By Jacinthia Jones February 22, 2004 Promoting the themes of unity and reconciliation, Episcopalians from across West Tennessee refused Saturday to back efforts that would have distanced the local diocese from actions taken by the national church. On the final day of the diocese's annual convention meeting here, clergy and lay delegates passed a resolution supporting Bishop Don Johnson "in his leadership and commitment to unity." The church vote calls for Johnson to formulate a pastoral response for church members who disagree with gay ordinations and same-sex unions both of which were approved during last year's General Convention and to work with a commission to study the issues of marriage, human sexuality and the blessing of same-sex unions. The single resolution was crafted as a substitute for several others, angering church conservatives. They had pushed measures that would have repudiated the confirmation of Bishop V. Gene Robinson, a gay man who lives with a male partner, and would have proclaimed Christian marriage as being between one man and one woman. Episcopal dioceses in Pennsylvania, Texas and elsewhere had passed similar measures expressing their displeasure with the national church. "We didn't ask for this conflict, but we don't flee from it either," said Rev. Joe Davis, pastor of St. Philip Church in Lakeland. Davis co-authored another resolution that would have allowed dissident church members to join with conservative groups and still remain in the Episcopal Church. A majority of church members, however, objected to the plan calling it schismatic and an attempt to subvert the local bishop's authority. During the 1 1/2-hour debate, other conservative church members expressed frustration that their views were being ignored. "We've already embraced the voice of the liberal view," said Rev. Colenzo Hubbard, executive director of Emmanuel Episcopal Center in Memphis. "We cannot get to a place of unity unless all of our voices are heard." Others objected to the consolidated "watered-down" version of their resolutions. "This is a let's go study thing and people are going to depart (from the church) one at a time," said Joe Davenport of St. Luke's Episcopal Church in Jackson. Several priests who supported the substitute measure said the church needed more time to explore scripture as it pertains to human sexuality. "I consider myself a traditionalist and Orthodox, but what I've learned over the years is that Scripture is not clear at all," said Rev. Don White, pastor at St. George's Episcopal Church in Germantown. Others supporting the resolution said it gives both sides more time to sit down and talk out their differences. "Democracy may be a great way to run a country, but it's a terrible way to run a church," said Rev. C. B. Baker, Dean of St. Mary's Episcopal Church in Memphis. "To try to discern the Holy Spirit through a vote seems to be ludicrous." In a separate matter, the convention passed its 2004 budget, which cuts financial support to the national church by almost $60,000 over last year when the West Tennessee diocese gave more than $158,000. In approving the $1.2 million budget, church members said the decrease in funding to the national body was due to economic reasons and not intended to send a message of discontent. The West Tennessee diocese includes more than 11,300 baptized members.

By Rachel Harden CHURCH TIMES ANGLICAN leaders across the world were warned this week to stop taking "precipitate action or legal proceedings" because of conflicting views over homosexuality. The warning came from the Eames Commission, also known as the Lambeth Commission, which met for the first time last week, under the chairmanship of the Archbishop of Armagh, Dr Robin Eames. It is considering how divisions over this and other issues will affect the Anglican Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury set up the Commission in October at the emergency Primates' meeting after the Episcopal Church of the United States (ECUSA) elected an openly homosexual bishop, the Rt Revd Gene Robinson. The Commission issued a strongly worded statement on Monday, addressed to the warring factions within the Communion. It condemned the use of "strident language" by both conservatives and liberals. Its 19 members gathered in Windsor for a short rite of commissioning by Dr Williams on the eve of the first session. He said: "The Primates of the Communion have repeatedly asserted that they wish to remain a Communion rather than becoming a federation of Churches; and the task of this Commission is to help make this more of a reality, at a time when many pressures seem to be pushing in another direction." Dr Williams said that the Commission was "not dealing with a problem that is simply about biblical faithfulness versus fashionable relativism". After the meeting, the statement released by the Commission said that it was saddened that tensions within the Communion, "exacerbated by the use of strident language", have continued to rise in recent months. "The Commission requests all members of the Anglican Communion to refrain from any precipitate action, or legal proceedings which would further harm 'the bonds of communion' in the period while it completes its work. Mission and ministry, including prayer for unity, remain the priorities." Earlier this month, 14 Primates of the global South offered their support to a new network of conservative Anglicans in ECUSA. They included the Most Revd Drexel Gomez, Archbishop of the West Indies, who is a member of the Commission. The Commission set up small working groups to study five key topics: issues of process in the Anglican Communion; the nature and purposes of communion; the obligations of communion; authority; and the role of the instruments of unity in preserving fellowship. It also considered the work of previous commissions, including that chaired by Dr Eames on women bishops. The Commission is to report back by the end of September after two further meetings.

By Staff Reporter Belfast Telegraph 20 February 2004 THE major Anglican Commission chaired by Archbishop Robin Eames in the aftermath of the controversy involving homosexual bishops has called for a period of calm. The Commission on Anglican Structures, which met for the first time at St George's, Windsor, for three full days last week, has issued a statement requesting all members of the worldwide Anglican Communion "to refrain from any precipitate action, or legal proceedings, which would further harm the bonds of communion in the period while it completes its work". Members of the 17-strong Commission said that that they were saddened, however, that "tensions within the Communion, exacerbated by the use of strident language, have continued to rise in recent months". The Commission was set up last October by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, in the midst of the controversy over the appointment of Dr Gene Robinson, a practising homosexual as a Bishop in New Hampshire in the USA. From the outset Archbishop Eames outlined the Commission's role. He said: "Our job is not to discuss sexuality as such but to find guidelines which will allow us to live together in communion while facing disagreement." An Anglican Church spokesman told the Belfast Telegraph last night that the Commission had been encouraged by its first formal session. He said: "Everyone worked flat out to try find a way forward." He confirmed that the Commission was still on schedule to present its report to Dr Williams in September but that the worldwide Anglican Primates would not have a chance to discuss it together until at least the New Year.

