By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent, The Telegraph 8/30/2004 The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, yesterday vented his frustrations with the Church factions warring over homosexuality and also reminded Christians that they did not have a monopoly on the afterlife. In a rare glimpse of his anger over the row that has overshadowed his first two years at Canterbury, Dr Williams said the debate had lacked grace and patience. He said that this had been aggravated by pressure groups with entrenched positions who posted instant reactions to events on their websites. The Archbishop also admitted to failing to live up to people's expectations, a reference to the disappointment many felt that he had not been more radical over his opposition to the war in Iraq. He surprised some at the three-day Greenbelt festival in Cheltenham, Glos, by declaring that Muslims can go to heaven. Dr Williams said that neither he nor any Christian could control access to heaven. "It is possible for God's spirit to cross boundaries," he said. "I say this as someone who is quite happy to say that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except by Jesus. But how God leads people through Jesus to heaven, that can be quite varied, I think." During a wide-ranging discussion, Dr Williams reflected his disappointment at the tone of the debate on homosexuality, and his dismay at the vitriol of many of the e-mails he had received. "It is not so much that we have disagreement in the Church - that happens," he said. "It is more to do with how those disagreements are conducted. The dismissiveness, the rawness of the anger . . . need to be worked with." Speaking about the furore that followed the appointment of the gay cleric Dr Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading, a post from which Dr John later withdrew, Dr Williams said that both sides had suffered shock. Dr John, who was recently installed as Dean of St Albans, was also a speaker at the festival yesterday. The Archbishop said: "On both sides of the debate as it evolved, quite a lot of people had to learn that the Church of England wasn't just them, because what I heard a lot of on both sides of the controversy was 'we thought the Church of England was us and people like us and maybe one or two others who don't matter very much'. "I was intrigued by the mirror imaging that went on there. There was a sense on both sides, therefore, of shock and dispossession, that it is not all ours after all. It is not full of faithful evangelicals, it is not full of enlightened liberals. "Very quickly pressure groups can form and settle and decide where they stand and invest in where they stand. "We haven't had an effective forum in which that process can be slowed, not just for the sake of putting things off but for the sake of mutual understanding. We haven't quite found that forum yet. It is not the General Synod. It is certainly not the trading of websites." — END —

Episcopal panel suggests taking a breather from fight over gay blessings By Jean Torkelson, Rocky Mountain News August 31, 2004 The Episcopal Diocese of Colorado is deeply divided over same-sex issues, but compromise between liberals and traditionalists is still possible, a task force has told Bishop Rob O'Neill, who will issue his final directive today. The group's report suggests the diocese embark on a "season of restraint," with two main compromises for each side of the debate: First, liberals should put the idea of same-sex blessings on hold until the church's general convention re-examines the issue in two years. They also should agree that the diocese won't add any new same-sex clergy partners from outside Colorado during that time period, though gay clergy partners already here may continue their parish work. Traditionalists are asked to lift their financial boycott of the diocese, which is believed to be at least partially responsible for a $500,000 drop in pledges this year. Traditionalists should also agree not to seek what's called "episcopal oversight," a process in which a parish can remove itself from O'Neill's authority in favor of a bishop more to their liking. "It calls on clergy and laity to reclaim a common discipline," said the Rev. John Huffman, who agreed Monday to share details of the plan. He worked for six months on a 10-member task force appointed by O'Neill, who wanted to assess the impact of same-sex blessings on the divided diocese. The group, which included liberals, traditionalists and a gay representative, struggled and sometimes clashed, but in the end, "I really felt the Holy Spirit broke through and what we produced really came out of our struggle with one another and our prayerfulness and attentiveness," said Huffman, pastor of Ascension Episcopal Church in Salida. But the recommendations outraged the Rev. Don Armstrong of Colorado Springs. He is a member of the standing committee, the bishop's advisory body, and pastor of one of the largest parishes in Colorado. He called the suggested compromises "a ploy." "So Rob O'Neill gets his money, conservative clergy fund him and the gay clergy get to do what they want," Armstrong said Monday. "He's trying to get us to sit still while everybody gets used to having practicing gay clergy in the diocese. This will push us to redouble our efforts to get others to restrict giving and seek episcopal oversight." Although he's free to alter the task force report, it's likely that O'Neill will support it as diocesan policy. He personally favors extending gay rights in the church but has already said he wants to hold off on implementing same-sex policies until the wider church can address the explosive issues at its next general convention, which meets in Columbus, Ohio, in 2006. What's not clear is whether O'Neill could force the warring factions to accept their parts of the compromise. Even the task force cites the tension, alluding to factions in the diocese and disruptive clergy. "Everybody has to buy into it" for the report to work, Huffman acknowledged. Last summer at its general convention, the Episcopal Church USA gave first, limited approval to same-sex policies. It passed resolutions allowing an openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson, to take office in New Hampshire. It also agreed that individual dioceses could decide whether to develop same-sex blessings - liturgies that officially acknowledge a gay couple's relationship. Those decisions sparked an uproar across the country, with traditionalists saying homosexual behavior contradicts scripture, and liberals arguing that the church should reflect the world around it. In Colorado, the controversy was further inflamed in April. That's when a lesbian pastor, the Rev. Bonnie Spencer, disregarded O'Neill's call to wait and held a same-sex ceremony - though she insisted it was not a full liturgical blessing - with her partner at Good Shepherd Episcopal Church in Centennial. Spencer declined to comment Monday on the task force recommendations. The task force includes other recommendations. Among them, it asks that the concept of same sex blessings be submitted to "solid theological work" by church experts and not be considered only as a "social justice" issue, Huffman said. He said O'Neill also insisted that the task force include one bedrock principle in its report: that the Colorado diocese would never be "separated from Canterbury," a reference to the London headquarters of the Anglican Communion, of which the Episcopal Church USA is one of 38 provinces. However, the wider Anglican Communion rejects homosexual behavior - and even now is considering whether to censure the far more liberal American church. Its report is expected in October. "As we discussed all these things, we found ourselves driven up a wall," Huffman said. "What if the next convention of the Episcopal Church USA approves same-sex blessings? What will happen at Canterbury? We couldn't answer what would happen then in Colorado. We could not answer all the what ifs. We had to deal with what's on the ground now." — END —

