Albany Diocese votes to join group that opposes gay priests; bishop downplays division in church By James Collins and Matt Pacenza, Staff writers Times Union SPECULATOR – Episcopal clergy and lay people from 19 New York counties voted by a solid majority Saturday to join a small, conservative theological network that opposes the ordination of gay priests. The vote angered liberals in the Albany Diocese and promises to deepen a rift that has troubled relations between area churches for more than two years. The decision to sanction a platform offered by the Anglican Communion Network was ratified by two separate groups at the annual convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Albany held in this Hamilton County community. Out of more than 120 clergy who attended the convention, almost 80 percent voted to join the network, according to Canon Kay Hotaling, spokeswoman for the diocese. Among the 100 or so lay members, about 60 percent voted to join the network. Leaders of the diocese, including Bishop Daniel Herzog, were quick to say Saturday that the vote does not represent a step toward breaking away from the national Episcopal Church. "The bishop said this is designed to keep us in," said Hotaling. "We're joining a network, a network that will remain Christ-centered in the Anglican church." The Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch, or province, of the international Anglican Communion, whose spiritual leader is the Archbishop of Canterbury. Opponents think Saturday's decision was more profound. "We see something a little more unsavory going on," said the Rev. Keith Owen, rector of St. Paul's Church in Albany. "Some in this network have made it clear that their agenda is to overthrow the Episcopal Church." The Albany Diocese includes approximately 20,000 congregants and 130 parishes from Catskill to the Canadian border. Herzog and the leaders of 11 other dioceses established the Anglican Communion Network in January after a majority of U.S. bishops voted last August to ordain an openly gay bishop. The ordination made plain a rift in the church over homosexuality and other issues. Both sides characterized Saturday's hour-long debate before the vote as passionate but polite. Those who opposed the vote said they expect that at least some of the dissenting churches will take public stands against the vote. But, said Owen, "We're not going to break away."

By Robert England The Christian Challenge GLENN DALE, Maryland – Bishop John Chane's blessing of a same-sex relationship between the rector of St. George's Episcopal Church and his long-time partner prompted a protest across the street from the church and a prayer service nine miles away in Bladensburg. Bishop Chane blessed the union of Fr. Michael Hopkins and John Bradley at St. George's in a ceremony closed to outsiders and the media. The blessing reportedly followed a new liturgy under development in the diocese, though one not yet formally adopted at diocesan convention. Bishop Chane distributed copies of the proposed new liturgy to priests in his diocese earlier this week, requesting comments. Crosses Draped in Black About half an hour before the service, a group of nine Episcopalians stood silently across the street from St. George's, holding up several crosses draped with black cloth. Each cross stood approximately 2.5 feet tall. The group consisted of eight parishioners from across the diocese in parishes from Christ Church, Georgetown in Washington to All Faith parish in Charlotte Hall. They were accompanied by a priest, Fr. Ted Lewis, who has been resident in the diocese for more than 40 years. In holding a cross draped in black, Fr. Lewis said the protesters took their cue from a traditional Good Friday practice. "We felt that the ceremony taking place was obscuring Christ, just as Christ is obscured on Good Friday," said Fr. Lewis. The protesters said they did not represent any organized group but decided to devise a protest after reading about the same-sex ceremony in the Washington Post. "We developed the idea of a cross draped in black as a way of expressing our views," explained Bill Boniface, a parishioner of St. Thomas Croom, noting that he was present as an individual and not as a representative of his parish. Boniface said the protesters felt that crosses draped in black would be a more reverential and dignified form of protest than holding signs. As Bishop Chane's car passed the protesters on its way to the parking lot down the street from the church, he appeared visibly startled at the sight of the protest. The views of the protesters in Glenn Dale stand in stark contrast to Bishop Chane's views reported in the May 31 edition of the Washington Post. Same-sex unions, Bishop Chane is quoted as saying, are "holy and deserve to be blessed, deserve to be held up by the community, and they deserve to be called what they are: sacred." Both the protesters in Glenn Dale and people attending the service in Bladensburg took exception to Bishop Chane's claims. "It's not holy. It's unholy," said Gary Schenck of St. Luke's. Fr. Lewis, in an interview, stated that the blessing service presented a fundamental problem for Christians because it mistakenly elevated experience above Scripture and tradition. "As a result, the Episcopal Church has cut itself off from its moorings, leaving it adrift in the wilderness of secular culture," Fr. Lewis said. Fr. Lewis also suggested that those in the Episcopal Church who support same-sex blessings were not, in fact, doing a good deed for homosexuals. "What they are offering homosexuals is not bread, but a stone," Fr. Lewis said. The church is offering "something which does not have the power of salvation in it and is not going to remedy their condition." Defiance of the Anglican Communion? In interviews, protesters raised concerns that the timing of the blessing may have been chosen to make a defiant statement to the Anglican Communion. "It is obvious that the concerns of the Anglican Communion and the voice of those of us who hold to the apostolic, Biblical faith and practice of Christianity as accepted for 2,000 years have become muted by an agenda that will proceed at any cost," stated Wes Courtney of Christ Church in Accokeek, Maryland, in a statement released by one of the protesters to the press. Courtney, who had planned to attend but was out of town on business, was unable to be present. Chuck Claggett, also a parishioner from Christ Church, Accokeek, distributed Courtney's statement to the media. The blessing in Glenn Dale occurred on the same day as a meeting in Kanuga, N.C., of the Eames Commission, an international body established by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams to find a way to prevent schism in the Anglican Communion over actions of the Episcopal Church in America. Last year, the Episcopal Church's general convention sparked a crisis in the Anglican Communion when it gave consent for the elevation of V. Gene Robinson, a homosexual priest living with his partner, to be Bishop of New Hampshire, after strong warnings against approving Robinson from Anglican Primates in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The convention also voted that dioceses could proceed on a local option to adopt liturgies for same-sex blessings. Prayer and Benediction As the ceremony at St. George's got underway, another group of 40 Episcopalians gathered nine miles away for a time of prayerful silence, followed by evening prayer and benediction at St. Luke's Episcopal Church in Bladensburg. "We held this service to draw the focus of the church back to Our Lord and Savior," said Fr. Michael Heidt, rector of St. Luke's. The service in Bladensburg was held at the