Archives

By David W. Virtue The Diocesan Council of the Rio Grande has slammed the local branch of Via Media for trying to block the election of a bishop coadjutor to replace the biblically orthodox Bishop Terence Kelshaw when he retires in 2005. Via Media, the growing nationwide revisionist group had sent a letter to all Episcopal Church bishops and diocesan standing committees protesting the canonical actions of the Council. Via Media called for the blocking of the election and withholding of consents, advocating an interim bishop be named instead. Via Media members are "posers" who say they represent the middle ground, said the Council. Posing as "middle grounders" they are trying to subvert the diocese's orthodox priests and laity and gain support for their revisionist causes. Via Media has formed branches in a number of dioceses where the bishops voted against the confirmation of the admitted homosexual Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire. In a letter sent to all members of the diocese, the Diocesan Council refuted claims by Via Media Rio Grande that the search was not following canons, and pointed out the Council is working closely with the Presiding Bishop's pastoral development staff, including Bishop Clay Matthews and Canon Carlson Gerdau. The letter laid out the timetable and process for the bishop-coadjutor's selection, including a survey to be sent to all members in the diocese. The Council unanimously passed a resolution calling Via Media's action "reprehensible" and "destructive," and sent it to all members of the diocese: "The Diocesan Council and Standing Committee of the Diocese of the Rio Grande register their protest against the actions of the self designated group Via Media Rio Grande, specifically, letters sent to each bishop and standing committee in the ECUSA to subvert due process of the election of a bishop-coadjutor in the Diocese of the Rio Grande, and consider these actions reprehensible, destructive of the life in the diocese, and do not promote healing for the church." Via Media stole the list that contained private information said the bishop. The group was publicly cited earlier by Bishop Kelshaw for obtaining the official mailing list for the diocesan newsletter "without authorization." Via Media then used the list to mail out its own literature to all diocesan members and gave it the appearance of official diocesan mail. The list was closely held by the diocese for privacy reasons because it contained the home addresses of all the members of the diocese. "I have resolutely refused to permit home and parish addresses to be passed from this office to other people and bodies even within the diocese," wrote Kelshaw in a Pastoral letter to the diocese. The leader of Via Media Rio Grande is the Rev. Brian Taylor of St. Michael and All Angels in Albuquerque, N.M. Other Via Media Rio Grande leaders who signed the letter that went to all ECUSA bishops and standing committees were Rev. Gary Meade (St. John's Cathedral, Albuquerque), Diane Butler and Dr. Don Partridge (St. Thomas of Canterbury, Albuquerque), Rev. Richard Murphy (St. Bede's, Santa Fe), and Patricia Riggins and Dr. James Tryon (St. Michael and All Angels, Albuquerque). Bishop Kelshaw has said he intends to retire no later than July of 2005. END

OPINION   By Warren Cole Smith MINISTRY WATCH November 1, 2025   The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) is a small but mighty denomination. To use an expression from boxing, it is a denomination that “punches above its weight.” Founded just 15 years ago, it has grown to more than 1000 congregations and a membership of 120,000.   It also has a strong presence in places like Dallas and Colorado Springs, cities that are home to significant evangelical institutions. So, you find a surprising number of senior leaders in major evangelical institutions who are Anglican. The bottom line, and as I have written elsewhere, Anglicanism has the potential to breathe new life into the evangelical movement.   But the denomination is facing challenges on many fronts, some of them self-inflicted. Archbishop Steve Wood, the senior leader of ACNA, has been credibly accused of sexual harassment and other offenses. Another bishop, Stewart Ruch, is currently facing a church trial for his handling of a sex offender in his diocese. Bishop Derek Jones, who has led the military chaplain corps, is now behind a rancorous attempt to leave ACNA and take more than 300 chaplains with him.   When you add all these situations up, it is hard to come to any conclusion other than this: ACNA is in crisis, and it is not at all clear to me that it will survive in its present form.   These news-making conflicts have also highlighted some underlying, structural problems with the denomination. The most conspicuous of these is women’s ordination. For 15 years, the leadership of ACNA has delayed a definitive, denomination-wide ruling on the matter, and the result has been a patchwork.   Some dioceses (geographic regions) ordain women, and some do not. Further adding to the chaos, ACNA has also created non-geographic dioceses that ordain women in places where the geographic bishop doesn’t allow it, and vice versa. Such an arrangement is historically irregular and — many say — a violation of the spirit if not the letter of Anglican polity. And even though women’s ordination is not a presenting symptom in the current conflicts, it lurks just beneath the surface. Bishop Derek Jones, for example, has accused Wood of being the product of a “woke USA.” He has said that the denomination’s actions against him are really a proxy war over what he believes is a slide into liberalism under Wood and his predecessor, Bishop Foley Beach.   All of the current controversies — those involving Archbishop Wood and Bishops Ruch and Jones — have also highlighted the inadequacy of the church’s canons to deal with matters of conflict and discipline. Over the past few years, MinistryWatch has covered several scandals in the denomination, and the process has been tentative and clunky at almost every level.   