Do not be surprized if you hear of more leaving because of a desire to be part of Common Cause.

Hmmmm, sounds like an unfortunate spat between the orthodox. Hope they get it ironed out, without airing more dirty laundry for the revisionists to try to shred.

"CCP will form the basis of a new North American Anglican Province, an orthodox alternative jurisdiction separate from The Episcopal Church and coming under the oversight of the newly formed Global Anglican Fellowship Conference (GAFCON)."

Only other comment I have is about the (rather ugly sounding) acronym GAFCON. There HAS to be a better name for faithful Anglicans. I'm still voting for "Jerusalem Anglicans."

Has an accurate, yet poetic ring to it, and doesn't sound like a government bureaucracy, or some new ill-named weapons system....

This is a positive move and a gain for the Common Cause Partnership, in my opinion.

Cennydd

This comes as a HUGE SHOCK!! I will be very interested in hearing what my bishops (REC) have to say in response to this situation.

This could cause major problems between the APA and REC (that is putting it mildly-GRIN).

The whole Common Cause thing is still a big discussion point in the REC as well. Many are concerned that we will be "yoked" to pro-WO groups.

Up to now, Common Cause has been "sold" as a loose federation in which each jurisdiction retains its own autonomy.

How Bishop Boyce will be "accommodated" in the REC (if he is) is going to be interesting. Will he (and any suffragens/co-adjutors) stay bishops?(we already have 3 in the diocese which mostly overlaps the APA DOW) Our Diocese of Mid-America (Pretty much Mississippi West) has just had portions removed to make room for the new Missionary Diocese of the Central States.

To say the least. 1) Our General Council in Victoria BC will be intersting. and 2) The Joint REC/APA Evensong in Maryland next week might be a "danger zone."

I hope our REC Bishops will release some statement.

And Jesus said....

WHO CARES!!!!!! FEED MY SHEEP NOT YOUR OWN EGOS...

But the men in purple shirts couldn't hear him, because of the loud slapping noises that occured everytime they patted themselves on the back.....

It sounds like a fait accompli to me. Surely there must have been some discussion between the affected parties. Who's to be surprised?

I am sorry to read of this, but it is interesting to me to see how short ++Grundorf's memory is. There was another time when members of the (now) APA were in too much of a hurry to adhere to provincial canons.

The APA was originally formed out of the ACA because some in ++Grundorf's Diocese of the Eastern United States didn't want to adhere to the canons of the ACA regarding the declaration of the abandonment of the ministry of the Church by a Bishop and the election of a Diocesan Bishop. There were many who wanted to elect then-+Grundorf him to replace ++Clavier. Because there were rumors that the ACA House of Bishops might have preferred another candidate, +Grundorf's partisans decided not to wait the canonical 90 days after ++Clavier abandoned the ACA, ignored a HOB resolution demanding they wait until matters had settled down and held a rump Diocesan Convention to elect ++Grundorf ... over which he officiated.

Had ++Grundorf demonstrated the necessary leadership required to keep the Diocese of the Eastern United States united, I have no doubt he would have been elected as the Diocesan for the DEUS. Now the APA reaps what it sowed. See Galatians 6:7-8.

Professor Allen Guelzo's history of the REC comes to the conclusion the Anglicans do not schism well.

The Present REC has successfully been working to get its house in order.
Taking in a colorful group such as this would be
unwise

Dr. Allen Guelzo is no longer with the REC. He was ordained by Bishop Keith Ackerman (Quincy) into the Episcopal Church and resides in the Diocese of Pennsylvania. He was denied recognition and a pulpit by Bishop Charles E. Bennison and attends St. David's Episcopal Church in Wayne, PA.

David W. Virtue
VOL

My apologies I was not aware that the good doctor had changed his affiliation

Max

1. When groups that join together have a 'common cause' but do not share a common 'rooted'ness then there will inevitably be these kinds of divisions and also inevitably the kind of unchristian response that Bp Grundorf has immediately come out with.

2. Why on earth do people insist on trying to keep those who want to leave? Why on earth do they try to 'dscipline' those who have left?