request of the American Anglican Council of Washington, a local affiliate of the national American Anglican Council, which urged Bishop Chane in a statement earlier this week not to proceed with the blessing at a sensitive time for international Anglican relations. AACW, in a statement of protest released ahead of the ceremony, charged that Bishop Chane's actions made it necessary for faithful Christians in the diocese to call for alternative episcopal oversight. "We believe a leader must cast his personal views aside, no matter how strongly he believes his views to be correct, and do what is best for the well-being of his diocese and the greater church. This [Bishop Chane] has not done," stated the AACW. "When Bishop Chane determines 'it is the right thing to do' in blessing these relationships, we ask, right for whom? Certainly it is not the right thing to do for the well-being of the once proud Episcopal Church, now ridiculed as the Gay Church," the AACW stated. "It appears that faithful Christians in this diocese have few alternatives. Perhaps one of those alternatives is a laity call for another shepherd—for it is the right thing to do," the AACW stated. At the service in Bladensburg, homilist Fr. Ted Logan, rector of Calvary Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C., called on the congregation to look to themselves for repentance and then to a reaffirmation of the doctrines of the church found in the Articles of Religion adopted by the Episcopal Church in 1801 and included in the Book of Common Prayer. Taking scripture as an indispensable guide for all Christians, Fr. Logan said, "If it is not found in the Word of God, then God does not bless it." Fr. Logan cited Article VI: "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it be an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." Most of the approximately 100 people who arrived to attend the ceremony at St. George's walked down the sidewalk to the church without looking across the street at the protesters. The situation, while peaceful, was occasionally tense. Two police cars arrived just before the protesters gathered. After the protesters appeared, a few men posted in front of the church watched them closely until just before the service began. While there were only four protesters initially, three more joined shortly afterward. Later, another two protesters joined them. After donning his mitre and crozier, Bishop Chane came outside and stood on the walkway leading to the entrance ahead of the ceremony. He was accompanied by a party of acolytes preparing to make a procession into the church, including a few children. Prior to the service, workers for a catering service were busily taking items into the church on a wheeled cart from a truck parked directly in front of the entrance. Shortly after 4 p.m., all those standing outside went inside the church, and the doors were closed. A small contingent of media was present—Channel 13 from Baltimore, the Washington Times, a local Prince Georges County newspaper, and the Washington Blade.

By Julia Duin The Washington Times The bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington conducted a blessing service for one of the country's top homosexual rights advocates and his partner while protesters stood outside holding crosses draped in black fabric. One day after appearing on worldwide television as one of the lead participants in the funeral for former President Ronald Reagan at the National Cathedral, Bishop John B. Chane officiated at a 90-minute ceremony for the Rev. Michael W. Hopkins, 43, and his partner, John Clinton Bradley, 44. About 180 people at St. George's Episcopal Church in Glenn Dale gave the two men a lengthy standing ovation after the bishop pronounced a "blessing of the covenant" and the two men embraced and kissed. Mr. Hopkins, pastor at St. George's, served as national president of Integrity, the Episcopal homosexual caucus, for five years. "You know, for me, this is not something unusual to do," said the bishop, dressed in ornate gold-and-white vestments. "The church has been gathering to honor covenant relationships since the beginning of its written history." For him, "blessed covenant relationships" are "as normal as walking in and out of church on Sunday morning." The ceremony marked the premiere of a new diocesan rite for same-sex blessings, developed by a task force co-chaired by Mr. Hopkins. It began with a "covenant hymn" set to the tune of "Come Thou Long Expected Jesus," a traditional church Advent hymn. It culminated with the two men taking each other by the hand and pledging to each other a "covenant with you before God and the church." Mr. Hopkins briefly choked up as he said his vow. The ceremony included a blessing of the rings already on both men's fingers as they stretched their hands toward the bishop. Both men wore dark suits and leis. The Rev. Susan Russell, current chairwoman of Integrity, delivered the sermon, calling the proceedings "that which is natural, infinite, and yes." "It was a huge honor," she said about her role in the ceremony. "Michael and John Clinton are beloved friends of mine, and I was overwhelmed to be asked to preach at their wedding." The ceremony, which attracted at least a dozen clergy, was followed by a reception featuring lavender cloth-covered tables and purple orchid centerpieces. Outside, seven protesters issued a statement saying Bishop Chane acted "against the unequivocal witness of Scripture." "It grieves us that, as the bishop of this diocese, whose obligation is to guard the faith and unity of the church, he would so publicly and willingly violate the clear and consistent teaching of the Bible," the statement read. Same-sex unions and homosexual clergy have been allowed for years in the Diocese of Washington, which lists 14 homosexual "marriages" in its clergy directory. This was not the first time the two men had engaged in a blessing rite. The 2003 Episcopal Clerical Directory lists Mr. Hopkins as being "married" to Mr. Bradley on April 4, 1992. Conservatives scheduled a simultaneous evening prayer service at St. Luke's Episcopal Church in Bladensburg to protest the same-sex ceremony. This blessing was the first time a bishop has conducted such a service in the 40,000-member diocese and only the second time a sitting U.S. Episcopal bishop had done so. On May 16, Los Angeles Bishop Jon Bruno officiated at a union between the Rev. Malcolm Boyd, 80, author of the best-selling "Are You Running With Me, Jesus?" and his partner, Mark Thompson.

News24.com NAIROBI – African Anglican churches condemned this month's acceptance by their Canadian counterpart of same-sex relationships. "This latest move by the Church of Canada can neither be justified nor supported," the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa (CAPA) stated in a statement issued in Nairobi. The churches, whose leaders have been meeting in Kenya, expressed "total and absolute disgust and deepest regret at the unfortunate decision" of Canada's Anglican Church, which last week affirmed the "integrity and sanctity" of same-sex relationships. The church deferred a decision on whether such relationships could be blessed until 2007. The question of same-sex marriage is not on the agenda. The world's 70 million Anglicans are deeply divided following last year's decision by the U.S. Episcopal Church to name Gene Robinson, an openly homosexual man, as bishop of New Hampshire. African church leaders have warned that unless U.S. bishops rescind their decision to recognize Robinson's ministry, they will remove themselves from the communion. Homosexuality is taboo across the African continent and remains illegal in many of its 53 states.

