Archives

The South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision and ordered a full trial in the property dispute involving All Saints Church, Pawleys Island—one of the state’s largest Episcopal churches, which voted to leave ECUSA and join the Anglican Mission in America (AMIA). In 2000, the Episcopal Diocese filed a public notice asserting that parish property was held in trust for the diocese and national church under the Dennis Canon. All Saints sued to remove the notice, arguing the 1745 deed placed the land in trust for descendants of founders George Pawley and William Poole—for “religious services” only. Circuit Judge John Breeden ruled for All Saints on summary judgment. The Appeals Court (Judges Howard, Stilwell, and Kittredge) unanimously reversed, stating “a number of issues of material fact” remain—especially: Whether the original trust required use for the “Church of England established by Law” (which ceased at the Revolution); Who the legal successor to that entity is (the Episcopal Church claims continuity); The effect of the parish’s 1902 charter, which incorporated adherence to diocesan and national church canons. The Diocese hailed the ruling as a full vindication. Chancellor E.N. Zeigler stated: “The Court of Appeals… has upheld every single point made by the diocese.” Canon theologian Rev. Kendall Harmon added: “We’re very pleased… serious questions deserve serious consideration.” Attorney Henrietta Golding (for All Saints) said the ruling was expected and “not a defeat… simply a recognition there are complex issues” requiring trial. The Diocese of South Carolina comprises 75 parishes in the lower and eastern part of the state.

On March 7, 2004, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold appeared on BBC Breakfast with Frost. His responses revealed a theological framework rooted in relativism and contextualism—not universal truth. David Frost: “If it does lead to a schism… will it, in retrospect, have been worth doing?” Griswold: Avoided the hypothetical, instead praising the “honorable” actions of the Diocese of New Hampshire and ECUSA, and expressing hope the Communion “will hold together in spite of differences.” He emphasized that “the contexts in which we do our theology are so very different,” suggesting moral positions shift based on geography and cultural pressure (e.g., “fierce” Muslim majorities allegedly constrain theological diversity elsewhere). Frost: “Do you think [the Church of England’s ban on practicing gay clergy] is out of date?” Griswold: Deflected: “Every province… has its own realities… The Church of England is going to have to figure out its own way.” Frost: “Do you think… there will one day… be gay church weddings?” Griswold: Again declined to predict, but conceded: “Looking at some of the pastoral responses… I think it may be the case that in the future there will be some pastoral response… that will be less guarded.” His answers consistently avoided grounding in Scripture, creed, or historic Christian moral teaching—instead framing doctrine as culturally adaptive and provisional.

On March 3, 2004, 17 clergy members of the Episcopal Diocese of Dallas wrote to Bishop James M. Stanton and the Executive Council expressing concern over his affiliation with the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes. While affirming respect for the Bishop’s personal decision, they urged the Executive Council not to take any official action endorsing or rejecting the Network—insisting that such a consequential decision must be made by the full Diocesan Convention after thorough, prayerful study by clergy and laity. They warned that premature action—especially perceived endorsement—could polarize the diocese, cause internal parish conflicts, and foreclose meaningful discernment. The letter requests plans for diocese-wide study opportunities (e.g., regional forums) to examine the Network’s theological and organizational charters, so delegates can make informed decisions. Signatories include priests from major Dallas-area parishes: The Rev. Chuck Treadwell & The Rev. Virginia Holleman (St. Peter’s, McKinney) The Rev. Stephen Waller & The Rev. Christianne McKee (St. Thomas the Apostle) The Rev. Joy Daley, The Rev. J. D. Godwin, & The Rev. Barbara Sajna (Transfiguration) The Rev. Dru Ferguson (St. Paul) The Rev. Ernie McAfee & The Rev. Donald Johnson (St. Barnabas) The Rev. Paul Strickland (Episcopal School of Dallas) The Rev. Wylie Miller & The Rev. Trudie Smither (St. Christopher’s) The Rev. Doug Neel (Holy Trinity by the Lake) The Rev. Ray Ball (All Saints) The Rev. Gerry Sevick (St. Anne’s, Desoto) The Rev. Sharon Turner