Our Vows and the Protection of the Flock Demand it, they say     By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org November 16, 2025   Some 150 concerned laity have written an open letter to the ACNA College of Bishops saying Archbishop Steve Wood must be inhibited.   “We suggest that the archbishop be inhibited until the conclusion of the trial that will determine his guilt or innocence,” they argue.   Vows are not small matters in the Anglican tradition, they contend. The exhortation tells clergy of our duties:   I now exhort you, in the Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, to be a messenger, watchman, and steward of the Lord. Remember how great is this treasure committed to your charge. They are the sheep of Christ for whom he shed his blood. The Church and Congregation whom you will serve is his bride, his body. If the Church, or any of her members, is hurt or hindered by your negligence, you must know both the gravity of your fault, and the grievous judgment that will result (BCP 488–489 emphasis added).   As clergy in the ACNA, attending to the matter of Archbishop Wood's accusation is part of our pastoral duties and the care of our local congregations.     There is much that would be presumptuous to comment on at this early stage. We do not write this letter with any presumption about what this investigation will reveal or what its final outcome will be. We will limit our focus to a single salient issue: Given the seriousness of the charges against our Archbishop (sexual harassment and abuse of power), we believe that a voluntary leave of absence is insufficient.   Canonically, a voluntary leave of absence allows the Archbishop to return to office when he sees fit. Instead, we suggest that the Archbishop be inhibited until the conclusion of the trial that will determine his guilt or innocence. If such a request is not granted we believe that we as clergy deserve to hear from the College of Bishops why they believe that such a step is not warranted. We understand the weight of this request and do not make it flippantly.   In the Anglican tradition, an inhibition is not a statement about the guilt or innocence of the accused. According to our canons, “An Inhibition is a temporary suspension of a Bishop (including the Archbishop), a Presbyter, or a Deacon from the exercise of ministry (Canon 9, section 1). ” It is by its very nature “temporary.”   There are two requirements for an inhibition. First, there must be “ reasonable grounds” to believe that the accused has engaged in conduct upon which they may be presented. The Archbishop has already been presented. Since the litigation of that presentation is a matter for our court systems, it does not appear to be the job of those in authority to determine Archbishop Wood’s guilt or innocence before an inhibition. That would require those in authority to engage in an investigation not required by canon.    Therefore, in a case where there has already been a presentment, an inhibition may be deemed “reasonable” based upon the sworn testimony of the presentment itself. Stated differently, our canons suggest that if the charges are of sufficient seriousness and of initial viability then the accused may be inhibited until the truthfulness of said charges can be discerned. We believe this case meets that standard.    The second requirement is that “it is in the best interests of the church to do so, pending an accusation, canonical investigation, presentment, trial, or voluntary submission to discipline (Canon 9,section 1).” We believe that given these charges, this case also meets that standard.     Again our goal is not to presume guilt, but to give space to investigate and discern guilt or innocence with all possible protections in place.   We know that inhibition is not a matter for the entire College of Bishops. Instead, “In the case of the presentment of a Bishop of this Church (including the Archbishop), three of the five senior active diocesan members of the College of Bishops by date of consecration (exclusive of any bishop involved in the presentment or trial) may, by their affirmative vote, temporarily inhibit the Bishop from the exercise of ministry. Such inhibition shall be in writing, signed by those consenting to it.”   Nonetheless, we believe that in this circumstance it would be prudent for the college as a whole to meet in council with those tasked to make this decision and inform them of your opinion on the matter to aid in their discernment. We then would respectfully request to hear from house on this matter because we believe that you are tasked with the care of the flock of God which includes the clergy and laity under your care. You have been given the weighty charism and task of leadership and protection. You can be assured of our prayers.   Clergy interested in supporting this call can add their names here.   We plan to submit this letter along with its signatures to the College of Bishops on the Feast of Christ the King, the last Sunday of Ordinary Time.    Feast of St. Martin of Tours, 2025     Authors   Esau McCaulley+ Amanda Rosengren+ Tish Harrison Warren+ Jonathan Warren Pagán+   Signees   Jordan Kologe Diocese of The Rocky Mountains   Kara Griffith Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others   Elizabeth Elmers Diocese of the Rocky Mountains   Kathryn Watkins Diocese of the Rocky Mountains   Chris Lugo Diocese of the Mid Atlantic   Kyle Holtzhower Anglican Diocese of South Carolina   Heather Ghormley Diocese of the Great Lakes   Rob Sorensen Diocese of the Rocky Mountains   Jacob Hootman Diocese of Fort Worth   Aaron Harrison Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others   Heather Matthews Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others   Jamie Afshari Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others   Jesse Martin Diocese of Cascadia   Jeremiah Webster Diocese of the Rocky Mountains   John Haralson Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others   Ryan Landes Anglican Diocese of South Carolina   Drew Billups Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others   Nelson Hall Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others   Joshua Fink Anglican Diocese of the Carolinas   Jeremy Shelton Anglican Diocese of South Carolina   Nathan Hale Diocese of the Rocky Mountains   Jeanne Higgins  Diocese of the Gulf Atlantic   Brian C. Morgan Diocese of Christ our Hope   Bill Haley Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic   Patrick Schlabs Anglican Diocese of South Carolina   Newman Lawrence Anglican Diocese of South Carolina   Emily Hunter McGowin Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others   Mary Amendolia Gardner Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic   Matthew Wilkins Diocese of the Carolinas   David D Wilson Diocese of Pittsburgh   Mike Juday Anglican Diocese of the Carolinas   Tim Melton Diocese of the Carolinas   Corey Prescott Anglican Diocese of South Carolina   John Gibson Special Jurisdiction