Category: General

On The Communion Partners Bishops Statement

On the Communion Partners Bishops Statement on the Polity of the Episcopal Church
By The Rev. Dr. Leander S. Harding

With the help of the Anglican Communion Institute the Communion Partners Bishops have produced an extremely important document. It is the most lucid and succinct account yet given of how the polity of the Episcopal Church applies to the current debates about the relationship of the Episcopal Church to the Anglican Communion. I heartily recommend a detailed reading of this important document. The text may be found here http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/?p=391.

The publication of the document was preceded by the release of a series of confidential emails between Dr. Christopher Seitz and other correspondents from among the Communion Partners. The flap about these unguarded communications is an unfortunate diversion and in my view does not detract in any way from the serious and well prepared statement the Communion Partner Bishops have produced. The theme that ties all the emails together is that of a group working hard to show Episcopal Church parishes an option other than knuckling under to non-canonical authority or leaving the Episcopal Church. It is certainly no secret that this is the longstanding public policy of the Anglican Communion Institute.

The document itself is a closely reasoned and fully documented précis of the historical development of the polity of the Episcopal Church. In a painstaking way the statement shows that the General Convention of the Episcopal Church is a creation of the dioceses and that “ordinary” power resides in the dioceses. The office of Presiding Bishop is not that of a metropolitan but of a presiding officer with roles delegated by the constituting dioceses gathered in convention. Neither the General Convention nor the Presiding Bishop has by canon or by custom any governing role within the life of a diocese. The claim that the Episcopal Church is hierarchical in the sense in which this term is normally understood in legal documents is shown to be without foundation in the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church. The careful historical and theological commentary given in the Bishops Statement shows beyond any reasonable doubt that the lack of hierarchical language in our church’s founding documents is not by oversight or ignorance but is deliberate and intentional and in the face of counter-examples in the contemporary founding documents of other churches in the United States. It is important to note that there is nothing new here. The history and polity described in Bishops Statement is the traditional and standard account in the major histories of the Episcopal Church but it is put forth here in very lucid and comprehensive form. (The Statement quotes Canon Dawley’s work. See also Robert Prichard, A History of The Episcopal Church)

A particular point of interest is the discussion of the vows which Bishops make in their ordination service to “conform to the doctrine, discipline and worship” of the Episcopal Church. The Statement notes that this oath appears in the founding documents of the Episcopal Church as a substitute for the oath of submission to the Monarch and the authority of an archbishop. The Communion Partner Bishops affirm that, “our episcopal vows contain no pledge of obedience to a higher office or body, as do churches with metropolitan hierarchies, but we do hold our apostolic office in trust. We understand our vow to require conformity to the doctrine and worship we hold in trust and to the discipline of The Episcopal Church as set forth in this (Communion Partners) statement.” It is very important and a major contribution that it be remembered that the context of the ordination vows is doctrinal and that the doctrine referred to is the doctrine of the catholic church as received from the Church of England and sustained by communion with the See of Canterbury. The Communion Partners are right to stress that the oath is not an oath of personal loyalty such as a feudal prince might extract but an oath of loyalty to a body of doctrine which is expressed both liturgically and canonically. To conscientiously object to actions by either the Presiding Bishop or the General Convention that subvert this tradition of doctrine, liturgy and canon law could in certain circumstances be exactly what is required by such an oath and this seems to be the position of the Communion Partner Bishops.

The Bishops assert that they are “committed to remaining faithful members of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.” But they reserve their right the right of their dioceses to participate in and eventually sign the Anglican Covenant. The Statement notes that the constitution of The Episcopal Church “identifies constituent membership in the Anglican Communion as one of the fundamental conditions on which our governing agreement is based.” In other words the General Convention of The Episcopal Church was created and is sustained by the dioceses on the basis of a common commitment to continue as constituent members of the Anglican Communion. Actions which bring into jeopardy the continuing membership of The Episcopal Church in the Anglican Communion create a constitutional crisis for The Episcopal Church. As the statement forthrightly puts it, “It is an elementary principle of law that agreements can be terminated in the event of material breach or repudiation by another party or by fundamental changes of circumstances.” The Statement continues, “Failure to sign the proposed covenant would be decisive in this respect. And were The Episcopal Church to attempt to change its constitutional governance to restrict diocesan autonomy, particularly in the case of an Anglican covenant, it would constitute a material breach or repudiation of its “basic” governing agreement.” Finally, “We must speak plainly here. Any attempt to prevent willing dioceses from signing the covenant would be unconstitutional and thereby void.”