By Brian Martinez, The Orange County Register Praveen Bunyan, 42, has gone from being addicted to drugs and alcohol to living under a tree for 15 months while shepherding Christians in rural India to leading an affluent Newport Beach church in a high-profile secession from Episcopal oversight. As a teenager and college student, Bunyan rejected the faith of his father and grandfather -- both influential clergymen in the Anglican Church of South India. He instead focused on school, sports, socializing and sin. But at age 20, Bunyan had a "conversion experience." While searching through a drawer, a needle he had been using to shoot drugs accidentally pricked his finger. Blood dripped onto an old brown Bible collecting dust. He opened it and read that an innocent Jesus had died for him. "I fell to my knees and gave my life to Christ," he said. Bunyan finished his graduate studies in public administration at Madras Christian College in India and became a college professor. He accompanied his parents on a short summer mission to a poor Indian village, where one family was converted. Bunyan volunteered to stay and care for the new Christians' spiritual needs, despite his parents' worries that he had no place to live and didn't know how to cook. He stayed in the village for 15 months, sleeping under a tree, eating wild fruit or food provided by the villagers, and learning to work on a farm. "I had incredible culture shock," he said. Bunyan established churches in 12 surrounding villages, prompting friends and family to declare that he was destined to become a minister, he said. They urged him to attend seminary. He met Grace Veena Samson while earning a master's degree in divinity at Union Biblical Seminary in India and married her in 1987. The couple, both ordained Anglican priests, traveled to the United States in 1993 to study theology at Biola University. Bunyan worked with various Episcopal congregations -- assisting at parishes in Los Angeles and Philadelphia and leading two small churches in Colorado. When the former rector of the 1,200-person St. James Episcopal Church in Newport Beach announced his retirement, the parish's vestry began a seven-month search for the next leader of the congregation. The board of 12 lay leaders started with about 40 names referred to them. When St. James called Bunyan and asked for a resume, he refused. "We didn't want to move anymore," he said. "After almost moving back to India, we decided to establish our lives in Colorado." St. James e-mailed him. He again declined to send his resume. They called again, and asked him to at least pray about it. He refused even that but later changed his mind. Then he reluctantly sent his resume and prayed often for God's direction. "We had Praveen come for a weekend, and there was an extraordinary sense of God's presence in him and his family," said Jim Dale, a St. James director. The search crew was impressed by Bunyan's leadership and counseling skills, mission-oriented mind-set, family, love for people and sense of humor, Dale said. After much prayer, the board voted unanimously to offer Bunyan the job, and had him on speaker phone when he accepted in November 2002. "There was applause, shouting, crying and joy in that room," Dale said. "And everything has worked better than we ever expected." When the church's lay leaders indicated several months ago a desire to secede from the oversight of the Episcopal Church -- the U.S. branch of the international Anglican community -- Bunyan was in full agreement. "We need to protect the integrity of our own faith journey," he said. — END —

By Uwe Siemon-Netto, UPI Religious Affairs Editor PARIS, Aug. 31 (UPI) Should the so-called Islamic Army kill the two French reporters it has kidnapped in Iraq, it will do so under false religious premises -- given that there is nothing in the Koran that allows for such action. This terrorist group has threatened to "execute" Georges Malbrunot and Christian Chesnot unless the French government revokes a law banning "ostentatious" display of religious symbols in French public schools. This includes wearing or displaying the Jewish skullcap or large crosses, as well as the Muslim headscarf. This law will take effect at the beginning of the new school year Thursday. Jews and Christians affected by the new law have not complained. Neither are all that many French Muslims, for that matter. The few thousand veiled women demonstrating against the new law several months ago were by no means representative of the country's Islamic community of five to six million. Talk to any Parisian female of North African origin you meet in restaurants, cafes or at the workplace, and chances are she will tell you quite adamantly, "No, I do not want the scarf!" "The law's the law," said Dalil Boubakeur, rector of the "Grande Mosquee" in Paris and president of the French Council of Muslim Faith. And most other leaders of the Islamic establishment in the country -- though not the radical imams in the ghettos -- agree. In neighboring Germany where some states have laws against head scarves worn by teachers in class, Sevim Ozdemir, a prominent Turkish-born activist for the integration of Muslim children, insists: "The Koran does not command us to wear a scarf or a veil. This is something scribes have read into the two surahs counseling modesty." Surah 24:31 counsels the faithful: "And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts and do not display their ornaments ... and let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms." According to Ursula Spuler-Stegemann, an Islamic studies professor at the University of Marburg, many Muslim scholars interpret this text as an admonition to keep one's decollete bedecked when leaving the home. Ozdemir regards the opposite interpretation of this text -- insisting on a headscarf, veil or chador -- as a "political statement of oppression and misogyny, a relic of feudalism and slavery." Those who take this line dream of returning to a Taliban-style society. "This is the reason that when Turkey instituted the full equality of men and women, it prohibited schoolgirls from wearing the headscarf in class," she says. "Political statement" is the keyword here. This is precisely what the French government tried to prevent when it drafted the law forbidding the wearing of religious -- and, lest we forget, political -- symbols at school. Exercising "laicite," or total neutrality in religious matters, the French state is not trying to oppress religion or political opinions. In fact, it protects all "practice of faith -- but within the limits required by public order," explained Daniel Amson, a professor of public law, in the national daily, Le Figaro. Public order would be endangered by "ostentatious" displays of religious or ideological convictions in places where everyone should be focused on one thing alone -- getting an education. This is of course a totally different philosophy of state than that of, say, Saudi Arabia or Iran, where Muslim garbs are also imposed on Christian, Buddhist or Hindu women. The difference is that in those countries all women must look like Muslims outside their homes -- that is to say, they must live in a state of oppression. In France, on the other hand, any woman can walk about town dressed as she wishes, while schoolgirls must look neither like Muslims, nor like Christians or Jews but simply like, well, schoolgirls learning biology, history and mathematics. "Down with the veil!" reads the title of a recent book by Chahdortt Djavann, an Iranian woman writer living in exile in Paris. Djavann never ceases to warn her readers of the menace of an Islamist infiltration of Western Europe, the peril that was very much on the French government's mind when it promulgated the headscarf ban. When the French newsmagazine, Le Point, asked Djavann if she discerned an acceleration of the "clash of the civilizations" predicted by Harvard professor Samuel Huntington, she replied, "I prefer to speak of a sickness of the civilizations." This malady, it seems, is aggravated by a specifically European variant Raymond Williams, the father of cultural studies, observed two decades ago in the United States: Immigrants become more religious than they were before they left their homeland. In the European-Muslim context this means, according to Djavann, that the "second and third generation of immigrant families develop the zeal and religious dynamism they found lacking with their parents." Hence Djavann's troubling insight: "Islamists know how to convert the frustrations of the young into religious energy. This explains why Islamism has a greater impact on the youth in Europe than, for example, in Iran, where young people ridicule faith." — END —

