Wrote Perry: "When +Rowan was appointed ABC, he made it clear that he would uphold the teaching of the Church in his role as Archbishop even as he held, as a theologian of that same Church, that some of its teachings needed to develop. At least, that's what I heard him say on the BBC shortly after his appointment. He said much the same thing in a BBC radio interview last week. Having been a long-time fan of +Rowan's theology, I was not at all surprised. But apparently, liberals were too busy cheering and conservatives too busy wailing to notice. Or, maybe, they were so busy looking for a sound-bite that they never bothered to read any of his essays from beginning to end. Now both sides are waking up to the fact that +Rowan is not a liberal. In fact, he never has been. People who bothered to read his books and essays knew that (or should have known that) all along."

"Now, +Andrew and +Frank are busily huff-puffing--in print!--about how +Rowan dropped the ball with respect to leadership; about how he betrayed his own personal theological views. Leave aside for the moment the atrociously immature nature of such ranting. I can only ask, respectfully, what is there not to get? +Rowan has truly been consistent in drawing a clear distinction between the roles of public Archbishop preserving the teaching of the Church and private theologian working to develop those teachings. Against the duplicity and dishonesty of +Frank in particular (it seems to me that his repeated lying is far more serious than his views on sexuality!), +Rowan looks like a shrinking example of ecclesial and theological virtue. To those who think +Rowan failed as a leader, and especially to +Andrew and +Frank, I ask, respectfully and honestly, were you not paying attention?"

"+Rowan really believes that the Holy Spirit guides the Church--the whole Church--into the truth and that private theologians and public bishops (even when they are the same person) have different roles in the service of that guidance. The Church has spoken clearly against the actions of the ECUSA and the Diocese of New Westminster (and the ACC for refusing to do anything about +Michael) not because they were inherently wrong (though some Primates certainly believe that), but because they foreclosed on the debate that the Church needs to have. The Dromantine Communiqué has said, in effect, to +Frank and +Andrew, "your actions have torn the fabric of the Communion and thereby hindered the pursuit of truth. Now please come and explain the theological rationale for your actions. We need to talk." +Rowan led the Primates to that conclusion when many were calling for sanctions far more extreme. He has been, and is, a true leader of the Church. Although I continue to disagree with him on various points (sexuality is just one), I have never been more appreciative for the work of +Rowan--both as a theologian and as the ABC."

First of all let me respond to Dr. Perry's comment that VirtueOnline is like the National Enquirer. It is never wise to shoot the messenger. VirtueOnline reveals truthfully what the ECUSA wishes to conceal. The blame for the subject matter of the stories goes to those responsible for such behavior not to the one who exposes it.

At a deeper level Dr. Perry is an example of why you should never have ivory tower theologians or academics running the church. They just don't get it.

Dr. Perry's tirade fails to see the obvious.

First of all you cannot hold private views on sexual behavior as Dr. Williams does (see The Body's Grace) and then say publicly that the church, "the community faith" might hold different views.

Imagine Martin Luther nailing his 95 Theses to the Wittenberg Door and saying, "Dear friends these are my private views honestly held, but if you want to go on believing what the pope and the community of faith believe about the nature of salvation, that's fine. Have a nice day." Nonsense. Luther believed the destiny of the souls of men and women were at stake over a very faulty view of salvation held by the church, (the selling of indulgences) yet Perry believes that Williams can hold private views at variance with the received teaching of the church and get away with it.

Can you imagine Archbishop Akinola saying to his archbishops and bishops, "I hold private views on homosexual behavior because my best friend tells me he his gay and wants to be a bishop, but fear not I will always uphold publicly the church's traditional teaching on sexuality." His job would be toast and he'd be looking for another job and it wouldn't be dean of the cathedral in Lagos.

The 'role of archbishop' as Perry puts it cannot be at variance with the church's teaching, that is theological schizophrenia and it is why the Church of England is dying as is the Anglican Church of Canada and the U.S. Episcopal Church. Is it any wonder that evangelicals are up in arms with the Bishop of Chelmsford, John Gladwin. The evangelical priests refused to take communion with the bishop this week and broke sacramental ties in revolt against his permissive view on homosexuality. They are furious that the bishop and five of his colleagues sent a letter to a national newspaper announcing their determined support for liberal Anglicans in North America. The group could prove the tip of an iceberg because 100 priests in the diocese - more than a fifth of the total -signed a statement in November - expressing unease about the liberal drift of the Anglican Church. According to observers, the protest could spread to other dioceses, a development that would alarm the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams.