By Uwe Siemon-Netto UPI Religious Affairs Editor LEIPZIG, Germany – Western Europe appears increasingly incapable of addressing the challenge posed by radical Muslim preachers, as demonstrated by prominent cases in France and Germany. When authorities attempt to expel militant clerics for violating the law, administrative judges consistently block these measures, regardless of how egregious the offender's statements or actions may be. Metin Kaplan's case exemplifies this problem. Considered by many in Germany as a premier enemy of the state, this Turkish imam immigrated illegally 22 years ago and declared himself "Caliph of Cologne." Despite lacking a valid visa, Kaplan remains in the country. Kaplan served four years in a German prison for inciting a rival's murder. Under German law, a three-year sentence would have been sufficient grounds for expulsion, yet he remains in the country under a form of house arrest. His organization, called "Caliphate," maintains its own intelligence service, according to Der Spiegel newsmagazine. The group's general staff reportedly recruits fighters for Bosnia, Chechnya, and Afghanistan, and sends emissaries to Osama bin Laden. Nevertheless, Kaplan remains in Germany. During a 1998 police raid on his house, authorities discovered $1 million in cash wrapped in plastic bags and hidden in his dirty laundry, plus several kilograms of gold. Despite this, he collected nearly $200,000 in welfare payments from the city of Cologne between 1988 and 1999. Kaplan maintains a following that parades around Cologne with mock wooden Kalashnikovs. In a magazine published by his Islamist "Caliphate," he stated that shooting infidels is acceptable if it serves Islam. He openly called for the violent overthrow of the Turkish government, despite court orders forbidding such statements. He also agitated against "those Jews who drive the world to ruin and constantly cause wars." While a German citizen would face prison for such statements, Kaplan received a fine equivalent to $1,200 and was allowed to remain in Germany. The German federal minister of the interior and his counterpart in North Rhine-Westphalia have tried unsuccessfully to remove Kaplan from the country; at one point, an airplane stood ready to transport him to Turkey. Seven courts have dealt with Kaplan's case, including the nation's highest court—the Federal Constitutional Court. However, his lawyers consistently find judges willing to halt his expulsion on grounds that he might face torture in Turkey. The administrative court of Cologne ruled that precisely because his positions are so extreme, he must not be sent to Turkey, where he would face prosecution. Ironically, the more inflammatory an illegal alien's statements, the stronger the argument for keeping him in Germany. For radical Islamists, hate-mongering has become a means of self-protection against expulsion. "You cannot explain Kaplan's case to the average German citizen anymore," Cornelie Sonntag-Wolgast, chairwoman of the Interior Affairs Committee in the German Parliament, told Der Spiegel. "This is the meltdown of the rule of law." "Kaplan is only the tip of the iceberg," an anti-terrorism official in Hamburg told United Press International. "Far worse figures have made their permanent home in our nation and in neighboring countries." While Germany, still attempting to overcome the specter of its Nazi past, remains particularly sensitive to potential charges of violating a minority's human rights, neighboring France faces similar challenges. France has allegedly expelled 36 radical imams in recent months, according to French participants at a recent interfaith meeting in Qatar, though this figure could not be verified in Paris. However, government attempts to stem the radicalization of Muslim institutions in France appear to be failing. Two years ago, interior intelligence sources estimated that about 24 of the 400 mosques and houses of prayer in the greater Paris region served as centers of radical Islamism. This number has now risen to 36. As in Germany, administrative court judges in France often frustrate authorities' attempts to remove foreign extremists. Consider the case of Abdelkader Bouziane, an imam at a mosque in the Lyon suburb of Vénissieux. He was deported to his native Algeria in April after telling Lyon Mag, a monthly magazine, that he favored stoning adulteresses to death. His lawyers later claimed he had not properly understood the French term "lapidation" for this punishment. However, he did state that husbands are permitted to beat their wives as prescribed by the Koran—though men must not slap women in the face but instead strike their legs and bellies. This statement resulted in his expulsion to Algeria, which lasted precisely one month. An administrative court in Lyon then rescinded the expulsion order. He is now back in France with his two wives and 16 children, who are housed in government-assisted low-cost lodgings. He faces an investigative judge. "To cover up polygamy, all you have to do is declare each wife the head of a single-parent family," said Alain Marsaud, a member of the French Parliament. "Nobody knows how many such cases exist. Apparently tens of thousands of people are involved." As exasperated as his German counterparts, Marsaud criticized the weakness shown by successive French governments in dealing with fundamentalism. "This has led to the development of polygamy in France," he lamented.

By Mark Greaves THE CATHOLIC HERALD February 10, 2026   Anglicans who take up the Pope’s offer of an Ordinariate may be allowed to continue worshipping in their Church of England buildings, it emerged this week.   Until now commentators had assumed that groups wanting to join the new structure set up by the Pope would have to abandon their Anglican churches.   But William Fittall, secretary general of the Church of England General Synod, said it would be “entirely possible” for these buildings to be shared between the new members of the Ordinariate and Anglicans.   Mr Fittall said: “It would be a matter for the local Anglican bishop concerned whether he was content for that to be the case.”   He said that in some areas Anglican buildings were already shared with Baptists, Methodists and Catholics.   But commentators fear that church-sharing between Anglicans and new Ordinariate groups could exacerbate tensions if the parish has just been split in two.   The buildings could also be leased on a long-term basis. In this case they would still be owned by the Church of England but would be used and maintained by Ordinariate parishes.   Fr Peter Geldard, a former Anglican and chaplain at the University of Kent, said that such a compromise on church buildings would greatly help Ordinariate groups starting out.   He said: “It would be helpful for two reasons. First, many have a strong affinity with their particular local church.   “Second, the fewer burdens they have to resolve the better. They are already going to have to pay for and house their own priest, and pay the rent of whatever church they use. This would lessen the number of responsibilities .”   Fr Geldard said that once Ordinariate groups had survived a difficult first year they would “very quickly become viable and sustainable”.   He said they may well draw Catholics from neighbouring parishes who are attracted by the liturgy.   Meanwhile, an Australian bishop has disclosed exactly how Ordinariates will be established – and said the Ordinariates in Britain will be the model for bishops’ conferences worldwide.   Auxiliary Bishop Peter Elliott of Melbourne, who has responsibility for liaising with groups of Australian Anglicans who want to convert, told the Messenger newspaper that the first step would be re-ordaining Anglican clergy as Catholic priests.   The next step, he said, would be the “first reconciliations of the lay faithful”.   “The clergy will therefore be in place to welcome and minister to former Anglicans in a community that maintains the familiar Anglican patrimony of worship, spirituality, scholarship and pastoral care,” he said.   He said the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had already approved programmes to prepare laity and clergy wanting to join the Ordinariate. “Here the key resource is the Catechism of the Catholic Church,” he said.   The bishop added: “I believe the model will be set by what proceeds in the United Kingdom in terms of a clear timeline built around the two stages.”   It is understood that clergy will be ordained early in 2011 and that an ordinary, the head of the Ordinariate, is likely to be appointed by the middle of the year.   An announcement from the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales is also expected after the bishops’ November plenary meeting in two weeks’ time.   Three Anglo-Catholic bishops – Andrew Burnham of Ebbsfleet, Keith Newton of Richborough, and John Broadhurst of Fulham – are likely to be re-ordained as Catholic priests. Bishop Broadhurst was the first senior Anglo-Catholic to announce he would resign to join the Ordinariate when it is established next year. He has informed the Bishop of London of his intentions.   Pope Benedict XVI issued the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus in November last year in response to requests from about 30 Anglican bishops around the world. It offers a new canonical structure called a Personal Ordinariate that is similar to military dioceses and allows groups of Anglicans to enter into communion with Rome while keeping some Anglican traditions, including married priests.

