VirtueOnline had received a number of private papers from a diocesan official in Malawi indicating that the Rev. Nicholas Henderson's candidacy did not have a prayer, despite vigorous assertions by the cleric that he was not gay, that his lodgers lived celibate lives in his vicarage and that he was orthodox in faith and morals.

In an exchange of letters with Central African Primate Bernard Malango, Henderson asserted that he believed in the "controlling authority of the Holy Scriptures", that he accepted fully the 1998 Lambeth Conference resolution on Human Sexuality; accepted fully the statement by the Anglican Primates October 2003 statement regarding the events in the Diocese of New Hampshire, and accepted the findings and recommendations of the Windsor Report of October 2004. "I have indicated in my manifesto that I expect the highest moral, sexual and personal standards of clergy and laity. I do not think that a homosexual lifestyle is compatible with Christian values," he wrote.

On the Lambeth resolution he added, "I agree with them all, especially where they apply to me as a single person...I have not yet abandoned all hope of being married one day despite my advanced age!"

On allegations that he was in a relationship with a male lodger, Henderson had this to say. "Regarding my male 'lodger'; I have indeed for the past 25 years in London, had numerous lodgers both male and female, and currently have three. Like many London clergy I find it impossible to survive financially and to run my parish office without their income." Henderson concluded by saying that all lodgers were "subject to the highest standards of behavior, sexual conduct and abstinence. This has always applied to me in my life too."

Henderson invoked the memory of his mother whom he nursed to her death in his vicarage, and called inferences regarding his sexuality as "malicious inferences by a third party(ies) unknown."

Another single Anglo-Catholic vicar and leader in the Forward in Faith UK movement also living and ministering in London told VirtueOnline in Pittsburgh recently, that there was no doubt in his mind that Henderson was not sexually active, but that was by no means the whole story. Issues of his orthodoxy on the faith, he said, were rightly to be questioned.

In another exchange of letters between Archbishop Malango and Henderson, the primate had this to say: "Your writing as the General Secretary of the Modern Church People's Union, you made it clear that you do not believe that the doctrine of the Virgin Birth of our Lord Jesus Christ is an essential doctrine, comparing it to the debate concerning creation of Darwinism."

Henderson replied to this charge saying, "I am not aware of committing anything on the Virgin Birth to print. There is one exception to this when in the Times newspaper in 2002 I defended some clergy who I thought were being unfairly treated and I questioned their critics for turning the doctrine of the Virgin Birth into a contentious issue. The reason I used the analogy of Darwinism in the 19th century was to express the robust nature of our Faith, not to deny the Virgin Birth."

Henderson went on to say he supported the Historic Formularies, the Nicene Creed and the 39 Articles as "foundation stones" of the faith. Henderson then said that his role in the Modern Churchpeople's Union (MCU) was strictly "academic" and that he could not be held responsible for the views or publications of its many members.

So what went wrong? When VirtueOnline first brought the story to light, the Bishop of Willesden & Acting Archdeacon of Northolt, Peter Broadbent ripped this reporter for publicly exposing the crisis and partial correspondence between the cleric and the archbishop, arguing vociferously that this was a private matter between the Primate and Henderson and should not therefore be made a matter of public scrutiny or speculation. He told me to shut up and mind my own business and that all I was doing was pouring fuel on a fire that would get out of control and bring about the rejection of Henderson whom he portrayed as orthodox in faith and morals.

I disagreed with the evangelical bishop, arguing that the tragedy of Anglicanism was that too much was being done behind closed doors resulting in the wrong people being elected to high office, and then when it was discovered what they believed it was too late. I then said the Internet (the greatest invention since the Gutenberg Press) now made it possible for the light to shine fast and furiously into the dark corners of the Anglican Communion with the result now that things could no longer be done in a corner.

Broadbent still disagreed and wrote on December 3, following Henderson's rejection as bishop, that the news that the election of Nicholas Henderson as Bishop of Lake Malawi has been blocked by the Court of Confirmation was perhaps not surprising in the current climate of relations between the northern and southern parts of the Anglican Communion. "Yet, as Nick's bishop, I could have hoped that he might have been treated with more justice and with attention to what he actually believes, rather than what he is alleged to believe."

"He was rejected on the grounds that he had previously been Chair of the Modern Churchpeoples' Union, and was therefore seen to be a liberal in theological standpoint and in putative support for the liberalisation of the Church's stance on gay relationships. Allegations were also made about his private life. All this despite Nick's strong declarations that he accepts the faith revealed in the scriptures and set forth in the creeds, that he holds to the teaching of the Church on sexual ethics, and that there never has been any question about the standards of his moral conduct. Nick has become a victim of the warfare between African traditionalism and Western liberalism."

"First, that guilt by association is alive and well and living in the Anglican Communion. As an evangelical, I'm well used to this particular phenomenon. Some free church evangelicals seek to dignify it by giving it a theological category of "secondary separation" - I can't be in communion with you if you are in communion with someone who holds views that are perceived as heterodox. In this case, whatever Nick Henderson's own views (which I would still want to describe as traditionally Anglican), the very fact that he had been an organiser of the MCU was enough to make him unacceptable, because there were some in that organisation who were seen to hold to a revisionist viewpoint."

"Secondly, the danger of the power of the internet as a means both of instant communication and instant condemnation. Those who were opposed to Nick Henderson's election were immediately in action once his election had been announced, spreading defamatory and untrue allegations about him all over the place. This included the release of private correspondence between the consecrating bishop and the consecrand - stuff which, even in the leaky Church of England, we would never consider as public property. And, because journalism these days can become a fundamentally lazy occupation (you google someone's name, read the stories about them, and retread the material so that it becomes common currency), those allegations spread round the world, but can all be sourced back to one particular American website, (Virtueonline) which despite their lack of any personal knowledge of the priest they were defaming, was quite prepared to condemn him out of hand."