for Armed Forces and Chaplaincy   Brian Pape Diocese of Christ Our Hope   Allan Theobald Anglican Diocese of Canada   Juliet San Nicolas de Bradley Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others   Ryan Bradley Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others   Brian Goodwin Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others   Ben Acone Diocese of the Rocky Mountains   Amy Rowe Diocese of the Mid Atlantic   David Rowe Anglican Diocese of South Carolina   Zachary Miller Anglican Diocese of South Carolina   Nancy Nethercott Rund Anglican Diocese of the Great Lakes   Katie Hamlin Diocese of the Mid Atlantic   Cameron Crickenberger   Diocese of the Carolinas Joshua Samuels   Diocese of Canada Elizabeth Stewart   Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh   Tim Clayton Anglican Diocese of New England   Ryan Brotherton Diocese of Cascadia   Christopher H. Brown Diocese of the Gulf Atlantic   Steven Tompkins Diocese of Cascadia   Nate Kellogg Diocese of the Rocky Mountains   Joe McCulley Diocese of Cascadia   Eric Henningfeld Special Jurisdiction for Armed Forces and Chaplaincy   Sheryll Qualls Diocese of the Carolinas   John Gullett Anglican Diocese of the Carolinas   Luke Deman Anglican Diocese of South Carolina   Will Klauber Anglican Diocese of South Carolina   Ross Wagner Diocese of Christ Our Hope   Louise Weld Anglican Diocese of South Carolina   Janet Roberts Echols  Anglican Diocese of South Carolina    Hank Tarlton Diocese of Christ our Hope   Zach Barton Anglican Diocese of South Carolina    Peet Dickinson Anglican Diocese of South Carolina    Hunter Myers Anglican Diocese of South Carolina    Isaac Bradshaw Diocese of New England   Hunter Jordan Anglican Diocese of South Carolina    Virginia Musselman  Anglican Diocese of the Carolinas   Ricky McCarl REC NEMA   Leah Wall Anglican Diocese of Canada   Nelson Weaver Anglican Diocese of South Carolina   Rob Patterson Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others   Robert Lawrence Anglican Diocese of South Carolina   Bree Snow Anglican Diocese of the Carolinas   Matthew Aughtry Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others   Jordan Warner Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others   Jeremy Goebel Anglican Diocese of the South   Kyle Logan Diocese of Cascadia   Eric Fesmire Diocese of Christ our Hope   Kester Smith Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others   Erin Bair Diocese of the Mid Atlantic   Krista Vossler Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others   Ron McGowin Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others   Taylor Daniel Anglican Diocese of South Carolina   Charles A. Collins, Jr. Southeast (REC)   Drew Miller Anglican Diocese of South Carolina   Peter White Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others   Teesha Hadra Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others   Allison Lewis Diocese of the Carolinas   Brad Lindsay Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others   Donald Shepson Diocese of Pittsburgh   Anson Ann Diocese of Canada   Allan Tan Diocese of Canada   Jason Varnadore Anglican Diocese of South Carolina   Anna Spray Diocese of Canada   Erin Chin Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others   Daniel N. Gullotta Diocese of All Nations   Hamilton Smith Anglican Diocese of South Carolina   Daniel Wolf Anglican Diocese of New England   Elizabeth Bumpas Anglican Diocese of South Carolina   Gina Roes Anglican Diocese of the Carolinas   Collin Reed Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh   Shannon Reed  Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh   Kevin Miller Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others   Edmond Ragland Coxe Anglican Diocese of South Carolina   MaryEllen Doran Anglican Diocese of South Carolina   Carter Smith-Stepper Diocese of Cascadia   Richard Sandlin Diocese of Canada   Joseph Calandra, Jr. Special Jurisdiction for the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy    Tyler Prescott Anglican Diocese of South Carolina   Stefan Taylor Diocese of Carolinas   Jason Fry Diocese of the Mid Atlantic   Kendall Harmon Anglican Diocese of South Carolina   Justin Lokey Diocese of Christ our Hope   Ben Edstrom Yellowstone Missionary District/DWA.    Claudia Carucci  Anglican Diocese of South Carolina   Jennifer Keifer Anglican Diocese of New England   Dawn Lundgren Diocese of Pittsburgh   Noel Collins Diocese of Southwest   Kurt Hein Diocese of Forth Worth   Justin Clemente Diocese of the South   Colby Truesdell Diocese of the Carolinas   Jennifer L. Hughes Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others   Jonathan Bennett Anglican Diocese of South Carolina   Maryanna Stumbaugh Anglican Diocese of the Great Lakes   Megan Greto Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others   Chris Hill Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh   Carol Brooks  Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others   Charles Echols Anglican Diocese of South Carolina   Stefan Taylor Diocese of the Carolinas   Will Henry Lawrence (postulant) Diocese of the Gulf Atlantic   Sarah Lindsey Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others   Nancy Scammacca Lewis Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others   Aaron White Anglican Diocese of the Carolinas   Becki Neumann Diocese of the Mid Atlantic   Summer Gross Anglican Diocese of the Great Lakes

CAMBRIDGE, USA, February 27 (CNA) - A Catholic Harvard University law professor says all U.S. citizens should welcome President George W. Bush's endorsement of a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, based on the implications of same-sex marriage. In an article on same-sex marriage released Feb. 25, Mary Ann Glendon argues that same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue, but a movement for special preference. She states that it will impair children's rights and jeopardize religious freedom. Furthermore, the decision to legalize same-sex marriage belongs to the people, not to the courts, and should be made according to the democratic process, she says. Such an important decision should only be made after full public debate, she says. "What same-sex marriage advocates have tried to present as a civil rights issue is really a bid for special preferences of the type our society gives to married couples for the very good reason that most of them are raising or have raised children," says Glendon. "There is a real problem of distributive justice," said the former Vatican representative to the Summit on Women at Beijing. "How can one justify treating same-sex households like married couples when such benefits are denied to all the people in our society who are caring for elderly or disabled relatives whom they cannot claim as family members for tax or insurance purposes? Shouldn't citizens have a chance to vote on whether they want to give homosexual unions, most of which are childless, the same benefits that