Archives

By Kendall Harmon November 7, 2025   To the Standing Committee of the Diocese of South Carolina   With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says: ‘You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive. For this people’s heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing,  and their eyes they have closed, lest they should perceive with their eyes,  and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart,  and turn for me to heal them.’ – Matthew 13:14-15   “Nothing in the world is harder than speaking the truth and nothing easier than flattery.” --- Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment   Dear friends:   Let me begin by saying that I love the Lord and I love his church and I love the Anglican Church in North America and I wish her the best and pray for her and her leaders every day.   But I have to tell you that as someone watching what has been happening over the last week since the story broke about the accusations against the current Archbishop I have been profoundly troubled, deeply upset and incredibly concerned; those feelings have done nothing but get deeper every single day since.   I find myself thinking again and again of Dr James Houston at Regent College and his course on Christian spirituality I took it when I had only been a Christian for about four years. Dr. Houston began the class by saying that if you want to understand what it means to think about growing as a Christian, you have to understand the beatitudes, and you have to understand that the beatitudes are written in order.   What that means is the beginning of any real growth is wrestling with and living into the first beatitude, which is blessed all the poor in spirit which Eugene Peterson wonderfully translates as “You’re blessed when you’re at the end of your rope. With less of you there is more of God and his rule.”   He went on to tell us many memorable things in that class, one of them, which I shall never forget, is what is one of the most important characteristics of the character of a genuine Christian. His answer comes like a little voice, which is in fact a piece of dynamite in our current cultural moment in the church in the west, he said the answer is self-mistrust   If you really understand yourself and the broken nature of the world and the insidious nature of sin, and you need to know that human beings have a stubborn incapacity to handle the truth which manifests itself in ways that the systems which sinful people construct so often miss.   So let me begin in a place where I see almost no ACNA leader beginning and that is I don’t trust myself so maybe what I’m saying is incorrect. That’s for you to decide, but I’ve reached the point where I cannot not say What I feel the Lord is calling me to say.   To state the matter carefully: ACNA is in profound trouble, and I do not think that the people in charge of ACNA see how much trouble we are in.   Ask yourself this question–what would an outside observer who had a healthy sense of self-mistrust and who knew that a healthy institution needs to have a heavy dose of self mistrust—what would he or she say about what is just happened in ACNA over the last few years and especially the last week or so. The first thing such a person might say: the process by which allegations of misbehavior by ACNA leaders are adjudicated is incredibly messed up and needs to be deeply reformed.   How do I know this—well just look at what we know as fact. Bishop Stewart Ruch has had a process going on by which he’s been put in a form of an ecclesiastical trial for alleged misbehavior. The process is taking a long time and the first thing that we know, is that the prosecutor who was asked to participate in the process named Alan Runyan resigned just a few hours before the process was to complete because what happened in the process was so completely out of kilter and deeply disturbing to him that he felt he had no other recourse but to resign.   Now I happen to know Alan Runyan and I’ve worked with him in some very unusual contexts. He’s a greatly capable person and a wonderful Christian; for someone like him to take a step like that is incredibly significant to me.   It speaks to a process in a canonical system that does not work properly by any reasonable standard.   If you read the new, very lengthy Washington Post story about the Bishop Stewart Ruch situation ask yourself a question– if even 1/8 of what’s in the article is true, how in the world has the system reach this point? It is self-evidently not working.   Now consider recent developments with the allegations against the current archbishop of ACNA, Steve Wood.   A presentment has been filed against him, a formal church procedure alleging misbehavior. The people involved in filing this presentment are people who love the Lord and who love his church.   If the people involved love the Lord and love his church then why is no one in ACNA leadership asking about this reality–there is simply no way that anyone who loves ACNA and cares deeply about her and her future whatever not initially try to use the process provided by the church to make these allegations, but have the people done so?   No; no.   Almost everyone that I’ve seen in ACNA who is looking at the situation is looking at it backwards. They are saying things like trust the process, isn’t it terrible that people in the church felt it necessary to go to a secular newspaper like the Washington Post in order to do what they felt had to be done.   To me that entirely upside down, the question everyone in active leadership should be asking themselves is supposing I was part of the group that made these allegations.   It would then necessarily be the case that I would seek to use the processes provided by the church to do so   It is clear that they did not because they felt that they could not.   Think carefully about what that means, it means that a group of people who love ACNA had such a profound mistrust of the existing process that they felt they had a better chance of beginning to get the truth into the light in a secular newspaper as opposed to the process provided by the church   Let’s be clear here–no one saying they are right. We are just asking questions, but let’s make sure to ask the right questions. Do you have any idea how sick the process has to be for people in positions of leadership to feel such an extreme measure was necessary? It speaks to a process which is so deeply wrong that it is nearly or entirely bankrupt.   Now again, let’s look at the response to what occurred so far. We have a number of responses, from bishops especially, most of which can be reduced to trust the process, we have an adequate process, we have a process that will work. Let’s just be patient and pray and let it work itself out, and on and on.   That can’t be true and we know it’s not true because of what’s been happening in the Ruch trial, but we also know it’s not true because of the extreme measures that were deemed necessary by the group that filed these allegations against Archbishop Wood.   Yet there’s more.   Whenever you have a situation like this, where there are allegations, you have alleged victims and alleged perpetrators; we simply don’t know what happened, so we have to keep a healthy dose of skepticism, but what needs to be said very strongly is that neither of the allegations nor the denial can be assumed to be true.   Anyone who reads the initial responses can see that the concern for the victims, and the possibility that the allegations could be true, are given short shrift, but the protection of the leaders and the institution and the process are almost always paramount.   So it’s clear that the process is deeply flawed already and you can see it and what has transpired publicly not only in the Ruch trial, but in the response to the allegations against Archbishop Wood so far.   We are still not done. Let’s look at what else has happened with the allegation so far. It is a matter of public record that there was an objection to the presentment made by the Canon for safeguarding, and the Chancellor. They alleged that a standard wasn’t met, even though it has not been determined now that the presentment can go forward and the objections have been overcome. We need to pause and ask ourselves a question–who made these objections.   They were made by a Canon who works for Steve Wood and a chancellor who works for Steve Wood. But Steve Wood is the accused in this situation, so no one who works for him can and should be involved in the process at all.   However, they were involved in the process. They should never have been; they should have recused themselves immediately.   Not only has that occurred, but Bishop Ray Sutton, who is now the bishop in charge of this process, has written a letter to the ACNA House of bishops in which he discussed the overcoming of these objections by suggesting that the process by which the objections were made was legitimate. It was anything but. Other people could have been appointed to make objections, but not people who work for or were appointed by the current person accused.   This is just a matter of basic justice and due process. It may seem like a simple thing, but it’s not a simple thing because not only has it occurred, but it has implicitly been sanctioned by the current person in charge of the process.   Notice also that none of the other leaders have made an objection to this.   What we are looking at here, brother and sisters, is a colossal mess which has so many things out of kilter one hardly knows where to start.   We have to question the process, not trust the process, but more than that we have to question the people who are in charge of ACNA, what they are doing, how they are doing it, why they are so defensive and why they are missing so many basic points and not asking the right questions.   And all this is the case at this very early stage….   Kendall S. Harmon is a priest of the Anglican Church in North America. He has served as canon theologian of the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina.

