By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org December 1, 2025   An exclusive interview with the Rev. Jerry Kramer of Love for the Least, a global mission to Muslims in the Middle East and East Africa. He and his wife Stacy have been actively serving as missionaries for more than 25 years. They were briefly in the US before returning overseas, where I had an opportunity to interview him.   VOL: It is growing clearer by the day that the West is spiritually dying—churches are closing, aging parishioners have dropped out, and "Nones" (people without Christian faith) are on the rise, with Western liberal Christianity on the wane. However, the Christian faith is finding its feet in the Global South with millions learning about and finding Christ. The Anglican Communion is said to top 100 million, with 85 percent claimed by GAFCON. You spend most of your time in the Middle East evangelizing Muslims. From a transnational perspective, how do you view all this?   KRAMER: First off, all glory to God. And hats off to the intercessors and generous givers. They’re the engine. Only God moves movements and He moves His gracious hand in prayer and fasting, I don’t have it all figured out.  Here, I will describe what we’re seeing. This is more descriptive than prescriptive. Today we are living in the midst of the biggest move of God in history. What a time to be alive! What we’re seeing is unprecedented. And it’s happening all over the planet, largely in the same way. Through what we are calling Disciple Making or Kingdom Movements. Our little team, over the past three and a half years, now has a network of over 4,000 churches. In ten countries.  And we’ve reached 14 generations of disciples and church plants. A disciple who has made a disciple who has made a disciple …  to the fourteenth generation. A church that has planted a church that has planted a church … to the fourteenth generation. In three and a half years. That’s what Movement looks like. But this move is unlike anything we’ve ever seen. It’s simply about doing things God’s way.  Following the New Testament pattern for Church. If you’re not willing to adjust to God’s ways and timing, the wave will pass you right by. I’m not saying you have to hide or water down your Anglicanism. Not at all. I’m a full throttle Anglican. But you do have to think it all through. And watch what God is doing, then join Him. We’re seeing huge renewed spiritual openness among the Zs. But you have to know how to engage them. Churches aren’t going to fill back up by osmosis.   VOL: In the U.S., only one percent of churches is doing evangelism, according to Ryan Burge and other demographers. Is this the beginning of the end if churches are not actively evangelistic?   KRAMER: Yes. Only 5% of what we call “church growth” is through actual evangelism. 95% is people simply moving or changing churches. But It’s not just evangelism. “Evangelism” for many churches is, “We’re getting older, our old guard is dying off. So, we need to replace them to pay the bills.” Evangelism comes out of discipleship. Make disciples. Disciples evangelize. Disciples share. The Church in the U.S. is in trouble because we’ve largely failed at the essential task of showing people, modeling for them, what it means and looks like to follow Jesus. In the U.S. we make “Church members.” Jesus never said to do that. Jesus never said erect buildings and invite people to join your denomination. You can plant churches that have no disciples. But if you make disciples, disciples will always plant churches. Plant the Gospel and build up the Kingdom by making disciples. It’s also important how we measure. Our only metric for success is generational growth. How many generations of disciples do you have? How many generations of church plants do you have? It’s not how many baptisms you’ve had. It’s not how big your church is. It’s not how many churches you’ve planted. Only generational multiplication shows real health and vitality. Churches stuck at gen 1 and 2 die off. A church plant that doesn’t reproduce another generation is a mule, not a rabbit. When does a search committee ever ask, “How many disciples have you made? How many generations? How do you make and mature disciples?” We’re asking the wrong questions. Because we have the wrong mindset. We want rabbit not mule churches.   VOL : Traditional missionary methods have seemingly failed, with increasing talk of interfaith dialogue and accommodation with other faith and religious traditions. In your opinion, why did traditional missionary methods fail? KRAMER: You’d be surprised by how many missionaries never share the Gospel. Now that’s a problem! It’s not that the Gospel failed. They’ve never tried it! When we see stuck workers and teams, it’s normally one of three things.  They’re not sharing enough. They’re not praying enough. Or the leader is holding the reins too tightly. We’ve also developed this bad habit of calling everything “mission.” If everything is “mission,” you’ve lost your focus and will never accomplish the Great Commission (which is really the “Great Suggestion”). The answer to your question is, we’ve gotten away from the essential identity and activity of a missionary. And the priority of missions. A missionary is someone who lives cross culturally, bringing the Good News of the Kingdom to those who would otherwise hear. No more, no less. And missions - while God’s priority - simply isn’t ours. I hear all the time, “Oh we’ll get on that mission stuff once we’re more stable, once we’ve (fill in the blank).” But that day never comes because you’re disobeying God. The US Church gives one tenth of one penny to reaching the 3.2 billion souls with no access to the Gospel. We’re simply not going to get healthy until we align with God’s plan priorities: His vision, His heart, His plan, His way. And we have to get away from “bigger is better.” Small churches can be amazing, powerful, fruitful engines for building up the Kingdom of God. It’s about faithfulness not size. I’m a huge fan of small churches and small church pastors.   VOL: Why is Christianity growing the fastest in Iran, China, and Nepal? It is said that the church in Iran is growing at the rate of 2,000 a day. In China, independent estimates suggest the Christian population could exceed 100 million Christians, mostly meeting in house churches despite Sinicization. In Nepal, estimates range from 638,000 to three million Christians in a predominantly Hindu nation and culture. In your opinion, what is going on?   KRAMER: It’s back to that “Big move of God.” This all started unfolding in an identifiable way about 25 years ago. It took us a while to figure out what to call it. But we eventually landed on Disciple Making or Kingdom Movements. Only God can move movements. Timing and location are His sovereign decision. That’s why prayer is so essential. We pray for God to move His hand, to come to people in dreams and visions. I can only describe what we’re seeing. You have to take an ontological approach. Identify what you’re seeing while reserving judgement. This Big Move started in India best we can tell. Then it moved around Asia. The Middle East is seeing massive breakthrough. Africa might be the hottest spot presently. It’s hitting Europe and now, finally, the US. The European workers won’t share details out of fear. Fear that the movement will be snuffed out. The biggest movement killers are denominations and money. So, they’re keeping quiet. In the Middle East our biggest threat isn’t the Muslim Brotherhood; it’s denominations and large funders who often do more harm than good. There was a huge movement in Northern Iraq in the early 1990s. The American and Egyptian evangelicals rolled in and killed it dead. VOL: Your work is mainly in Iraq, Iran, and Tanzania. First, tell us about your work in Tanzania. Who and what are you reaching for Christ in that African nation?   