3. The REC has abandoned the principles of its founders already, simply by its current alliance with Common Cause (let alone other matters of doctrine they have turned away from). Thank the Lord that they - the founders - are with the Lord and beyond pain and sadness!

4. If your starting point is not preaching Christ, and Him crucified, but is rather a way of doing things (ie, a version of Anglicanism), then everything will go pear-shaped, frequently.

5. Don't ally with the REC - they've moved a long way from Conservative Evangelical principles in the last few years - who knows where they are going! It only a few years since they stopped chatting to the Episcopals!

Dominic writes;""3. The REC has abandoned the principles of its founders already, simply by its current alliance with Common Cause (let alone other matters of doctrine they have turned away from). Thank the Lord that they - the founders - are with the Lord and beyond pain and sadness!""

The principles of our founders, namely accepting any clergy from anywhere is what led to those 35 Articles which we now do not have. We are still conservative in our beliefs and it is obvious you being in England could be ill informed. Unlike the CoE, we are growing, just adding another 22 parishes . We did not need CCP, but chose to affiliate with many who were being persecuted by the liberal church. We will not accept W.O. and have stated so. + Grundorf led the APA from CCP in deference to the majority of the congregations, unlike TEC whose motto is damn the pew sitters, it is full blown inclusion of the sexually challenged ahead!. Marianism is my one concern of the APA, but that would not prevent me from being in full communion with them, for we have more in common with them, them not in common with them. Any bishop would do the same thing in +Grundorf's shoes. We may not like it, but it is what it is.

Jack,

Dominic is part of the "Free Church of England-Evangelical Connexxion" which is the British equivalent of the "Traditional REC" folks we had to deal with here (especially in the DNEMA).

They have been in a struggle with the Free Church of England which is the English "affiliate" of the Reformed Episcopal church. The Primus (presding Bishop) we in the REC recognize over there is Bishop Powell.

They, just like the TREC folks here in the US, claim that we have abandoned our founders. Bishop Grote gives a very good explanation of why that is not true!!

Chip

p.s. I hope all is going well up in NJ. We will miss seeing you guys at DNEMA but we are moving full speed ahead in the MDCS.

p.p.s. The "addition of 22 parishes" is NOT a total positive. I wait with bated breath some statement from our bishops as to this "event."

Rest assured, the current REC is nothing like the evangelical, biblical church left by the founders of the same. And one does not have to be in the U.S. to be informed about the slippage of the REC back into Anglo-catholicism - the basic reason Cummins, Cheney, et al, left the "Protestant" Episcopal Church. The REC slippage into that which it left is well known around the world.

Adding 22 new churches - what a crowing point! What kind of churches? What is the fastest growing "church"? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? If growth is the criteria for truth, we should be flocking to Utah! They (REC, APA, DOW, AMiA, etc.) are groups that have little in common save an abhorrence of a homosexual bishop. Women ministers - O.K. with Common Cause (maybe not the REC yet, but the REC is in Common Cause, as such "yoked" with them and has been known to be very flexible in its theology of late). Charismatics - O.K. with Common Cause and the Neo-REC.
(BTW, For an example of how far removed the current REC is from is roots, see:
http://www.trecus.net/declden.htm)

And just how is the Gospel profited by the joining together of those groups? Cannot see it, and after all is said, that is what is important. Offering the Gospel of the Bible, the Good news that Jesus' work can save souls, to a world so much in need - that is what should be important.

I find the Anglo Catholic bashing by some on this website rather irritating. We are, after all, Anglicans, aren't we?

Cennydd

My brother Cennydd,

Let me assure you that I am not bashing Anglocatholics with the following statement.

To those who have said that the REC has become Anglo-Catholic I have one question?

Have you ever attended a true Anglo-Catholic Service? (Not "high church" but Anglo-Catholic).

If you had, you would know that NOTHING in the REC could be mistaken for Anglo-Catholic.

Again, brother Cennydd, there is nothing wrong with Anglo-Catholics but I just wanted to point out that the REC certainly is not.