By Rabbi Daniel Lapin Feb 17, 2004 SEATTLE (BP)--As Mel Gibson's "The Passion of The Christ" heads toward screens nationwide Feb. 25, online ticket merchants are reporting that up to half their total sales are for advance purchases for The Passion. One Dallas multiplex has reserved all 20 of its screens for The Passion. I am neither a prophet nor a movie critic. I am merely an Orthodox rabbi using ancient Jewish wisdom to make three predictions about The Passion. One, Mel Gibson and Icon Productions will make a great deal of money. Those distributors who surrendered to pressure from Jewish organizations and passed on The Passion will be kicking themselves, while Newmarket Films will laugh all the way to the bank. Theater owners are going to love this film. Two, The Passion will become famous as the most serious and substantive biblical movie ever made. It will be one of the most talked-about entertainment events in history; it already has been on the cover of Newsweek and Vanity Fair. My third prediction is that the faith of millions of Christians will become more fervent as The Passion uplifts and inspires them. It will propel vast numbers of unreligious Americans to embrace Christianity. The movie will one day be seen as a harbinger of America's third great religious reawakening. Those Jewish organizations that have squandered both time and money futilely protesting The Passion, ostensibly in order to prevent pogroms in Pittsburgh, can hardly be proud of their performance. They failed at everything they attempted. They were hoping to ruin Gibson rather than enrich him. They were hoping to suppress The Passion rather than promote it. Finally, they were hoping to help Jews rather than harm them. Here I digress slightly to exercise the Jewish value of "giving the benefit of the doubt" by discounting cynical suggestions growing in popularity that the very public nature of their attack on Gibson exposed their real purpose -- fundraising. Apparently, frightening wealthy widows in Florida about anti-Semitic thugs prowling the streets of America causes them to open their pocketbooks and refill the coffers of groups with little other raison d'etre. But let's assume they were hoping to help Jews. However, instead of helping the Jewish community, they have inflicted lasting harm. By selectively unleashing their fury only on wholesome entertainment that depicts Christianity in a positive light, they have triggered anger, hurt and resentment. Hosting the "Toward Tradition Radio Show" and speaking before many audiences nationwide, I enjoy extensive communication with Christian America and what I hear is troubling. Fearful of attracting the ire of Jewish groups that are so quick to hurl the "anti-Semite" epithet, some Christians are reluctant to speak out. Although one can bludgeon resentful people into silence, behind closed doors emotions continue to simmer. I consider it crucially important for Christians to know that not all Jews are in agreement with their self-appointed spokesmen. Most American Jews, experiencing warm and gracious interactions each day with their Christian fellow-citizens, would feel awkward trying to explain why so many Jewish organizations seem focused on an agenda hostile to Judeo-Christian values. Many individual Jews have shared with me their embarrassment that groups, ostensibly representing them, attack The Passion but are silent about depraved entertainment that encourages killing cops and brutalizing women. Citing artistic freedom, Jewish groups helped protect sacrilegious exhibits such as the anti-Christian feces extravaganza presented by the Brooklyn Museum four years ago. One can hardly blame Christians for assuming that Jews feel artistic freedom is important only when exercised by those hostile toward Christianity. However, this is not how all Jews feel. From audiences around America, I am encountering bitterness at Jewish organizations insisting that belief in the New Testament is de facto evidence of anti-Semitism. Christians heard Jewish leaders denouncing Gibson for making a movie that follows Gospel accounts of the crucifixion long before any of them had even seen the movie. Furthermore, Christians are hurt that Jewish groups are presuming to teach them what Christian Scripture "really means." Listen to a rabbi whom I debated on the Fox television show hosted by Bill O'Reilly last September. This is what he said, "We have a responsibility as Jews, as thinking Jews, as people of theology, to respond to our Christian brothers and to engage them, be it Protestants, be it Catholics, and say, look, this is not your history, this is not your theology, this does not represent what you believe in." He happens to be a respected rabbi and a good one, but he too has bought into the preposterous proposition that Jews will re-educate Christians about Christian theology and history. Is it any wonder that this breathtaking arrogance spurs bitterness? Many Christians who, with good reason, have considered themselves to be Jews' best (and perhaps only) friends also feel bitter at Jews believing that The Passion is revealing startling new information about the crucifixion. They are incredulous at Jews thinking that exposure to the Gospels in visual form will instantly transform the most philo-Semitic gentiles of history into snarling, Jew-hating predators. Christians are baffled by Jews who don't understand that President George Washington, who knew and revered every word of the Gospels, was still able to write that oft-quoted beautiful letter to the Touro Synagogue in Newport offering friendship and full participation in America to the Jewish community. One of the directors of the American Jewish Committee recently warned that The Passion "could undermine the sense of community between Christians and Jews that's going on in this country. We're not allowing the film to do that." No sir, it isn't the film that threatens the sense of community; it is the arrogant and intemperate response of Jewish organizations that does so. Jewish organizations, hoping to help but failing so spectacularly, refute all myths of Jewish intelligence. How could their plans have been so misguided and the execution so inept? Ancient Jewish wisdom teaches that nothing confuses one's thinking more than being in the grip of the two powerful emotions, love and hate. The actions of these Jewish organizations sadly suggest that they are in the grip of a hatred for Christianity that is only harming Jews. Today, peril threatens all Americans, both Jews and Christians. Many of the men and women in the front lines find great support in their Christian faith. It is strange that Jewish organizations, purporting to protect Jews, think that insulting allies is the preferred way to carry out that mandate. A ferocious Rottweiler dog in your suburban home will quickly estrange your family from the neighborhood. For those of us in the Jewish community who cherish friendship with our neighbors, some Jewish organizations have become our Rottweilers. God help us. Rabbi Daniel Lapin is a radio talk show host and president of Toward Tradition, a bridge-building organization providing a voice for Americans who defend Judeo-Christian values as vital for our nation's survival.

By NATION Correspondent NAIROBI--Cash-for-prayers bishop Peter Njoka has returned from the United States but declined to answer questions from journalists. Bishop Njoka, who is at the centre of a Nairobi City Council payments scandal involving Sh1.7 million payment as the Mayor's chaplain, arrived at his Imani house office in Nairobi at 9am. Sources told the Nation the controversial cleric was driven straight to his office from Jomo Kenyatta International Airport. The bishop held lengthy meetings and later left his office at 3pm for an unknown destination. Attempts by waiting journalists to interview him failed when he only answered "No, No" to questions from fielded by the Press as he walked to his office. He later told the Press - through his secretary - to "seek any clarification" from the ACK chancellor (the legal adviser of the church). Bishop Njoka was reported by a probe team appointed by Local Government minister Karisa Maitha as receiving Sh54,000 a month for giving spiritual services to the authority while council workers went without pay for lack of cash. He was ordered by the team to pay back a total of Sh1.7 million he had received or face an investigation by the Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission. Last week, Anglican prelate Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi announced that the highest Anglican Church of Kenya organ - the House of Bishops - would decide the fate of Bishop Njoka. He said the church was waiting for the bishop's return from the US so that they could discuss "all matters affecting the Nairobi diocese", which he heads. While in the US, Bishop Njoka was stopped at the last minute from attending the ordination of a Kenyan deacon by clergymen allied to the controversial American gay bishop, Gene Robinson. A message from Archbishop Nzimbi forced him to cancel plans to attend the ordination of Mr Johnson Muchira by churchmen in California blacklisted by the Kenyan church for supporting the ordination of Bishop Robinson, which split the Anglican Church worldwide. A stiff letter also went to Mr Muchira, who later cancelled the ceremony, after being reminded of the Kenyan church's opposition to homosexuality and its decision to break links with bishop Robinson's diocese and priests who had backed his ordination.