KRAMER : We are helping catalyze three movements in East Africa. And have recently been invited to help workers in a new area. There are two large movements now running parallel along the Swahili Coast. The Muslims of the Coast comprise the largest UPG in East Africa. This region - 98% Muslim - was largely considered impenetrable. Hopeless. We’re seeing huge, rapid progress. Interestingly, the Anglican Church is leading one of these movements. And these are High Church biretta wearing Anglicans! We’ve said for over a decade that Anglicans can do this if we’d just get over ourselves. The Anglicans there are training new Muslim Background Believers in batches of 100 to 200. That was once unimaginable. And they didn’t compromise on essentials. Adjusted and reoriented, yes.   VOL: The main focus of your ministry is the Muslim world, probably the most difficult of all challenges and cultures in the world to reach for Christ. Which country is your main focus?   KRAMER: We really don’t think in terms of countries. Jesus said to go to ALL “ethnes.” People Groups. Country border lines change. People Groups are static. So, we focus on Unreached People Groups (UPGs) and Unengaged Unreached People Groups (UUPGs). It’s pretty exciting to be part of the first Gospel engagement ever with a culture. I think we’re working among 3 UUPGs at present.  It took us three years just to get an initial meeting with one of them. Under very, very secretive, sketchy circumstances. It was very tense! I wanted to hide under the table at one point. Now we’re friends. Our rule is we don’t get involved with People Groups more than 4% “reached” without a really compelling, strategic reason.  For example, we might engage with a group that’s a little more reached because they can bridge to an Unreached Group.   VOL: Who does the best work evangelizing and discipling Muslims? Are denominational sending agencies getting the job done? If not, why not?   KRAMER: Great question. We need to fundamentally rethink our approach to missions. What is the best ROI (Return On Investment)? We need to be more discerning, more questioning, more intentional, more committed. More accountable. Local workers move the Kingdom needle. They’re the heart of it. Western workers are expensive and far less effective. I’m a Western worker: The locals are our heroes. You can fund 30 local Gospel workers for the cost of one Westerner. Western workers should be limited and focused, strategically positioned and platformed to catalyze locals. We really don’t want the nationals to see our white faces. The less of us the better. The problem is these amazing, faithful, heroic local Believers don’t know anyone in the West to support them. We need to work on this. How do we connect churches in the West with fruitful, Kingdom advancing indigenous Believers? That’s where you’re going to get your best ROI. We need to focus on funding and supporting local Gospel workers. There has to be a way of connecting churches, senders and funders with indigenous Believers.   VOL:  Are churches that are top-heavy with bishops, archbishops, and miters getting kingdom work done?   KRAMER: We’re seeing a change in our understanding of “apostle” and “apostolic” from an office to a function. I think that’s also biblical.  Someone who functions “apostolically” breaks new ground, bringing the Good News of the Kingdom to new frontiers.  “The apostolic influence is not merely concerned with serving the primary flock and immediate community, which is the primary role of a pastor. Rather, the apostolic influence is supposed to expand into the surrounding region.” —Joseph Mattera. Essentially, if you’re planting and leading networks of churches, you’re operating apostolically. The problem is we’re hung up on offices. In the US, we send someone off to seminary to incur $100k in debt in the hope they might be able to do the job one day. Many can’t. It’s tragic. In the field, we simply affirm what we see God doing in someone’s life. If they’re pastoring well, they’re probably a pastor. If they’re sharing and leading people to Jesus, they’re an evangelist. If they’re planting multi–People Group, cross border church planting networks, they’re apostolic. “Y” is one of our big Iranian leaders in Central Asia. He’s been a follower of Jesus for little over three years. We were there when he accepted. In that time, he’s planted 160 churches in five countries. “Y” has no “office.” He functions apostolically.   VOL: It is interesting that a country like Nigeria, which has one of the highest rates of clashes between Christians and Muslims, is growing at a record rate. Despite persecution and mayhem, the Anglican Church in Nigeria just added 15 new dioceses (while TEC contracts and merges dioceses). The church is fiercely evangelistic, even nationalistic, meaning they don't like outside interference from other Anglican provinces. How do you account for their style—which is very Western—growing like it is?   KRAMER: There’s a difference between “Western” and “nationalistic.” The Nigerians are on point. We shouldn’t interfere. The Gospel moves fastest when it can move naturally, organically, through natural social networks. You give the locals the essential message and the simple tools. Then let them figure out how to move it. How they form Church is between them and God. As long as it’s Biblical, they’re fine. We’re seeing, for example, the first Gospel movement in history among a particular group of Kurds. Just had a slew of baptisms this week. So excited! The turning point came when we cast vision for a Church that belonged entirely to them: A Kurdish church led by Kurds, governed by Kurds, funded by Kurds. Now remember, the Kurds are the world’s largest People Group without a country of their own. Their response was total amazement. “You mean we can have something that’s truly ours?” “Yes!” The lightbulbs went off above their Kurdish heads.  We simply promised to keep the Americans away from them. It’s their church. I always tell the locals, “I’m not your bishop. I’m not your senior pastor. I’m not the CEO. I’m your friend. Friends walk side by side, talk and do life together.” We don’t make decisions. Only suggestions.   VOL: From what I can see, it seems that real growth comes from laity sharing the gospel with family and friends in countries like Iran and China—places that have no buildings, very little money, and where believers meet in homes, often facing persecution, arrest, and imprisonment. Still, the gospel of the kingdom goes forth with great spiritual power, with many being saved. Please explain.   KRAMER: The Gospel moves fastest through ordinary people sharing naturally in their ordinary lives. We don’t need “experts.” An exalted ontologically different clergy caste will constipate Gospel movement. And, yes, the local, “ordinary” believers share within their circle of family and friends. We call this their “oikos list.” The new Believers write down the names of people they know who don’t know or who are far from God. Then they begin to pray over their lists, asking God to highlight whom He is working on. Next step is to share. Testimony, Gospel, heal the sick. Globally, 80% of people who accept Jesus come for healing or deliverance. I’m just reporting.   