The following Sermon was preached in England, in August, 1858. "Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, like men sent from God" (2 Corinthians 2:17) It is no light matter to speak to any assembly of immortal souls about the things of God. But the most serious of all responsibilities is, to speak to a gathering of ministers, such as that which I now see before me. The awful feeling will come across my mind, that one single word said wrong, sinking into some heart, and bearing fruit at some future time, in some pulpit, may lead to harm, of which we cannot know the extent. But there are occasions when true humility is to be seen, not so much in loud professions of our weakness, as in forgetting ourselves altogether. I desire to forget self at this time, in turning my attention to this portion of Scripture. If I say little about my own sense of insufficiency, do me the justice to believe, that it is not because I am not well aware of it. The Greek expression, which we have translated, "peddle," is derived from a word, the etymology of which is not quite agreed on by linguists who compile dictionaries. It either means a tradesman, who does his business dishonestly, or a wine maker, who adulterates the wine which he offers for sale. Tyndale renders it, "We are not of those who chop and change the Word of God." Another version of the Bible says, "We are not as many, who adulterate the Word of God" [Rhemish versions]. In our margin we read, "We are not as many, who deal deceitfully with the Word of God." In the construction of the sentence, the Holy Spirit has inspired Paul to use both the negative and the positive way of stating the truth. This mode of construction adds clearness and unmistakableness to the meaning of the words, and intensity and strength to the assertion, which they contain. Instances of a similar construction occur in three other remarkable passages of Scripture, two on the subject of baptism, one on the subject of the new birth. (John 1:13; 1 Peter 1:23; 1 Peter 3:21). It will be found, therefore, that there are contained in the text both negative and positive lessons for the instruction of the ministers of Christ. Some things we ought to avoid. Others we ought to follow. The first of the negative lessons is, a plain warning against corrupting or dealing deceitfully with the Word of God. The Apostle says, "Unlike so many" who do it, pointing out to us that even in his time there were those who did not deal faithfully and honestly with God's truth. Here is a complete answer to those who assert that the early Church was one of unmixed purity. The mystery of iniquity had already begun to work. The lesson which we are taught is, to beware of all dishonest statements of that Word of God which we are commissioned to preach. We are to add nothing to it. We are to take nothing away. Now when can it be said of us, that we corrupt the Word of God in the present day? What are the rocks and reefs which we ought to avoid, if we would not be of the "many" who deal deceitfully with God's truth? A few suggestions on this would be useful. 1. WE CORRUPT THE WORD OF GOD MOST DANGEROUSLY, WHEN WE THROW ANY DOUBT ON THE ABSOLUTE INSPIRATION OF ANY PART OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. This is not merely corrupting the cup, but the whole fountain. This is not merely corrupting the bucket of living water, which we profess to present to our people, but poisoning the whole well. Once wrong on this point, the whole substance of our religion is in danger. It is a flaw in the foundation. It is a worm at the root of our theology. Once we allow this worm to gnaw the root, then we will not be surprised if the branches, the leaves, and the fruit, decay little by little. The whole subject of inspiration, I am well aware, is surrounded with difficulty. All I would say is, that, in my humble judgment, notwithstanding some difficulties which we may not be able now to solve, the only safe and tenable ground to maintain is this--that every chapter, and every verse, and every word in the Bible has been "given by the inspiration of God." We should never desert a great principle in theology any more than in science, because of apparent difficulties which we are not able at present to remove. Permit me to mention an illustration of this important axiom. Those conversant with astronomy know, that before the discovery of the planet Neptune there were difficulties, which greatly troubled the most scientific astronomers, respecting certain aberrations of the planet Uranus. These aberrations puzzled the minds of astronomers, and some of them suggested that they might possibly prove the whole Newtonian system to be untrue. But at that time a well-known French astronomer, named Leverrier, read before the Academy of Science a paper, in which he laid down this great axiom--that it was wrong for a scientist to give up a principle because of difficulties which could not be explained. He said in effect, "We cannot explain the aberrations of Uranus now; but we may be sure that the Newtonian system will be proved to be right, sooner or later. Something may be discovered one day, which will prove that these aberrations may be accounted for, and the Newtonian system will remain true and unshaken." A few years later, the anxious eyes of astronomers discovered the last great planet, Neptune. The planet was shown to be the true cause of all the aberrations of Uranus; and what the French astronomer had laid down as a principle in science, was proved to be wise and true. The application of the story is obvious. Let us beware of giving up any first principle in theology. Let us not give up the great principle of absolute inspiration because of difficulties. The day may come when they will all be solved. In the mean time we may rest assured that the difficulties which beset any other theory of inspiration are ten times greater than any which beset our own. 2. SECONDLY, WE CORRUPT THE WORD OF GOD WHEN WE MAKE DEFECTIVE STATEMENTS OF DOCTRINE. We do so when we add to the Bible the opinions of the Church, or of the Church Fathers, as if they were of equal authority. We do so when we take away from the Bible, for the sake of pleasing men; or, from a feeling of false liberality, keep back any statement which seems narrow, and harsh, or hard. We do so when we try to soften down anything that is taught about eternal punishment, or the reality of hell. We do so when we bring forward doctrines in their wrong proportions. We all have our favorite doctrines, and our minds are so constituted that it is hard to see one truth very clearly without forgetting that there are other truths equally important. We must not forget the exhortation of Paul, to minister "according to the proportion of faith." We do so when we exhibit an excessive anxiety to fence, and guard, and qualify such doctrines as justification by faith without the deeds of the law, for fear of the charge of antinomianism; or when we flinch from strong statements about holiness, for fear of being thought legal. We also do this when we shrink back from the use of Bible language in giving an account of doctrines. We are apt to keep back such expressions as "born again," "election," "adoption," "conversion," "assurance," and to use a roundabout phraseology, as if we were ashamed of plain Bible words. I cannot expand these statements because we are short of time. I am content with mentioning them and leave them to your private thought. 3. IN THE THIRD PLACE, WE CORRUPT THE WORD OF GOD WHEN WE MAKE A DEFECTIVE PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF IT. We do so when we do not discriminate between classes in our congregations--when we address everyone as being possessed of grace, because of their baptism or church-membership, and do not draw the line between those who have the Spirit and those who have not. Are we not apt to keep back clear, direct appeals to the unconverted? When we have eighteen hundred or two thousand persons before our pulpits, a vast proportion of whom we must know are unconverted, are we not apt to say, "Now if there is any one of you who does not know the things that are necessary for eternal peace" -- when we ought rather to say, "If there are any of you who has not received the grace of God?" Are we not in danger of defective handling of the Word in our practical exhortations, by not bringing home the statements of the Bible to the various classes in our congregations? We speak plainly to the poor; but do we also speak plainly to the rich? Do we speak plainly in our dealings with the upper classes? This is a point on which, I fear, we need to search our consciences. I now turn to the positive lessons which the text contains. "In Christ we speak before God with sincerity, like men sent from God." A few words on each point must suffice. 