Archives

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 table 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 the 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 about 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 TruthRetryDVContinueof 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

An Episcopal congregation leaving the church is being sued in the dispute. By Mark I. Pinsky | Sentinel Staff Writer Posted February 20, 2004 The Episcopal Diocese of Central Florida has filed suit to keep a Winter Springs church from leaving the denomination -- and taking its property with it -- over the confirmation of an openly gay man as a bishop. Members of the governing board of the Episcopal Church of the New Covenant voted Jan. 18 to leave the denomination. "Our vestry does not feel at this point that we can remain underneath the authority of an organization that we feel has departed from the historical Christian faith and order," said Scott Culp, secretary to the church's governing board. Since August, when the 2.3-million member Episcopal Church, USA, held its national convention in Minneapolis, the denomination has been in turmoil. In addition to confirming the Rev. Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire, the general convention voted to permit parishes to continue blessing same-sex unions. New Covenant is the second congregation to leave the Central Florida diocese in less than a month, but the first to try to keep its property. In January, nearly 300 members of St. John's Episcopal Church in Melbourne voted to abandon their old property and establish a new congregation, Prince of Peace Anglican Church, in Satellite Beach. More than 100 worshipers have remained with the Melbourne church. Unlike the group that left St. John's, which affiliated with the Anglican Mission in America, New Covenant has not yet decided where it will go after leaving the Episcopal Church, USA. The legal action filed Wednesday in Seminole County Circuit Court seeks to keep the Winter Springs congregation from transferring title of its property to a new corporation that is not affiliated with the Episcopal Church.The diocese argued in its filing that such a transfer would jeopardize the interests of congregants who wish to remain part of the Diocese of Central Florida. "It's clearly established that a parish cannot take property with them," said Joe Thoma, a spokesman for the diocese. "That's in the canons." At the same time, Thoma did not rule out an eventual settlement between the congregation and the diocese. "We're not taking any kind of confrontational stance," Thoma said. Culp agreed, saying members of the congregation still held out hope for an amicable settlement with the diocese, one that would enable the congregation to keep its property. Bishop John Howe and Council Wooten Jr., the diocese's attorney, met earlier this month with congregational leaders to try to work out a settlement. Howe has been outspoken in opposing the Robinson confirmation and the blessing of same-sex unions. "We respect Bishop Howe and his positions, and we recognize that his beliefs are consistent with ours," Culp said. "We desired to negotiate with the diocese for an amicable settlement that will allow us to come out from under the authority of the Episcopal Church, USA." Culp said the diocese purchased the property on Tuskawilla Road in the late 1970s for $37,500, and deeded it to the new congregation. Since then, he said, members have spent $2 million for construction. There is no debt on the property, Culp said. The departure of New Covenant is the latest example of "a denomination in chaos," said the Rev. Kendall Harmon, a leader of a conservative network within the Episcopal Church. Since the August general convention, Harmon said, five to 10 congregations in the nation have left the denomination, and at least one other church has initiated legal action. Harmon attributed the departures to frustration over the church's "theological deterioration."

By Terry Mattingly Feb 17, 2004 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.

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.

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.

A large and growing body of social scientific evidence indicates that the intact, married family is best for children. Scholars such as David Popenoe, Linda Waite, Maggie Gallagher, Sara McLanahan, David Blankenhorn, Paul Amato, and Alan Booth support this view. Sara McLanahan, a sociologist at Princeton University, states:   “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… 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.”   This empirical reality supports the norm that every child should have the opportunity to grow up in an intact, married family—or, failing that, an adoptive family headed by a married couple offering both a mother and a father.   1. Children hunger for their biological parents Same-sex couples using IVF or surrogacy deliberately create children who live apart from one biological parent. Yale psychiatrist Kyle Pruett reports that children of IVF often ask their mothers: “Mommy, what did you do with my daddy? Can I write him a letter? Has he ever seen me?”   2. Children need fathers Fathers uniquely reduce antisocial behavior in boys and early sexual activity in girls. Studies show girls raised without their biological father are more likely to experience early puberty and teen pregnancy—suggesting fathers influence biological development through pheromones and modeling.   3. Children need mothers Mothers excel in providing emotional security and reading infant cues. They also offer daughters unique guidance through puberty and adolescence.   4. Inadequate evidence on same-sex couple parenting Leading professional associations claim “no effects” on children raised by same-sex couples, but the research is preliminary, often methodologically flawed, and frequently conducted by advocates. Sociologist Steven Nock, agnostic on same-sex marriage, concluded: “All of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution… not a single one was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research.”   5. Children raised in same-sex homes experience gender and sexual disorders Some studies suggest children of lesbians are more likely to exhibit gender nonconformity and report same-sex attraction. Sociologist Judith Stacey found “a significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers… reported having a homoerotic relationship.”   6. Vive la différence Marriage thrives when spouses specialize in gender-typical roles. Women are happier when their husband is the primary earner; couples are less likely to divorce when the wife focuses on childrearing and the husband on breadwinning.   7. Sexual fidelity Same-sex marriage could undermine the norm of sexual fidelity. In Vermont, over 79% of heterosexual married couples value sexual fidelity, compared to only about 50% of gay men in civil unions.   8. Marriage, procreation, and the fertility implosion Marriage historically secured a mother and father for every child. Same-sex marriage severs this link. Countries legalizing same-sex unions (e.g., Netherlands, Sweden, Canada) have fertility rates well below replacement (1.6 vs. 2.1).   9. For the sake of the children The divorce and sexual revolutions weakened the norm that couples should marry and stay married for their children. Same-sex marriage may further normalize fatherlessness, making it easier for men to rationalize abandoning their children.   10. Women and marriage domesticate men Married men earn more, drink less, live longer, and are more faithful. Their testosterone levels drop—especially with children at home. There’s little evidence same-sex marriage produces similar effects.   END

