By David W. Virtue TALLAHASSEE, FL - The Rev. Dennis Ackerson, rector of Church of the Holy Spirit who had submitted his resignation from the Diocese of Florida, and from the national Episcopal Church, was prematurely shown the door after an agreement he had to leave his parish was broken, he says, by the new bishop John Howard. Ackerson, who had been thinking about leaving for a year, resigned from his parish with the understanding from Bishop Howard's representative Canon Reverend Gil Crosby along with Lila Brown, the bishop's assistant, that February 8 would be his last Sunday to preach. But then he got a surprise. "On Thursday, Feb. 5, I was told I could stay and preach the following Sunday. Then at 4pm on Thursday I got a call from the bishop's assistant saying that I could not preach on Sunday someone else would, but I could address the congregation at the "peace" and that a pre-arranged plan to have a vote on whether to stay or leave was now cancelled." I was officially inhibited, he told Virtuosity. "I thought about it and then decided I didn't need to be at the service on Sunday. The people already know and six of the vestry are leaving, and they are ready to leave the parish even if I didn't leave the ECUSA. I also believe the majority of the church is ready to go. They have been ready for a year to leaving ECUSA." Ackerson says that the vast majority of the 155-member congregation will go with him to start another Anglican parish down the road at a Baptist Church who have offered him sanctuary till he can find more permanent headquarters. They had wanted him to start a new church within the Tallahassee community. Although the new church will not be aligned with any denomination initially, it intends to unite with a different Anglican group shortly. "One outreach that will continue in the new congregation is Subject to Change Ministries, a program for people seeking to change their homosexual attractions and behavior through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ," said Ackerson. Asked if he was ready to join the Anglican Mission in America (AMIA), Ackerson said "not necessarily", but he was weighing several options including coming under an orthodox Anglican Primate from the Global South. For Ackerson the central issue and why he left the Episcopal Church was the authority of Holy Scripture. "The Episcopal Church has failed to stand for Biblical authority, he told Virtuosity. "It is the ongoing dilution of God's Word within the hierarchy of ECUSA." Ackerson has aggressively sought to encourage the diocese to withdraw its fellowship from ECUSA, for failure to uphold the Bible as the ultimate authority of God. Ackerson said his parish co-sponsored a proposal to amend the Diocese's Articles of Re-incorporation to begin the process of separation from ECUSA. The proposal was submitted at the Diocese's Annual Convention held last month in Jacksonville, FL. "The proposal was ruled out of order by Bishop John Howard during a convened session of the convention and, therefore, did not receive a formal vote by the delegates," he said. Ackerson advised his parish of his resignation on February 1st and said, "I cannot commit to fighting ECUSA anymore. My charge as a priest is to focus my time and energy to fulfilling the Great Commission, and this effort has distracted me from that purpose." According to Ackerson and other members of the denomination, ECUSA interprets the Bible as a mere guideline for modern day living. The most recent result of this mindset was the consecration and ordination of a non-celibate homosexual priest, V. G. Robinson, as Bishop of New Hampshire in the fall of 2003. Jim Hampton, a convention delegate said, "Ackerson has been preparing his congregation for this outcome for several years by encouraging active participation in the American Anglican Council, a network that affirms Biblical authority. He also has called the parish to prayer, and provided biblical teaching on how to address false teachers within the Church." Ackerson, who has been an Episcopal priest for twelve years told Virtuosity, "I am anxious to continue his mission to win the lost and make disciples of Jesus Christ". END

PRIMATES ON THE NETWORK We, Primates of the Global South greet you in the name of our Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 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. They also constitute a clear defiance of the Primates of the Communion, who warned at their October meeting: If his consecration proceeds, we recognise that we have reached a crucial and critical point in the life of the Anglican Communion and we have had to conclude that the future of the Communion itself will be put in jeopardy. In this case, the ministry of this one bishop will not be recognised by most of the Anglican world, and many provinces are likely to consider themselves to be out of Communion with the Episcopal Church (USA). This will tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level, and may lead to further division on this and further issues as provinces have to decide in consequence whether they can remain in communion with provinces that choose not to break communion with the Episcopal Church (USA). 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. We appeal to all the faithful to be diligent in prayer and faith and call upon Anglicans across the communion to engage in loyal witness to the risen Christ and to resist and confront the false teaching undergirding these actions and which is leading people away from the redeeming love of Jesus into error and danger. We ask you to join in our repentance for failing to be sufficiently forthright in adequately addressing this issue in the past, and we invite you to stand with us in a renewed struggle to uphold the received truth found in Jesus and His word. We re-affirm our solidarity with faithful Bishops, clergy and church members in North America who remain committed the historic faith and order of the church and have rejected unbiblical innovation. We offer our support and the full weight of our ministries and offices to those who are gathering in the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes now being organized in North America. We regard this network as a hopeful sign of a faithful Anglican future in North America. We invite those who are committed to the preservation of historic Biblical faith and order, to join that work and its essential commitment to the Gospel. Finally, we appeal to you to sustain us in prayer, and to intercede especially for Anglicans in North America. "Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen." Eph 3:20-21 The Most Rev. Peter Akinola (Nigeria) The Most Rev. Drexel Gomez (West Indies) The Most Rev. Greg Venables (Southern Cone) The Most Rev. Joseph Marona (Sudan) The Most Rev. Benjamin Nzimbi (Kenya) The Most Rev. Livingstone Nkoyoyo (Uganda - outgoing) The Most Rev. Henry Orombi (Uganda - incoming) The Most Rev. Fidele Dirokpa (Congo) The Most Rev. Donald Mtetemela (Tanzania) The Most Rev. Bernard Malango (Central Africa) The Most Rev. K.J. Samuel (South India) The Most Rev. Alexander Malik (Pakistan) The Most Rev. Yong Ping Chung (South East Asia) The Most Rev. Ignacio Soliba (Philippines) The Primates who have already signed the attached statement are the leaders of more than forty-five million people, well over half of the world's Anglicans. Messages have been received from other provinces that the Network is being recognized. Those names will be released when official communication has certified recognition. END

By Christopher R Seitz History Comprehensiveness is a term normally associated with the Anglicanism of the Church of England, or with Anglicanism as distinct from other Christian movements or bodies. Only in the latter sense, then, could the term strictly speaking apply to the Anglican Christianity of the American Episcopal Church. Alternatively, one could argue that comprehensiveness as a distinctive feature of the Church of England has found its way, by transplant, into the American context. I suspect that The Episcopal Church Foundation has chosen to use the term on the assumption that such a transplantation has occurred, though it would be interesting to test whether the term has been used, historically, as often and as readily in the American as in the British context, given the very different ecumenical environment within which this small Anglican Christian movement finds itself in the United States. The question then would be: did the transplanting take root and did it actually flourish? It is necessary to pose the issue this way, because the ECUSA is a 2 million person denomination within a complex welter of denominated Christian groupings, vastly overshadowed by Roman Catholic, Baptist, and Evangelical churches, which might themselves be said to correspond in some rough ways to groupings internal to the comprehensiveness which is British Anglicanism. This is especially true of the evangelical wing of the Church of England which forms a major part, historically and especially presently, of this church and which makes utilisation of a term like "comprehensive" a fully rational way to describe something distinctive about it. Evangelicals travelling to America from the Church of England will find their counterparts more easily in places like Trinity Deerfield, Wheaton, Asbury, Gordon- Conwell, Westminster, or Beeson, and American evangelical Anglicans--or what is left of them--will look probably more 'Anglican' than British evangelicals, in part because the evangelical in US Anglicanism will have to have made a decision to stay and defend themselves and claim an Anglican lineage. Evangelicals in the UK may just view the Church of England as "the best boat to fish from." [Content continues in single-spaced format for all remaining text...]RetryDVcontinueRight away one can see that, over against the situation facing ECUSA, the Church of England's comprehensiveness entails its distinctive relationship to other, smaller or more marginal denominated groupings within its own shores -- historically with Puritanism and Catholicism marking districts over against which English reformed catholicism gained its identity and comprehensive outer limit. In more recent times, this would entail its more congenial ecumenical relationship with Methodist, Reformed, and other "dissenting" bodies; as well as now, with other faiths as such. As noted, the conference is likely using the term comprehensiveness because it has been thought to be a theological distinctive of Anglicanism, even in America. But to the degree that the theological distinctive is tied to a social/ecclesial location and reality, as it surely is in Britain, it will be important to interrogate whether or not the term has worn well over time in American culture and context. I believe the case can be made, historically, for identifying a species of comprehensiveness which is continuous with the evangelical, catholic, and so-called liberal strands of English reformed catholicism. This comprehensiveness was not something consciously structured according to a theological idea, or governing principle, however, but was reflected in the internal institutional workings--not least of the theological training schools and seminaries of this country, as well as of its societies and fellowships and missionary instincts--of the Episcopal Church in America. On this latter issue, for example, one thinks of the decision in the last century to designate domestic mission as the business of General Seminary, and the foreign mission as the domain of so-called evangelical seminaries. You will doubtless bring your own historical examples to mind. But it is also my view, and I will be making the case for this in short order, that this kind of comprehensiveness has broken down, and probably irretrievably. Moreover, this kind of comprehensiveness was not the result of design or intention--much less construction--but reflected an acknowledgement of certain institutional givens: certain more-or-less co-operative efforts to distribute chores and tolerate different distinctives--not always so congenially--within a family resemblance of theological and historical inheritances. The term "comprehensiveness" was not brought in to service and give theological justification for this, however, because, as I am