Archives

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.

COMMENTARY   By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org October 28, 2025   ACNA Archbishop Steve Wood, 62, has come out fighting. Following fulsome disclosure of his alleged misdeeds in the Washington Post, that includes sexual misconduct, plagiarism, abuse of power and more, the staunchly orthodox leader said in a letter to his parish, that “I unequivocally, categorically, and emphatically deny in their entirety the accusations made against me by Ms. Claire Buxton, who was employed at St. Andrew’s,” Wood said in an Oct. 24 letter to St. Andrew’s congregants.   Them’s fightin’ words.   In June 2024, two months after Buxton alleged that Wood tried to kiss her, the College of Bishops met in conclave and elected him as the Anglican Church in North America’s third archbishop.   Archbishop Wood is either calling her bluff, has giant sized cajónes, or genuinely believes he is innocent and can explain it away to his and everyone’s satisfaction. We shall see.   A formal presentment accuses Wood of violating his ordination vows, committing sexual immorality, and bringing "scandal and offense" upon his office. Additionally, Wood faces separate complaints from priests alleging that he plagiarized sermons and bullied church staff members in the years preceding his election as archbishop. The presentment accuses Wood of violating his ordination vows, committing sexual immorality and bringing “scandal and offense” upon his office.   That’s a lot to explain away. Even if he is cleared of the ‘he said/she said’ Buxton charges, there are other charges to explain or explain away.   Anglican Blogger David Roseberry had this to say: if an archbishop or any pastor has acted in a way that crosses moral or physical boundaries with another person, he should step down. Period. The Church must be a place of integrity and safety. He is right.   Accountability is the word for this moment. Wood must be held to the highest standard. He is the leader of a church, albeit small, but he must be fully accountable not just to his House of Bishops but to his clergy and laity.   There are some serious questions that must be asked and answered which looked at in the cold light of day raise issues of how he got so far into the process of being elected when so much about his past that should have given the House of Bishops pause.   According to the Post story a lot was known about Wood before he got the nod to be the next archbishop but swept under the table.   The issue of Ms. Buxton’s charges of putting his hand against the back of her head and trying to kiss her occurred two months before he was elected to the helm, according to the presentment. Why was this not a red flag to the bishops? The Post, also accused Wood of giving her thousands of dollars in unexpected payments from church coffers before the alleged advance. Why was this not challenged at the time?   Wood also faced complaints from priests that he plagiarized sermons and bullied and disparaged church staffers in the years before he became archbishop. Why were these charges not raised by the examining bishops?   In September 2019, seven years into his tenure running both St. Andrew’s and the Diocese of the Carolinas, Wood confronted pushback. In a letter to Wood, which was private until now, the Rev. Hamilton Smith, the rector of St. Thomas’ Church in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, wrote: “I do not feel you have moral authority required to hold the office of Bishop.”   Wood preached sermons he did not write and tried to pass them off as his own work, Smith alleged. During staff meetings, Wood publicly shamed and cursed at colleagues, the letter said. Smith also questioned a $60,000 truck provided by the diocese for Wood’s church visits, noting that Wood mentioned the vehicle to him only in the context of Wood’s hunting trips.   “Is a $60,000 truck the most cost-efficient vehicle to accomplish this task?” Smith asked in the letter. “There are clergy in the Diocese that do not have any or have poor health insurance or retirement plans. … You have told me numerous times that you are a sinner who had ‘a really bad year’/‘a horrible season’ in which you did things you now regret. While I rejoice in this self-understanding, grace and forgiveness have limits.”   The next day, Wood offered a short reply, according to correspondence Smith shared with The Post. But Smith could not overcome his frustrations with Wood, and soon led his parishioners to leave Wood’s diocese. “This was the most difficult decision of my ministry,” Smith told his church at the time.   Did the bishops ask any questions about Wood’s behavior?   Wood has declined to answer specific questions about the accusations in the presentment.   In South Carolina, Wood’s elevation rattled a group of his former colleagues, most of them now priests. For years, they said in interviews, they privately shared stories that Wood demeaned them or others when they worked at St. Andrew’s. But it was Claire Buxton’s fresh accusations that spurred them to action. By early 2025, the group drafted formal church charges based on six affidavits that accuse Wood of abusive behavior. In September, the group quietly secured the support of at least 10 Anglican priests and parishioners to sign and swear to the presentment, a prerequisite for its submission.   Why was this not raised by the presenting bishops?  Did they ask any questions? Did they challenge any of this? Did they confront Wood?   The day after the presentment was submitted, the denomination threw up what its authors regard as a roadblock: The denomination asked that all 11 endorsers re-sign the presentment under a statement attesting to the allegations’ truth “under penalties of perjury.” In an email to the lead signatory, a denomination official said this was “common practice” noting that prior presentments have been resubmitted for the same reason.   The Rev. Rob Sturdy, an Anglican priest who wrote one of the presentment’s affidavits, said in an interview that his group will not comply. He said they followed the denomination’s canons, which do not contain a “perjury” standard.   An affidavit alleges, among other things, that Wood frequently bragged about a woman from another church whom he said “he could have … anytime he wanted.”   This was not a red flag?   One wonders who was really pulling the strings that they wanted Wood so badly to be the next archbishop that other names were barely considered. There were other names in the ring including Bishop Julian Dobbs of the Anglican Diocese of the Living Word and Bishop Clark Lowenfield, of the Anglican Diocese of The Western Gulf Coast who had his eye on the job. Wood beat them all. One thing this reporter learned is that no one wanted someone as reformed as the former Archbishop Foley Beach. The mood was and is to push the ACNA in a more catholic direction, the position of the former archbishop of ACNA Robert Duncan. The issue of the ordination of women however, remains a sticking point to whatever the future holds for the ACNA. If the presentment triggers an ecclesiastical trial, Wood could be defrocked and forced to step down.   An Anglican priest, the Rev Dr. Ronald Moore had this to say; The test of a church is how the ACNA handles its own judgment will define its future. Will this Church handle its own judgment better than the institutions it left behind, he asks? That clearly remains to be seen.   END