1. WE SHOULD AIM TO SPEAK "WITH SINCERITY" Sincerity of aim, heart, and motive; to speak as those who are thoroughly convinced of the truth of what they speak; as those who have a deep feeling and tender love for those whom we address. 2. WE SHOULD AIM TO SPEAK "LIKE MEN SENT FROM GOD." We ought to strive to feel like men commissioned to speak for God, and on His behalf. In our dread of running into Romanism [Roman Catholicism], we too often forget the language of the Apostle, "I make much of my ministry." We forget how great is the responsibility of the New Testament minister, and how awful the sin of those who when a real messenger of Christ addresses them refuse to receive his message, and harden their hearts against it. 3. WE SHOULD AIM TO SPEAK "BEFORE GOD." We are to ask ourselves, not, What did the people think of me? but, What was I in the sight of God? Latimer was once called upon to preach before Henry VIII, and began his sermon in the following manner (I quote from memory, and do not pretend to verbal accuracy), He began: "Latimer! Latimer! do you remember that you are speaking before the high and mighty King Henry VIII; who has power to command you to be sent to prison, and who can have your head cut off, if it please him? Will you not be take care to say nothing that will offend royal ears?" Then after a pause, he went on: "Latimer! Latimer! do you not remember that you are speaking before the King of kings and Lord of lords; before Him, at whose throne Henry VIII will stand; before Him, to whom one day you will have to give account yourself? Latimer! Latimer! be faithful to your Master, and declare all of God's Word." O that this may be the spirit in which we may always express from our pulpits, not caring whether men are pleased or displeased--not caring whether men say we were eloquent or feeble; but going away with the witness of our conscience--I have spoken as standing before God's sight. 4. FINALLY, WE SHOULD AIM TO SPEAK "AS IN CHRIST." The meaning of this phrase is doubtful. Grotius says, "We are to speak as in His name, as ambassadors." But Grotius is a poor authority. Beza says, "We are to speak about Christ, concerning Christ." This is good doctrine, but hardly the meaning of the words. Others say, We are to speak as ourselves joined to Christ, as those who have received mercy from Christ, and whose only title to address others is from Christ alone. Others say, We should speak as through Christ, in the strength of Christ. No meaning, perhaps, is better than this. The expression in the Greek exactly answers to Philippians 4:13, "I can do everything through him who gives me strength." Whatever sense we ascribe to these words, one thing is clear: we should speak in Christ, as those who have ourselves received mercy; as those who desire to exalt, not themselves, but the Savior; and as those who care nothing what men think of them, so long as Christ is magnified in their ministry. In conclusion, we should all ask, Do we ever handle the Word of God deceitfully? Do we realize what it is to speak as of God, as in the sight of God, and in Christ? Let me put to everyone one searching question. Is there any text in God's Word which we shrink from expounding? Is there any statement in the Bible which we avoid speaking about to our people, not because we do not understand it, but because it contradicts some pet notion of ours as to what is truth? If this is true, let us ask our consciences whether this is very much like handling the Word of God deceitfully. Is there anything in the Bible we keep back for fear of seeming harsh, and of giving offense to some of our hearers? Is there any statement, either doctrinal or practical, which we mangle, mutilate or dismember? If so, are we dealing honestly with God's Word? Let us pray to be kept from corrupting God's Word. Let neither fear nor the favor of man induce us to keep back, or avoid, or change, or mutilate, or qualify any text in the Bible. Surely we ought to have holy boldness when we speak as ambassadors of God. We have no reason to be ashamed of any statement we make in our pulpits so long as it is Scriptural. I have often thought that one great secret of the marvelous honor which God has put on a man who is not in our denomination (I allude to Mr. Charles Spurgeon) is, the extraordinary boldness and confidence with which he stands up in the pulpit to speak to people about their sins and their souls. It cannot be said he does it from fear of any, or to please any. He seems to give every class of hearers its portion--to the rich and the poor, the high and the low, the king and the peasant, the learned and the illiterate. He gives to every one the plain message, according to God's Word. I believe that very boldness has much to do with the success which God is pleased to give to his ministry. Let us not be ashamed to learn a lesson from him in this respect. Let us go and do likewise. Transcribe, updated, and added to Bible Bulletin Board's "Sermon Collection" by: Tony Capoccia Bible Bulletin Board Box 119 Columbus, New Jersey, USA, 08022 Websites: www.biblebb.com and www.gospelgems.com Email: tony@biblebb.com Online since 1986 © Copyright 2001 by Tony Capoccia. This updated file may be freely copied, printed out, and distributed as long as copyright and source statements remain intact, and that it is not sold. All rights reserved. Verses quoted, unless otherwise noted, are taken from the HOLY BIBLE: NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION © 1978 by the New York Bible Society, used by permission of Zondervan Bible Publishers.

"We obviously live in a theological age that gives very little attention to doctrine and theology. Bishops breathing this air seem to reflect this neglect. +Jack Spong's Twelve Theses would take an exceedingly modest theological competency to perceive its contradiction to the Christian Creeds, yet only 52 of some 180 of our colleagues have publicly disassociated themselves from this "New Reformation." (Rt. Rev. C. FitzSimons Allison, Bishop of South Carolina, retired, "Letter to Bishops of the Fourth Province, 23 January 2000) Dear Brothers and Sisters, A number of Primates of the Anglican Communion spoke out with a single unified voice this week, and they blasted The Episcopal Church USA. In a major statement issued by fourteen of the world's Anglican leaders, they said the Episcopal Church has separated itself from the Anglican Communion by its unholy act in consecrating a non-celibate homosexual to the episcopacy. "The actions of ECUSA in the election, confirmation, and consecration of Canon Gene Robinson have created a situation of grave concern for the entire Anglican Communion and beyond. Their actions are a direct repudiation of the clear teaching of the Holy Scriptures, historic faith and order of the church", the Primates write. "The world needs to know that the rebellious and erroneous actions of ECUSA are contrary to the teaching of the Anglican Communion and represent a departure from five thousand years of Judeo-Christian teaching and practice. By their actions, ECUSA has separated itself from the remainder of the Anglican Communion and the wider Christian family." You can read the full text in the digest today. Dan England, Frank Griswold's, communications director, bemoaned the new Primate's statement telling Associated Press, "there's nothing new here" except that these primates "have jumped the gun on the commission's work, which is unfortunate. It seems a bit premature," he said. Frank Griswold has gone on record that the "diverse center" of the denomination accepts "the tension caused by these different points of view" as "something potentially positive and creative rather than a threat." The Primates don't believe that and have acted accordingly. But Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan jumped right in and had this to say about the Primates Communique: "I rejoice in the Primates Statement of support for the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes, and in their godly call to preserve, defend and uphold orthodox Christian Faith and Order as outlined in Holy Scripture. The Network is gathering bishops, priests, deacons and laity from across the nation who will to rally around the banner of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His Great Commission. We seek humbly to serve Christ as faithful Anglicans and to offer hope to those in North America devastated and disenfranchised by actions