The juxtaposition of the article by the Rev. Canon Benjamin B. Twinamaani and the letters in defense of Bishop Richard Holloway [TLC, Oct. 17] caused me to consider the following question: Am I put off more by the holier-than-thou tone of Canon Twinamaani or the trendier-than-thou record of Bishop Holloway? It is probably a toss-up.

Canon Twinamaani seems to meld contempt for the relatively more wealthy but in his view soulless Episcopal Church, and its "Band-Aid" material assistance to African churches, with a what-have-you-done-for-me-lately attitude that reflects the very materialism he denounces. At the same time he does his own Spong-like put-down of the African bishops at Lambeth by attributing their vote on the overly publicized sexuality resolution solely to African culture rather than to any informed theological convictions.

Bishop Holloway, on the other hand, has a long record not so much of challenging the church "to engage with its culture," as claimed by the letter of one of his defenders, as of promoting an enculturated church through its adoption and baptizing of the most extreme forms of cultural trendiness. Even his defenders call him "intemperate." Others tend to see him more as the Jerry Springer of the Anglican Communion, more a theological shock jock than an "evangelist." David Kalvelage's earlier column, to which the Oct. 17 letters were responding, had just the right light touch that the subject deserved.

Allan M. Parrent

Sewanee, Tenn.