For example, ACNA first made formal charges against Bishop Stewart Ruch — known as a “presentment” — in December of 2022, three years ago. After many fits and starts (some of which you can read about here), the trial finally took place this week, and we still don’t have a verdict. I have heard from credible sources that the cost of the trial will exceed a million dollars.   What Should Happen Next?   More than a year ago, just before ACNA’s provincial meeting in Latrobe, Penn., I wrote what I think the denomination should do to graduate from organizational adolescence into adulthood.   Those recommendations included:   Make a final decision on women’s ordination. Eliminate non-geographical dioceses, including Church for the Sake of Others. Revise and expand the canons of ACNA. Pick a leader with a strong arm and a velvet touch. Issue a clear statement on sexual issues.   ACNA has so far made almost no progress on any of these recommendations. A committee preparing a statement on sexual issues prepared a draft report, but that report was buried in the bureaucracy of the church and the committee was essentially sidelined. The church made minor changes to its canons at its last provincial meeting. Those changes, while necessary, are not sufficient to deal with the issues coming at the denomination.   Perhaps the biggest fumble, though, was ACNA’s selection of a new archbishop. Not only has he proven himself to be not up to the task, he has become a part of the problem. Even if he is found “not guilty” of the presentment against him, the process itself has already been damaging to him and the church. That is why I would add one more recommendation to the list above: Steve Wood should resign as archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America.   There is no way forward for him that doesn’t do further damage to the church. If he is exonerated of the charges in the presentment, many in ACNA who already distrust his leadership and the inadequacy of the canons will cite that exoneration as proof of a rigged system. If he is found guilty, he is unfit to serve.   I continue to believe that ACNA has great promise. The 15 years of its existence — especially when considered in the long arc of church history — is but a moment. Anglicanism offers much to the world, and to evangelicalism in particular. But it must face this moment with decisiveness and integrity. ACNA faces an existential crisis that grows more acute by the day, and before Anglicanism can save evangelicalism, it must first save itself.   END

News Analysis By David W. Virtue When Frank Griswold told an interviewer with Beliefnet recently that the present path of ECUSA was "truthful", he was not telling the truth. He also said, "secrecy is the devil's playground" in order to accommodate homosexuality in the Episcopal Church. But when he was asked directly if the Archbishop of Canterbury supported the emergence of a Network he disputed such claims. At the Synod of the Church of England, The Archbishop of Canterbury. Dr Rowan Williams offered his support to the newly formed network of orthodox parishes (NACDP) made up of both Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics set up in the United States who oppose the consecration of an openly non-celibate homosexual - V. Gene Robinson - to the historic episcopacy. Addressing the General Synod of the Church of England he said he had been following "sympathetically" the discussions about setting up a network to operate within the Episcopal Church of the United States. His comments came as the Eames Commission was being assembled to deal with the crisis in the Anglican Communion over the ordination/consecration and blessings of avowed homosexuals. They met for the first time in Windsor yesterday. Dr. Williams said: "We do, as a communion, face perhaps unprecedentedly difficult challenges and it's all the more important that we keep those involved in these discussions - in controversy and also in the work of the commission – in our prayers, to equip all of us in the communion for the task that lies before us." Griswold denied that any such talk of a Network was even under consideration by the Archbishop, which raises the deeper question if the disciplining of the Episcopal Church might not be a reality. Irish Primate Robin Eames said the issue of "discipline" might be a possibility when he was interviewed while visiting the Bishop of Virginia Peter James Lee recently. Dr. Williams said the commission, headed by the Primate of Ireland had been charged with "an exceptionally difficult and delicate task". Because of this, Dr Williams said, it was inappropriate to attempt to second-guess the recommendations "on these large issues of communion, maintenance of communion and breakage of communion". He said he was looking for "some sort of shared future and common witness, so far as is possible". The aim is to find a way of offering "episcopal oversight" or pastoral care by bishops to conservative parishes in a form that is acceptable to the ruling liberal majority. But Williams faced an equally unprecedented act this week when 14 Primates publicly blasted Griswold and the consecration of New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson declaring themselves out of communion with the Episcopal Church. END