of the Episcopal Church, a Church of which we are a part. This recognition by 14 Primates, representing 45 million Anglicans worldwide, gives us great encouragement and affirmation of our mission, and is a clear sign that the Anglican realignment in North America is moving forward." A NUMBER OF ANGLICAN PROVINCES including Guatemala, Papua New Guinea, Kenya and the Sudan all expressed themselves in profound disagreement with the actions of the Episcopal Church this week. Their statements are published in today's digest. So this action of the Primates now puts a lot of pressure on Rowan Williams to do something. The thumbscrews just tightened on ECUSA's presiding bishop and some 62-revisionist ECUSA bishops who thought they could raise their middle fingers at the Anglican Communion by attempting to legitimize unholy and outrageous sexual behavior. As the Archbishop's Commission on Anglican Life, better known as the Eames Commission, prepares for its first meeting, these 14 Primates representing 45 million Anglicans wrote to the Communion on the current crisis saying, "We offer our support and the full weight of our ministries and offices to those who are gathering in a 'Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes' now being organized in North America." One can now understand why the Network leaders in Christ Church, Plano recently were just a little self-satisfied in answering reporters' questions. Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan and his team knew exactly what they were doing. The Network and these 14 Primates have formed a pincer movement and they are closing in on ECUSA's revisionist bishops. Dr. Williams is pinning all his hopes on the Eames Commission, sources tell Virtuosity. But one should note that the Eames Commission was designed to answer the "what if" of certain Provinces no longer recognizing others - they now face a "has happened". As Nassau Archbishop Drexel Gomez told Virtuosity recently, "The Eames Commission is about structural and relational issues it is NOT about the truth or falsity of homosexual behavior. That issue has been decided. The Lambeth Resolution resolved that. It is now about how we remain in communion and address the question of communion in the face of diversity and the reality of the Archbishop of Canterbury to the various parts of the communion in the situation of diversity. These are issues of provincial autonomy and inter-Anglican relationships, and the Commission is to make recommendations to the Archbishop with special reference as to how he is to function." Furthermore the Rees Report (the Archbishop of Canterbury's legal chancellor) states that there is no canonical solution to the threatened unraveling of the Anglican Communion. This will be the legal starting point for the Primates' Commission work So there is a very real possibility now that the actions of the ECUSA will tear the fabric of the Communion at its deepest level, and may lead to further division on this and further issues as provinces decide in consequence whether they can remain in communion with provinces that choose not to break communion with the Episcopal Church (USA). But will it change anything? Will it provide protection for orthodox priests caught in revisionist dioceses? Not necessarily. The properties still remain those of the diocese and the national church though its revisionist bishops will use the Dennis Canon to try and seize the property. But they will meet stiff resistance. It will be a long battle in the courts. Action is required before all hope is lost. When orthodox bishops stand at the Judgment Our Lord will not accept the excuse that the canons prevented them from crossing Diocesan lines. What is needed is another "March on Selma". On one Sunday the orthodox bishops should cross diocesan lines and minister to persecuted parishes throughout the nation." BUT THE LIBERALS KEEP TRYING. One by one they drift across the Atlantic to pay homage to their liberal paymasters, or as in the case of Archbishop Robin Eames, to shore up support for his Commission report which he hopes will have enough fudge in it to appease everybody in the Anglican Communion at the end of the day. This past week the Irish Primate came a calling on the Bishop of Virginia, Peter James Lee to, in his words find some "realistic," "practical" recommendations, and "a degree of agreement to at least try new ways of doing things." He also predicted that the panel would consider the issue of "discipline." It will "consider" it of course and do nothing. Eames is the master of public relations. He's a sly old fox who has been around the Anglican mulberry bush more times than Frank Griswold has danced the circle dance of dispossession. He has more than the usual amount of Irish blarney, and he gets no respect from REFORM IRELAND, who believe he has betrayed the 'faith once delivered.' Trying "new ways of doing things" is pure doublespeak and means simply that on no account must we offend Western liberals who want homosexuality brokered into the Anglican Communion and who still pay most of the bills. But that dog won t hunt. The Global South Primates and bishops won't buy it anymore. Those days are over. They no longer buy what the ACNS or Episcopal Life or Anglican WORLD magazine is telling them. They have the Internet, which tells a wholly different story. Eames told one reporter he was there to "listen" to differing views on homosexuality and the state of the church in the largest Episcopal diocese, and convey them to the commission. So how many "views" did he listen to exactly? When I inquired I was told that Eames had already gone back to Ireland, so he never listened to the views of say Bishop Bertram Herlong (Tennessee) Keith Ackerman (Quincy) or John Howard (Florida) or Bob Duncan (Pittsburgh). Their views he knows and he didn't want an earful from them about the non joy of anal sex and how it is ripping their dioceses apart, especially as many of them have large constituencies of sodomite priests and loud laity who are giving them a rough time through their new organization called Via Media. No, Eames doesn't want to hear those stories; they cut too close to the bone. Better to stay with Bishop Lee the master of fence straddling, or perhaps John Chane (Bishop of Washington) who has totally sold out on sexuality issues, or Bob Ihloff (Maryland) who wouldn't recognize Jesus if he bumped into him in downtown Baltimore. Eames did sit down with a group of AAC leaders at Truro Episcopal Church in northern Virginia where the Rev. Martyn Minns, an Evangelical, has his feet firmly on the ground. One wonders if Eames really "listened" to their viewpoint and if he will carry their views back to the Archbishop of Canterbury. The truth is we have "listened" ourselves to death and ECUSA's orthodox knows it and they are sick of it. "Listening" as Griswold knows means hearing the plaintive sad stories of ECUSA's pansexualists and then voting their behavior in. We now have a bishop to prove that point. Next door in the DIOCESE OF WASHINGTON, the most liberal of all the African archbishops, Primate Njongonkulu Ndungane (Southern Africa) came a calling on John Chane the Bishop of Washington, no doubt with his hand out. He said all the right things in his sermon at their diocesan convention, but again we know what the game is. He was there to try and shore up ECUSA's credibility, which has been shattered by millions of Anglicans, hundreds of dioceses and a dozen or more African provinces, Southeast Asia and the Southern Cone. His less than memorable one liner was, "we must face the challenge to develop an ethic of together-in-difference." His fellow African bishops are not buying it. That is not a phrase they read in the New Testament, and they know the Apostle Paul would never have uttered it. But the lesson here is to organize, and it is a lesson that ECUSA's orthodox need to re-learn. If you want to win you must ORGANIZE, ORGANIZE, ORGANIZE. The biblically orthodox clergy in several dioceses are doing precisely that. The orthodox can organize AAC chapters and they can sign on to the Network. "It seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit&" is a lesson we can all learn. IN BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA at the cathedral a very important conference took place this week. Sponsored by the Episcopal Church Foundation Fellows Forum the conference engaged the question, Reconstructing Anglican Comprehensiveness. The conference, two years in planning, featured speakers on both sides of the great sexual divide. I am posting two papers from this conference. The first is by the Very Rev. Dean