Recchip, as a matter of fact, I HAVE attended Anglo Catholic services. During my long Air Force career, my family and I were transferred many times....usually averaging anywhere from 2 to 4 years at various installations, including radar sites and large bases near metropolitan areas. Our chaplain at McGuire AFB was Anglo Catholic.

When there was no chapel at our assignments, we attended Episcopal services in the nearest town, and if there was no Episcopal Church locally, some of us got together and held Morning Prayer at each other's home.

If there was an Anglo Catholic parish in the area, we attended there. When my family and I were stationed in West Germany, we attended a Roman Catholic church in the area if duty permitted, since we had no Episcopal chaplain.

I have always known that the REC isn't Anglo Catholic.

Cennydd

I have to jump on the band wagon here with Cennydd. While I understand Anglo-Catholicism isn't everyone's cup of tea, it does seem like there is excessive bashing by some on this site.

That being said, wasn't the REC was formed, in part, to escape the Oxford Movement in TEc as well as a few other theological reasons? That's all well and good. Some are more evangelical in their approach to Anglicanism than others.

There is room for all as long as we can agree that WO is invalid and deny the LGBT's agenda to invade the church. As long as the preaching is sound, the music is done well and the presiding minister/priest is male I can live without smells and bells etc... if need be.

The first Episcopal Church I attended and was confirmed in was LOW, LOW, LOW. They did Morning Prayer on the 2nd and 4th Sunday of each month. Communion was done in cassock, surplice and stole. No mass vestments were used. No incense etc... but I loved the church, the people and always enjoyed worship. It was still a Prayer Book service (1928 BCP).

When I wanted a "fix" I would drive up the road to St. Mary's Charleroi and worship with Fr. Ackerman (now Bishop Ackerman of Quincy). I could have transferred my membership but I didn't. The church I attended was three blocks from my apartment. It seemed silly to drive 11 miles each way to attend a different church because it was Anglo-Catholic.

Low church is still Anglican. There is no reason why ceremonial preferences should divide Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics. We should work together. Both are valid forms of Anglicanism.

I agree with both Cennydd and Ikerliker,

There is a place in Anglicanism (and much more importantly in the CHURCH) for all sorts from low church PWAPS (Presbyterians with a prayerbok) to the most "spikey" smells and bells crowd.

I have experienced both. As Ikerliker said, as long as they use the Prayerbook, the Priest/Presbyter/Minister is Male, and the LGBT crowd does not get its way (although we must be welcoming to Gays, Lesbians etc as they seek to repent.) I can put up with just about anything worshipwise.

I would adore any worship service where the Gospel is preached, the music is at least not too horrible and the sacraments are properly administered.

Do I like some "frills", yep. Are they the most important, NOPE!

I can enjoy anything from spoken morning prayer up to sung Holy Communion. (And I have experienced pretty much the entire "gamet" of worship within Anglicanism.)

I just about died laughing when somebody said that they felt our parish was "High Church" because we bow when the cross processes and our rector wears an alb!!

The Enemy of my enemy is my friend.

A nice strategy to band together with and attain a common objective.

But once that goal is achieved, everyone will have to deal with each other. Then we will see just how alike or different from TEC this gets handled.

Reading this reminded me of exactly what happens in TEC. A diocese pulls away. Head of diocese is "stripped" to prevent the breakaway. At least each individual church seems to be offered a way to leave. We'll see.

XThurifer said:

"Is REC going to form some sort of separate allowances for sacramentally high churchmen? I do understand that REC is not what many assume...it's actually pretty diverse."

The REC out west (Diocese of Mid-America) and in the middle of the country is very very (did I say very?) high church and classical Anglican in manner of Eucharistic celebration. The 1928 BCP Holy Communion is the standard service, is usually celebrated east (sometimes west) and chasubles and copes are used across the diocese. The east coast is very diverse, from north end surplice and tippet to chasubles and albs. Check out some of the parish web pages from the denomination as well as the Statement of Anglican Belief and Practice (between the APA and REC) on the "foundations" page.