NPR – ALL THINGS CONSIDERED MELISSA BLOCK, host: From NPR News, this is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. I'm Melissa Block. MICHELE NORRIS, host: And I'm Michele Norris. 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. NPR’s Barbara Bradley Hagerty reports. Kurt Barnes, the treasurer of the Episcopal Church, describes himself as a conservative man, not one prone to “gilding the lily.” He’s keenly aware of the controversy roiling the church since it recognized gay unions and consecrated Gene Robinson, a gay priest, as 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. “The impact is what I would describe as insignificant,” Barnes said. He recommends dioceses cut 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. “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.” Reverend Don Armstrong, rector of the 2,400-member Grace Episcopal Church in Colorado Springs, says the bishops are spinning the narrative. Angry conservative parishioners in Colorado have withheld some $350,000 from their diocese, he says, but the bishop is covering the loss locally and maintaining national contributions. “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 of the Diocese of South Carolina adds that the situation will grow more acute. Entire churches are leaving the denomination to join conservative offshoots like the Anglican Mission in America. “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… is going to go down.” But Naughton notes a counter-trend: parishioners supportive of gay inclusion are making up shortfalls. “Many people in those parishes have said, ‘Fine. If you’re not going to give to the diocese, we’re going to give directly.’ So this idea that people are voting with their pocketbooks goes both ways.” And so in this war of words and finances, with too much smoke to see clearly, both sides are claiming victory. Barbara Bradley Hagerty, NPR News, Washington. Copyright © 1990–2003 National Public Radio. All rights reserved. END

By David W. Virtue VANCOUVER, BC – The revisionist Bishop of New Westminster, Michael Ingham, faces a triple crisis that could derail his plans to depose—or at minimum put on hold—his desire to remove 11 biblically orthodox priests from their parishes and seize their properties. He faces a legal ultimatum from 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. Parishioners maintain that as a legally incorporated organization, they have the right to make decisions for themselves and that 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 is that four parishes have now obtained Temporary Adequate Episcopal Oversight (TAEO) from four international Anglican primates, with immediate oversight by a U.S.-based AMiA bishop. This is a temporary measure until a more permanent solution can be found. Seven of the 11 parishes have not yet signed on but are weighing their options. “All the conservative Canadian bishops have been informed of the TAEO offer,” a source said, “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. We should not view this as a break-up of the ACiNW coalition. It isn’t.” The third crisis stems from the Canadian House of Bishops Task Force, which could recommend some form of oversight for the 11 beleaguered parishes. If Ingham refuses, he will be at odds not only with the Anglican Church of Canada but also with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the 38 Primates of the Anglican Communion. To date, Ingham has not responded to either crisis. Those close to him say he will never accept a recommendation for alternative oversight because it would diminish his ecclesiastical authority. “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 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 Revd John Lombard, St. Simon’s, Deep Cove Revd Barclay Mayo, St. Andrew’s, Pender Harbour Revd Silas Ng, Emmanuel Church, Richmond 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) have not yet agreed to outside primatial oversight. END

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Thursday, February 12, 2004 WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) today 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. “But 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: ‘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 been 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 Rock’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 nonexistent 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.” END

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Thursday, February 12, 2004 Miller Delivers Floor Speech on ‘Deficit of Decency’ in America WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) today delivered the following statement on the floor of the United States Senate addressing several social issues facing the country: [Full speech content retained as provided—no duplicates found.] CULTURE WARS: TOP 10 ARGUMENTS AGAINST SAME SEX MARRIAGE Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage (SSM) Top 10 Social Scientific Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage (SSM). A large and growing body of social scientific evidence indicates that the intact, married family is best for children... [Full content retained—no duplicates found.] 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 END