Anglican Watch Nov. 8, 2025 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger.” Matthew 23:1-4 Faithful of the ACNA, Several months ago Rachel Thebeau released a bombshell letter following a cataclysmic breakdown in the Stewart Ruch trial. In it she declared, “The proper channels are now compromised. Our sheep deserve better from our shepherds who are called to lay down their lives for us, not the other way around.” She also remarked, “confidentiality is used [by the Province] as a tool to minimize, scapegoat, and intentionally distort and avoid important facts.” While we cannot confirm the background to her own complaint, we can sadly confirm her conclusions. Indeed in our opinion all the proper channels are compromised and they have been for a long time. We call upon the Province and the College of Bishops to undergo a process of repentance, as well as structural, synodical, and canonical reform. The throes of this current situation are rooted not only in failures of canon, but more importantly in failures of culture, courage, and character. The background to our current troubles, in our view, is that the church has habitually failed to properly vet its leaders, to which previous misconduct cases like that of Todd Atkinson attest, and furthermore that the College of Bishops has likewise habitually failed to hold each other accountable. These are not new issues, in fact they go back to the very formation of the ACNA and are a direct product of its unresolved DNA. They are features, reinforced by the glue which holds the Province together, negotiated division. It is due to these features that the Province is now in a crisis of credibility when it comes to its handling of credible cases of abuse, which yesterday evening was further aggravated despite our best efforts to prevent it. Do not for a minute believe the Provincial messaging that “ACNA remains steadfast in its commitment to accountability and to establishing and upholding best practice standards to protect those who experience harm from the Church.” These corporate talking points of the Province are aspirational, they are not descriptions of reality, and there is documentation two miles deep to prove the point. In our opinion, the people who should have the most confidence in the current system are abusers, as they can rest assured almost certainly nothing will happen to them. Recent statements to the effect that the Province and its leaders are responsible and quick to respond to credible complaints of abuse are also not supported by evidence, which should be apparent to anyone who has read the undisputed background material. The reality is that the victims of the ACNA have been made to wait in silence for years after the original hearers of their reports dismissed them or failed to act, following which Provincial systems often favored the suppression or compartmentalism of the truth, sometimes in our opinion even to the point of taking material shared in confidence to establish narratives that are less than forthcoming and absolving of Provincial inaction. These are systemic issues as well as personal failures. There has been without doubt a fundamental failure, and a dereliction of officership by the church’s leaders. We call upon the ACNA not to have supernatural abilities of discernment or safeguarding, but simply the normal moral clarity and employee systems provided by your average business and secular Human Resources departments. We submit to you that the College of Bishops in the past has been willfully ignorant, grossly incompetent, and negligent, and that this is attested by the fact that none of them knew that Derek Jones, the previous chaplaincy endorser for the ACNA, registered his personal 501c3 with the Armed Forces Chaplains Board while claiming to represent the entire denomination as the ACNA endorser. No one disputes these facts. What is remarkable is that we have been writing and speaking to the leaders of the Province, and the Provincial misconduct office, of Derek’s malign efforts to avoid Provincial oversight for years. None of this was a surprise to us. We have pages and pages of documents speaking to this effect. In fact in 2021 a brave priest in our number pointed out the background to this situation to the Archbishop, Foley Beach. Foley has admitted that Derek misled him for years into his Archiepiscopacy by not disclosing that he was in fact a part of the Anglican Church of Nigeria and not fully a canonical member of the ACNA, under whose oversight he was supposed to be under according to Canon 11, but never was. This admission, made by multiple bishops, means that essentially for the last ten years the ACNA has not had control of, or even the basic facts regarding its own endorsing agency. In fact it has not even had the wherewithal to know what questions to ask in order to provide effective oversight of it, putting its 300 or so chaplains in credible risk, which hundreds of pages of evidence can prove beyond doubt. We acknowledge that the ultimate blame resides with Derek Jones but simply state that leaders had a duty to know. Again, this fact has been pointed out to Provincial leadership, going back at least four and a half years. When this brave priest, acting as a whistleblower, was discovered to have told on Derek Jones’ misbehavior, by going to the Archbishop of the Province and warning him about the issues in his own endorsing agency, all of which are now manifestly known and agreed upon, and for which the Archbishop was ultimately accountable, Derek immediately inhibited him. Foley, instead of acting immediately upon this credible claim of abuse, recused himself, and handed the matter over to the Dean of the Province, Ray Sutton. Ray Sutton had in that moment a sacred responsibility of jurisprudence that he and others now say is working and effective, but even in this single case he did not go to the one now universally known to have been falsely accused, but to Derek Jones, the abuser, whose view and opinion he later enshrined in his findings. This is just one example in our opinion of the pervasive clericalism that exists within the Province, which favors the claims of clergy over laity and the claims of bishops over priests. Derek in his inhibition made four charges against this priest: 1. “Violation of ordination vows.” 2. “Conduct giving just cause for scandal of offense…” 3. “…willful contravention of the Canons of this Church…” and 4. “Habitual neglect…” For years Derek weaponized Inhibitions and Letters of Godly Admonition against his own clergy. A standard battery of options to respond his charges usually included (by way of paraphrase from the perspective of the accused) 1. Plead guilty, and I will crush you. 2. Plead not guilty, and submit your response to an investigator under my control, and I will find you guilty, and then I will crush you. 3. Plead Nolo Contendre, no contest, don’t admit that you are guilty, but still I will crush you. 4. Fail to plea, in which case you are assumed to be guilty and I will crush you. This system, used time and time again by Derek Jones was always heads, I win and tails, you lose. No one to our knowledge questioned its canonicity. Of particular interest in this Inhibition letter is option 3: Nolo Contendre. We will now quote the document verbatim: “…as a condition of an acceptance of a plea of nolo contendere, compliance to certain provisions will be required. Specifically you will be required to: Submit to a psychological examination as outlined below and sign a HIPAA release permitting the resulting determination/diagnosis of that examination to be transmitted to the JAFC, United States Army, and any religious faith group, denomination, communion, or society to whom you might seek employment or ordination in the future should it be adjudicated that your Holy Orders in the Anglican Church are withdrawn.” Derek then goes on to “direct” the accused to “complete a Mental Health review” and names Dr. William A. Crunk, who is a member of his own executive committee, to “oversee this review and [who] will provide a confidential recommendation to me.” He goes further, “You will submit to testing and interviews as directed by Dr. Crunk…Dr. Crunk’s examination of you will be required to be submitted for you to the JAFC in order to be considered for release from this inhibition. Failure to allow such psychological report to be provided to the JAFC will be just cause, absent all other matters of investigation, to remove you permanently from Holy Orders in the Anglican Church.” By way of note, the Province and Provincial leaders have seen and been in possession of this complete letter of inhibition for four and a half years. The misconduct office has had it since last November. Bishop Sutton, adjudicating this matter, talking only to the bishop-abuser came to this determination. Quoting directly here again, “As for violation of ordination vows, part of those is submission to your bishop. Bishop Jones asked the chaplains not to speak to other bishops about the subject matter of concern in your jurisdiction. Bishops often may and do need to ask for such confidentiality on sensitive, potentially controversial, and unresolved matters….Contrary to your bishop’s directions, by your own admission you secretly involved the Archbishop…It is further credibly recounted to me by Bishop Jones that you communicated with another bishop.” To summarize, Ray Sutton says that in effect all bishops require secrecy from their priests, which is largely true, and in our opinion part of the problem. As for the second charge here are Sutton’s findings, “…it would seem that there is support for this accusation. You document on pages three and four of your letter to the church that you fed the Archbishop information directly and indirectly leading him to pursue a course of action in his own communications with the chaplains. Your actions triggered a sequence of communications and miscommunications that have caused scandal and offense among the brethren and even bishops. It will take much effort over time to see reconciliation and resolution among some of them.” A priest is thereby found guilty of causing a scandal by revealing to the head of the Province the man who has been a scandal in their midst for the previous many years, Derek Jones, his own endorser. In the military we call this following your chain of command. In the church there is apparently no such process of whistleblowing, or elevating up the chain, which Sutton himself