Archives

Williams supports Americans who oppose gay bishop BY RUTH GLEDHILL, RELIGION CORRESPONDENT The London Times The Archbishop of Canterbury. Dr Rowan Williams, has offered his support to a network of traditionalist churches being set up in America to oppose the gay Bishop Gene Robinson. Dr Williams, addressing the General Synod of the Church of England said that 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 commission assembled to resolve the controversy in the Anglican Church over the ordination and blessings of homosexuals 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." He said the commission, headed by the Primate of Ireland, Dr Robin Eames, 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. Even as he spoke, however, it became clear that the divisions over homosexuality were deepening when 13 primates from around the world issued a statement condemning once again the actions of the episcopal church of the US. The primates, headed by the Most Rev Peter Akinola of Nigeria the Most Rev Drexel Gomez of the West Indies and the Most Rev Greg Venables of the Southern Cone said the consecration of Bishop Robinson had "created a situation of grave concern for the entire Anglican Communion and beyond". The action of the American Church was "a direct repudiation of the clear teaching of the Holy Scriptures, historic faith and order of the Church''. END

Commentary By Uwe Siemon-Netto UPI Religious Affairs Editor WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 (UPI) -- More than 50 million Americans, perhaps even twice as many, including a substantial segment of Catholics, consider themselves evangelicals, according to the Rev. Gerald R. McDermott, an Episcopal scholar. They are a highly diverse group of Christians united in, among other things, their faith in Jesus Christ as incarnate God and Lord and Savior of sinful humanity -- and the supreme authority of scripture. But if you watched CBS's "60 Minutes" Sunday, you'd think most evangelicals fervently embraced the kind of theology expounded in Tim LaHaye's and Jerry Jenkins' "Left Behind" bestsellers describing the impending end-time tribulations. You'd think most evangelicals are convinced that God will all of the sudden remove all children and the elect -- meaning true-believing Christians -- to a safe place and then condemn all others to eternal suffering." You'd think the likes of President George W. Bush, an evangelical Methodist, ranked themselves among the former, whereas people such as "60 Minutes" reporter Morley Safer belonged to the latter -- in the eyes of most evangelicals. "What would be my fate?" Safer asked the Rev. Todd Wagner of the Watermark Community Church in Dallas. "Folks like yourself that are gonna be here, are gonna go through all the events Christ outlined in Mark 13 and Matthew 24 -- some of which are quite horrific," the pastor replied. The "60 Minutes" narrative then informed the viewers: "For evangelicals, the rapture and what follows are factual history, history of the future, prophecy. "It's not a minority view. ... It's a very mainstream view," Wagner told Safer. Not surprisingly, this stereotypical portrayal of their faith group infuriated many evangelicals, who consider themselves the new mainstream of U.S. Protestantism and have in recent decades made enormous strides in theological scholarship. "I was appalled," fumed Richard Cizik, the Washington-based vice president of the National Association of Evangelicals. "They ("60 Minutes") have merged a speculative theological belief system with contemporary evangelical political views. "They created a caricature that might apply to some evangelicals on the fringe. It's hard to know where to begin to correct the stereotype. One gets to the conclusion that the interviewer had his mind made up before he started the program." Was it this -- or was it another example of the "religiously ignorant journalism," which sociologist Christian Smith of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill keeps chastising with increasing urgency? He may have a point. The shoddiness of the "60 Minutes" story was further evidenced by images of non-Christians facing tribulation. They showed, for example, worshiping Sikhs -- a strictly monotheistic Indian religion -- and called them Hindus (who believe in thousands of deities). Smith fumed at the "ridiculous broad-brushing of evangelicals, a highly complex community." His charge that the media enter an alien universe when it reports on evangelicals echoes a decade-old complaint by Peter Steinfels, the former New York Times religion editor. Steinfels attributed the media's failings in covering religion properly to a multiple of "I's" -- ignorance, indifference, incompetence, ideology and insufficient resources. As McDermott, Cizik and Smith pointed out, the likes of LaHaye, Jenkins and Wagner are not representative of U.S. evangelicalism, which is affiliated with superb academic institutions such as Wheaton College in Illinois, Calvin College in Michigan, Pepperdine University and Fuller Seminary in California, and Baylor University in Texas. Nor is the American Airlines pilot who allegedly spoke to passengers over the loudspeaker on Flight 34 from Los Angeles to New York last Friday about Christianity a typical evangelical. Over the loudspeaker, he reportedly asked Christians to identify themselves and urged non-Christians on board to seek out advice from passengers who had obediently raised their hands. As McDermott said, evangelicals reiterate simply what the church has taught for nearly 2,000 years -- tenets whose reversal by liberal Protestantism has gradually emptied mainline sanctuaries over the last 200 years. Evangelicals differ little from Roman Catholics and Lutherans in their biblically grounded belief that nobody but God himself knows the time of Christ's second coming (Acts 1:7) and that therefore all eschatological expectation was impermissible. They also agree that Christ is the only way to salvation. But according to McDermott, they differ over whether one must consciously know and name Christ before death in order to be saved. There are the "exclusivists" who say, you must. But then, said McDermott, there is the growing "inclusivist" wing of evangelicalism, which concurs with the Roman Catholic position, that one must not necessarily know Christ before death for salvation. Nobody can tell if a person accepts Christ at the moment of death, or if a non-Christian will be given a chance to meet and embrace Christ after death. Moreover, McDermott added, "exclusivists often don't realize that they have to be inclusivist in principle because even they believe that babies and the retarded go to heaven -- and that the Old Testament saints went there as well." What evangelicals find so egregious about the "60 Minutes" report is that it lumped them together with a minority called the dispensationalists, whose center today is Dallas Seminary. Their system of theology sees God working with man in different ways during different ages; in Christianity, the term "dispensation" refers to a period in history in which God dealt with man in a specific manner -- conscience, the law, and grace. According to dispensationalists, the present era of grace will soon be followed by the future millennial kingdom. They insist that the millennium described in Chapter 20 of the Book of Revelation cannot be interpreted as symbolic. This is not the place to discuss the merit of this theology, other than to quote scholarly evangelicals such as Gerald McDermott who hold that it is based on a false reading of scripture. And this is precisely what makes the stereotyping of perhaps a third of all Americans by their own media a dangerous undertaking -- it sets them up for ridicule. (CBS correspondent Morley Safer did not return UPI's call Monday.) Byline Type: author Slugline: bc-us-evangelicals-commentary Dateline Date: 2004-02-09 00:00:00.0 Publish Date and Time: 2004-02-09 16:43:00.0 Desk: International(p) Genre: Opinion IPTC Codes: Cults & sects, Belief (Faith), Religions, christianity , history , sociology Status: Published Checked Out: No Urgency: 5 City/State/Country: Washington, DC, United States Abstract: If you watched CBS's "60 Minutes" Sunday, you'd think most evangelicals fervently embraced the kind of theology expounded in Tim LaHaye's and Jerry Jenkins' "Left Behind" bestsellers describing the impending end-time tribulations. END

Episcopal bishop requests shelving of 4 resolutions By RICHARD VARA Houston Chronicle Religion Editor Bishop Don Wimberly will ask delegates to the Episcopal Diocese of Texas' annual meeting next week to shelve four resolutions that concern biblical sexual morality and the national church's approval of an openly gay bishop. In his address to the council, Wimberly also plans to declare out of order a proposed amendment to the diocesan constitution and canons that would nullify any national church assembly action that was "contrary to Holy Scripture and the Apostolic Teaching of the Church." More than 1,100 clerical and lay delegates will begin meeting in Tyler Thursday to act on diocesan business and policy matters. It will be their first meeting since the national church's General Convention voted in August to approve the consecration of V. Gene Robinson, an openly gay priest, as bishop of New Hampshire. Not everyone is happy about Wimberly's request on the resolutions. "There is an elephant in the room, and I wonder if we as a church have to have courage to address it," said the Rev. Lanny Geib, who is among the clergy who submitted the resolutions for council consideration. "There is a great exodus out of this church right now because people are so disgusted because we don't have the courage of our convictions," said Geib, who has lost 10 families from his 300-member congregation at St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Katy over the Robinson issue. Another four families are ready to leave, he said. "They are sick and tired of it," Geib said. Nonetheless, Geib said he would not bolt the Episcopal Church. "I am not leaving the church," Geib said. "Never. I will stand and fight this thing until I can't preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and him crucified. Period." Robinson's consecration provoked a firestorm of controversy in the 2.3 million-member Episcopal Church in this country and the worldwide Anglican Communion. Several national Anglican churches have broken ties with the American church and have threatened to leave the worldwide communion if Robinson is not ousted. In his pre-published council address, Wimberly, who voted against Robinson's consecration, asks delegates not to bring to the floor resolutions that: Call for affirmation of sexual intimacy between a man and a woman only in marriage. Repudiate the General Convention's approval of Robinson and acceptance of the blessing of same-sex unions. Commend the August vote of Diocese of Texas delegates who opposed Robinson and the blessing of same-sex unions. Affirm historic Anglican doctrines and policies that state Scriptures trump actions of human councils. "If we learned anything at General Convention, it is that voting against one another will only divide this house further instead of allowing us to name our concerns, fears and opinions in a healthy forum," Wimberly says in the address. "Bringing them to the floor of Council will only mire us in parliamentary maneuvering rather than addressing the state and welfare of the church as a whole," he states. The bishop asks delegates to air their differences instead in a special hour-long "conversation." "We must engage one another in a loving, respectful and honest manner," the address says. The Rev. Susan Bear, rector of St. George's and St. Patrick's Episcopal Church in Houston, is one of the 30 clergy endorsers of the resolutions. But she said she was willing to heed Wimberly's call to lay them aside. "Part of my ordination vows is that I will be obedient to my bishop, and I trust Bishop Wimberly's judgment," Bear said. "I may have my own ideas in mind, but he is my bishop and I will listen to what he has to say at this council. "As long as there will be room for some dialogue and some discussion, and it is my understanding that is what we will have," Bear said. The Rev. Laurens "Larry" Hall, rector of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church, is a leader of traditionalist diocesan clergy. His church has recently aligned with the conservative American Anglican Council. But Hall said he supports the bishop's position. Hall believes the bishop and the church worldwide are waiting