19 February 2004 The Right Reverend John B. Lipscomb, Bishop The Diocese of Southwest Florida 7313 Merchant Court Sarasota, FL 34240 (A note to the reader: Bishop Lipscomb has invited Frank Griswold, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America [ECUSA] to speak to our Diocesan Convention in October of 2004. Bishop Griswold has accepted. Subsequently, Bishop Lipscomb has been encouraged to rescind that invitation because of the divisive pain his presence would precipitate. Bishop Lipscomb has resisted the withdrawal of the invitation and has instead justified it as something worthwhile. You may read about the invitation and the justification by accessing the diocesan website: www.dioceseswfla.org/ezine.htm) Dear Bishop, Greetings to you and yours in the unique, saving love of Christ Jesus. I pray for you regularly as I understand the godly weight of responsibility inherent in your ministry. In that atmosphere of prayerfulness, I own the words of our Savior as I say to you, "My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death." (Mark 14:22, NKJV) Spiritual anguish and torment would not be stating the case too strongly for my feelings as I consider your invitation to Bishop Griswold, and subsequent rationale for maintaining said invitation, to speak to our Diocesan convention. I believe your decision to be an error, wrought with gravely dangerous implications for the proclamation of the Gospel be that to those who are part of the church or not. Souls are at stake. Frank Griswold is in need of repentance and discipline, not a place at the t able of discussion. He is the single most recognizable symbol of disunity in the Anglican Communion. He is the point man who has precipitated a crisis in worldwide Anglicanism and caused 20 or more Archbishops, representing better than 50% of all Anglicans across the face of the globe to break communion with ECUSA. Griswold has rhetorically and practically repudiated Christianity. How can one such as he engage in "honest conversation," as you say, when he understands neither the Truth nor the truth? He has publicly denied the uniqueness of Christ by word and deed. He mocks the Truth. He has publicly deceived 37 Anglican primates and 70 plus million Anglicans by agreeing that a certain course of action should not be undertaken because of its disastrous implications. Then in a spate of ecclesial arrogance, less than a month later, proceeded to enthusiastically support and participate in said course of action. He mocks the truth! The Presiding Bishop's piously effusive words and pluriform ideology are non-Christian poison-why should anyone be subjected to more of such? If someone became ill because of unknowingly ingesting arsenic, would they then partake of it knowingly? You rightfully cite your episcopal vows to "guard the faith, unity and discipline of the Church." Allowing Mr. Griswold to speak to your flock would eviscerate the faith, further impair its unity and deny t he appropriate discipline of the Church. The New Testament model for dealing with a sinful brother is to point out his fault to him privately and secure repentance. Failing that, a small party of witnesses are to confront the unrepentant sinner to further explain the grave danger of his sinful ways. If such a one is still recalcitrant, then the matter is to be brought before the whole church in an effort to have him mend his ways. Failing that, he is to be treated as a pagan (Cf. Matthew 18:15-17). Frank Griswold has arrogantly spurned repeated calls for repentance-he is to be treated as an apostate, with no rightful place at the table. For too many years "protracted, civil discourse" has served to mitigate the "faith once delivered." We in the Episcopal Church have conveniently hidden behind the cultural and voguey facade of inclusivity and diversity, welcoming wolves in among the sheep. It has been a slaughter-in terms of the sheep and of the Gospel. The cloak of diversity has served as a convenient, guilt driven ruse to allow the wolves into the church. It has provided an environment in which they can even flourish. Diversity for the sake of pseudo- inclusivity mocks our own Baptismal Covenant. When we allows sin to reign (speak authoritatively) in ECUSA (or a diocesan convention) we bring a halt to our perseverance in resisting evil; we deny the Good News of God in Christ and in doing so disrespect the dignity of every human; we make a mockery of loving our neighbors as ourselves and striving for peace and justice among all as we officially enshrine and dialogue about those things that are plainly contrary to the Word of God. The Apostle Paul said, "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial (Satan)? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?"(2 Corinthians 6:14-15) None! Jesus shared the Truth with sinners, he did not engage in protracted, civil discourse. If they (we) repented and followed, great, welcome to eternal life. If not, our Lord did chase them down to dialogue a bout and dilute the Truth. Indeed, he allowed "many" to go their separate way when the Truth became too much to bear (cf. John 6:60-66). With all due respect, Right Reverend Sir, now is the time to stand squarely upon the Firm Foundation and do the godly righteous thing: rescind the invitation to our Primate. To do so would be a poignant, profound and widely recognized statement for the Truth of the Gospel. To do otherwise is to give tacit approval to all that he stands for and all that he has done. This may well be your moment in history-the single most important opportunity for the proclamation of the Good News you may ever have. Will it be a regrettable nadir for our diocese or a godly zenith? May God have mercy on us all. I will continue to uphold you in prayer. In Jesus' loving-kindness and faithfulness, Jim+ (The Reverend) James T. Murphy Pastor, Rector, Friend Church of the Nativity, Sarasota, Florida frmurf2@verizon.net ENGLAND: OPTIONS. WOMEN'S ORDINATION Options Geoffrey Kirk on which way to turn With the priests Ordination of Women Measure 19 and its attendant Act of Synod, the Church of England entered upon what its own documents describe as an open period of reception of the new ministry. Archdeacon Judith Roses motion, which was passed by the General Synod in July 2000 marked a milestone in that journey. It asked the House of Bishops to initiate further theological study on the episcopate, focussing on the issues that need to be addressed in preparation for the debate on women in the episcopate in the Church of