This is a very forthright document by  Bishops who are trying to keep The Episcopal Church together but are not willing to do so at the price of cutting themselves off from the Anglican Communion or acquiescing to novel interpretations of the constitution and canons of The Episcopal Church. They are in effect insisting that The Episcopal Church be The Episcopal Church and act in accord with its own law and traditions. This is precisely what Bishops ought to do when they intend to be faithful to their vows.

There are a lot of questions raised here for future discussion. I am completely convinced that the Statement is an accurate description of the polity of The Episcopal Church as it has ever been and as it now stands. Our polity is indeed unique but not for the reasons usually put forward about the participation of the different orders in decision making but rather because it envisions a provincial structure with a level of diocesan autonomy unparalleled in most other Anglican jurisdictions. Unlike most provinces we have no archiepiscopal order. It remains to be seen how this order can be integrated into a true communion of churches. The proposed Anglican Covenant is a step in that direction and would represent for Communion Partner Bishops and their dioceses a willing surrender of some aspects of their present autonomy for the sake of the ongoing unity and communion of the church.

There is also the very pertinent question of how the instruments of unity in a church whether they be the instruments of unity of the Anglican Communion or of a local diocesan synod or convention are actually and practically in the service of unity in faith, witness and mission. In the American scene there have been countless actions including the election of Gene Robinson which have been arguably legal and canonical but which have undermined unity and have not been the result of patiently building up the mind of the church over time at all levels including at the congregational level. There has grown up in the American church a penchant for extra-canonical legislation in the form of policies for ordination and the clergy calling process among other things which are simply promulgated by Bishops and various committees and commissions without any sort of canonical process and which ride roughshod over the prerogatives of local congregations. There has grown up a style across the theological spectrum of outfoxing the folks and slipping things through the convention when no one is looking. As we work our way out of this particular crisis of authority in the church it will be important that we abide by the full measure of our constitution and canons and that we do so with a genuinely Christian spirit of charity and mutual submission truly seeking the mind of Christ in His church and not narrow political victories. Polities can be more or less susceptible to subversion by the unscrupulous but there is no Christian polity which can succeed in its purposes without the ongoing conversion of its constituents.

George Carey at the ACI/Communion Partners Conference

George Carey At The Communion Partners Conference In Houston, April 16, 2009

 

The retired Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. George Carey was the after dinner speaker tonight at the ACI/Communion Partners Conference at St. Martin’s in Houston. His topic was “Holding Fast and Holding On, The Instruments of Communion.” Below is a reconstruction of the speech from my notes and according to my best recollection.

Lord Carey traced out the historical development of the instruments of communion, The Archbishop of Canterbury, The Lambeth Conference, The Anglican Consultative Conference and The Primates Meeting. Each of these he explained was developed in response to developing crises in the church and out of the desire for a more interdependent communion life. The trajectory of the development of the instruments of communion over the last forty years has been toward interdependence. In his speech Dr. Carey quoted his predecessor, Archbishop Runcie, to the effect that the communion will either develop along the path of interdependence or fall into dissolution. Only since 2003, Dr. Carey said, has the trajectory toward interdependence been questioned. He asserted with vigor that, “provincial autonomy is not a goal of the church, unity and mission are.”

Lord Carey thought that the authority of all the instruments of communion had been harmed by the current crisis. He noted that power of the Archbishop of Canterbury is that he invites, he presides and he recognizes. The fact that over 300 bishops declined the Dr. Williams invitation to the last Lambeth Conference was a serious blow the office of Archbishop.

Quoting his own son, the journalist Andrew Carey, Lord Carey identified the problem in the Anglican Communion as a “deficit of authority.” He thought the objections to an increased role for the Primates and the Lambeth Conference based on the lack of representation of clergy and laity in those councils an expression of a desire for a kind of church order other than that which Anglicans have received. Lord Carey said that he had no hesitation about empowering the Primates to have an increased role.