By Monte Morin, Staff Writer, Los Angeles Times 8/31/2004 Three breakaway Episcopal parishes refused to surrender their churches, hymnals and financial records to the Diocese of Los Angeles on Monday, despite threats of a lawsuit by the Episcopal Church. A lawyer for the parishes said Episcopal Bishop J. Jon Bruno lacked the legal authority to make such a demand. "Your demand that hundreds of families and children immediately cease worshipping God in the buildings they alone have erected and supported defies belief," wrote Eric C. Sohlgren, the secessionist parishes' attorney. Over the past weeks, All Saints' in Long Beach, St. James in Newport Beach and St. David's in North Hollywood renounced their membership in the national Episcopal Church and refused to recognize Bruno as their leader. The break involved issues such as the national church's decision to ordain an openly gay priest as a bishop. The parishes now claim to be under the jurisdiction of Anglican Bishop Evans Kisekka of the Diocese of Luweero in Uganda, which adheres to more orthodox biblical interpretations of homosexuality. On Friday, Los Angeles diocesan attorney John R. Shiner of Morrison & Foerster said the congregations were in violation of church canons and California civil law and gave them five days to surrender financial statements, copies of bank accounts, investment portfolios and member registries. In a one-page response, Sohlgren wrote that "your clients have no authority or grounds to dictate or interfere with religious worship, instruction, oversight, communications, employment, and property use at these three churches." The bishop said Sunday that if the three parishes rejected the diocese's demand, he would meet with his assistant bishops and attorneys to decide the next step. — END —

By David W. Virtue, in Ottawa OTTAWA, ON (8/31/2004) Leaders of 700 orthodox Canadian Anglicans meeting under the banner of ESSENTIALS, announced yesterday the formation of two new organizations - a Federation and a Network - to allow beleaguered Anglicans a safe place from revisionist diocesan bishops. The formation of these organizations arose as a result of recent actions of the General Synod in its passing of an amendment declaring the integrity and sanctity of committed, adult, same-sex relationships. The Federation will act as an umbrella for all orthodox Canadian Anglicans, bishops, clergy and laity in the Anglican Church of Canada who see themselves as being in impaired communion with their diocese and the national church, said the Rev. Dr. Brett Cane, who sits on the council of ESSENTIALS, a national organization for orthodox Canadian Anglicans. A second organization, The Network, modeled along the lines of the Anglican Communion Network in the U.S. was also launched to provide an alternative structure with a national task force for parishes and their clergy but not for individuals. Bishop Don Harvey of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador will act as Episcopal Moderator for the new Network. "The Federation is for those who want to stand firm in the gospel and remain in the Anglican Church of Canada, at least for the moment until a report comes out of the Lambeth/Eames Commission," said Dr. Cane. "The Federation is a first step," said Cane. "We want to be prepared in the eventuality that the Primates act against the Anglican Church of Canada over its voting for the blessing of same sex relationships at the recent General Synod." The Anglican Communion Network in Canada (ACNC) was the name chosen to identify with Anglican Communion worldwide. "We also want to identify with The Network in the Episcopal Church USA who have similarly been abandoned by the church over matters of catholic faith and order." The Network will hopefully embrace such organizations as the Anglican Communion in New Westminster (ACiNW) consisting of six parishes and the Anglican Communion in Canada (ACIC) of four parishes who recently broke away from Bishop Michael Ingham and the Diocese of New Westminster as well as other orthodox affiliates who may want to distance themselves from the decision of the ACC and from their present episcopal oversight. "The Federation is an umbrella. The network is to be a thoroughly Anglican expression of First Century Christianity. The way forward is a church that thinks with an apostolic mind, a church in submission to the Holy Scriptures and to the ancient formularies. The way forward pulsates with an apostolic heart; it is a church that reaches beyond its own walls," said Cane. "The way forward is a church that has apostolic focus whose first love must be Jesus. He alone is seen as our outward focus. Whether Anglicans choose the pathway of the Federation or the Network, it all flows out from the Federation. We are one great company of believers." — END —

By Douglas Todd, Sun Religion Reporter VANCOUVER (8/28/2004) Two B.C. priests at breakaway Anglican parishes are defying their former bishop's request to vacate their church properties, which are together worth more than $1.2 million. The two Vancouver-area conservative priests — who recently left the Anglican Church of Canada because they vehemently oppose same-sex blessings — say their congregations have no intention of saying goodbye to the buildings in which they have worshipped for years. "We own the premises and we're carrying on as usual," said Rev. Ed Hird of the North Vancouver parish of St. Simon's which has about 200 members. "We're not going to leave," said Rev. Barclay Mayo of the newly renamed Christ the Redeemer Church in Pender Harbour. It has about 120 members. Both priests say their lawyer, a prominent evangelical Christian named Bob Kuhn, believes the conservative parish members have legal title to the properties and predicts they would win their cases in court. Hird and Mayo said they will leave their long-time church buildings only if forced out by legal means. "Of course, we'd follow the law," Hird says. A spokesman for the Vancouver-area diocese of New Westminster said he hopes the dispute with the two parishes doesn't have to end up in court. He criticized the protesting clergy for being 'confrontational'. "I think it's unfortunate. It's not of our choosing," Chancellor George Cadman said in an interview. Although Cadman 'respects' the parishes' decision to opt out of the Canadian Church and operate under the authority of an Anglican Archbishop in Rwanda, he said there is no legal precedent for the congregations to take control of church property since they were asked in July by the diocese to find somewhere else to worship. The two activist priests are more than a dozen in southwestern BC who have grown furious over the past few years as Vancouver-area Bishop Michael Ingham and a majority of members in his diocese began favouring rites to bless committed homosexual