England. The Commission which resulted from (often known as the Rochester Commission from its chairman, the Rt Revd Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester) will produce, in due time, the first official theological statement on the ordination of women since the House of Bishops Second Report (GS829) in 1982. With the final publication of the Report , which is already available to the Bishops in draft, a number of options will lie before the Church. In a series of articles over the next months, New Directions will look at those options one by one, assess them both theologically and politically, and encourage our readers to come to a conclusion for themselves. But first of all the options need to be stated in their naked simplicity, and the ground staked out for further analysis. The first option, of course, is to declare the open period of reception for women's ordination at an end and the experiment to have failed. This may be a little beyond the bounds of Anglican probability, but if the notion of reception is to be taken as anything more than empty rhetoric, it has to be conceded that the Rochester Commission could (as a result of further deep theological reflection) come to agree with the Vatican and the Phanar, that the Church has no authority to ordain women to the priesthood or the episcopate. Like the Lutheran Church of Latvia and the Presbyterian Church of Australia, it would then cease to ordain women to the priesthood. A second option would be to maintain the status quo, where women can be priests but not bishops. Such an option would leave the period of reception open. It would frankly admit that to ordain women to the episcopate rendered women's ordination practically irreversible. It would allow for the theological uncertainties which still remain. It would preclude, for the foreseeable future, a female Archbishop of Canterbury (thus avoiding further destabilization of the Anglican Communion at a time of increasing unrest). Some might hold that there are fundamental theological reasons why women may be priests but not bishops reasons related to the role of bishops as instruments of unity within and between dioceses, not only at home, but across the world; reasons connected to the doctrine of male headship; and reasons related to the history of the origins and development of the two orders, which might be held to render them separate and distinct. To continue status quo would not, of course, end dispute about women in orders. Rather, it would be to allow space for the continuance of debate. It could not in the nature of things satisfy those for whom the ordination of women in 1992 was a tragic misjudgement. Nor those for whom the ordination of women in all three orders is an ethical a priori objective. It would do little if anything to improve relations with Rome and Constantinople. It would retain a major stumbling block to Methodist reunion. A third option would be single clause legislation with no provision for dissent. This option might be thought to follow logically from the General Synod vote in 1975 that there are no fundamental objections of the ordination of women to the priesthood. It would be attractive to those who view the whole matter as one of justice and human rights and who are already impatient with the Ac t of Synod. It would have the advantage of relative legislative simplicity. It would maintain the integrity of the bishops office and the geographical integrity of existing Church of England dioceses. Such an option, of course, would be radically unacceptable to opponents. It would force them into conscientious law-breaking on a scale hitherto unknown in the Church of England. It would place in an invidious position those bishops (the PEVs) whom the Church of England has ordained and commissioned especially to pastor and care for opponents. A fourth option would be that women could be admitted to the episcopate, but precluded from the office of Archbishop. This would not be immediately attractive to those who see the issue as one of human rights; but, in the way in which they put up with the schedules to the 19 Measure, they might see it as the least of all possible ills. It would gain them substantially what they wanted, until the prohibition could be overturned. The option might, moreover, prove attractive to those Evangelicals for whom headship is an infinitely receding principle. They could (just) argue that headship in the CofE was still male! It would possibly help sustain the unit y of the Anglican Communion in the short term if other gender- and s ex-related issues did not fracture it sooner. It is hard to see how it would help those opposed to the consecration of women in theological grounds. Nor are glass ceilings attractive to WATCH and GRAS. A fifth option would be to appoint women as suffragans, but not diocesans. Such an approach would have all the advantages and disadvantages of the fourth option, with the additional disadvantage that the glass ceiling for w omen would be set far lower. For Catholic Anglicans it would raise serious questions about the episcopal credentials of a new kind of minister one who acted like a bishop, but who could not in principle be preferred as a diocesan. A sixth option would be to restructure episcopacy in such a way that it would become a team activity, with both men and women in each diocesan team. The notion would be that parishes could set up a special relationship with those members of the team who fitted their theology or predilections. This radical idea derives from the world of ecumenical encounter, where episcope increasingly replaces episcopacy as the preferred term. It has the difficulty that it reverses the traditional monarchical view of the episcopate, with its origins in the first century, which sees the bishop (singular) as a n icon of God the Father. It would also, almost inevitably, create problems of primacy within the team should the lead bishop be male or female? Those for whom