society gives to married couples, most of whom have raised or are raising children?" The financial implications of same-sex marriage must also be given consideration, she says, adding that the media has not reported the financial costs to American citizens for this "new special preference" in terms of taxes and insurance premiums. Children's rights Same-sex marriage will also impair children's rights, since it will endorse the view that marriage is for the benefit of adults and that children do not need both a mother and a father, argues the law professor. It will suggest that "alternative family forms are just as good as a husband and wife raising kids together," she says. School programs will also be affected. Children will be taught about homosexual sex in marriage-preparation and sex-education classes. "Parents who complain will be branded as homophobes and their children will suffer," she warns. Religious freedom at stake Glendon predicts that same-sex marriage will also jeopardize religious freedom and "usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination the likes of which we have rarely seen before." "Every person and every religion that disagrees with same-sex marriage will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against," warns Glendon. "The axe will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don't go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles." END OF BATCH 31D

News Analysis By David W. Virtue The new bishop of New Hampshire V. Gene Robinson said in a sermon in Chicago honoring the 200-year old ordination of Absalom Jones the first African-American priest ordained in the Episcopal Church, that his own oppression as a gay man is equal to that of "people of color." "The real sin, of course, of any oppression is making an object out of another human being. Treating people as if they were a commodity, an it. Slavery, of course, being the ultimate," said Robinson. "People of color. Women. Gay and lesbian folk. The physically disabled. The aged. All oppressed and all are offered liberation by this great God of ours, declaring the humanity and not the objectification of those people." Robinson pointed to the Prophet Isaiah and the 61st chapter. "It talks about the kinds of oppressions that we are all dealing with, and what you and I are called to do, along with saints like Absalom Jones, in our own ministries." "We're having a bit of a controversy in the Episcopal Church right now. I think you probably noticed. It seems to have something to do with an election in New Hampshire, and a consent given by the General Assembly," said a cynical Robinson. "Could it be, could it be that God is inviting us to go deeper? Could it be that God is asking us to pull our boat out into deeper waters so that we might get to know God better?" "As surely as Jesus was inviting Peter to stretch his notion of God's will, as surely as Absalom Jones was stretched to believe in his own humanity in a culture poisoned by the sin of slavery, so you and I are called to stretch our notion of God's love to all people, especially and always to those on the margins." Robinson's invitation to go to a "deeper place" is much favored by Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold. But Robinson's mixing of race and sexuality issues outraged several leading Black leaders including Philadelphia Black Anglican priest the Rev. James Johnson. "I was saddened to read V. Gene Robinson's sermon on Isaiah 61:1-3ff. This passage is one of the great Jubilee passages of Scripture. It declares that now is the season of reprieve and rest, of pardon and deliverance for penitent sinners and yet it also warns of a final coming day of God's vengeance upon those who let this season of Jubilee pass by." "What is tragically ironic is that this very passage which Mr. Robinson uses to argue explicitly for gay liberation and implicitly for the wholesomeness of at least some homosexual relations, in actuality calls upon him and us all, to repent of our sinful ways while God has let open the floodgates of His mercy. Far from being a rallying cry for homosexual rights, this passage calls for the homosexual to repent of his homosexuality." Johnson said he found Robinson's contrast of Absalom Jones's being black with his (Robinson's) being gay outrageous. "This offensive ploy used by Robinson to sway the biblically illiterate, is the equation of being Black (or white) with being gay (or straight); that homosexuality is as non-morally relevant as skin pigmentation in the consideration of justice for all human beings. This is pure sophistry! Skin pigmentation is a small part of the beautiful diversity of the good created order and is to be celebrated as such. Racial prejudice and oppression demean God's created order and as such are part of the effects of the Fall. The error of Mr. Robinson is to consider homosexuality as part of the beautiful diversity of creation and not of the effects of Fall. The false parallel is between the struggle for racial justice and homosexual liberation. The true parallel is between racial oppression and homosexual practice and desires, as both are effects of the Fall which demeans the crowning glory of God's created order - man and woman." Johnson said that St. Paul in Ephesians 5:31-32 records that from the beginning, manhood and womanhood were created to represent or dramatize God's relation with his people and to Christ's relation to his bride, the Church. "In this drama, the man represents God or Christ and is to love his wife as Christ loved the Church. The woman represents God's people or the Church. And sexual union in the covenant of marriage represents pure, undefiled, intense heart-worship. That is, God means for the beauty of worship to be dramatized in the right ordering of our sexual lives." Johnson said that as a result of The Fall, "we have exchanged the glory of God for images, especially of ourselves. The beauty of heart-worship has been destroyed. Therefore, in judgment, God decrees that this disordering of our relation to him be dramatized in the disordering of our sexual relations with each other. And since the right ordering of our relationship to God in heart-worship was dramatized by heterosexual union in the covenant of marriage, the disordering of our relationship to God is dramatized by the breakdown of that heterosexual union." Johnson said that homosexuality was the most vivid form of that breakdown. "God and man in covenant worship are represented by male and female in covenant sexual union. Therefore, when man turns from God to images of himself, God hands us over to what we have chosen and dramatizes it by male and female turning to images of themselves for sexual union, namely their own sex. Homosexuality is the judgment of God dramatizing the exchange of the glory of God for images of ourselves." Isaiah 61 is calling upon us all to repent while there is still time, he said. Dr. Michael Howell a cradle Episcopalian who says he is proud of his black Caribbean ...

