriage on cable networks in the wake of a new gay marriage ban in the state.

“It sends a good message to him in a nonthreatening way,” Mr. Leonard said. (In any case, the cards are probably preferable to the prediction by Huffington Post’s Jason Linkins that doughnuts will be pelted at the pastor during the ceremony.)

Mr. Leonard said he wasn’t exactly offended by Mr. Warren’s doughnut remarks, but “it’s kind of missing the point.”

“There’s more to it than just coming out and giving doughnuts,” he said. “That’s not really establishing a good dialog. He has not made any changes in his attitude toward things.”

 See  Culture War’s New Bomb: The Doughnut
New York Times, United States 

The sad, instructive story of Ted Haggard

By Jay Bookman

It was major national news when evangelical leader Ted Haggard was outed as gay by a prostitute he had hired. It cost Haggard his job as leader of New Life Church in Colorado Springs; it cost him his friends; it cost him his reputation. He became a subject of national mockery.

The good news is that it didn’t cost him his family.

These days, Haggard and wife and children are living in Arizona, trying to make a go of it. His post-outing life is chronicled in a documentary due to air in January on HBO, and according to stories in the Colorado Springs Gazette (here and here), the film depicts Haggard as still struggling, still troubled.

“As cameras follow him on a job interview, golfing, doing his laundry, moving into a house, selling insurance and dining in a restaurant, Haggard is extremely forthcoming.

He rattles on about his same-sex attraction, bitterness toward New Life, revised view of the Bible (he relates more to the stories of strife and sorrow) and difficulty in his new career as an insurance salesman.

Throughout the film, he swings from self-loathing to self-aggrandizement to self-pity, yet only once does he seem to express real emotion. That occurs as he drives down a lonely highway to make stops to sell insurance. Close to tearing up, the 52-year-old former pastor says, ”At this stage of my life, I am a loser.””

The portrait painted of Haggard is not of a man who has “chosen” to be gay, as some still like to describe it. It is not a “lifestyle” for Haggard; it is part of who he is. As a consequence, he has been cast out into the wilderness by those who profess love and community, and he is bitter about it. (It is important to note that in his earlier life, Haggard himself had participated in spreading the homophobia he now finds aimed in his direction.)

“The church has said go to hell,” Haggard says in the documentary. “The church chose not to forgive me.”

 See The sad, instructive story of Ted Haggard
Atlanta Journal Constitution,  USA - 3 hours ago
By Jay Bookman | Saturday, December 20, 2008, 09:52 AM It was major national news when evangelical leader Ted Haggard was outed as gay by a prostitute he ...
Video: Disgraced Evangelical "struggles" With SexualityVideo: Disgraced Evangelical "struggles" With Sexuality AssociatedPress

Ted Haggard could be proof that you can't 'cure' being gay [video] Gay Socialites
The ‘Trials of Ted Haggard’ coming soon to a TV near you The Colorado Independent

Vatican backs gay decriminalization - just NOT UN measure, does not propose an alterntive, just says NOOOOO!

The Vatican Friday urged governments around the world to decriminalize homosexuality but said a proposed U.N. resolution on the issue went too far. The self-proclaimed “Holy See” failed to suggest an alternative resolution to the UN that would “decriminalize” without going “too far,” prompting some to wonder if the latest claim was simply an effort to spin the pope’s increasingly unpopular opposition to homophobia.

 

Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi said the Holy See criticizing the wordi