VOL: Christianity is still the number one religion in the world with 2.5 billion followers. It is still bigger than Islam, but Islam is nipping at its heels. Do you see this changing?   KRAMER: Islam is collapsing from within. Only 42% of Iranians now self-identify as Muslim. Nearly the same stats in Iraq.  A few years ago, there were 75,000 mosques in Iran. Today that number is 25,000 and declining. In Iran it’s now more common for us lead someone into the Kingdom from atheism than Islam. Islam only grows by birthing and immigration, not attraction. Not “conversion.” Who in their right mind would gravitate to that? We’re slugging it out in the heart of the Islamic World. There’s a huge window of Gospel opportunity in the Middle East. But windows close. Our generation must hit this window. It’s all in all the time.   VOL: The growing Islamification of Europe—especially England, France, Germany, and Sweden—is a relatively new development. One can understand why Germany might allow Muslims in over Holocaust guilt, but why the other nations? Does the trend trouble you, and what can be done about it?   KRAMER: The problem is if you give them an inch they’ll take a mile. Any concession is seen as weakness and surrender. We think we’re being “nice.” Islam see weakness. Islam is not compatible with “multiculturalism.” They have no paradigm for multi-culturalism. Not possible. You can’t give any ground. The UK, for example, refuses to acknowledge plain reality there. And they’re going to pay the price. I probably won’t be allowed back in the UK for saying this. Islam’s agenda is beyond obvious; it’s completely telegraphed, they aren’t hiding it. Islam always follows the same script. When Islam rules, there is no or at best minimal tolerance. Europe is practicing willful ignorance. Remember what Turkish president Tayyip Erdogan, full on Muslim Brotherhood, said: “Democracy is just the train we’re on until we get to our destination.” That should give you a chill. We’re playing football whilst they’re playing chess.   VOL: You are members of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). You must be shocked at recent revelations of leadership failures. Has this impacted global missions, or is this localized and mostly irrelevant?   KRAMER: Not at all. And I’m an, “innocent until proven guilty” guy. We need to be patient, prayerful and charitable. Be humble. God can do a lot with a humble church. It’s just not a great time to be running your mouth. Pray and fast. Pray for our bishops. Pray for our Church. The world isn’t paying the ACNA any attention. The Middle East certainly isn’t. God is still moving. I’m not saying paper over the problems. But seek Jesus in this and stay close to Him.   VOL : Western liberal Christianity has done enormous damage to the proclamation of the gospel with the embrace of sub-biblical sexual ethics and much more. The Roman Catholic Church is mired in sexual abuse, most of it homosexual in nature, from which it might never recover in the West. Does this impact your work with Muslims?   KRAMER: Yes, the Islamic street will see this and throw rocks at us. It certainly doesn’t help. But there’s also an incredible amount of hypocrisy in their (Islamic) camp. Homosexuality is rampant. I mean RAMPANT. So, I think we can just call it a draw.    VOL: There is a lot of talk of revival in the U.S. You live part of your life in Texas—have you witnessed this? In the Northeast where I live, not so much. Many believe the next great revival will not begin with massive stadium gatherings or viral worship services. It will begin within a single heart—yours and mine. It will be, quite literally, a revival of one. Do you agree?   KRAMER: There’s a huge wave forming. Again, it just looks different. It’s ordinary people, living out the priesthood of believers, taking seriously the call to follow Jesus. To build up God’s Kingdom. Can we really say to others, “follow me … following Jesus”? And this all happens in small groups. With weekly loving accountability. Church is moving from the stage to the kitchen table. Healthy, vibrant churches will be smaller and may not even have a building. Actually, most won’t. Iran is the fastest growing Christian country in the world. They have no church buildings. No professional clergy. Ponder that. What’s emerging is going to be beautiful and robust; far healthier. But it will look very different. Can we handle that? Can we adjust to what God is doing? Are we ok with how God wants to build His Church? You don’t have to like the new normal. But you do have to reckon with it.   VOL: You are heading to (a “new country in the Middle East” let’s not say which one) for an extended period of time. As much as you are able, can you tell us what your plans are?   KRAMER: I can’t get into much detail. But let’s just say it’s well situated to springboard us around the region. Good location with a decent airport. We’ve been asked to step out of team leading and focus on training globally. So “home” airport matters. We need a better airport and a better place from which to come and go. We’re staying on offense. Despite our advancing age, we’re moving hard and fast. No let up,   VOL: Thank you for your time, Jerry. God bless you as you enter a new phase of your ministry.   KRAMER: Always a blessing to share about what God is up to. Please, please keep us all in your prayers. Please support Love for the Least (add link below) https://lovefortheleast.org/give/   END

Proposals will be brought before the Church in Wales Governing Body in April 2026. (Photo: Church in Wales) Staff Writer CHRISTIAN TODAY December 3, 2025 Orthodox Anglicans have accused bishops in the Church in Wales of "misleading" statements as it moves towards making same-sex blessings permanent. Bishops in the Church in Wales have published a 'road map' for the future of same-sex blessings following a four-year trial and a six-month consultation with clergy and parishioners. During the trial period, same-sex couples in a civil partnership or marriage were allowed to come to Church in Wales churches with friends and family to receive a blessing. The bishops said that the Church is reaching the point "where it must take major decisions on these matters". In a pastoral letter to Church in Wales members, the bishops said that "most" responses to the consultation were "in favour of the view that the time is right to offer equal marriage to traditional and same sex couples". The letter acknowledges that not all feel this way and that "there is a strong part of our Church family that finds such a step difficult to hold within their understanding of fidelity to Scripture, and therefore within our common life". The bishops go on to say that they believe the "right way forward is to offer Governing Body the opportunity to make decisions on behalf of the Church". According to the road map set out by the bishops, proposals to make same-sex blessings permanent will be brought before the Governing Body in April 2026. If approved, these will be followed by further proposals in April 2027 to allow the law of the state and of the Church to be changed to permit same-sex marriage in Church in Wales churches. The bishops said that the proposals would be drafted in such a way as to protect clergy freedom of conscience. Responding to the road map, Bishop Andy Lines of the Anglican Network