arguing, comprehensiveness in the English Anglican sense is tied up with its distinctive Erastian vocation, which vocation is now threatened to a degree, but which has historically meant that Anglicanism is defined over against districts on its outer flanks. This is simply not true of American Anglican Christianity, and the kinds of slogans which once gave testimony to Anglican diversity in the US--"High and crazy, Broad and hazy, Low and lazy"--are just that: slogans, which grow up as emic and etic descriptions, meant to keep the peace within and/or describe to others outside what to them look like inconcinnities, as well they may be. Indeed one could speculate that the qualifying term "reconstructing" is a candid admission up front that something has gone missing, and perhaps, with the right kind of conferring and getting-together, it could be retrieved. I think one needs to be careful here about confusing a comprehensiveness which is historically continuous with, on the one hand, what once went on, or with what presently obtains in a different Anglican context (I think one can still call the present Church of England theologically and institutionally "comprehensive," and as such, in historical continuity with what it has been in the past; I think the same can also be said of certain international Anglican movements which are trans-national in character). On the other hand, one might be trying to describe a comprehensiveness of a very different kind: a kind of agreement to see whatever pluriformity exists, and bless it, and call it "comprehensiveness." That is, a decision by those in power to include those positions they have excluded, and to call this "comprehensiveness." This would be to introduce a serious logical fallacy, however. It would mean ignoring the historical and social context in which the term has had meaning, and theological grounding, and declaring it dispensable for the purposes of non-historical analogy. But the appropriate theological force of the term entails certain historical givens which cannot be removed without destroying the meaningfulness of the term as such. An agreement to tolerate difference and accommodate it is not "comprehensiveness" and never has been. Comprehensiveness is a declaration of where fundamentals lie, and where adiaphora are just that--inessentials--and are not in conflict with these fundamentals. This declaration is made easier when alternatives can be spotted on the periphery, as in Anglicanism vis-a-vis Puritanism and Roman Catholicism, or as in Hooker's presentation of reasonable, catholic, evangelical Anglicanism. The present American Episcopal Church is theologically far closer to its mainline Liberal Protestant neighbours, and cannot find a comprehensiveness within it which serves as an analogy to the location of British Anglicanism within its context over against a small Roman Catholic church or "dissenting" Christian groups. To help illustrate the point we can turn to the irenic volume, A Study of Anglicanism, where in the glossary we find--and its existence there is testimony to the durability of the term as an Anglican concept--"comprehension." Comprehension is "the character of the English Church prior to the reign of Charles I, whereby a refusal to narrow doctrinal boundaries" via-a-vis continental reformed and puritan Christianity on one side and Catholicism on the other "ensured that many not entirely happy with the Anglican Church nevertheless felt able to remain in it." Notice the more tentative gloss which the term seeks then to accommodate: "it is a term often used today to indicate the element of inclusiveness thought to be integral to the definition of Anglicanism" (p 445). In its historical form, one can sense immediately how practical the term is, reflecting as it does the acknowledged givens--perhaps even grudgingly--of that curiosity which would become English reformed catholicism. A given structure was acknowledged, in a low-flying sense, in that certain outer limits were defined, as in the old map-makers' declaration, "beyond here there be dragons." At the same time, the term reflects a willingness to see certain basic fundamentals as up-and-running, and to designate as inessential (adiaphora) other matters of difference and emphasis. The 1968 Lambeth Conference concluded "Comprehensiveness demands agreement on fundamentals, while tolerating disagreement on matters in which Christians may differ without feeling the necessity of breaking communion." The definition is crucial, for the adiaphora can only be seen as such when there is an agreement on fundamentals. If this should fail, then the notion of comprehensiveness, as expressed in the 1968 statement, would be forfeit and we would have slipped into an area of confusion and the threat of broken communion -- which is of course exactly where we find ourselves today. Sykes rightly noted, a bit prophetically one might say, "there are considerable complexities hidden in the proposal that all Christians do, can or should agree on fundamentals," a sentence which could apply to our situation today when agreement on fundamentals is exactly what cannot be satisfied. People can say that agreement should be had, or that we should have conferences and dialogue sessions to achieve agreement, but immediately this should signal that the conditions within which comprehensiveness arose are now gone. The very conditions within which adiaphora can be comprehended and accepted are missing, and these are not classically there by argument or exhortation, but exist because agreement over fundamentals exists and must not be sought or restructured or reconstructed or whatever, but acknowledged. The Present In some ways I have jumped ahead of my assignment by stating the thesis up front: concerning the impossibility of having comprehensiveness where disagreement over essentials exists. I have hinted at but not given clear examples of where a state of institutional--and therefore theological--comprehensiveness still exists, and where sufficient agreement over fundamentals has not yet given way. It is necessary to fill this picture out a bit in order to give expression--dramatically--to how monolithic and non-comprehensive, in the social and institutional--and therefore theological--sense the ECUSA has become. As you have been patient with the more historical and definitional character of the argument this far, let me shift grounds and read a poem--lyrics, actually--to a song about Kenyon College, one of the evangelical colleges which would in time give birth to one of the historically evangelical seminaries, Bexley Hall. The first of Kenyon's goodly race Was that great man Philander Chase He climbed a hill and said a prayer And founded Kenyon College there He dug up stones he chopped down trees He sailed across the stormy seas He knocked at every noble's door And also that of Hannah Moore The kings, the queens, the dukes, the earls They gave their crowns, they gave their pearls Until Philander had enough And hurried homeward with the stuff And thus he worked with all his might For Kenyon College day and night And Kenyon's heart still holds a place Of love for old Philander Chase Does Kenyon's heart "still hold a place of love for old Philander Chase"? Most I suspect do not know who he was, and would be untouched by the criticism that Kenyon does not now represent what he intended when he climbed a hill and said a prayer. That Bexley Hall is no longer there, has been moved to NY State, and that it is not evangelical on the terms of Chase's theology or the beneficence of wealthy English evangelicals like Hannah Moore, also likely moves no one. Time--especially in the New World--marches on, as we say. Chase, however, tapped into an English evangelical base which for the most part has remained vital and widely representative, in ways that his own evangelicalism was once vital and powerful within the ecology of 19th century American Episcopalianism. If Chase returned today and climbed a hill and said a prayer about where his vision might have got translated, by all standards of historical comparison, he would look outside the American Episcopal Seminary system and into a broader American evangelical world, with the exception perhaps of Trinity School for Ministry -- a school which, tellingly, is a transplant of its own. It would take a more confident historian than myself to speculate whether the High Church vision of Hobart would likewise be seen by him as unrepresented in the liberal catholicism, or liturgical Unitarianism, of much of the American Episcopal Church and its seminaries. Most Episcopal seminaries have ceased describing themselves as belonging to distinct theological or historical parties to be ranged on an articulated grid of "comprehensiveness," in the classic sense of the term. One can diagnose why this has happened--the 1979 Prayer Book; cultural factors; the departure of the REC; the emergence and proliferation of continuing churches; women's ordination--but that it has happened seems incontrovertible. That this is not simply an exercise in nostalgia or "those were the good old days" ("but they're gone, Professor Seitz") is belied by a comparison with Anglicanism in just about every region--Scotland may be an exception--of the entire Anglican Communion, that is, outside of the ECUSA. Consider the home of "comprehensiveness," The Church of England. Seventy per cent of the seminarians attending residential training colleges in the UK choose to matriculate in one of six evangelical schools. Even as it is important to note that now over half of all ordinands read for orders or pursue some other kind of local option for training ("training by course"), by US standards this high percentage is staggering. Our grid of comprehensiveness simply goes blank here. There are also active seminaries in the catholic tradition, Wescott and St Stephens and Cuddesdon and Mirfield, though the Catholic wing has itself been split by women's ordination, different views of the authority of Scripture, practising Gay lifestyles, and the like. There are six evangelical training colleges as against the single remaining one in the US: Oak Hill, Wycliffe Hall, Ridley Hall, St John's College (Nottingham), Trinity College (Bristol), Cranmer Hall (Durham). They are themselves representative of a kind of internal evangelical comprehensiveness (Church Society and Reform, on one side, Fulcrum in the middle; and a smallish liberal evangelical movement; "Open" Evangelical, surprisingly, given US jargon, does not mean "in favour of same-sex lifestyle," but open to women in orders, certain forms of historical criticism, and the like). I believe it is a fair conclusion that something like classical comprehensiveness still exists in the Church of England. This is not to say that there are not serious threats and fault-lines, but they are different to what one can now see in the American Episcopal Seminary system and the kinds of parties and ordained leaders they have been and will be turning out, thus marking the character of Episcopal Church life in this country now and for the coming years, if such years there are. The kind of comprehensiveness which marks the life of theological training in England has also left its mark on the Anglican Communion and especially the African churches of the Communion. There too one can see evangelical, catholic, and charismatic forms of Christian life, what one might conclude are 'inessential' distinctivenesses which can exist in a "structured comprehensiveness" because there is still agreement over fundamentals. Indeed, I would make the positive argument that the contribution the third largest Christian body in the world can make--over against the Roman, the great Orthodox Churches of the East, and Pentecostal Christian movements--is a comprehensiveness which can allow all these instincts to co-exist within its global reach because there is agreement on fundamentals in the mission of Jesus Christ. Given the starkness of the comparison between the Anglican comprehensiveness of the Communion and the Church of England, on the one side, and the smallish and rather monolithic institutional ECUSA, on the other, what hope is there for something like "reconstructing comprehensiveness"? On the terms of the definition, historically speaking, it would require an agreement about fundamentals. It