for the titular head of the Anglican Communion, Archbishop Rowan Williams of Canterbury, to issue a statement on the Robinson issue this fall. "In some ways, everybody is waiting for somebody else to make some kind of decision," Hall said. The Rev. Helen Havens, rector of progressive St. Stephen's Episcopal Church in Houston's Montrose area, will support the bishop's request. "He is simply suggesting, as many people have suggested, that we would be far better off sharing our ideas, praying together, listening to each other, being civil to one another rather than duking it out in a legislative battle on the floor," Havens said. The Rev. Joe Reynolds, dean of Christ Church Cathedral and a progressive, said debating issues is part of church tradition. "That is the nature of the Episcopal Church -- we like to fuss," Reynolds said. "I don't think anyone will say the Episcopal Church is terribly united right now. But I don't think the Council will be divisive." The annual meeting will begin with a service Thursday night at Tyler's First Baptist Church, the only church in the East Texas City large enough to accommodate the delegates. Business sessions will be held Friday and Feb. 14 at Harvey Convention Center. Wimberly also will ask the diocese to focus on missions and outreach. He plans to convene a diocesan-wide gathering with a goal of increasing average Sunday attendance by 10 percent. The council will also vote on a $5.6 million diocesan operations budget and a $3.2 million missionary budget, which funds missions, outreach and other programs, said Ron Null, diocesan treasurer. About $400,000 will go to the national church, slightly less than last year, Null said. The overall missionary budget is down 5 percent from last year's $3.4 million budget. He said that reflects continuing economic woes and some parishes' displeasure with the national church's actions. "It is not anything that is crippling the ability of the diocese to do good missionary work," Null said. END

By David W. Virtue Patricia Young should know. She has been a traditionalist member of St. Martin's parish in North Vancouver for a number of years and the actions by two members of the vestry installed by revisionist Bishop Michael Ingham to return the parish back to the New Westminster fold, does not sit well with her. In fact she is downright angry. "It is not the will of the people who worship there," she told Virtuosity at an Anglican Mission conference recently in Destin, Florida, recently. She was once an elected alternate delegate to synod. "What the bishop is doing to us is not what the majority of St Martin's wants. We do not want to remain under an apostate bishop and we are not in a state of crisis that the bishop alleges. We want to stay in the [ACINW] coalition and we do not want our funds and money being paid to the diocese under his leadership. What is happening is being done against our will and desires." The Anglican Communion in New Westminster will continue to recognize St. Martin's membership as a full member until its congregation democratically chooses otherwise, Young said in the interview. Two new lay leaders installed by the Diocese of New Westminster announced that St. Martin's was no longer a member of the eleven-church coalition known as the Anglican Communion in New Westminster and wold start repaying its assessments. But a September 2002 saw 76 percent majority of the church seek an alternative bishop to oversee their parish, and by 79 percent to withhold monthly diocesan taxes. "That has not changed." "The decision to withdraw from the ACiNW and begin repaying assessments was made exclusively by a small handful of leaders installed by the diocese without consulting the congregation. The decision shocked many members of St. Martin's who wish to remain within the coalition but feel they've lost control of their church. Young said the parish had dwindled from its usual 200 on a Sunday to less than 100. "We have lost half of our active congregation, as a result we have significantly reduced donations to the church coffers." "We once had three wardens and two trustees, now we have two trustees appointed by the bishop. The bishop invoked Canon 15, so he could fire the church committee, trustees and wardens and re-appointed two who are now doing his bidding." Ingham has only 15 percent of the parish behind him despite his takeover and apparent acquiescence of the church to his will, said Young. "He fired a youth pastor, and made the counters unwelcome. He doesn't mind gutting the church, he has lots of money." Young said that when Canon 15 was invoked the church needed spiritual guidance. "Ed Hird rector of St. Simon's in North Vancouver and Silas Ng, rector of Emmanuel Church in Vancouver and Barclay Mayo of St. Andrew's, Pender Harbor joined with us." While acknowledging that she has no status to decide the way forward or whether to fight the battle for the buildings she will not lay down and be walked over. The game is not over. I am leaving this AMIA conference to go back and meet with fellow parishioners to discuss alternatives for our future." "I want people to know that what Michael Ingham is doing is not what the majority of parishioners at St. Martin's want." She said Ingham will appoint a permanent priest who will please nobody. He will only be happy when St. Martin's pews are empty then it will be a pyrrhic victory. Asked how she thought the parish would react, Young said, "people will be reluctant to leave because they have a long history with the church. It is particularly hard for older people who go back several generations." "The younger ones will leave if they see the church has been co-opted permanently by Ingham. My own future is uncertain. My husband and I and our two children will weigh our options after we have had a good look at the situation." Other parishioners have been just as vocal and many expressed their anger at the local SUN newspaper for what saw as a biased newspaper article. The story invited the wrath of several St. Martin's parishioners to come down on the newspaper. "With regard to your article entitled "Dissident Anglican Parish back in fold", I wish to clarify the situation. Bishop Michael Ingham, through his appointed wardens, is forcing the parish to rejoin the diocese. The last parish vestry meeting clearly instructed the elected trustees and wardens, who have since been dismissed by the Bishop, to continue allegiance with the ACiNW. The Bishop will not hold another vestry meeting because he knows that a clear majority of parishioners would vote against him. He must be held accountable for his actions, said Florence Wilton, a parishioner at St. Martin's . "As a member of St. Martins for the past 25 years, none of Bishop Ingham's appointed wardens speak for my wife and I or the majority of members of St. Martin's. Bishop Ingham has disobeyed the House of Bishops, the worldwide Anglican Communion, and breached the obligations he swore to when Consecrated - specifically, to be an instrument of unity in the church, and uphold the teachings of the church. He answers to no one. He has portrayed the "dissenting" parishioners of St. Martins as homophobic and divisive rebels, even though we are in keeping with what Anglicans believe around the world," said Gordon & Erica Barrett also of St. Martin's. "I am rarely moved to write letters to the editor, but I find that I simply must protest Douglas Todd's article today. Regardless of what the Diocese of New Westminster may be claiming, the majority of parishioners at St. Martin's have NOT agreed to the things which the bishop's warden may be suggesting. They have not been allowed to express any opinion in a democratic fashion since the bishop took over, so how these claims can be made as though they were the will of the parish defies any definition of "truth". It is quite clear, if the facts are investigated, that a handful of diocesan appointees are making unilateral decisions on behalf of the diocese, and claiming that these are the decisions of the parish. The diocese may make whatever claims it wishes, using whomever may be willing to be used as their spokespersons, but that does not establish those claims as true. "In fact, the leaders chosen by the legitimate vote of the parishioners have been systematically removed and replaced since the diocesan takeover. Every person in any position of leadership or authority (right down to the Sunday school teachers) who do not agree with the bishop or the diocese have been removed or barred from exercising ministry in the parish. The parish has not been consulted regarding their wishes, nor have they been afforded any opportunity to make decisions about the future of the parish. "It is difficult to imagine how this could be construed as a "way forward". When the expressed wishes of the people are being ignored, when their right to be consulted about the future of their own parish is being denied, and when they are being dictated to by unelected leaders appointed to do the will of the diocese it is difficult to imagine how any sort of "wonderful sense of community" can possibly be built, exploded Linda Seale, Chairperson of the ACiNW media committee. Gerry and Linda Taunton, two parishioners said, "for Douglas Todd to say that the 'lay leadership' of St. Martins has decided to return to the fold by restoring relations with the Diocese of New Westminster is to imply that Lindsay Buchanan (cited in the article) and the other wardens appointed by Bishop Michael Ingham somehow have the moral and legal authority to make such a decision. However, these wardens do not enjoy the support of the majority of parishioners of St. Martins. If they think they do, they should call a vestry meeting to see if they can persuade others to their point of view. Fat chance." "On Sept 7, the Bishop FIRED the entire elected Church Committee, as well as the Newsletter Editors, Roster of Collection Counters, Telephone Coordinator & even the Youth Pastor. He then imposed a form of MARTIAL LAW." "How could these actions help St. Martin's? On Sept. 28, an ALL Parishioners Vestry meeting was held. Trustees were confirmed, Wardens, Treasurer and a full slate of committee members democratically elected, but are ignored." "The bishop Michael Ingham has repeatedly stated in public meetings that if parishioners cannot abide by his actions they are welcome to leave, go and worship elsewhere. But it is our parish. The diocese did not build St. Martin's. The diocese has never contributed to St. Martin's. The properties were paid for and are registered in the name of the parish corporation. The parish voluntarily joined the diocese and the parish voted to reject Michael Ingham." The macro issue is the revisionist movement in the Canadian Anglican church and the moving away from traditional beliefs and worship. A sub-issue is blessing same-sex unions. The immediate issue at St. Martin's is the abuse of power by a renegade bishop. The bishop has disregarded requests by the highest church authorities asking for a truce and agreed to a truce in exchange for an alternative bishop removing his services and support from dissident parishes in the diocese. St. Martin's is an example of the tyranny of the bishop in the diocese and it is the pain, stress, time, energy and money being bled from St. Martin's parishioners that prevents other parishes in the diocese from speaking out and rejecting this abomination of due process and pastoral care. The parishioners of St. Martin's would like very much for the bishop to remove his presence from St. Martin's so the parish can get on with it's mission and worship as part of the worldwide Anglican communion. The parish is part of that communion. The bishop is not, said Ron Barrett of St. Martin's. All of this is merely the execution of a strategy to force the conservative/orthodox parishioners out of the parish by creating an atmosphere that does not recognize them as parishioners or honour their deeply held beliefs. While those parishioners are willing to wait for the House of Bishops to complete their deliberations to find a solution to the impasse in this Diocese, Bishop Ingham apparently is not, said Ron & Carolyn Edwards. In September 2003, New Westminster Bishop Michael Ingham fired the parish's elected leaders, installing his own appointees and changing the locks on the church doors. Parish leaders appointed by the bishop have since fired the youth pastor and scuttled the parish's official newsletter and Website run by volunteer editors who were supportive of the parish's decision to seek an alternative bishop. A group of parishioners representing over half the congregation have also been refused use of their own church for a worship service on Monday nights. The crackdown has had a significant cost. In 2001, St. Martin's drew an average of 200 worshippers on a weekly basis. But a recent Sunday morning service drew fewer than 70 to hear Bishop Ingham speak. Bishop Ingham has taken a hard line with churches that have held to their request for alternative leadership. One week before Christmas he terminated Holy Cross, Abbotsford for seeking alternative episcopal oversight. END