admits. “Concerning the claim of ‘willful contravention of the canons of this church,’ it would appear again from your own description of your actions that you intentionally did not follow the canons of this church in dealing with what you perceived to be personal problems with your own bishop, his leadership, and his specific handling of the dual canonical residency of the SJAC. From your own definition of yourself as a ‘whistleblower,’ this appears to be your rationale for circumventing the Biblical process of resolving personal conflicts and jurisdictional concerns by means of circuitous communications around your bishop without including him in the information you were spreading. As for your self-designation and appointment as ‘whistleblower,’ no such category appears in Scripture or our canons. No doubt there is a way of addressing what is believed to be evil and ‘telling it to the church’ (Matthew 18). Yet, Scripture and the canons based on the Word of God outline specific steps and ways of addressing differences, offenses and sin…the point is the Biblical way to ‘whistleblow’ is ironically through a process of reconciliation and proper communication. Instead, you admittedly communicated information that did not copy in some way your own bishop for there to be the possibility of verification with him and the archbishop. Your assumptions about the intent of Bishop Jones could have been brought into accountability and your communications not be subject to the allegation of ‘false communications.’” We would like to forever rule out at this point that Matthew 18 is a process commanded by scripture in which people must confront their abusers. Furthermore, we would like to rule out a rebuttal that we have not followed this process, as all the people we mention have been confronted. When a Christian confronts a person and he doesn’t listen, then gets two or three bishops to confront him with you, and they fail to respond, what is a person to do? The biblical model, according to them, is to go to the whole church, which is exactly what we are doing. At selective points however it seems we have been guided to disregard this model, and instead submit our complaints to the Provincial misconduct office, under the control it would seem of the very people against whom we would like to file a complaint, and who inevitably would be called upon to substantiate and act upon our claims. Bishop Sutton concludes in his review of Derek’s inhibition, “Therefore, on the basis of your own recounting expressed in your appeal…I have concluded that I will NOT revoke the inhibition. From your own words, it appears to me that Bishop Derek has a prima facie basis for his inhibition…I encourage you prayerfully to consider the options expressed in the inhibition and humbly to turn to your Bishop Derek Jones. Seek his wisdom and counsel, and submit to the godly process trusting the Lord that He will work in you that which is well pleasing in His sight. If after further prayer and contrite consideration you come to the conclusion that you have your ordination vows of submission to your bishop, caused scandalous division among the brethren, and violated the Scriptures and the canons of this church, I exhort you to repent and put your self at the mercy of the Lord and your bishop. If you do not feel you can do this within your own godly convictions, you will have to determine with God’s help which option is best for you. Whatever the case, all options involve a psychological evaluation. You are well advised to pursue immediately that evaluation with Dr. Crunk. My heart breaks for you my brother in Christ with great sadness. Please be assured of my prayers for you and your family.” The result of this hearing could well have been the immediate removal of a military chaplain’s ecclesiastical endorsement, depriving him of his job complete with pay, benefits, and hard won progress towards a pension in as little as 30 days. It is just one example of the miserable failure of our leaders to address credible claims of abuse. It would be of interest to the Province to know that a two-star Chief of Chaplains of the Army conducted an investigation years ago on the background of this situation and affixed his signature to the findings that this priest was in fact innocent. Obviously the whole College of Bishops must now admit that his actions were appropriate and that he was telling the truth. Afterwards this priest was tried in abstentia despite Derek knowing he was not canonically under his jurisdiction, with fraudulent documents, and later was put into the Provincial Kintone system, forever marking his record as one under discipline. Now the Provincial office says it cannot remove him, who was put into it not according to process, as that is not the process. This is our canons at work. It is unlikely that this complainant will ever totally recover from the abuse he has suffered at the hands of ACNA leaders, who have made no apologies except for the occasional “we are so sorry this happened to you”. This situation was furthermore never followed up on by the Archbishop, and there is documentary evidence of further appeal to Ray Sutton by Derek Jones to assist him in his authoritarian manipulation of his own chaplains. In 2023 another situation involving Derek Jones catastrophically failed to be addressed by the Province. A second complainant, being forced to move his endorsement from the REC to the Jurisdiction of Armed Forces and Chaplaincy under false pretenses, which had already been verified in September of 2023 by the Armed Forces Chaplains Board, discovered in the process of his forced application to the JAFC a tithing policy which stated in writing that “10% or more” of a chaplain’s earned income was “required” to be given to the Jurisdiction, even before his local parish, and that furthermore a chaplain must make an annual attestation in writing to these standards. This complainant also discovered in this policy and attestation, apparently unknown even until recently to senior leaders of the Province, even though it has been in the possession of the misconduct office for some time, a statement, “…Nor have I made inquiry or contact to work with any other ecclesiastical authority without the knowledge of the Bishop or in violation of the canons.” If a chaplain was unable to with integrity make this claim, in order to maintain good standing, and thereby presumably endorsement, he was forced to sign, “I am unable to affirm ALL the statements and wish to speak with the Vicar General to set up an appointment with the Bishop.” It is normative for chaplains to speak with other endorsers, in fact many joined the JAFC through this very process. Derek’s system seemed to be allowing people in but not out while requiring them to pay for the privilege. Suffice it to say this complainant did not desire to complete the application, and it was in fact never completed. These issues go back ten years, and this was not this complainant’s first time being harassed by Derek Jones. Therefore in an effort to keep peace he decided to seek an endorsement in another church. Months later, on December 12th of 2023 Derek Jones, who was not his canonical bishop or endorser, having learned of this chaplain’s intentions though another bishop who he was also manipulating, sent him a scathing Letter of Godly Admonition in which he was accused of things not even possible. In his email Derek remarked, “Do know that I have not yet notified the Chief of Chaplains.” He stated that this chaplain had morally failed. This chaplain was then charged with the same three charges as the previous complainant and given the same four options by which to respond. As Derek Jones was not entitled to a response, since he was neither this chaplain’s canonical bishop or endorser, the complainant wrote and then withheld his response and instead wrote an email to Foley Beach and Bishop Julian Dobbs, the chair of the canonical tribunal. The intention of this email was to notify the Archbishop of the situation while including another senior leader. On 13 December 2023 at 2:28 pm a message entitled “Harassment from the JAFC and Bishop Derek Jones” was received. This message indicated that a Letter of Godly Admonition had been received by this chaplain the previous day, that it was the first time having received direct email communication from Derek Jones contrary to the claims in his email, that this situation was a symptom of a deeper problem that had been brewing for some time within the ACNA, that the Armed Forces Chaplains Board had already officially discredited Derek’s position, that this letter appeared to be backdated, but most importantly that at the top of the letter was the complainant’s home address, which is a tactic Derek has used on multiple occasions, and that this person and his wife and family were afraid, and felt threatened, and that we were seriously contemplating a restraining order against a bishop of the ACNA. To this day we are afraid, among us are complainants who have had Letters of Godly Admonition delivered to their door by couriers even though they had already been sent electronically. Many bishops on occasion have remarked that it is understandable that we are afraid, one remarking, “I wish I could tell you that you are safe, but I am not sure you are, be careful.” It is because of this real and abiding fear that we have remained anonymous. In short, Foley never even responded to the email, to this very day, but claims he forwarded it on to Ray Sutton. Bishop Dobbs on the other hand attempted to respond. The complainant remarked to him, “Please advise me on what paths forward exist within the Province. I have kept months worth of documentation that I believe clearly shows my concerns to be valid and worthy of investigation…I do desire that the issues I presented to you and others be brought to the tribunal…I ask for a stay on my canonical orders, my military endorsement, and all other disciplinary measures…until this issue is resolved. I believe [Derek] has no canonical authority himself to depose me…” Dobbs, in an effort to help responded but noted that “The provincial tribunal is not…authorized to investigate accusations against a bishop.” The complainant then replied, quoting the ACNA’s canons at length, noting that if he didn’t respond Derek was threatening to destroy his career in days, which he had expressed in remarkable detail to his prospective endorser. “‘Title IV, Canon 2, 12 states ‘A Godly Admonition is a written directive from a Bishop with jurisdiction to a member of the Clergy under his jurisdiction. Such admonition shall not be issued until the Bishop shall have met personally with the member of the Clergy – unless for valid reason under these canons the Bishop shall have delegated such meeting to another Bishop – and the issues have been clearly and fairly discussed.’ None of the above criteria have been met in my recent letter from Bishop Jones. The evidence will clearly show I am not a member of the Clergy under his jurisdiction, a central and immediate issue the answer to which would determine how I should canonically respond. Neither have Bishop Jones and I met in person, ever, nor have we fairly and clearly discussed the issues. In fact, it seems to me that this letter of admonishment that I received was backdated to a time that it could not have been written in order to allege that I was already under church discipline when I sought a military endorsement and canonical residence in another body. I sought this for the sake of peace and also to continue my ministry to Airmen uninterrupted. If the provincial council is not the forum to address this most basic factual question, could you please tell me who is?” The point of this story is that there is further evidence of systemic issues in the Province, that even when bishops in good faith attempt to respond, structural issues exist which canon law has not fleshed out or anticipated, and that can bind even those who are willing to help. In our opinion, current efforts to make canon law even more conciliar will only serve to further complicate and harm the innocent. If anything, we believe more jurisprudence is required. There needs to be an admission that the current system favors those in authority over those of lesser power, who are usually themselves responsible for the failures they are brought in to resolve. We all believe in mercy, forgiveness, and reconciliation. The question is for mercy for who? Mercy for those who have failed, or for those who have been harmed? There is much more to this second story and there are others still, and a great deal of evidence. We dare anyone to dispute these quotes and claims and are willing to provide primary documents and further corroborating evidence to support every single one of them at their insistence. They are all substantially true. Many of us have had to carry the pain of our situations on our backs for years, hoping that someday Provincial leaders would engage the wheels of justice that are supposedly working, but these issues were not discovered “this Summer” as the original Provincial timeline seems to have suggested, they have been known for years. The right people were confronted at the right time with the right arguments, over and again, and they all failed to act. If we, having as much understanding of the facts as we have, as much evidence, as much advocacy for ourselves well beyond that of ordinary victims, were not listened to, then who will be? Who is safe? Indeed this Summer Bishop Dobbs was again approached after two years from the previous episode, other newer ones still piling up. It is the opinion of complainants that without his advocacy and courage, so lacking in others, nothing ever would have happened, late as it was. We communicated to the Province at that time in the clearest terms that in our opinion it was only a matter of time before an ACNA chaplain died by suicide due to the malign behaviors of their bishop, knowing at the time that such a death had almost occurred within the previous six months. We told the Province “When that happens, how will you, and every bishop who has known about this and done nothing, for years, ever be able to sleep and night and live with yourself?” Since the supposed departure of Derek Jones from the ACNA we have indeed heard countless heartbreaking stories from friends and colleagues we have long worried about, confirming our worst fears. Chaplains do some of the most difficult work you can imagine. Complainants have held the hands of thousands of dying hospital patients, responded to dozens of completed suicides, born witness to hundreds of marriages on the brink of failure. They have personally attended to thirty five thousand Afghan evacuees, half of them children, fleeing the Taliban. They have worked in burn units, with neonatal loss, in trauma centers, the VA, and in hospice care. They are willing to run into battle, unarmed, and die for the sake of their ministry. They deserve bishops with at least the moral fortitude to tell the truth and admit what they have done, they certainly do not deserve to be saddled, abused, and manipulated by one who should have been washing their feet. We call on the ACNA, especially the College of Bishops, to repent of this dreadful cycle of nonsense and to cease and desist its cooperation with the enemies of painful truth and therefore of Christ. We note that we offer forgiveness every day for those who have failed us, and the whole JAFC, by what they have done or left undone, but that reconciliation will require more, much more. Victims should not be getting apologies, that they had to seek out, years after the fact. That is not enough. Most of us have received no apologies at all. Instead, there should be weeping, sackcloth, and ashes. We commend our theory of justice as neither punishment or rehabilitation, but deterrence. We ask, how can there be deterrence if no one knows what you’ve done, if the people who have done these things refuse to admit to them publicly, and if the canonical system itself, to say nothing of Provincial messaging, de facto reinforces that truth holders must go outside of it in order to be seen and heard? Finally we again plead for repentance, and for canonical, structural and synodical reform. We have not desired to be destructive but constructive, for years. That is our continued desire. We have arrived at the determination that it is more dangerous to the church and to the innocent to do nothing than to continue on in silence as we have been. We ask that people with utterly no credibility of responding responsibly to now undisputed cases of abuse not be allowed to continue leading in them, for the sake of the church. We commend Bishop Dobbs for his heroic response in leading the charge against Derek Jones, long warranted, and note only how much it took in terms of time and evidence and pain absorbed before the system was willing to respond, and even then in our opinion, at the insistence of victims. We acknowledge also the theological issues which have reinforced this system since the beginning of the ACNA, which in our opinion must also be addressed for the sake of unity and coherence, as a house divided against itself cannot stand, and which in turn foment these kinds well documented behaviors and decisions. We pray that the final steps will be towards a Province in communion with itself, living truly in ways consistent with its values and in anticipation of that future Kingdom. We commend to you this prayer, “Lord, be with all the victims of spiritual abuse and all forms of abuse within and without the church. For those who are surely suffering now that we are not even aware of, we bid your compassion and mercy. We pray that they would be heard, seen, and listened to; that our leaders will have eyes to see, ears to hear, and hands to help. Strengthen them as they take up the roles you have given them, and make them agents of your justice, mercy, and peace. Amen.” Sincerely in Christ, “The Chaplains”

Only half of America's ministers hold to a biblical worldview, but even many who do aren't imparting it to their congregations By Gene Edward Veith WORLD MAGAZINE HAS DISCUSSED THE COLLAPSE OF theological literacy and the rise of out-and-out unbelief among Americans who consider themselves to be "born again Christians" ("Unbelieving 'born-agains,'" Dec. 6, 2003). Now we know at least part of the reason. According to a new study by the Barna Research Group, 49 percent of Protestant pastors reject core biblical beliefs. The Christian pollster George Barna put together a list of biblical teachings that presumably Christians of every denomination or theological tradition could affirm: There is absolute moral truth based on the Bible; biblical teaching is accurate; Jesus was without sin; Satan literally exists; God is omnipotent and omniscient; salvation is by grace alone; Christians have a personal responsibility to evangelize. This is a bare-bones list. It says nothing about the Trinity or the Deity of Christ or other important teachings that are essential for salvation. The list has to do not so much with theology as with the assumptions that are behind one's theology; that is, with worldview. Any minister of whatever denomination, especially a Protestant one, should be able to agree on these basics. But only 51 percent do. Mr. Barna's breakdown of this data is telling. In the two largest Protestant denominations, Southern Baptists had the most pastors, percentage-wise, who hold to this biblical worldview (71 percent), while Methodists had the fewest (27 percent). The glass is either three-quarters empty or one-quarter full. That one in four Methodist pastors takes what the Bible teaches seriously might be surprising and encouraging in a liberal-leaning denomination. But it is equally surprising, though discouraging, to find that one in four Southern Baptist preachers does not. The statistics of pastors holding a biblical worldview for other denominations studied were 57 percent of (non-Southern) Baptists; 51 percent of nondenominational Protestants; and 44 percent of charismatic or Pentecostal churches. In the so-called mainline Protestant churches (essentially those belonging to the National Council of Churches), those pastors who could be described as having a biblical worldview numbered only 28 percent. Mr. Barna also broke the statistics down demographically. Only 35 percent of pastors of black churches hold to a biblical worldview, as he defines it. In denominations that ordain women, only 15 percent of female pastors hold to a biblical worldview. Mr. Barna also found that pastors who attended a seminary are less likely to have a biblical worldview (45 percent) than those who did not (59 percent). This is doubtless due to the anti-Christian scholarship that dominates much of today's academic religious studies, such as the higher-critical approach to Scripture, which begins by assuming that the Bible