relationships. Cadman, legal advisor to Ingham, says he has not seen a single case in North America in the past five years in which a congregation that has broken away from the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Episcopal churches has been able to take its property with it. Mayo and Hird were among at least four BC priests who recently joined their congregations in leaving the Anglican Church of Canada, whose governing body, at the urging of Ingham and others, passed a controversial motion in June "affirming the integrity and sanctity of committed adult same-sex relationships." On Thursday, Mayo condemned the national church as 'apostate'. He said in an interview he and like-minded Anglicans are tired of "suffering under the oppression it's foisted on us." Hird said he believes conservative activists in BC will gain international backing for their cause from two major events scheduled in the next month. More than 700 conservative Christian activists are gathering Tuesday in Ottawa for a conference called Anglican Essentials, where delegates will try to sway Canada's bishops to censure Ingham. And next month, a top prelate in the 70-million-member worldwide Anglican Communion, Irish Archbishop Robin Eames, will release a report on how to hold together a church that threatens to break apart over the issue of homosexual rights. Hird hopes Eames' panel, called the Lambeth Commission, will lead to Ingham either 'repenting' his support for same-sex blessings or being disciplined by the international Anglican Communion. — END —

Two parishes that have separated from the Episcopal Church will mark fresh starts by rewriting their articles of incorporation. By Larry B. Stammer Los Angeles Times Staff Writer August 23, 2004 Two breakaway Episcopal parishes in Long Beach and Newport Beach said Sunday that they will amend their articles of incorporation tonight, underscoring their breach with the national Episcopal Church. All Saints Church in Long Beach and St. James Church in Newport Beach left the Episcopal Church last week because of differences over homosexuality and the role of Scripture. The parishes placed themselves under the jurisdiction of a conservative Anglican bishop in Uganda. "It's a new day, a new life here at St. James," Father Praveen Bunyan told his congregation Sunday, meeting for worship for the first time since the dramatic departure. Despite the parish's new affiliation, Bunyan exhorted his parishioners to "stand by the word of God that is never changing." At All Saints, the Rev. Donald K. White Jr., the associate rector, drew on the Gospel of St. Luke to speak about "who is in and who is out" in God's kingdom. Without mentioning the split from the Episcopal Church directly, he drew knowing applause when he declared, "I believe Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life!" The parishes' decisions to break away were the latest flashpoints in an ongoing crisis within the 2.3-million member Episcopal Church, and the 77-million member worldwide Anglican Communion, of which the Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch. Since the national church's highest lawmaking body, the General Convention, consented a year ago to the election of an openly gay priest as bishop of New Hampshire, 22 of the 38 Anglican provinces or national churches worldwide - most of them in Africa, Southeast Asia and South America - have either downgraded or severed official relations with the U.S. Episcopal Church, according to Cynthia Brust, a spokeswoman for the conservative American Anglican Council in Washington. But within the U.S., Bob Williams, a national church spokesman in New York, said he had been informed that fewer than 10 of the more than 7,300 Episcopal parishes had left the church since Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson was consecrated. In addition, a number of dioceses have aligned themselves with a new alternative, the Anglican Communion Network, which hopes to be recognized by the worldwide Anglican Communion. For members of the two Southland breakaway parishes, the worship services Sunday were both familiar and different. They sang Episcopal hymns. They recited prayers from the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer. They participated in Episcopal rites to celebrate Holy Communion. Yet parishioners and priests considered themselves anything but Episcopalians. St. James' decision to leave the Episcopal Church prompted at least one man who had earlier left the church to return to the Newport Beach parish. "I quit this church when they got so liberal. I'm back. Finally, someone has returned to the tenets of God," said Ben Carlson, 58, of Newport Beach, who had not regularly attended the church for 12 years. In Newport Beach, police stationed four patrol cars around St. James. In Long Beach, parishioner Kristie Kuehnast, an elementary school teacher, said the decision to leave the Episcopal Church was right. "It's just going to keep us straight in what the path we've all chosen is," she said. "I'm happy to have a passionate pastor who's willing to follow up on what his beliefs are." In amending their articles of incorporation, the two parishes intend to remove references on their ties to the Episcopal Church. Last week, they removed such references on their parish websites. But at All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, among the most liberal Episcopal parishes in the nation, most parishioners were "saddened" by the turn of events, the Rev. Susan Russell said in an interview. Russell, who heads a national gay and lesbian ministry and is in a committed lesbian relationship, added, "It's hard for me to understand why my inclusion at the table means they have to leave." The dividing issues touch on theology, church governance and how accommodating the church should be to popular culture, particularly to views about homosexuality. Combined, the three factors have converged into a vortex of controversy that could eventually result in a historic realignment within the Anglican Communion, the world's third largest Christian church after the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. Although conservatives have insisted that homosexuality is not the only issue, it was seen Sunday by All Saints Rector William A. Thompson as perhaps the most obvious example of what he called the Episcopal Church's departure from biblical orthodoxy and historical Christianity. "I think [Robinson's election] wasn't so much the straw that broke the camel's back," Thompson told reporters Sunday. "I think it was one more thing. For some it was such a visible way to way to see that the Episcopal Church had made an official decision that seemed to many of us to be counter to the authority of Scripture." St. James' Bunyan said in an interview: "Our loyalties as Christians primarily lie with God and Jesus Christ, and not a particular institution. When an institution no longer represents our understanding of God's word and his will, if it does not uphold the most basic, important tenets - the centrality of Jesus Christ and the authority of the word of God - we must have the courage and faith to stand by our convictions. That's what St. James as a church and the clergy here decided to do." When religious schisms arise, such views have followed a historical pattern, according to the Very Rev. Mary June Nestler, dean of the Episcopal Theological School at Claremont. "This is religious anarchy and anarchists always say that 'the structure betrays us' and that 'we are not beholden to them when truth and higher virtues matter,'" she said. In his pastoral letter, Los Angeles Episcopal Bishop J. Jon Bruno also challenged the claim of "biblically orthodox" believers that the Episcopal Church has fallen from the faith. "How wrong they are," Bruno declared in a letter that was to have been read or made available