2/17/2004 By Paul Majendie LONDON (Reuters) - Anglican leaders have castigated warring Church factions locked in a bitter row over gay bishops, telling them to calm down and stop using such strident language. The ordination in the United States of openly gay bishop Gene Robinson has sharply divided the Anglican church's 70 million faithful and sparked fears of a schism after 450 years of unity. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, facing the church's worst crisis since the ordination of women priests, has set up a special commission to study the thorny issue of gay clergy. After its first full plenary meeting under the chairmanship of Archbishop of Ireland Robin Eames, the Lambeth Commission sought to cool tempers. "The commission is saddened that tensions within the Communion, exacerbated by the use of strident language, have continued to rise in recent months," it said in a statement. "It requests all members of the Anglican communion to refrain from any precipitate action or legal proceedings which would further harm the bonds of communion in the period whilst it completes its work," it added. But the wounds may already be beyond healing in a broad church run by consensus across 164 countries, in contrast to the rigid hierarchy of the far larger Roman Catholic Church governed under strict papal authority. "This statement is a signal of alarm, a sign of desperation that things could be getting out of control," said religious commentator Clifford Longley. "People are already taking precipitate action," he told Reuters. "The attempt to say 'hold everything while we think about it' doesn't hold much water. A third of the Anglican church is thinking of itself as being out of communion with the American church," he added. The Lambeth Commission is holding two more meetings before reporting to Williams, the spiritual leader of the Anglican church. Next stop in June for the commission is the United States where deep divisions have torn the faithful apart. "If you have two churches side by side in the United States, you have real problems," Longley said. Conservative Episcopalians, angered by the consecration of New Hampshire Bishop Robinson, set up a new network within their own church in January. Any split would pose major legal headaches over everything from church property to clerical pensions. "This will really matter if it becomes an internal schism," Longley said.

John Richardson looks at the arguments of Jeffrey John In the run-up to its February session, members of the Church of England's General Synod will have received complementary copies of Permanent, Faithful, Stable by Canon Jeffrey John. This little booklet is described on the back as 'one of the most powerful arguments for the acceptance and blessing of homosexual relationships by the Church'. However, as any dictionary will tell you, 'argument' in this sense is not just the presentation of a viewpoint but the setting forth of reasons. And reasoning must stand up to scrutiny. Doubtless there will be many for whom John's case seems 'reasonable' in the sense that what he asks for seems fair or right. But in the sense of being 'in accordance with reason', there are serious flaws in his work, particularly in the logic of his arguments but also in his handling of scripture. Unless I am mistaken, therefore, it would be a serious error for those who would revise the Church's current understanding to take their stand on this work or the arguments it sets forward. There may be a case for John's position, but this booklet for the most part fails to make it. Logic John summarizes his aim on page 1: Homosexual relationships should be accepted and blessed by the Church, provided that the quality and commitment of the relationship are the same as those expected of a Christian marriage. Unfortunately, on page 3 he immediately saws off the branch on which he is sitting. John recognizes that he must first answer those who take their stand on the Bible. Hence he argues that, 'a faithful homosexual relationship is not "incompatible with scripture", (certainly no more so than the remarriage of the divorced, or the leadership of women).' The logic is straightforward enough: Some things which are incompatible with the plainest sense of scripture are already accepted by the Church. A faithful homosexual relationship is no more incompatible with scripture than these other things. Therefore scripture provides no necessary grounds on which the Church should reject such relationships. But there are problems. First, a logically true argument may lead to a factually false conclusion. The proposition that 'All cats have tails' logically means my cat must have a tail. However (as any first year Philosophy student knows), what matters is not just the logic of an argument but the truth of its propositions. There are, in fact, tailless cats (of which my hypothetical cat may be one). And hence John cannot assume from the mere fact that the Church accepts things which are incompatible with scripture that it is necessarily right to do so. To build an argument on this basis could simply lead us into greater error. Indeed that is (arguably) why we had the Reformation! Secondly, John's appeal to the Church's revised attitude to divorce actually undermines his definition of an acceptable gay relationship. If the qualities of such relationships should be 'the same as those expected of a Christian marriage' (see above), the word 'permanent' becomes superfluous. It may be more appealing to talk about 'permanent, faithful, stable' relationships, but John's argument relies on a decision by the Synod that permanence is no longer a requirement of marriage. Thus the most that could be required is that such relationships be faithful and stable, and even that requirement cannot be regarded as fixed on this line of reasoning. Similarly, John argues on page 4 that his proposals will uphold 'the traditional, biblical theology of sex and marriage'. But since his argument rests precisely on a partial rejection of the 'traditional, biblical theology', a further step in the same direction would scarcely 'uphold' it! On the contrary, it is surely those who remain faithful in difficult marriages or who, feeling an erotic desire for members of the same sex, nevertheless resist it, who truly uphold 'traditional' theology and practice. Scripture These weaknesses continue when John addresses the question 'Is it scriptural?' Thus after acknowledging that Jesus plainly condemns the remarriage of divorced people, John asks how it is that Anglican bishops 'in the case of the great majority, are willing to bless remarried couples, and in some cases are divorced and remarried themselves?' (p8). We must be grateful for the candidness of John's challenge. But to conclude, as he does, that we should therefore embrace same-sex relationships is like arguing that because I speed down the motorway I may speed up a residential side street. The argument is simply fallacious. A similar problem affects John's handling of the biblical material on women. It is true that even in some Conservative Evangelical contexts, women without hats may be found conducting meetings. But John falls into the well-known 'tuquoque' fallacy - 'You do as I do, hence I can't be wrong.' Thus on page 9 he claims that 'biblical conservatives will employ exactly the sort of arguments [on this issue] which on other matters they condemn as "getting round the plain meaning of Scripture".' But just as two wrongs don't make a right, so one misuse of scripture (if that is what is involved) doesn't make for two misuses. In point of fact, I believe John oversimplifies the biblical material. But if the Bible actually did teach that women should wear hats in church, then we should surely do likewise, not use our failure in this regard to justify abandoning other aspects of biblical teaching. Meanwhile, the fact that John takes this approach suggests he realizes the Bible actually opposes what he himself advocates. Law Space precludes addressing John's handling of the story of Sodom. I can only draw the diligent reader's attention to the relevant cautions in Robert Gagnon's The Bible and Homosexual Practice. John's treatment of the Old Testament law, however, is woeful, in particular his infamous comment on page 12: The next time you see a clean-shaven fundamentalist wearing a poly-cotton shirt and eating a shrimp, remember to shout 'Abomination'.! If John really believes this is an adequate response to those who quote the Old Testament on moral issues, he should give up his title as Canon Theologian. For my own part, I believe I have addressed this adequately in my own What God has Made Clean (Good Book Company, 2003), and would refer readers who are still unclear to that publication. Paul John is just as weak, however, in his handling of Paul, resting his case largely on unsustainable and unprovable assumptions. John asserts that 'the model of Paul's condemnation was [male] prostitution or pederasty.' Yet Paul begins his own condemnation of homosexual acts in Romans 1.26 with a reference to women, which demonstrates an entirely different starting point to the one John proposes. Again, John claims that 'neither Paul nor his Jewish antecedents considered the case of a homosexually oriented person', yet such persons were known in the Gentile culture with which Paul was familiar. Ultimately, therefore, although John rejects Paul's 'assumptions' as 