girl-power is the primary aim would be unlikely to find this version of co-operative ministry very attractive. For those opposed it might well be seen simply as a rejection of episcopacy as the Church has received it. A seventh option would be to adapt and expand the present provision of extended episcopal oversight. This might be done in a number of ways. Each diocese might maintain at least one male bishop opposed to the ordination of women who would minister to dissentients. If it was objected that such a bishop would necessarily be in unimpaired communion with a female diocesan, it might be arranged that he reported instead to a male Archbishop. Various arrangements of this kind have been proposed in Australia. Thus far they have proved singularly unpopular with the proponents of women bishops and little more in favour with those opposed. Their sole effect has been to slow down the process toward female consecrations. The question for the Church of England would be the extent to which such bishops would usurp the juridical rights and sacramental authority of diocesans. To satisfy opponents they would need to do so to a considerable extent (at t he very least to have rights to select and ordain candidates for the ministry and to have their own ecumenical priorities). Proponents would probably denounce such arrangements as a tantamount to a new Province. An eighth option would be the creation of a new Province of the Anglican Communion, parallel to the existing provinces of Scotland, Ireland and Wales, with orders separate and distinct from those of the Provinces of Canterbury and York. Such a province would have all the independence and autonomy presently allowed to Anglican provinces, together with its own Provincial Synod or Governing Body. It would be created by Measure. Parishes would enter and leave it by Schedules to the Measure not unlike those in the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 19. Parishes which so voted would be withdrawn, both sacramentally and juridically from the Church of England dioceses of which they had previously been part. This option would have the advantage of continuing the process of reception to which the Church of England is committed. It would allow time (on the Gamaliel principle) to decide which opinion would prosper. Such an arrangement would almost certainly prove extremely unpopular with proponents. But on further reflection they might begin to see that it had distinct advantages for them. It would remove dissentients from the life of the Church of England, which could then operate without the various degrees of discrimination against women priests and bishops which the other options would involve. It would remove from the General Synod the irritant of a sizeable p arty intractably opposed to further innovation. It would allow the Church of England to pursue the Methodist reunion programme and other ecumenical projects with out let or hindrance. A New Province, moreover, would involve no ecclesiological innovation which the Anglican Communion has not already embraced in order to facilitate the ordination of women as priests and bishops. Such a list of options may seem long, and the choices hard. But getting it right is imperative if legislation is to be passed with the required majorities, and women bishops are to have a fair chance of establishing them selves without acrimony. The fate of recent proposals in Australia provides a cautionary tale. Opposition (from both sides) to the provisions for dissent, ensured that the primary legislation itself fell. They shot themselves in the foot, said David Chislett, reviewing the days proceedings in Brisbane 2001. One cannot help thinking that things might have been organized better. END

Area churches will use 'Passion' for outreach By Judith Person and Jon Ward THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published February 19, 2004 Area church leaders say the opening of filmmaker Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" next week could be the evangelical tool of a lifetime -- and they are poised to take advantage of it. McLean Bible Church, an 8,500-member Fairfax County congregation, bought more than 11,000 tickets for private screenings of the film next week. Other pastors have canceled or scaled back services, encouraging their flocks to see the R-rated movie instead. A Fairfax resident has plunked down $2,675 to rent out a theater for himself and his friends for a showing. This appears to be a nationwide phenomenon. "Pastors have awakened to the fact that this is a major cultural phenomenon that will present many opportunities to share the Gospel," said Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. Denny Harris, director of ministry operations at McLean Bible Church, said special showings of "Passion" for members of the church and their guests begin Monday, two days before the film opens in 2,000 theaters nationwide. Members are encouraged to bring non-Christian friends to one of the 40 screenings scheduled over four days in 10 area theaters. Mr. Harris called the event "the most significant outreach we have ever done." Church leaders hope to turn the cinematic experience into teaching moments by handing out books containing the Gospel of St. Luke to attendees at each show. One of the church's nine pastors also will be on hand after each screening to discuss the film and answer questions, and church officials also plan follow-up workshops. The film, criticized by some Jewish leaders for graphic depiction of the Crucifixion of Christ, which they say could spark an anti-Semitic backlash, has been staunchly defended by its creator, Academy Award-winning director Mr. Gibson. Mr. Gibson, a member of a conservative branch of the Roman Catholic Church, has said he wanted the film to be difficult to watch, to dramatize the magnitude of Christ's sacrifice. He also created enormous interest in Christian communities nationwide by crisscrossing the country in past