is nothing more than fiction. There is some good news, though, in Mr. Barna's numbers. Younger pastors (those under 40) are more likely to have a biblical worldview (56 percent) than older pastors (50 percent). Those who have been in the ministry for five years or less score even higher (58 percent). Perhaps the unbelieving ministers mostly aging baby boomers, shaped no doubt by the theological, moral, and cultural upheaval of the '60s, and still assuming they are relevant today will die out, to be replaced by younger and more faithful shepherds. But, in the meantime, the sheep are hungry and are not fed. Many have already starved to death. Mr. Barna, who discusses these findings in his new book Think Like Jesus, says that if the numbers are bad among pastors, they are even worse for church members. Just 7 percent of American Protestants overall agree with the biblical tenets on that list. And among those who consider themselves "born again," only 9 percent do. About one out of 10. There is a huge gap even when pastors do hold to biblical beliefs. "The research also points out that even in churches where the pastor has a biblical worldview," said Mr. Barna, "most of the congregants do not. More than six out of every seven congregants in the typical church do not share the biblical worldview of their pastor even when he or she has one." This suggests, he says, that "merely preaching good sermons and offering helpful programs does not enable most believers to develop a practical and scriptural theological base to shape their life." Based on his research of those who have a biblical worldview, he says that acquiring one "is a long-term process that requires a lot of purposeful activity: teaching, prayer, conversation, accountability, and so forth. "Based on our correlations of worldview and moral behavior," he said, "we can confidently argue that if the 51 percent of pastors who have a biblical worldview were to strategically and relentlessly assist their congregants in adopting such a way of interpreting and responding to life, the impact on our churches, families, and society at large would be enormous." © 1996 - 2003 WORLD Magazine

Bishop Robert Duncan, spiritual leader of conservative Episcopalians, talks about heresy in a "highly sexualized culture." Interview by Diana Keough Bishop Robert W. Duncan Jr. of Pittsburgh, 55, is the de facto spiritual leader of conservative Episcopalians outraged over the consecration last year of Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire--a gay man in a long-term relationship. Once Robinson became a bishop, Duncan began helping to organize what he calls a "realignment" within the Episcopal Church and, by extension, the Anglican Communion. It is not yet clear what lies ahead for the Episcopal Church, but Duncan says he is sure that change will happen. In an interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Duncan said some of his earliest memories revolve around attending church in his hometown of Bordentown, N.J. The church was stable and reliable, a sanctuary for a boy whose home life often included beatings from his emotionally disturbed mother. In a society that he calls highly sexualized and confused, Duncan believes Robinson is clearly outside the moral bounds of the Anglican Communion. Duncan recently sat down to talk with Diana Keough, a regular Beliefnet contributor who lives and works in Ohio. How are you keeping your spiritual life in balance these days? I keep up with my daily prayer life, and in particular, my time of morning prayers. I make a monthly retreat of 24 hours where I spend time with the community of St. Vincent's Arch Abbey, which gives me an opportunity to be with my spiritual director and confessor. What are you praying about? For my own ministry, for my family, for all the people who have been part of my walk over the years. I keep a monthly list and pray every morning along with all the standing prayers. A lot of my day-by-day prayers are about the present situation. I pray for those who are in opposition. I pray for those who see me as someone who's hurting them. I pray for the presiding Bishop of the church and the other Bishops who are on the other side. What particular Scripture is helping you through this time? Right now, I'm reading Genesis, Hebrews and John. The other day when we came to the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, there was the word about the patriarchs and those who set out by faith, and they knew they were aliens and exiles--those are wonderful passages for what we're going through There is a particular verse I was given when I was elected bishop--in fact, the same verse was sent to me by two different leaders who didn't know one another. It was I Thessalonians 5:24, which says, "He who called you is faithful and He will do it." I have great trust that anything that happens in this is going to be the Lord's doing, and not mine. I'm just trying to listen to Him day by day. Why are you taking this battle so far? The battle is about the authority of Scripture. It's about the basics of Christian faith. It's about sin and redemption. It's just so fundamental. The issues have to do with sexuality and morality, but at the very heart of it is whether Scripture can be trusted. In my experience I learned the one person I could trust was Jesus Christ and the only testament that was reliable was what was in Scripture. And I cannot let the Church, of all bodies, challenge the notion that you can't trust the plain meaning of Scripture. Are you referring to what the conservatives in the Episcopal Church call "revisionism?" And if so, can you define revisionism? A more ancient word for the same thing is "heresy." What's going on in this day and age (and, incidentally, it's not unlike other ages) is that this particular age has a notion that we're created good and we just need to be self-actualized. Well, all that is directly contrary to Scripture--it's heresy that doesn't require a Savior. But revisionism within the Episcopal Church has been going on for decades. Revisionism in the Episcopal Church is to revise what's been received, and we've been in the process of revising a lot of things in the last 50 years, particularly relating to sexual morality. Matters like abortion, like remarriage after divorce and issues like sexual activity outside of marriage, including homosexual activity.

News Analysis By David W. Virtue VANCOUVER, BC-- The revisionist Bishop of New Westminster, Michael Ingham, faces a triple crisis that could derail his plans to depose, at the minimum put on hold, his desire to toss 11 biblically orthodox priests out of their parishes and seize their properties. He faces a legal ultimatum with the leaders of St. Martin's parish in North Vancouver who argue that unless the parish is allowed to control its own finances and staffing, it will ask the B.C. Supreme Court to overturn the firing of two church wardens last year. In a letter delivered to Bishop Michael Ingham on Friday, former Trustee and spokesperson Linda Taunton said, "we want our church and we want to be able to control our own destiny. Ingham has until Feb. 23 to respond," she told Virtuosity. Last September, Ingham invoked an obscure piece of church law to remove the wardens, St. Martin's parishioners say. The parishioners maintain that as a legally incorporated organization, they have the right to make decisions for themselves. They contend Ingham's actions violate the provincial Societies Act. The parish has voted twice to seek alternative episcopal oversight. Late last year, Ingham closed one church. The second crisis the bishop faces is that four parishes have now obtained Temporary Adequate Episcopal Oversight from four international Anglican primates with immediate oversight of the Canadian parishes by a US-based AMiA bishop. The offer is temporary measure until a more permanent solution can be found. Seven of the parishes have not signed as yet, but sources tell Virtuosity that they are weighing their options. They are not ready to jump ship but all of them still support the Anglican Churches in New Westminster (ACiNW) coalition, with none having fled. "Those parishes who have not immediately accepted TAEO want to continue the Canadian process set up by the House of Bishops to look for a way to provide alternative episcopal oversight." All the conservative Canadian bishops have been informed of the TAEO offer as well as Yukon Bishop Terry Buckle who had offered alternative Episcopal oversight and then withdrew Retry DV Continue it. "Everybody is acting in good faith, some parishes just felt they could not wait any longer," said the source. We should not view this as a break-up of the ACiNW coalition. It isn't." Ingham faces a third crisis with the Canadian House of Bishops Task Force that could recommend some sort of oversight for the beleaguered 11, which, if he doesn't accept, will put him at odds not only with the Anglican Church in Canada but with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the 38 Primates of the Anglican Communion. To date Ingham has not responded to either crisis. But those close to Ingham say he will never accept a recommendation from the Canadian House of Bishops to grant alternative oversight, because basically he believes he is the bishop and that is the end of the story. "He will never go for it. He will never accept AEO because it would be a diminishing of his ecclesiastical authority, and he is a power driven person, not gospel driven," said the source. The following Anglican clergy have already accepted the four Primates' offer of TAEO: The Revd Charles Alexander, Timothy Institute of Ministry, Calgary, Alberta; Dr David Bowler, Comox, Vancouver Island, a Church Plant; Revd Paul Carter, Immanuel Church, Westside; Revd Ron Gibbs, St Simon's, Deep Cove; Revd Ed Hird, St Simon's, Deep Cove; Revd David Hollebone, Living Waters Church, Victoria, Vancouver Island; Revd John Lombard, St Simon's, Deep Cove; Revd Barclay Mayo, St Andrews, Pender Harbour; Revd Silas Ng, Emmanuel Church, Richmond. These clergy come from two Canadian dioceses. St. Martin's, North Vancouver, St. Matthias & St Luke, Vancouver, St. Matthew's, Abbotsford, Church of the Good Shepherd, St Andrew's, Pender Harbour, St Simon's, North Vancouver, St. John's, Shaughnessy, Church of Emmanuel, Richmond, Holy Cross, Vancouver, Immanuel Church, Westside, and Vancouver Holy Cross, Abbotsford, still have not accepted Temporary Alternative Episcopal Oversight.