'quite false' (p16), it his own assumptions which are questionable. John is similarly cavalier with Paul's arguments from nature, preferring to focus on the difficulties he perceives in applying Paul's teaching on women, rather than engaging with his comments on sexuality. John is quite happy to affirm Paul when it suits (pp18, 37 etc), but where it does not, he adopts his own line, justifying this by claiming he is only doing what others do. Yet there is a vast difference between those who ultimately sit under the authority of Paul's writings as scripture, and those who really do 'cherry pick', treating as scripture only those teachings which accord with their own viewpoint. John's position can thus only be called 'scriptural' in a sense that depends on demolishing what the Church traditionally understands by this. Morality John's discomfort with Paul's view of 'nature' is understandable, however, considering his approach to the question 'Is it Moral?' Over against the objection based on the 'natural' complementarity of male and female bodies and personalities, John simply asserts that same-sex relationships can be fulfilling in every comparable regard bar that of bearing children. Moreover, there cannot be anything morally reprehensible about homosexual acts per se: Those who claim to be repelled and disgusted by homosexual forms of intercourse might ask why they are not disgusted by a painter who expresses his creativity by painting with his feet (p21). But John plays down the fact that something is nevertheless clearly wrong if someone has to paint with their feet. And he similarly fails to acknowledge that the 'make do' of homosexual acts shows homosexuality to be technically a form of sexual dis-orientation. John's problems, however, do not stop there, for he also wants to refute calls within the gay community for a radicalizing of sexual relationships. But in the face of this, John can only fall back on a position he has already subverted: Christian theology is an attempt to understand 'what happens' in relation to profound truths about human nature revealed in Scripture and Christian tradition (pp35-36, emphasis added). However, that revelation, and even John's own understanding of 'acceptable' relationships, would (for example) create great difficulties for bisexuals who want their relationships blessed by the Church. Yet it is surely only a real traditionalist who can resist such demands, whereas John (who oddly says nothing about bisexuality - see p59) will ultimately appear to be just as 'selective' as the conservatives he so often attacks. John wishes to show both traditionalists and radicals that 'human sexuality is intended to express a covenant commitment between two people which is holy because it reflects God's covenanted love for us, and gives us a framework for learning to love in his image' (p4). But there is already far too much reliance on scripture and revelation in these ideas for them to find an expression outside the scriptural context of marriage - namely between one man and one woman for life. Sacrifice the latter, as John does, and eventually you will inevitably lose the former. Achievable This brings us, finally, to John's third question, 'Is it Achievable?' by which he means 'Could lifelong, monogamous homosexual relationships become normalized within the Church?' Here, John must face first the question of homosexual 'promiscuity' (his term) - an area of considerable controversy. Stephen Goldstone, himself a gay doctor, admits candidly in The Ins and Outs of Gay Sex, 'Even under the shadow of AIDS, many of us still have sexual histories numbering in the hundreds or even thousands' (p 212). By contrast, John claims, 'There is no reason to believe that homosexual men are naturally more inclined to promiscuity than heterosexual men' (p40), though the fact that he devotes six of his own fifty-five pages to this issue may suggest 'he doth protest too much'. John suggests that whatever promiscuity exists amongst gay men would diminish if only they were allowed to enter into recognized stable relationships. But this can only be conjecture, especially since promiscuity has measurably and dramatically increased amongst heterosexuals (who can, of course, marry) in the last ten years (see the National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles). Standing in the way of John's programme, however, is the Church of England generally and her bishops in particular for their inconsistency and failure to fulfil their teaching office (pp47-48). Not surprisingly, John vents considerable spleen on them: They continue to supply the ideology which undergirds prejudice, and continue to bear the heaviest responsibility for it (p55). Yet once again we must ask whether the course John urges on the bishops indeed follows from their current failures. Would they best redeem themselves by standing up to '"difficult" conservative Evangelicals', or by recovering the biblical and traditionalist theology John has attacked? Trinity John cannot, however, avoid one final error before he finishes. Marriage is, he concludes, 'a "mystery" or sacrament of God because it potentially reflects the mystery of self-giving love which is at the heart of the Trinity' (p 52). Thus 'because homosexual people are no less made in God's image than heterosexuals' they too can (in words quoted from Eugene Rogers), 'represent the Trinity' (p53). Yet of course marriage is not a reflection of the love within the Trinity, but a model of the love between Creator and creation, between Redeemer and redeemed. It is the love between Christ and the Church, not the love between the Father, the Son and the Spirit. It is, that is to say, love within a framework of difference rather than of likeness, of heteros rather than homoios. Of course, love for that which is 'the same' exists and is legitimate. But sexuality, by its very nature, has no place in that love. Sexuality remains, literally, 'wedded' to the male-female paradigm. That has, until now, been the Church's understanding, and John has yet to prove it should be otherwise. John P Richardson John Richardson is Senior Assistant Minster at St John's Stratford, in the diocese of Chelmsford. This story was taken From New Directions, a magazine serving Evangelicals and Catholics seeking to renew the Church in the historic faith.

An open letter from the Most Reverend Martín Barahona, the Diocesan Bishop of El Salvador and Primate of the Anglican Church of the Central Region of America (IARCA) "To my colleagues, the Primates of the Great Anglican Communion; to my sister and brother bishops of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America; and to the bishops and other clergy and lay leaders of our beloved Province of the Central Region of America, which includes the countries of Guatemala, Panama, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and El Salvador; to all, peace and goodness in the name of the living and true God that surely is among us. It is my wish to share with you some reflections concerning the election, the subsequent endorsement of this election by the Houses of Deputies and Bishops at the General Convention of the ECUSA in Minneapolis, Minnesota in August of the year of our Lord 2003, and the ordination and consecration of the Rt Revd Gene Robinson as Bishop Coadjutor of New Hampshire on 2 November, 2003. This was a ceremony I attended, and in which I participated, along with the primate of the ECUSA and other bishops of Canada, the United States and the Bishop Emeritus of the Lutheran Church of Europe. These events unfortunately have brought about sadness, frustration, and in some cases strong offenses, and we now find ourselves in difficult times that may lead us to regrettable divisions. The simple event of electing this bishop, who hails from a small diocese of limited financial resources, who is a person very dedicated to his ministry and his community, has provoked a 'scandal' by the mere act of his stating the truth concerning his private life: he is homosexual and lives with his long-time partner. This duly elected bishop, Gene Robinson, with simplicity and humility, has dared to challenge our understanding of ethics and what is 'moral.' The impact of this election was great. On few occasions have the mass media dedicated so much space to the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion in the world. When a journalist of the BBC of London interviewed me and asked: 'Having been in the House of Bishops of ECUSA, what did you see in the faces of the bishops?' I responded, 'I saw faces of fear and pain; of fear because if approved there was concern of division in the Church, and of pain because if not approved it would be sad at this moment in time in the 21st century that we are not able to understand human nature.' Episcopalians, and those of us who were part of ECUSA, have learned from our Mother Church that we have a democratic model of government, with bicameral representation. Many of us who are bishops have won election by one vote, and the rest have accepted; furthermore, sometimes a motion is raised to declare the election by acclamation, with the goal of smoothing things over. All of the proper canonical proceedings were carefully taken in the case of the election of the Bishop Coadjutor of New Hampshire; so then, why is there division? Particularly in the United States, a country that champions democracy, so much so that it is able to invade a country which has a dictatorial regime. Could it be that we know that while a diocese can call someone to serve as a bishop via a democratic election, we also know that a vocation to a ministry is a call from God, and God calls those whom He wants. This means He can call those who are not necessarily the best ones from our own human perspective. On 9 October in Dallas, a good number of bishops who were against the election and consent decided to meet. Sadly, the result of this gathering was that some offensive documents were issued. On a personal front, a parish in the United States took away aid for a mission I was developing. But I ask, 'Whom is this hurting? Martín Barahona? No! It is hurting the mission of Christ!' So while I understand the hurt and the confusion this election has caused I am praying hard, and I have asked the people of my diocese and province to pray hard for our unity. I told a priest from New York that we must look for reconciliation, and he told me, 'God cannot reconcile with the devil, God cannot reconcile with sin.' But I ask myself, 'who is God and who is the devil, and what is the sin at this moment?' On 15 and 16 October, the Most Revd Dr. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, called the Primates to an urgent meeting to deal with, not only the subject of the ECUSA election, but also the decision by the diocese of New Westminster of Canada, which approved a resolution to have a rite for the union of people of the same sex. This meeting was an excellent initiative, and we had the opportunity to convey our feelings with respect, which were then expressed in an official statement of the primates. At this gathering, we concluded that we do not want a central authority like the 'papal Curia.' And some noted contradictions in their own provincial authority as the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA, the Most Revd Frank Griswold was asked to do something that he could not do according to his canons. As a result of our discussions and concerns, the Archbishop of Canterbury, promised to name as soon as possible - and he has already done so - a commission of experts on the Bible, liturgy, and theology to present within 12 months a report on some central subjects, including the authority of the Bible, canonical legislation. As well as, 'What does it mean to be in Communion? What does it mean to be autonomous?' As all that attended the gathering are doing, I have meditated on these issues, and I want to offer my reflections to the Committee: On the subject of the authority of the Bible, we know that we study the Bible by making use of biblical science. I would suggest that, as all science advances with new discoveries and interpretations, so does biblical science. Similarly for the authority of our canonical legislation, as legal systems are equally dynamic, our canon law evolves and changes through experience. To be in communion, Anglican style, a priest once said, 'is to be united in the essential, to have diversity in the nonessential, and to love one another.' Here, I would like to refer to an article by L. William Countryman, sent to me via email, entitled 'Treating Conflict as an Anglican.' The second paragraph reads, 'What do I understand by the classical Anglican tradition? I mean the broad mainstream of Anglicanism as it was formed in the Reformation, the one that was shaped in the 16th and 17th centuries, in contrast to the other two types of Christianity that believed to know well the mind of God, one the Roman Catholicism of the Counter-Reformation, the other the tradition of Geneva, whose main representatives were the Puritans. Mainstream Anglicans differentiate ourselves from both, and particularly from their presumption that they know in detail the mind of God." What does it mean to be autonomous? It is the most sublime expression of freedom. 'The truth will set you free.' It is exactly where ethics can challenge what is considered to be moral in our culture. Ethics are authentic. But what is considered to be 'moral' can also be subject to special interests, stereotypes, cultures, and regimes, etc. We live in a cosmopolitan world, in a pluralistic society, the virtue of which is that we must develop tolerance, another important subject that I would like to further address. People who are displeased by this decision of ECUSA would shield themselves behind arguments of what they understand as fundamental and orthodox. Beware of those two concepts (which I would also like to address at greater length in the future). Orthodoxy and fundamentalism have been the theoretical base of great evils such as the inquisition, crusades, the holocaust, and more recently are the root of terrorism that is the invisible enemy. Within our Anglican Province of the Central Region of America (IARCA) and the different countries that we comprise, the ordination of the Rt Revd Gene Robinson has elicited diverse reactions. Each bishop has confronted the situation in his own way, according to his own reality. The Bishop of Guatemala sent a pastoral letter in which he reaffirmed the doctrine contained in the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer; but at the same time recognized that little is known about human nature and particularly homosexuality, and urged study. The Bishop of Nicaragua issued an official statement where he expressed pride in belonging to a Communion that had the courage to confront these subjects. The Bishop of Panama sent a pastoral letter expressing that while he did not approve of the ECUSA action, he urged that more attention be placed on the matter. The Bishop of Costa Rica did not send a pastoral letter, but invited the Episcopal and non-Episcopal communities relying on mass media for communication to engage in a dialogue on the subject in order for individuals to draw their own conclusions. The Bishop of El Salvador, author of this letter, did something similar, using print, television and radio to orient the Episcopal community and the general public, asking them to reflect with respect and seriousness and to handle the matter strictly from a human perspective. He did not enter the matter from a biblical or theological point of view. We hope to broaden the discussion from this perspective, as much in speculative theology as in practical theology. A great deal of information was offered, and people continue to reflect seriously and to request more information. It should be noted that in El Salvador there is an organization of lesbians and gays which in San Salvador, the capital of the Republic, has more than 5,000 members. The majority of these are professionals, industrialists, and others who are well respected in society. From the perspective of all the bishops of our province we have set out a declaration as a Province, addressed to all those present at the Lambeth gathering, and distributed to all the bishops. Regarding the participation of the Primate of IARCA in the consecration of the Rt Revd Gene Robinson, all of the bishops, priests, and laity in congregations knew of my participation. There were no reactions against this until recently, when on the 3 February I received a statement from the Church of Guatemala, which, after some introduction, declares three points: *The desire to maintain the unity of the IARCA Province *Simultaneously, The Episcopal Church of Guatemala dissociates itself from the actions of the Primate of IARCA for his participation in the consecration and ordination of Gene Robinson and thus provoking deterioration in IARCA. *It expresses the necessity that the bishops and the provincial council of IARCA remark on the matter, and that corrective measures be taken. I would like to express to all in our great Anglican Communion, and especially to my brothers and sisters in ECUSA and IARCA, that I attended and participated in the consecration and ordination of Gene Robinson for various reasons: *By my own conviction that I was participating in a ceremony that had followed all the legal and canonical processes of ECUSA, just as a week before I had participated in the ordination and consecration of the Bishop of New Jersey. There was nothing canonically irregular in my participation. Furthermore, all bishops of IARCA stated their respect for the decision of ECUSA as an autonomous province, with exception of the Bishop of Panama, whose pastoral letter rejected the decision of ECUSA but exhorts to look into it with good eyes. *I participated with a sense of solidarity with the marginalised, for whom I have fought for many years. I have fought for the social, economic, political, religious, racial and migratory marginalised; and now for those marginalised by sexual preference. I am totally convinced that Christ has always stood next to the marginalized, and I try to follow Christ even though I am a sinning man. I am very clear that God calls us to exercise a ministry, and God knows all of us best. Who am I to correct the plan of God? *It was my desire to accompany the Primate of our Mother Church, Presiding Bishop the Most Revd Frank Griswold. I know that I am a humble servant of God, but when I witnessed Frank's difficult moments I prayed for him and continue praying. I know that God gave him strength, humility and tolerance. I admire and am proud of the Primate of ECUSA, for at all times he was understanding, respectful, and firm in defense of the canons of his Church. I told him, 'Frank, I will be with you in New Hampshire,' and I fulfilled my word. Thus I can say that I was a witness by sight, sound, and action. I can confirm that it was a solemn act, serious, and that deep faith was present. If I am mistaken, may God judge me because His judgments are just and righteous. San Salvador, 4 February 2004, and in the 11th year of my Episcopate." The Most Revd Martín Barahona Bishop of El Salvador and Primate of IARCA