In closing he urged holding fast and holding on and commended the work of groups such as the Communion Partners. Lord Carey had two questions to leave with the audience. To the Instruments of Communion he posed the question of discipline. Can there really be no consequences other than of the mildest sort for those churches which act unilaterally as The Episcopal Church did in 2003 against the advice of all the Instruments of Communion? To the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church Lord Carey posed the question, Can the orthodox have a future? Citing the example of Mark Lawrence’s consents the former Archbishop wondered aloud if it would not become impossible to elect conservatives to the episcopacy. Finally George Carey urged those in the audience not to give up hope but to work diligently for the raising up of a new generation of leadership.

Noah and Christ

Noah and Christ

During the Easter Vigil we hear the story of Noah and the Flood.

The world had become wicked and God determined to begin again

and wipe it clean. He bade Noah take with him into the ark

the only life that would survive. And Noah took all the green things

and the animals both clean and unclean and his wife and children.

The rain came and the Flood rose

obliterating everyone and everything.

Only what was in the ark would come forth

and live. The rain has come again,

bloody rain from the cross of Christ, washing everything.

There is nothing that can survive that deluge

and live again, save only

what this new Noah takes with him into the ark of his tomb.

Oh Lord, gather us, your spouse, your children,

your most unclean animals, into the ark of your death

that we may be saved from the Flood and come forth with you

into the new world of your resurrection.

Only thus shall we live.

A Remarkable Italian Story About Same-Sex Attraction

Over the years I have found the psychologists at NARTH the most dependable and compassionate source of information from the social sciences on same-sex attraction. From Italy comes this really remarkable story of an Italian pop singer and the song he wrote for a music festival about his struggle with same-sex attraction. Read the story and be sure to watch the video which comes with subtitles. I couldn’t imagine how a song like this could work as art but it is I think quite a brillant performance. The story is here.

Thoughts on Ash Wednesday

I was one of the priests administering ashes today in chapel at the school. I also gave out the bread at communion. I will be doing the same in a local parish tonight. There are things that I do in the priesthood that routinely break my heart. Person after person comes and quietly submits to having ashes imposed on their forehead and takes away with them these words, “Remember you are dust and to dust you shall return.” It seems to me that each person comes wrapped in their own death, in the mortality we all bear and we choose at least in this moment not to flee and wrapped also in the dying that is unique to their particular life. It is part of pastoral ministry even in a school that you inevitably know something of the particular dying each person brings. Each one brings perhaps a long struggle with a chronic illness, a losing battle with persistent depression, a sick child, the recent loss of a parent, the shame of constant defeat in the battle with a besetting sin. I don’t know the whole story but enough of each one that my heart is pierced through with the beauty of their faithful burden-bearing and their hope that Christ will touch, forgive and heal. I have much the same perception and the same feeling each time I administer the bread and wine at Holy Communion.

I have become more and more suspicious of the concept of the nominal Christian. Our parish churches are supposed to be full of nominal Christians who are just going through the motions, of half-believers who are relying on their good works and who have not really surrendered to Christ and accepted the Gospel. In any parish church there are a few real apostates, and a few real scoffers and perhaps a few who genuinely hate God. Their numbers are routinely exaggerated. Most of the people who come to the church Sunday by Sunday know they are dying and are placing their hope in Christ. It may be an inarticulate hope, it may be a confused hope. Often there are huge brambles of misunderstanding that must be cleared away before the whole power of the good news can come in upon them. Often there is real darkness into which the light of Christ has not yet come and which cries out for a light-bearer. Yet, they come. When Jesus saw such as these gathered in their multitudes on the hill side, the sight provoked in him not contempt for the nominal but compassion, “for they were like sheep without a shepherd.”

I give thanks to God for those who come to have ashes put on their foreheads today even if they don’t really know why they come, even if they cannot give an account of the hope that is in them. I give thanks to God who in Christ draws all people to himself and for his drawing power in the liturgy of the church and I pray for the grace to communicate the living Christ to hearts and minds as I put the living bread in outstretched hands.

Thoughts on Alexandria

Thoughts on the Primates Statement from Alexandria and The Archbishop of Canterbury’s Address to Synod

By The Rev. Dr. Leander S. Harding

 

I have been reading the communiqué of the Primates from their meeting in Alexandria and other documents that relate to this meeting including the Windsor Continuation Group and the documents published by Archbishop Akinola. Below are some reactions in no particular order.