Paul Zahl who makes the case for Alternative Episcopal Oversight and the other is by theologian Dr. Chris Seitz. Both papers are solid reads. IN MASSACHUSETTS WHERE SECULAR COURTS sought to approve legislation for gay marriages, there is tremendous energy and money behind the same-sex marriage agenda, using language that says, among other things that "marriage is a basic human right." The Rev. John C. Rankin, a Christian apologist who lives in the area wrote, "this is not true, as it replaces the unalienable rights given us by the Creator, with new humanly defined "rights" determined by those in political power. Since when in human or U.S. history has marriage been defined as a human right? Rather, marriage has been defined as the basic social responsibility where man and woman, as complements and in mutual fidelity, give and receive trust, and model the same for their children. Then, within true marriage, there are certain rights designed to protect marriage and children, all of which accrues to the betterment of the larger society." "If this homosexual agenda is unchecked, in the final analysis, the religious, political and economic liberty to dissent from its redefinition of culture will be removed." No ministers will be allowed by the state to perform heterosexual marriages unless they also agree to perform homosexual "marriages"; No speech, which disagrees with homosexuality, will be permitted; and no businesses will be exempt from laws requiring approval of homosexual conduct. In other words, the freedom to live, then preach the Gospel to hurting people, will be in danger. But this week's ruling will be heralded by the secular press as another step towards the inevitability of same-sex marriage. However, there is another side to the story. The Alliance Defense Fund lawyers asked the court not to replace marriage with civil unions either. Why? Because the court has now made the battle lines even clearer: it is either full-blown marriage or no marriage substitute for radical homosexual activists. "While some may bemoan this ruling, we see this now as an opportunity to protect marriage from the clutches of the radical homosexual activists, since no redefined replacement, such as civil unions, is acceptable," said a spokesman for The Alliance Defense Fund an organization that provides resources to keep the door open for the spread of the Gospel through the legal defense and advocacy of religious freedom, the sanctity of human life, and traditional family values. IN ECUSA THIS WEEK, Bishop Duncan of the Diocese of Pittsburgh again stated that there will be no split in the Episcopal Church over the ordination of a homosexual bishop last fall. That's the message he imparted to one his parish's this week. He added that while the ordination of Robinson is a very divisive issue, the Pittsburgh Diocese has no intention of separating from the Episcopal Church. THE LAMBETH CONFERENCE DESIGN GROUP meets in London shortly. The brief of the Design Group is to plan for the proposed Anglican Gathering in 2008 and the next Lambeth Conference. The chairman of the group is the Most Revd Sir Ellison Pogo, Archbishop of Melanesia. Depending on what the Eames Commission concludes one wonders if there will be another Lambeth, and if there is WHO will be there. Nigerian Primate Peter Akinola is on a very short fuse these days and, in a very real sense, he has more power than the Archbishop of Canterbury does! If he, the new Archbishop of Uganda and the CAPA bishops decide to take matters into their own hands they could precipitate a crisis with far-reaching repercussions for the whole communion. THE ECUSA EXECUTIVE COUNCIL is scheduled to meet this week in Tampa and it will be interesting to see what emerges from this meeting. Follow the money is good advice. I AM POSTING A NUMBER OF STORIES FROM ACROSS THE COMMUNION. CORRECTION: In a story on the Diocese of Fond du Luc I mentioned the name of Neil Jacobus as the bishop of the Diocese of Fond du Lac. That was incorrect. His name is Russell E. Jacobus. David W. Virtue DD

Fidelity BC Web The Crawley doctrine: Those who disagree with the Liberal theology should find another church. Archbishop Crawley made this statement a few years ago in a seminar at VST and again on the CBC's radio program The Afternoon Show four days after the vote at the Diocese of New Westminster Synod in June of 2002. A month prior to that Archbishop Crawley had met with a delegation of the ACiNW churches and suggested that they join the AMIA (Anglican Mission in America) - in short, leave the Anglican Church of Canada. The Crawley doctrine will lead to nothing short of a Liberal-only church and those people who dissent should leave and go elsewhere. Bishop Ingham would add to that: Leave your buildings and your bank accounts behind. Archbishop Crawley has said that the buildings and parish assets belong to the people of the parishes whose direct donations paid for them and paid for their maintenance and upkeep. Ingham, on the other hand has long threatened to remove the "dissidents" from their property. What is he going to do with empty church buildings? The same thing he is likely to do with other empty or under-utilized church property: liquidate the assets to pay for expenses like salaries (including his) and benefits which are currently squeezed due to revenue shortfalls. It is the Liberals who are demanding radical changes to the discipline and doctrine of the church, changes which are incompatible with both the very "essentials" of the Christian faith and our Anglican tradition. What the people of the ACiNW have said is simply "No. Such actions put Bishop Ingham and his Synod beyond the pale of Orthodoxy and hence out of communion with us." Due to the constant threats and intimidation by Bishop Ingham the ACiNW has appealed for protection by the Canadian House of Bishops (HOB) and the International Primates. END

ORTHODOX PARISHES NERVOUS FOR THE FUTURE re being pushed to the sides and really encouraged to leave. Frank Stirk BC CW correspondent NORTH VANCOUVER, B.C. All that effectively prevents New Westminster bishop Michael Ingham from re-asserting control over the dissident parishes in his Anglican diocese are their orthodox priests, says Leslie Bentley, media spokesperson for the Anglican Communion in New Westminster (ACiNW). Under this system and this bishop, our future of being able to continue on as orthodox Anglican churches is only as long as our current sitting rectors [remain in place], she warns. Bentley believes that if any of them should resign or retire, Ingham will do exactly the same as what he is already doing in St. Martin declare an emergency and put in place priests and lay leaders who are loyal to him and his liberal theology. It makes the rest of us nervous, she says. Bishop Ingham wouldn t let us have an orthodox minister. And even if he did, Bentley adds, it would be highly unlikely that any orthodox Anglican would want to serve under Ingham. It would be a career-destroying move. At St. Martin s, parishioners were told last month that Ingham had instructed his three bishop s wardens the lay leaders he had appointed under Canon 15 to begin the process of finding the parish a new permanent priest. And despite the congregation having voted overwhelmingly to the contrary, the wardens also decided to resume sending the church s annual dues to the diocese. We want to move ahead and get a wonderful new priest and the only way to do that is to go through the diocese and pay our assessments, warden Lindsay Buchanan told the Vancouver Sun. Buchanan was one of two elected wardens that Ingham kept in place after he imposed Canon 15. Yet even she describes St. Martin a conservative parish looking for a conservative priest who would refuse to bless same-sex couples. According to diocesan spokesman Neale Adams, Ingham is fully prepared to honour St. Martin s wishes on this issue. The bishop far from being the gay rights zealot that some have pictured him as being continues to appoint conservative priests to conservative parishes, as he feels he ought, he said in the Sun. But as parish spokesperson Linda Taunton notes, with Canon 15 still in effect, the choice of a new priest is ultimately out of their hands. Bishop Ingham is running the church, even though the bishop s wardens are there, she says. The wardens do look for and get direction from him. Bentley says conservative Anglicans elsewhere in Canada are naïve if they think that what is unfolding in New Westminster will never happen to them. This is becoming a battle about whether or not there s going to be any room for orthodoxy within the Anglican Church of Canada, she says. If the evangelicals, the Anglo-Catholics and the orthodox Anglicans can get sidelined here, it could happen anywhere. The fact is we re being pushed to the sides and really encouraged to leave. END