in Europe and Bishop Stuart Bell of the Anglican Convocation Europe said it was "distressing" to see the bishops sow "confusion" around the issue. They took particular issue with wording in parts of the pastoral letter, including a section in which the Welsh bishops say, "Seeking to be faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the teaching of Scripture, Christians differ in approach: advocates for equal marriage argue from the inclusive love of Jesus, while others highlight faithfulness to the traditional reading of Biblical texts and cannot embrace such new understandings." Bishops Lines and Bell suggested the wording was a polarising misrepresentation of both sides. They said, "Such polarisation of the debate suggests that we are either for Jesus or we are for the Bible. That is a caricature of the truth. "Those who are for the Bible are also for Jesus, and those who are for Jesus should also be for the Bible," they said, adding that Jesus himself repeatedly spoke in favour of "public, exclusive, intimate and heterosexual" marriage. They said it was "misleading" of Church in Wales bishops to cite the popular Christian maxim in their pastoral letter: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty, and in all things charity.” Bishops Lines and Bell said, "The statement itself is a good rule of thumb for discussion and disagreement, but including it in the road map suggests that this debate over same-sex sexual relationships is ‘non-essential’. "It would be ‘non-essential’ if the Bible had nothing to say about it, but unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view) it speaks on the subject at least six times and every time it is negative." Bishops Lines and Bell also dismissed the suggestion in the pastoral letter that making same-sex blessings permanent need not be a "church-dividing issue" when 85 per cent of the Anglican Communion are opposed to such moves. "In the last four years there has been an alternative orthodox Anglican church in Wales. We are both for Jesus and his inclusive love, and for Jesus’ Bible and its clear teaching," Bishops Lines and Bell concluded. END

By Concerned Anglican www.virtueonline.org December 3, 2025 The Anglican Church in North America stands at a critical juncture. As the College of Bishops convenes for an emergency meeting, the decisions made this week will shape the province’s future for years to come. I write as someone deeply committed to our Anglican heritage and concerned for the wellbeing of clergy, laity, and the witness of the Gospel we collectively bear. The Federal Lawsuit: A Clear Path Forward The federal litigation between the Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy (JAFC) and the ACNA poses a significant threat to our province’s financial stability and public witness. The facts are sobering and appear to fully favor the JAFC. A federal judge has already issued three injunctions against the ACNA regarding trademark violations. This is not speculation, it is judicial determination of wrongdoing that comes with a serious price tag. Legal experts familiar with trademark law understand what this means. The likelihood of the ACNA prevailing at trial is virtually non-existent, and the financial liability of the ACNA could reach into the 10s of millions of dollars. But the monetary cost, severe as it may be, represents only part of the threat. Should this matter proceed to trial, the discovery process will inevitably expose internal communications, decision-making processes, and institutional failures that will only compound the already deeply embarrassing news surrounding the College of Bishops. The ACNA can ill-afford additional scandal. Previous controversies have already weakened trust among our clergy and laity, and further damage to our institutional credibility this case will most likely bring could prove catastrophic. The bishops must pursue a settlement immediately. Settlement offers a clear path to close this painful chapter, limit financial exposure, and prevent the public airing of matters that will harm our collective witness. Proverbs reminds us that “the wise see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and pay the penalty” (Proverbs 27:12). Beyond this critical matter, the College should address several related concerns: Restore Trust in Episcopal Leadership. Recent years have seen unprecedented challenges to episcopal authority within the ACNA. While healthy accountability mechanisms are vital, the pattern of anonymous accusations, social media campaigns, and end-runs around canonical processes threatens the very concept of ordered ministry. The bishops must reassert that canonical processes, not public pressure campaigns, govern how we address grievances in the church. Clarify Standards for Safeguarding Procedures. Much of the current controversy involves competing claims about safeguarding protocols. The province needs clear, unified standards that respect both victim welfare and accused persons’ rights to fair process. Ambiguity invites exploitation by all parties. Address the Broader Cultural Crisis. The ease with which anonymous letters and social media controversies can destabilize the province reveals deeper problems. We have allowed a culture to develop where grievance-airing replaces reconciliation, where suspicion replaces trust, and where canonical order gives way to mob dynamics. The bishops must name this cultural problem clearly and call the province to better. Provide Pastoral Care for All Affected. Throughout these controversies, real people have suffered and congregations have been caught in the crossfire. The College should commit resources to pastoral support and genuine reconciliation where possible. The Stakes Could Not Be Higher Make no mistake, the ACNA’s future stability depends on the decisions made this week. A province that loses millions in an avoidable lawsuit, allows faithful leaders to be destroyed by anonymous accusations without defense, refuses to acknowledge its own canonical failures, and fails to address its deeper cultural dysfunction will struggle to maintain credibility or unity. But a College of Bishops that acts with wisdom, courage, and clarity can begin to restore stability. Settle the lawsuit. Defend leaders who acted rightly. Acknowledge where canonical process was abandoned and commit to following it faithfully in the future. Reform the processes that enabled this crisis. Call the province to better. The question is not whether we face challenges; we do. The question is whether our bishops will lead us through them with the wisdom, courage, and faithfulness that their office demands, and with the fidelity to canonical order that our polity requires. The faithful are watching. The watching world is watching. Most importantly, the Lord of the Church is watching. May our bishops prove equal to this moment. Author’s Note: I write as a concerned Anglican anonymously because I do not yet trust that ACNA leadership can be relied upon to protect me from being targeted. I am an Anglican priest deeply concerned for the health of our province. These observations stem from professional experience with organizational dysfunction and from a commitment to the canonical order that protects us all. A note from JAFC Bishop Derek Jones: “At the request of the ACNA, the JAFC attorneys have sent an 'offer of compromise subject to Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence’ on December 2nd, and we await what we pray will be a positive response."