in all Episcopal parishes on Sunday. "I want you to know as your bishop that I continue to uphold the vows I made on the day of my consecration 'to guard the faith, unity and discipline of the church.' I believe today as I did when I was first ordained that the Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation. Yet I will not let the Holy Scriptures be compromised by those who seek to make their literalist and simplistic interpretation the only legitimate one." The issue became volatile in August last year after the General Convention consented to Robinson's ordination. Then, in May, Bruno officiated the same-sex blessing of one of his senior priests, the Rev. Canon Malcolm Boyd and Boyd's partner of 20 years. Mindful that the worldwide Anglican Communion was careening toward schism, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the spiritual head of the Anglican Communion, appointed a high-ranking panel last year, known as the Lambeth Commission. One proposal believed to be under consideration by the Lambeth Commission calls for a separate conservative Anglican network or province with its own bishops operating within the United States, and perhaps Canada. That would mean the existing Episcopal Church and its bishops would have no authority over such a parish, even though it was geographically within the Episcopal Church's province. The Lambeth Commission is due to report its finding to Archbishop Williams sometime this fall, possibly in October. Whatever the changes, it may take time to adjust completely. As Thompson made announcements during the Sunday service at All Saints in Long Beach, he invited all present to participate in Holy Communion "even if you're not an Episcopalian." Chagrined, Thompson corrected himself and substituted the word Anglican. "Ah," he said smiling, "force of habit." Times staff writers Erika Hayasaki and Jennifer Mena contributed to this report. ---

A statement from the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles August 24, 2004 This morning, the rector and senior warden of St. David's Episcopal Church, North Hollywood, hand-delivered to me a letter similar to those issued to me on August 17 by St. James' Church, Newport Beach, and All Saints' Church, Long Beach. The text of that letter follows: This is to inform you that the Rector, Wardens and Vestrymen of St. David's Parish in North Hollywood, California by vote of its vestry and members has disassociated itself from the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and the Diocese of Los Angeles, and has aligned itself with the Diocese of Luweero, Anglican Province of Uganda. The Rt. Rev. Evans M. Kisekka of the Diocese of Luweero had also accepted The Rev. Jose A. Poch under his ecclesiastical authority. We have delivered this letter to you personally in order to honor you by having you learn of these actions from us instead of from any other source. [Signed by] The Rev. Jose Poch, Rector, St. David's Church [Signed by] Primi Esparza, Senior Warden, St. David's Church As with the Long Beach and Newport Beach congregations, I have worked hard in the past for reconciliation with this parish. It was one of four to which I offered pastoral oversight by an Episcopal bishop with whom they are in agreement. The Rev. William Thompson, rector of All Saints', Long Beach, declined that offer two weeks ago on behalf of all four parishes, and assured me of their continued loyalty to me and to this diocese. The Rev. Jose Poch, rector of St. David's, has been temporarily inhibited from exercising the ministry of a priest. I have offered him and the people of St. David's Church the opportunity to rescind this decision and be reconciled to me, to the Diocese, and to the Episcopal Church. J. Jon Bruno Bishop of Los Angeles

By Terry Mattingly 8/18/2004 It was a cheesy ad slogan sure to raise eyebrows during the summer battle for the teen-movie bucks -- "Got Passion? Get Saved!" An acidic take on a Christian high school, "Saved!" was crafted to make evangelicals punch their boycott buttons. It featured clean queen Mandy Moore as a Bible-throwing harpy from Hades. Macaulay "Home Alone" Culkin played a hip cynic in a wheelchair who shared cigarettes and sex with the school's lone Jewess. Its all-tolerant God offered a flexible moral code. MGM promoted the film directly to believers who were sure to hate it. "It seemed like they did everything they could to get a boycott," said Walt Mueller, head of the Center for Parent/Youth Understanding in Elizabethtown, Pa. "They wanted a boycott. They needed a boycott. I am sure they were stunned when they didn't get one." The film cost $5 million to produce and grossed only $8.8 million, after a quiet sojourn in selected theaters. The bottom line: "Saved!" was an intriguing test case for those pondering the impact of media boycotts. Looking ahead, will Southern Baptist executives balk at saying the words "Disney," "boycott" and "The Chronicles of Narnia" in the same sentence? The crucial word-of-mouth buzz never arrived for "Saved!", perhaps because the conservatives the film set out to bash often turned the other cheek and declined to provide millions of dollars in free publicity. It helped that the film took so many pot shots that it even offended some secular scribes. Michael O'Sullivan of the Washington Post said the best adjective for "Saved!" was "condescending" and that it was as "preachy as its finger-wagging victims." Glenn Whipp of the Los Angles Daily News said the movie's creators wanted audiences to "know that it's important to practice tolerance of others -- unless, of course, those others are Christians." Still, The Los Angeles Times did its part to help the studio by seeking condemnation from the usual snarky suspects -- Catholic League President William Donahue, op-ed columnist Cal Thomas, Christian Film and Television Commission czar Ted Baehr and the Rev. Jerry Falwell. Apparently Pat Robertson was busy that day. But no one uttered the b-word -- boycott. "Saved!" didn't even create a buzz at the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention. "I vaguely remember hearing of that movie, but that's about it," said Dwayne Hastings of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission media office. "I didn't get a single call about it, or a single email. It simply did not make a blip on the Southern Baptist radar." This is interesting, since Hollywood remains a hot issue for Southern Baptists and other moral conservatives. Years after the national headlines, the 1997 Southern Baptist vote to boycott the Walt Disney Co. remains in effect. The convention cited a wave of "anti-Christian" media products, Disney policies granting benefits to partners of gay employees and "Gay Day" events at theme parks that angered many families and church groups. There is no sign that the Southern Baptist leadership is re-thinking this stance. This summer, the Rev. Wiley Drake of First Baptist in Buena Vista, Calif., a strong Disney critic, floated a convention resolution commending the studio for producing the patriotic movie "America's Heart and Soul." His motion was ruled out of order. "I want a specific action commending them for what they are doing," said Drake. Hastings said it's hard to image the convention retreating and ending the boycott. It's just as hard to imagine Disney apologizing to Southern Baptists. Nevertheless, an upcoming series of films based on the fantasy fiction of the best known Christian writer of the 20th Century would certainly raise questions. What if Mel Gibson provided the voice of Aslan, the Christ-figure lion? "It's possible that there could be a resolution praising Disney for doing Narnia. Of course, this assumes that they offer some kind of accurate rendering of the Christian vision and beliefs of C.S. Lewis," said Hastings. "But the whole point of the boycott is for people to stop and think about their choices. I'm sure that millions of Baptists went to see 'Finding Nemo' and they watch ESPN like everybody else. But they are thinking twice about giving Disney their money and support. People are learning to be more selective." Terry Mattingly ( www.tmatt.net ) teaches at Palm Beach Atlantic University and is senior fellow for journalism at the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities. He writes this weekly column for the Scripps Howard News Service. ---