KENYANS PUT FAITH IN OLD TEACHINGS ON HOMOSEXUALITY 7/02/2004 Anglicans in Kenya are ready for split in the church over gay priests, writes Adrian Blomfield. Architecturally, St Francis's Church in the Nairobi suburb of Karen would not seem out of place in a village in Kent. But there the similarities end. The Book of Common Prayer still sits on the pews and is used every week, although not in every service. The congregation still sings from "Ancient and Modern" hymnbooks. But it is not just the style that is traditional. Parishioners are deeply conservative. Most believe homosexuality is abhorrent. "The church is very strongly against a person who has openly declared he is homosexual being ordained," said the Rev Habil Omungu, the vicar of St Francis's. Such a person would introduce unacceptable and unbiblical teachings." The parishioners of St Francis's have had their arguments in the past. The decision to ordain women into the priesthood divided them in the late 1990s and prompted two lay preachers to leave. There was further dissent over a number of heraldic shields that had hung in the church since colonial times and over a more recent stained glass window that depicted elephants - some worshippers believed such a scene was tantamount to Hindu idolatry. But when it comes to homosexual ordination and same-sex marriages, the congregation sings from the same hymn sheet. "I think it's absolutely horrific," said Mary McNaughtan, who has worshipped at St Francis's for more than 30 years. "It's totally un-Christian. I think if it were to happen I would probably leave the Church. "I couldn't go to a church where a homosexual was preaching and God would not want a homosexual to come between me and Him." Many Kenyan Anglicans feel their moral ideals are now totally divergent from those of the increasingly decadent and secular West. As Anglican bishops from across the world prepare to meet in Windsor on Tuesday, seeking a deal on homosexuality to save the disintegrating 160-nation Anglican Communion, Anglicans in Africa are far from a spirit of compromise. "This is the result of freedom being pushed beyond acceptable limits," said Mr Omungu. "It has led to a culture of tolerance where people feel free to do whatever they want." While Mr. Omungu still hopes that "love, patience and compassion" can turn the first publicly homosexual Anglican bishop, Gene Robinson, away from his "deviation", some in the congregation at St Francis's are convinced that there is no option left to them but to break away. Founded in 1844, the Anglican Church in Kenya is perhaps the country's oldest institution, even predating British rule in the former colony. It has held true to ideas that might be familiar to Victorians, but which have become alien to many in the West. Even outside Christian circles homosexuality is despised by most Africans, who see it as a Western vice that is alien to their culture. There will undoubtedly be sadness at severing ties with Canterbury but a softening of the line on homosexuality could lead to the extinction of Kenya's three million-strong Anglican community, which is already under pressure from its competitors in the evangelical church. "There is no room for negotiation on something like this," said Dedan Kamau, people's warden at the church. "Homosexuality is a sin. I do not see a situation where Western dioceses return to traditional values. We should just accept the split." 1 December 2003: Church unity talks fail over gay bishop 27 November 2003: Archbishop pleads for Anglican truce © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2004.

By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent THE TELEGRAPH 6/02/2004 The ordination of women priests will cost the Church of England more than 326 million pounds ($596 million) in payouts to clergy who have left in protest, according to official figures. The size of the final bill will dismay many in the Church, which is facing severe financial difficulties and the prospect of dioceses being made bankrupt. The figures will also refuel the heated debate on whether the Church should allow the consecration of women as bishops, a reform which could trigger another exodus of clergy. The millions of pounds have been paid out as part of a scheme agreed in 1992 as a conciliatory gesture to the hundreds of traditionalist clergy who threatened to split the Church over women priests. Under the scheme, clergy who resigned for reasons of conscience before the cut-off date for lodging claims, which falls later this month, would receive hardship payments to help them after they left their jobs. Many of them became Roman Catholic or Orthodox priests, but a number have since returned to the Church of England. The Church Commissioners said that, up until the end of 2003, 430 clergy had resigned and applied for the payments, and a further nine have resigned so far this year. Forward in Faith, the traditionalist umbrella group, said that it did not expect a last-minute exodus before the official final date, Feb 21. The Church Commissioners said that the estimate for the total cost up to the end of 2014, when it expects the scheme to have run its course, was now approximately 326 million pounds ($596 million). In 2002 the commissioners predicted that the final total would not exceed 323 million pounds ($591 million) for 400 departing clergy, so the new figure will disappoint bishops who are being forced to axe clergy posts. Stephen Parkinson, the director of Forward in Faith, said the true number of clergy who have resigned is nearer 600, but many did not qualify for the compensation package so were not officially registered. "This shows that the Church has lost hugely both financially and in terms of talent over women priests," he said. "No one has calculated how many lay people left, taking their wallets with them." Christina Rees, the chair of Watch, a group campaigning for women bishops, said: "Most people who support women clergy are shocked and horrified by the amounts paid out." A service to mark the tenth anniversary of the ordination of women was held in St Paul's Cathedral and a series of other events are to be held around the country later this year. END

By Frank E. Lockwood HERALD-LEADER STAFF WRITER VERSAILLES - As an associate minister at one of the nation's largest Episcopal churches, the Rev. David Brannen had a secure job in a conservative western Pennsylvania diocese. But he gave it all up to lead a congregation with no building, no budget, no history and no guarantees. It's a decision he and his wife have struggled with. "Claire has asked me a million times, 'Are you sure you're getting this right?'" he told his new congregation yesterday. "I have told her time and time again, 'Yes, this is the Lord.'" Brannen, the new rector of St. Andrew's Anglican Church in Versailles, said he has felt called by God before, in 1990. At the time, Brannen had a job as communications director for the Muscogee County School District in Georgia, but he gave it up and enrolled at Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry in Ambridge, Pa. That is where he believed God wanted him to be, so that is where he went. He got a job as communications director at St. Stephen's Episcopal Church in Sewickley, Pa., and, after four years, became its evangelism minister. In 1996, he became associate rector, earned a master's of divinity degree and was ordained Dec. 29 that year. This is the first time Brannen, 48, has led a congregation, but leaders at his new church said he has the temperament, theology and passion for evangelism that they were hoping for. "Upon meeting David, the sense that this was the Lord's choice for our church was overwhelming," said search committee member Judge Wilson. "It was immediate, it was clear, and it was unanimous." Another committee member, John Edwards, said he was struck by Brannen's warmth and his emphasis on the Bible. "David preached the word," he said, "and there was no compromise, no wiggle room." As pastor of a new church, Brannen said, "things feel risky. There are a lot of uncertainties." But his resolve has not weakened. "I am certain of this," he said. "I am called to the community of Versailles." END