is impossible however that those seeking revision in the way the plain sense of scripture, or the catholic teaching, imprint themselves on the church will persuade others that such matters are not fundamental, but are in fact adiaphora: non-essential. Here is a sticking point which simply will not go away. Comprehensiveness, classically understood, was not a celebration, or a toleration, of diversity for its own sake. It was not the generosity of one group allowing another to exist alongside it, like the High Churchman with special gadgets, just because people ought to be able to get along. There was required a principled agreement on fundamentals. That is what is lacking. And there will be no agreement forthcoming, because what is fundamental for one is not such for another, and vice-versa. Comprehensiveness does exist within the USA. It is not Anglican, but ecumenical, uniting Christians around fundamentals: the scriptures, the creeds, and even to a certain extent, the Great Tradition. This comprehensiveness was not restructured: it was identified, and theologically acknowledged, in something of the same way the term arose and made sense and characterised Anglican Christianity in England, and allowed those who embraced it to worship God and celebrate fundamentals held in common instead of being distracted by adiaphora and matters not essential. Where Anglican comprehensiveness exists in the Communion at large, if not in the ECUSA, within the American context it exists as an emerging and quite hopeful ecumenical reality, uniting Christians of different but increasingly non-essential historical background: Lutherans, Wesleyans, Reformed, Catholic, Orthodox, Evangelical-Free. The Prospect I believe we are witnessing something like a major epistemological shift. When the Presiding Bishop of the ECUSA says that he understands that a certain position on scripture is fundamental and comprehensible in Northern Uganda, but that it may not transcend time and place and be fundamental in North America, and vice-versa of his own view of Scripture's demonstration of its sense, we are not having a debate about the plain sense of scripture alone, or chiefly. We are having a debate about whether truth is something that is actually capable of being transcendent, and eternal. This would in turn mean that there can--no must--be occasions when positions will prove to be mutually corrosive, and must by definition cancel one or the other out. It is this view of truth and reality--and of God's word in time and space--that divides us, and it is a much deeper disagreement over fundamentals and inessentials than any period in Church History has seen (perhaps rivalled by nominalist philosophical challenges prior to the Reformation). One gets a sense of this when we are told that a kind of living, a certain kind of sexual relating, has never been seen before or judged by humankind before according to some objective or transcending standard: that we are really and truly in a time without any analogy in time or space, such that our standards of judgement--for the Christian these would be one and for others these would be other things--can comprehend them. So the question is being rightly posed: can comprehensiveness be restructured? There is a low-flying version of that question that I have sought to tease out by showing how sui generis is the American Episcopal experiment, for "experiment" is what it increasingly looks like it is. But there is another sense in which the question could be posed. Are we able to give consent to a view that what we are encountering in time and space has no counterpart in previous era, and therefore is impatient and simply not corrigible before grids or standards of evaluation, whatever they might be? Can we take seriously the full epistemological implications of saying something like, the Bible does not know anything about this? Increasingly the charge is that the plain sense of scripture cannot comprehend, cannot extend itself to contemplate and consider, in its details and specificity, a behaviour and a kind of living never before accommodated or contemplated on the terms we are now told we must comprehend it, en route then to accommodating and indeed blessing and sanctifying it. Here is a form of comprehensiveness which, to my mind, cannot ever be "reconstructed," for on the terms of the argument, it has no known antecedent and cannot have one, if the form of sexual living is properly to be appraised for what it is. We are being asked to deal with the unprecedented, the temporally and spacially sui generis, the incomprehensible. How, philosophically, can such a view be accommodated to what must by contrast appear a rather anodyne theory of "Anglican comprehensiveness" from another age? An age which did not ask of its Anglican Christians anything like so dramatic a readjustment of its view of time and space? Here the chattel slavery analogy simply collapses as a house of sand. At most, one could argue that this kind of comprehensiveness is so new and so crucial--and is crucial because of its ineluctable never-before-ness and novelty--that it should be constructed--not reconstructed--for the very first time. That is what we are being asked to consider: the construction of a never-before-known comprehensiveness. We should stand with complete honesty before the boldness of all this, and at least understand, as far as we are able to understand, what kind of dauntless project is now being set before us: that we are to construct for the first time, in Christian or secular time, an entirely new thing and then claim as well--something the secular "bold new world" does not require--that it is a work, one and the same, of God the Holy Spirit. That is not a claim I can make or ever would make, nor am I aware that any other decision in time and space asked this of the Christian church. It is this hesitancy, it is this unwillingness to break out of time and space altogether, that will certainly frustrate calls for a "reconstructing of comprehensiveness," either in its low-flying, historically familiar form, or in this new, epistemologically unprecedented form. I suspect we are beginning to approach the outer limits of why a species of Anglican comprehensiveness--the one historically related to comprehensiveness in Britain--has not taken root and flourished in the New World of American Episcopalianism, but instead in an acknowledged ecumenical hopefulness and common trust. But we are also at the outer limits of my allotted time, and I thank you for your attention and patience. Professor Christopher R Seitz is Professor of Divinity at the University of St Andrews Reconstructing Anglican Comprehensiveness is sponsored by The Episcopal Church Foundation Conference. This lecture was delivered at the Cathedral church of the Advent in Birmingham, Alabama. END

By Paul Zahl. 5 February 2004 Welcome to you all on behalf of this cathedral parish, and also on behalf of the Planning Group of the Episcopal Church Foundation Fellows Forum. We have worked towards this conference for two years now, and did not realize at the start that it would come with dramatic aptness. May I thank, especially, Cynthia Kittredge, chair of the Planning Group; and also my colleagues, Bob Hughes and Eugene Lowe. Eugene I have known for 28 years, and Bob for at least 15. I regard them as more than colleagues, and rather as friends. I also miss Ian Douglas, who has to be at Lambeth Palace this week rather than in Birmingham. Ian, who is on the "other side" of the current presenting issue, listens to me more feelingly than almost any one and has done a lot for my mental health. Now, the tendency in theological discussions of our current problem is to punt them over to the adjoining field of ecclesiology. In other words, it is an almost governing caveat not to want to discuss the issue of homosexuality itself in theological terms, but to go immediately to intra-church questions such as the limits of communion, the character of discipline and authority within world-wide Anglicanism, and the whole matter of how to live together when you have irreconcilable points of view. It was astonishing to me, when I joined the Inter-Anglican Theology and Doctrine Commission almost three years ago, that we were told right up front that we could not discuss theological issues related to homosexuality itself, at all, ever. Our brief, it was declared, was only to study the limits of diversity of opinion within the church. The opinions themselves, on both sides of the question, were to be excluded from the discussion. I found that approach unbelievable, and also not in line with Dr. Carey’s stated purpose, from the Kanuga Primates meeting, which was to deal with this issue dividing the church in theological terms. In any event, we have never openly discussed THE issue during the deliberations of the international commission, and it has been implicitly forbidden. The same seems potentially to be true in the noises we are hearing in relation to the Eames Commission. At any rate, that seems dishonest to me. So I shall begin this brief keynote address summing up the actual reasons why traditional Episcopalians are opposed to the consecration of Gene Robinson and are also opposed to the blessing in the church of same-sex unions. I won’t harp on this, but feel the reasons need to be acknowledged, publicly, and theologically. It is not fair to call people on the traditional side "homophobic". Of course homophobia is possible, but it is also a terrible slur in the contemporary context. It is like the word "anti-semitic". It halts all discourse. Full stop. And it destroys people and careers. Homophobia and anti-semitism are real things. But as words, they are used overmuch today to tar and dismiss voices that may in fact be sincere and liberal. So what is the big deal? Why do people like me stand against the Gene Robinson consecration and the blessing of same-sex unions? Why do we feel these two things are destructive of life in the Christian church? I note in passing that our struggle against them so far has been unsuccessful, failed, and demoralizing for the zeal and good conscience of our ministries. Why is the issue so important? First, we believe the gay position as we hear it undermines the anthropology of the Gospel. It undermines the teaching concerning the inherent sinfulness of the creature before the Creator. It wants to exempt a particular category of persons, gay men and women, from Original Sin on the basis that they are "created" a certain way, therefore how can it be wrong? For reasons beyond our human understanding we are all created sinners: distorted, inverted, libidinal and narcissistic. Our baggage is psycho-genetic, not the sum of our deeds. The gay argument confuses creation with redemption – as in the old 1970’s poster "God don’t make no junk". That was a half truth then, and it is a half truth now. The core, universal, and seemingly impenetrable claim of the gay lobby is this: If I came into the world this way, then how can it be wrong? That claim is in opposition to the classic Christian doctrine, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant, of the human being as being intrinsically and inherently fallen in all cases. The claim is Arminian explicitly and Pelagian implicitly. If the anthropology is flawed, then inevitably the soteriology is flawed. If "God don’t make no junk", then what need is there for a Savior? Why did Christ have to die on the Cross, if the need of the human race were not rooted in our paralysis and inability to help ourselves? The result of an overly high anthropology is an overly low soteriology. The result of an overly low soteriology is a weak Christology. If Christ is not a Savior in the full and plain sense of the word, then He did not have to be God. The whole encounter of Jesus with the Pharisees in Mark, Chapter Two, when he made a connection between his divine authority and the forgiveness of sins, ceases to mean anything. High anthropology means low soteriology means inadequate Christology. Finally, the Trinitarian implications of the weak Christology implicit in the gay lobby’s argument – become now the Episcopal Church’s argument – are devastating. The Son who is no Saviour becomes automatically subordinate to the Father. We are quickly into Arianism and what we today call