 

  1. The Anglican Communion is in a state of grave crisis and is broken in a way that is very resistant to reconciliation. The church is broken de facto both within provinces and between provinces. There is a sense of the bizarre and of unreality about discussions that view schism as something that approaches but has not yet come. (The next General Convention of The Episcopal Church may clarify this reality in a stunning way.) The church at all levels is torn and the question now is what degree of reconciliation is possible and what will the de jure structures of a reconciled communion look like. It is a positive development that there is a growing recognition that the current instruments of communion are not adequate to maintain the faith, order and unity of a world-wide church. The emphasis on autonomy by the local provinces across the theological spectrum is hard to square with mutual submission in the Body of Christ especially when issues arise that scandalize large portions of the faithful.

     

  2. The Anglican Covenant process is still a key ingredient in the rebuilding and renewal of a world-wide Anglican Communion. It is by its nature and ought to be a slow, methodical process that is as Bishop Wright has suggested more like fireproofing a building than fighting the fire. The Covenant will take some years to come to a final form and be widely accepted. Along with this work is the necessary work of strengthening the instruments of communion. All this begs the question of what shall be done in the meantime to fight the fire and limit the damage so that there may be something upon which to rebuild.

     

  3. All of the suggestions for pastoral care of the alienated orthodox in North America have been too little and too late. The main defect of these proposals is that they are developed without consulting the very people they are supposed to help and are promulgated without a clear signal that those to whom they are supposed to offer relief, see their needs adequately met.

     

  4. There is something like an allergy in many places in the Anglican Communion to the function of adjudication. I like very much the way in which the Covenant is designed to give member churches a chance to define themselves in or out but surely something is being adjudicated by that process. The Windsor Continuation Group engages in tortuous language to avoid any hint of judicial action and speaks instead of “consequences” and “thinning of communion.” Adjudication and mediation are often seen as stark alternatives with mediation being the Christian approach and adjudication being somehow a failure. It is not sufficiently appreciated that often mediation can only proceed within the context of an adjudication. It is often when disputants realize that a definitive judgment is about to be given that they mediate their dispute on the court house steps. No less an irenic figure than the great ecumenist and missionary theologian Lesslie Newbigin said that the church must have the ability to identify and expel false teachers or else it is no church. I do not see how unity can be maintained at any level of the church without an appreciation of the necessity of adjudication and the willingness to enforce the stated discipline of the church. The enforcing of such broad boundaries creates the crucible in which meaningful mediation can take place. The allergy to adjudication particulary to the adjudication of doctrine is one of the things which is making the dispute more hostile and intense and driving people to seek relief in the courts because there is no will to give a godly judgment in the church.

     

  5. The Archbishop of Canterbury’s address to General Synod describes the experience of the Bible Study at the Primates meeting in exactly opposite terms of those used by Archbishops Venables and Orombi. Rowan Williams says that there was a common experience that the other side is still recognizable as Christians attempting to listen to the Lord. Venables and Orombi in their interview on Anglican TV were encouraged that the real differences between Christianity and that “which is not Christianity,” were being brought out into the open so that it could be recognized by all that the Gospel itself was in dispute and so the dispute could move to that level.

     

  6. There is a calmer atmosphere that has settled on the disputes as both sides recognize that essentially irreversible actions have been taken with the embrace of the new teaching on sexuality on one side and the creation of new ecclesial realities on the other. It is significant that both Windsor Continuation and the Primates and the ABC in his address to synod speak of realities which “will not go away.” Both the Primates and WCG cautiously leave the door open for future endorsement of a new province in North America. I think it is right that the ACNA should work through the existing process for the admission of a new province.

     

  7. The suggestion for professionally assisted mediation between the ACNA and other orthodox entities such as The Communion Partners churches and dioceses is poignant but necessary. The ministry of reconciliation is the church’s ministry and especially the ministry of its bishops. There is a failure to be grieved here. By all means bring in experts. One hopes they will be recognizably Christian in their approach. That said it is important that those who stand for orthodoxy Anglicanism in North America find a way toward as much solidarity as possible and I think all parties should enter into these negotiations in good faith. I do believe that missionary movements should exercise restraint in the planting of new congregations in orthodox dioceses still in communion with TEC. There needs to be a greater effort to avoid destructive competition in the missionary endeavors of orthodox North American Anglicans. It is however not proselytizing when a group of people in disgust and revulsion at what they regard as the betrayal of the faith by their leaders rise up and leave their parish or diocese and petition an orthodox body for pastoral care and episcope. There is an irony here when much is made of the role of the laity in Anglican polity and the reality of the laity voting with their feet is dismissed and marginalized. There continues to appear to be a lack of understanding of the grass roots nature of what is happening in North America among many of the leaders of the communion.

