Thank you very much for this.  The hope it raises, along with the realistic sense of the challenges, is similar to what Eliza Griswold (an American poet and reporter, daughter of Frank Griswold, former PB of TEC) wrote in her _Tenth Parellel_ a few years ago.  She wrote from a descriptive and questioning point of view as she visited religious and political leaders in parts of Nigeria and South Sudan and other countries along the 10th parallel, rather than a prayerful point of view, but what she wrote was very good, I thought, and can inform prayer, as your article does. .--The Anglican Fellowship of Prayer, an organization to which I belong (it started in 1958 in the US with help from Cuthbert Bardsley in England, and quickly spread to Canada and the Caribbean , ) hopes to join other groups world wide--not just Anglicans, but very much including Anglicans (those in communication with the Archbishop of Canterbury)  in praying throughout the world for the type of work you describe.  

Thanks so much for this.  I have made copies of the article and prayer links to share with our AFP board and guests.

Thanks very much for this.  I first read about South Sudan in the book _The Tenth Parallel_, which made very vivid the problems and challenges in that part of Africa and Asia, in particular South Sudan.  Then it was mentioned a couple of days ago in a secular report I attended about the Chinese in Africa.  And now, in the Anglican Fellowship of Prayer, we're talking about how we can be the global network envisioned by its founders in the late 1950s.  We know what you say above is true:  "...Christ comes to Africa....from the Father, not from Europe or the USA."  So we aren't thinking of something that we'd like to "bring" to South Sudan.  Instead, what we'd like to be able to do is join South Sudanese people in prayer, perhaps starting with those of our own faith group, Anglicans, but not limiting our sharing there.  Our board is meeting April 3 in Richmond, VA.  We come from Oregon, Idaho, western Louisiana, Pittsburgh, and Virginia.  Can you give us any direction on how we can join with praying Christians in South Sudan?  

Thank you so much for posting this.  I liked the story about the St. Matthew Passion commentary given ad lib by the archbishop, showing the depth of feeling and knowledge he has to drawn on--also the comparison with Thomas Cranmer.  

I've thought for years that choice 3 (redeeming the story) could include teaching children about the "real" St. Nicholas--his feast day December 6 and how it's celebrated in some countries like France (or at least has been celebrated), the importance of this saint to at least some orthodox churches, etc.  I thought it was fairly well established that he was indeed a bishop, that he worked for the poor, that he provided dowries for impoverished young women at least once by anonymous gifts of gold (hence the French tradition of giving children chocolate candy in the shape of coins wrapped in gold foil on that date), that the custom of candy canes came from the fact that he was a bishop:  the cane represents the bishop's staff, with one part (the crook) for gathering in the sheep and the other part (the point) for protecting them from those who would prey on them.  BUT the bio of St. Nicholas on the present "Holy Women, Holy Men" blog (put out by TEC's Standing Commission for Liturgy and Music) leaves all that out.  Commenters are saying that's because all those tales are pious accretions with no basis in fact, and besides, there are additional accretions to the story that are not edifying.  What do you all think or know about St. Nicholas? 

Pluralist--is it the Trinitarian statements (explicit and implicit) in the Covenant that make you want to move towards the Unitarian Church?  If so, do you think that at present Anglicanism leaves room for Unitarian belief, while the Covenant closes the door to that understanding?  

Dave said "benefit more" from bishops, not "benefit from more bishops."  But my question remains:  do evangelicals have an attitude to bishops which basically differs from that of Anglo-Catholics?  