unitarianism. Now most theological liberals I know in ECUSA insist that they are Trinitarian Christians. And I believe them. But I wonder whether they have realized the implications for the whole of theology of the overly high anthropology of the arguments we have been hearing from the gay lobby and their friends. Please, think through the implications of a weakened profile of Original Sin. The second "theological" argument traditionalists want to use is the hermeneutical one. I myself think this is second in importance to the theological "domino effect" I have just tried to spell out. The hermeneutical objection to the Robinson consecration is very important, but it is not decisive in quite the same way the argument from anthropology is. Nevertheless, we believe the plain and unexceptioned meaning of the Bible is against the practice of homosexuality in all cases. We cannot get around this. And I am grateful when folk on the other side acknowledge and do not try to weasel out of the "fact on the ground" of the Biblical voice against their idea. Yes, I realize there are wholly inclusive implications to Jesus’ and Paul’s Gospel, but they stop at the Rubicon of homosexual practice. The third "theological" argument – and I put the word "theological" in quotes to make the point that these arguments, unlike my first one, are more ecclesiological than theological in the pure sense – relates to tradition. We believe, and especially the many Anglo-Catholics among us, that such a break with catholic and universal Christian tradition that the Robinson consecration constituted is a mighty and awesome thing. To do anything so completely in discontinuity with what everyone has said everywhere and in every time is simply so ambitious. It feels Promethean to me. And finally, related to the argument from tradition, there is the ecumenical argument. It is alarming to have split ourselves off from the Roman Catholic Church and almost all the Orthodox Patriarchates, not to mention the large numerical majority of our Anglican co-religionists overseas, especially in the Global South. Conceptually, neither the ecumenical argument nor the argument from tradition is binding for most theologians, and certainly not for most Protestant ones. That is why I emphasized the first piece of this – the move from low anthropology to final unitarianism. But the ecumenical argument does involve people’s lives, and respect for (millions of) others’. It surely has got to be weighed in and not just portrayed as a sort of primitive reaction to American unilateralism. I think of Janet Jackson’s Tuesday apology this week to 99 million Super Bowl viewers: "if I have offended anyone..." Both her action and her apology smack of opportunism, and make me sick. Is our church guilty of Janet-Jackson thinking? Now I began by saying that we need to look at the arguments concerning the issue, at least the losing ones – the ones from "my" side – so we don’t just skip over them in our rush to ecclesiological or structural arguments. I would like to conclude this part of our debate concerning "Anglican comprehensiveness" with a plea, from the position of weakness, to you, and by extension to the Episcopal Church as a whole, and to its bishops in particular. My plea has a formal side and it has a material side. The formal side, and I intentionally use philosophical language here in order to be as clear as possible, is a plea for Alternative Episcopal Oversight. Traditional people in the Episcopal Church, in order to feel able to stand and be secure, require a concrete gesture of generosity on behalf of the bishops. This would be to let us sign up with ECUSA bishops, and some overseas Anglican bishops, with whom we feel safe. Most of us, because of the titanic nature of the issues involved in the Gene Robinson consecration, no longer feel we can serve with zeal and in good conscience within the structures of ECUSA. We need the freedom to sign up with bishops and structures – and I do not mean the AMiA, although many of us feel we are being pushed out in that direction – we need the freedom or space to sign up with ECUSA and other overseas Anglican bishops with whose commitments we feel safe. We no longer feel safe in ECUSA. I should add that my own bishop, Henry Parsley, voted against Robinson’s consecration and has been respectful of the traditional position. What the ECUSA bishops need to allow us to do is have Alternative Episcopal Oversight on our terms, not on their terms. They need to cede control, for a season and a space, to us, the losers. The concession has got to come from the victors, the ECUSA bishops who have won this most impressive victory at Minneapolis, and not from the losers: us, in other words. I use the language of power here because our Christian faith teaches us that the stronger has always got to give up power to the weaker. That is Grace. God did it. Philippians, Chapter Two enshrines this principle theologically.

Statement from the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church of Papua New Guinea. Two recent actions within the Anglican Communion are viewed with deep sadness by the Anglican Church of Papua New Guinea - the authorization of a Public Rite of blessing for those in same sex relationships in the Diocese of New Westminster, Anglican Church of Canada, and the consecration of a divorced priest now living in a same sex relationship in the diocese of New Hampshire, Episcopal Church of the USA. Such actions are outside the understanding of Anglican Christians in Papua New Guinea and do considerable harm to the mission and unity of the Church, particularly to the warm relationship which exists between the Anglican Church of Papua New Guinea and other churches in the country. The Statement of the Primates of the Anglican Communion (16 October 2003) rightly judged that these actions threaten the unity of our own Communion as well as our relationships with other parts of Christ's Church, our mission and witness, and our relations with other faiths, in a world already confused in areas of sexuality, morality and theology, and polarise Christian opinion. The unity of the Anglican Communion is already wounded and these actions impair our communion even further, particularly as they were proceeded with despite many pleas not to do so from within the Communion, not least in the case of the New Hampshire Consecration in the face of an expressed concern from the Primates' Meeting itself. As a House of Bishops, we regard this failure to listen to their brothers and sisters as demonstrating a pride and arrogance which both shocks and grieves us. The House of Bishops wishes it to be known that it disassociates itself from these two events and believes them not to be actions of the whole Church but only of the churches concerned. As such they cannot command acceptance by the whole Communion. This will mean a further wounding of our sacramental fellowship with the churches concerned. At the same time, the House of Bishops pledges itself to support the work of the Commission established by the Archbishop of Canterbury to consider his role within the Communion when grave difficulties such as these arise, as well as to give urgent and deep theological and legal reflection on the issues involved in these recent actions. At the urging of the Primates, our Province will take time to share in this process of reflection and will, if necessary, re-evaluate its position in the light of the Commission's findings.

By Richard Ostling. THE ASSOCIATED PRESS. NEW YORK (AP) - Leaders of Anglican churches in Africa, Asia and Latin America joined Friday to endorse a new protest group that is trying to unite Episcopalians in the United States who oppose gay clergy. The statement came from the top officials (called "primates") of 13 denominations, which together claim more than half of the 77 million Anglicans worldwide. Their message spurns the leaders and policies of the Episcopal Church, which is the U.S. branch of the international Anglican Communion. The action gives the new U.S. conservative organization a claim to religious legitimacy as it seeks to gain supporters. It also demonstrates the severe division in world Anglicanism caused by the Episcopal Church's consecration of openly gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson last November. An emergency commission on the global split holds its first meeting starting Monday in London. Daniel England, spokesman for Episcopal Church headquarters, said "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. The protest is highly unlikely to change the Episcopal Church's acceptance of Robinson or its practice of letting each diocese decide whether to approve gay clergy or same-sex blessings. Each branch of the Anglican Communion operates independently. The primates extended recognition to the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes, a group established Jan. 20 by delegates from 12 of the 107 Episcopal dioceses and from several local congregations. Each diocese must take further action to affiliate; to date, four have done so. The primates' statement said "we offer our support and the full weight of our ministries and offices" to the bishops, priests and parishioners who are forming the network. GUATEMALA DISASSOCIATES ITSELF FROM IARCA AND ROBINSON CONSECRATION Statement of the Episcopal Church of Guatemala on the participation of the Central American Primate in Gene Robinson's consecration. THE CASE HISTORY. The Diocese of New Hampshire in the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (ECUSA) elected the Rt Revd Gene Robinson as Bishop Coadjutor by a legal canonical process according to the law and constitutions of ECUSA. The aforementioned canonical legislation stipulates that to be consecrated as a bishop, it is required that the majority of diocesan bishops and their respective diocesan committees give their consent. When there is a diocesan convention near the election, the procedure dictates that the consent of the deputies of both houses be obtained. The Rt Revd Gene Robinson received the required consent in the General Convention held in Minneapolis in 2003, and then was consecrated Bishop on 2 November of the same year. This election, consent and consecration would have been one more act in the long line of apostolic succession in the Episcopal Church had it not been for the fact that the Rt Revd Gene Robinson is a declared homosexual that cohabits with another man in a relationship that is no secret, rather openly known and tolerated in the Diocese of New Hampshire and the rest of the Episcopal Church in the United States. This situation that has just been described, provoked very strong reactions on the part of conservative sectors in the Episcopal Church and in the rest of the Worldwide Anglican Communion, who have seen in this action of the American Church a deviation from sound Biblical doctrine and theological orthodoxy. These worldwide, conservatively theological sectors have expressed their rejection of this action and a number of affiliates have threatened to break off relations with the Communion. Others have declared to be in a situation of impairment (grave deterioration in an existing relationship) and still others in a definitive statement have declared themselves to be no longer in communion with the American Church nor with the Bishops that participated in the consecration of Gene Robinson. The consecration of Gene Robinson has become even more dramatic if we take into account that beforehand, the Archbishop of Canterbury, His Grace Rowan Williams, summoned all of the Anglican Primates, to the end of considering this particular case, trying to avoid inevitable confrontation and schism. As a result of the Primates' meeting, a declaration was emitted, exhorting that a moratorium be observed on the part of ECUSA concerning the consecration of Gene Robinson, and announce the naming of a special commission that would search for a workable solution to the dilemma. Unfortunately, ECUSA proceeded in a unilateral manner, ignoring the petitions made by the Primates. Before the participation of the Anglican Primate of IARCA (Iglesia Anglicana de la Region Central America), the Most Revd Martin Barahona, in the emergency meeting summoned by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the bishops of the province were consulted