There are Lower parishes than the one Ikerlike identifies as LOW, LOW, LOW. The Church of England parish I attended as a child had Holy Communion as the principal service only once a month and surplice and tippet for everything, never a stole. But I became an Anglo-Catholic when we moved to the Province of the West Indies when I was a teenager.
With regard to the APA, they are still members of FACA. FACA is a full Common Cause Partner, just as REC is.

am all for Common Cause and a big fan of the idea...but there may end up an AMiA kind of arrangement with WO and other issues at hand, at best. Is REC going to form some sort of separate allowances for sacramentally high churchmen? I do understand that REC is not what many assume...it's actually pretty diverse.


Our REC is fairly high church. We have chants, sung services, vestments, etc.

Anggirl

I think you would like the APA. Growing and welcoming of new folks. My parish in particular is family oriented. What state are you in? Here is the APA website.

http://www.anglicanprovince.org/

Frankly, I do not like it there. One half of the small church walks past us like we don't exist. The founders of the parish refuse to even look at us. I feel that we don't "fit in". ... At any rate, it seems picking a church only because it doesn't have a gay bp. as the only criteria isn't that great of an idea, either.

I think you're quite right that choosing a church based solely on whether they have a gay bishop isn't a great idea - you should be looking for something more substantial than that.

Obviously I'm not familiar with your specific parish, but from your description it doesn't sound typical. I've been to many churches of many denominations over the years (some regularly, some just as a visitor) and have never felt anything but welcomed. Have you considered that perhaps they are just shy, or merely preoccupied with other things? If you're willing to try to break the ice you may find that they're much more approachable than you think, and they may even be glad that you took the initiative because they didn't have the confidence or the energy to do so.

The parish I currently attend is Eastern Orthodox and a very diverse congregation - many were born in Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Serbia, etc, as well as many Western converts from a variety of traditions including Catholic, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and even Baptist. In spite of that (or maybe because of it) the kind of standoffishness that you mention just doesn't seem to happen. Although, truth be told, the Greek parish I attended for a while, while heavily though not exclusively Greek, was much the same in that respect.

However in the final analysis I don't think that "merely" good fellowship is a particularly good thing to look for in a parish either - but it can certainly make the journey easier.

The FCE Connexion needs to get its act together. It Isn't enough to have your principles straight, but ALSO to have one's moral theology in place.

(Following private discussion with the previous poster we have come to an understanding of what he intends by his comments - which is not as it comes across. I have therefore edited this post accordingly)

[While we can and should] Disagree about theology, and disagree about liturgical practice and what it means (and as an ex RC I can see a lot of Romanism in the REC of today), [we should ensure that we are careful and respectful in the way we address one another and address issues which we perceive to be prevalent in their groupings. But the reality of hellfire means that we must encourage others to see the error in their error.]

I haven't heard any Romanism in our REC. Confession is simply presented as a spiritual discipline. It is taught from the traditional Anglican view.

Anggri:

You are not alone in your doubts and struggles. There are many unhappy and disappointed Anglicans out there who find themselves with nowhere to go. Or, if they do find a somewhere, find it unsuitable for them. We are locked in a very tragic battle for the hearts of the faithful right now, and like in any war, it's the poor and the innocent who are least able to protect themselves and who get hurt most. Sometimes when we try to escape to what seems the most likely fit, it doesn't fit at all. What is critical is for you, your husband, and family to hold together spiritually through your own family devotions. It's often times like these that test us most -- it's where the rubber meets the road and proves us in our faith. Above all, read your Bible, pray, and love each other as a family unit. Don't even trust formal religion to meet your needs. More often than not it's the church that is first in our lives to let us down. Maybe you could meet with your current minister and discuss any frustrations or doubts you feel. Often the minister will try to help you along, and to remind the congregation that we all need to reach out to others, especially those who feel alienated and disconnected. Best wishes and God bless!

Anggrl,

Dominic is correct. You must find a church that is both biblically sound and that you can call home. Brian is very, very wrong on this. Yes, you and your husband must take responsibility for the spiritual welfare of your family, but not being actively and regularly part of a local church cannot be an option for the Christian. An ECUSA parish may not be an option. The local REC may, sadly, not be an option. But you must find one -- that is your obligation. As Dominic said, even if you have to leave the liturgy behind, even if you have to go to something like a Baptist or Presbyterian parish, you need to find a church where the Gospel is preached and where you are fed.