     

  8. The WCG resurfaces the idea of a kind of ecclesiological escrow where dissident orthodox groups could find pastoral care and oversight and a measure of recognition in the communion while the covenant process is working itself out. This was rejected by many orthodox when it was initially proposed because it seemed to assume that dioceses such as Fort Worth and Pittsburgh would ultimately be returned to the provinces from which they came and this scheme was seen by the orthodox as patronizing and demeaning. The proposal deserves another look. A provisional structure with the ultimate aim of reconciliation and reintegration is a good idea and could be made credible if the future toward which it looked was not a return to the status quo but the future of a renewed world-wide communion organized around a biblical and apostolic covenant which sets clear boundaries for member churches. Clearly there are some dioceses in TEC as it stands that will not want to belong to such a communion and others that will, and some provisional structure which helps keep as much of the church together as possible until that day should be given a serious hearing. I nominate George Carey or Michael Nazir Ali to administer such an interim judicatory.

     

  9. There is insufficient face to face, one to one, ministry taking place in the midst of this crisis and a corresponding over-reliance on committees and meetings. Policy statements are important, the creating of workable structures is important but there needs to be more personal ministry by Archbishop of Canterbury and members of his team that takes place alongside these efforts. I am sure there is some going on behind the scenes but not in my view enough.

     

  10. Ecumenical observers and consultants should be routinely invited to participate in the councils of Anglicans as they attempt to work through this crisis. Part of fireproofing the house for the future will be more robust ecumenical relationships.

Homily for Morning Prayer, Jan 17, Mere Anglicanism

Homily for the Morning Office, January 17, 2009

Mere Anglicanism, Charleston SC

By the Chaplain, The Rev. Dr. Leander S. Harding

 

The Old Testament lesson this morning is from the beginning of Chapter 43 of Isaiah. Chapter 42 has been a chapter of God’s judgment upon the idols and upon Israel for following the idols. The purpose of judgment in the Bible is never simply condemnation. The purpose of judgment is that the people might turn and be saved. Eugene Peterson, the great spiritual writer and interpreter of the Bible, paraphrases the end of Chapter 42 thus; “Their whole world collapsed but they still did not get it, their life is in ruins but they didn’t take it to heart.”

 

So we come to the reading this morning, “But now thus says the Lord. . .Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name and you are mine.” There then comes a description of how God is gathering His people who have been divided and scattered. Peterson puts it, “Don’t be afraid. I will round up all your scattered children.”

 

God then sets up a tribunal. This is my paraphrase, “Bring the doubters and idolaters, the people who doubt that God lives and that He intervenes in the lives of His people. Let them assemble and let them explain both the judgment and the redemption, both the exile and the return. Let them give their witness. But you Israel whose world has collapsed because you have abandoned me and yet whom I have not abandoned, whom I rescue and whom I redeem, you are my witnesses. I am the Lord and beside me is no savior.”

 

The church is always in the process of retracing the history and experience of Israel. Certainly Peterson’s paraphrase of Isaiah seems an apt description of much of the church life in the old Christendom and apt to our corner of the Anglican world. “Their whole world collapsed and they didn’t take it to heart.” The story of a great deal of the church is the story of fracturing, division and scattering. Taken case by case, congregation by congregation, diocese by diocese, these divisions involve difficult and even agonizing decisions of witness and conscience. But from another perspective it is Israel divided and persecuted and exiled on account of her faithlessness. What is this except God’s doing? What is this except the hand of His judgment upon us?

 

What I said yesterday, I repeat again this morning. Hidden within the word of God’s judgment is a word of grace, mercy and salvation. The Lord casts down and He raises up that we might know and trust Him and witness that He alone saves.

 

The Church is broken and scattered. Even where there is unity in a congregation or a diocese it is a unity that is poignantly in the face of great loss. Yet we hear this morning that God gathers again those who have been scattered. He counts them as of great price and He seeks them out to bring them home. As we are knowing the breakup of the church, we are also seeing a new gathering of the church appear. God is bringing together His people in new ways. Something is happening of which this conference with its representation from all the pieces of divided Anglicanism in North America is perhaps a witness. Something is happening which moves in advance of institutional structures of the church and in advance of denominational frontiers, something fueled by the longing of a chastened people to turn back and to turn home.