By Adrian Plass DEAR READERS, I am strongly moved to take advantage of a half-hour break in a meeting that is being held in my home, to introduce all of you, and particularly those with church connections, to some of the people who are gathered in my sitting room at this very moment. The meeting consists of representatives from a variety of oppressed Christian minorities, suffering brothers and sisters of yours and mine who have been dealt with very roughly by the wider church, and I just know that your hearts, dear readers of Ship of Fools, will go out to them in love and sympathy. I cannot be away for too lengthy a period, as some of these minority representatives are likely to exercise their proclivities rather indiscriminately on each other, if you see what I mean. You don't see what I mean? Ah, well, let me explain. Sitting side by side on the floor by the piano, for instance, are Phil and Bob, who run a helpline for those who see disembowelling as a natural and essential part of any intimate relationship. Some of us were in tears just now as we heard about the crass way in which these two fine young men were more or less rejected by their local church when they dared to suggest that the forcible removal of internal organs should become a regular feature of Sunday worship. 'The thing is,' said Bob, 'a lot of people have got a very blinkered and old-fashioned idea of what disembowelling is all about. We're not rushing wildly around with knives from morning to night, are we, Phil?' As we all laughed at this absurd caricature, Phil's good-natured face broke into an infectious grin.' Good heavens, no,' he chuckled, 'we're not monsters, you know. We just think that if the need to disembowel and be disembowelled is part of the way we've been created, then there should be some recognition of that by the body of the church, and an opportunity on Sundays to express ourselves at least as openly as everyone else.' At this point, a member of the group rather insensitively put forward a suggestion that disembowelling was a grotesque and appalling practice that invariably resulted in a lengthy and agonising death, and might therefore be outside the will of God. It was good to see how patiently Bob and Phil handled this, but the pain in their eyes told its own story of similar hurts in the past, and our hearts went out to them – metaphorically. 'Look,' said Bob, 'we're the same as everyone else, right? We go to work, go to the supermarket, watch television – all the things that ordinary people do. The only real difference is that in order for us to feel fulfilled on the deepest level, we like to cut open abdominal cavities and drag out the contents. It really is as simple as that, and if anyone can find anywhere in the New Testament where Jesus in any way specifically condemns that kind of behaviour, well, I'd just like them to show me where it is.' 'And if he doesn't condemn it,' added Phil quietly, 'it's hard to see why anyone else should.' Something in the calm dignity of these responses precluded further comment or criticism, and our attention turned to a reserved but pleasant looking lady called June, who had been listening interestedly from a stool on the other side of the room. 'It's really encouraged me to hear what Phil and Bob are saying,' she began shyly, 'because I've been trying to introduce human sacrifice as a regular activity at church weekends, and so far I've met nothing but opposition from the leadership.' 'What exactly is their problem?' asked somebody wonderingly. June spread her arms wide and shook her head.' That's exactly what I'd like to know!' She exclaimed.' Apart from the personal outlet that it provides for me, I've tried to point out again and again what a good group activity it would be for people who don't always know each other very well.' June's eyes shone with the bright light of the enthusiast as she warmed to her subject.' You break up into groups, you see, and each group has a different job. One lot gets sent off to collect dry paper and firewood, another sorts out a good strong stake and some rope and matches and that sort of thing, and the rest do sausages on sticks, and jugs of squash and sandwiches and whatnot to have round the pyre when it really gets going.' This happy picture of bright and busy mutual involvement was greeted by expressions of interest and nods of approval from most of us, but the same troubled person who had already carped at disembowelling seemed to feel it necessary to throw cold water over this idea as well. 'How do you choose which person is going to be sacrificed?' This was met by little gasps and sighs of incredulity and a general shaking of heads from the rest of us, but June held her ground well. 'Nobody who doesn't actually want to be burnt alive should have any pressure put on them, 'she declared firmly.' That would be quite wrong, and, in my view, quite unnecessary. Church people do tend to be a little wary about trying out new things, as we all know, but I think once they've understood what it was all about, there'd be no lack of volunteers.' 'I sometimes can't believe,' added June, her eyes suddenly filled with unshed tears, 'that people like Phil and Bob and me, whose only crime is to look for fulfilment through things like disembowelling and human sacrifice, are so marginalized by the church. Why are people so frightened by the needs of others?' We all sat in silence for a moment, filled with unspoken sympathy as we pondered this seemingly unanswerable question. The silence was broken eventually by an elderly lady dressed in a rubber suit and carrying a spiked metal ball on the end of a chain. 'I suppose,' she said tentatively, 'that something like sado-masochism, which in itself is obviously morally neutral, tends to be given a bad name by a small number of irresponsible people who use it for their own selfish ends.' She sighed deeply, gazing into the distance as she went on.' In the old days, you know, it was different. We used to have our own rack at home when father was alive, and on special occasions, we'd pull it out and put an aunt on it – it was usually an aunt, I seem to remember – and, you know, we'd all have a turn at the handle. It was such fun. A much greater sense of the extended family.' She giggled at her own little joke. 'Nowadays, if you bring, say, a thumbscrew into a prayer meeting, everyone backs away and gets all sniffy. Church, generally, was so much better in the old days in every way. The traditional hymns were lovely, and we didn't get all muddled up, confusing what we believed with the way we lived.' After that, the floodgates were opened. A small, round, balding man who had said nothing until now, sliced the air with scything gestures as he described a lifetime of survival at church in the face of outright disapproval of his deeply felt decapitational needs. Asked if he had ever found a partner, the little man held his head in both hands and shook it miserably from side to side. Most congregations are a long way from regarding mutual decapitation between consenting adults as an acceptable norm. So much unhappiness! An athletic looking young lady painted a vivid picture for us of what it meant to battle the widespread taboo against jumping out at people in the dark, lonely places with a portable, battery-operated chainsaw... a middle-aged banker talked with pride of the stable, monogamous relationship that he has enjoyed for twenty years with a fellow-arsonist... and we heard from a small group of professional men and women who are in the process of establishing an information and exchange service for those who describe their future lives as 'meaningless without access to napalm' – all folk whom the church has heartlessly rejected for the flimsiest of reasons. I must stop writing and go back to them now, but I do ask you, dear readers, to consider the fact that these poor folk are as much a part of the church as you and I. We've come such a long way in broadening our attitudes. Let's not stop now. Thank goodness we live in such increasingly enlightened times! Do you not agree that the spirit of tolerance abroad in the church at present indicates a strong chance that the so-called peculiarities of these persecuted ones will very soon become a normal part of everyday church life? Is that what we all want? END