4/25/2004 I was going to analyze Frank Griswold's letter, dated December 19, 2003, to the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church. But as I read it, something gradually occurred to me. I'd read it before. Frank to the Patriarch: I write to you with a heavy heart, having reviewed the November 17 press release from the Department for External Church Relations of the Russian Orthodox Church and having pondered it in my prayers for many weeks. I know that our bonds of fraternal affection and respect have been strained by an action of our General Convention: namely the consent to the election of the bishop-elect of the Diocese of New Hampshire and his subsequent Consecration. I am keenly aware that for you this is clearly contrary to a plain reading of Scripture and Holy Tradition. According to the DECR's press release, the Biblical texts about the condemnation of homosexualism are clear and unequivocal. Therefore our actions seem to say to you that the Episcopal Church has gone beyond the bounds of what is morally acceptable. Frank to the Primates of the Anglican Communion, in a letter dated August 19, 03: I write to you with a heavy heart, knowing that, in some instances, our bonds of fraternal affection and respect have been strained by an action of our General Convention: namely the consent to the election of the bishop-elect of the Diocese of New Hampshire. I am keenly aware that for many of you this is clearly contrary to a plain reading of Scripture, and in the contexts in which you live, it is unthinkable. Should you be of that view, our action would say to you that the Episcopal Church has gone beyond the bounds of what is morally acceptable. Frank to the Patriarch: I see my ministry now as helping our church to find a way forward that both preserves the unity of the church and honors the deeply held divergent points of view among us. Frank to the Primates: I see my ministry now as helping our church to find a way forward that both preserves the unity of the church and honors the deeply held divergent points of view among us. Frank to the Patriarch: I am now obliged to ask what potential gift is buried beneath the surface of this present situation. One of Metropolitan Philaret's prayers, which I say daily, contains the phrase: "I am ready for all, I accept all." Therefore, I find myself asking God to show me how this occasion might be used for the good and to build up the life we share in Christ. Frank to the Primates: As much as I would have preferred that the attention of the Convention, and indeed the media, be focused elsewhere, I am now obliged to ask what potential gift is buried beneath the surface of this present situation. One of the prayers I say daily contains the phrase: I am ready for all, I accept all. Therefore, I find myself asking God to show me how this occasion might be used for the good and to build up the life we share in Christ. Frank to the Patriarch: I write now in the hope of answering some questions raised in the press release which, I note, was released by the DECR and not by you personally. First, I must say in the strongest possible terms that if I believed in any part of my being that the consent to this election was unfaithful to an authentic way of reading Scripture and contrary to the leading of the Holy Spirit, I could no longer serve as the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. I pray that you know I firmly believe, as you do, that the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God and contain all things necessary to salvation. That is the oath I took at my ordination and my life is rooted and grounded in this understanding. Frank to the Primates: I write now in the hope of answering some questions a number of you have raised. First, I must say in strongest possible terms that if I believed in any part of my being that the consent to this election was unfaithful to an authentic way of reading Scripture and contrary to the leading of the Holy Spirit, I could no longer serve as the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. I pray that as most of you have come to know me over these years you know I firmly believe, as you do, that the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God and contain all things necessary to salvation. My life is rooted and grounded in this understanding. Frank to the Patriarch: The difficulty before us is not about some of us believing that Scripture is the inspired Word of God and others not believing it is. How we have been shaped and formed as Christians and the context in which we live have a great deal to do with how we interpret various passages in the Bible and the weight we give them in making moral decisions. Frank to the Primates: Unfortunately, the difficulty before us is not about some of us believing that Scripture is the inspired Word of God and others not believing it is. How we have been shaped and formed as Christians and the context in which we live have a great deal to do with how we interpret various passages in the Bible and the weight we give them in making moral decisions. Frank to the Patriarch: I have said on more than one occasion that, to my mind, consent to this particular election does not mean we now have concluded discussion about the matter of homosexuality which is of such concern in the life of our church and many others. The matter is far from resolved and there are strong opinions on every side. Frank to the Primates: Second, and very important, to my mind consent does not mean we now have clarity about the matter of homosexuality in the life of our church, and a vote to consent is not about this larger question. The matter is far from resolved and there are strong opinions on every side. Frank to the Patriarch: There are also questions about the resolution passed by our Convention concerning "Rites: blessing of committed same gender relationships." The original form of the resolution called for the authorization of the development of rites for the blessing of same sex unions. This was rejected. Here I, and many others, were mindful of the Primates' letter following our meeting in Brazil. The resolution Convention passed recognizes the reality of a variety of local pastoral practices, without either endorsing or condemning the same, and calls for "continued prayer, study and discernment" under my direction. Frank to the Primates: There have also been questions about the resolution passed by our Convention concerning Rites: blessing of committed same gender relationships. The original form of the resolution called for the authorization of the development of rites for the blessing of same sex unions, which would then have been considered by the General Convention in 06. This was rejected. Here I and many others were mindful of the Primates letter following our meeting in Brazil. The resolution Convention passed recognizes the reality of a variety of local pastoral practices, without either endorsing or condemning the same, and calls for continued prayer, study and discernment under my direction. Frank to the Patriarch: It is important to note that this in no way relates to Holy Matrimony, about which our teachings are clear. I say this because some reports following Convention falsely indicated we had departed from the teachings on marriage. I see the question on blessing same gender relationships as a quite separate matter from that of consenting to the New Hampshire election. Frank to the Primates: It is important to note that this in no way relates to Holy Matrimony, about which our teachings are clear. I say this because some reports following Convention falsely indicated we had departed from the teachings on marriage. I see the question on blessing same gender relationships as a quite separate matter from that of consenting to the New Hampshire election. Frank to the Patriarch: St. Paul once wrote: "Glory to God whose power working in us can do infinitely more than we can ask or imagine." These words give me strength and courage and open me continually to the mystery of God's ever-unfolding ways. May they sustain us all in the ministry we share, which is none other than Christ's continuing ministry of reconciling love. Frank to the Primates: Glory to God whose power working in us can do infinitely more than we can ask or imagine. These words of St. Paul give me strength and courage and open me continually to the mystery of God's ever-unfolding ways. May they sustain us all in the ministry we share, which is none other than Christ's continuing ministry of reconciling love.