By Julia Duin THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published February 10, 2004 Episcopal Church officials yesterday announced a $3 million shortfall in the church's 2004 budget, caused chiefly by parishes and dioceses withholding funds to protest the ordination of a homosexual bishop. The shortfall equals 6 percent of the $48 million in revenue the church had expected this year. Church officials, according to documents obtained by The Washington Times, have revised the budget to $45.1 million. Figures released at an Episcopal executive council meeting in Tampa, Fla., showed the denomination's 107 dioceses are giving $2 million less this year. A reduction in government funds for social-service programs produced an additional drop of roughly $900,000. Conservative Episcopalians say the budget reduction is a direct result of the Nov. 2 consecration of V. Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire, the first openly homosexual ordained to such a position by the church. Bishop Robinson, who is divorced, lives with his male companion. "This is a result of the uproar they said would never happen," said Canon David Anderson, president of the American Anglican Council, the lead conservative group protesting the Robinson ordination. "If you stand on the air hose, the diver surfaces pretty quickly to see what's going on." At an October meeting of the AAC, 2,700 Episcopalians pledged to "redirect our financial resources, to the fullest extent possible, toward biblically orthodox mission and ministry, and away from those structures that support the unrighteous actions of the General Convention." Thus, conservatives say, the revenue losses by the end of 2004 will be even worse than denomination officials predict. "These are all hopeful numbers put out by the national church by people trying to diminish any effect Robinson might have," said the Rev. Don Armstrong, an AAC leader and rector of the 2,400-member Grace and St. Stephen's Church in Colorado Springs, the largest church in the Diocese of Colorado. But Kurt Barnes, the national church's treasurer, called the reduced contributions "almost not material" in their effect on church operations. "The reduction is well below what naysayers and doomsdayers were predicting last August," he told the Associated Press. Only 84 dioceses have told church headquarters in New York what their contributions will be this year, but of those dioceses, 40 have promised to equal or exceed their yearly gift of 21 percent of their budget. Two dioceses are giving no money, and 42 have reduced their contributions, giving between 3 percent and 20 percent of their income. The Diocese of Virginia, for instance, is giving 16 percent of its budget. Mr. Armstrong predicted more reductions as Episcopalians continue to divert their offerings to other causes. "This is just the beginning," he said. "People will be more excited about supporting hospitals in Tanzania and soup kitchens in the United States than [Presiding Episcopal Bishop Frank] Griswold in a limousine." In a related matter, a group of 14 Anglican archbishops from mostly Third World countries released a statement Friday condemning the Episcopal Church as having departed "from 5,000 years of Judeo-Christian teaching and practice." The primates, from 13 Anglican provinces, represent 45 million parishioners, more than half of the world's 70 million Anglicans. "We reaffirm our solidarity with faithful bishops, clergy and church members in North America who remain committed to the historic faith and order of the church and have rejected unbiblical innovation," they said. Specifically, the primates praised the newly formed Network of Anglican Dioceses and Parishes, created last month during a meeting of conservative Episcopal bishops, clergy and laity in Plano, Texas. Copyright © 2004 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.

By J. C. Ryle (1816-1900) The following Sermon was preached in England, in August, 1858. "Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, like men sent from God" (2 Corinthians 2:17) It is no light matter to speak to any assembly of immortal souls about the things of God. But the most serious of all responsibilities is, to speak to a gathering of ministers, such as that which I now see before me. The awful feeling will come across my mind, that one single word said wrong, sinking into some heart, and bearing fruit at some future time, in some pulpit, may lead to harm, of which we cannot know the extent. But there are occasions when true humility is to be seen, not so much in loud professions of our weakness, as in forgetting ourselves altogether. I desire to forget self at this time, in turning my attention to this portion of Scripture. If I say little about my own sense of insufficiency, do me the justice to believe, that it is not because I am not well aware of it. The Greek expression, which we have translated, "peddle," is derived from a word, the etymology of which is not quite agreed on by linguists who compile dictionaries. It either means a tradesman, who does his business dishonestly, or a wine maker, who adulterates the wine which he offers for sale. Tyndale renders it, "We are not of those who chop and change the Word of God." Another version of the Bible says, "We are not as many, who adulterate the Word of God" [Rhemish versions]. In our margin we read, "We are not as many, who deal deceitfully with the Word of God." In the construction of the sentence, the Holy Spirit has inspired Paul to use both the negative and the positive way of stating the truth. This mode of construction adds clearness and unmistakableness to the meaning of the words, and intensity and strength to the assertion, which they contain. Instances of a similar construction occur in three other remarkable passages of Scripture, two on the subject of baptism, one on the subject of the new birth. (John 1:13; 1 Peter 1:23; 1 Peter 3:21). It will be found, therefore, that there are contained in the text both negative and positive lessons for the instruction of the ministers of Christ. Some things we ought to avoid. Others we ought to follow. The first of the negative lessons is, a plain warning against corrupting or dealing deceitfully with the Word of God. The Apostle says, "Unlike so many" who do it, pointing out to us that even in his time there were those who did not deal faithfully and honestly with God's truth. Here is a complete answer to those who assert that the early Church was one of unmixed purity. The mystery of iniquity had already begun to work. The lesson which we are taught is, to beware of all dishonest statements of that Word of God which we are commissioned to preach. We are to add nothing to it. We are to take nothing away. Now when can it be said of us, that we corrupt the Word of God in the present day? What are the rocks and reefs which we ought to avoid, if we would not be of the "many" who deal deceitfully with God's truth? A few suggestions on this would be useful. We corrupt the Word of God most dangerously, when we throw any doubt on the absolute inspiration of any part of Holy Scripture. This is not merely corrupting the cup, but the whole fountain. This is not merely corrupting the bucket of living water, which we profess to present to our people, but poisoning the whole well. Once wrong on this point, the whole substance of our religion is in danger. It is a flaw in the foundation. It is a worm at the root of our theology. Once we allow this worm to gnaw the root, then we will not be surprised if the branches, the leaves, and the fruit, decay little by little. The whole subject of inspiration, I am well aware, is surrounded with difficulty. All I would say is, that, in my humble judgment, notwithstanding some difficulties which we may not be able now to solve, the only safe and tenable ground to maintain is this--that every chapter, and every verse, and every word in the Bible has been "given by the inspiration of God." We should never desert a great principle in theology any more than in science, because of apparent difficulties which we are not able at present to remove. Permit me to mention an illustration of this important axiom. Those conversant with astronomy know, that before the discovery of the planet Neptune there were difficulties, which greatly troubled the most scientific astronomers, respecting certain aberrations of the planet Uranus. These aberrations puzzled the minds of astronomers, and some of them suggested that they might possibly prove the whole Newtonian system to be untrue. But at that time a well-known French astronomer, named Leverrier, read before the Academy of Science a paper, in which he laid down this great axiom--that it was wrong for a scientist to give up a principle because of difficulties which could not be explained. He said in effect, "We cannot explain the aberrations of Uranus now; but we may be sure that the Newtonian system will be proved to be right, sooner or later. Something may be discovered one day, which will prove that these aberrations may be accounted for, and the Newtonian system will remain true and unshaken." A few years later, the anxious eyes of astronomers discovered the last great planet, Neptune. The planet was shown to be the true cause of all the aberrations of Uranus; and what the French astronomer had laid down as a principle in science, was proved to be wise and true. The application of the story is obvious. Let us beware of giving up any first principle in theology. Let us not give up the great principle of absolute inspiration because of difficulties. The day may come when they will all be solved. In the mean time we may rest assured that the difficulties which beset any other theory of inspiration are ten times greater than any which beset our own. Secondly, we corrupt the Word of God when we make defective statements of doctrine. We do so when we add to the Bible the opinions of the Church, or of the Church Fathers, as if they were of equal authority. We do so when we take away from the Bible, for the sake of pleasing men; or, from a feeling of false liberality, keep back any statement which seems narrow, and harsh, or hard. We do so when we try to soften down anything that is taught about eternal punishment, or the reality of hell. We do so when we bring forward doctrines in their wrong proportions. We all have our favorite doctrines, and our minds are so constituted that it is hard to see one truth very clearly without forgetting that there are other truths equally important. We must not forget the exhortation of Paul, to minister "according to the proportion of faith." We do so when we exhibit an excessive anxiety to fence, and guard, and qualify such doctrines as justification by faith without the deeds of the law, for fear of the charge of antinomianism; or when we flinch from strong statements about holiness, for fear of being thought legal. We also do this when we shrink back from the use of Bible language in giving an account of doctrines. We are apt to keep back such expressions as "born again," "election," "adoption," "conversion," "assurance," and to use a roundabout phraseology, as if we were ashamed of plain Bible words. I cannot expand these statements because we are short of time. I am content with mentioning them and leave them to your private thought. In the third place, we corrupt the Word of God when we make a defective practical application of it. We do so when we do not discriminate between classes in our congregations--when we address everyone as being possessed of grace, because of their baptism or church-membership, and do not draw the line between those who have the Spirit and those who have not. Are we not apt to keep back clear, direct appeals to the unconverted? When we have eighteen hundred or two thousand persons before our pulpits, a vast proportion of whom we must know are unconverted, are we not apt to say, "Now if there is any one of you who does not know the things that are necessary for eternal peace" -- when we ought rather to say, "If there are any of you who has not received