Anglican church leaders like to talk about the 'glorious comprehensiveness of the Anglican communion.' Have your heard them talk about that? But, unfortunately, they are not always wise enough to distinguish between the two different kinds of comprehensiveness. Principled on the one hand, and unprincipled on the other. Dr. J.I. Packer, whom we honour very much in this community and throughout the world, wrote a contribution to a symposium about 25 years ago in which he spoke about these two kinds of comprehensiveness. Let me quote from Dr. Packer. He distinguishes two ideals of comprehensiveness which have been held within Anglicanism. One he calls the virtue; the other you will guess, is a vice. So the first is 'the virtue of tolerating different views on secondary issues on the basis of clear agreement on essentials.' And this is what comprehensiveness meant in the time of the reformation. But then he distinguishes this from 'the vice of retreating from the light of scripture into an intellectual murk where no outlines are clear, all cats are gray and syncretism is the prescribed task. ' I was interested a few years ago to read a comment from Cardinal Basil Hume, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster in the country from which I come; he was honest enough to say: "I am very uneasy concerning the comprehensiveness of the Anglican Church. Comprehensiveness has been seen by the Anglican church as a matter of pride. I wonder whether it is not its Achilles heel, leaving the rest of us asking, ' What does the Anglican Church, as a church, hold to be essential?'" Good question." The Rev. Dr. John R.W. Stott "On Essentials"

Four Christian women were killed as militants from a passing car raked their minibus with automatic gunfire. On Wednesday 21 January nine Christian Iraqi women were on their way to work in the laundry at Habaniyah US military base. Suddenly, four masked men, in a white Opel, machine-gunned our minibus and four women died, recounted survivor Maggi Aziz, 49. None of the passengers escaped the attack, 50 miles west of Baghdad, unscathed. Maggi herself was speaking from a hospital bed with wounds to the leg, shoulder and head. Ashkik Varojan boarded the bus on Wednesday morning having decided to hand in her resignation, rather than live in fear of reprisals for cooperating with the coalition. Necessity had driven her to work to support her paralysed husband and four children. On hearing the news of her death, Anjel, her 20 year old daughter fainted with grief. Vera Ibrahim, who survived, said t continue this work. I am afraid. They wanted to kill us all. Suzanne Azat, also a survivor, and Mussa Adam Abu Shaba, whose sister Nadia was killed, believe the assailants were insurgents fighting against the coalition forces. DEMOCRACY On Monday 19 January there was a mass demonstration in Baghdad led by the Shi a leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani against the US plans envisioned to ensure a stable and lasting democracy. According to the Financial Times, some of the demonstrators were carrying pictures of Jesus to make it appear that Christians were supporting the Shi as, even though virtually all Christian leaders are against Al-Sistani s policies. Barnabas Fund works to support Christian communities mainly, but not exclusively, in the Islamic world where they are facing poverty and persecution. Barnabas Fund, The Old Rectory, River Street, PEWSEY, Wiltshire, SN9 5DB, UK. Tel: +44(0)1672 564938, Fax: +44(0)1672 565030, E-mail: info@barnabasfund.org Web: www.barnabasfund.org PASTOR AT PRAYER SHOT DEAD TAJIKISTAN 16th January 2004 A pastor who was also an active missionary has been shot dead while he was praying in a chapel. At 9.00pm on Monday 12 January gunmen burst into a churchyard in Isfara in the north of Tajikistan and fired several rounds through a window at Sergei Bessarab as he was kneeling in prayer. Forum 18 news agency reported that on hearing the gunfire, his wife, Tamara, rushed to her husband s side but he was already dead. Reuters also carried the story and confirmed he was shot 13 times with a Kalashnikov assault rifle. A local newspaper had only a week before attacked Bessarab for his missionary work in this staunchly Muslim region. Women are often seen wearing the veil in villages and alcohol is taboo, indeed shops stocking it have sometimes been burnt down. The hard-line Islamic Revival Party garnered a large majority of the local vote in recent elections, despite central government attempts to curb the growth of Islamic extremism. Bessarab s handing out of Christian literature aroused considerable local anger. Nevertheless police have not yet confirmed that the suspected motive for the murder was his missionary activity. APOSTASY CAMPAIGN Local opposition to the missionary work of this pastor is typical throughout the Muslim world. The reason lies in Islamic law, shari a, which states that any male who converts from Islam should be put to death. Barnabas Fund is currently engaged in a major international campaign on behalf of converts from Islam focusing on the Islamic law of apostasy and the treatment of converts in Islamic societies. The Fund is calling upon Muslim religious leaders to condemn the harsh treatment of converts and to make public statements calling for a reform of shari a teaching on apostasy to clearly affirm that Muslims who choose to convert to another faith are free to follow their personal convictions without fear of punishment or harassment. Further details of the campaign can be obtained by contacting Barnabas Fund or visiting the Apostasy Campaign pages on our website http://www.barnabasfund.org/apostasy.htm END

MAINSTREAM POLITICAL LEADERS DENOUNCE ATTACKS ON CHRISTIAN MINORITY IRAQ A large number of Iraqi intellectuals and politicians have called upon Islamic religious leaders, the Iraqi Governing Council, other party leaders and the Coalition Authorities to prevent Shia Muslim groups attacking Christians. A call by more than 200 mainly Muslim intellectuals and political leaders from Iraq to stop attacks on Christians and cease forcing women to wear the veil was published on Sunday 4 January on the Arabic website Elaph [http://www.ankawa.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=55&topic=6]. The call was directed at Muslim clerics, the Iraqi Governing Council and the Coalition Authorities. They specifically called upon Islamic religious leaders to issue fatwas forbidding such atrocious crimes against humanity and the Islamic [sic] religion. The declaration said horrific crimes had been committed against women in forcing them to wear the veil, but worst of all was the terrorising of our Christian brothers, intimidating them to become Muslims. It drew attention to the fact that Christians had lived in Iraq for two thousand years and had contributed greatly to the region's civilisation, both before and after the coming of Islam. Shia militant groups which bear names such as God's Vengeance and Hezbollah have been subjecting the Christian community in Iraq to a relentless series of attacks as reported by Barnabas Fund over the last half year [http://www.barnabasfund.org/News/Archive/Iraq/Iraq-20040106.htm http://www.barnabasfund.org/News/Archive/Iraq/Iraq-20031120.htm http://www.barnabasfund.org/News/Archive/Iraq/Iraq-20030530.htm http://www.barnabasfund.org/News/Archive/Iraq/Iraq-20030514.htm]. These bold calls by over 200 key Iraqi intellectual and political figures are a welcome move for the country's Christians, acknowledging the problems they are facing and calling for change. Iraqi church leaders have also been speaking out against the increasing persecution Christians are now suffering. Bishop Al-Qas said that missiles were launched against a convent in October of last year, and that Christians have received death threats, with many fleeing from Basra. He attributed this to the greater freedom that Muslim fundamentalist groups now have. The new head of the Chaldean Church, Patriarch Emmanuel III, has also been outspoken in his fears. He said that Muslims and Christians had lived side by side for countless years in love and charity, but that they were now subject to attacks from extremists coming in from Saudi Arabia and Iran. He added that if legislation is enacted according to Islamic law, Christians will suffer. He stressed that they would have no prospects if the new Iraqi constitution was Islamic and that American intervention would be the only way to avert such an outcome. The Iraqi Governing Council have nearly finalised a transitional constitution that would have Islam as one of its sources of law, but not the sole one. Freedom of religious practice for non-Muslims and equal rights for women would be guaranteed. This is another welcome sign. It remains to be seen whether Iraq's conservative Shia community would accept such a constitution.