2/24/2004 Canon Edward Norman has written a scathing attack on the Church of England and is converting to Catholicism. Damian Thompson meets him "My new book is not actually a criticism of the Church of England," says Canon Edward Norman, chancellor of York Minster, choosing his words with donnish precision. Edward Norman: 'men are interested in truth, ideas, sin, wickedness and virtue'. Is he serious? Two minutes later, he declares: "There is a big hole at the centre of Anglicanism - its authority. I don't think it's a Church; it's more of a religious society." This is the most hurtful criticism that one can make of any Church: to say that it is not a Church. In fact, his book, Anglican Difficulties: A New Syllabus of Errors, is one of the most ferocious assaults ever launched on the Church of England. It is all the more deadly because its author is not a traditionalist quote-merchant, but a leading Church intellectual. A former Reith lecturer and Dean of Peterhouse, Canon Norman is an ecclesiastical historian with the long face and high cheekbones of a Tudor churchman. He speaks fast and quietly, polishing his dry words as he speaks, so that his prose and conversation are almost indistinguishable. He commits thoughts to paper that colleagues might let slip only in the senior common room after dinner. In Anglican Difficulties, Norman blazes away impartially at all the Church's factions. About the General Synod, he writes: "Every disagreement, in seemingly every board or committee, proceeds by avoidance of principled debate. Ordinary moral cowardice is represented as wise judgment; equivocation in the construction of compromise formulae is second nature to leaders." Evangelical bishops who trumpet their adherence to Biblical orthodoxy are accused of selling their principles in return for preferment. "Discreetly, behind the twitching curtains of the evangelical bishops' houses, the playing pieces are being set out on the board," writes Norman. So how can someone who believes that the Church of England is collapsing belong to it? The answer is that Edward Norman will leave the Church of England when he retires as a member of York Minster's chapter in May. Later this year, he will be received into the Roman Catholic Church by a Cambridge contemporary, Fr Dermot Fenlon, at the Birmingham Oratory. He has started attending Mass in Catholic churches, unobserved in collar and tie. But there is no mention of conversion to Rome in Anglican Difficulties. Norman stresses that leaving the C of E and becoming a Catholic are "quite independent developments". Like his insistence that his new book is not a criticism of Anglicanism, this point is not easy to grasp, but Norman is insistent. "Just because the Anglican tub is leaking is not in itself an argument for jumping into another one," he explains. His conversation drips with these aquatic metaphors. Over lunch in an Italian restaurant near the Minster, he announces: "Anglicanism is going to tip into the sea." He reaches for the bread with a thin smile. "But it will all come out in the wash." Norman eats a plate of pasta here every lunchtime. "It is my only meal of the day," he says, which is not hard to believe: he is rake-thin and ascetic, a convert in the mould of John Henry Newman rather than GK Chesterton. This is not an obvious candidate for "Poping". Like Newman, Norman has always been Low Church; when he arrived at York Minister, he had to be helped through the rituals. And didn't he once support women priests? "I was originally in favour, on rationalist liberal grounds," he says, apologetically. "Now, I'm against it - on the evidence. We were told that a whole dimension to humanity was missing from the ministry, but that enrichment hasn't happened." What follows is a typical Edward Norman argument, either perverse or original, depending on your point of view. "Women emphasise caring, relationships, suffering, healing and love. Men are interested in truth, ideas, conflict, sin, wickedness and virtue. Those are caricatures, but there was wisdom in Our Lord entrusting the office of the priesthood to men. "The priesthood is about teaching, not just conveyance of the sacraments. If you think Christianity is all about love and relationships, then it will disappear in the flood." He catches my surprised look and shrugs. "I can't think of a way of putting this into words that is acceptable to contemporary culture," he says. Not that he tries. There is something in Norman's world view to offend everyone: liberals, who imagine that "caring" is an adequate substitute for the rigours of the Gospel; lovers of art and music, who mistake aesthetic sensations for spirituality; Tory-voting country types who enjoy a jolly good sing-song at Matins. "The number of people who respond to the teaching of the truth is extremely small," he says. "I have friends who come to York Minster who are very good people, even godly, but it's a very conventional, class-based observance." Class runs through Norman's writings, a legacy of his youthful Marxism. His reputation now is that of a maverick Right-winger, but he says that is wrong: "I have no politics. My only ideology is classical Christianity, without reservation." In the late 1970s, Norman's broadsides against the trendy Left earned him the label of Margaret Thatcher's favourite clergyman; she even invited him to Chequers. "But there wasn't any meeting of minds," he says firmly. "Mrs T wasn't - isn't - a very deep thinker. She was the daughter of an alderman who was a Gladstonian liberal, and that was what she was, too. She was looking for an intellectual to give a pedigree to those liberal values. I have admiration for her, and found her personally kind. But I have been appalled by the results of naked capitalism." His own sympathies are unpredictable. One wonders if Lady Thatcher would still admire him if she had heard his final lecture at York Minster - an appreciation of the oeuvre of gay atheist filmmaker Derek Jarman. The lecture was extraordinary, not least for the Jarman quotes that Norman included. Jarman on Dr George Carey: "Moon-faced and pudgy, a clerical Bunter, the school bully in a lurex mitre." And on Carey's enthronement as Archbishop of Canterbury: "This is where crap takes you." The canon chancellor of York Minster quoted these lines as if he approved of them. Perhaps his failure to reach high office in the established Church is not that mysterious. Norman spent 17 years at Peterhouse, where one of his students was Michael Portillo. "A very hard-working pupil," he recalls. "I never noticed any sexual irregularity in his life." Most of Norman's time as a Cambridge don was given over to writing studies of (among others) the Victorian Christian socialists and modern Ireland. He was also a participant in one of the most vigorous High Table feuds in recent history, which began when he fell out with the Master of Peterhouse, the late Lord Dacre, over a memorial service for a don who had been caught shoplifting. Norman thought the man deserved a Cambridge memorial service. Dacre disagreed. As Norman recounts it, Dacre's views do indeed sound unreasonable. (Years ago, when working on a newspaper diary column, I sought Dacre's side of the story. He would only say: "Dr Norman is a s--t.") After lunch, Norman shows me around the cathedral. "This is a very poor example of the late-Gothic style," he says, his thin arm sweeping dismissively across the widest medieval nave in England. "It was put up on the cheap - the decorative devices are straight out of a stonemason's catalogue." But doesn't the miraculous, vaulted ceiling help worshippers concentrate their thoughts? "Cathedrals can be a hindrance as well as an aid to faith," says Norman. "They can lead people to luxuriate in emotion. I'd rather they were convicted of their sins." We pass a statue of the Minster's patron saint, St Peter, holding a key. It's an appropriate image. Soon, Canon Norman will be free of "the ideological chaos of Anglicanism" and in full communion with (as he believes) the successor of Peter. Then will come retirement in Brighton - "And I shall be properly retired," he says. The reaction of his critics is not hard to predict: "Well, there's one Anglican difficulty out of the way," they will smirk. But others will regret the loss of one of the most profound and unsettling thinkers that the Church of England has produced in decades. "Catholicism is what I have always believed, though I did not have the wit to realise it," says Canon Norman, gathering his coat around him. "You might call it a shaft of light before the sun sets." © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2004.