By Rajeev Syal 13/06/2004 Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, is to be the subject of a formal complaint to the Church of England for revealing confidential details of conversations with members of the Royal family. In his autobiography, extracts of which appeared last week, Lord Carey describes himself as "the Royal family's parish priest" and details private meetings with Diana, Princess of Wales, Princess Margaret and Camilla Parker Bowles. One lay member of the Church of England said yesterday that he would ask the Bishop of Southwark, who officiates over Lord Carey's pastoral responsibilities, to investigate his comments. It is the first time that a senior clergyman has been accused of breaching guidelines of confidentiality. If found to have broken the rules, Lord Carey could face censure. The draft of the Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of Clergy were drawn up in 2000 and 2001 when Lord Carey headed the Church. He retired in 2002 and the guidelines were finally approved by Synod last year. The complainant, a London barrister, said that he would write to the Bishop of Southwark tomorrow asking for an investigation. He said: "Carey has forfeited the right to a licence to officiate by breaching the guidelines as published by the Church of England last year - which applies to all priests, irrespective of their status." David Stancliffe, the Bishop of Salisbury, advised Lord Carey last night to keep silent about his pastoral work. "This [Carey's book] has really cut the ground from under the present Archbishop if he wants to establish a role as pastor to the Royal Family," he said. "If a former church leader cannot keep his counsel, people will ask can they trust their local priest?" Andrew de Berry, a member of the clergy section of Amicus, the trade union, said that he would support further examination of Lord Carey's comments. "At worst, it is an illustration of betrayal. At best, it is a sad example of 'bless and tell'," he said. "It is simply not appropriate for the former Archbishop to articulate his observations about confidential discussions he had with Diana. I think Carey has been unwise in dragging up observations he may have had about Diana when she was in absolute tumult. In the circumstances of marital conflict, whoever it is, such discussions have to be treated with absolute confidence." Lord Carey's autobiography, entitled Know The Truth, compared The Princess of Wales to a fictional, schizophrenic monster when describing their meetings following her divorce from Prince Charles. "My last meetings with Diana following her divorce revealed a Princess who was determined to go her own way and show the world what she was made of," wrote Lord Carey, 69. "The 'Jekyll and Hyde' sides to her character came out strongly in her deep upset and bitterness about Charles and the divorce which she claimed she never desired yet to which, sadly, she had contributed greatly." In another passage, Lord Carey described how an ailing Princess Margaret, swollen by medicines, sought comfort from him as she lay ill in bed in Kensington Palace. Lord Carey also revealed that he met Mrs Parker Bowles after details of her relationship with the Prince of Wales became public. The Guidelines For The Professional Conduct of The Clergy state that members of the clergy should not pass on details of private conversations to third parties. "What is said to clergy in confidence must be understood to be confidential at all times. Information may only be divulged with the other parties' informed consent," the guidelines read. Neither Lord Carey nor the Bishop of Southwark would comment END

by Paul Kangor The Catholic Exchange Long before the editorial pages of the New York Times flogged Mel Gibson for his film or denounced George W. Bush for citing Jesus Christ as his favorite philosopher, they assailed Ronald Reagan for his thoughts on the Nazarene Carpenter. In January 1984, President Reagan dared to utter the "J word" before the annual convention of the National Religious Broadcasters. "He promised there will never be a dark night that does not end," Reagan said of Christ. "And by dying for us, Jesus showed how far our love should be ready to go: all the way." This was too much for the New York Times, which unleashed the wrath of its judgment. Reagan, complained the Times editorial board, had presented the speech "not while worshiping in his church but in a Washington hotel." "You don't have to be a secular humanist to take offense at that display of what, in America, should be private piety," the aggrieved newspaper lectured. "It's an offense to Americans of every denomination, or no denomination, when a President speaks that way." Reagan was, after all, "the President of a nation whose Bill of Rights enjoins Government from establishing religion, aiding one religion, even aiding all religions." By the Times' estimation, Reagan's utterance had somehow constituted an attempt to establish a state religion. None of this deterred Reagan. According to speechwriter Ben Elliott, when the president received condemnation from the likes of the New York Times, "He wore it like a badge of honor." Reagan boldly brought Christ's name into completely secular situations. At Kansas State University in 1982, he appealed to the "admonition of the Man from Galilee to do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Reagan personally inserted that line into the speech himself. That said, President Reagan tried to avoid Christ-specific remarks on occasions where he knew Jews would be in the audience. He cared deeply about persecution of Jews, particularly in the Soviet Union. However, when addressing an explicitly Christian group, he did not shirk from speaking of the figure he called his Savior. Indeed, in editing his own speeches, the 40th president sometimes went further: On one occasion, he took a draft by speechwriters Peggy Noonan and Ben Elliott, in which they wrote that Christmas is "the day that marks the birth on Earth of the Son of God," and added that Christmas is "the birthday of the promised Messiah, the Son of God," ("promised Messiah" added.) Such additions by Reagan were common. "He didn't make a big deal about it," said Elliott. "He would want a change like that and would just write it in." Citizen Reagan often wrote of Jesus Christ in private correspondence. He was not shy about Christian apologetics. He once pressed an interviewer: "How can you write off the prophecies in the Old Testament that hundreds of years before the birth of Christ predicted every single facet of his life, his death, and that he was the Messiah?" In a March 1978 letter to a Methodist minister who expressed doubts about Christ's divinity – and accused Reagan of a "limited Sunday school level theology" – Reagan responded: "Perhaps it is true that Jesus never used the word 'Messiah' with regard to himself (although I'm not sure that he didn't), but in John 1, 10 and 14 he identifies himself pretty definitely and more than once. Is there really any ambiguity in his words: 'I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me?' ... In John 10 he says, 'I am in the Father and the Father in me.' And he makes reference to being with God, 'before the world was,' and sitting on the 'right hand of God.' ... These and other statements he made about himself, foreclose in my opinion, any question as to his divinity. It doesn't seem to me that he gave us any choice; either he was what he said he was or he was the world's greatest liar. It is impossible for me to believe a liar or charlatan could have had the effect on mankind that he has had for 2,000 years. We could ask, would even the greatest of liars carry his lie through the crucifixion, when a simple confession would have saved him? ... Did he allow us the choice you say that you and others have made, to believe in his teachings but reject his statements about his own identity?" Reagan employed this specific argument a number of times, echoing C. S. Lewis's classic "liar, Lord, or lunatic" line from Mere Christianity. This is the tip of the iceberg on Reagan's distinctly Christian faith. And yet, perhaps the principal difference between Reagan's reflections on Christ and those of Mel Gibson or George W. Bush is that we totally missed Reagan's (aside from the vigilant New York Times). Only now are we recognizing this crucial side of the historical Reagan – at a time when Ronald Reagan approaches the moment when he will learn the truth about Christ's divinity and the crucifixion. END