the grace of God?" Are we not in danger of defective handling of the Word in our practical exhortations, by not bringing home the statements of the Bible to the various classes in our congregations? We speak plainly to the poor; but do we also speak plainly to the rich? Do we speak plainly in our dealings with the upper classes? This is a point on which, I fear, we need to search our consciences. I now turn to the positive lessons which the text contains. "In Christ we speak before God with sincerity, like men sent from God." A few words on each point must suffice. We should aim to speak "with sincerity" Sincerity of aim, heart, and motive; to speak as those who are thoroughly convinced of the truth of what they speak; as those who have a deep feeling and tender love for those whom we address. We should aim to speak "like men sent from God." We ought to strive to feel like men commissioned to speak for God, and on His behalf. In our dread of running into Romanism [Roman Catholicism], we too often forget the language of the Apostle, "I make much of my ministry." We forget how great is the responsibility of the New Testament minister, and how awful the sin of those who when a real messenger of Christ addresses them refuse to receive his message, and harden their hearts against it. We should aim to speak "before God." We are to ask ourselves, not, What did the people think of me? but, What was I in the sight of God? Latimer was once called upon to preach before Henry VIII, and began his sermon in the following manner (I quote from memory, and do not pretend to verbal accuracy), He began: "Latimer! Latimer! do you remember that you are speaking before the high and mighty King Henry VIII; who has power to command you to be sent to prison, and who can have your head cut off, if it please him? Will you not be take care to say nothing that will offend royal ears?" Then after a pause, he went on: "Latimer! Latimer! do you not remember that you are speaking before the King of kings and Lord of lords; before Him, at whose throne Henry VIII will stand; before Him, to whom one day you will have to give account yourself? Latimer! Latimer! be faithful to your Master, and declare all of God's Word." O that this may be the spirit in which we may always express from our pulpits, not caring whether men are pleased or displeased--not caring whether men say we were eloquent or feeble; but going away with the witness of our conscience--I have spoken as standing before God's sight. Finally, we should aim to speak "as in Christ." The meaning of this phrase is doubtful. Grotius says, "We are to speak as in His name, as ambassadors." But Grotius is a poor authority. Beza says, "We are to speak about Christ, concerning Christ." This is good doctrine, but hardly the meaning of the words. Others say, We are to speak as ourselves joined to Christ, as those who have received mercy from Christ, and whose only title to address others is from Christ alone. Others say, We should speak as through Christ, in the strength of Christ. No meaning, perhaps, is better than this. The expression in the Greek exactly answers to Philippians 4:13, "I can do everything through him who gives me strength." Whatever sense we ascribe to these words, one thing is clear: we should speak in Christ, as those who have ourselves received mercy; as those who desire to exalt, not ourselves, but the Savior; and as those who care nothing what men think of them, so long as Christ is magnified in their ministry. In conclusion, we should all ask, Do we ever handle the Word of God deceitfully? Do we realize what it is to speak as of God, as in the sight of God, and in Christ? Let me put to everyone one searching question. Is there any text in God's Word which we shrink from expounding? Is there any statement in the Bible which we avoid speaking about to our people, not because we do not understand it, but because it contradicts some pet notion of ours as to what is truth? If this is true, let us ask our consciences whether this is very much like handling the Word of God deceitfully. Is there anything in the Bible we keep back for fear of seeming harsh, and of giving offense to some of our hearers? Is there any statement, either doctrinal or practical, which we mangle, mutilate or dismember? If so, are we dealing honestly with God's Word? Let us pray to be kept from corrupting God's Word. Let neither fear nor the favor of man induce us to keep back, or avoid, or change, or mutilate, or qualify any text in the Bible. Surely we ought to have holy boldness when we speak as ambassadors of God. We have no reason to be ashamed of any statement we make in our pulpits so long as it is Scriptural. I have often thought that one great secret of the marvelous honor which God has put on a man who is not in our denomination (I allude to Mr. Charles Spurgeon) is, the extraordinary boldness and confidence with which he stands up in the pulpit to speak to people about their sins and their souls. It cannot be said he does it from fear of any, or to please any. He seems to give every class of hearers its portion--to the rich and the poor, the high and the low, the king and the peasant, the learned and the illiterate. He gives to every one the plain message, according to God's Word. I believe that very boldness has much to do with the success which God is pleased to give to his ministry. Let us not be ashamed to learn a lesson from him in this respect. Let us go and do likewise. Transcribe, updated, and added to Bible Bulletin Board's "Sermon Collection" by: Tony Capoccia Bible Bulletin Board Box 119 Columbus, New Jersey, USA, 08022 Websites: www.biblebb.com and www.gospelgems.com Email: tony@biblebb.com Online since 1986 © Copyright 2001 by Tony Capoccia. This updated file may be freely copied, printed out, and distributed as long as copyright and source statements remain intact, and that it is not sold. All rights reserved. Verses quoted, unless otherwise noted, are taken from the HOLY BIBLE: NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION © 1978 by the New York Bible Society, used by permission of Zondervan Bible Publishers. END

PRESS RELEASE October 28, 2025   On Wednesday 15 October, an update was released by the Church of England on the Living in Love and Faith process, following a House of Bishops' residential meeting the previous week.   The House of Bishops reviewed documents produced by the Church of England's Legal Office and the Faith and Order Commission (FAOC) addressing outstanding questions following the 2023 General Synod's commendation of the Prayers of Love and Faith (PLF).   Remaining questions included how and whether bespoke/standalone services (where PLF would be used) could be introduced for same-sex couples, and the legality of clergy entering civil same-sex marriages.   The update reports that legal advice regarding bespoke services indicates the need for a Canon B2 process. This requires a two-thirds majority in the three houses of General Synod at final approval.   With regard to clergy same-sex marriage, the update notes the legal advice to the House of Bishops, explaining that legislation would be needed to change the current position. This legislation would need to include a Measure (made by Synod and Parliament) as well as an amended Canon, both of which would require simple majorities in the three houses of General Synod at final approval.   EFAC Global, representing faithful evangelical Anglicans around the world, notes the response to the update from Revd Canon John Dunnett, National Director, CEEC*, who said: 'It is helpful that the House of Bishops has acknowledged the significant theological and legal impediments to standalone services and clergy same-sex marriage. At the same time, the update does not in any way indicate that the House has resolved not to progress things further, or that no further change will be forthcoming. This therefore leaves many questions unanswered and concerns unresolved – whatever your view of Living in Love and Faith.'   EFAC Global welcomes the bishops' decision not to proceed with further changes, such as had been previously planned. We believe that the LLF/PLF process has confirmed that the mind of General Synod in 2005 remains true: all of us who wish to 'commend continuing efforts to prevent the diversity of opinion about human sexuality creating further division and impaired fellowship within the Church of England and the Anglican Communion' must 'recognise that such efforts would not be advanced by doing anything that could be perceived as the Church of England qualifying its commitment to the entirety of the relevant Lambeth Conference Resolutions — 1978:10; 1988:64; 1998:I.10.' The PLF and the further proposed developments have clearly been widely and rightly perceived — across much of the Church of England and by the majority of the Anglican Communion — as contrary to these resolutions.   Such developments have further impaired fellowship, and caused significant pastoral damage to relationships, particularly with global south Anglicans. We are concerned that some in the Church of England, including within its leadership, have not fully recognised this fact and its implications. Efforts to claim to be upholding the doctrine of marriage while seeking to introduce bespoke services, and permitting clergy to enter civil same-sex marriages while somehow seeking to follow due processes, will not resolve the problem.   Recent failures to heed warnings as to the consequences of these actions have already generated too much pain, confusion, cost and uncertainty across the Church of England and the whole Anglican Communion, particularly among those who identify as gay, lesbian or same-sex attracted. We call on the bishops to accept that the process has gone on for far too long. In order to restore confidence in their leadership, and to maintain unity, it must come to an end.   EFAC Global calls on all Anglicans to pray for grace, humility and wisdom for all our sisters and brothers in the Church of England, and for those in leadership of the CEEC and the Alliance as they navigate whatever lies ahead. We also urge prayer for the bishops as they fulfil their episcopal calling at this time to, in the words of The Ordinal in A Prayer Book for Australia, 'heal, and not to hurt, to build up, and not destroy'.   Bishop Stephen Hale - EFAC Global General Secretary *CEEC is the EFAC entity in England

The crucial truth to remember is that when someone comes forward and tells the truth about abuse, they are not the one causing harm to the church.   October 27, 2025   (RNS) — Facing allegations he mishandled abuse incidents in his Anglican Church in North America’s Diocese of the Upper Midwest, Bishop Stewart Ruch wrote to then-Archbishop Foley Beach in January 2022, “Both my diocese and the ACNA got hit this summer by a vicious spiritual attack of the enemy. I believe this is the case because both entities are doing robust Gospel work, and Satan hates us.”   The extent of Ruch’s abuse mishandling was exposed in a Washington Post report last week, and he’s on trial within the church for those allegations. The Post also broke news that current ACNA Archbishop Steve Wood faces allegations of sexual harassment, bullying and plagiarism.   For Ruch and his fellow bishops, the “vicious spiritual attack” is not the abuse they have swept under the rug. Rather, to them, it is the survivors and advocates who expose abuse claims and call for accountability.   In summer 2021, a fledgling group called ACNAtoo brought to light multiple alleged accounts of sexual abuse within the Upper Midwest Diocese, my diocese of 17 years, claiming that leaders at my former church had badly mishandled the cases. I found ACNAtoo’s extensive documentation convincing, but I’m an archivist, which means I check my sources.   For two months, I methodically went through 20 years of website crawls. I analyzed years of Vimeo and Issuu caches of videos and publications. I went back through blog posts and social media profiles. I searched for 501(c)(3) filings and data. I even ran background checks. I saw enough to confirm what I hoped would not be true: the patterns of abuse were all there — the concentration of power, elitism, manipulation, secrecy, excessive control and forced accountability. So I became an advocate with ACNAtoo.   In the last four years, ACNAtoo has expanded our mission to support survivors of abuse throughout the denomination. We are an all-volunteer organization of fewer than 10 people. The vast majority are current or former ACNA parishioners and survivors of abuse ourselves. We have no leaders or official titles — we simply identify ourselves as advocates and we make decisions as a team. We are united in our determination to fight abuse in all its forms by centering the needs of survivors and educating those around them to do the same.     