weeks, screening the film for select audiences of religious leaders and film buffs. If the anticipation in the Washington area is any indication, "Passion" could be a blockbuster -- on several levels. Fairfax resident Dan O'Brien has invested $2,675 to rent out the Multiplex Theater in Centerville on opening night. He also sent 800 invitations for people to attend and bring friends. Those who join Mr. O'Brien's party also will hear a short message after the film. And the groundswell isn't happening just in big churches. In Maryland, 600-member Mount Airy Bible Church plans to rent out a theater. The Rev. Wallace Webster said his Howard County congregation wants to use the showings to introduce non-Christians to its faith. "This is not just for our people," he said. "We've read the story." He said he hopes that those interested in Christ after seeing the film will join services at his church. "If only one person comes to Christ from this, it is worth it," he said. One Arlington church is especially well-positioned to take advantage of the interest in the film. National Community Church, which meets in the Theaters at Ballston Common Mall, is replacing its Feb. 29 services with free viewings of "Passion." "We feel that we are perfectly positioned at a theater to take advantage of it," said the Rev. Mark Batterson, lead pastor at the church. Churchgoers will have their pick of two showings, 9:30 and 10:30 a.m. "I think this will bring people face to face with the Crucifixion," Mr. Batterson said. But he added that parents should realize that the movie is not for everyone. "This is violent and the truth is, the Crucifixion was violent," he said. Children under 13, he cautioned, probably should not see the film. Some area religious leaders are less enthusiastic about the two-hour, subtitled epic. "I think the film has potential to be positive and negative," said Rabbi Barry Rubin, who leads a messianic Jewish congregation in Ellicott City, Md. As a believer in Jesus, he said, he appreciates what Christ went through. But as a Jew, he is concerned about the film's potential for fueling anti-Semitism. In local Jewish synagogues, the movie is a hot topic. "They want to know what to think," said Rabbi Jack Moline of the Agudas Achim Congregation in Alexandria. "I've been telling them, 'Let's see the movie.' But there's been so much written and said about it that I want to at least frame the issues for them so we can look at this intelligently and not just viscerally." Mr. Moline, who has bought a ticket online to see the movie on opening night with a Christian friend, said he is not concerned that filmgoers might be inspired to violence by "Passion." "I really object to the way motives have been imputed to Gibson by Jews and non-Jews alike. This is a spiritual quest for Gibson, and I think it's been of ultimate importance for him," the rabbi said. "Clearly, this is his expression of his own conversionary experience. If you and I had $30 million, we might do something similar. ... He's an artist, and he used his art to express his own spiritual yearnings." In a sermon Sunday, the Rev. Mark Dever told his Capitol Hill Baptist Church congregation in Northeast that his church will not plan special outings to see the film. "If this movie is so emotionally engaging, I'm going to be very careful before I give it an entree into my mind about the most important thing in my life," he said from the pulpit. "Because I have a question of whether it's sin, I probably shouldn't go see it." Copyright © 2004 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved. END

Report/Analysis By The Rev. Samuel L. Edwards The traditionalist Forward in Faith, United Kingdom, has developed a strong case for it recent years, and now a third or "free" province for those who uphold historic holy order looks like a distinct possibility if the Church of England decides (as expected) to approve women bishops. Along with several other Anglican provinces, the CofE currently ordains women to the diaconate and priesthood. But when it began contemplating the consecration of women to the episcopate, traditionalists most notably FIF made clear that that change would render inadequate the current provisions for women priest opponents, which include a system of "flying" bishops (provincial episcopal visitors). With the advent of women bishops, they said, those theologically opposed to female ordination would be unable to remain even in impaired communion with the state Church as currently constituted. In response to such concerns, then-Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey appointed Rochester Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali to lead a working party to stud y the theological and ecclesiastical implications of such a change and to make recommendations on how to deal with it so as to maintain the CofE's institutional unity. In early January, following three years of study, the Rochester Commission issued its draft report. It does not recommend one solution, but instead gives a menu of possibilities ranging from making no provision for those who uphold the Church's traditional order, to the creation of a third province within t he CofE which would overlay the existing provinces of Canterbury and York, while having its own seminaries, parishes, dioceses, bishops and archbishop. NATURALLY, the separate province option is drawing mixed reviews from across the theological and ideological spectrum of the English Church. That revisionists should oppose it is not surprising: They worked long and hard to capture the institution and are loathe to see a significant part of it slipping from their grasp, particularly as there would be financial consequences to such an outcome. Most revisionists would echo the judgment of Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement Communications Director Martin Reynolds, who deemed the separate province "a schism in all but name....Would it have the right to change it structures