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN The New York Times For years it was an article of faith for many Christians that the most powerful vehicle for bringing nonbelievers to Jesus was a Billy Graham crusade. Now, they expect it will be a Mel Gibson movie. Three weeks before the release of "The Passion of the Christ," a graphic portrayal of the torture and crucifixion of Jesus, Christians nationwide are busy preparing to use it in an immense grass-roots evangelistic campaign. Mr. Gibson, who produced, directed and largely financed the film, has tried to stoke their enthusiasm by screening it the past two months for at least 10,000 pastors and leaders of Christian ministries and media. Many emerged proclaiming it a searing, life-changing experience. Now those leaders are buying blocks of tickets, encouraging church members to invite their "unsaved" friends and co-workers and producing television commercials that start with scenes from the movie and finish with a pitch for their churches. "I don't know of anything since the Billy Graham crusades that has had the potential of touching so many lives," said Morris H. Chapman, president of the executive committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest Protestant denomination. "It's like the Lord somehow laid in our lap something that could be a great catalyst for spiritual awakening in this nation." The movie opens on Ash Wednesday, Feb. 25, and Christian groups are already distributing merchandise to capitalize on the moment. There are lapel pins in Aramaic, the language of much of the film, and "witnessing cards" to give those who ask about the pin; door hangers for the neighbors; one million tracts asking moviegoers to "Take a moment right now and say a prayer like this," and a CD-ROM for teenagers that features a downloadable picture of a nine-inch nail like those that pinned Jesus to the cross. Although Mr. Gibson is Roman Catholic and the movie is replete with Catholic touches, like the Stations of the Cross and the centrality of Mary, influential Pentecostal and evangelical leaders have embraced it anyway, seeing its value as a tool in evangelism. Evangelical Christians account for 30 percent to 40 percent of the American population, and many of them have recently been hearing their leaders declare that the nation is primed for a return of the ecstatic Great Awakenings that moved Americans in the 18th and 19th centuries to convert to Christianity in droves. Mr. Gibson's film company has hired several marketing firms experienced in reaching Christian audiences, including the publicist for the Rev. Billy Graham. But much of the promotion was initiated by an assortment of ministry agencies, churches and individual Christians. One of these, the American Tract Society in Garland, Tex., proclaims on its Web site that the movie is "one of the greatest opportunities for evangelism in 2,000 years." Daniel Southern, the society's president, said his group had produced two tracts tied into the movie, and expected one to sell over one million copies. The only involvement of Mr. Gibson's company, Mr. Southern said, was in granting permission to use a movie photograph on the cover. "This is an unprecedented opportunity that the average Christian needs to seize," Mr. Southern said. "You'll run into people at work who've seen the movie, and you can say, Have you ever thought about why Christ had to die?' And then you can say: This tract has one take on that and I'd like to share it with you.' And you hand them the tract." Teen Mania, an evangelical group that holds youth crusades in stadiums, says at least 3,000 leaders of church youth groups have bought CD-ROM kits that instruct young people in how to use the film to deepen their own faith and bring their friends to accept Christ. The film is rated R because of the violent scourging and crucifixion of Jesus that occupies much of its two hours. Ron Luce, president of Teen Mania, says children would benefit from seeing it, and the CD-ROM supplies information to persuade parents to allow their children to attend. "This isn't just violence for violence's sake," Mr. Luce said. "This is what really happened, what it would have been like to have been there in person to see Jesus crucified." Mr. Gibson invested $25 million of his own into the movie and has told supporters that he regards it as a spiritual calling. He has suggested that he is aware of the film's potential use in evangelism. In a promotional brochure for the movie given to 4,500 participants at a recent "Global Pastors Network" conference in Orlando, Fla., Mr. Gibson says, "I hope the film has the power to evangelize." He has told screeners in churches that on the movie set, he witnessed agnostics and Muslims converting to Christianity. A spokesman for Mr. Gibson, Alan Nierob, explained the outreach efforts as more in the interest of marketing than evangelism. He said that although "The Passion of the Christ" was being released on about 2,000 screens by Newmarket Films, it did not have a large marketing budget to pay for focus groups and advertising. "We don't have that luxury here," Mr. Nierob said. "So you've got to do what you can to get the film out there, get supporters, get word of mouth. That's really the grass-roots approach." Mr. Nierob likened it to the word-of-mouth and Internet buzz that turned "The Blair Witch Project" into a sleeper hit. Mr. Gibson's company held early screenings of the film in churches led by pastors renowned in Christian circles for pioneering evangelization techniques. They include the Rev. Bill Hybels of Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Ill.; Bishop Eddie L. Long of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Atlanta; and the Rev. Rick Warren at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., author of the best seller "The Purpose-Driven Life." Mr. Hybels was host to 4,500 viewers at a screening in his church last month, and said in an interview that he had invited a "sample group" of a dozen "nonchurchgoing community leaders and businessmen" to gauge their reaction. He said all 12 reported that the film "piqued their curiosity" about Jesus and caused some to go home and dig out Bibles they had not read for years. Although the film has been praised by some Roman Catholics and promoted on some Catholic Web sites, Catholic clergy members and bishops have not latched onto it as a tool for church-building as the evangelicals have. The same brutality in the film that has caused such an emotional response among many Christian filmgoers has alarmed some Jewish leaders who say it could stoke animosity toward Jews. Christian supporters of the film say it merely adheres to the Bible. But some Jewish leaders say that it distorts the Scriptures and that they are alarmed at the prospect of the movie's being accepted as gospel. David M. Elcott, director for interreligious affairs for the American Jewish Committee, said, "It would be a deep disappointment to the Jewish community if this movie would become the vehicle for teaching Christianity, even within Christian settings." Christian leaders predict that the film will have a long afterlife on tape and DVD for use in homes, churches and Bible study classes. Some cautioned that the film's graphic brutality would limit its usefulness with youngsters and in some cultures. But others said that missionaries would eventually adopt it as a conversion tool much like "Jesus," a 1970's film distributed by the group Campus Crusade for Christ. That film has been translated into more than 800 languages and shown in hundreds of countries. END