By Edith M. Humphrey 8/24/2004 Our radically confused society is debating the meaning of marriage with increasing intensity. That question leads to a host of other issues - especially the boundaries of sexual behavior and the nature of procreation. No one is untouched by this debate. Confusion in society spreads easily to the church. To help bring a biblical perspective to these discussions, Christianity Today offers this special section, the first of a series. Here we focus on the meaning of marriage in light of the national debate about gay marriage. In future issues, we'll go down other paths. As we address these issues over the long term, we hope to communicate two things: First, a definite "no" to calls to lower the moral bar (whether they come from within the church or from secular critics). And second, a decided "yes" to respect and extend compassion to the people who advocate views and practices we oppose. The issues are too important to fall short in either direction. --Editors "Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?" So Jesus declares that in the first marriage and in every marriage since, it is God himself who joins particular members of the opposite sex together in a natural relation unlike any other. All societies have honored this special union that Christians, Jews, and Muslims rightly recognize to be a gift of the Creator. Even in an atheistic context like Russia during the Communist period, Muscovite couples were married with festal trappings at what passed for a sacred site, Lenin's tomb. Our generation has introduced a tear in this universal fabric. Same-sex activists are clamoring for the state to grant homosexual couples marital status. These blows to the definition of marriage are landing not only in the North American civil sphere, but within churches. Theological arguments may not hold much sway in public debate, and there are certainly good social reasons for preserving the definition of marriage. But for the defense of marriage in both civil society and church, Christians must look to - and guard - the deep theological foundations of marriage. Theological foundations are indeed under attack. On June 3, the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada, while deferring the decision to bless same-sex unions in formal ceremonies, declared that longstanding homoerotic relationships were already sanctified. Even while questioning whether this issue touches on core doctrine, the Synod employed a theological term (sanctity) to "support" its gay and lesbian members. Such confusing events lead the faithful to ask: What is the connection between the same-sex debate and doctrine? Can those who desire the "sanctity of marriage" rightly find it for same-sex relationships? Can same-sex unions truly be blessed in the churches? The cry goes up that the biblical teaching must be surpassed, since "God is doing a new thing." What is the style of God's action in the world? How does the Bible describe God's activity and homoeroticism itself? In Romans 1:18-32, Paul traces the drama of creation, sin, idolatry, and rebellion. Wonderfully, the created order provided a window through which God's glory can be seen (20). Humanity drew the blinds over this window, however, when it acted willfully, giving neither honor nor thanks to the Creator. But true atheism is not possible for those made to worship. Human beings simply exchanged loyalties, worshiping creatures rather than God (23). God's response to this senseless idolatry was to permit the natural consequences (24, 26). Paul gives a vivid example of this fallout: Human passions are disturbed and the primary created relationship (male and female) is distorted into homoerotic behavior (24, 26-27). Though the emphasis is on bodily disruption, the consequences go beyond the body to the entire self (27). Thus Romans 1 understands homoerotic behavior as an example of what happened to humanity in terms of the body and the passions, before it goes on to consider sins that arise within the disordered mind (28-31). Homoerotic activity, then, is symptomatic of the primal rebellion against God - alongside covetousness, murder, strife, gossip, deceit, disloyalty, and pride. No doubt Paul places it first because this condition shows brokenness in God's creative order and within the ordained union of male and female (Gen. 1:27). Homoeroticism thus represents an exchange (Rom. 1:26) of what is "natural" for what is "against nature," and is a primary breach between the two designed for each other. These relations dramatize human rejection of God's primal purposes. Some have claimed that, because Paul uses homoeroticism only as an illustration, Romans 1 does not speak regarding sexual ethics. This can hardly be so. Would anyone apply the same reasoning to the other signs of depravity cited here, like murder? Paul assumes that his readers agree with his assessment of homoerotic activity, and helps them to understand it in the context of the scriptural story of origins. Holiness Narratives In light of this larger narrative, we go back to the Old Testament. In Genesis 18:16-19:29 (and a similar story in Judges 19), the male inhabitants of a city attempt to rape visitors. Some have argued that Sodom's sin was not sexual but simply a breach of hospitality. This is highly unlikely, since Lot's daughters were offered as a sexual substitute. The intended sin here is gang rape, though it is true that where other passages mention Sodom (Isa. 1:10ff., Jer. 23:14, Eze. 16:49ff.), they emphasize hypocrisy, falsehood, and arrogance over sexual sin. Yet as Judaism and Christianity encountered later Hellenistic acceptance of homoeroticism, the sexual element in the Genesis story was highlighted: Intertestamental writings cite Sodom as an example of sexual perversion (cf. Jude 7). We turn from narratives to injunction. Leviticus 18:22 says bluntly: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (cf. Lev. 20:13). Some within the church argue that such prohibitions concern only cultic practices in ancient Israel and so are no longer binding on Christians. But some Levitical proscriptions concern immoral behavior, not simply ritual uncleanness. We need to ask, How does the general pattern of the Scriptures direct us to understand this prohibition? The answer is that homoerotic behavior contradicts God's purpose for all his creatures. It is not in the same category as the cultic or cultural prohibitions regarding non-kosher foods and the twining together of two types of thread. Like the prohibition of incest (Lev. 18:6-18), the prohibition of homoerotic acts addresses every age. As the New Testament epistles show, the early church did not discard what the Hebrew Bible said about sexual ethics. When Corinthian Christians thought that their spiritual sophistication gave them license to sin, Paul challenged them (1 Cor. 6:9ff.): "Do you not know that evildoers will not inherit God's kingdom?" Then he offered as examples those who steal, get drunk, scorn what is holy, pursue sexual immorality, and practice two modes of male homoerotic behavior. Some argue that we cannot understand Paul's reference to these two behaviors (malakoi and arsenokoitai, as in 1 Cor. 6 and 1 Tim. 1) in terms of homoeroticism. But arsenokoitai is in fact a compound word derived from the Greek version of Leviticus 20:13 for those men "who lie with a male." Malakoi means