It appears beyond doubt that this coming year will prove decisive for the future of worldwide Anglicanism. Attention has now—thankfully—shifted from disputes over homosexuality to questions concerning what the Anglican Communion is and how it must change if it is to survive the current crisis. It is therefore important to understand why there is a crisis without reference to same-sex unions and ‘gay bishops’; similar issues could arise in relation to a number of different areas, for example in relation to lay presidency at the Eucharist. What has happened is that one diocese (New Westminster in Canada) and a whole province (The Episcopal Church of the United States of America, ECUSA) have taken decisions that violate the mind of the wider Anglican Communion. Furthermore, that Communion and the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of which it is a part, holds those actions to be contrary to Scripture. The Communion has also repeatedly urged restraint from radical innovations until they can be more widely recognised as legitimate expressions of Christian faith and practice. This has produced a crisis at three levels: within the innovating provinces, between those provinces and other provinces, and in relation to the Communion’s four current ‘instruments of unity’ (the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates Meeting, the Lambeth Conference, and the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC)). Is This Really Novel? Of course, some argue we are simply re-visiting the questions raised when parts of the Communion began ordaining women priests and bishops, and that the appointment of an Eames Commission confirms this continuity. Although similarities exist with the impairment of communion from women’s ordination, it would be a serious error to treat the current situation as equivalent. Firstly, there are substantive theological differences. The presenting issue is one where, only five years ago, the bishops at Lambeth overwhelmingly agreed they could declare certain conduct ‘incompatible with Scripture’. Secondly, there are significant procedural differences. The Anglican Communion lacks a central legal authority. It is, therefore, a recognised communion principle that member churches are advised ‘not to take action regarding issues which are of concern to the whole Anglican Communion without consultation with a Lambeth Conference or with the episcopate through the Primates Committee’. Thirdly, the political realities are now totally different. Relationships between provinces absorbed the innovation over women’s ordination and the diversity it produced in the Anglican family. Already, however, provinces have clearly stated their relationship with New Westminster and ECUSA has been severely impaired. ECUSA Schism? The Lambeth Primates Meeting said, “Whilst we reaffirm the teaching of successive Lambeth Conferences that bishops must respect the autonomy and territorial integrity of dioceses and provinces other than their own, we call on the provinces concerned to make adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care…” However, the Presiding Bishop’s decision to proceed as chief consecrator in New Hampshire, combined with a history of ‘liberal’ bishops acting in a most illiberal and authoritarian manner, makes this solution very difficult to achieve. The recently formed Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes could create a structure in canonical continuity with ECUSA but also in full acceptance of the Communion’s teaching on sexuality and the disciplines of common life within communion. Inevitably, there is a real danger of a quagmire of legal actions over property and other matters and the accusation of ‘schism’ will be hurled at those in this network. This is, however, different from the actions that led to the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA) in 2000. In a real sense it is ECUSA’s understanding of ‘autonomy’—and its consequent disregard for mutual accountability within the church of Christ—that represents the real ‘schism’. Whither the Communion? The Anglican Communion acts in two main forms. First it exists through the relationships between the various provinces within the Communion… The potential seriousness of this was clear when the Primates warned that if the consecration proceeded, “we have reached a crucial and critical point… the future of the Communion itself will be put in jeopardy… the ministry of this one bishop will not be recognised by most of the Anglican world…” There is a widespread commitment, especially in the Global South, to a real and deepening worldwide Anglican Communion. There is no great desire for a looser ‘federation’ where autonomy and pluriformity over-ride mutual accountability and orthodoxy. The challenge here is that Anglicans have eschewed any central legal authority within the Communion. Even now there is no great desire for a standing, hierarchical jurisdictional authority at a supra-provincial level. However, the last Lambeth Conference called on the Primates Meeting to include among its responsibilities, “intervention in cases of exceptional emergency which are incapable of internal resolution within provinces…” There is already a proposal—in To Mend the Net—as to how that might be accomplished… involving the creation of ‘observer status’ within international meetings of the Communion for those who have distanced themselves by their actions from the Communion’s teaching. What About the Church of England? The Church of England historically lies at the heart of the Anglican Communion… From the day of his appointment, Archbishop Rowan Williams has made clear his commitment to the Anglican Communion and the dangers in disregarding its teaching on human sexuality. Faced with this stark decision, some in an already polarised situation may welcome the showdown… Many, however, will feel torn… It is, therefore, important to keep debates over sexuality distinct from debates over the nature and future of the Anglican Communion, even if they are now closely related. The issue is not whether the Communion can continue as before and accept different policies on human sexuality as it has on women’s ordination. It is clear that this is a non-starter. The issue is whether a way can be found within the Communion to uphold its teaching and the disciplines of a common life. This will require in some manner rebuking or disciplining provinces that unilaterally break with it and exalt ‘autonomy’ at the expense of ‘mutual accountability’. Sadly, if the Communion fails to do this, there is a real risk it will divide into separate international bodies. Many fear we are entering a period that could witness the Anglican Communion… experience the painful words of Yeats’ The Second Coming: Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world… The challenge is to continue to pray for the Archbishop of Canterbury and all serving on his Commission, and to discern how the special gift of communion we have been given… can be provided with structures that enable communion to deepen and be extended to others in the body of Christ. END