Our tiny band of advocates never expected that we would hear more than 120 cases of abuse and mishandling — involving 240 victims, according to our records — from across the denomination; almost half the cases came from outside the Upper Midwest Diocese. The cases allege clergy sexual abuse of adults and children, clergy sexual harassment, domestic violence and child abuse, financial coercion and malfeasance, workplace bullying, and pervasive clergy spiritual abuse of parishioners. In most of these cases, it is the clergy and bishops who are named as abusers themselves. How many of them have been disciplined by the ACNA? Almost none.   Advocating for survivors of church abuse is hard. It means listening to stomach-churning stories, walking alongside survivors as they process their trauma and supporting survivors when they seek justice through a church’s official channels.   Helping survivors navigate church systems would transform a saint into an atheist. We carefully gather documentation, spend hours revising emails with the assumption that anything could be published online or in a lawsuit, sit in Zoom meetings where church lawyers attempt to discredit survivors, and in the end, it’s mostly futile.   In the past week, The Post has published explosive stories that usually result in immediate termination or resignation in the secular world. But in the ACNA, some leaders are casting the presentation of allegations as evidence of a healthy disciplinary process, rather than what it truly is: the rotten fruit of a denomination that refuses to take abuse seriously.   In this upside-down world, advocates are the problem, not corrupt and abusive bishops. When the child sexual abuse scandal first broke in Ruch’s diocese, ACNA Rev. Matt Kennedy, rector of Church of the Good Shepherd in Binghamton, New York, wrote on X that survivor advocates “are not seeking justice. They want power and they want to settle political scores.”   ACNA Rev. James Gibson, vicar at the Church of the Holy Trinity Grahamville in Ridgeland, South Carolina, went further. On X, he wrote of ACNAtoo advocates, “Best to treat them as the unreasoning brutes they are. We’ve heard these arguments before. We know where they come from. And the smell of burning sulfur is palpable.”   Too many Christians experience horrific abuse in church and tell themselves that it’s just that one church. It was an unhealthy church, a cult, a high-control group, and other churches are safer. Refugees fleeing the Southern Baptist Convention, Presbyterian Church in America and other fundamentalist Christian groups see the ACNA as a haven. Instead of finding sanctuary, they often encounter church leaders who are unable to care for them. These churches do not understand the dynamics of abuse, and they are incredibly unsafe for wounded people.   “The Christian Church has had 2,000 years to get this right,” wrote survivor and advocate Joanna Rudenborg to the ACNA in 2021. “If any church’s reflexive posture is not that of tending thoroughly to survivors (which includes actively figuring out how to do so, without further harming the survivors), I personally recommend the survivor flee that church community as soon as they are able and find Good Samaritans wherever they are to be found.”   It takes courage for survivors to come forward with their stories. As strange as it may sound, they offer a gift to the community when they expose abuse and warn us about the predators hiding in our midst. It’s uncomfortable to acknowledge that our churches are not safe places, and we often shun courageous survivors instead of accepting their gift.   The crucial truth to remember is that when someone comes forward and tells the truth about abuse, they are not the one causing harm to the church. We do not blame a doctor when they deliver a grim diagnosis, and survivors are not the ones to blame when they divulge their abuse. The perpetrators alone are responsible for that pain. Abuse corrodes a church, whether it is spoken aloud or not. Naming the abuse, if anything, allows churches the opportunity to come to terms with the truth and begin the healing process. We cannot treat what we cannot name.   Our churches need to wake up. Advocates and abuse survivors aren’t the devil’s employees. If you want to find the devil, follow the church leaders who leave a trail of broken bodies in their wake. That is the road to hell.   (Abbi Nye is an advocate with ACNAtoo, a grassroots group created by and for survivors of abuse in the ACNA. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.

The following photo was taken at the 2004 AMiA Winter Conference in Destin, FL.   Archbishop Malango of Central Africa is on the left.   Archbishop Kolini of Rwanda is on the right.   KENYA: BESEIGED BISHOP BACK FROM US. PRIMATE NZIMBI SAYS HOB TO DECIDE HIS FATE   Besieged Kenyan bishop back from US.   Primate Nzimbi says HOB will decide his fate.   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.

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.

An open letter from the Most Reverend Martín Barahona, the Diocesan Bishop of El Salvador and Primate of the Anglican Church of the Central Region of America (IARCA): "To my colleagues, the Primates of the Great Anglican Communion; to my sister and brother bishops of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America; and to the bishops and other clergy and lay leaders of our beloved Province of the Central Region of America, which includes the countries of Guatemala, Panama, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and El Salvador; to all, peace and goodness in the name of the living and true God that surely is among us. It is my wish to share with you some reflections concerning the election, the subsequent endorsement of this election by the Houses of Deputies and Bishops at the General Convention of the ECUSA in Minneapolis, Minnesota in August of the year of our Lord 2003, and the ordination and consecration of the Rt Revd Gene Robinson as Bishop Coadjutor of New Hampshire on 2 November, 2003. This was a ceremony I attended, and in which I participated, along with the primate of the ECUSA and other bishops of Canada, the United States and the Bishop Emeritus of the Lutheran Church of Europe. These events unfortunately have brought about sadness, frustration, and in some cases strong offenses, and we now find ourselves in difficult times that may lead us to regrettable divisions. The simple event of electing this bishop, who hails from a small diocese of limited financial resources, who is a person very dedicated to his ministry and his community, has provoked a 'scandal' by the mere act of his stating the truth concerning his private life: he is homosexual and lives with his long-time partner. This duly elected bishop, Gene Robinson, with simplicity and humility, has dared to challenge our understanding of ethics and what is 'moral.' The impact of this election was great. On few occasions have the mass media dedicated so much space to the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion in the world. When a journalist of the BBC of London interviewed me and asked: 'Having been in the House of Bishops of ECUSA, what did you see in the faces of the bishops?' I responded, 'I saw faces of fear and pain; of fear because if approved there was concern of division in the Church, and of pain because if not approved it would be sad at this moment in time in the 21st century that we are not able to understand human nature.' Episcopalians, and those of us who were part of ECUSA, have learned from our Mother Church that we have a democratic model of government, with bicameral representation. Many of us who are bishops have won election by one vote, and the rest have accepted; furthermore, sometimes a motion is raised to declare the election by acclamation, with the goal of smoothing things over. All of the proper canonical proceedings were carefully taken in the case of the election of the Bishop Coadjutor of New Hampshire; so then, why is there division? Particularly in the United States, a country that champions democracy, so much so that it is able to invade a country which has a dictatorial regime. Could it be that we know that while a diocese can call someone to serve as a bishop via a democratic election, we also know that a vocation to a ministry is a call from God, and God calls those whom He wants. This means He can call those who are not necessarily the best ones from our own human perspective. On 9 October in Dallas, a good number of bishops who were against the election and consent decided to meet. Sadly, the result of this gathering was that some offensive documents were issued. On a personal front, a parish in the United States took away aid for a mission I was developing. But I ask, 'Whom is this hurting? Martín Barahona? No! It is hurting the mission of Christ!' So while I understand the hurt and the confusion this election has caused I am praying hard, and I have asked the people of my diocese and province to pray hard for our unity. I told a priest from New York that we must look for reconciliation, and he told me, 'God cannot reconcile with the devil, God cannot reconcile with sin.' But I ask myself, 'who is God and who is the devil, and what is the sin at this moment?' On 15 and 16 October, the Most Revd Dr. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, called the Primates to an urgent meeting to deal with, not only the subject of the ECUSA election, but also the decision by the diocese of New Westminster of Canada, which approved a resolution to have a rite for the union of people of the same sex. This meeting was an excellent initiative, and we had the opportunity to convey our feelings with respect, which were then expressed in an official statement of the primates. At this gathering, we concluded that we do not want a central authority like the 'papal Curia.' And some noted contradictions in their own provincial authority as the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA, the Most Revd Frank Griswold was asked to do something that he could not do according to his canons. As a result of our discussions and concerns, the Archbishop of Canterbury, promised to name as soon as possible—and he has already done so—a commission of experts on the Bible, liturgy, and theology to present within 12 months a report on some central subjects, including the authority of the Bible, canonical legislation. As well as, 'What does it mean to be in Communion? What does it mean to be autonomous?' As all that attended the gathering are doing, I have meditated on these issues, and I want to offer my reflections to the Committee: On the subject of the authority of the Bible, we know that we study the Bible by making use of biblical science. I would suggest that, as all science advances with new discoveries and interpretations, so does biblical science. Similarly for the authority of our canonical legislation, as legal systems are equally dynamic, our canon law evolves and changes through experience. To be in communion, Anglican style, a priest once said, 'is to be united in the essential, to have diversity in the nonessential, and to love one another.' Here, I would like to refer to an article by L. William Countryman, sent to me via email, entitled 'Treating Conflict as an Anglican.' The second paragraph reads, 'What do I understand by the classical Anglican tradition? I mean the broad mainstream of Anglicanism as it was formed in the Reformation, the one that was shaped in the 16th and 17th centuries, in contrast to the other two types of Christianity that believed to know well the mind of God, one the Roman Catholicism of the Counter-Reformation, the other the tradition of Geneva, whose main representatives were the Puritans. Mainstream Anglicans differentiate ourselves from both, and particularly from their presumption that they know in detail the mind of God.' What does it mean to be autonomous? It is the most sublime expression of freedom. 