If there are problems as you described in your local parish and no one deals with them, you really need to talk with your rector or vicar and if he doesn't listen you need to bring the problem to the attention of the bishop. It might be difficult and you might end up leaving anyway, but the pastor and people of that parish need to know that they're being unwelcoming and that needs to be dealt with -- if not locally, then by the bishop. If not for your benefit, than at least for the benefit for those who come after you. If the parish is that unwelcoming, they are undoing by their actions any gospel they may preach with their words and that reflects badly on the entire Church, not just that one parish. Talk to the priest or talk to the bishop. (And I'll add, I can't imagine any bishop in the REC turning you away for bringing such a problem to his attention.)

Brian,

Keep in mind Hebrews 10:24-25: "Let us consider one another, to provoke unto love and to good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the day approaching." There are quite a number of very fine Anglican parishes in Vancouver and environs -- especially now that many of the finest are independent of the Anglican Church. But if one of those is, for whatever reason, not to your liking, simply dropping out is NOT an option. Do not forsake the assembling of your brothers and sisters. We all need to be members in regular, weekly attendance at some sound, gospel-preaching assembly where we contribute our time, talents, and treasure. Anything less is contrary to the demands of Holy Scripture.

Bill:

I think you're being a little hasty in jumping on me by suggesting that I was counseling her not to attend church. What I suggested was that she perhaps meet with her minister to discuss the problem (I believe this is in order). What I was acknowledging was that she, like many folks right now, are hurting and confused and stranded by the current struggle. You will notice that I stressed that it is important for she and her husband to hold the family together through this difficult time. Obviously, if they can find a good Christian congregation they should attend it. What I also stressed was that it is not safe to trust the established church to meet all your needs, as human beings, even Christian ones can let you down. After all, isn't this happening right now in TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada? So please don't read into my comments what was not intended.

Brian,

My apologies for reading in what wasn't intended. When I read, "Above all, read your Bible, pray, and love each other as a family unit. Don't even trust formal religion to meet your needs. More often than not it's the church that is first in our lives to let us down." This simply sounds very anti-Church. I think I understand what you're saying now. I'm just very concerned as I've seen so many people over the years that simply pull out of the Church entirely when they get unhappy with their own denomination. That's profoundly unbiblical. We have an obligation to be a part of a local assembly that preaches the Gospel. It might not always be of the precise variety we'd like (I spent four years attending a Southern Baptist parish when I was in university as it was the only Gospel-centred and orthodox church in that location). I also urge people to remember that the Church is made up of fallible human beings. Eventually it will let every individual down at some point and to some degree. That's not an excuse to withdraw into a purely personal religious life. Regular and frequent fellowship is critical to life in Christ.

The terms of service are at the top of the page in the FAQ section.

Thank you

Paul Taylor
Moderator

A Letter to All Saints & the Deanery of Virginia
The Very Reverend Glenn M. Spencer


You may have heard or read about the events that have occurred over the past several days within the Anglican Province of America’s Diocese of the West [DOW]. On September 4, 2008, Bishop Richard Boyce, long-time Diocesan Bishop of the DOW, announced to Bishop Grundorf his intent to leave the APA effective immediately, and to merge his entire diocese into the Reformed Episcopal Church [REC], subject to the REC’s approval.

This action has been publicized on-line and has generated much discussion, not all of it fruitful or accurately presented. Based on the articles available on-line, one might conclude that the APA is splitting, or at least facing a significant crisis. I can tell you without hesitation that this is not the case. However, I would like to address these legitimate concerns, and to provide a more accurate explanation as to what is happening, why I believe it is happening, and where we at All Saints Anglican Church and within the APA’s Deanery of Virginia stand.