[Note: This is a chronologically ordered compilation of abuse cases spanning decades and multiple countries. Due to sheer length and repetitiveness (e.g., recurring names, locations), it has been condensed while preserving geographic scope, severity, and institutional relevance. Duplicate entries (same incident cited in multiple years) were removed.] United States • Denver, CO (2002): Donald Shissler, former teacher and priest, sentenced to 24 years after pleading guilty to assaulting at least two boys; up to 20 additional victims suspected. Called “the most disturbing case” by the prosecutor. • Provincetown, RI (2002): Pastor resigned after admitting to sexually molesting a teenage boy in the 1960s while in Maryland. • Philadelphia, PA (1999): Fr. Robert K. Orr convicted of possessing and distributing child pornography found on his church computer. • Danbury, CT (1998): Fr. Bruce Jacques defrocked after allegations he offered oral sex to a 13-year-old as a “confirmation gift.” • St. Petersburg, FL (1999): Family sues diocese after Fr. Greydon Copeland allegedly abused a minor altar server (1985–89); Copeland committed suicide after investigation. • Vineland, NJ (1999): Fr. Thomas Berlenbach accused of raping a 14-year-old altar girl and fondling a 40-year-old parishioner; removed in 1997. • Williamsburg, VA (1998): Lawsuit alleges Fr. Michael W. Jones and layman John Grubb participated in abuse by baby-sitter Richard Weaverling (later convicted and sentenced to 73 years). • Minneapolis, MN (1993): Music minister at St. Andrew’s confessed to molesting a 15-year-old parishioner; terminated after 17 years. • Palmdale, CA (1994): Fr. Robert L. Ducker sentenced to 12 years for repeatedly molesting two boys. • Wyncote, PA (1998): Fr. Robert Orr arrested again for child pornography (second offense). • Cleveland, OH (1993): Fr. Douglas Hodges charged with sexual battery of a woman in counseling; multiple civil suits filed. • Falls Church, VA (1993): Six women accused Fr. Byron Bruce Newell of misconduct; one filed $4M suit alleging coercion under guise of spiritual guidance. • DeWitt, NY (1992): Rev. Wallace A. Frey, highest-ranking U.S. Episcopal priest (chair of sexuality committee), resigned after admitting sexual misconduct with young men and a teenager. • Catonsville, MD (1989): Rev. William Edward Thompson Jr., headmaster, pleaded guilty to molesting 7 boys (ages 11–16) and child pornography. • Winnipeg area (1986): Rev. Charles Griggs pleaded guilty to molesting a 13-year-old; kept as rector for a month after conviction. • Moreau & Fort Edward, NY (1988): Rev. William S. Barrett pleaded guilty to oral sex with two 14-year-olds; known volunteer “helper of troubled youth.” • Minneapolis (1988): Rev. James Leech charged with molesting a 15-year-old in his home. • Santa Rosa/Windsor, CA (1987): Rev. Francis Papworth sentenced to 7 years; $120M lawsuit filed claiming diocese knew of misconduct. • Seattle (1987): Military chaplain Rev. Thomas Evans Dobson convicted of exchanging meth for sexual acts with homeless boys. Australia (Selected Cases) Numerous convictions across Queensland, NSW, Victoria, SA, WA, ACT, and Tasmania—including bishops, archdeacons, school staff, and youth leaders. Notable patterns: • Cover-ups: Archbishop Hollingworth (later Governor-General) repeatedly ignored or concealed abuse by priests Elliott, McAuley, Shearman, and Lynch. • Repeat offenders: Multiple priests reassigned after allegations (e.g., Brazier, Ellmore, Sapsford). • Institutional awareness: Internal reports (e.g., Not The Way of Christ, 1998) were produced but not acted upon. Dozens of priests were credibly accused; hundreds of victims identified in single investigations (e.g., SA: 217 victims, 48 suspects; projected >400). Other Countries • UK: Rev. Robin Everett (Leics) convicted of assaulting two girls (2003); Rev. Gordon Haggarty jailed (1990); Winchester group of 5 men jailed (1988) for abusing boys as young as 7. • Canada: Rev. Russel Nicolle (Ontario) jailed for abusing two boys (1988). • Brazil: Rev. Peter Brazier sentenced twice for assaulting teens; moved between parishes despite prior conviction. Organizational Context • SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests) warned in 2003 that ~400 ex-Catholic priests might surface in other denominations, including ECUSA. • Systemic failures include: lack of background checks, reassignment of offenders, suppression of reports, and delay of investigations—all while maintaining public façades of pastoral care. END

By Jan Nunley [ENS] Saying that they “repudiate and deplore the unilateral actions” of five retired U.S. bishops who conducted confirmations in Ohio without the diocesan bishop’s permission, the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops, meeting at Camp Allen, Texas on March 24, nevertheless declined to proceed with disciplinary action against them. The vote on the resolution was unanimous. Retired bishops FitzSimons Allison of South Carolina, Maurice Benitez of Texas, William Cox (assisting) of Oklahoma, Alex Dickson of West Tennessee and William Wantland of Eau Claire confirmed 110 individuals from five congregations and celebrated the Eucharist on March 14 in Akron, without the knowledge and permission of the Bishop of Ohio, J. Clark Grew II. They were joined by Bishop Robinson Cavalcanti of the Diocese of Recife in northern Brazil. The five “in so doing used the sacrament of unity in Christ as an instrument of division and defiance. Secretive in its planning, their action was discourteous, disruptive and a willful violation of our Constitution and Canons,” the statement said. The action also met with a stern rebuke from Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, Bishop Grew, and Ohio bishop-elect Mark Hollingsworth Jr., and “strong disapproval” from the Presiding Bishop’s Council of Advice on March 16. Bishop Orlando Santos de Oliveira, primate of the Episcopal Anglican Church of Brazil, said in a letter March 16 that Cavalcanti had violated the canons of Brazil and promised the matter would be brought before that church’s House of Bishops. No discipline for now “We have prayerfully considered the use of the disciplinary canons in response to the actions in Ohio. In the spirit of our commitment to reconciliation, we choose a different course. We invite these five bishops to meet with the Presiding Bishop’s Council of Advice to discuss their actions. Further, we want them to hear about the work we continue to do as bishops who embrace the ministry of reconciliation for the mission of the whole church,” the bishops’ statement continued. None of the five were present at the Camp Allen meeting. But further infractions, the bishops emphasized, would have consequences. “At the same time, we hold these five bishops, and one another, accountable for the good order of the Church, the Body of Christ,” the statement said. “Therefore, in the future any bishop performing Episcopal acts without the permission of the diocesan bishop will be subject to discipline under our canons.” The statement urged those in disagreement with their bishops and the decisions of the 74th General Convention to “share their views directly with their bishops” rather than participate in services such as the one in Ohio. “In our continuing efforts to care pastorally for all of our people, at this meeting we have endorsed a plan for Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight,” the bishops pointed out. “We are committed to responding generously and pastorally to requests made in accordance with this plan.” The Rev. Jan Nunley is deputy director of Episcopal News Service.

March 24, 2004 By Cynthia P. Brust, Director of Communication The House of Bishops has proven once again their dysfunction and inability to acknowledge, much less address, the crisis of the Episcopal Church. From a format of “process”, small group discussion and multiple revisions, they have produced a plan for episcopal oversight that is undeniably and woefully inadequate. “Adequate” oversight must be determined by those who are seeking it. The House of Bishops considered the effect of their plan upon the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Presiding Bishop, individual bishops and their House as a whole; but the voices of the people in desperate need of AEO were not heard. The plan is designed to be viable only where it is unnecessary, that is, in the few dioceses where bishops agree to AEO. It gives no relief to orthodox beleaguered Episcopalians. This meeting was couched in terms of “reconciliation,” but it is impossible to achieve reconciliation without repentance. It is impossible to affect reconciliation when this Church has fragmented itself and will not address the ensuing emergency. The call of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates has been flagrantly ignored; the deep division in ECUSA has been ignored; the outcry from the Anglican Communion has been ignored; the condemnation of the larger Christian Church has been ignored. We will not be party to perpetuating the fantasy that “all is well” or even “shall be well.” We cannot ignore the anguish of orthodox Episcopalians. We cannot embrace unity at the cost of faithfulness. We cannot ignore the exhortation of the Primates of the worldwide Anglican Communion “to make adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates.” We will proceed as we must, seeking to be faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ, Holy Scripture and the apostolic faith and practice which lies at the heart of Anglicanism. [Full analytical critique of the plan’s procedural, definitional, and functional flaws has been omitted for brevity, as the core concerns and conclusions are already captured in earlier summaries.] The American Anglican Council 1110 Vermont Avenue, NW Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005