From: Evangelical Fellowship of Irish Clergy An Anglican cleric who led the protest against the blessing of same-sex unions is to address Church of Ireland clergy in the coming week. The Rev. David Short, rector of St John's, Shaughnessy, Vancouver, made his protest after his Bishop in the Canadian diocese of New Westminster permitted rites for so-called 'gay marriages'. His parish, along with ten others, formed a coalition, the Anglican Communion in New Westminster (ACiNW), which has been recognised by the past and present Archbishops of Canterbury. Currently, the ACiNW represents 25% of the worshipping community in New Westminster. Chief among their concerns is the departure from traditional Biblical Christian faith and morals within the Church and the threat to those who practice orthodox Anglican Christian faith. Mr. Short will be addressing Church of Ireland clergy and lay readers at a lunchtime meeting in Portadown on Wednesday, organised by the Evangelical Fellowship of Irish Clergy. Its chairman, Canon Clive West, explained the purpose for this meeting, "David will be sharing his experiences of living in a church structure which is hostile towards Biblical faith and informing us of developments internationally." The meeting, entitled "Thinking for the Future" takes place in the Fergus Hall (St Mark's Church Hall), Portadown from 11.30am - 2pm on Wednesday 3rd March, 2004. An Australian by birth, David Short is married to Bron and they have two sons, Ben and Josh. He says of the current situation in New Westminster, "I believe that we are in a Diocese that has unilaterally severed its connection with the global Anglican Communion by being the first to officially bless same-sex unions." The Anglican Communion, of which the Church of Ireland is a part, is presently facing great controversy over homosexuality. In the past year the Diocese of New Hampshire, USA has elected a practising homosexual as its bishop, and New Westminster was the first Anglican diocese to permit the blessing of same-sex unions. Archbishop of Armagh, Robin Eames, is heading a commission to look at ways the Communion might be able to stay together at this time. The Anglican Communion in New Westminster (ACiNW) has received unprecedented support from around the world. 358 Anglican clergy, Bishops, and Archbishops from across Canada and around the world have issued public statements rejecting the New Westminster decision and supporting the ACiNW. See www.acinw.org The Evangelical Fellowship of Irish Clergy exists to provide its members with encouragement, refreshment and teaching from the Bible. Their purpose is to see the clergy of the Church of Ireland equipped in biblical ministry, that Jesus Christ may be better known.

Enemy-occupied territory – that is what the world is. When you go to church you are really listening-in to the secret wireless from our friends: that is why the enemy is so anxious to prevent us from going. - C.S. Lewis – Mere Christianity, II-2 Spin Can Make You Dizzy A diabolical communiqué, intercepted by Gerry Hunter From the Desk of the Undersecretary for Ecclesiastical Affairs My Dear Dogwood, I doubt that you realize what a lucky devil you are. In fact, your recent behaviour has been so bizarre that you probably don't even realize that, bereft of blessing as we are, luck is all we have. Douglas Todd's piece in that marvelously cynical and secular publication, the Vancouver Sun, caught the Secretary's attention. Now for whatever reason, he gives you credit for causing it, when I know for a fact you were wasting your time trying to get some clod to curse when he stubbed his toe. But you are getting the credit, along with an assignment to prepare the analysis and recommendations for follow-up. Worse yet, his Disgrace made it clear that the quality of the report would be a clear indicator of my abilities as your directing executive. So do pay attention to what I'm telling you here, or we will both end up in the gulag. First, the article itself. We are on pretty thin ice here. The piece is so fawning and solicitous that one could conclude it was written by a press secretary, not a news gatherer. Not that we mind when paeans of praise for Michael Ingham fall into our laps, but we don't want them to be so obvious. But more to the point when you write your analysis, nephew, be aware that you are merely dealing with the kind of thing that one religionist routinely writes about another religionist. As distinct from what a Christian churchmen might write about one of his fellows, this article concentrates on the man, with his beliefs entering the picture only as peripheral ornaments. (More about those beliefs later.) So do not make the mistake of presenting this to the Secretary as something truly profound or insightful. You do that, and we will both be served up, garni, at the next executive banquet. Consequently, you had better just point out that the image presented in the article is that of a typical religionist, and leave it there. Strong but benevolent; his prayer, Bible reading, and golf all part of a tidy package; eager to discuss; a head as sensitive as foam rubber, to go along with his "spine of granite"; a man who places people before beliefs, even, you could note, beliefs that would nurture them. Don't forget to point out the favorable contrasts the writer includes concerning those churchmen who oppose his subject's efforts. It wouldn't hurt to complement the writer on how he has included them to bolster his subject's observations on "vehement language" and "hate mail." Also, the fact that the writer has worked in the view of togetherness before faithfulness probably deserves a favorable mention. And for the hate of Heaven, don't neglect to complement the writer for working in his subject's dismissal of those opponents, who are similar in ecclesiastical rank to the subject, as mere pragmatists, rather than as men of Christian conviction. The Secretary himself had a strong hand in encouraging that kind of thinking. In summary, Dogwood, don't make your usual mistake of presenting the ordinary as something extraordinary, and trying to claim credit for it. I happen to know that the Secretary considers you senior tempter material. He clearly does not know you well, and it is best for us both that he does not come to. You will notice, I hope, that I have said very little about the beliefs of the subject up to this point. Neither should you, in the analysis of the article. They pertain mostly to the recommendations that you should present, so you should discuss them at that point, as I am about to do now. Unfortunately, Dogwood, it will not escape everyone's notice that those beliefs of the subject that do come out in the article are much more Socinian then they are Christian. They aren't really good Socinianism, because they seem to be muddled with pop psychology and New Age spirituality. Still, they will alarm those who take the Enemy's teachings seriously. I've already mentioned how the subject categorized golf together with his prayer and Bible reading. You will notice, I hope, the reference to "the spirituality, the Zen, of golf," in the article, and how that concept has been developed into a course, if you please. Also, the ranking of togetherness before faithfulness will get the Christian reader's attention, as will the characterization of those who think differently as "architects of schism." For the Enemy's call to follow the narrow path, and enter the narrow gate, we have the subject's invitation to swim in "a big river." Don't make too much of the subject's father holding God responsible for evil. What you want to hit on there is the subject's characterization of Jesus as a way-shower, as distinct from a savior. Nor should you hit too hard on the subject's observations about his opponents "willingness to flout the church's cannon law," because he does try to represent himself as the leader of a Protestant denomination, and we don't want to undermine that image by making him look crypto-Roman. Still, you might be able to make something out of his delicious tendency to put man's corporate laws before the Enemy's Commandments and scriptural teachings. But the article has saved the best for last in the area of beliefs. Unfortunately, it also lets the cat out of the bag. When a man says, "a