News Analysis By David W. Virtue Bishop Don Wimberly got his way at the recent Diocese of Texas convention. He managed to squelch four conservative resolutions affirming orthodox positions on human sexuality before they even came to the floor for a vote. The convention delegates, representing 85,000 members from 160 churches in the 59,000-square-mile diocese, filled the Harvey Convention Center with standing-room-only crowd at nearby First Baptist Church. It was a pyrrhic victory for the bishop. Some 15 to 20 of his clergy walked out of the convention many of whom had supported him during his election, this included one delegation of four from Katy. They wanted a strong statement opposing the actions of General Convention. They never got it. The liberal element in the diocese (which has grown much stronger and larger in the past several years) also wanted no vote taken, so they became staunch allies of Bishop Wimberly. Ironically these same liberals did not support Wimberly during the election for coadjutor. Many of the liberals supported Archdeacon Dena Harrison in the election for coadjutor. According to reports reaching Virtuosity, no one seemed particularly happy about the 90-minute discussion about "the sexuality issue" held the final morning of the convention. The conservatives spoke forcefully and passionately from Holy Scripture, and the liberals seemed smug and detached. In the end no votes were taken. It was all talk. Bishop Wimberly gave a passionate address to Council saying that no resolution or canonical change ever brought a person to Christ or transformed a life. On that point he is absolutely right. What he did not mention was the fact that he got to vote himself on the issue at General Convention. The orthodox in the Diocese had nowhere else to vote but at their own convention -- and that vote was denied to them by a slick parliamentary maneuver. What Virtuosity learned was this: The committee on the Bishop's address (which usually comes up with resolutions echoing whatever the bishop said) suddenly introduced a voice resolution to set aside all four of the conservative resolutions -- barring them from coming to the floor -- but also setting aside time for them to "have dialogue together, without voting." This maneuver (from a heretofore innocuous committee) caught everyone by surprise. Several conservatives rose immediately to "table" that voice resolution, but that effort was ruled out of order. Another motion to "set aside" the committee's voice resolution was ruled to be in order, and it was voted down... meaning that the committee's voice resolution was immediately up for a vote. It passed, probably by a 60-40 percent standing vote. The result: No votes were taken on the sexuality issue at this Convention. The mainstream news media ignored the convention, for the most part -- with the exception of David Vara of the Houston Chronicle, Virtuosity was told. As a result several long-time conservative priests are now angling for retirement Virtuosity has learned. A few congregations are looking closely at the NACDP, but Bishop Wimberly has already given his "godly counsel" that this diocese does not want anything to do with THAT group. The Anglican Mission in America (AMiA), meanwhile, has put in place a fledgling church in Houston, and others will no doubt spring up under the oversight of Bishop T.J. Johnson in Little Rock. "Where we the orthodox go from here is anyone's guess," said a source. A great many of them are waiting quietly to see what (if anything) comes out of the new Eames Commission. Wimberly's appeal was successful for the most part and in his address he appealed for unity, ministry and commitment. "We are together in this ... I share ministry with you, not to you," he said. "I've learned (over the years) that we are followers of Jesus Christ, not an institution." He received a standing ovation at the end of his remarks, which were, he said, mostly "from the heart" and not found in his written address distributed to the delegates. But Wimberly, an Episcopalian lifer of more than 40 years, and who was the bishop of the Diocese of Lexington for 15 years, before becoming bishop of the Diocese of Texas has only been at the job for eight months. But his actions at this convention have made him a pariah among the orthodox and opens wide the door now for revisionists to walk in and take over the reins, filling whatever ecclesiastical posts surrounding the bishop that need filling. Whether he wants to admit it or not Wimberly has made his bed with the revisionists and he will lie with them. And they know it. The truth is, there has never been an occasion where a bishop has folded his cards on sexuality issues who can ever again gain the moral high ground on gospel imperatives. Never. The orthodox will never trust him, and they will begin to cut at his authority in small and large ways. One of them will be by withholding money. Wimberly will be reluctantly allowed into orthodox parishes, but it will be made clear to him that he is not loved and only half-heartedly welcome. In time he may come to hate the job. He will also begin to make more and more threats to use his power to subjugate rising orthodox discontent. That too is part of the scenario. The revisionists, through organizations like Via Media will begin to push him harder on same-sex issues, Robinson's consecration, the ordination of homoerotic priests and, with pressure he will, in time succumb. It has always been that way and it will continue that way. Add to the mix the collegiality pressure from the Club of Purple (House of Bishops), and he will be Frank's man within a year. The Diocese of Texas, which formerly had such great bishops as Ben Benitez, now a bitter opponent of ECUSA's revisionism, began its slide under Claude Payne, will now move it to completion under Don Wimberly. And the issue while symbolized in sexuality issues is more deeply rooted in the bishops' failure to believe and accept the authority of Scripture. The revisionists now have Wimberly on the ropes, and they will toy with him and pressure him before they deliver the knockout punch. When that moment comes he will be only too glad to surrender and acknowledge that he has become their man. It is only a matter of time. NOTE: If you are not receiving this from VIRTUOSITY, the Anglican Communion's largest biblically orthodox Episcopal/Anglican Online News Service, then you may subscribe FREE by going to: www.virtuosityonline.org. Virtuosity's website has been accessed by more than 900,000 readers in 45 countries on six continents. This story is copyrighted but may be forwarded electronically with reference to VIRTUOSITY and the author. No changes are permitted in the text.

News Analysis By David W. Virtue The income dip of six percent recently reported by the Executive Council of the national Episcopal Church is closer to somewhere between10 to18 percent, says a financial expert and an alumnus of the Wharton Graduate School at the University of Pennsylvania who has looked at the figures. There are two fundamental errors in the Florida news release: The first is that ECUSA says the National Church has pledges of $16 million from 51 dioceses, along with pledges of future support from another 33 dioceses totaling $8.1 million. These two figures total $24,100,000 not $26,446,000 as claimed. To this total is added "Other Income of $18,554,000 [Trust Funds, etc] to yield the total ECUSA budget of $42,654,000, said Oliver Conger, a former Philadelphia company president now resident in Florida. Two dioceses - Pittsburgh and Dallas - have refused to send any money to the national church in protest," The more than 7,000 congregations of the Episcopal Church receive $2.14 billion in offerings a year, and forward a portion to the national church. Individual dioceses are asked to send 21% [up from 17% in 00-03] of their income to ECUSA, but about half of the dioceses who have already made their financial pledges to the national church fall below that threshold. "ECUSA says revenues are down about $3,027,000 from the original budget projection of $48,000,000", but the real reduction truth is $5,373,000 using ECUSA's own figures, says Conger. This figure is calculated by adding the $24,100,000 with the estimated "Other Income" [Trust Funds, etc] of $18,554.000 to yield total projected income of $42,654.000 - not the original Budget of $48,000,000 or the spin version of $45,000,000. "Income is down $3,027,000 to $5,373,000 from the original request $29,446,000 making the reduction at least 10-18% of ECUSA's diocesan asking, not 6%. It is far more honest and correct to compare changes in "asking" when measuring the actual decline than to use the total budget to yield the smaller number," said Conger. Conger said his analysis was based on ECUSA's own statements from the Florida Meeting. However, no calculation was performed to estimate the millions of dollars wasted in legal fights to keep money and property under the control of the ECUSA revisionists. Conger made several other comparisons: "Louis Crew's 01 analysis of total diocesan Income for 01 of $147,279,404 when compared with ECUSA's current diocesan estimate of $140,219,000 [x 21% to equal the original asking of $28,445,998], would indicate a decline in diocesan income over the past three years of $7,060,400 [about 4.8% decline when inflation was about 9% for the period]. Thus the actual decline to stay even with 01 figures is about 13.8%+/-. "Another way to measure dissatisfaction within the pews, with revisionist Bishops and ECUSA would be to take 10% of the parishes' $2.14 Billion total income which would yield $214,000,000 to the dioceses - not the current estimated $140,219,000 [34.5% shortfall]. Then apply 21% of ECUSA's asking to the $214,000,000 which yields $44,940,000 versus the current estimated $24,100,000 [46.4% shortfall]. With many of the older pew sitters dying off in the next five years and not being replaced, there will be a smaller giving base and perhaps over half of the 7,000 parishes will fold. The pruning will cut to the bone. Over the past twenty years, one study has shown that the evangelicals [who believe in the authority of the Bible and Christ] have grown from 25% of the population to about 47% in the United States. It is thought that in another ten years this growth will surpass 57%. Revisionists, who have no gospel are heading down a slippery slope to oblivion, some might say Hell itself. Their type of religion just doesn't "sell", concluded Conger.