literally "soft ones" and in Greek writings frequently identified the passive homoerotic partner. It is a mistake to limit the term's meaning, as do some, to masturbation, or as the NRSV does, to male prostitution. The Genesis narratives, because they are stories, and the Levitical passages, because they are part of a code given to Israel in particular, must be considered in light of the whole biblical narrative. When we do this, the lists of immoral behavior in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy show that the early Christian communities held firm to Old Testament views of sexual immorality - for reasons consistent with Romans 1. Revising Paul The moral tradition of the church, from the earliest period into the Reformation and since, has been emphatic: Homoerotic behavior is against the will of God. Those who reject this tradition take several tacks, for example: "The church has fudged on other controversial issues, and homosexuality is the same." What about female ministry and slavery, critics ask; doesn't the Bible forbid the one and accept the other, yet the church does what it thinks best anyway? In fact, female ministry and slavery are handled differently from text to text in the Bible (e.g., on female ministry: 1 Cor. 14:33b-35 vs. 1 Cor. 11:4-5; 1 Tim. 2:11 and 1 Tim. 3:11, cf. Rom. 16:1). Without addressing these issues at length, we can see that, at the least, there are internal tensions in Scripture regarding female ministry and slavery. But there is no internal tension among the passages that speak of homoerotic behavior. Others undermine the biblical teaching by suggesting, "Paul was talking about something else." That is, he forbids homosexual practice to people who are by nature heterosexual; he judges those who are not truly homosexual but who act homoerotically "against [their] nature" (Rom. 1:26). Thus, they say, Paul would not disapprove the practice by those who are by nature homosexual. The mistake here is to think that in Romans 1, Paul has in mind certain individuals or types. Instead, he is painting on a large canvas, speaking about the problems of Israel in the context of God's dealings with all humanity (Adam and the Gentiles). He is not speaking of individuals, but of humanity in general, and of one sign (homoeroticism) that our original wholeness has been broken. To introduce specific categories, those who act homosexually "according to nature," and those who do so "against nature," is to muddle Paul's point. Some limit Paul's words by saying that he is decrying those who sell their bodies for gain (so making malakoi or arsenokoitai to mean male prostitution). There is simply no evidence whatever for this, notwithstanding the serpentine arguments of John Boswell's Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (1980) and in L. William Countryman's Dirt, Greed and Sex (1988). Paul's problem with homoerotic behavior is specifically its same-sex quality, not power-relations or the economics of sexual trade. But could Paul's disapproval of homoeroticism be limited to those who practiced pederasty, that ancient Hellenistic practice of erotic behavior with young males? In fact, the Graeco-Roman "ideal" of the "love of boys" did not mean children, but teenage males, of the same age that young women would be given in marriage. The exploitation of children is not the issue, as we can see from the parallel judgment upon lesbianism in Romans 1:26. Still other revisionists sidestep Scripture and tradition in claiming, "It's not immoral; they just thought like that back then." They dismiss the Old Testament as outmoded, then argue similarly that the New Testament material is culturally conditioned. Paul insisted in 1 Corinthians 11 that women cover their heads in worship because it meant something in that culture, but they say it doesn't mean anything now. Similarly, he prohibited same-sex erotic relations because they were not acceptable in his circles at that time, but times have changed. But Paul's times, in fact, were "gay-positive" or at least "gay-tolerant." Paul and other New Testament writers take a decisive stand against behavior frequently condoned and sometimes idealized in the surrounding cultures. What was wrong then is wrong now. Sometimes an appeal is made to contemporary opinions about same-sex relations: "Yes, Paul disapproved of such activity, but he had nothing whatsoever to say about homosexuality as we understand it today." The biblical writers, they claim, assumed that homoerotic behavior was an avoidable moral choice, but if Paul had had the benefit of our psychological studies, he would have taken a different position. If people are born gay, how can it be sinful? In reality, it makes little difference whether nature or nurture inclines us toward any one sexual behavior. Paul was well aware of the compulsive nature of sin. He put forth the gospel as God's means of dealing with the sin that enslaves us, as well as with sins we deliberately choose. A bold variation on the argument that Paul was scientifically limited is that he was theologically limited. So Eugene Rogers (Sexuality and the Christian Body, 1999) argues that God's grace is wider even than Paul himself suspected, embracing same-sex couples as well as Jew and Gentile. Paul, Rogers claims, says that God himself acts "against nature" in "grafting" Gentiles into the olive tree, the people of God (Rom. 11). Similarly, Rogers argues, God can act "against nature" in approving same-sex relations. This, however, reads against the sense of both Romans 1 and 11. Romans 1 speaks about what is contrary to nature in the created order. Romans 11 offers a figure of speech to help the Roman Gentile Christians appreciate their inclusion by God. Rogers strangely clinches his argument: Same-sex couples find in their union "a means of grace," so it must be holy. This appeal to experience that contradicts Scripture is the most common revisionist position today. We know better than Paul and other writers of Scripture, he says, because they just didn't understand the grace that characterizes the loving union of two men or two women. Wasn't Jesus always welcoming outcasts from Israel among his followers? Now God, Rogers says, is doing something similar but new in the church. A Distorted Image But what does it mean for the church to give an authentic welcome of people? No one is to be excluded from the church or any aspect of its life by being Jew or Gentile, male or female, slave or free. The revisionists insist that homoerotic orientation (and, they imply, expression) is just as central to a person's identity and equally no bar to inclusion in the church. But what of Jesus' call to repentance? To a woman caught in another sexual sin, adultery, he says, "Go and sin no more." The revisionists remove homoerotic sin from the lists of sins in the New Testament and treat homoerotic relations as though they fit with Paul's list of Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female. They obscure the crucial distinction between characteristics over which one may have little or no control (such as same-sex desires), and actions for which one must answer to God. It is true: There is no "gay" or "straight" in the church, but God's purpose in including us all within the household is to heal, not to bless our sinful behaviors (Rom. 6:1-4). Loving those who call themselves gay or lesbian means including them in God's universal call to repentance. How, then, should Christians view the promotion of the "marriage" or "blessing" of same-sex couples? For 2,000 years Christians have recognized these sexual relations as grievous sin; how could we in a few short years come to call it sanctified? The recklessness of the gay-positive project and the resulting schisms should show even its champions that this change is not from God. Some would say that this reversal in Christian sexual ethics