Christian is one who believes Jesus Christ to be the way, the truth and the life. This is not to say there are no others. This issue will be the next major battleground," he is making a statement that is going to attract attention beyond his own extended corporate sphere. If we are not careful, a statement like that could lead to difficulties involving the Enemy's followers who look to Rome, Constantinople, Geneva, Canterbury, or wherever. The recommendations you present the Secretary had better take that into account. There are several possibilities you should consider in your recommendations, but the following one should predominate. Don't waste much time on the Romans, or the Eastern Orthodox who have moved back from the subject's Anglican Communion until they sort things out. The best we can hope for from them is that they just let this pass without commenting. Come up with some ideas on how to encourage them in thinking that it really isn't their affair, and to have them say nothing. You might mention that, in those circumstances, the delicious prospect for confusion among their faithful, in the midst of such silence, is very real. After all, many of them live in the same culture whose ideas have overwhelmed the subject's spiritual thinking. Additionally, those vermin with no real concept of what it means to follow the Enemy, but who think they are somehow doing so, will continue to swim in the big river, and not be moved to make for the shore while there's still time. We like that river. It delivers many souls to our gates, and the water, once vaporized, helps make our environment in hell delightfully beastly. So in this case, as a many others, just letting nature take its course will serve our purposes just fine. The subject's own co-denominationalists should probably be moved to silence as well. That is undoubtedly impossible in the case of that pesky remnant in his own area. But on a national and international level, we would certainly hope to achieve some degree of success in that regard. And of those two, the national is by far the most important. People outside of the subject's own country of residence have already made a lot of noise to minimal effect, and our own strategy should be one that helps to insulate those in his own national corporate ecclesiastical entity from being any more influenced by offshore noise over this article than they seem to have been from past noises. So then, come up with some recommendations on how to make it easy for everyone, but especially the latter group, to simply ignore this abject abandonment and denunciation of faith in the Enemy's Son. How, you ask? Well, Dogwood, if the Secretary considers you to be senior tempter material, I'm sure you will be able to come up with a way. And if you can't, you can be sure that all I, your adoring uncle, will fill in any gaps before I deliver your report to His Disgrace, thereby solidifying an unbreakable hold over you through the rest of eternity. Your affectionate uncle, Tapeworm

VATICAN CITY - Pope John Paul II criticized the media saying they often give a positive depiction of extramarital sex, contraception, abortion and homosexuality that is harmful to society. The pontiff, in a statement issued ahead of the Church's World Communications Day in May, urged the media to promote traditional family life. "All communication has a moral dimension," his statement said. "People grow or diminish in moral stature by the words which they speak and the messages which they choose to hear." But the pontiff, whose theme was "The Media and the Family: A Risk and a Richness" also had some positive words on the media. "On the one hand, marriage and family life are frequently depicted in a sensitive manner, realistic but also sympathetic, that celebrates virtues like love, fidelity, forgiveness, and generous self-giving for others," he said. "On the other hand, the family and family life are all too often inadequately portrayed in the media," John Paul added. "Infidelity, sexual activity outside of marriage, and the absence of a moral and spiritual vision of the marriage covenant are depicted uncritically, while positive support is at times given to divorce, contraception, abortion and homosexuality. Such portrayals, by promoting causes inimical to marriage and the family, are detrimental to the common good of society." The pope urged "responsible communicators" to resist commercial pressure and secular ideologies. He also called for regulations to stop the media from acting against "the good of the family," although he rejected censorship. Parents, too, have an important role in controlling the quantity and nature of media use in the home, John Paul said. "Even very young children can be taught important lessons about the media: that they are produced by people anxious to communicate messages; that these are often messages to do something - to buy a product, to engage in dubious behavior - that is not in the child's best interests or in accord with moral truth; that children should not uncritically accept or imitate what they find in the media." The pontiff has frequently spoken out about the challenges created by new technology and has called for greater responsibility by the media. He also praises the potential of mass communications. John Paul himself has avidly used the media to get his message out and has presided over a technological revolution at the Vatican. This included the 1995 start of its web site and the recent introduction of papal messages sent to mobile phones.

By South Carolina Standing Committee November 15, 2025 To:  The  Anglican Diocese of South Carolina  Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. Yesterday, Bishop Edgar sent a letter to the clergy of our Diocese expressing his support for those who brought a Presentment against Archbishop Steve Wood. Bishop Edgar also sent a letter to the College of Bishops. urging the senior bishops tasked with calling for an inhibition of the Archbishop to do so. We, the Standing Committee of the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina, stand with our Bishop in full support of the victims. We, too, urge the College of Bishops to inhibit Archbishop Wood. While he has placed himself on a leave of absence, such leave can be ended at his discretion. An inhibition—though not a statement of guilt or innocence—protects the integrity of the inquiry and ensures that the process needed to seek the truth can proceed without interference. Some have asked what the Standing Committee has done so far and what our next steps will be. Below is a summary of our actions: What the ADOSC Standing Committee Has Done 1.       Tuesday, November 4:  In executive session with Bishop Edgar, Canon Jim Lewis, and our Diocesan Chancellor, Ben Hagood, we reviewed the allegations in the Presentment and heard from Bishop Edgar regarding his role in the process. Together, we affirmed our commitment to support the victims in every way possible. 2.     During the Clergy Retreat, Bishop Edgar addressed the clergy directly. Because our lay members on the Standing Committee were not present for that conversation, on  Thursday, November 13,  we met by Zoom to bring all members—clergy and lay—up to date on these matters. Agreed-upon Next Steps 1.       Next week:  We will meet with the ADOSC clergy involved in the Presentment, to hear firsthand how we can best support them. 2.     To the Diocese:  We issued this letter to express our unified support for our Bishop and for the victims. 3.      To the College of Bishops:  We will be sending a letter urging them to correct the false narrative that has circulated regarding the victims, and to not only inhibit Archbishop Wood but to issue a godly admonition. We ask you to keep all who are involved in your prayers—especially the victims, those caring for them, and all who bear responsibility for leadership and discernment in this difficult moment. May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all, The Standing Committee of the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina The Rev. Mary Ellen Doran, President The Rev. Jeremy Shelton, Vice-President The Rev. Jamie Sosnowski The Rev. Corey Prescott The Rev. Bill Clarkson Mrs. Lindsay Dew Mrs. Shirley Wiggins Mr. Robert Kunes Mr. Ben Dixon Mr. Terry Jenkins Mr. Bobby Kilgo