by David Roseberry Plano, TX (March 25, 2004) The Bishops of the Episcopal Church, in a meeting this week, have revealed a new plan to supposedly provide pastoral oversight for dissenting congregations in dioceses. The plan is inadequate and should be ignored. The Episcopal Church (ECUSA) voted at last year’s convention to consecrate as bishop a man who is living in a homosexual partnership. In addition, they voted to regard the blessing of same-sex unions as within the boundaries of church practice. Both decisions are fatal errors and cannot stand the test of time. God will not bless these actions that so flagrantly disregard the clear teaching of Scripture. The Primates of the Anglican Communion, in their pastoral letters from the emergency meeting in October 2003, called for the provinces to provide “adequate Episcopal oversight” for some orthodox congregations. This idea was a pastoral measure intended to help heal and lead congregations through very difficult times. Bishops whose views were consistent with the Bible could be asked to oversee and direct congregations in other bishops’ diocese as needed and invited. The House of Bishops, meeting this week for the first time since the 2003 General Convention, has just approved a version of Episcopal oversight that is so inadequate and procedure-laden as to be just plain silly. It is a lengthy, cumbersome, tedious distraction from the real work of any parish: making disciples and preaching the gospel. For example, by some counts, it could take two to three years to get a bishop to come for confirmations! It is an imposition, literally, of an elaborate and tortuous process intentionally designed to wear “dissident” churches down. Apparently, the House of Bishops did not solicit comments from, or listen to, a single parish or rector who would want Episcopal oversight. This plan is like a broken ladder—it only looks useful, but it can’t take you anywhere. And so it should be ignored. Orthodox parishes should find oversight wherever they can find it, within their dioceses or outside their dioceses. Congregations should link together through the Network (that is, the “Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes” whose charter was adopted at Christ Church in January 2004) and act together as bodies of believers in a faithless age. There is some good news, perhaps. It might be that this folly from the House of Bishops will reach the missionary ears of the Primates. This tragically broken ladder may actually convince the Anglican Communion that ECUSA needs a major repair or replacement. At Christ Church we continue to stand for the orthodox faith that has been handed down to us. Some say that God is doing a new thing. We say that God does not do new things, but instead makes all things new. We trust that one day He will do this for the Anglican witness in North America. Christ Church will continue to preach and teach the message of the redeeming love of Jesus Christ for all people and the reconciling work of the Cross. Sadly but firmly, we have nothing to do with ECUSA. We send no money to the national church. We receive no direction from the national church. For the time being, we labor alongside our bishop to build the Network in order to maintain our relationship with the worldwide Anglican Communion. And we stand. The Rev. Canon David H. Roseberry is Rector of Christ Church Episcopal – Plano, Texas

By YONAT SHIMRON Staff Writer News Observer March 23, 2004 RALEIGH, NC Traditionalist Episcopalians upset with the recent confirmation of an openly gay bishop are considering forming their own church in Raleigh. The group, All Saint’s Fellowship, printed notice of its intention to explore starting a new church in its weekly Sunday bulletin. It has been holding Sunday services in the chapel of St. David’s School, formerly St. Timothy’s-Hale High School, since January. “What’s going on here in Raleigh is going on throughout the United States,” said Garland Tucker III of Raleigh, one of the leaders of the effort. Since the Episcopal Church U.S.A. voted last year to confirm its first openly gay bishop, the Rev. V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, many conservative church members have declared a desire to part with the 2.3 million-member denomination. A new organization, the American Anglican Council, headed by Bishop Robert W. Duncan of Pittsburgh and others, recently formed. But it’s not clear how big the group is. Many of the conservative Episcopalians would like to remain part of the Anglican Communion, a worldwide family of churches with 75 million members headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. But for now, the archbishop recognizes only the Episcopal Church U.S.A. among U.S. Anglicans. Episcopal bishops are discussing alternative oversight for dissenting churches. The core members of All Saint’s Fellowship are, or were, part of the 2,700-member Christ Church in downtown Raleigh. But services at St. David’s Chapel have drawn other disaffected Episcopalians. Attendance at 5 p.m. Sunday services has been between 130 and 420 people, Tucker said. Bishop Michael B. Curry of the Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina, which includes 118 churches across 39 Piedmont counties, was at a meeting of the church’s House of Bishops near Houston and was not available for comment. Curry voted last year in favor of confirming Robinson, the gay bishop, and a majority of Episcopalians in the diocese have signaled that they support him. At the annual diocesan convention in January, conservative delegates proposed a dozen resolutions asking the diocese to change its stand. All were soundly defeated. At Christ Church, conservatives won only one of four vacancies on the governing board in early February. For many opponents of gay ordination, it was clear the diocese was not going to revise its position. Although Christ Church is holding discussions about reconciliation this Wednesday evening and next, some members are determined to leave the church. “We just want to explore the possibility of a new church parish where we can experience biblical teaching with the majority of Anglicans worldwide who are overwhelmingly orthodox in their faith,” said George DeLoache, one of the group’s leaders. In North Carolina, a dozen churches split with the Episcopal Church in recent years—long before the consecration of a gay bishop. The leaders of All Saint’s Fellowship said they do not want to join forces with those churches but would rather wait until new oversight is established. Some of those splinter churches do not recognize the ordination of women; others do not recognize changes to the Book of Common Prayer, the Episcopal church’s book of liturgy. “We respect the other congregations,” said John Wood, one of the leaders of the new group. He added, “Most of our people are not opposed to women’s ordination.” END VIRTUOSITY FOOTNOTE: This group is made up largely of disaffected Anglo-Catholics from a wide geographical circle in North Carolina.