as to their opinions and criterion on the subject, which were thoughtfully and carefully prepared and presented for consideration. As a result of that consultation, the office of the Primate of IARCA issued a declaration that, among other things, left the following points very clear: That the decision of ECUSA would be respected. That the Central American Province was concerned about the tension that was being experienced in the Communion on account of the ECUSA decision and the aspiration to find space for dialog. That reactions among the Central American Bishops were varied. The recognition that in Central American culture, the action of ordaining a known, confessed and active homosexual to the Episcopate would be considered a clear breech of congruence with the Holy Scripture. The recognition that the Province as a whole was not prepared to cope with such a complex matter that has not yet been amply discussed with the biblical, theological and sociological seriousness that our faith community demands. THE FACTS. It was a truly disagreeable surprise for the Episcopal Church of Guatemala to learn through the magazine ANGLICANOS and from information found in the pages of Internet Anglicans, that the Primate of IARCA, the Most Revd Martin Barahona, participated in the ceremony of consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson, thus fixing the position of the Province concerning matters that have not been properly meditated, discussed and approved by the Central American Region of which Guatemala forms a part. We consider that this action does not reflect a complete opinion of the Anglican Church in Central America and in particular, the Episcopal Church of Guatemala. DECLARATION. Therefore, by virtue of the previously mentioned facts, the Episcopal Church of Guatemala respectfully, but firmly and solemnly declares that: She maintains the fervent conviction to uphold the ecclesiastic unity of the Iglesia Anglicana de la Region Central de America. The Episcopal Church of Guatemala hereby disassociates herself from the action of the Primate of IARCA, specifically in his participation in the consecration of Gene Robinson, recognizing that such a wanton act willfully causes a certain degree of IMPAIRMENT within IARCA. There exists among the Bishops, Provincial Council and the Anglican Church de la Iglesia Anglicana de la Region Central de America in general, necessity to pronounce authoritatively on the subject, (the participation and its implications) and to take the corresponding corrective measures. Guatemala, January 19, in the year of Our Lord, 2004. The Revd Roberto Armas President, Diocesan Council. Professor Nora de Zea President, Commission on Ministry. The Ven Lucas Choc Archdeacon, Western Region. The Ven Obdulio Pineda Archdeacon Northeastern Region. The Rt Revd Armando Guerra Diocesan Bishop.

News Analysis. By David W. Virtue. SAN ANTONIO, TX--The new Primate of Uganda, the Rt. Rev. Henry Orombi who was to have preached at the consecration of the new Bishop Coadjutor of West Texas, Gary Lillibridge on February 21, has written a letter saying he will not now come. A statement from the Rt. Rev. James E. Folts, Bishop of West Texas, said, "my primary responsibility must be toward advancing the work of the Church in my province and in sub-Sahara Africa." Bishop Folts expressed "mutual affection and a mutual commitment to the ongoing life of the Anglican Communion." "Together the Diocese of West Texas and the Diocese of Nebbi, Uganda, of which Bishop Orombi was the head until his elevation to the role of archbishop on January 25, have accomplished incredible good work for the people of both of our dioceses, including the building of a Women's Center in Nebbi for the education of women," said Folts. However, Virtuosity has learned that the Uganda Primate was to have preached with the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church, Frank Griswold presiding. But events in The Episcopal led to Griswold being uninvited to the African Primate's own consecration in January because of the Presiding Bishop's participation in the consecration of an avowed homosexual V. Gene Robinson to the episcopacy in New Hampshire. Two orthodox episcopal bishops attended instead. In a letter Virtuosity received from an orthodox parishioner in the diocese, it was stated that there were possibly other reasons why the Ugandan Archbishop would not attend. The Ugandan Primate had let it be known that he would not be seen processing with Griswold at the consecration nor would the African leader receive Holy Communion from the American leader. Another source said the African leader would not attend a dinner following the consecration because of Griswold's presence. A priest in the diocese told Virtuosity that he heard that Orombi got much mail insisting that he not come. "The plan, had he come, was for separate processions, no photo ops, Orombi was to preach, Griswold to consecrate and no sharing of Communion. And if there were to be conversations, they would occur at Orombi's initiative. We were not interested in a 'peace' meeting, we just wanted Orombi here. We will continue our informal relation with Uganda", he told Virtuosity. Had he come it would have been the single biggest snub by an African Primate of an American Presiding Bishop to occur on American soil, raising the specter that it is only a matter of when not if there will be a formal breaking of ties by the CAPA bishops, with implications for the future of the Anglican Communion. According to Marjorie George the diocesan Director of Communications, the Diocese of West Texas has had a long-standing relationship with the Diocese of Nebbi when Archbishop Orombi was the bishop there. "He had been invited long before he became archbishop," she told Virtuosity. She had no comment on any other reason why the Archbishop suddenly cancelled. The Diocese of West Texas has 30,000 Episcopalians in 92 congregations.

Episcopal group upholds national church's decision. By Michael D. Wamble Daily Press 2/8/2004 NORFOLK -- Delegates of the Episcopal Diocese of Southern Virginia soundly defeated a resolution Saturday to reject the national church's confirmation of an openly gay bishop. At its annual meeting in Norfolk, delegates voted to acknowledge "profound differences" over homosexuality and Scripture interpretation. It created a yearlong Reconciliation Commission to discuss differences. Opinions vary on whether this could dissuade some parishes from leaving the diocese to join a national network of conservative churches likely to form by October. Bishop David C. Bane Jr. said Saturday's vote - a 3-to-1 margin among clergy delegates - showed that "the vast majority want to stay together to serve Christ together." The Rev. Coleman Tyler of Galilee Church in Virginia Beach supported the resolution. Tyler said a new commission "prolongs the agony of this discussion." Church members may already have, Tyler said, "irreconcilable differences." The vote Saturday on Resolution No. 4 ended months of uncertainty over how people in the pews felt about having an openly gay bishop in their denomination. But tension over this issue didn't begin last year. Since the mid-'90s, the broader issue of homosexuality has sparked debate in several mainline Protestant denominations, including the United Methodist Church and Episcopal Church. Most of the discussion concerns the status of gay clergy and same-sex unions. In 1996 conservative Episcopalians formed the American Anglican Council, a network to "affirm Biblical authority and Anglican orthodoxy within the Episcopal Church." In August 2003, the issues of Biblical authority and homosexuality inched the Episcopal Church closer to a possible rift. A big issue at the General Convention in August was the confirmation of the Rev. V. Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire. Robinson is the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church. A majority of the lay people, clergy and bishops at the convention confirmed his election. Three of the eight Southern Virginia deputies who voted on Robinson's fate represented churches in Newport News and Hampton. All eight of the diocese's lay and clergy deputies voted to confirm Robinson. Bishop Bane was one of 43 bishops who voted against Robinson's confirmation. The other 64 bishops voted for confirmation. Two bishops who abstained from the vote were counted as "No" votes. Local Episcopalians remain divided on the issue. A meeting in September to discuss votes by deputies and the bishop packed the hall at Bruton Episcopal Church in Williamsburg. In November, Robinson was ordained as the denomination's first openly gay bishop. Since his ordination, the Diocese of Southern Virginia has lost some members and has weathered a budget shortfall of nearly $200,000. Nine of its 123 congregations have joined the American Anglican Council in hopes of becoming part of a new network of churches that reflects their beliefs. Clergy and parishioners affiliated with the American Anglican Council submitted Resolution No. 4 to the annual diocesan council. AS LONG AS WE ALL GET ALONG (SELLING TRUTH FOR UNITY) Selling Truth for Unity. BreakPoint with Charles Colson. February 5, 2004 Peter James Lee was one of the sixty Episcopal bishops who voted to approve the appointment of Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, as bishop of New Hampshire. Since the vote, Lee has faced stiff opposition from conservative evangelical churches in his diocese. In his speech to the annual meeting of his diocese, Bishop Lee said this, “If you must make a choice between heresy and schism, always choose heresy.” I can think of nothing more dangerous. What Lee is basically saying is that we can tolerate anything within the Church just to keep the Church together. What would cause someone to think this way? In part there is much at stake economically in keeping things the way they are. Schism is the enemy because pastors’ retirements and church properties get threatened if you break away from a denomination—as do bishops’ reputations. But putting personal interest ahead of truth, sacrificing truth on the altar of what we call unity? No. And it’s not real unity; it’s expediency. The second reason for putting unity over truth is that American Christians of all stripes—evangelical, as well as liberal—no longer take truth seriously. David Brooks in a recent New York Times column made the point that Americans believe that, “In the final days, the distinctions will fade away, and we will all be united in God’s embrace.” This happy assumption has meant that millions feel free to try on different denominations at different points in their lives, and many Americans have had trouble taking religious doctrines altogether seriously. As a result, says Brooks, we tend to think that all people of good will are “basically on the same side,” we practice religion that is easygoing and experiential rather than rigorous and intellectual, and we “have trouble sustaining culture wars.” The result is that, like Bishop Lee, we’ve fallen into this mushy ecumenism, believing that doctrines and distinctions make little or no difference. But our forebears, particularly in the Reformation tradition, didn’t shed their blood for retirement plans, for buildings, or for a cozy sense that everybody is okay. They shed their blood for truth. All other considerations, whether we’re seeker-sensitive or liturgical, whether we’re taking care of our retirement plans or building new additions, everything is secondary to the preservation and defense of truth. This applies to every church, not just the Episcopal church. In my experience, Bible-believing churches can sometimes be as unwilling to apply church discipline over matters of truth and morality as Bishop Lee. One politician I know boasts about his faith while voting for gay rights and against the partial-birth abortion ban. Not only is he not disciplined by his church in the name of truth, but he gets time and again to speak in the pulpit. Anything else, of course, might cause disunity. As Pogo said, “We have just met the enemy, and he is us.” It’s all well and good for evangelicals to sit around and say “those crazy Episcopalians.” But they’re just reflecting what all of us do in lesser degrees. And Lee’s words ought to be a sobering wake-up call to us all.