does not touch the core of the faith and is therefore no grounds for church splits. They are mistaken. This accommodation to a society's declining mores, instead, divides those who embrace it from the church historic. Is the attempt to bless homoerotic relations truly heretical? It is true that this is not an obvious theological attack on, say, the divinity of Christ or the necessity of the Atonement. But it is indirectly heretical because it upholds a corrupt imitation of marriage, which should properly be a living icon of Christ and the church - a theological picture that mediates God's glory and truth, directing us to the greater reality. Paul calls marriage a "great mystery" that speaks of Christ and the church (Eph. 5:32). So, for example, husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the church. Indeed, the relations of husband and wife, and of Christ and the church, illuminate each other. Husband and wife, representing Christ and the church, can only be parodied in same-sex "marriage." What else do we see in this icon for marriage? For one thing, without Eve, Adam was alone and had no companion fit for him (Gen. 2:20). God gave Eve to Adam and Adam to Eve. The difference in gender of husband and wife, united in marriage, points to the wonder of the Trinity, our ultimate pattern of "other-but-same in relationship." Homoerotic relations reject the gift of sexual otherness and cannot echo the nature of the Trinity. Furthermore, marriage is not an end in itself but overflows, most obviously to the procreation of children. The original couple is exhorted to "be fruitful and multiply" and thus to take care of creation. By its nature, gay sex cannot bear fruit or fulfill this ecstatic ("going out") role. God himself enacted the first marriage covenant. A marriage, like the relation of Christ to the church, is not finally a human creation. (Hence the Orthodox insist that a marriage is effected by God himself, and Roman Catholics say the priest is only a witness.) In contrast, God does not join people of the same sex together but calls the behavior they seek to sanctify an abomination. To bless homoerotic relations underscores human willfulness. If the character of marriage is iconic, what would a same-sex "blessing" or marriage supposedly show us? For one, the church would be giving thanks to God for the sexual union of two men, or two women - declaring that the pair represents God's love and salvation. It would be declaring that couples that exclude one gender represent such love and salvation. It would be claiming that they are taken up together into God's own actions and being. It would be proclaiming that they have a fruitful part in creation, and that they are symbols of the in-breaking rule of God. "To bless" (Grk., eu-logein) is to "speak a good word" about this alliance, asserting that it brings together the way of the Cross and the way of new life. Such a blessing alleges that the relationship fosters repentance, healing, and glorification for the couple. Precisely here, the church would be saying, you can see the love of God in human form and the glory of humanity. Here would be, in one sense at least, a sacrament - an occasion where God meets us. A church doing this is replacing God with an idol. It is commending to the family of God, and thus to the world, activities that lead to spiritual death. It is praying against its true nature, indeed, denying its true nature. Finally, the particular body (congregation or communion) is rending itself from the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. As Karl Barth has observed, heresy raises the troubling question of the boundaries of the church. While the church may learn from its conflict with heresy, there is no "middle way" here between faithfulness and the revisionist position. In communions where homoerotic behavior has been accepted, there have been other signs of departure from the faith in the ethical sphere, such as the acceptance of divorce and remarriage on nonbiblical grounds, and of abortion. Promotion in the churches of same-sex blessings or marriages is only the most recent and flamboyant accommodation to declining Northern or Western mores. This is not the first time the church has had to wrestle with capitulation to the spirit of the age, nor will it be the last. As serious as things may seem, we hope in the One who said that the gates of hell would not prevail against his church. So we will not lose perspective and begin to treat homoerotic behavior as though it were the worst sin, or as though we did not have to take heed lest we stumble ourselves (see Rom. 2). Again, we must not assume that those promoting this blessing in the churches cannot change their minds, or that those involved in this lifestyle cannot repent; many have, and many more will. Those wrestling with same-sex desires need support for their healing as persons. Their full inclusion into the life of the church, including the discipline of repentance and the grace of transformation, points to the God who "makes all things new." Edith M. Humphrey is associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. www.ChristianityToday.com ---

8/23/2004 Statement from the Archbishop of the Province of the Church of Uganda The Rt. Rev. Evans Kisekka, Bishop of Luweero Diocese, has my full blessing and support in receiving the clergy from St. James Church, Newport Beach, and All Saints' Church, Long Beach, California, USA. These clergy are canonically resident in the Luweero Diocese and are priests and deacons in good standing of the Church of Uganda. On 20th November 2003, the House of Bishops of the Church of Uganda (Anglican) made the following resolutions: (a) "The Church of the Province of Uganda (Anglican) cuts her relationship and Communion with the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (ECUSA) on their resolution and consequent action of consecrating and enthroning an openly confessed homosexual Gene Robinson as the Bishop of New Hampshire Diocese in the Anglican Communion; and with any other Province that shall follow suit. (b) "Mindful of the fact that there are a number of Dioceses, Parishes and Congregations in the ECUSA, which are opposed to the resolution and action taken by their Convention and are determined to remain faithful to the teaching of Scripture on human sexuality, to those dear brothers and sisters, we extend our solidarity with them and assure them of our continued prayers." We have recently concluded the 17th Provincial Assembly of the Province of the Church of Uganda. During that meeting, the Assembly affirmed the House of Bishops' stance of broken communion with ECUSA, and at the same time declared its commitment to, support for, and communion with clergy and parishes of the Anglican Communion Network who seek to uphold biblical orthodoxy and the faith once delivered to the saints. We condemn any attempt on the part of the ECUSA Bishop of Los Angeles to depose our clergy serving at St. James Church, Newport Beach, and All Saints' Church, Long Beach. He has no jurisdiction over them, and we will not recognize his actions. Furthermore, we appeal to other provinces within the Anglican Communion to recognize our clergy as priests and deacons in good standing. We are grieved by the continued unbiblical actions of the leadership of ECUSA that have led to its separation from the majority of the Anglican Communion. We especially note that the Bishop of Los Angeles recently presided at the blessing of a same-sex union of one of his priests. We pray for his repentance - and the repentance of all the ECUSA leadership who voted for the consecration of a man in an active homosexual relationship as bishop of New Hampshire - and their return to the historic faith and communion of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. The Most Rev. Henry Luke Orombi ARCHBISHOP OF CHURCH OF UGANDA