or its legal framework? We believe it would lead to a real and lasting division." What is more surprising, on the surface at least, is the disfavor of the Church Society, one of the oldest and best known of the CofE Evangelical associations. The group opposes women in the episcopate, but also opposes the third province option as too radical. In the words of the Society's general secretary, David Phillips, it "looks like a halfway house to leaving altogether...We do not want to be marginalized in this separate organization." It is likely that the anxiety here stems from the fact that a very large percentage of the potential membership of this province would be drawn from the Catholic wing of the English Church, with whom the Church Society shares little apart from its convictions on moral issues. The proposal is not likely to garner much support from the bench of bishops. However, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has indicated he could live with a third province arrangement, and the bishops would likely choose it over the prospect of an actual mass exodus from the institution which would include many of the C of E's most articulate and effective clerics. (When it first ordained women priests in 1994, the CofE lost over 400 clergy, mostly to Rome. A recent survey suggested that up to a quarter of current CofE clergy remain implacably opposed to women becoming bishops.) There appears to be little enthusiasm for a re-tooling of the current system of flying bishops, since it is already disliked by the revisionist wing and, as noted, has already been declared by FIF to be unworkable as soon as women become bishops. It is likely, then, that if the separate province option is adopted, it will be done reluctantly and grudgingly, to prevent an outward and visible fissure within the institution. Sources included Anglican Communion News Service, The Guardian The Daily Telegraph (London) END

Archbishop tells commission that Church must draw limits By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent THE TIMES THE Archbishop of Canterbury has criticised fundamentalists and extremists on both sides of the Anglican Church for distorting the message of the Bible in the debate over homosexuality. Rowan Williams told members of the Lambeth Commission on homosexuality that a church faithful to the biblical revelation has to exercise discipline and draw boundaries if it is to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus and not its own concerns. Dr Williams said the problem was not simply about biblical faithful ness versus fashionable relativism. He said that there were pro found biblical principles involved and criticised those at both extremes of the de bate. The Archbishop was addressing the first meeting of the commission set up to avert rifts in the Anglican Communion over the ordination of homosexuals and the blessings of same-sex marriage. The commission was set up after an emergency meeting of the primates of the Anglican church to debate the crisis caused by the election of the openly gay father of two, Gene Robinson, as Bishop of New Hampshire. The commission, chaired by the Primate of Ireland, Dr Robin Eames, includes members from all sides of the debate. It aims to produce a report early next year. In a statement, commission members said they were saddened that tensions in the Church, exacerbated by the use of strident language, had continued to rise. The crisis has already prompted the establishment of a new network of conservative Anglicans in the Episcopal Church of the US. The network, which some sources claim intends to supersede the mainstream church, is supported by 13 primates from the Global South. Dr Williams warned the commission: You will need to be aware of the danger of those doctrines of the Church which, by isolating one element of the Bible's teaching, produce distortions a Church of the perfect or the perfectly unanimous on one side, a Church of general human inspiration or liberation on the other. The Archbishop, commissioning members for their task, advised them that the primates have repeatedly asserted that they wish to remain a Communion, rather than becoming a federation of churches. He continued: The difficult balance in our Communion as it presently exists is between the deep conviction that we should not look for a single executive authority and the equally deep anxiety about the way in which a single local decision can step beyond what the communion as whole is committed to, and create division, embarrassment and evangelistic difficulties in other churches. The consultation was opened with prayers by Dr Williams who charged the members to be diligent in discharging this weighty task and to work together for the good of our communion. He also urged them to present a model of cooperation in love and charity so that Anglicans worldwide could take heart. Mary Tanner, a leading theologian, compared the debate over homosexuality to that over women priests and said that agreement from the Lambeth Conference and the Anglican Consultative Council had been sought before women were first ordained. By comparison, the Episcopal Church of the US went ahead and ordained an openly gay bishop in spite of a resolution to the contrary from the 1998 Lambeth Conference and pleas from the Church's primates worldwide not to do so. Dr Tanner said that the crisis was one of authority and decision-ma king in communion. She gave warning that it was clear that the issue of homosexuality will not go away. She acknowledged that it will be hard to find a man for the future to unite the presently warring groups, some of whom hardly seem able to hear one another, or to want to hear one another. Dr Paul Avis, General Secretary of the Council for Christian Unity, said it was possible for Anglicans to passionately and bitterly disagree with one another without breaking communion. Dr Chris Sugden, director of the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies, gave warning that the Anglican Communion could be in danger of becoming an expression of the ethics of western liberal elites. He said: The Anglican Communion is at a crossroads. For some the current crisis has been precipitated by heterodox leadership in the communion in an economically powerful province. In the view of some, the US was over-influential in the central structure and bureaucracy of the Church, he said. Referring to declarations by several provinces that they are formally out of communion with the American church, Dr Sugden called for the US church to be suspended from the communion, with the goal of eventual reconciliation. Advocating the evangelical view, he said: We have to note that the liberal strand in the Anglican tradition is practically absent in the regions where the Church is growing. END