A Pastoral Letter from Bishop Don Johnson (West Tennessee). Dear fellow Episcopalians in West Tennessee, As the Bishop of The Diocese of West Tennessee, it is my privilege to serve beside you in witness to Christ. In this particular circumstance, I do so now as one who must uphold the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Church I have sworn to defend. No matter what one’s opinions are about the more controversial decisions reached at our last General Convention, one has to admit that they were done publicly and above board. Using the long established means to reach decisions as a Church gathered in Convention, the outcome and resulting actions were literally done before the eyes of the world. Loyal opposition and honest dissent to such actions are legitimate and should be honored by all. I have been careful to do so. However, deceitfulness and subversive sabotage justified in the name of serving Christ cannot be overlooked. To this point, I direct your attention to an article in the January 14, 2004 issue of The Commercial Appeal outlining publicly the American Anglican Council's confidential game plan for the destruction of The Episcopal Church U.S.A. by becoming a replacement jurisdiction, even if it means disobedience of canon law on a widespread basis as deemed necessary. At this time I have in my possession the full text of the confidential letter cited in the article. In as much as what has been done in darkness has now been brought into the light, I urge you to read for yourself this document that lays out the American Anglican Council's plan of destruction. I do not endorse, nor will I have this diocese in any way associated with this effort, and I will use all the power of my office to see to it that our clergy and congregations will not be in any formal membership arrangement with this or any other such group seeking to destroy the Episcopal Church. To this end, I am taking the following initial steps: First, I am posting in its entirety on our diocesan web page (www.episwtn.org ) the letter from the American Anglican Council's representative, the Rev. Geoffrey W. Chapman, who writes on behalf of the American Anglican Council and their Bishop's Committee on Adequate Episcopal Oversight. It is their response letter to Episcopal congregations across the country who have requested what they describe as Adequate Episcopal Oversight. Specifically, this letter refers to oversight by a bishop who has bought into the American Anglican Council's plan to sabotage The Episcopal Church. This secret plan is very different from AAC's public statements to the effect that it would work within The Episcopal Church under its Constitution and Canons to bring about change in Church policies. Second, I have called a special meeting of the Standing Committee. I am asking for its advice and counsel concerning what next steps need to be taken by my office regarding our clergy and congregations formally affiliated with the American Anglican Council and, implicitly, with its agenda. Third, while it may be obvious from the tone of this letter, I want to go on record in saying that I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the American Anglican Council. Further, I do not endorse, support or condone their plan to methodically create anarchy in the Church. Fourth, until the American Anglican Council made explicit what many already thought was their real agenda, I have spoken with respect for the bishops, members of the clergy and lay persons who have found in this organization a place to express their honorable dissent and loyal opposition. It is to you that I address the following: It is my firm belief that most of you who have associated with the American Anglican Council did so for honorable reasons with no idea that their avowed actual goal is to destroy The Episcopal Church as it currently exists. However, according to their own documents, they seem to advocate whatever means necessary to innovatively move around, beyond or within the canons to do so. I know that not everyone associated with the American Anglican Council is of one mind. However, these revelations that have just come to light may help clarify your thinking about their agenda. As such, I hope that you will see this as an opportunity for you and your congregation to rethink and officially disassociate with this organization. I ask your prayers for our Church, our Diocese and for our clergy and lay leaders who will be asked to help me be faithful in accomplishing this ministry for Christ’s witness and love. To that end, I remain Faithfully yours, The Rt. Rev. Don E. Johnson Bishop of West Tennessee (As provided for in Title III, Canon 24, Section 5, this Pastoral Letter is to be read at each service on either Sunday, January 18th, 25th, or February 1st, 2004, or announced as being available, and a sufficient number of hard copies should be provided to those requesting them.)

Episcopalians may limit church funding. Gay debate to dominate state meeting. By Leanne Graves American Staff Writer Mississippi Episcopalians, upset with the Episcopal Church USA's stance on homosexuality, could decide to withhold money from the national church when they gather this week in Hattiesburg. More than 800 church members from around the state are expected to participate in the 177th annual council at Lake Terrace Convention Center. The conference is the first in Mississippi since the consecration of openly gay Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire in 2003 and the approval of same-sex unions. The Rev. Reed Freeman, rector at Trinity Episcopal Church in Hattiesburg, said his church probably lost some members over the controversy, but said those who left may be people who weren't involved in the church. "Faithful members have hardly left," he said. "Many people, in spite of great personal disagreement, have chosen to remain in the body of Christ and not to break that up. I think that's very commendable." Tom Price, a member of Hattiesburg's Episcopal Church of the Ascension, said he doesn't believe his church will split from the national organization over the gay issue. "Nationally I know that exists, but I don't know how prevalent it is in Mississippi," said Price. "At Ascension, I don't anticipate a split from the Diocese of Mississippi or the Episcopal Church. I think the attitude is wait and see." Freeman also said he doesn't think his congregation wants to split from the national church. "I believe our congregation is firmly committed to not only remaining a part of the Anglican community, but to the Episcopal Church of the United States," he said. The 2.3 million-member Episcopal Church USA is a branch of the Anglican Church. Among the resolutions to be considered this weekend is one that calls for the Mississippi Diocese to withhold part of its funding to the national church. In 2003, the diocese gave $440,000 of its $2.3 million budget to the national church. "I do know in Mississippi in 2004 at this council there will be a reduction in the amount that goes to the national church," Price said. Other resolutions call for: Supporting Mississippi Bishop Duncan Gray III for opposing the ordination of homosexuals. Bishop Gray to "declare that a state of impaired communion exists" between the Mississippi Diocese and those that recognize same-sex unions. If approved, the resolution would mean that a member of the Mississippi Diocese could not take communion at churches that recognize same-sex unions. Freeman said the debate about the New Hampshire bishop and same-sex unions has had a positive impact. "There have been a lot of people brought into conversation about the spiritual side respecting the Scripture and understanding the Scripture," he said. "The opinions on the appropriateness of it (the election) are still split. The debate continues." Amanda Price, 21, a member of St. Alban's Episcopal Church in Vicksburg, said Robinson's sexual preference isn't the issue. "I don't have a problem with his sexuality, but he is living with his partner. If that were a priest that was straight, they wouldn't be bishop," she said. Amanda Price is not related to Tom Price. "They kind of made an exception. Putting him in a position of authority isn't respectful of the sanctity of marriage." ++++ Resolutions – Resolutions presented to 177th Annual Council – Mississippi Resolution: 1 Affirmation of the Rt. Rev. Duncan M. Gray, III. Be it resolved by the Episcopal Diocese of Mississippi, at its 177th annual council, that it does hereby support and affirm the Rt. Rev. Duncan M. Gray, III in his stand to uphold the norm for the ordination of persons living single, celibate lives, or in heterosexual marriage, and his refusal to authorize the blessing of same-gender unions. Resolution: 2 Giving to the National Church. Be it resolved by the Episcopal Diocese of Mississippi, at its 177th annual council, that the Executive Committee of the diocese be and are hereby instructed to reevaluate and reconsider the 21% proportionate giving to the Episcopal Church of the United States, and that the said amount be reduced. Resolution: 3 Payment to the National Church. Resolved that this 177th council of the Diocese of Mississippi urges the Bishop and the officers of the diocese to withhold that aforesaid portion of the annual payment to the national church that would ordinarily be used to fund the operation of the national church office and the House of Bishops until such time as there is an assurance that the practices of the ECUSA will conform to those of the Anglican Communion around the world and thus not cause offense to our brother and sister churches that are in communion with us. These monies are to be used for our own mission work and/or given to relief work in other Anglican dioceses in Africa. Resolution: 4 Voluntary Process for Nominations. Resolved that the 177th annual council recognizes that service to the diocese and to the parish and missions within this diocese is an important ministry to which many, both lay and clerical, may feel called to serve; and, resolved that the process of nominations may, for some people and under some circumstances, become an obstacle for those who would like to be considered for election but who are not nominated; and, resolved that volunteering for service and for ministry should be encouraged and supported both within the diocesan structure and within the parishes and missions of this diocese; be it further resolved that for all elective positions within this diocese, except for that of bishop, and for all elective positions within the parishes and missions of this diocese, volunteers to stand for election will be sought and will be given an opportunity to come forward prior to the institution of any nomination procedures; and be it further resolved that, if, for any elective position, at least twice the number of people to be elected have volunteered to stand for election, there shall be no nominations of individuals. Resolution: 5 Declaration of Impaired Communion. Be it resolved by the Episcopal Diocese of Mississippi, at its 177th annual council, that the Rt. Rev. Duncan M. Gray, III, be encouraged to declare that a state of impaired communion exists between the Diocese of Mississippi and the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the United States, the Diocese of New Hampshire, and any and all dioceses in the Episcopal Church of the United States that are currently engaging in the practice of blessing same-gender unions. Resolution: 6 Actions of General Convention. Resolved that the 177th annual council of the Diocese of Mississippi formally repudiates the actions of the 74th General Convention of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (ECUSA) in consent to the consecration of Canon Gene Robinson to the office of bishop and in approving Resolution C051 on the blessing of same-sex unions, and that a copy of this resolution be sent to the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and all primates of the Anglican Communion. Resolution: 7 Wrongful and Unconstitutional Actions of the 74th General Convention. Be it resolved that the Episcopal Diocese of Mississippi at its 177th annual council holds that the 74th General Convention of the Episcopal Church exceeded its authority and departed from its constitution, in confirming the election as bishop of a non-celibate homosexual man and in permitting same-sex blessings, separating itself from the Anglican Communion and from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, directly rejecting its solemn responsibility to uphold and propagate the historic faith and order, as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer. These acts are thus held to be null and void, and of no effect, in the Episcopal Diocese of Mississippi. Resolution: 8 Adequate Primatial Oversight. Be it resolved that the Episcopal Diocese of Mississippi, at its 177th annual council, does hereby request the Bishop and Standing Committee of the diocese to seek other primatial oversight as a dissenting minority diocese, from a primate not to include the Presiding Bishop of the United States, rather directly to or through the Archbishop of Canterbury. Resolution: 9 Upholding of Scripture. Be it resolved by the Episcopal Diocese of Mississippi, at its 177th annual council, that the Diocese of Mississippi will always consider matters of doctrine within the context of Scripture, the Anglican tradition (as defined by Anglican formularies, prayer books and ordinals), and reason. Resolution: 10 Property Issues. Be it resolved that the Bishop and Chancellor appoint a commission to study how a parish, mission, or other ministry in the diocese may request and obtain uncontested title to its property if desired. We request that a report (and, if necessary, enabling legislation) be prepared for consideration by our 2005 diocesan convention. End.

