The first story I saw illustrates to what extent the Anglicans have fallen. For their leader to dismiss a valid complaint about the church ignoring the Bible to fit into a politically correct agenda as an obsession with sex means that you don’t care. Because it isn’t about sex, its about the general mindset prevalent in the Christian Left that social justice (the Democrats’ proposals) is all that matters. It is an attempt to say that the Bible was a nice signpost, but hopelessly antiquated and that if we don’t like it we can ignore it. Maybe that’s the way they want Anglicism, but at least acknowledge that others have reason to disagree with you.
The other story is about Jesus’s supposed tomb. The finder who convienently has a documentary coming out, is basing it on a conjunction of 4 names Jesus, Joseph, Mary, and Mary Magdalene (yes what’s a documentary without a love interest) The claim that it is a couple million to one against it being anyone else seems extremely far fetched. For example if each name came up 1 in 20 times that would mean there were ten families with that conjunction making it 10 to 1 odds against it being the one he was looking for. I think this story demonstrates the mileage you can get from good PR, a interesting story, and finding something to support a book.
Update: I’m not exactly sure where some people are getting the 600 to 1 number from. I think that it is really confusing conditional from general probability. So from the description it says that 1/190 tombs had Jesus son of Joseph on them. However the real question is what percentage of people were Jesus son of Joseph. It seems that he was saying how many tombs would we expect to have this conjunction, rather than how many families should have this conjunction a more appropriate standard. Other good points are made by Captain’s Quarters
Blog From the Underground 
It seems to me that there is no answer to Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams’s question: “Whatever happened, we might ask, to persuasion? To the frustrating business of conducting recognisable arguments in a shared language?”
Papering over differences works to a point, but in the final analysis a position must be taken as to whether a religion accepts homosexual leaders as legitimate or not. It’s not enough to make placating noises – a decision must be made as to values and if that causes a split then so be it.
It’s better to act on one’s beliefs than to look the other way and ignore wrongs being done in your religion’s name.