Report on the 182nd convention of the Diocese of Georgia By Les Wilkinson February 7, 2004 I am taking this opportunity to report to the members of St. Augustine's Episcopal Church on the events of the Diocesan Convention, which ended today. This report is from my recollection and my notes. I have not sought the input from the other delegates. I would like to thank the Rector for his having all of us as his guests for dinner Thursday night. He is a most gracious host. The events I am reporting will sadden some of you and perhaps some of you will not care, but the happenings at the convention should be a grave concern for all of us. They are to Marcy and me, if not to others. Each of you should have received The Episcopal Church in Georgia's pre-convention newsletter; we received ours on Wednesday. It lists the proposed canon changes and the resolutions that were to come before the convention. Friday morning, the convention began on time, and one of the first items was the approval of the agenda including the time for the discussion and "debate" of the proposed canonical changes and the proposed resolutions, scheduled for the afternoon session. There were 151 voting lay delegates and 84 voting clergy registered at the Convention. At the convention, all delegates, including alternates and guests who had registered were assigned seats at 39 different tables. None of our delegations were seated together. At each table was a moderator whose exact function was unclear, and at my table, he was just another voice. The idea for the tables was to have delegates from different parishes discuss each of the proposed changes and resolutions among themselves and then to allow those who wanted to address the convention to do so. Well, that was the idea, and that concept would have worked had not Rev. Parker of St. George's in Savannah moved to halve the time for discussion and microphone debate because it would otherwise cut into repast and planned night festivities. What is more important to the Diocese — dinner and dancing or moral standards and conduct? His motion passed over my voiced objection. The first canonical change discussed and voted on was that concerning ecclesiastical standards for aspirants, postulates, and those accepted to orders. The change to Title IV, Canon I, Section 1 reads as follows: "Aspirants, postulates, and those accepted to holy orders shall accept and conform to the following standard: `Marriage between a man and a woman or abstinence from sexual activity are the only acceptable forms of sexual behavior for a Deacon, Priest, or Bishop in the Diocese of Georgia'" As we were beginning to vote, Sister Elena, called for a division of the house, which means that lay delegates and clergy vote separately, with a negative vote by either house defeating or vetoing the proposal. It was ruled that her call was untimely and without the 6 signatures necessary. That ruling was not lost on some of the delegates, especially some of the clergy. I am happy that the above change to the canons was approved, but not by much. The delegates in favor of the resolution stood, and that included The Rector and me. I did not look around to see who from our delegation had stood, but from our previous discussion, I believe they all did. I noticed The Rector because he was at the table to my left. Those who were against also stood, and I can tell you the vote was close. The actual vote count was not announced, but the edited minutes of the meeting may have that count. The proposed change to the canons to apply the above standard to those called to be Rectors was also approved. Now for what I consider a serious mistake by the Convention and that dealt with the acceptable marriage rites in this Diocese. The proposed canonical change read as follows: "The only acceptable marriage rites in the Diocese of Georgia are those of marriage between a man and a woman, the renewal of marriage vows between a man and a woman, and the blessing of a civil marriage between a man and a woman. No other rites of marriage, celebration of unions or other such ceremonies shall be created, solemnized, blessed, practiced or recognized." You would think that this was a "no-brainer", especially in the Diocese of Georgia, which I would have considered to be conservative in the area of "same sex" unions. Was I ever mistaken? One priest said that everything we need to know about marriage was in the Book of Common Prayer, and it allowed only marriage between a man and a woman, and this canon change would be superfluous and thus was not needed. I went to the microphone and spoke on this proposed canonical change. I said that if the Book of Common Prayer was the "end all and be all" as claimed, then other dioceses would not be blessing these "unions". I said that this issue had been dogging the national church for 30 years and would dog this Diocese unless we approved it. I was followed by a gay fellow who said he and his partner had been in a monogamous relationship for 20 some-odd years and all their other friends were dead; he ask where he would go if this change were passed. He missed the point for the proposed canonical change was not to ban them from the Church, but to prohibit "rites" of marriage, celebrations of unions, blessings of unions, or the recognition such in this Diocese. The time allotted for microphone discussion for this important issue was only 10 minutes. Anyway, those opposed to this canonical change had learned their lesson from Sister Elena's attempt to vote by orders. When there is a division of the house, if a majority of the clergy votes "no" and even if every lay delegate votes "yes", the proposal will be defeated; likewise, the lay delegates can veto a proposition approved by the clergy. This is why a division of the house is important. Before the vote on this canonical change was called, a priest called for a division of the house, and he had the required signatures. Rather than standing and having others know how each voted, the division of the house was by secret ballot. I voted in favor of the prohibition of "same sex" blessing, unions, etc. I can speak only for me. Voting for the ban were 75 lay delegates and 28 clergy. Voting against the ban were 71 lay delegates and 47 clergy. Five lay delegates and 9 clergy did not vote. The motion to ban "same sex" unions or blessings failed at convention. This bodes very ill, I fear, for our Church and the Diocese of Georgia. What this tells me is that if 47 of 84 clergy or 47 of 75 that bothered to voted are either in favor of "same sex" unions, or do not opposed them, or do not support a ban on such rites, we, the Church, and our Diocese are in deep trouble. Also, even after the Archbishop receives his report from the Primates this fall, any attempt by the lay delegates to associate with other parishes, or to seek oversight from other bishops, or to join in another Anglican province will be defeated by the clergy in a "division ofRetryDVContinuethe house". If this were not enough, I have some other disturbing news, at least to me, but others may see it from a different perspective. It was announced that we would vote on the resolutions listed in the diocesan newspaper in the following order: (1) Affirm the Bishop: (2) Reaffirm, Profess Membership; (3) Affirm Primates' Statement; (4) Saddened by Recent Actions; (5)Repudiating Actions; (6) Redirecting Funds: and (7)Ties That Bind Us Together. The resolution "Regarding Budget Shortfall" was withdrawn. After a substitute resolution praising Bishop Louttit was passed, a priest made a motion to table all the other resolutions because they "needed more time" for study. The vote was called for and a lot of delegates stood up to vote for tabling the resolutions; no actual count was made. Those against the motion stood up, and I stood up to oppose the tabling the resolutions. I thought and still do that these resolutions needed action to show our strong disapproval of the actions of General Convention. I looked around, and we had as many standing to oppose the tabling as those supporting the tabling; no actual count was made. The Bishop announced, "The ayes" have it." The resolutions were tabled. One priest asked that a recorded vote be taken, and the Bishop announced that according to Roberts' Rules of Order, two-thirds of the delegates would have to approve such a measure. Obviously, that would have been futile. I was very disappointed in the outcome of the Convention, not only with the fact that so many of the Diocesan clergy opposed a canonical change to outlaw or ban "same sex" blessings or any type of such rites, but that the resolutions addressing the controversy surrounding Gene Robinson, the General Convention, and others never made it to the floor for discussion or vote. By slight of hand, in my opinion, the Diocese did nothing. I might add that at the end of the business, the Bishop asked for and got permission for the secretary to edit the minutes of the meeting so I do not know how these events will be reported. I wanted you to get my impressions and recollections while they are still fresh in my mind. I have been a lifelong Episcopalian. Marcy and I have attended St. Augustine's since the late '70s. We have many close friends here. St. Augustine's is more than a parish; it is a part of the Diocese and the national church. What the national church and the Diocese do affects us at St. Augustine's. Their moral leadership or lack thereof affects us and how others think of our church. It is with great sadness that Marcy and I will be celebrating our last Sunday with you at St. Augustine's. We cannot continue in the course the Church is taking. This is something we have been thinking about with great thought for many months, always hoping that the Diocese of Georgia would take the right course. Whatever the future, may the Peace of the Lord be always among us. Les Wilkinson END