New Bishop of Florida won't ordain gays or celebrate their unions, but some churches still decide to consider split. By Binyamin Appelbaum The Times-Union Bishop John Howard opened the annual convention of his Jacksonville-area Diocese of Florida on Friday with a call to act as "a family in which disagreement does not lead to divorce." Clarifying his own place in the disagreement after months of silence, the newly installed bishop said he would not ordain active homosexuals or allow their unions to be celebrated, but promised to oppose any limits on the diocese's participation in the national Episcopal Church. By the end of the day, the success of Howard's supporters in upholding that agenda had endangered his hopes for unity. Representatives from several of the most biblically orthodox churches said they stood on the brink of divorce from the diocese because the diocese would not divorce the Episcopal Church. After a majority of delegates voted to continue contributing to the national church, representatives from 12 of those churches, comprising about 16 percent of the diocese, withdrew their annual contributions to the diocese. Six of those were from Jacksonville, and two from Orange Park. Most of the dissidents said they simply wished to reconsider their contributions in the wake of the decisions by the convention. But some said their very membership in the diocese was in question. "Our next step as a church will be to decide whether to stay or not," said Dennis Ackerson, pastor of Church of the Holy Spirit in Tallahassee. Ackerson left the convention Friday to discuss the question with his congregation. The convention ends today. The retracted pledges totaled more than $400,000, opening a considerable shortfall in a $2.1 million diocesan budget already circumscribed by diminished giving. 12 Hold Back Funds Churches withdrawing their annual pledges from the Diocese of Florida: Jacksonville: All Souls, Calvary, Epiphany, Nativity, Redeemer, Resurrection Orange Park: Good Samaritan, Grace Church Tallahassee: Advent, Holy Spirit Gainesville: St. Michael's High Springs: St. Bartholomew's Two of the largest churches in the diocese pledged to increase their contributions but did not specify an amount. "The bishop remains confident that we will meet our budgetary goals," said Thomas Mantz, a spokesman for the diocese. "We will work with everyone in the diocese to try to meet the needs of our ministry." The meeting might have taken as its theme the national church's approval of an active homosexual as the next Bishop of New Hampshire. While much of the local diocese is united in opposition to that decision, made in August, delegates are deeply divided over how to respond. In his address, Howard attempted to move the diocese past its disagreements by calling on the delegates to focus on their shared obligation to help the needy and to bring people to the church. He warned that theological disagreement was an inadequate reason to hamstring the good works of the church. And he wished for a time when a person introduced as an Episcopalian would be asked not about "the issue," but about his or her participation in a church best known for good works. But such a time lies solidly in the future, and most delegates remained fixed on their disagreements over the proper financial and legal relationship between the diocese and the national church. For the most part, Howard's supporters prevailed. The most significant accommodation allows churches to decide whether their funds will go to the national church or to another charity. In the fall, the sum of those decisions sent 46 percent of total contributions to the national church and 54 percent to other charities. But a resolution to declare the diocese autonomous failed. Delegates also delivered a temporary setback to supporters of the Orthodox Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes, declining to mandate that Howard decide on membership by March 1. Howard said Thursday he intended to explore membership irrespective of the vote. Some orthodox delegates who did not withdraw their funding Friday said a decision not to join could push them from the diocese as well. Finally, in the most contentious hearing of the day, delegates voted for contributions from churches to pass through the diocese along the way to either the national church or another charity. A substantial minority said it could not tolerate an arrangement in which the diocese forwarded money to the national church from the pool that included their money, too. The minority had proposed allowing churches to bypass the diocese instead. When the vote went against that, they came to the microphone one by one to give the name of their churches and the amount of money they said they could no longer provide. Sam Pascoe, rector of Grace Church in Orange Park, the largest dissident church, retracted a pledge of $75,000 for reconsideration. Pascoe said the church was not talking about leaving yet, even if it sent the money somewhere else. "The relationship to the diocese is not defined purely in terms of money," he said. "It's defined in terms of believing the same things and working toward the same goals." That, he acknowledged, was a diminishing piece of common ground. End.