A large and growing body of social scientific evidence indicates that the intact, married family is best for children. In particular, see work by David Popenoe, Linda Waite, Maggie Gallagher, Sara McLanahan, David Blankenhorn, Paul Amato, and Alan Booth. This statement from Sara McLahanan, a sociologist at Princeton University, is representative: "If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children's basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent ideal. Such a design, in theory, would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money of two adults, it also would provide a system of checks and balances that promoted quality parenting. The fact that both parents have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child, and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child." McLanahan and family scholars like her are not arguing that parents in other family forms are necessarily bad. But she is making the point, backed up by countless studies, that the ideal place for children to grow up—on average—is in a married, intact family where children have access to a mother and a father who share a biological tie (and, hence, a deep sense of kinship) to them. 1. CHILDREN HUNGER FOR THEIR BIOLOGICAL PARENTS SS couples using IVF or surrogate mothers deliberately create a class of children who will live apart from their mother or father. Yale Child Study Center psychiatrist Kyle Pruett reports that children of IVF often ask their single or lesbian mothers about their fathers, asking their mothers questions like the following: "Mommy, what did you do with my daddy?" "Can I write him a letter?" "Has he ever seen me?" "Didn't you like him? Didn't he like me?" Elizabeth Marquardt reports that children of divorce often report similar feelings about their non-custodial parent, usually the father. 2. CHILDREN NEED FATHERS If SSM becomes common, the majority of SS couples with children would probably be lesbians. This means that we would have yet more children being raised apart from fathers. Among other things, we know that fathers excel in reducing antisocial behavior/delinquency in boys and sexual activity in girls. What is fascinating is that fathers exercise a unique social and biological influence on their children. 3. CHILDREN NEED MOTHERS Although gay men are less likely to have children than lesbians, there will be and are gay men raising children. There will be even more if SSM is legalized. These households deny children a mother. Among other things, mothers excel in providing children with emotional security and in reading the physical and emotional cues of infants. 4. INADEQUATE EVIDENCE ON SS COUPLE PARENTING A number of leading professional associations have asserted that there are "no effects" of SS couple parenting on children. But the research in this area is quite preliminary; most of the studies are done by advocates and most suffer from serious methodological problems. 5. CHILDREN RAISED IN SS HOMES EXPERIENCE GENDER AND SEXUAL DISORDERS Although the evidence on child outcomes is sketchy (see above), what evidence is available does raise two red flags. Specifically, a number of studies suggest children raised in lesbian homes are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders. 6. VIVE LA DIFFERENCE If SSM is institutionalized, our society would take yet another step down the road of de-gendering marriage. There would me more use of gender-neutral language like "partners" and—more importantly—more social/cultural pressures to neuter our thinking and our behaviors in marriage. 7. SEXUAL FIDELITY One of the biggest threats that SSM poses to marriage is that it would probably undercut the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage. In the first edition of his book in defense of marriage, Virtually Normal, Andrew Sullivan wrote: "There is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." 8. MARRIAGE, PROCREATION, AND THE FERTILITY IMPLOSION Traditionally, marriage and procreation have been tightly connected to one another. Indeed, from a sociological perspective, the primary purpose that marriage serves is to secure a mother and father for each child who is born into a society. 9. FOR THE SAKE OF THE CHILDREN The divorce and sexual revolutions of the last four decades has seriously undercut the norm that couples should get and stay married if they intend to have children, are expecting a child, or already have children. 10. WOMEN & MARRIAGE DOMESTICATE MEN Men who are married earn more, work harder, drink less, live longer, spend more time attending religious services, and are more sexually faithful. They also see their testosterone levels drop, especially when they have children in the home.

It's been six months since Gene Robinson was confirmed as the first openly gay bishop of the Episcopal Church. Since then, conservatives have threatened to punish the national church by withholding their money. Today, the treasurer of the church told officials that was an empty threat. Pledges for next year are only slightly down from last year, yet conservatives say the church has no idea of the problems that it may face. Kurt Barnes, the treasurer of the Episcopal Church, describes himself as a conservative man, not one prone to, quote, "gilding the lily." He's keenly aware of the controversy that's been roiling the church since it recognized gay unions and consecrated Gene Robinson, a gay priest, to be bishop of New Hampshire. Given all this, Barnes says he's pleased that he's received commitments from more than three-quarters of the bishops, and so far, their pledges to the national church are down only 7 percent. Mr. KURT BARNES (Treasurer, Episcopal Church): The impact is what I would describe as insignificant. Barnes is recommending that the dioceses cut their spending by 5 to 10 percent. Jim Naughton, a spokesman for the Diocese of Washington, DC, says this isn't cause for rejoicing, but it's not the predicted apocalypse, either. Mr. JIM NAUGHTON (Spokesman, Episcopal Diocese of Washington, DC): The narrative line since General Convention has been, 'Oh, watch out. The Episcopal Church is taking in water. The Episcopal Church is going down.' And that's definitely not happening. So it's hard to disentangle an intelligent analysis of where we stand now from the sort of what amounts to the kind of ecclesiastical version of trash talking that's coming from the other side, you know, this sort of, 'You're going down. You're going down.' Reverend DON ARMSTRONG (Rector, Grace Episcopal Church, Colorado Springs): I think what you're getting from the national church is a spin. Don Armstrong is rector of the 2,400-member Grace Episcopal Church in Colorado Springs. He says the bishops, most of whom voted for gay unions and Gene Robinson, have an interest in creating the impression that there has been no financial impact. And, he says, they'll go to great lengths to do so. For example, angry conservative parishioners in Colorado have withheld some $350,000 from their diocese, he says, but the bishop is eating that loss locally and giving the same amount as last year to the national church. Armstrong says the bishops can't do that for long. Rev. ARMSTRONG: As we move into 2004 and their monthly income decreases, they're going to be faced with the reality that they don't have the money in the bank to write the checks. Kendall Harmon, an official of the Diocese of South Carolina, says the situation will only grow more acute with time. Parishioners, entire churches and even two dioceses, Pittsburgh and Dallas, are directing their money away from the national church toward other ministries. A new network of conservative churches is being formed, and Harmon says that will no doubt attract money that would otherwise go to the national church. People are leaving the Episcopal Church altogether and taking their money with them. In fact, Harmon says, entire churches are leaving the denomination to join a conservative offshoot of Anglicanism. Mr. KENDALL HARMON (Diocese of South Carolina): Basically, the vast majority of a parish just left from St. John's, Melbourne, and went to the Anglican Mission in America. So in that diocese, most of the pledge from that parish to the Diocese of Central Florida is going to go down. So as the year progresses, you're going to start to see these figures work themselves through the system more. Jim Naughton in Washington, DC, notes that a couple of conservative churches in the DC area have decided to withhold their money from the diocese. But others who are happy about recognizing gay unions and a gay bishop are making up the shortfall. Mr. NAUGHTON: Many people in those parishes have said, 'Fine. If you're not going to give to the diocese, we're going to give directly to the diocese.' So this idea that people are voting with their pocketbooks, that goes both ways. And so in this war of words and finances, when there's way too much smoke to figure out who's left standing, both sides are claiming victory.