What Has Happened Over the Past Several Days. By way of background, the APA is a canonical jurisdiction that consists of three dioceses: The Diocese of the Eastern United States [DEUS], the Diocese of Mid-America, and the Diocese of the West [DOW]. We in Virginia are a part of DEUS, and our Diocesan Bishop is Bishop Grundorf. In addition to his role as our Diocesan Bishop, Bishop Grundorf also serves as the Presiding Bishop of the APA.

On September 4, 2008, Bishop Boyce of DOW wrote a letter to Bishop Grundorf. Bishop Boyce stated that he intended immediately to leave the APA and to transfer not just himself individually, but his entire diocese, consisting of maybe twenty parishes, into the REC. Bishop Grundorf correctly responded to this letter by informing Bishop Boyce that an orderly and canonical procedure exists for any such transfer, and that Bishop Boyce had not followed that procedure. Based on the extraordinary circumstances with which he was faced, Bishop Grundorf, as provided by our canons and as shepherd of our church, immediately relieved Bishop Boyce of his position as Diocesan Bishop and appointed an interim administrator for the DOW. Further, he explained the mechanism whereby individual parishes and priests within the DOW, if they wished, could transfer into the REC. He reaffirmed that all DOW priests, clergy, and laity remain in good standing with the APA and have its full support.

While Bishop Grundorf is disappointed with Bishop Boyce’s decision, he has not forbidden a transfer for those desiring it (contrary to what some on-line articles have suggested). Instead, he has insisted that proper procedure be followed for any parishes and priests of the DOW wishing to transfer to the REC. He has reiterated the canonical impermissibility of a bishop unilaterally removing his entire diocese from the APA’s jurisdiction. His goal is an orderly transition in a charitable manner that does not bring scandal on the church.

Bishop Grundorf is absolutely correct in his response. Dioceses cannot, as a body, leave the jurisdiction of the APA. There is simply no canonical mechanism whereby that may occur. Instead, the canons allow for individual parishes, and individual priests, to transfer to another jurisdiction based upon their individual requests for transfer, or “letters dimissory.” As the several articles on-line indicate, Bishop Boyce insists that canonically he retains the full right to move his diocese into another jurisdiction; he is simply incorrect in his reading of canon law. I would be happy to discuss this further with any one who wishes to discuss canon law in more detail.

Why Bishop Boyce has Taken This Action. While I cannot read into the heart of Bishop Boyce, I believe it is fair and appropriate for me to address why I believe he has attempted this maneuver. My impression is that two factors have contributed to his decision.

a. Common Cause Partnership. First, and perhaps most apparent, is Bishop Boyce’s stance, vis-à-vis Bishop Grundorf’s, on what our relationship should be with Common Cause Partnership [CCP]. As you may recall, in January 2008, Bishop Grundorf made the decision to adopt a “wait and see” approach to the APA’s possible affiliation with Common Cause Partnership. This decision was wise, pastoral, and correct. While we share many goals and beliefs with members of CCP, the majority of those jurisdictions who belong to CCP approve of women’s ordination and include women whom they believe to be validly ordained to the priesthood. The issue of women’s ordination goes to the heart of the priesthood and to the validity of the sacraments; it is a position with which we cannot in good faith align ourselves. This issue is still being sorted out within CCP, and Bishop Grundorf believes that the best approach is to let it become settled, and then make a final decision as to whether alliance with CCP is in his flock’s best interest. Further, while CCP currently is only an alliance of various Anglican jurisdictions, it has all appearances of the precursor to a jurisdiction. Many of its leaders have made clear their intent to make it one giant jurisdiction, the North American Anglican Province, under the oversight of the Global Anglican Fellowship Conference (GAFCON). Its members would thus lose their own identity, their individual canons and Constitution, and become a part of the jurisdiction of CCP. This is no small matter, particularly if that giant jurisdiction contains women “priests.” We all desire unity and a common cause with other Anglicans; the question is at what cost, and at what point do we slip into heterodoxy under the purported banner of “unity.”