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.

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

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

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

Defending Moral Principles Is Getting Riskier. Christians defending moral teachings on homosexuality are increasingly running foul of laws that ban any negative statements about the subject. A British Anglican bishop, for instance, who suggested that homosexuals seek psychological counseling was the target of a police investigation, the Telegraph newspaper reported Nov. 10. Bishop Peter Forster of Chester told a local paper: "Some people who are primarily homosexual can reorientate themselves. I would encourage them to consider that as an option, but I would not set myself up as a medical specialist on the subject—that's in the area of psychiatric health." Police investigated the statements and a spokesman said a copy of the article would be sent to the Crown Prosecution Service. Subsequently, the police dropped the case, the Independent newspaper reported Nov. 11. The matter raised fears about restrictions on defending Christian morality, the British-based Christian Institute explained in its January newsletter. It added that the bishop's position was backed up by a lot of academic research. Even a longtime supporter of homosexual rights, Columbia University professor Robert Spitzer, recently published a study finding that homosexuals could become predominantly heterosexual through psychotherapy, the newsletter observed. Debate also flared last year in the United Kingdom over whether churches should be allowed to refuse employment to homosexuals. The government finally agreed to add a clause to anti-discrimination legislation giving religious organizations the right to exclude a person on the grounds of sexual orientation, the Sunday Times reported June 1. Still, the Christian Institute warned in its January newsletter that employers must be prepared to argue their case in court. In Ireland, meanwhile, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties warned the Catholic Church that distributing the Vatican guidelines on same-sex unions could bring prosecution. The document published last July by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith falls foul of the Incitement to Hatred Act, according to sources quoted in the Irish Times on Aug. 2. "The document itself may not violate the act, but if you were to use the document to say that gays are evil, it is likely to give rise to hatred, which is against the act," said Aisling Reidy, director of the civil-liberties council. Those convicted under the act could face six-month jail terms. Of the Vatican document Reidy said: "The wording is very strong and certainly goes against the spirit of the legislation." On the other side of the Atlantic, December saw a victory for Christians. In Michigan, U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen upheld the right of a Christian student to express her religious beliefs in opposing homosexuality, reported a Dec. 5 press release by the Thomas More Law Center. The law center had filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Betsy Hansen as a result of a dispute over the 2002 Diversity Week program held at the Ann Arbor Pioneer High School. School authorities censored the speech to be given by Hansen, a Catholic, as part of the activities of the "Homosexuality and Religion" panel. Officials claimed that her religious view toward homosexuality was a "negative" message and would "water down" the "positive" religious message that they wanted to convey—that homosexual behavior is not immoral or sinful. School officials also only allowed clergy who espoused a pro-homosexual position to take part in the panel, denying Hansen's request to have a panel member who would express the Catholic position on homosexuality. "This case presents the ironic, and unfortunate, paradox of a public high school celebrating 'diversity' by refusing to permit the presentation to students of an 'unwelcomed' viewpoint on the topic of homosexuality and religion, while actively promoting the competing view," observed Judge Rosen in his decision. Another case, still to be finalized, involves a Colorado mother who left a lesbian relationship after converting to Christianity in 2000. Cheryl Clark is appealing a ruling by Denver County Circuit Judge John Coughlin to "make sure that there is nothing in the religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered homophobic," the Washington Times reported Nov. 5. Her former partner, Elsey McLeod, was awarded joint custody of the child, an 8-year-old girl. Matthew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, a public-interest law firm based in Orlando, Florida, has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case. He commented that the judge gave no similar orders to McLeod regarding remarks or teaching about Christianity or Christians. "It's a real one-way street on this," Staver said. Controversy regarding criticism of homosexuals has been increasingly common in Canada. A recent case involves the Archdiocese of Vancouver. The Vancouver Sun reported Sept. 24 that the archdiocese canceled a long-standing partnership with VanCity Credit Union, owing to the fact that the institution actively supports the local gay and lesbian community. The turning point for Archbishop Adam Exner was an ad campaign by the credit union, featuring a homosexual couple. Consequently the archbishop put an end to a VanCity program operating in four Catholic schools. Under the program, students learned out to save and invest their money and opened savings accounts with the credit union. A document posted on the archdiocese Web site explained the reasons for the decision. "VanCity in its advertising and by its sponsorship has publicly manifested its support for agendas which are worrisome and harmful to the Church and to society," said the statement signed by Archbishop Exner. "Any cooperation with an organization that publicly supports such agendas appears unacceptable." The decision drew strong criticism, as Archbishop Exner noted in a letter published Oct. 1 by the Vancouver Sun. When news of the move became public, it "opened the floodgates to letters, e-mails, phone calls and faxes, alleging everything from bigotry to fascism," he said. "I found myself accused of teaching intolerance and hatred of homosexuals—something contrary to Catholic teaching and my own convictions." David Bernstein, professor at George Mason University School of Law, addressed the topic of how antidiscrimination laws are creating problems for free speech in his recent book, "You Can't Say That!" Fear of litigation, he observed, "is having a profound chilling effect on the exercise of civil liberties in workplaces, universities, membership organizations, and churches." Bernstein related how one U.S. Catholic university was beaten down by legal actions into giving full recognition to student homosexual groups. And citing several recent legal cases in Canada, he commented: "Indeed, it has apparently become illegal in Canada to advocate traditional Christian opposition to homosexual sex." On the question of how homosexuals are to be treated, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is careful to point out: "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided" (No. 2358). Nevertheless, the Catechism is no less clear when it deals with the morality of homosexual acts: "They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved" (No. 2357). Defending this teaching, in a charitable way, is no easy task. And in the current legal climate, it could get a lot harder.