By David W. Virtue The Diocesan Council of the Rio Grande has slammed the local branch of Via Media for trying to block the election of a bishop coadjutor to replace the biblically orthodox Bishop Terence Kelshaw when he retires in 2005. Via Media, the growing nationwide revisionist group had sent a letter to all Episcopal Church bishops and diocesan standing committees protesting the canonical actions of the Council. Via Media called for the blocking of the election and withholding of consents, advocating an interim bishop be named instead. Via Media members are "posers" who say they represent the middle ground, said the Council. Posing as "middle grounders" they are trying to subvert the diocese's orthodox priests and laity and gain support for their revisionist causes. Via Media has formed branches in a number of dioceses where the bishops voted against the confirmation of the admitted homosexual Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire. In a letter sent to all members of the diocese, the Diocesan Council refuted claims by Via Media Rio Grande that the search was not following canons, and pointed out the Council is working closely with the Presiding Bishop's pastoral development staff, including Bishop Clay Matthews and Canon Carlson Gerdau. The letter laid out the timetable and process for the bishop-coadjutor's selection, including a survey to be sent to all members in the diocese The Council unanimously passed a resolution calling Via Media's action "reprehensible" and "destructive," and sent it to all members of the diocese: "The Diocesan Council and Standing Committee of the Diocese of the Rio Grande register their protest against the actions of the self designated group Via Media Rio Grande, specifically, letters sent to each bishop and standing committee in the ECUSA to subvert due process of the election of a bishop-coadjutor in the Diocese of the Rio Grande, and consider these actions reprehensible, destructive of the life in the diocese, and do not promote healing for the church." Via Media stole the list that contained private information said the bishop. The group was publicly cited earlier by Bishop Kelshaw for obtaining the official mailing list for the diocesan newsletter "without authorization." Via Media then used the list to mail out its own literature to all diocesan members and gave it the appearance of official diocesan mail. The list was closely held by the diocese for privacy reasons because it contained the home addresses of all the members of the diocese. "I have resolutely refused to permit home and parish addresses to be passed from this office to other people and bodies even within the diocese," wrote Kelshaw in a Pastoral letter to the diocese. The leader of Via Media Rio Grande is the Rev. Brian Taylor of St. Michael and All Angels in Albuquerque, N.M. Other Via Media Rio Grande leaders who signed the letter that went to all ECUSA bishops and standing committees were Rev. Gary Meade (St. John's Cathedral, Albuquerque), Diane Butler and Dr. Don Partridge (St. Thomas of Canterbury, Albuquerque), Rev. Richard Murphy (St. Bede's, Santa Fe), and Patricia Riggins and Dr. James Tryon (St. Michael and All Angels, Albuquerque). Bishop Kelshaw has said he intends to retire no later than July of 2005.

Options Geoffrey Kirk on which way to turn With the priests Ordination of Women Measure 19 and its attendant Act of Synod, the Church of England entered upon what its own documents describe as an open period of reception of the new ministry. Archdeacon Judith Roses motion, which was passed by the General Synod in July 2000 marked a milestone in that journey. It asked the House of Bishops to initiate further theological study on the episcopate, focussing on the issues that need to be addressed in preparation for the debate on women in the episcopate in the Church of England. The Commission which resulted from (often known as the Rochester Commission from its chairman, the Rt Revd Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester) will produce, in due time, the first official theological statement on the ordination of women since the House of Bishops Second Report (GS829) in 1982. With the final publication of the Report, which is already available to the Bishops in draft, a number of options will lie before the Church. In a series of articles over the next months, New Directions will look at those options one by one, assess them both theologically and politically, and encourage our readers to come to a conclusion for themselves. But first of all the options need to be stated in their naked simplicity, and the ground staked out for further analysis. The first option, of course, is to declare the open period of reception for women's ordination at an end and the experiment to have failed. This may be a little beyond the bounds of Anglican probability, but if the notion of reception is to be taken as anything more than empty rhetoric, it has to be conceded that the Rochester Commission could (as a result of further deep theological reflection) come to agree with the Vatican and the Phanar, that the Church has no authority to ordain women to the priesthood or the episcopate. Like the Lutheran Church of Latvia and the Presbyterian Church of Australia, it would then cease to ordain women to the priesthood. A second option would be to maintain the status quo, where women can be priests but not bishops. Such an option would leave the period of reception open. It would frankly admit that to ordain women to the episcopate rendered women's ordination practically irreversible. It would allow for the theological uncertainties which still remain. It would preclude, for the foreseeable future, a female Archbishop of Canterbury (thus avoiding further destabilization of the Anglican Communion at a time of increasing unrest). Some might hold that there are fundamental theological reasons why women may be priests but not bishops reasons related to the role of bishops as instruments of unity within and between dioceses, not only at home, but across the world; reasons connected to the doctrine of male headship; and reasons related to the history of the origins and development of the two orders, which might be held to render them separate and distinct. To continue status quo would not, of course, end dispute about women in orders. Rather, it would be to allow space for the continuance of debate. It could not in the nature of things satisfy those for whom the ordination of women in 1992 was a tragic misjudgement. Nor those for whom the ordination of women in all three orders is an ethical a priori objective. It would do little if anything to improve relations with Rome and Constantinople. It would retain a major stumbling block to Methodist reunion. A third option would be single clause legislation with no provision for dissent. This option might be thought to follow logically from the General Synod vote in 1975 that there are no fundamental objections of the ordination of women to the priesthood. It would be attractive to those who view the whole matter as one of justice and human rights and who are already impatient with the Act of Synod. It would have the advantage of relative legislative simplicity. It would maintain the integrity of the bishops office and the geographical integrity of existing Church of England dioceses. Such an option, of course, would be radically unacceptable to opponents. It would force them into conscientious law-breaking on a scale hitherto unknown in the Church of England. It would place in an invidious position those bishops (the PEVs) whom the Church of England has ordained and commissioned especially to pastor and care for opponents. A fourth option would be that women could be admitted to the episcopate, but precluded from the office of Archbishop. This would not be immediately attractive to those who see the issue as one of human rights; but, in the way in which they put up with the schedules to the 19 Measure, they might see it as the least of all possible ills. It would gain them substantially what they wanted, until the prohibition could be overturned. The option might, moreover, prove attractive to those Evangelicals for whom headship is an infinitely receding principle. They could (just) argue that headship in the CofE was still male! It would possibly help sustain the unity of the Anglican Communion in the short term if other gender- and sex-related issues did not fracture it sooner. It is hard to see how it would help those opposed to the consecration of women in theological grounds. Nor are glass ceilings attractive to WATCH and GRAS. A fifth option would be to appoint women as suffragans, but not diocesans. Such an approach would have all the advantages and disadvantages of the fourth option, with the additional disadvantage that the glass ceiling for women would be set far lower. For Catholic Anglicans it would raise serious questions about the episcopal credentials of a new kind of minister one who acted like a bishop, but who could not in principle be preferred as a diocesan. A sixth option would be to restructure episcopacy in such a way that it would become a team activity, with both men and women in each diocesan team. The notion would be that parishes could set up a special relationship with those members of the team who fitted their theology or predilections. This radical idea derives from the world of ecumenical encounter, where episcope increasingly replaces episcopacy as the preferred term. It has the difficulty that it reverses the traditional monarchical view of the episcopate, with its origins in the first century, which sees the bishop (singular) as an icon of God the Father. It would also, almost inevitably, create problems of primacy within the team should the lead bishop be male or female? Those for whom girl-power is the primary aim would be unlikely to find this version of co-operative ministry very attractive. For those opposed it might well be seen simply as a rejection of episcopacy as the Church has received it. A seventh option would be to adapt and expand the present provision of extended episcopal oversight. This might be done in a number of ways. Each diocese might maintain at least one male bishop opposed to the ordination of women who would minister to dissentients. If it was objected that such a bishop would necessarily be in unimpaired communion with a female diocesan, it might be arranged that he reported instead to a male Archbishop. Various arrangements of this kind have been proposed in Australia. Thus far they have proved singularly unpopular with the proponents of women bishops and little more in favour with those opposed. Their sole effect has been to slow down the process toward female consecrations. The question for the Church of England would be the extent to which such bishops would usurp the juridical rights and sacramental authority of diocesans. To satisfy opponents they would need to do so to a considerable extent (at the very least to have rights to select and ordain candidates for the ministry and to have their own ecumenical priorities). Proponents would probably denounce such arrangements as a tantamount to a new Province. An eighth option would be the creation of a new Province of the Anglican Communion, parallel to the existing provinces of Scotland, Ireland and Wales, with orders separate and distinct from those of the Provinces of Canterbury and York. Such a province would have all the independence and autonomy presently allowed to Anglican provinces, together with its own Provincial Synod or Governing Body. It would be created by Measure. Parishes would enter and leave it by Schedules to the Measure not unlike those in the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 19. Parishes which so voted would be withdrawn, both sacramentally and juridically from the Church of England dioceses of which they had previously been part. This option would have the advantage of continuing the process of reception to which the Church of England is committed. It would allow time (on the Gamaliel principle) to decide which opinion would prosper. Such an arrangement would almost certainly prove extremely unpopular with proponents. But on further reflection they might begin to see that it had distinct advantages for them. It would remove dissentients from the life of the Church of England, which could then operate without the various degrees of discrimination against women priests and bishops which the other options would involve. It would remove from the General Synod the irritant of a sizeable party intractably opposed to further innovation. It would allow the Church of England to pursue the Methodist reunion programme and other ecumenical projects without let or hindrance. A New Province, moreover, would involve no ecclesiological innovation which the Anglican Communion has not already embraced in order to facilitate the ordination of women as priests and bishops. Such a list of options may seem long, and the choices hard. But getting it right is imperative if legislation is to be passed with the required majorities, and women bishops are to have a fair chance of establishing themselves without acrimony. The fate of recent proposals in Australia provides a cautionary tale. Opposition (from both sides) to the provisions for dissent, ensured that the primary legislation itself fell. They shot themselves in the foot, said David Chislett, reviewing the days proceedings in Brisbane 2001. One cannot help thinking that things might have been organized better.