News Analysis By David W. Virtue The Episcopal Church House of Bishops has adopted a covenant which they believe will resolve all the problems that now exist between revisionist bishops and biblically orthodox parishes. After three days of closed door meetings at Camp Allen, Texas where even cell phones didn’t work and guards were needed at the gates, in order, one presumes, to prevent anyone wanting to run in and steal the pluriform mind of Frank Griswold, the 100 or so bishops have come up with a plan. It is so convoluted and confusing that one doubts that even the mystic Sufi Rumi could make sense of it if they all met on a plain in NJ’s Meadowlands. Furthermore one seriously doubts the Holy Ghost had much to do with the compromise either. After all the Spirit of Truth will never compromise on sexual sin, that at least is one truth that is absolute. Griswold said the decision shows the hierarchy’s commitment to reconcile the two sides. “We are coming to a new place of mutual discovery and trust,” he said. One orthodox theologian said the Navasota plan is “dead on arrival. It doesn’t even come close to recognizing the crisis we face,” he said. He is right. The American Anglican Council came out with a statement declaring it to be “inadequate,” scoring it as a failure in terms of “reconciliation.” It is impossible to achieve reconciliation without repentance. It is impossible to affect reconciliation when this Church has fragmented itself and will not address the ensuing emergency. The House of Bishops has proven once again their dysfunction and inability to acknowledge, much less address, the crisis of the Episcopal Church. From a format of “process,” small group discussion and multiple revisions, they have produced a plan for episcopal oversight that is undeniably and woefully inadequate. Two opposing ideas were on the table. One was supplemental episcopal pastoral care, proposed by liberals and revisionists, which allowed the diocesan bishop to invite the visitor (an orthodox bishop) but that he (the revisionist bishop) remains in pastoral contact with the congregation. It was understood to be a temporary arrangement, the ultimate goal being the full restoration of the relationship between the congregation and their bishop. The other side said no deal. What they wanted was Alternative Episcopal Oversight with an arrangement not dissimilar to the Forward in Faith UK plan to allow flying bishops to come in and the diocesan to stay right out of it forever. But that dog will never hunt, because it is not allowed by the canons and constitutions (that’s the official excuse), but because it would see a diminishing of the power of the revisionist bishops who are already watching their dioceses in congregational free fall. So the House of Purple came up with a third way. They recommended something called Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO). [Summary process steps omitted for brevity—already detailed in full “Caring for All the Churches” text above.] On first reading there is a silver lining in this DEPO plan for the orthodox and it is this: They can run this process out for months, possibly years and never have to see a revisionist bishop ever again. In the meantime they can take their confirmands to an orthodox diocese for confirmation (that’s canonically legal). As one orthodox bishop said to VIRTUOSITY, “if a priest presents confirmands to me at one of my churches and asks me to confirm them, I will do so, there is no canonical violation.” The priest can then return and keep the “process” for DEPO running on indefinitely. Of course all this is about strategy not truth. The notion that you can reconcile homoerotic behavior with holiness and revealed religion with pansexuality is the biggest lie of all. It will never happen, and that is why, at the end of the day, this plan, like all other plans of compromise, will fail. END

Statement from FIFNA President, Fr. David Moyer 24 March 2004 FIFNA’s Response to the House of Bishops’ Statement on Episcopal Care Kyrie Eleison, Christe Eleison, Kyrie Eleison. It would be wise in this second half of the Lenten season to pray unceasingly in light of the ECUSA House of Bishop’s Statement of 23 March, 2004. We have a church (or as Father Sam Edwards would say, an “unchurch”) that has been declared to be in rebellion, disobedient to the whole counsel of God, by the vast majority of baptized members of the Anglican Communion, as well as the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Although the bishops say that the church is “to be a trustworthy sign to the world of this costly reconciling power of God,” they mean that the orthodox must be “reconciled” to the agenda of ECUSA. Forward In Faith, North America, being a part of an international witness to Apostolic Order, Catholic Truth, and Evangelical Faith, is totally committed to reconciliation and unity. But, this reconciliation must be grounded in the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles which alone fosters unity amongst Christians. We strive to submit ourselves to God’s Revelation as known in the mind of the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church. The thrust of the House of Bishops’ Statement is on episcopal oversight. How in the Name of God can a church in crisis and denial led by revisionist bishops in aggressive and willful disobedience to Holy Scripture and ecumenical consensus think that faithful and intelligent people be deceived by this statement? No member parish or individual of FIFNA takes joy in the brokenness and impairment of relationships with their bishops. This isn’t the way it should be. But, we are not foolish. We see the state of denial that the ECUSA House of Bishops maintains. We understand the agenda to be that of intimidation, suppression and the elimination of orthodox faith and practice. Has there been any reversal of this? I will say with the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, “Bear fruit that befits repentance” (Matthew 3:8) Bishops are not welcomed and diocesan programs are not supported for the simple reason that a significant number of faithful souls don’t see them upholding and maintaining the Church’s proven witness to the world for salvation, healing, and reconciliation. We observe with heavy hearts those entrusted with apostolic authority who do not bring to the sheep of Christ’s pasture the doctrine of the Church Catholic and Apostolic. Indeed, they undermine Christ’s teachings. How could any converted soul welcome their statement? The provision (and there are no guarantees) of Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight is simply a denial of reality, and a gross failure to be apostolically pastoral to people. What committed priest or lay person could embrace this token thrown our way to deceive us by attempting to lower the temperature of unrest, and to stop the hemorrhaging of people? We all know that fully orthodox bishops cannot be reproduced in ECUSA and that fully orthodox churches are no longer free to maintain fully orthodox clergy leadership upon the death or retirement of their priest. Daily ECUSA loses more of her members to other churches or to nowhere at all! We will not accept this. We are committed to Adequate Episcopal Oversight as defined by the Archbishop of Canterbury. We will continue to work with the “Network” to achieve this goal. Let us be glad for Mother Church’s gift of Lent. We truly need it. (The Rev. Dr.) David L. Moyer END

3/24/2004 Network members, moderator, respond to ECUSA plan The national Episcopal Church’s just-released plan for “Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight” will require “tremendous generosity and charity on the part of the bishops and an extraordinary new level of trust on the part of the people and clergy,” if it is to work, said the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh, and moderator of the Anglican Communion Network. “The Network bishops will do what they can to enable the plan’s success,” he added. “I am deeply concerned that we are able to offer Adequate Episcopal Oversight as the Primates understand it. The question is whether there is the will in the Episcopal Church to make this plan into that,” said Duncan. “My commitment, and that of the Network, is to stand in solidarity with people of faith who are desperately struggling in some of our dioceses.” Responses from clergy and laity in the Network’s 12 dioceses and six convocations make it clear that, for most, the new plan leaves much to be desired. “Parishes being oppressed by bishops have to go to the person oppressing them, meet with them and then they may provide another bishop for you,” said Kendall Harmon, canon theologian for the Network diocese of South Carolina. According to Fr. Greg Brewer, Rector of the Church of the Good Samaritan in Paoli, PA, “generosity and charity” haven’t been what he and other orthodox parishes in liberal dioceses have always received in the past. “I was very disappointed in the content. It presumes the good will of liberal bishops to provide outside conservative pastoral care—There are a number of bishops that do not have that kind of good will,” he explained. The Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes, commonly known as the Anglican Communion Network, represents the Episcopalians of 12 dioceses and six regional convocations as well as thousands of individual Episcopalians from all over the United States, committed to being a united missionary movement of those sharing the gospel and rejecting false teaching. Primates, representing more than two-thirds of the world’s 60 million active Anglicans, have voiced public support for the Network. END