'The truth will set you free.' It is exactly where ethics can challenge what is considered to be moral in our culture. Ethics are authentic. But what is considered to be 'moral' can also be subject to special interests, stereotypes, cultures, and regimes, etc. We live in a cosmopolitan world, in a pluralistic society, the virtue of which is that we must develop tolerance, another important subject that I would like to further address. People who are displeased by this decision of ECUSA would shield themselves behind arguments of what they understand as fundamental and orthodox. Beware of those two concepts (which I would also like to address at greater length in the future). Orthodoxy and fundamentalism have been the theoretical base of great evils such as the inquisition, crusades, the holocaust, and more recently are the root of terrorism that is the invisible enemy. Within our Anglican Province of the Central Region of America (IARCA) and the different countries that we comprise, the ordination of the Rt Revd Gene Robinson has elicited diverse reactions. Each bishop has confronted the situation in his own way, according to his own reality. The Bishop of Guatemala sent a pastoral letter in which he reaffirmed the doctrine contained in the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer; but at the same time recognized that little is known about human nature and particularly homosexuality, and urged study. The Bishop of Nicaragua issued an official statement where he expressed pride in belonging to a Communion that had the courage to confront these subjects. The Bishop of Panama sent a pastoral letter expressing that while he did not approve of the ECUSA action, he urged that more attention be placed on the matter. The Bishop of Costa Rica did not send a pastoral letter, but invited the Episcopal and non-Episcopal communities relying on mass media for communication to engage in a dialogue on the subject in order for individuals to draw their own conclusions. The Bishop of El Salvador, author of this letter, did something similar, using print, television and radio to orient the Episcopal community and the general public, asking them to reflect with respect and seriousness and to handle the matter strictly from a human perspective. He did not enter the matter from a biblical or theological point of view. We hope to broaden the discussion from this perspective, as much in speculative theology as in practical theology. A great deal of information was offered, and people continue to reflect seriously and to request more information. It should be noted that in El Salvador there is an organization of lesbians and gays which in San Salvador, the capital of the Republic, has more than 5,000 members. The majority of these are professionals, industrialists, and others who are well respected in society. From the perspective of all the bishops of our province we have set out a declaration as a Province, addressed to all those present at the Lambeth gathering, and distributed to all the bishops. Regarding the participation of the Primate of IARCA in the consecration of the Rt Revd Gene Robinson, all of the bishops, priests, and laity in congregations knew of my participation. There were no reactions against this until recently, when on the 3 February I received a statement from the Church of Guatemala, which, after some introduction, declares three points: *The desire to maintain the unity of the IARCA Province *Simultaneously, The Episcopal Church of Guatemala dissociates itself from the actions of the Primate of IARCA for his participation in the consecration and ordination of Gene Robinson and thus provoking deterioration in IARCA. *It expresses the necessity that the bishops and the provincial council of IARCA remark on the matter, and that corrective measures be taken. I would like to express to all in our great Anglican Communion, and especially to my brothers and sisters in ECUSA and IARCA, that I attended and participated in the consecration and ordination of Gene Robinson for various reasons: *By my own conviction that I was participating in a ceremony that had followed all the legal and canonical processes of ECUSA, just as a week before I had participated in the ordination and consecration of the Bishop of New Jersey. There was nothing canonically irregular in my participation. Furthermore, all bishops of IARCA stated their respect for the decision of ECUSA as an autonomous province, with exception of the Bishop of Panama, whose pastoral letter rejected the decision of ECUSA but exhorts to look into it with good eyes. *I participated with a sense of solidarity with the marginalised, for whom I have fought for many years. I have fought for the social, economic, political, religious, racial and migratory marginalised; and now for those marginalised by sexual preference. I am totally convinced that Christ has always stood next to the marginalized, and I try to follow Christ even though I am a sinning man. I am very clear that God calls us to exercise a ministry, and God knows all of us best. Who am I to correct the plan of God? *It was my desire to accompany the Primate of our Mother Church, Presiding Bishop the Most Revd Frank Griswold. I know that I am a humble servant of God, but when I witnessed Frank's difficult moments I prayed for him and continue praying. I know that God gave him strength, humility and tolerance. I admire and am proud of the Primate of ECUSA, for at all times he was understanding, respectful, and firm in defense of the canons of his Church. I told him, 'Frank, I will be with you in New Hampshire,' and I fulfilled my word. Thus I can say that I was a witness by sight, sound, and action. I can confirm that it was a solemn act, serious, and that deep faith was present. If I am mistaken, may God judge me because His judgments are just and righteous." GIVE YOURSELF WHOLLY TO THEM – BY J. C. RYLE The following Sermon was preached in England, in August, 1859. "Give yourself wholly to them" (1 Timothy 4:15). I need hardly to remind you, that the Greek expression which we have translated, "give yourself wholly to them," is somewhat remarkable. It would be more literally rendered, "Be in these things." We have nothing exactly corresponding to the expression in our language, and the words which our translators have chosen are perhaps as well calculated as any to convey the idea which was put by the Holy Spirit in Paul's mind. When the Apostle says, "Give yourself wholly to these things," he seems to look at the "things" of which he had been speaking in the preceding verses, beginning with the words "Set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity." We have here a target set before the ministers of the New Testament, at which we are all to aim, and of which we must all feel we fall short. Yet it is an old saying, "He that aims high is the most likely to strike high; and he that shoots at the moon will shoot further than the man who shoots at the bush." The Apostle appears to me to suggest that the minister must be a man of one thing: to use his own words, a "man of God." We hear of men of business, and men of pleasure, and men of science. The aim of the minister should be, to be "a man of God;" or to employ a phrase used in some heathen countries, to be "Jesus Christ's man." An expression is sometimes used with reference to the army, which we may apply to the soldiers of the Great Captain of our salvation. Some men are said to be "carpet knights." They are said to have entered the army for the sake of the uniform, and for no other cause. But there are many of whom public opinion says, such a man is "every inch a soldier." This should be the aim which we should place before us; we should seek to be "every inch the minister of Jesus Christ." We should aim to be the same men at all times, in all positions, and places; not on Sunday only, but on week days also; not merely in the pulpit, but everywhere—in our living rooms, and in the house of the poor man. There are those, of whom their congregations have said, that when they were in the pulpit they never wished them to come out, and when they went out they never wished them to go in. May God give us all grace to take that to heart! May we seek so to live, so to preach, so to work, so to give ourselves wholly to the business of our calling, that this bitter remark may never be made about us. Our profession is a very special one. Others have their seasons of relaxation, when they can completely lay aside their work. This can never be done by the faithful minister of Jesus Christ. Once put on, his office must never be put off. At home, abroad, relaxing, going to the sea side, he must always carry his business with him. A great lawyer could say of his official robes, "Lie there, Lord Chancellor." Such ought never to be the mind of the minister of Christ. There are some things which the high demand of this text suggests, as needful to be followed after and practiced. First, it demands entire devotion to the great work to which we are ordained. When one was commanded by the Savior to follow Him, he replied, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father;" but then there came that solemn saying, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God." Still another said, "I will follow you, Lord; but first let me go back and say good-by to my family;" and to him there came the remarkable sentence, "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God." "Do not greet anyone on the road," was Christ's charge to the seventy disciples. Surely these Scriptural expressions teach us, that in all our dealings in our ministry, we must have a high standard. We must strive to be men of one thing—that thing being the work of Jesus Christ. Secondly, it demands a thorough separation from the things of the world. I hold it to be of the greatest importance to keep the ministerial office, so far as we can, distinct and separate from everything that is secular. I trust we shall hear every year of fewer and fewer ministers of the Gospel who are magistrates, and fewer and fewer ministers who take part in agricultural meetings, and win prizes for fat pigs, enormous bulls, and large crops of turnips. There is no apostolical succession in such occupations. Nor yet is this all. We should be separated from the pleasures of the world, as well as from its business. There are many innocent and indifferent amusements, for which the minister of Christ ought to have no time. He ought to say, "I have no time for these things. I am doing a great work, and I cannot come down." Thirdly, it demands a jealous watchfulness over our own social conduct. We ought not to be always paying morning calls of courtesy and dining out, as others do. It will not do to say, that our Lord went to a marriage feast, and sat at supper in the Pharisee's house, and therefore we may do the same. I only reply, Let us go in His spirit, with His faithfulness and boldness, to say a word in season, and to give the conversation a profitable turn, and then we may go with safety. Unless we do this, we should be careful where we go, with whom we sit down, and where we spend our evenings. There was a quaint saying of John Wesley to his ministers, which Cecil quotes, as containing the germ of much truth. "Don't aim at being thought gentlemen; you have no more to do with being gentlemen than with being masters at dancing." Our aim should be not to be regarded as agreeable persons at the dinner table, but to be known everywhere as faithful, consistent ministers of Jesus Christ. Fourthly, it demands a diligent redemption of time. We should give attention to reading, every day that we live. We should strive to bring all our reading to bear on our work. We ought to keep our eyes open continually, and be ever picking up ideas for our sermons—as we travel by the way, as we sit by the fireside, as we are standing on the platform at the railway station. We should be keeping in our mind's eye our Master's business—observing, noting, looking out, gathering up something that will throw fresh light on our work, and enable us to put the truth in a more striking way. He that looks out for something to learn will always be able to learn something. Having suggested these things, I will next proceed to ask, What will be the consequence of our giving ourselves wholly to these things? Remember, we shall not receive the praise of men. We shall be thought extreme, and ascetic, and righteous. Those who want to serve God and serve money at the same time, will think our standard too high, our practice too stringent. They will say, that we are going too far and too fast for a world such as that in which we live. May we never care what men say of us, so long as we walk in the light of God's Word! May we strive and pray to be wholly independent of, and indifferent to man's opinion, so long as we please God! May we remember the woe pronounced by our Master, when He said, "Woe to you when all men speak well of you," and the words of