An Open Letter to Bishop Lipscomb 19 February 2004 The Right Reverend John B. Lipscomb, Bishop The Diocese of Southwest Florida 7313 Merchant Court Sarasota, FL 34240 (A note to the reader: Bishop Lipscomb has invited Frank Griswold, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America [ECUSA] to speak to our Diocesan Convention in October of 2004. Bishop Griswold has accepted. Subsequently, Bishop Lipscomb has been encouraged to rescind that invitation because of the divisive pain his presence would precipitate. Bishop Lipscomb has resisted the withdrawal of the invitation and has instead justified it as something worthwhile. You may read about the invitation and the justification by accessing the diocesan website: www.dioceseswfla.org/ezine.htm) Dear Bishop, Greetings to you and yours in the unique, saving love of Christ Jesus. I pray for you regularly as I understand the godly weight of responsibility inherent in your ministry. In that atmosphere of prayerfulness, I own the words of our Savior as I say to you, "My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death." (Mark 14:22, NKJV) Spiritual anguish and torment would not be stating the case too strongly for my feelings as I consider your invitation to Bishop Griswold, and subsequent rationale for maintaining said invitation, to speak to our Diocesan convention. I believe your decision to be an error, wrought with gravely dangerous implications for the proclamation of the Gospel be that to those who are part of the church or not. Souls are at stake. Frank Griswold is in need of repentance and discipline, not a place at the table of discussion. He is the single most recognizable symbol of disunity in the Anglican Communion. He is the point man who has precipitated a crisis in worldwide Anglicanism and caused 20 or more Archbishops, representing better than 50% of all Anglicans across the face of the globe to break communion with ECUSA. Griswold has rhetorically and practically repudiated Christianity. How can one such as he engage in "honest conversation," as you say, when he understands neither the Truth nor the truth? He has publicly denied the uniqueness of Christ by word and deed. He mocks the Truth. He has publicly deceived 37 Anglican primates and 70 plus million Anglicans by agreeing that a certain course of action should not be undertaken because of its disastrous implications. Then in a spate of ecclesial arrogance, less than a month later, proceeded to enthusiastically support and participate in said course of action. He mocks the truth! The Presiding Bishop's piously effusive words and pluriform ideology are non-Christian poison-why should anyone be subjected to more of such? If someone became ill because of unknowingly ingesting arsenic, would they then partake of it knowingly? You rightfully cite your episcopal vows to "guard the faith, unity and discipline of the Church." Allowing Mr. Griswold to speak to your flock would eviscerate the faith, further impair its unity and deny the appropriate discipline of the Church. The New Testament model for dealing with a sinful brother is to point out his fault to him privately and secure repentance. Failing that, a small party of witnesses are to confront the unrepentant sinner to further explain the grave danger of his sinful ways. If such a one is still recalcitrant, then the matter is to be brought before the whole church in an effort to have him mend his ways. Failing that, he is to be treated as a pagan (Cf. Matthew 18:15-17). Frank Griswold has arrogantly spurned repeated calls for repentance-he is to be treated as an apostate, with no rightful place at the table. For too many years "protracted, civil discourse" has served to mitigate the "faith once delivered." We in the Episcopal Church have conveniently hidden behind the cultural and voguey facade of inclusivity and diversity, welcoming wolves in among the sheep. It has been a slaughter-in terms of the sheep and of the Gospel. The cloak of diversity has served as a convenient, guilt driven ruse to allow the wolves into the church. It has provided an environment in which they can even flourish. Diversity for the sake of pseudo-inclusivity mocks our own Baptismal Covenant. When we allows sin to reign (speak authoritatively) in ECUSA (or a diocesan convention) we bring a halt to our perseverance in resisting evil; we deny the Good News of God in Christ and in doing so disrespect the dignity of every human; we make a mockery of loving our neighbors as ourselves and striving for peace and justice among all as we officially enshrine and dialogue about those things that are plainly contrary to the Word of God. The Apostle Paul said, "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial (Satan)? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?"(2 Corinthians 6:14-15) None! Jesus shared the Truth with sinners, he did not engage in protracted, civil discourse. If they (we) repented and followed, great, welcome to eternal life. If not, our Lord did chase them down to dialogue about and dilute the Truth. Indeed, he allowed "many" to go their separate way when the Truth became too much to bear (cf. John 6:60-66). With all due respect, Right Reverend Sir, now is the time to stand squarely upon the Firm Foundation and do the godly righteous thing: rescind the invitation to our Primate. To do so would be a poignant, profound and widely recognized statement for the Truth of the Gospel. To do otherwise is to give tacit approval to all that he stands for and all that he has done. This may well be your moment in history-the single most important opportunity for the proclamation of the Good News you may ever have. Will it be a regrettable nadir for our diocese or a godly zenith? May God have mercy on us all. I will continue to uphold you in prayer. In Jesus' loving-kindness and faithfulness, Jim+ (The Reverend) James T. Murphy Pastor, Rector, Friend Church of the Nativity, Sarasota, Florida frmurf2@verizon.net

An Episcopal congregation leaving the church is being sued in the dispute. By Mark I. Pinsky | Sentinel Staff Writer February 20, 2004 The Episcopal Diocese of Central Florida has filed suit to keep a Winter Springs church from leaving the denomination -- and taking its property with it -- over the confirmation of an openly gay man as a bishop. Members of the governing board of the Episcopal Church of the New Covenant voted Jan. 18 to leave the denomination. "Our vestry does not feel at this point that we can remain underneath the authority of an organization that we feel has departed from the historical Christian faith and order," said Scott Culp, secretary to the church's governing board. Since August, when the 2.3-million member Episcopal Church, USA, held its national convention in Minneapolis, the denomination has been in turmoil. In addition to confirming the Rev. Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire, the general convention voted to permit parishes to continue blessing same-sex unions. New Covenant is the second congregation to leave the Central Florida diocese in less than a month, but the first to try to keep its property. In January, nearly 300 members of St. John's Episcopal Church in Melbourne voted to abandon their old property and establish a new congregation, Prince of Peace Anglican Church, in Satellite Beach. More than 100 worshipers have remained with the Melbourne church. Unlike the group that left St. John's, which affiliated with the Anglican Mission in America, New Covenant has not yet decided where it will go after leaving the Episcopal Church, USA. The legal action filed Wednesday in Seminole County Circuit Court seeks to keep the Winter Springs congregation from transferring title of its property to a new corporation that is not affiliated with the Episcopal Church.The diocese argued in its filing that such a transfer would jeopardize the interests of congregants who wish to remain part of the Diocese of Central Florida. "It's clearly established that a parish cannot take property with them," said Joe Thoma, a spokesman for the diocese. "That's in the canons." At the same time, Thoma did not rule out an eventual settlement between the congregation and the diocese. "We're not taking any kind of confrontational stance," Thoma said. Culp agreed, saying members of the congregation still held out hope for an amicable settlement with the diocese, one that would enable the congregation to keep its property. Bishop John Howe and Council Wooten Jr., the diocese's attorney, met earlier this month with congregational leaders to try to work out a settlement. Howe has been outspoken in opposing the Robinson confirmation and the blessing of same-sex unions. "We respect Bishop Howe and his positions, and we recognize that his beliefs are consistent with ours," Culp said. "We desired to negotiate with the diocese for an amicable settlement that will allow us to come out from under the authority of the Episcopal Church, USA." Culp said the diocese purchased the property on Tuskawilla Road in the late 1970s for $37,500, and deeded it to the new congregation. Since then, he said, members have spent $2 million for construction. There is no debt on the property, Culp said. The departure of New Covenant is the latest example of "a denomination in chaos," said the Rev. Kendall Harmon, a leader of a conservative network within the Episcopal Church. Since the August general convention, Harmon said, five to 10 congregations in the nation have left the denomination, and at least one other church has initiated legal action. Harmon attributed the departures to frustration over the church's "theological deterioration."