News Analysis By David W. Virtue At a time when the Anglican Communion is roiling with talk of schism over pansexuality, and a commission has been set up by the Archbishop of Canterbury to examine how the communion might shake out, a recent meeting of some 125 Episcopal Communicators failed to address the central issues facing the possible breakup of the worldwide body of Anglicans. Meeting in Kanuga, NC the Episcopal communicators drew fellow journalists from England, Australia, El Salvador, Ghana, Kenya, Haiti, Panama, South Africa, and Wales. The theme of the conference was deliberately planned to "listen" and called for a more intentional approach to local, national and global church communications, said its leaders in a press release following the meeting. Now "listening" has become a much favored word used by ECUSA's liberal elite. Behind this word is the idea of keeping an open mind, usually indefinitely, with the sin being to close it on anything substantial. God forbid. By keeping an open mind one can, presumably, allow anything to go in and out at random without stopping on the way to examine if in fact it might be true - the issue of sexual boundaries being a case in point. The conference listened to how communications ministries are being practiced in different parts of the world and heard some of the challenges of fellow brothers and sisters in the Anglican/Episcopal family. The Rev. Sipo E. Mzimela, an Anglican priest from South Africa who lives in Atlanta, Georgia, addressed the conference June 3, delivering a sobering account of the international perception of the United States. He said he "sensed a radical shift in how South Africans think of Americans." Opponents of democracy now point to the invasion of Iraq and ask if that is what they want South Africa to be. "You cannot imagine," Mzimela said, "the impact this war is having around the world." Perhaps, but what has American foreign policy got to do with the Anglican Communion and how it is being torn apart, and what is the connection between the two? Whether America is loved or hated by others is the business of national and international politics, the President and the State Department; it has got nothing to do with how the Anglican Communion and its communicators is or should be conducting its own affairs. Bush bashing by ECUSA's liberals is now a favorite pastime. In a question and answer session following Mzimela, remarks flowed about the role and makeup of the international community. The divisions and boundaries we place on one another are artificial, he said. Really, and how is a South African living and enjoying the benefits of this country to make any sense of that. "In the final analysis, there is no Iraqi, no American, no South African....we are one family, one people...We need a new world: a world where we understand that truth. We are one." And how does one create "oneness" through endless UN resolutions and voting out a Republican president? The truth is sick and fallen man has no ability to make one out of many, only the Son of Man can do that. Liberal fantasies like this need to be shot down. In the end Mr. Mzimela has no ability to change anything but himself and through the preaching of peace through the Prince of Peace can any kind of real hope and reconciliation be found. PRIORITIES IN JERUSALEM Nancy Dinsmore, an American missionary and director of development in the Diocese of Jerusalem and the Middle East made up of 7,000 Anglicans in five countries: Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, and Israel offered up that the diocese is losing its young people to emigration, as extended families move away from the areas of strife and violence. That is true, but who is most responsible for that? The truth is that nationalist Arab groups, Islamic hard liners, a corrupt Palestinian Authority and not just the Israelis have caused Arab Christians to flee the State of Israel and Palestine. Both sides bear responsibility for Arab flight. Despite the catalogue of eminent social services that are being offered, the failure to address the rock bottom causes of the pain in the Middle East were simply not addressed. Dinsmore said that her highest priority as director of development was the initiation of long-term relationships, working with the "living stones," the people of the region. Characterizing her work and the work of the diocese, she said, "Peace isn't only possible, it's our only choice." Indeed it is. LISTENING AND UNDERSTANDING In a workshop led by Katerina Katsarka Whitley on Communicating Across the Cultural Divide, Ms. Whitley focused on how to listen with intelligence and understanding to people of other cultures. Whitley, an adjunct professor at Appalachian State University in Boone, North Carolina, explained that everyone is brought up ethnocentric. "It is only education that brings about this change and eradicates the preconceived motions," she said. "Everyone has prejudice; the difference is how much and how we control it." Highlighting the differences between individualism and collectivism, Whitley, who was born in Greece and moved to the United States at the age of 16, described the U.S. as a "supremely individualistic culture." Because of that, she said, it doesn't understand collectivistic culture. "Individualistic cultures are very impatient, ambitious, longing to make money and very direct in communications to one another," she said. "Collectivistic cultures think of 'we' rather than 'I' and decision making affects the group and community rather than the individual." Whitley urged the workshop to remember this when thinking of the struggles in the Anglican Communion. Ms. Whitley should know better. The last great "collectivist" experiment was the Soviet Union and it collapsed under the weight of 70 years of collectivist thinking, then abandoned by its leaders as a total failure. Furthermore the struggles in the Anglican Communion have nothing to do with American individualism, it has everything to do with bad theology and morals, something Ms. Whitley either knows nothing about or was too coy to mention. The different value systems in societies also contribute enormously to misunderstandings and misinterpretations between cultures, Whitley explained, contrasting the honor/shame system that exists in Arab culture, and Western society, which is based on the concepts of right and wrong. "If we shame the Iraqis we will never be forgiven," she said. In case Ms. Whitley doesn't remember, shame arose as a result of a certain incident that took place in a Garden several thousand years ago. After an illicit fruit picking incident, good and evil became firmly established, and we have each individually ratified the Fall ever since. Whitley described how we all have a "perceptual set" of values, beliefs and attitudes and how this changes from culture to culture. This, she explained, is why there is more respect for a bishop in African society than there is in the US, adding that America is a "low context" society, whereas Asia and Africa are "high context" societies. This is nonsense. If there is no respect for bishops in North America it has nothing to do with culture, but everything to do with what the fact that the majority of ECUSA's and Canada's bishops no longer believe 'the faith once delivered' and are relying on the canons to enforce conformity to their unbelief. Biblically orthodox priests despise heterodox bishops precisely because they don't believe anything, and get paid vast sums of money for actually dissembling the faith and confusing the faithful who pay their bills. Bishops in Africa (and I have been there) are loved precisely because the bishops are shepherds of their sheep and they feed the sheep and the sheep look up to them. And why not? The majority of American bishops have no gospel to proclaim, and they feed nothing but their own bank accounts, and the more money they make the less they believe. They are secure knowing they have pensions right to their graves. Furthermore the "values" of Christians in the US and those Christians in Nigeria are almost the same. Our "values" arise out of our belief systems. Orthodox believers in North America are completely at home with orthodox Nigerians...there is not a sliver of difference in "values", faith or anything else. Finally, Whitley pointed out the difference between listening as intentional and hearing as unintentional and involuntary. "Critical thinking is asking questions and only then can we become constructive, which is the highest rung of the listening ladder," she said. "We have to understand the differences within the context. We have made so many mistakes because we didn't understand the culture. We have so much educating to do." The truth is culture has little to do with it. When I travel to countries with cultures different from my own, (in India you eat with your right hand only) what unites me to my fellow brother Nigerians is not the difference in the color of our skin, the car I drive (the bishops have better ones), or the kind of food we both eat. What unites us is a common faith in Christ and everything else is subsumed or made largely irrelevant to that central truth. The Nigerian struggle is between Islam (Shari'a Law) and Christianity, and between the biblically orthodox driven Nigerian Anglican Church versus the Western heterodox Episcopal Church. Those are the struggles, they have little or nothing to do with "culture." Culture is vastly over-rated. And on the issue of "critical thinking" let us say this. The African bishops are in the midst of the most critical thinking of their lives, and they are thinking critically about Western pluriformity and pansexual behavior which is ripping the church apart. And they will have none of it. They have "listened" to Frank Griswold whine about sodomy at every Primates meeting since 1998 and they are sick to death of it. And if he doesn't repent of his actions for consecrating the sodomite bishop of New Hampshire they may well shun him from the Supreme Club of Purple. The African bishops are in the business of saving souls...by the millions, while ECUSA becomes more "inclusive" and "diverse" succeeding only in emptying churches with a false doctrine of come as you are, stay as you are. Now one of the biggest fantasies of this meeting was The Episcopal Church's new Episcopal Ad Campaign being promoted by Dan England, director of communication for the ECUSA. He gave a presentation about the "National Ad Campaign", which is actually designed to work as a local ad campaign. ECUSA's last General Convention authorized $750,000 for this fantasy. (That money could do more fighting AIDS in Africa than puffing ECUSA through a phony public relations campaign.) The idea here is to jump start The Episcopal Church even as it is divided by heresy, is in free fall with parishes closing, money drying up and is being whacked by 22 Global Primates about once every week, facts that are not even mentioned in Episcopal Life, the church's national newspaper. But these "communicators" did have a workshop about "How to get an Online Presence given by Nicolas Knisely". No word on what Mr. Knisely said, but this writer would have been delighted to tell them how...and how effective it is. Reflecting on the Global Anglican Communion, Canon James M. Rosenthal, director of communications for the Anglican Communion noted that "in these difficult times the highest degree of unity for the sake of God's people should be our aim." But unity has a price tag, and for the Global South that price tag is way too high to sell the faith short. But a couple of attendees from very liberal dioceses in Australia opined that, "We work in an environment of misinformation which makes it difficult to make informed decisions." No word on WHO the misinformer is, but we can guess. But an Australian woman communicator did say one thing that rang true, "the power of Christian media can be used to change public opinion." Virtuosity couldn't agree more. "It is important to make the effort to cross the miles," she said, "so that we can together get the strength, energy and clarity to combat this misinformation." Indeed it is. Virtuosity is glad to oblige. Bringing greetings from CAPA - the African bishops - an African communicator observed the cultural differences, particularly in spirituality, between Africa and America. "There was a lack of talking about Jesus," he said. "Maybe faith is more of a private thing in the US but I think we need to be talking about Jesus' message." Really. One hopes these messengers (communicators) of Anglican enlightenment were "listening". In their final worship, the Rev. Dan Webster, director of communications for the Diocese of Utah, said one of the biggest challenges is "looking at what is compromising us," adding that we should not delude ourselves by "compromising for the sake of peace" but should seek "comprehension for the sake of unity." Indeed we should Mr. Webster, and perhaps it could start with Episcopal Life mentioning the crisis the Episcopal Church is having with 22 Primates for ordaining an avowedly homoerotic bishop, and whether ECUSA will still be part of the Anglican Communion once the Lambeth/Eames Commission has finished its work. Now that will be worth "listening" for. We wait with baited breath. END

ULTIMATUM: CHURCH TELLS IAN GEORGE: QUIT OR YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN   By MILES KEMP, MATT WILLIAMS, DANIEL BRETTIG and DANIEL SLUGGETT   June 11, 2004   ANGLICAN Archbishop Ian George has been given an ultimatum to stand aside by 2pm today or lose the support of another key church body.   The Adelaide Diocesan Council has voted to publicly withdraw support from Dr George unless he volunteers to step down.   It does not have the power to sack Dr George, which can only be done at the church Synod meeting on Thursday. The council is one of the most powerful organisations in the church, made up of its most senior members and lay representatives.   Dr George yesterday remained defiant, ignoring a growing barrage of criticism and demands from within and outside the church for him to resign.   Dr George refused to even make any public comment about the crisis which has engulfed the church, despite mounting pressure on his leadership and criticism of his handling of sex abuse cases.   When approached, Dr George appeared upbeat and unconcerned about calls for him to stand aside yesterday and ignored a deadline set by Acting Premier Kevin Foley of 5pm yesterday for him to resign. "I'm not making any comment thanks. I can't," he said as he emerged from his North Adelaide home yesterday morning to take his dog to a Rose Park vet.   "I'm just looking after the dog this morning. I've had such a good relationship with you guys over the years. All the best."   A senior church source told The Advertiser Dr George's supporters were urging him to remain in the position at least until the church's Synod in eight days, to test opinion within the church.   