Paul, "If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ." But though "giving ourselves wholly to these things" we shall not win the praise of men, we shall attain the far more important end of usefulness to souls. I completely acknowledge the doctrine of the sovereignty of God in the salvation of sinners. I acknowledge that those who preach best, and live nearest to God, have not always been honored in their lives to the saving of many souls. But still, the man who is most entirely and wholly Jesus Christ's man—a man of one thing, who lives Sunday and weekday, everywhere, at home and abroad, as a man whose single endeavor is to give himself to the work of Jesus Christ—this is the man, this is the minister, who will generally, in the long run, do the most good. The case of Mr. Simeon will apply here. You all know how he was persecuted when he began to testify for Christ, in Cambridge. You know how many there were who would not speak to him, how the finger of scorn was pointed at him continually. But we know how he went on persevering in the work, and how, when he died, all Cambridge came forth to give him honor, and how heads of houses, and fellows of colleges, and men who had scoffed at him while he lived, honored him at his death. They testified, that the life he had lived had had its effect, and that they had seen and known that God was with him. I once saw in Dundee one who had known much of that godly man, Robert Murray McCheyne. She told me that those who read his letters and sermons had a very faint idea of what he was. She said to me, "If you have read all his works, you just know nothing at all about him. You must have seen the man, and heard him, and known him, and have been in company with him, to know what a man of God he was." Furthermore, giving ourselves wholly to these things will bring happiness and peace to our consciences. I speak now among friends, and not among worldly people, where I should need to fence and guard and explain what I mean. I shall not be suspected of holding justification by works by those I see before me. I speak of such a clear conscience as the Apostle refers to: We trust we have a "clear conscience" (Hebrews 13:18). To have this clear conscience is clearly bound up with high aims, high motives, a high standard of ministerial life, and practice. I am quite sure, that the more we give ourselves wholly to the work of the ministry, the more inward happiness, the greater sense of the light of God's countenance, are we likely to enjoy. The subject is a deeply humbling one. Who does not feel, "My weakness, my weakness! my unprofitableness! How far short I come of this high standard?" What reason have we, having received mercy, not to faint! What reason have we, having been spared by God's great patience, to abound in the work of the Lord, and to give ourselves wholly to our business! The great secret is, to be always looking to Jesus, and living a life of close communion with Him. At Cambridge, the other day, I saw a picture of Henry Martyn, bequeathed by Mr. Simeon to the public library. A friend informed me that that picture used to hang in Mr. Simeon's room, and that when he was disposed to trifle in the work of the ministry, he used to stand before it and say, "It seems to say to me, Charles Simeon, don't trifle, don't trifle; Charles Simeon, remember whose you are, and whom you serve." And then the worthy man, in his own strange way, would bow respectfully, and say, "I will not trifle, I will not trifle; I will not forget." May we, in conclusion, look to a far higher pattern than any man—Martyn, McCheyne, or any other. May we look to the Great Chief Shepherd, the great pattern, in whose steps we are to walk! May we abide in Him, and never trifle! May we hold on our way, looking to Jesus, keeping clear of the world, its pleasures, and its follies—caring nothing for the world's frowns, and not much moved by the world's smiles—looking forward to that day when the Great Shepherd shall give to all who have done His work, and preached His Gospel, a crown of glory that does not fade away! The more we have the mind of Christ, the more we shall understand what it is to "give ourselves wholly to these things." NOT BIG, AND NOT CLEVER...A CRITIQUE OF JEFFREY JOHN'S HOMOSEXUALITY 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 'tu quoque' fallacy—'You do as I do, hence I can't be wrong.' Thus on page 9 he claims that 'biblical conservatives will employ exactly the sort of arguments [on this issue] which on other matters they condemn as "getting round the plain meaning of Scripture".' But just as two wrongs don't make a right, so one misuse of scripture (if that is what is involved) doesn't make for two misuses. In point of fact, I believe John oversimplifies the biblical material. But if the Bible actually did teach that women should wear hats in church, then we should surely do likewise, not use our failure in this regard to justify abandoning other aspects of biblical teaching. Meanwhile, the fact that John takes this approach suggests he realizes the Bible actually opposes what he himself advocates. Law. Space precludes addressing John's handling of the story of Sodom. I can only draw the diligent reader's attention to the relevant cautions in Robert Gagnon's The Bible and Homosexual Practice. John's treatment of the Old Testament law, however, is woeful, in particular his infamous comment on page 12: The next time you see a clean-shaven fundamentalist wearing a poly-cotton shirt and eating a shrimp, remember to shout 'Abomination'! If John really believes this is an adequate response to those who quote the Old Testament on moral issues, he should give up his title as Canon Theologian. For my own part, I believe I have addressed this adequately in my own What God has Made Clean (Good Book Company, 2003), and would refer readers who are still unclear to that publication. Paul. John is just as weak, however, in his handling of Paul, resting his case largely on unsustainable and unprovable assumptions. John asserts that 'the model of Paul's condemnation was . [male] prostitution or pederasty.' Yet Paul begins his own condemnation of homosexual acts in Romans 1.26 with a reference to women, which demonstrates an entirely different starting point to the one John proposes. Again, John claims that 'neither Paul nor his Jewish antecedents considered the case of a homosexually oriented person', yet such persons were known in the Gentile culture with which Paul was familiar. Ultimately, therefore, although John rejects Paul's 'assumptions' as 'quite false' (p16), it his own assumptions which are questionable. John is similarly cavalier with Paul's arguments from nature, preferring to focus on the difficulties he perceives in applying Paul's teaching on women, rather than engaging with his comments on sexuality. John is quite happy to affirm Paul when it suits (pp18, 37 etc), but where it does not, he adopts his own line, justifying this by claiming he is only doing what others do. Yet there is a vast difference between those who ultimately sit under the authority of Paul's writings as scripture, and those who really do 'cherry pick', treating as scripture only those teachings which accord with their own viewpoint. John's position can thus only be called 'scriptural' in a sense that depends on demolishing what the Church traditionally understands by this. Morality. John's discomfort with Paul's view of 'nature' is understandable, however, considering his approach to the question 'Is it Moral?' Over against the objection based on the 'natural' complementarity of male and female bodies and personalities, John simply asserts that same-sex relationships can be fulfilling in every comparable regard bar that of bearing children. Moreover, there cannot be anything morally reprehensible about homosexual acts per se: Those who claim to be repelled and disgusted by homosexual forms of intercourse might ask why they are not disgusted by a painter who expresses his creativity by painting with his feet (p21). But John plays down the fact that something is nevertheless clearly wrong if someone has to paint with their feet. And he similarly fails to acknowledge that the 'make do' of homosexual acts shows homosexuality to be technically a form of sexual dis-orientation. John's problems, however, do not stop there, for he also wants to refute calls within the gay community for a radicalizing of sexual relationships. But in the face of this, John can only fall back on a position he has already subverted: Christian theology is an attempt to understand 'what happens' in relation to profound truths about human nature revealed in Scripture and Christian tradition (pp35-36, emphasis added). However, that revelation, and even John's own understanding of 'acceptable' relationships, would (for example) create great difficulties for bisexuals who want their relationships blessed by the Church. Yet it is surely only a real traditionalist who can resist such demands, whereas John (who oddly says nothing about bisexuality—see p59) will ultimately appear to be just as 'selective' as the conservatives he so often attacks. John wishes to show both traditionalists and radicals that 'human sexuality is intended to express a covenant commitment between two people which is holy because it reflects God's covenanted love for us, and gives us a framework for learning to love in his image' (p4). But there is already far too much reliance on scripture and revelation in these ideas for them to find an expression outside the scriptural context of marriage—namely between one man and one woman for life. Sacrifice the latter, as John does, and eventually you will inevitably lose the former. Achievable. This brings us, finally, to John's third question, 'Is it Achievable?' by which he means 'Could lifelong, monogamous homosexual relationships become normalized within the Church?' Here, John must face first the question of homosexual 'promiscuity' (his term)—an area of considerable controversy. Stephen Goldstone, himself a gay doctor, admits candidly in The Ins and Outs of Gay Sex, 'Even under the shadow of AIDS, many of us still have sexual histories numbering in the hundreds or even thousands' (p 212). By contrast, John claims, 'There is no reason to believe that homosexual men are naturally more inclined to promiscuity than heterosexual men' (p40), though the fact that he devotes six of his own fifty-five pages to this issue may suggest 'he doth protest too much'. John suggests that whatever promiscuity exists amongst gay men would diminish if only they were allowed to enter into recognized stable relationships. But this can only be conjecture, especially since promiscuity has measurably and dramatically increased amongst heterosexuals (who can, of course, marry) in the last ten years (see the National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles). Standing in the way of John's programme, however, is the Church of England generally and her bishops in particular for their inconsistency and failure to fulfil their teaching office (pp47-48). Not surprisingly, John vents considerable spleen on them: They continue to supply the ideology which undergirds prejudice, and continue to bear the heaviest responsibility for it (p55). Yet once again we must ask whether the course John urges on the bishops indeed follows from their current failures. Would they best redeem themselves by standing up to '"difficult" conservative Evangelicals', or by recovering the biblical and traditionalist theology John has attacked? Trinity. John cannot, however, avoid one final error before he finishes. Marriage is, he concludes, 'a "mystery" or sacrament of God because it potentially reflects the mystery of self-giving love which is at the heart of the Trinity' (p 52). Thus 'because homosexual people are no less made in God's image than heterosexuals' they too can (in words quoted from Eugene Rogers), 'represent the Trinity' (p53). Yet of course marriage is not a reflection of the love within the Trinity, but a model of the love between Creator and creation, between Redeemer and redeemed. It is the love between Christ and the Church, not the love between the Father, the Son and the Spirit. It is, that is to say, love within a framework of difference rather than of likeness, of heteros rather than homoios. Of course, love for that which is 'the same' exists and is legitimate. But sexuality, by its very nature, has no place in that love. Sexuality remains, literally, 'wedded' to the male-female paradigm. That has, until now, been the Church's understanding, and John has yet to prove it should be otherwise.