Report/Analysis By The Rev. Samuel L. Edwards The traditionalist Forward in Faith, United Kingdom, has developed a strong case for it recent years, and now a third or "free" province for those who uphold historic holy order looks like a distinct possibility if the Church of England decides (as expected) to approve women bishops. Along with several other Anglican provinces, the CofE currently ordains women to the diaconate and priesthood. But when it began contemplating the consecration of women to the episcopate, traditionalists most notably FIF made clear that that change would render inadequate the current provisions for women priest opponents, which include a system of "flying" bishops (provincial episcopal visitors). With the advent of women bishops, they said, those theologically opposed to female ordination would be unable to remain even in impaired communion with the state Church as currently constituted. In response to such concerns, then-Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey appointed Rochester Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali to lead a working party to stud y the theological and ecclesiastical implications of such a change and to make recommendations on how to deal with it so as to maintain the CofE's institutional unity. In early January, following three years of study, the Rochester Commission issued its draft report. It does not recommend one solution, but instead gives a menu of possibilities ranging from making no provision for those who uphold the Church's traditional order, to the creation of a third province within t he CofE which would overlay the existing provinces of Canterbury and York, while having its own seminaries, parishes, dioceses, bishops and archbishop. NATURALLY, the separate province option is drawing mixed reviews from across the theological and ideological spectrum of the English Church. That revisionists should oppose it is not surprising: They worked long and hard to capture the institution and are loathe to see a significant part of it slipping from their grasp, particularly as there would be financial consequences to such an outcome. Most revisionists would echo the judgment of Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement Communications Director Martin Reynolds, who deemed the separate province "a schism in all but name....Would it have the right to change it structures or its legal framework? We believe it would lead to a real and lasting division." What is more surprising, on the surface at least, is the disfavor of the Church Society, one of the oldest and best known of the CofE Evangelical associations. The group opposes women in the episcopate, but also opposes the third province option as too radical. In the words of the Society's general secretary, David Phillips, it "looks like a halfway house to leaving altogether...We do not want to be marginalized in this separate organization." It is likely that the anxiety here stems from the fact that a very large percentage of the potential membership of this province would be drawn from the Catholic wing of the English Church, with whom the Church Society shares little apart from its convictions on moral issues. The proposal is not likely to garner much support from the bench of bishops. However, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has indicated he could live with a third province arrangement, and the bishops would likely choose it over the prospect of an actual mass exodus from the institution which would include many of the C of E's most articulate and effective clerics. (When it first ordained women priests in 1994, the CofE lost over 400 clergy, mostly to Rome. A recent survey suggested that up to a quarter of current CofE clergy remain implacably opposed to women becoming bishops.) There appears to be little enthusiasm for a re-tooling of the current system of flying bishops, since it is already disliked by the revisionist wing and, as noted, has already been declared by FIF to be unworkable as soon as women become bishops. It is likely, then, that if the separate province option is adopted, it will be done reluctantly and grudgingly, to prevent an outward and visible fissure within the institution. Sources included Anglican Communion News Service, The Guardian The Daily Telegraph (London)

Feb 17, 2004 By Terry Mattingly WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (BP)--The ancient rabbinic text is clear about the punishment for those who twisted sacred law and misled the people of Israel. Offenders would be stoned and then hung by their hands from two pieces of wood connected to form a "T." The Talmud once included this example from the Sanhedrin: "On the eve of Passover they hung Jesus of Nazareth," said the passage, which was censored in the 16th century to evade the wrath of Christians. "The herald went out before him for 40 days saying, 'Jesus goes forth to be stoned, because he has practiced magic, enticed and led astray Israel. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and declare concerning him.' And they found nothing in his favor." If armies of Jewish and Christian scholars insist on arguing about Mel Gibson's explosive movie "The Passion of The Christ," it would help if they were candid and started dealing with the hard passages in Jewish texts as well as the Christian scriptures. At least, that's what David Klinghoffer thinks. The Orthodox Jewish writer -- whose forthcoming book is titled "Why the Jews Rejected Christ" -- believes these lines from the Talmud are as troubling as any included in the Christian Gospels. They are as disturbing as any image Gibson might include in his controversial epic. The Talmudic text seems clear. Jesus clashed with Jewish leaders, debating them on the meaning of their laws. They hated him. Many wanted him dead. It is possible, Klinghoffer said, to interpret these documents as saying that Jesus' fate rested entirely with the Jewish court. The use of language such as "enticed and led astray" indicated that Jesus may have been charged with leading His fellow Jews to worship false gods. There are more details in this confusing drama. Writing in 12th-century Egypt, the great Jewish sage Maimonides summed up the ancient texts. "Jesus of Nazareth," he proclaims, in his Letter to Yemen, "... impelled people to believe that he was a prophet sent by God to clarify perplexities in the Torah, and that he was the Messiah that was predicted by each and every seer. He interpreted the Torah and its precepts in such a fashion as to lead to their total annulment, to the abolition of all its commandments and to the violation of its prohibitions. "The sages, of blessed memory, having become aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people, meted out fitting punishment to him." Is that it? What role did the Romans play? In terms of historic fact, Klinghoffer emphasized, it's almost impossible to find definitive answers for such questions. But the purpose of the Jewish oral traditions that led to the Talmud was to convey religious belief, not necessarily historical facts. "If you really must ask, 'Who is responsible for the death of Jesus?' then you can only conclude that both the Gospels and the Talmud agree that the Jewish leaders did not have the power to execute Him," Klinghoffer said. "Did they influence the event? The religious texts suggest that they did, the historic texts suggest that they did not. It's hard to know. ... But if Gibson is an anti-Semite, then to be consistent you would have to say that so was Maimonides." Obviously, Klinghoffer is not spreading this information in order to fan the flames of hatred. His goal, he said, is to provoke Jewish leaders in cities such as New York and Los Angeles to strive harder to understand the views of traditional Protestants and Catholics. And it's time for liberal Christians to spend as much time talking with Orthodox Jews as with liberal Jews. It's time for everyone to be more honest, he said. "I don't see anything that is to be gained for Judaism by going out of our way to antagonize a Mel Gibson or to antagonize as many traditional Christians as we possibly can. I think we have been yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater," Klinghoffer said. "To put it another way, I don't think it's very wise for a few Jewish leaders to try to tell millions of Christians what they are supposed to believe. Would we want some Christians to try to edit our scriptures and to tell us what we should believe?" Terry Mattingly ( www.tmatt.net ) teaches at Palm Beach Atlantic University in West Palm Beach, Fla., and is senior fellow for journalism at the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities. He writes this weekly column for the Scripps Howard News Service. Used by permission.