April (Web-only) 2000

ARTICLE TOOLS

Find similar articles E-mail this page

"The justices did not seem particularly interested in either Boy Scout policy or the future of gay rights," writes New York Times Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse. "Rather, what clearly concerned the court were the implications of ruling for one side or the other. If the Boy Scouts cannot exclude gays, can they still exclude girls, the justices wanted to know. Would a Jewish social group be forced to accept non-Jewish members, or a gay organization to include heterosexuals?"

Yesterday's ChristianityToday.com Weblog noted that the leader of Australia's Anglican church, Peter Carnley, was under fire for an article he wrote challenging both Christ's resurrection and Christ's uniqueness as the only way to reconcile with God. Though we mentioned early criticism of Carnley had come from within the Sydney diocese, the criticism has gotten much louder. R.H.Goodhew, Archbishop of Sydney, has called Carnley's article "unhelpful and misleading. Even more to the point, his comments could be construed as flying in the face of the doctrine expressed in … the Thirty Nine Articles of Religion and … the Book of Common Prayer. It might also be seen as placing some limitation on the universality of the Nicene Creed's statement: 'Who for us men, and for our salvation came down from heaven.'" The response has garnered heavy media attention around the country (see The Australian, and The Age). The diocese's Web site has Goodhew's response, a letter to the clergy in his diocese on the matter, and " A background news article for overseas visitors" that will be very helpful for American readers.