The revisionist Bishop of New Westminster, Michael Ingham, faces a triple crisis that could derail his plans to depose, at the minimum put on hold, his desire to toss 11 biblically orthodox priests out of their parishes and seize their properties. He faces a legal ultimatum with the leaders of St. Martin's parish in North Vancouver who argue that unless the parish is allowed to control its own finances and staffing, it will ask the B.C. Supreme Court to overturn the firing of two church wardens last year. In a letter delivered to Bishop Michael Ingham on Friday, former Trustee and spokesperson Linda Taunton said, "we want our church and we want to be able to control our own destiny. Ingham has until Feb. 23 to respond," she told Virtuosity. Last September, Ingham invoked an obscure piece of church law to remove the wardens, St. Martin's parishioners say. The parishioners maintain that as a legally incorporated organization, they have the right to make decisions for themselves. They contend Ingham's actions violate the provincial Societies Act. The parish has voted twice to seek alternative episcopal oversight. Late last year, Ingham closed one church. The second crisis the bishop faces is that four parishes have now obtained Temporary Adequate Episcopal Oversight from four international Anglican primates with immediate oversight of the Canadian parishes by a US-based AMiA bishop. The offer is temporary measure until a more permanent solution can be found. Seven of the parishes have not signed as yet, but sources tell Virtuosity that they are weighing their options. They are not ready to jump ship but all 11 of them still support the Anglican Churches in New Westminster (ACiNW) coalition, with none having fled. "Those parishes who have not immediately accepted TAEO want to continue the Canadian process set up by the House of Bishops to look for a way to provide alternative episcopal oversight." All the conservative Canadian bishops have been informed of the TAEO offer as well as Yukon Bishop Terry Buckle who had offered alternative Episcopal oversight and then withdrew it. "Everybody is acting in good faith, some parishes just felt they could not wait any longer," said the source. We should not view this as a break-up of the ACiNW coalition. It isn't." Ingham faces a third crisis with the Canadian House of Bishops Task Force that could recommend some sort of oversight for the beleaguered 11, which, if he doesn't accept, will put him at odds not only with the Anglican Church in Canada but with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the 38 Primates of the Anglican Communion. To date Ingham has not responded to either crisis. But those close to Ingham say he will never accept a recommendation from the Canadian House of Bishops to grant alternative oversight, because basically he believes he is the bishop and that is the end of the story. "He will never go for it. He will never accept AEO because it would be a diminishing of his ecclesiastical authority, and he is a power driven person, not gospel driven," said the source. The following Anglican clergy have already accepted the four Primates' offer of TAEO: The Revd Charles Alexander, Timothy Institute of Ministry, Calgary, Alberta; Dr David Bowler, Comox, Vancouver Island, a Church Plant; Revd Paul Carter, Immanuel Church, Westside; Revd Ron Gibbs, St Simon's, Deep Cove; Revd Ed Hird, St Simon's, Deep Cove; Revd David Hollebone, Living Waters Church, Victoria, Vancouver Island; Revd John Lombard, St Simon's, Deep Cove; Revd Barclay Mayo, St Andrews, Pender Harbour; Revd Silas Ng, Emmanuel Church, Richmond. These clergy come from two Canadian dioceses. St. Martin's, North Vancouver, St. Matthias & St Luke, Vancouver, St. Matthew's, Abbotsford, Church of the Good Shepherd, St Andrew's, Pender Harbour, St Simon's, North Vancouver, St. John's, Shaughnessy, Church of Emmanuel, Richmond, Holy Cross, Vancouver, Immanuel Church, Westside, and Vancouver Holy Cross, Abbotsford, still have not agreed to outside Primatial oversight.

U.S. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) delivered the following statement on the floor of the United States Senate addressing several social issues facing the country: "The Old Testament prophet Amos was a sheep herder who lived back in the Judean hills, away from the larger cities of Bethlehem and Jerusalem. Compared to the intellectual urbanites like Isaiah and Jeremiah, he was just an unsophisticated country hick. "Amos had a unique grasp of political and social issues and his poetic literary skill was among the best of all the prophets. That familiar quote of Martin Luther King, Jr. about 'Justice will rush down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream' are Amos's words. "Amos was the first to propose the concept of a universal God and not just some tribal deity. He also wrote that God demanded moral purity, not rituals and sacrifices. This blunt speaking moral conscience of his time warns in Chapter 8, verse 11 of The Book of Amos, as if he were speaking to us today: That 'the days will come, sayeth the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land. Not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the word of the Lord. 'And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east. They shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.' "A famine in the land'. Has anyone more accurately described the situation we face in America today? 'A famine of hearing the words of the Lord.' "But some will say, Amos was just an Old Testament prophet – a minor one at that – who lived 700 years before Christ. That is true, so how about one of the most influential historians of modern times? "Arnold Toynbee who wrote the acclaimed 12 volume A Study of History, once declared, 'Of the 22 civilizations that have appeared in history, 19 of them collapsed when they reached the moral state America is in today.' "Toynbee died in 1975, before seeing the worst that was yet to come. Yes, Arnold Toynbee saw the famine. The 'famine of hearing the words of the Lord.' Whether it is removing a display of the Ten Commandments from a Courthouse or the Nativity Scene from a city square. Whether it is eliminating prayer in schools or eliminating 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance. Whether it is making a mockery of the sacred institution of marriage between a man and woman or, yes, telecasting around the world made-in-the-USA filth masquerading as entertainment. "The Culture of Far Left America was displayed in a startling way during the Super Bowl's now infamous half-time show. A show brought to us courtesy of Value-Les Moonves and the pagan temple of Viacom-Babylon. "I asked the question yesterday, how many of you have ever run over a skunk with your car? I have many times and I can tell you, the stink stays around for a long time. You can take the car through a car wash and it's still there. So the scent of this event will long linger in the nostrils of America. "I'm not talking just about an exposed mammary gland with a pull-tab attached to it. Really no one should have been too surprised at that. Wouldn't one expect a bumping, humping, trashy routine entitled 'I'm going to get you naked' to end that way. "Does any responsible adult ever listen to the words of this rap-crap? I'd quote you some of it, but the Sergeant of Arms would throw me out of here, as well he should. And then there was that prancing, dancing, strutting, rutting guy evidently suffering from jock itch because he kept yelling and grabbing his crotch. But then, maybe there's a crotch grabbing culture I've unaware of. "But as bad as all this was, the thing that yanked my chain the hardest was seeing that ignoramus with his pointed head stuck up through a hole he had cut in the flag of the United States of America, screaming about having 'a bottle of scotch and watching lots of crotch.' Think about that. "This is the same flag that we pledge allegiance to. This is the flag that is draped over coffins of dead young uniformed warriors killed while protecting Kid Crock's bony butt. He should be tarred and feathered, and ridden out of this country on a rail. Talk about a good reality show, there's one for you. "The desire and will of this Congress to meaningfully do anything about any of these so-called social issues is non existent and embarrassingly disgraceful. The American people are waiting and growing impatient with us. They want something done. "I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of S.J. Res. 26 along with Senator Allard and others, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. And S.1558, the Liberties Restoration Act, which declares religious liberty rights in several ways, including the Pledge of Allegiance and the display of the Ten Commandments. And today I join Senator Shelby and others with the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 that limits the jurisdiction of federal courts in certain ways. "In doing so, I stand shoulder to shoulder not only with my Senate co-sponsors and Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama but, more