EVERY WEEK WE publish a selection of letters we receive in response to something you've read at Anglicans Online. Stop by and have a look at what other AO readers are thinking. Alas, we cannot publish every letter we receive. And we won't publish letters that are anonymous, hateful, illiterate, or otherwise in our judgment do not benefit the readers of Anglicans Online. We usually do not publish letters written in response to other letters.

Please note that we edit letters to conform with standard AO house style for punctuation, but we do not change, for example, American spelling to conform to English orthography. Email addresses are included when the authors give permission to do so.

Like to write a letter of your own to us? Click here. It is our policy not to publish letters responding to other letters.

Letters received during the week of 22 June

Questions about a schism

1. WHERE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT is there mention of sodomy, please?

2. If the Anglican Communion should divide over the authenticity of Holy Orders invested in one who admits repeated acts of sodomy, what will be the name of each Communion?

3. If the the names reflect the fundamental ethical cause of the said division (for example "21st Century Anglican" v. "Historic Anglican") what will be the position in respect of Baptisms performed before the division?

4. How will prospective and existing Godparents be advised of their duties in respect of the division and what will be that advice?

5. Will preparation for "Confirmation" reflect the attitude and ethical positions of the two communions?

6. How will parents and Godparents be advised of the position of the officiating clergy: will the laymen have to put the question to the priest at the time of requesting a Baptism?

MENTOR

Mentor
St Mary's Harrow
London, England
26 June 2003

On the Sydney bishops' statement

THE 20 JUNE STATEMENT by the Archbishop and Bishops of Sydney on ‘the tragic disruption of fellowship in the Anglican Communion’ is deeply hurtful.

I honour the Bishops’ commitment to the Bible as the standard of Christian conduct. However, what is at stake in debate concerning homosexual Christians and the church is not the status of the Bible but its interpretation and meaning in particular circumstances. I cannot accept, for example, that Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, disregards the Bible as the standard for Christian life.

The Bishops’ say they cannot welcome into the Diocese of Sydney “those who have abandoned the teaching of Scripture.” Does this lack of welcome include the dozens of American Christians who voted to elect the Rev. Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire? Will it include the many US Bishops who may shortly vote to endorse his appointment?

And does this lack of welcome include myself? For I cannot join the Bishops in condemning Mr Robinson’s election or the appointment of Dr Jeffery John as a bishop in the Diocese of Oxford. The Sydney Bishops have made unwelcome many members of their own and nearby Dioceses. I urge them to reconsider the hurt their statement has caused.

Brian McKinlay
St. George's, Pearce, Diocese of Canberra and Goulburn
Canberra, Australia
25 June 2003

Earlier letters

We launched our 'Letters to AO' section on 11 May 2003. All of our letters are in our archives.