Members of the church hierarchy were yesterday told to refer questions to public relations firm Michels Warren, hired to manage the crisis.   Spokesman David Williams could not answer any questions.   "They won't be saying anything to anybody," he said. The church hierarchy also avoided public scrutiny, with those contacted by The Advertiser refusing to either support or criticise Dr George's leadership.   But the two anti-sex abuse campaigners lauded by Dr George as being responsible for bringing pedophiles to the attention of the church added their weight to a campaign for him to go.   The Reverend Andrew King supported a decision of the church's Professional Standards Committee, which The Advertiser revealed yesterday had resolved on Tuesday night to ask for Dr George to stand aside while it investigated the church's handling of an independent report on abuse. "If he is asked by the Professional Standards Committee then he should stand aside," he said.   Mr King was critical of the fact that while the committee had the power to take powers from the clergy, it had no power over bishops. "I think it is a matter of natural justice that there is consistency," he said.   The Reverend Don Owers supported the comments. "I'd agree and that clearly is what the Professional Standards Committee believes as well," he said.   Member of the Professional Standards Committee Stephen Clarke yesterday renewed the committee's call for Dr George to stand aside.   Prominent Anglican and Liberal MP Mark Brindal said Mr Foley should stay out of church affairs, pointing out that the independent report had highlighted that abuse by a priest, of homeless boys in a city shelter, had been ignored when reported to a government department.   "I am very distressed that the Premier should have anything to say about people's religious practices," he said.   Mr Foley said he would not be taking the issue further. "I think I have said enough already."   Dr George yesterday had the support of the head of the Anglican Church in Australia, Archbishop Peter Carnley. He said he saw no reason why Dr George should resign and believed the Professional Standards Committee had exceeded its brief in wanting him to stand aside.   "I've skimmed the (independent) report and as I understand, Archbishop George is mentioned in the report for some failures of process," Archbishop Carnley said. "I cannot find any suggestion in the report that he had licensed, or continued the license, of priests who were thought to be pedophiles or anything like that."   Parish leaders contacted by The Advertiser were divided on whether Dr George should resign.   While most were concerned at the way the church had dealt with allegations of child abuse, most were cautious about speaking. Some, however, felt it would be best if he did stand down.   The Reverend Christopher Myers, of St John Parish, Adelaide, said: "I support and respect the man, but I must admit with the report he is not coming out all that well.   "He has to weigh up the situation ... I think it's better for the church if he stepped down."   Although supporting Dr George, Alberton parish's Reverend Michele Chambers said she was "devastated" about the number of allegations of sexual abuse.   "I'm horrified that in the church I love so much that this could go on undetected," she said.   "I can't say I'm happy with the way the diocese has handled it. "I'm very upset that it's happened and that we didn't know it was happening."   But she supported Dr George's handling of the abuse reports. "I don't think he should resign. I see no reason to be ashamed of his behaviour," she said.   END

by Terry Mattingly As a Baptist preacher's kid who grew up in Texas in the 1970s, I had plenty of reasons to reject Ronald Reagan. That may sound strange, since the Southern Baptist Convention and the Republican Party that Reagan built now appear to be wedded at the hip. But people tend to forget that Jimmy Carter really is a Baptist. So are Al Gore, the Rev. Bill Moyers and Britney Spears, while we're at it. People also forget that Reagan was not a Southern Baptist or even what most would call an evangelical. He grew up in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), in the Illinois heartland of mainline Protestantism. Still, I believe it's safe to say that America's deep political divisions on moral issues are the result of three cultural earthquakes -- Woodstock, Roe vs. Wade and the Reagan revolution. These events shaped modern Democrats as well as Republicans. They shaped religious conservatives and the growing bloc some researchers are calling the "anti-evangelical voters." And these events created or deepened cracks in most religious sanctuaries that remain today and have, if anything, only gotten worse. Take the Southern Baptists. I believe the rise of Reagan split that massive flock of 16-million-plus believers just as much, if not more, than doctrinal debates about "biblical inerrancy." Millions of Southern Baptists saw Reagan as a near messiah. For Southern Baptist conservatives, Reagan offered hope that the cultural revolution of the Woodstock-Roe era might in some way be overturned. They were wrong, of course. Nevertheless, these conservative Baptists lost their historic fear of politics and jumped into the public square. But while the conservative grown-ups created the Religious Right, their children were in their multi-media bedrooms watching HBO and MTV. The parents thought they could vote in the kingdom, but things didn't work out that way. What they got instead was "I Love the '80s." There were some Southern Baptists who saw Reagan as the Antichrist. I saw this close up. I had a friend in graduate school who literally lost his moderate Southern Baptist faith because of the election of Reagan. How could he believe in a just and loving God, if a Reagan could be elected president? After all, the Reagan loyalists hated the really cool movies and they liked the really bad movies. They didn't read the proper books and magazines or laugh at the hip comics. And Reagan was embraced by all of those "fundamentalists" who wanted to ruin the Southern Baptist Convention, which they believed was poised to achieve mainline Protestant maturity. Most of all, they believed that Reagan was dumb. And if Reagan was dumb, that meant that hating Reagan was smart. Everyone who was smart agreed. If you didn't agree, then you were dumb. So defeating Reagan was part of voting in a smarter, more nuanced kingdom. What these anti-Reagan Baptists and new evangelicals really needed was a progressive, smart, complex Southern Baptist in the White House -- someone like Bill Clinton. That would be perfect. But things didn't work out precisely as they imagined, either. They got "Sex & the City." Many of them liked it. Many didn't, but the alternative was worse. The alternative was being labeled a religious conservative, the kind of person who liked Reagan. There seemed to be no other option, no middle ground. But perhaps Reagan wasn't a messiah or the Antichrist. What if he was just a normal mainline Protestant churchman from the 1950s? Maybe he had good intentions and he did his best. Maybe he accomplished many things on the global level and didn't do so much on the cultural level. Maybe his beliefs were sincere, but not very specific. Maybe he made some people feel good and others feel bad. Maybe his greatest domestic political legacy is the Religious Right and the Religious Left. But questions remain. Was Reagan truly a cultural and moral conservative? Did he cause the "pew gap" the researchers find in all the polls of modern voters? Could Reagan, if he had really tried, overturn the culture of Woodstock and Roe? Could he have helped Americans do a better job of focusing on their families? I have my doubts. There are things that politicians cannot do. It's a culture thing. It's a moral thing. It's a faith thing. END