Perry doesn't get it. He says that Williams believes the Holy Spirit will guide the church. True, But the Holy Spirit will never contradict the clear teaching of Holy Scripture. The Dromantine Communiqué even said that the church's [final] authority was Holy Scripture, so was Dr. Williams lecture "The Body's Grace" of the Holy Spirit or wasn't it? When you publish you must live by the word and, if need be, die by it.

Perry says that Williams wants the ECUSA and Canadians to explain, one more time, the theological basis for same sex relationships. Really.

The ECUSA has been pumping out arguments for sodomy for nearly 40 years and the arguments were ratcheted up further in 1998 at the Lambeth Conference which stated very clearly that Resolution 1. 10 was a clear "no" to homosexual behavior.

How much more 'theologizing' do we need? Dr. Perry either doesn't want to know or won't listen, but Griswold's tactics have always been the same: to delay, talk, "listen" and demand "space" to stall, ride out the storm and win the argument for sodomite behavior. This has been his tactic since the day he took office, and those of us who have been around him long enough know it. Prevaricate, prevaricate and in the meantime broker in gay and lesbian priests, same sex rites and finally a gay bishop! Who does Dr. Perry think he is fooling? I have been to at least six primatial gatherings and homosexuality has been the top or near the top of the agenda on each occasion. How many more do we need to have?

Furthermore Williams and Perry are both fooling themselves to think that any "theology" that comes out of this will be written by anybody remotely orthodox. They will be a line up of 'professors' from VTS, EDS and GTS, but you won 't find a single theologian from Trinity or Nashotah House. I'll stake the Prayer Book on it. Would say Dr. Robert Gagnon, the Rt. Rev. Dr. C. FitzSimons Allison, Dr. Edith Humphrey or Dr. Earle Fox be invited to give the other side of the story? Not on your life. They would never be asked. Griswold will load the deck with poorly trained theologians who are already predisposed to accepting same sex relationships because, in his words it is "hard wired". To change the church's received teaching is not a big deal for Griswold, he doesn't believe in the authority of Scripture to begin with!

And if we are going to go on listening to the whine of US Episcopal and Canadian homosexuals, will we hear the stories of ex gays, men and women who have either gone into the life style and come out of it, or who knew or thought they knew they were gay from a very early age but said they wanted to be obedient to Jesus, the gospel, the teachings of the church and Holy Scripture by not indulging in homoerotic behavior! I met such a young man in St. Louis recently. He is a godly, theologically well trained young homosexual deacon, alive with Christ who chooses to be celibate, and he shrinks in horror at the whole idea of acting out his sexuality. He says he doesn't want to damage his soul, even his eternal salvation by behaving like that.

Would Dr. Perry or Frank Griswold or Rowan Williams hear his story and say, 'yes, you are right. Praise God for your witness. That is the truth'.

The truth is it won't happen and we all know it. And all the theologizing in the world will not change the minds of one African bishop or archbishop. Not one. You see they are too busy converting nominal Christians, followers of Islam, animists and homosexuals to Christ every single day and their churches are growing by the millions while western churches that promote sodomy are dying by the thousands.

By their fruit ye shall know them, and the Global North fruit is rotten to the core and it is falling off the tree, an analogy for the Episcopal Church that is emptying churches and causing orthodox ones to flee from their very presence.

Perhaps Dr. Perry should open his eyes and see what sodomy has wrought over the last 40 years and realize that not only is Rowan Williams wrong, so is Frank Griswold and his own Canadian Archbishop Andrew Hutchison. God is purifying his church and he gave it a marvelous push in Ireland recently. Let us hope that the Global South will keep the pressure on and demand full accountability from the Global North or be willing, at the end of the day, to withdraw and take their bibles with them...and leave the corrupted vines of Western Anglicans to whither and die.

END