"We are a church seriously divided; there is no middle ground." An address to the 172nd annual convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Tennessee by the Rt. Rev. Bertram Nelson Herlong, D.D. Delivered in Christ Church Cathedral, Nashville January 31, 2004 Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ! Welcome to the lay and clergy delegates, observers and friends as we meet together for the 172nd time in the annual convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Tennessee in the 175th year of our establishment and in the 11th year of my consecration. I am pleased to announce that Bill and Fletch Coke have agreed to be co-chairs of the 175th anniversary celebration committee to find ways and means to celebrate this milestone in our history. We want to express our gratitude to Dean Swanson, the staff and congregation of Christ Church Cathedral for their gracious hospitality, to Pete Stringer, Sandra Merritt and the members of the convention committee for their work in arranging this meeting, and to the cathedral choir and Michael Veltlng, organist and / choirmaster for their wonderful music. On behalf of the whole diocese, it is our great pleasure to welcome Alfredo Morante, Bishop of Litoral, our companion diocese in Ecuador, and Father Geronimo Alava who are our special guests, and to Bishop Charles Jenkins who gave us such a wonderful message last night at our convention banquet and his wife, Louise. It is always a joy to have our own Bishop Sanders with us. I am grateful for the assistance and support he gives so freely to me and to the diocese. We wish to give thanks and recognize our diocesan staff and volunteers—first volunteers: the members of our administrative support team, Dr. Paul Teschan, and Mr. David Herbert; editor of the Cross and Croz1er, Charlie Appleton. Our staff: secretary/receptionist, Angela Hardy, our financial secretary, Judy Buttner, and our office manager and secretary to the bishop, Colette Barrett, the Canon to the Ordinary, Bob Dedmon, whose work is essential for the operation of the diocese and on whom I depend greatly, and our Canon for Ministry, Bob Brodie. The Canon for Ministry position is not funded with diocesan money but through a generous gift, which includes one-half of the salary of our secretary/receptionist. There are so many people who give freely of their time and talents to help the diocese carry out its mission—will all who serve on committees and commissions of the diocese please stand? It has been an interesting year! Someone told me it was like being on a roller coaster. Someone else said it was a train wreck! Unfortunately, the second half of the year has been almost totally occupied with the reactions to the actions of the 74th General Convention. As a result of those actions, here are a few of the things that have happened. Nineteen of the thirty-eight provincial churches and archbishops of the Anglican Communion have declared broken or impaired communion with the Episcopal Church. The primates of the Global South, the Anglican Church of Kenya, the Anglican Church of Tanzania, the Archbishop of the Church in the Province of South Africa, the Church of the Province of West Indies, the House of Bishops of the Church of the Province of Uganda, the Bishop of the Episcopal Church in Egypt, North Africa and the Horn of Africa, the Nigerian House of Bishops, the dioceses of Chile, Peru, Paraguay and Bolivia, the Anglican Bishop of Port Elizabeth, Bishop Peter Lee, Church of the Province of South Africa, the Anglican Bishop of Wellington, New Zealand, Bishop of Karachi and Balochistan Diocese, Pakistan, Presiding Bishop of Jerusalem and the Middle East, House of Bishops, Church of the Province of Uganda, West African Province of the Anglican Church, Bishop of the Anglican Church in Swaziland, Diocese of Sydney, the Church of North India. The Russian Orthodox Church has suspended relations with the Episcopal Church. The Coptic Orthodox Church, the Syrian Orthodox Church and the Armenian Orthodox Church have suspended their dialogue with the Episcopal Church. The Muslims have cancelled their inter-faith dialogue with the Episcopal Church. The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church resigned as Anglican co-chair of the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission when the Roman Catholics refused to meet if he was present. He was un-invited to the enthronement of the new Archbishop of Uganda. Closer to home, I don't know of a single congregation in this diocese that has not been affected by the decisions of the General Convention. The same is true in every other diocese of which I have knowledge. For example, in one neighboring diocese, two groups of people have left their parishes and formed new congregations under the Bishop of Bolivia. In another, two priests have left the Episcopal Church. In another, the bishop has reduced a parish to mission status, fired the vestry and named a new mission council. On Wednesday, a Province IV bishop told me he was losing two major parishes to the Anglican Mission in America. The list could go on and on. In this diocese, we have had vestry members and mission council members resign. Church members have left the church. Others have moved to another congregation, and many have withheld their pledges. This is clearly reflected in the fair share pledges of congregations to the diocese and thus in the 2004 diocesan budget. Clergy have been under fire. Groups have organized on both sides and one to try to promote domestic tranquility. I have met with several vestries, some more than once, several congregations, some more than once, and several individuals, some more than once. The mail and the e-mail and the phone calls have been unending. In that regard, let me thank all who have written or called to support me. I have been strengthened and upheld by your prayers. I am grateful. To those who have written or called to insult and degrade me, especially those who wrote me judgmental letters accusing me of being judgmental, I forgive you. While some celebrate the decisions of the General Convention as movement toward a more inclusive church, a matter of justice for persons on the margins, others feel abandoned, bereft, betrayed, and some are angry. We have been forced to take a side, whether we want to or not. We are a church seriously divided; there is no middle ground. No matter which side you are on in this situation, those are the facts. What has happened has happened. The question before us and the rest of the Episcopal Church is, "So what are we going to do about it?" Passing resolutions will not help. The trouble with legislative solutions is that they produce win/lose conclusions. Is there a way that we can produce a win/win solution? Can we model in the Diocese of Tennessee the kind of behavior that can offer the whole church a way forward? Can we find a way for two disparate theologies to live together in one church? If not, what is the alternative? The fact is, we have been living together with our differences for a long time. The recent General Convention's actions simply identified the elephant in the living room, and now we must deal with it. If you think about it, that may be a good thing. In addition to those negative things I mentioned earlier that have happened here in this diocese, there are some positive realities. There is an increased interest on the part of the laity—in fact, more concern and involvement and energy than I have ever seen. There is a very significant increase in Bible reading and study. People have had to seriously question just what they do believe, what is the authority in the church, what place does the Bible have in the church and in their lives. Why don't we agree that there are two different theologies and recognize that those who disagree with us are not any different than they were before August 5, 2003? We were doing pretty well before then. Membership in our diocese has grown 20.7% since 1991. Pledged giving in congregations is up 79%, and attendance at worship is up 26.3%. We have started six new congregations in the last seven years. Percentage-wise, we are the fastest growing diocese in the American church. If you want an idea of the strength of our diocese, read the "Diocesan Ministry Outreach 2003" booklet found in your convention packets. It is a compilation of much, but by no means all, of the outreach ministries that are already going on through our congregations. It is a testimony to the magnitude and vitality of our service to others in the name of Jesus. The present situation in the church has been developing for a long, long time, and it is going to take a long, long time to find any resolution. Let me suggest some simple things that we can do. First, have patience—I know that is hard; it is very hard for me, but this may not be resolved during my lifetime. Let's stop demonizing each other. Those who disagree with the General Convention actions should not vilify those who agree. Those who agree with General Convention talk a lot about inclusiveness; therefore, they should not exclude those who disagree with them. Let me put that on a personal level. I am frankly tired of being shot at by those who disagree with me. No one likes to be insulted by mean-spirited behavior. I don't, and neither should you. I have always been willing to tell you where I stand and what I believe. But in case there is any doubt, I think the actions of the 74th General Convention are wrong. Resolution C051 does not tell us to do anything, and although it has been used to justify blessing of same-sex unions in other dioceses, it has no effect in this diocese. Neither does the approval of the consecration of Gene Robinson. I do not recognize him as a bishop and have declared that my communion with the Diocese of New Hampshire is impaired. That is my personal decision as a bishop; it is not a decision of the diocese. I will continue to stand for and uphold the traditional doctrine of the church and will defend the faith as I promised when I was consecrated a bishop in this church. At the same time, neither the diocese nor the bishop has or will act in ways that are punitive to those who disagree with the bishop. Whether we like it or not, we are in the same diocese, and that means we are the only ones who can work things out. Second, we can do our work. Our mission is clear. It is on page 855 of the Prayer Book: "The mission of the church is to restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ." We cannot do that when our energies are focused on our disagreements. This is a critical time for our mission. It is a time when we need to be more diligent in our evangelism and our outreach, more generous in our support. If we back off now, then we have let the issues of the moment defeat us. It is our intention to continue to press forward on our major goals: to have a trained youth worker connected to every congregation by 2006, to increase the services and support of the diocese to congregations, to make every congregation a missionary outpost, and to plant one new congregation every year till 2006. Third, we must pray. If there is anything that the present crisis has done, it has increased exponentially the prayers of our clergy and people for the church and for each other. Remember, prayer doesn't change God; it changes us. We all need to repent, and we all need to be redeemed. We all need to pray. All of the actions and reactions to General Convention actions have been emotionally loaded. And when our sensitivities are heightened and our feelings are on the surface, then everything that happens seems to have greater significance than it would otherwise. Things that previously would not have had any particular meaning become hostile actions and conspiracies against us. Rumors arise and are spread. When you hear a rumor, check it out, go to the source and find the truth. Let me dispel a few things that I hear that need to be put to rest. I am not going to leave the Episcopal Church or lead the diocese out of the Episcopal Church (I couldn't do that anyway, and wouldn't if I could). The actions of the Bishop and Council are not pejorative; they are simply dealing with the realities of the moment. No congregations have left the Episcopal Church, and no clergy have renounced their orders or done anything of an illegal, immoral, or extra-canonical nature. I know that at this convention you will speak with respect and moderation. While the issues we will consider are important, they need not be divisive. Here is a public opportunity to demonstrate the true character of the Diocese of Tennessee. I know that your behavior will be positive and graceful. I know that the way ahead is difficult and painful. But I also know about the strength and will of our clergy and people. I know and have seen the power of God working in and through you. I know that the present threats can stifle hope and initiative. But we have an unbelievable opportunity to do the best of things in the worst of times. In World War II, when Britain was at her lowest point and the enemy had brought her to her knees but she refused to surrender, Winston Churchill said, "This was our finest hour!" So may this crisis in our church open new opportunities and new possibilities for ministry and service. As St. Paul reminds us, "Having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart." We must never surrender. May it be said of us, "This was their finest hour!" Friends, we are on an incredible journey. I don't think that reconciliation is possible at this point in time. But time passes. I have appointed Richard Kew and Ken Swanson to help us find ways to keep talking to each other. That work has already begun. You will be hearing more about this as time goes on. I am calling on every Episcopalian in this diocese to remember who we are and whose we are; to remember that our faith is not in the church but in God. The church is not infallible; it can and does make mistakes. But the church is indefectible; that is to say, it will not be ultimately defeated because it is God's church. And as I say so often and believe with all my heart, God is still in charge, and God will win in the end. We are God's beloved children; we are ultimately defined, not by our job or position or our personality or our sexuality or by our theological or political position, but by the image of God that has been created within us. We are all called to ministry and service and committed to grow into the perfection that we have seen and known in Jesus. We do that by living out the great summary of the law—to love God with all our heart and mind and soul and strength and to love our neighbor as ourselves—and in so doing, fulfill the Great Commission: to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey all that Jesus has commanded us. In the first "Lord of the Rings" movie, "The Fellowship of the Ring," Frodo Baggins, a hobbit—the smallest and weakest people of Middle Earth—takes counsel with the leaders of the other peoples about how to deal with the evil that confronts them. The question is who will take the ring of evil power and control and go on a journey into the unknown to literally save the world. Frodo is insecure, anxious about what it all means, and he is deathly afraid. But in the end he says, "I will take the ring although I do not know the way." In our present situation in the church, we are insecure, anxious, and afraid. God is offering us a ring—a ring of holiness and truth—and asking us to take a long journey into the uncharted territory to literally save the world. Will you join me in taking the ring and the journey into the unknown? We talk a lot about trusting God. Well, here is an opportunity to do just that with all that we have and are. Will you trust God? Will you put your faith in Jesus as your Savior and follow Him as your Lord? And will you depend on the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth? Will you take the ring? Amen. End.