Broadbent then charged that "complexity was not on the map" for the African church and critiqued the notion and said that the Church was starkly polarised into "Who is not for us is against us" positions.

Broadbent did concede that the depths of suspicion about ECUSA, Canada, and now the Church of England by the African Church "have brought us to this position. Indeed, we need to voice more clearly between ourselves the stark differences between our different theologies. While I am prepared to defend MCU, I would find it much harder to defend some of the positions taken (for example) by various sections of ECUSA on theology, ethics and pastoral practice. We need also to find ways - through personal contact, partnership in the gospel, and the Windsor Report framework - to mend these relationships."

But Henderson's nuanced views cannot simply be parsed as orthodox, as he and Broadbent would like us to believe. In a paper he delivered on The Anglican Communion - relations between First and Third World congregations, Henderson asserted that "disciplining the Episcopal Church [on sexuality issues] was not realistic."

After offering a brief history of the Anglican Communion and the American Colonies, "where some cynics say it might finish," Henderson opines; "The really 'hot' issue is supposed to be sexuality or more precisely homosexuality and the ordination of those with publicly declared disposition in that direction. I really can't see that the clarion calls for the disciplining of the American Episcopal Church in particular are realistic. What is it that ultimately can be broken away from? I suppose that the non-appearance of Provincial Bishops at the next Lambeth Conference would indicate something, but in a Church with a diffuse authority it is difficult to see how this would mean much. And, of course, once again nobody really knows the views of the laity."

Henderson is wrong, dead wrong. It is precisely the 40-year compromise with Anglican doctrine and polity in the ECUSA by the House of Bishops starting with Bishop James Pike, then Jack Spong leading to the present mess we are in, is the reason why the largely African church is demanding an either/or in its dealings with the American Episcopal Church and the Canadian Anglican Church.

It is precisely this kind of compromising wiftiness by Henderson that had the Africans running scared that they were going to get a man that could not be relied on, in the final analysis, to call the Episcopal Church to repent. It is also equally clear that Bishop Broadbent and Nicky Henderson don't have a clue about how bad things are in the ECUSA. Just look at the latest mad ravings of Bishop V. Gene Robinson in England about the pope and homosexuality! Are we just to sweep this under the rug because Henderson says so?

The Episcopal Church has chosen to walk apart in case Broadbent hasn't noticed. It has volitionally said that it will not change course on sexuality issues, will not repent of its actions, will still ordain known pansexualists, and still wants a place at the Anglican Communion table!

Henderson says he wants to put out a questionnaire to test how the laity feels about matters. Really. Our Lord did not pass out questionnaires and take a survey to find out the truth or what is best for peoples' souls. He gave his revealed Word and the revelation of himself. The other truth is that tens of thousands of orthodox Anglicans and Episcopalians (mostly laity) are already voting with their feet and that is why there are barely a million Anglicans attending the Church of England and less than 800,000 Episcopalians attending the ECUSA. At the end of the day his questionnaire isn't worth the paper it is written on.

Orthodox Episcopal theologian Dr. Stephen Noll of Uganda Christian University wrote at the height of the controversy that the MCU identifies itself as "an Anglican society that promotes liberal theology."

This of course begs the question, why was Henderson involved with it, and by association its liberal outlook, and not say, with NEAC and other British evangelical organizations?

The website says Noll, promotes a "new book by MCU members" called "The Windsor Report: A Liberal Response." The following blurb is appended: "For the conservatives, it's time to take a stand on biblical authority and moral values. For the liberals, if the Church can't move forward with society and be more inclusive on questions of gender and sexuality, much as it has done in the past on questions like slavery and women's rights, then schism is preferable to unity. Both sides feel that further procrastination on what they see as essential is only more damaging in the long term."

"These cogently-argued articles by liberals closely involved in the discussion say that the kind of status quo offered by the Windsor report is no answer. There is too much at stake to continue compromising with the spirit of fundamentalism. Such shallowness and incoherence leads us to suspect pathological prejudice thinly disguised as theological principle. We have experienced the Bible we love and cherish as the living word of God, being reduced to the dead letter of fundamentalist obscurantism," said the response.

Curiously, Mr. Henderson himself did not seem to write for the MCU. However, he was noted for an article in *The Times* in 2002 questioning the Virgin Birth of Christ. The full text as well as the context can be found at http://trushare.com/SURVEY/MINDPAPR.htm (scroll to bottom), writes Noll.

So was Nicholas Henderson tried and found guilty by association by the church in Central Africa? Given the PUBLIC RECORD from what he has written and those with whom he has identified during his tenure and given his unwillingness to explain himself publicly, it seems to me the church leaders were quite justified in rejecting him as bishop, concludes Noll.

The trial court declined to affirm Fr. Henderson's election on the sole grounds of "sound faith" under Chapter 7 of the Central African canons. He was not railroaded as Bishop Broadbent implies.

At the end Archbishop Bernard Malango said Henderson's rejection was directly tied to his support for gay rights. "The confirmation of Henderson as bishop would have violated the very foundation of the Anglican faith. We cannot support this because it is not compatible with our tradition and faith," he said.

The African Primate is absolutely right. Africa does not need any more white bishops with vaguely defined theology when it has enough theologically sound and trained bishops with earned doctorates to run their own affairs. The sun has set on western liberalism, a new day is dawning and it is dawning in Africa, Asia and Latin America. We should watch and rejoice and offer whatever assistance we can in great humility, but they don't need us to run their dioceses despite whatever money we bring to the table. That day is done.

END