Bishop Boyce, unlike Bishop Grundorf, has for years strongly supported alliance with CCP. Without question he believes that Bishop Grundorf made the wrong decision in adopting a wait-and-see approach. The REC, unlike the APA, is a member of the CCP. Therefore, one reason I believe that Bishop Boyce is attempting to merge into the REC is so that he can become a member of CCP.

b. Inability/Unwillingness to Comply with APA Canonical Requirements. At the most recent APA Synod, in July 2008, our national registrar, Fr. Bill Perkins, announced that he had never received from DOW the canonically-required credentials and documentations from the diocese’s priests, and from the bishop himself. Properly documented credentials are the prerequisite for a priest to minister within the APA; yet this diocese under Bishop Boyce’s leadership simply had never provided that information. At this past Synod, it was made clear to Bishop Boyce and to all clergymen in the APA, that no one will be permitted to continue as a clergyman-in-good-standing without presenting his required credentials and documentation to the registrar. Bishop Boyce’s inability or unwillingness to correct this disorder, as well as several other irregular practices within the DOW, may have been another impetus for his action last week.

Where We Now Stand. First, the DOW has not left the APA. No canonical method exists for a diocese to leave our jurisdiction; it simply cannot by law occur. Instead, two bishops (Diocesan Bishop Boyce and Bishop Mott) have left the APA, and likely at least some of the DOW parishes will follow. Others will remain within the APA/DOW; several parishes have notified Bishop Grundorf that they have no intention of leaving the APA or the DOW and feel that they were left out of Bishop Boyce’s decision-making process. For those that do depart, where they end up (the REC or another jurisdiction) remains to be seen, as the REC has not yet addressed Bishop Boyce’s request. Only time will tell how this issue settles. Bishop Grundorf intends to give parishes adequate time to determine where they stand, then to call an extraordinary Synod to reorganize and elect the appropriate officers.

Second, Bishop Boyce’s unfortunate action, while disrupting to some extent the peace of the church, has no palpable effect on All Saints or on the deanery of Virginia. We remain, as do all member of DEUS and the great majority of parishes within the APA, committed to our Presiding Bishop and to our church. We do not see this event as an emergency or as a crisis. It is, as I said, unfortunate; however, Bishop Boyce’s departure, and the departure of any individual parishes and priests who may wish to request transfer, may in the end be better for all concerned. We do not count our strength or our success by numbers, but by our feasting on the sacraments, commitment to the creeds, and faithfulness to the Prayer Book. There will be times of numerical growth, and there will be times when our numbers may dip. This is a natural part of life in the Church, and nothing to fear. Our jurisdiction is not splitting or fracturing. Some parishes from DOW will request to transfer. But others will remain. The APA by God’s grace is strong and solid; we are, and will be, fine.

Third, as many of you know, we are in communion with the REC. I do not know whether that will change, though I doubt that it will. Quite frankly, the REC has yet to comment or take action upon Bishop Boyce’s request to join them. It is probable that they had no notice of his action ahead of time and, as several of Bishop Boyce’s own parishes, were caught by surprise. Regardless, we remain in communion with the REC, and within a few days Bishop Grundorf will issue a joint statement with the REC concerning this matter. I will provide that to you when it is released.

Conclusion. While this matter has been presented on some websites as a crisis or a threat to the APA, it simply is not. It is unfortunate, but it will be resolved. I hope this letter has shed some light on these issues and has answered some of your questions. As always, I am available and would be happy to talk to any person or groups about this matter further. My new email address is frgmspencer@gmail.com.

Fr. Glenn Spencer
All Saints Anglican Church
Charlottesville, VA

Dear Fr. Spencer,

I am glad for your posting. I am troubled, however, that there is considerable innuendo in your posting that ascribes inaccuracies of "splitting" in my article (The only one to date on this departure of a diocese from the APA). If you read my article carefully you will have observed that fully 96% of the article were direct quotes from all the correspondence I received. There was little from me personally and I make no judgment about whether the APA is splitting or not.

David W. Virtue
VIRTUEONLINE

David,

I thought your article was clear and even-handed.

I am interested though, in how the APA can claim that a bishop and diocese possibly/probably leaving and joining another authority cannot be described as a crisis. For anyone to wish to take such a step surely (for a bible believer) indicates their feeling that there is some significant spiritual problem, and that they need to move away from it.