Dave quotes Stephen Kuhrt above--at first I wasn't sure if it was a quotation or not.  Anyway, here is Fr. Kuhrt's comment from his original article:  "Secondly I want to question what difference bishops of either gender will really make to the day to day life of most evangelical churches if that involvement is not actively sought. I can understand the concerns of anglo-catholic groups much more here. But in many, perhaps most conservative evangelical churches that object to women’s ordained ministry, bishops are already kept at arm’s length."   Dave then asks: " Does this apply especially to evangelical churches? Are bishops irrelevant or are we missing out? How can the church benefit more from bishops, especially the coming generation of women bishops? " 

Questions:  is Dave referring to a basic difference (no matter what the current issues are) in how Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals view the order of bishops?  Does it have to do with Evangelicals placing Biblical authority above church polity (bishops, priests, deacons and their traditional roles)?  Does the old phrase "high church" really mean "a high view of church order" vs. the "low church" view, in which "church" (that is, church order) takes a back seat to the Bible in the hearts of individual believers?  If so, the old joke "low and lazy, middle and hazy, high and crazy" completely misses the mark as an explanation of the differences.  "Low church," in actual fact, means anything but lazy:  it means energetically resisting "church order" when it goes against the perceived higher value of scriptural authority.  If that is the case, then the implication I'm drawing from Dave's question is that at least among evangelicals, more bishops are not considered a benefit at all.  Dave, please correct me if I've misunderstood.  

I don't think Woody Allen's actions with his stepdaughter can be compared with my friend's daughter's committed gay relationship.  The former was a betrayal of trust which deeply hurt and offended Mia Farrow (I remember her reaction) and struck deeply at the sanctity of the family.  The "structural defect" argument you cited--comparing the monstrous former event with the mistaken latter event, as though they were equal--is the main argument Gagnon uses in a paper of his saying that fidelity makes no difference. "Structure" sounds nice; it's a good rhetorical device.  But when one thinks of the actual human beings involved, it doesn't make sense and it's offensive.  

Canadian Hobbits, thanks for your thoughtful response.  About whether wrong genital relationships separate a person from God: the part of my question you left unanswered was whether it had to be said that such persons "(could not) truly love God or be in relationship with Christ, even if they think they are."  The implication is that our friends whose children are in such relationships should be aware (and perhaps tell their children) that they are sacrificing their relationship with Christ, even though they think they truly love Christ and are obedient to him despite St. Paul's strictures.  Is that what you are saying our friends should do?  On a personal note: has anyone you cared about "come out" to you, and if so, did you tell them that they are no longer in relationship with Christ for that reason?  --Nersen:  do you have Biblical support for your equation of same-sex genital relationships with incest and pederasty on a moral level?  I know you don't think the practical level is relevant, but practically speaking, for me to tell my friend whose daughter is gay that she's just as immoral as a man who has sex with his daughter is quite repugnant and I can't believe that's what you think.   

Here's another way of looking at it:  suppose a friend of yours is afflicted with four diseases, let's say lung cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and leukemia.  If he is cured of the lung cancer, he still may have diabetes,  heart disease, and leukemia:  but he no longer has lung cancer, and you give thanks because he's cured of that.  Four of the "diseases" affecting the church and society today, one might say, are infidelity, same-sex genital relationships, abandonment of the creeds, and lingering racism.  Where fidelity is the rule, we give thanks.  Where the creeds are reaffirmed, we give thanks. When racism is diminished, we give thanks.   Where same-sex genital relationships are practiced but the partners are monogamous,  we give thanks for the witness to fidelity while at the same time we affirm the fact that St. Paul included same-sex genital relationships more than once in behaviors he preached against.  At the same time we recognize that the impetus for excusing ssgrs is a desire to "do justice"; the issue is equated by many with racism.  That impetus, to "do justice,"  is Biblical.  To use Micah's (and others')  command "do justice" in order to undo the long-term cultural and Biblical prohibition of ssgrs is in error.  But the impetus itself is not.  Not to give credit for the impetus to do justice, for re-affimation of the creeds in many cases,  and for re-affirmation of fidelity--is in error.  It keeps us from understanding our "adversary" when we say all those other values, all those other cured diseases, are as nothing, even though we are correct in repeating St. Paul's admonitions against that one "disease" in particular.