 

God chastens His church and He restores it and the chastening no less than the restoration is the work of His love and part of the process whereby He makes us His witnesses and brings us to the point where we can confess that He alone is Holy, He alone is the Lord and that there is salvation in no other. So let this be. Amen.

Mere Anglicanism Homily for Friday, Jan 16, 2009

Homily for the Morning Office at Mere Anglicanism

Charleston, South Carolina, January 16, 2009

By the Chaplain, The Rev. Dr. Leander S. Harding

 

Text: Isaiah 42: 10-17. “They shall be turned back, they shall be greatly ashamed, that trust in graven images, that say to the molten images, Ye are our gods.”

 

    The Bible records the history of the people of Israel as a contest between the one true and living God and the idols, the false gods, for the love and worship of God’s people. Will they remember Him who is the God their fathers, of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who delivered them with a mighty and outstretched hand and who is long-suffering and abounding in love, steadfast in mercy? Will they render him worship and obedience? Or will they be unfaithful to God and go whoring after the idols, in particular the fertility gods of the land? Inevitably they do forget the Lord their God and go after the idols. Then the drama is will they return or will they be destroyed.

 

    Their drama is our drama. The drama of the Old Israel is the drama of the new Israel as well. God is ever calling His people away from their idols and calling them home. If for no other reason than this the church must be simper reformandi, always reforming.

 

    In the light of the teaching of the Bible I define the idols in this way; the idols are gods we make with our own hands to serve our own purposes. It is characteristic of idols that they promise much and deliver little, that they require more and more and return less and less, that they always in the end demand human blood and starting with the blood of children.

 

    We must as faithful witnesses of Jesus Christ seek ways to communicate the good news of the Gospel in a language understood of the people. We must seek to connect in a winsome way with our times and our culture. It is always tempting therefore to succumb to the sin of Aaron and give the people the god they crave, the particular form of the golden calf demanded at the moment, a god who approves what they approve and cherishes what they cherish. Thereby we collude with them in their self-destruction and are at the front of the lemming like line marching to oblivion.

 

    Theology which makes as an explicit principle that god must be re-imagined for each new generation makes of idolatry a positive principle. But having orthodoxy as a theological principle is only protection against the crudest forms of the temptation to idolatry. There are idolatries enough to go around.

 

    Here this morning the prophet speaks God judgment on His people in their idol worship. “They shall be greatly ashamed.” Our idols will be shown to be the vain work of our own hands that lead us and our children to ruin and as always in the Bible because it is the Word of God and thus always a Word of love there is hidden in this word of judgment a word of grace, hope and salvation. “They shall be turned back.”

 

    Let us pray. Lord give us the grace to see how and where we are trading your revelation for an idol of our own making. Lift the scales from our eyes that we might see clearly the destruction of self and the corruption of others that idol making entails. Let us be ashamed. Turn us back that we might be saved. Bring us home at last. Amen.

See Ben Stein’s Expelled

See Ben Stein’s Movie Expelled

 

I didn’t see this movie when it was in the theaters but I ordered it from Netflix. I only know Ben Stein as a TV personality. I knew he was witty, thoughtful and funny but I didn’t expect such a powerful and provocative presentation of the debate around Intelligent Design. By all means see this movie if you haven’t seen it. It would make an excellent discussion piece for a youth group or an adult education event in a parish. Stein does a wonderful job of bringing out the prejudice of scientism masquerading as science. The most poignant and disturbing aspect of this brilliantly edited piece is the way in which Stein brings out the subtext of anti-Semitism lurking beneath the surface of the atheism of Richard Dawkins. There is an especially chilling scene in which Richard Dawkins is reading from his book, The God Delusion, and describing his take on the God of the Old Testament. This scene of vitriol, and it is the crudest vitriol, being read out by the urbane but contemptuous Dawkins literally in the face of a Jewish man who just a few moments ago in the film had been exploring with German scholars the connection between social Darwinism and the racial theories of the Nazis provides the most eloquent and damning commentary without a word of protest being said by Stein in the interview. One of the most appealing aspects of this documentary is the way in which it trusts the intelligence of the audience. It is a must see.