From NPR News, this is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. 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, quote, "gilding the lily." He's keenly aware of the controversy that's been roiling the church since it recognized gay unions and consecrated Gene Robinson, a gay priest, to be bishop of New Hampshire. Given all this, Barnes says he's pleased that he's received commitments from more than three-quarters of the bishops, and so far, their pledges to the national church are down only 7 percent. Mr. KURT BARNES (Treasurer, Episcopal Church): The impact is what I would describe as insignificant. Barnes is recommending that the dioceses cut their spending by 5 to 10 percent. Jim Naughton, a spokesman for the Diocese of Washington, DC, says this isn't cause for rejoicing, but it's not the predicted apocalypse, either. Mr. JIM NAUGHTON (Spokesman, Episcopal Diocese of Washington, DC): The narrative line since General Convention has been, Oh, watch out. The Episcopal Church is taking in water. The Episcopal Church is going down.' And that's definitely not happening. So it's hard to disentangle an intelligent analysis of where we stand now from the sort of what amounts to the kind of ecclesiastical version of trash talking that's coming from the other side, you know, this sort of, You're going down. You're going down.' Reverend DON ARMSTRONG (Rector, Grace Episcopal Church, Colorado Springs): I think what you're getting from the national church is a spin. Don Armstrong is rector of the 2,400-member Grace Episcopal Church in Colorado Springs. He says the bishops, most of whom voted for gay unions and Gene Robinson, have an interest in creating the impression that there has been no financial impact. And, he says, they'll go to great lengths to do so. For example, angry conservative parishioners in Colorado have withheld some $350,000 from their diocese, he says, but the bishop is eating that loss locally and giving the same amount as last year to the national church. Armstrong says the bishops can't do that for long. Rev. ARMSTRONG: As we move into 2004 and their monthly income decreases, they're going to be faced with the reality that they don't have the money in the bank to write the checks. Kendall Harmon, an official of the Diocese of South Carolina, says the situation will only grow more acute with time. Parishioners, entire churches and even two dioceses, Pittsburgh and Dallas, are directing their money away from the national church toward other ministries. A new network of conservative churches is being formed, and Harmon says that will no doubt attract money that would otherwise go to the national church. People are leaving the Episcopal Church altogether and taking their money with them. In fact, Harmon says, entire churches are leaving the denomination to join a conservative offshoot of Anglicanism. Mr. KENDALL HARMON (Diocese of South Carolina): Basically, the vast majority of a parish just left from St. John's, Melbourne, and went to the Anglican Mission in America. So in that diocese, most of the pledge from that parish to the Diocese of Central Florida is going to go down. So as the year progresses, you're going to start to see these figures work themselves through the system more. Jim Naughton in Washington, DC, notes that a couple of conservative churches in the DC area have decided to withhold their money from the diocese. But others who are happy about recognizing gay unions and a gay bishop are making up the shortfall. Mr. NAUGHTON: Many people in those parishes have said, `Fine. If you're not going to give to the diocese, we're going to give directly to the diocese.' So this idea that people are voting with their pocketbooks, that goes both ways. And so in this war of words and finances, when there's way too much smoke to figure out who's left standing, both sides are claiming victory. CULTURE WARS: TOP 10 ARGUMENTS AGAINST SAME SEX MARRIAGE A large and growing body of social scientific evidence indicates that the intact, married family is best for children. In particular, see work by David Popenoe, Linda Waite, Maggie Gallagher, Sara McLanahan, David Blankenhorn, Paul Amato, and Alan Booth. This statement from Sara McLahanan, a sociologist at Princeton University, is representative: “If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children’s basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent ideal. Such a design, in theory, would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money of two adults, it also would provide a system of checks and balances that promoted quality parenting. The fact that both parents have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child, and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child.” McLanahan and family scholars like her are not arguing that parents in other family forms are necessarily bad. But she is making the point, backed up by countless studies, that the ideal place for children to grow up—on average—is in a married, intact family where children have access to a mother and a father who share a biological tie (and, hence, a deep sense of kinship) to them. This empirical reality lends support to the idea that our society should do more to reinforce the norm that every child should have the opportunity to grow up in an intact, married family and, failing that, an adoptive family headed by a married couple that offers a child the benefit of a mother and a father. Children hunger for their biological parents. SS couples using IVF or surrogate mothers deliberately create a class of children who will live apart from their mother or father. Yale Child Study Center psychiatrist Kyle Pruett reports that children of IVF often ask their single or lesbian mothers about their fathers, asking their mothers questions like the following: “Mommy, what did you do with my daddy?” “Can I write him a letter?” “Has he ever seen me?” “Didn’t you like him? Didn’t he like me?” Elizabeth Marquardt reports that children of divorce often report similar feelings about their non-custodial parent, usually the father. The work of these scholars suggest that children hunger for their biological parents and that we should not deliberately create a class of children, through IVF or surrogacy, who live apart from their mother or father. (Adoption is a different matter insofar as adoptive children have already come into the world and need to live apart from their biological parents, usually because they are unable to care for them or because they are no longer living.) Children need fathers. If SSM becomes common, the majority of SS couples with children would probably be lesbians. This means that we would have yet more children being raised apart from fathers. Among other things, we know that fathers excel in reducing antisocial behavior/delinquency in boys and sexual activity in girls. What is fascinating is that fathers exercise a unique social and biological influence on their children. For instance, a recent study of father absence on girls found that girls who grew up apart from their biological father were much more likely to experience early puberty and a teen pregnancy than girls who spent their entire childhood in an intact family. This study, along with David Popenoe’s work, suggests that a father’s pheromones influence the biological development of his daughter, that a strong marriage provides a model for girls of what to look for in a man, and gives them the confidence to resist the sexual entreaties of their boyfriends. Children need mothers. Although gay men are less likely to have children than lesbians, there will be and are gay men raising children. There will be even more if SSM is legalized. These households deny children a mother. Among other things, mothers excel in providing children with emotional security and in reading the physical and emotional cues of infants. Obviously, they also give their daughters unique counsel as they confront the physical, emotional, and social challenges associated with puberty and adolescence. Stanford psychologist Eleanor Maccoby summarizes much of this literature in her book The Two Sexes. See also Steven Rhoads’s book, which comes out in the fall. Inadequate evidence on SS couple parenting. A number of leading professional associations have asserted that there are “no effects” of SS couple parenting on children. But the research in this area is quite preliminary; most of the studies are done by advocates and most suffer from serious methodological problems. Sociologist Steven Nock of the University of Virginia, who is agnostic on SSM, offered this review of the literature on gay parenting as an expert witness for a Canadian Court considering SSM: “Through this analysis I draw my conclusions that 1) all of the articles I reviewed contained at least one fatal flaw of design or execution; and 2) not a single one of those studies was conducted according to general accepted standards of scientific research.” This is not exactly the kind of social scientific evidence you would want to launch a major family experiment. Children raised in SS homes experience gender and sexual disorders. Although the evidence on child outcomes is sketchy (see above), what evidence is available does raise two red flags. Specifically, a number of studies suggest children raised in lesbian homes are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders. Judith Stacey—an advocate for SSM and a sociologist—reviewed the literature on child outcomes and found the following: “lesbian parenting may free daughters and sons from a broad but uneven range of traditional gender prescriptions.” Her conclusion here is based on studies that show that sons of lesbians are less masculine and that daughters of lesbians are more masculine. She also found that a “significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers… reported having a homoerotic relationship.” Stacey also observes that children of lesbians are more likely to report homoerotic attractions. Her review must be view judiciously, given the methodological flaws detailed by Professor Nock in the literature as a whole. Nevertheless, these studies give some credence to conservative concerns about the effects of SS couple parenting. Vive la difference. If SSM is institutionalized, our society would take yet another step down the road of de-gendering marriage. There would me more use of gender-neutral language like “partners” and—more importantly—more social/cultural pressures to neuter our thinking and our behaviors in marriage. But marriages typically thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical ways and are attentive to the gendered needs and aspirations of their husband or wife. For instance, women are happier when their husband earns the lion’s share of the household income. Likewise, couples are less likely to divorce when the wife concentrates on childrearing and the husband concentrates on breadwinning, as University of Virginia Psychologist Mavis Hetherington admits. Sexual fidelity. One of the biggest threats that SSM poses to marriage is that it would probably undercut the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage. In the first edition of his book in defense of marriage, Virtually Normal, Andrew Sullivan wrote: “There is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.” This line of thinking, of course, were it incorporated into marriage and telegraphed to the public in sitcoms, magazines, and other mass media, would do enormous harm to the norm of sexual fidelity in marriage. One recent study of civil unions and marriages in Vermont suggests this is a very real concern. More than 79 percent of heterosexual married men and women, along with lesbians in civil unions, reported that they strongly valued sexual fidelity. Only about 50 percent of gay men in civil unions valued sexual fidelity. Marriage, procreation, and the fertility implosion. Traditionally, marriage and procreation have been tightly connected to one another. Indeed, from a sociological perspective, the primary purpose that marriage serves is to secure a mother and father for each child who is born into a society. Now, however, many Westerners see marriage in primarily emotional terms. Among other things, the danger with this mentality is that it fosters an anti-natalist mindset that fuels population decline, which in turn puts tremendous social, political, and economic strains on the larger society. SSM would only further undercut the procreative norm long associated with marriage insofar as it establishes that there is no necessary link between procreation and marriage. This was spelled out in the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts, where the majority opinion dismissed the procreative meaning of marriage. It is no accident that the countries that have legalized or are considering legalizing SSM have some of the lowest fertility rates in the world. For instance, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Canada have birthrates that hover around 1.6 children per woman—well below the replacement fertility rate of 2.1. For the sake of the children. The divorce and sexual revolutions of the last four decades has seriously undercut the norm that couples should get and stay married if they intend to have children, are expecting a child, or already have children. Political scientist James Q. Wilson reports that the introduction of no-fault divorce further destabilized marriage by weakening the legal and cultural meaning of the marriage contract. George Akerlof, a Nobel laureate and an economist, found that the widespread availability of contraception and abortion in the 1960s and 1970s, and the sexual revolution they enabled, made it easier for men to abandon women they got pregnant, since they could always blame their girlfriends for not using contraception or procuring an abortion. It is plausible to suspect that SSM would have similar consequences for marriage, that is, it would further destabilize the norm that adults should sacrifice to get and stay married for the sake of their children. Why? SSM would institutionalize the idea that children do not need both their mother and their father. This would be particularly important for men, who are more likely to abandon their children. SSM would make it even easier than it already is for men to rationalize their abandonment of their children. After all, they could tell themselves, our society, which affirms lesbian couples raising children, believes that children do not need a father. So, they might tell themselves, I do not need to marry or stay married to the mother of my children. Women & marriage domesticate men. Men who are married earn more, work harder, drink less, live longer, spend more time attending religious services, and are more sexually faithful. They also see their testosterone levels drop, especially when they have children in the home. If the distinctive sexual patterns of “committed” gay couples are any indication (see above), it is unlikely that SSM would domesticate men in the way that heterosexual marriage does. It is also extremely unlikely that the biological effects of heterosexual marriage on men would also be found in SSM. Thus, gay activists like Andrew Sullivan who argue that gay marriage will domesticate gay men are—in all likelihood—clinging to a foolish hope. This foolish hope does not justify yet another effort to meddle with marriage.