Feb 17, 2004 By Terry Mattingly WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (BP)--The ancient rabbinic text is clear about the punishment for those who twisted sacred law and misled the people of Israel. Offenders would be stoned and then hung by their hands from two pieces of wood connected to form a "T." The Talmud once included this example from the Sanhedrin: "On the eve of Passover they hung Jesus of Nazareth," said the passage, which was censored in the 16th century to evade the wrath of Christians. "The herald went out before him for 40 days saying, 'Jesus goes forth to be stoned, because he has practiced magic, enticed and led astray Israel. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and declare concerning him.' And they found nothing in his favor." If armies of Jewish and Christian scholars insist on arguing about Mel Gibson's explosive movie "The Passion of The Christ," it would help if they were candid and started dealing with the hard passages in Jewish texts as well as the Christian scriptures. At least, that's what David Klinghoffer thinks. The Orthodox Jewish writer -- whose forthcoming book is titled "Why the Jews Rejected Christ" -- believes these lines from the Talmud are as troubling as any included in the Christian Gospels. They are as disturbing as any image Gibson might include in his controversial epic. The Talmudic text seems clear. Jesus clashed with Jewish leaders, debating them on the meaning of their laws. They hated him. Many wanted him dead. It is possible, Klinghoffer said, to interpret these documents as saying that Jesus' fate rested entirely with the Jewish court. The use of language such as "enticed and led astray" indicated that Jesus may have been charged with leading His fellow Jews to worship false gods. There are more details in this confusing drama. Writing in 12th-century Egypt, the great Jewish sage Maimonides summed up the ancient texts. "Jesus of Nazareth," he proclaims, in his Letter to Yemen, "... impelled people to believe that he was a prophet sent by God to clarify perplexities in the Torah, and that he was the Messiah that was predicted by each and every seer. He interpreted the Torah and its precepts in such a fashion as to lead to their total annulment, to the abolition of all its commandments and to the violation of its prohibitions. "The sages, of blessed memory, having become aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people, meted out fitting punishment to him." Is that it? What role did the Romans play? In terms of historic fact, Klinghoffer emphasized, it's almost impossible to find definitive answers for such questions. But the purpose of the Jewish oral traditions that led to the Talmud was to convey religious belief, not necessarily historical facts. "If you really must ask, 'Who is responsible for the death of Jesus?' then you can only conclude that both the Gospels and the Talmud agree that the Jewish leaders did not have the power to execute Him," Klinghoffer said. "Did they influence the event? The religious texts suggest that they did, the historic texts suggest that they did not. It's hard to know. ... But if Gibson is an anti-Semite, then to be consistent you would have to say that so was Maimonides." Obviously, Klinghoffer is not spreading this information in order to fan the flames of hatred. His goal, he said, is to provoke Jewish leaders in cities such as New York and Los Angeles to strive harder to understand the views of traditional Protestants and Catholics. And it's time for liberal Christians to spend as much time talking with Orthodox Jews as with liberal Jews. It's time for everyone to be more honest, he said. "I don't see anything that is to be gained for Judaism by going out of our way to antagonize a Mel Gibson or to antagonize as many traditional Christians as we possibly can. I think we have been yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater," Klinghoffer said. "To put it another way, I don't think it's very wise for a few Jewish leaders to try to tell millions of Christians what they are supposed to believe. Would we want some Christians to try to edit our scriptures and to tell us what we should believe?" Terry Mattingly (www.tmatt.net) teaches at Palm Beach Atlantic University in West Palm Beach, Fla., and is senior fellow for journalism at the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities. He writes this weekly column for the Scripps Howard News Service. Used by permission. END

FIRST-PERSON: More harm than good 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. END

Besieged Kenyan bishop back from US. Primate Nzimbi says HOB will decide his fate 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. END

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. END

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.1 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 See BS Thornton, Eros: The Myth of Ancient Greek Sexuality (Boulder: Westview Press, 1997) especially 99-101 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. 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. 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.