importantly, with our Founding Fathers in the conception of religious liberty and the terribly wrong direction our modern judiciary has taken us in. "Everyone today seems to think that the U.S. Constitution expressly provides for separation of church and state. Ask any ten people if that's not so. And I'll bet you most of them will say 'Well, sure.' And some will point out, 'it's in the First Amendment.' "Wrong! Read it! It says, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Where is the word 'separate'? Where are the words 'church' or 'state.' "They are not there. Never have been. Never intended to be. Read the Congressional Records during that four-month period in 1789 when the amendment was being framed in Congress. Clearly their intent was to prohibit a single denomination in exclusion of all others, whether it was Anglican or Catholic or some other. "I highly recommend a great book entitled Original Intent by David Barton. It really gets into how the actual members of Congress, who drafted the First Amendment, expected basic Biblical principles and values to be present throughout public life and society, not separate from it. "It was Alexander Hamilton who pointed out that 'judges should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty.' Bound down! That is exactly what is needed to be done. There was not a single precedent cited when school prayer was struck down in 1962. "These judges who legislate instead of adjudicate, do it without being responsible to one single solitary voter for their actions. Among the signers of the Declaration of Independence was a brilliant young physician from Pennsylvania named Benjamin Rush. "When Rush was elected to that First Continental Congress, his close friend Benjamin Franklin told him 'We need you. . . we have a great task before us, assigned to us by Providence.' Today, 228 years later there is still a great task before us assigned to us by Providence. Our Founding Fathers did not shirk their duty and we can do no less. "By the way, Benjamin Rush was once asked a question that has long interested this Senator from Georgia in particular. Dr. Rush was asked, are you a democrat or an aristocrat? And the good doctor answered, 'I am neither'. 'I am a Christocrat. I believe He, alone, who created and redeemed man is qualified to govern him.' That reply of Benjamin Rush is just as true today in the year of our Lord 2004 as it was in the year of our Lord 1776. "So, if I am asked why – with all the pressing problems this nation faces today – why am I pushing these social issues and taking the Senate's valuable time? I will answer: Because, it is of the highest importance. Yes, there's a deficit to be concerned about in this country, a deficit of decency. "So, as the sand empties through my hourglass at warp speed – and with my time running out in this Senate and on this earth, I feel compelled to speak out. For I truly believe that at times like this, silence is not golden. It is yellow."

The Anglican Primate of Australia, Archbishop Peter Carnley, has made a stinging attack on the leadership of the Sydney diocese. In a new book, Reflections in Glass, Dr Carnley warns the diocese itself might split because of the extremism of the ruling group. The archbishop, who is to retire next February, said that while the leadership of the diocese resisted most of his ideas, they were not universally rejected. "The diocese of Sydney contains as much diversity of thought as most of the other Anglican dioceses, even if is to be frankly admitted that a distinct and characteristic kind of evangelicalism predominates," he said. "It is reported that up to 50 Sydney parishes might consider approaching the college of Australian bishops to seek a form of 'alternative episcopal over sight'." If Australian Anglicanism split, the "first divide" might be "within the diocese itself". Dr Carnley writes that given Australia's diversity, "inter-faith dialogue seems inevitable". But the Sydney diocese was quite cold on recognition of other faiths. The Dean of Sydney, Phillip Jensen, had denounced other faiths as false. "This is certainly not the most helpful approach," Dr Carnley said. FOUR PRIMATES: AN OFFER OF TEMPORARY ADEQUATE EPISCOPAL OVERSIGHT WHEREAS, a crisis of faith and leadership has been created in the Diocese of New Westminster by the passing of a motion to bless same-sex unions, and the actual performance of the same in a church with the authorization of Bishop Michael Ingham; and WHEREAS, a special October 2003 meeting of the Primates of the Anglican Communion called upon the Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada to provide "temporary adequate episcopal oversight" to those churches and clergy who, because of their refusal to accept the revisionist direction of the diocese, are now in a state of broken communion; and WHEREAS, said episcopal oversight was to have been offered in consultation with the global Primates through the Archbishop of Canterbury; and WHEREAS, to date no such episcopal oversight has been offered, but instead church members have been lost, leadership has been threatened, and churches have been closed and their standing threatened; and WHEREAS, the clergy and congregations of New Westminster cannot be left to fend for themselves while the task force of the Canadian House of Bishops and the Commission appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury are doing their work. BE IT RESOLVED, that the undersigned Primates of the Provinces of Congo, Central Africa, Rwanda and South East Asia hereby jointly offer temporary adequate episcopal oversight to the clergy and congregations of New Westminster, and to other Canadian clergy and congregations who seek such covering, on the following basis: The temporary adequate episcopal oversight, as contemplated by the Primates Meeting of October 2003, will be offered in consultation with the Primates and the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Most Rev. Datuk Yong Ping Chung has been requested and will serve as Chairman of the sponsoring group of Primates. The Rt. Rev. Thomas Johnston, with the support of the administrative resources of the Anglican Mission in America, will coordinate the provision of this oversight on behalf of the undersigned. Representatives of the Canadian clergy and congregations seeking oversight will meet with Archbishop Yong and/or Bishop Johnston to work out the administrative details of this offer. TRUSTING IN THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD, the undersigned present this offer of temporary adequate episcopal oversight to the faithful Canadian Anglican clergy and congregations. Signed by the Primates

By Archbishop Russell McClanahan New Orleans, Louisiana — October 3, 2025 — The Evangelical Episcopal Communion (EEC) gathered in New Orleans, Louisiana, from October 1–3, 2025, to celebrate its 30th anniversary and to reflect on three decades of God’s faithfulness and growth. Founded in 1995, the EEC has developed into a vibrant global communion that integrates evangelical faith, sacramental worship, and apostolic order. The 30th Anniversary Synod welcomed archbishops and bishops from across the United States, India, South Africa, and other regions, marking a significant milestone in the Communion’s international expansion. During the synod, leaders celebrated the official inclusion of the Province of India, representing over 9 million members, and the reception of a new African jurisdiction with more than 3 million members. With these additions, the Evangelical Episcopal Communion now embraces a global fellowship of approximately 15 million believers engaged in ministry, education, and mission across numerous nations, including outreach efforts in several closed and restricted-access countries. The three-day synod featured a series of workshops, plenary sessions, and worship gatherings addressing timely topics such as preaching to Generation Z, church-based nonprofit work, financial stewardship, apostolic succession, and global missions. The highlight of the gathering was the Thursday evening Eucharist, during which two deacons and two priests were ordained, an archbishop was consecrated, and the Province of India was formally established within the Communion. Reflecting on the milestone, Archbishop Russell McClanahan, Primate of the Evangelical Episcopal Communion, stated: “I stand amazed at what God has done over the last three decades. Who could have imagined that from our humble beginnings we would see such a global family of faith—working together to proclaim the Gospel and advance God’s kingdom in so many parts of the world?” The Evangelical Episcopal Communion continues to build on its founding vision of unity in diversity, fostering partnerships among churches, ministries, and leaders committed to the Gospel, the sacraments, and the historic episcopate. For more information about the Evangelical Episcopal Communion, upcoming events, or to connect with EEC leaders worldwide, visit www.eec1.org. Archbishop Russell McClanahan is the Presiding Bishop of the Evangelical Episcopal Communion (EEC).