Almost a dozen revisionist Episcopal groups operating under the banner Via Media planned a strategy meeting in Atlanta (March 25–27, 2004), described by Lionel Deimel of Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh as an opportunity to “swap notes, meet each other and plan strategy.” Critics argue this is a euphemism for coordinating efforts to marginalize, pressure, or displace the biblically orthodox minority in The Episcopal Church (TEC). The use of Via Media (“Middle Way”) is deeply ironic. Historically, the term—associated with Richard Hooker—signified a balance between Reformation evangelicalism and catholic sacramental tradition. Contemporary Via Media activists, however, show little interest in theological balance. As William L. De Arteaga notes, the Wesleys embodied the true Via Media: passionate evangelicals and disciplined sacramentalists. By contrast, today’s Via Media advocates are nearly uniformly revisionist on sexuality and authority. Among the ~40 attendees in Atlanta were three national church representatives, including David Booth Beers—TEC’s attorney and Presiding Bishop Griswold’s personal counsel—at a reduced rate of $350/hour. His presence signals serious legal backing for the movement. Beers is widely expected to advise dioceses on how to retain property when conservative parishes attempt to leave (e.g., Church of the Good Shepherd, St. Louis, MO). Though leaders claim the goal is to prevent schism and promote “moderation, tolerance, and inclusion,” the composition of Via Media groups tells a different story: they exist almost exclusively in orthodox dioceses (Pittsburgh, Albany, South Carolina, Fort Worth)—not in already-liberal dioceses like Newark or California. This suggests their function is to counter orthodox leadership—not to mediate between factions. Rev. John Sorensen (Albany Via Media) claims the groups “demand that we remain an inclusive place… embracing liberals, gay clergy, conservatives, and everybody in between.” Yet even his own bishop, Dan Herzog, reportedly rejects this framing. Most groups remain small (<100 active members), but with institutional support and media access, their influence is poised to grow. One observer likened their vision of “reconciliation” to communist re-education: “You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.” Critics argue this is not about theological breadth, but about redefining core doctrines—particularly regarding human sexuality and Scriptural authority. As one writer put it: “Via Media no more represents the true center of the church than Frank Griswold represents Anglo-Catholicism. It’s all a great lie.” The stakes are eternal: “One cannot simply agree to disagree—the eternal destiny of thousands of souls are at stake.”

Some Anglican priests say they would rather be sued than allow people who have undergone sex-change procedures to marry in their churches. The Gender Recognition Bill, soon to become law, will require marriage registrars to grant equal rights to transsexual people. A conscience clause allows clergy to refuse to carry out such weddings. Members of the Anglican group Reform oppose such ceremonies in church buildings altogether, fearing it may set a precedent for same-sex blessings or marriages. Liberal Anglicans welcome the move, affirming that transsexual people deserve equal rights. Claire McNab of Press For Change countered: “It is mischievous nonsense to claim that the Gender Recognition Bill forces the Church to marry transsexual people. The bill provides an explicit opt-out for Anglican clergy… These anonymous clerics are trying to use the law to prevent their less prejudiced colleagues from marrying transsexual people.” Under the law, individuals who have undergone surgery—or convinced a qualified professional their body does not reflect their true gender—gain legal recognition of their new sex. Emma Martin, a transgender woman, said: “It’s about allowing us to live our real lives, rather than forcing us to live half a life.” Traditionalists argue that surgery does not equate to a change in gender and fear being legally compelled into same-sex unions. Rev. Rod Thomas of St Matthew’s Church in Plymouth stated: “We could not in conscience approve of that and we would be obliged to allow our building to be used by the law. If we refuse, we could be sued.” A spokeswoman for the Department for Constitutional Affairs confirmed that transsexual couples may marry in church under the new law—but stressed clergy are “free from obligation” to perform such marriages. The conscience clause was developed in consultation with the Church of England and Wales, who expressed satisfaction with it. Importantly: “Marriages contracted by transsexual people once their change of gender has been legally recognised will be valid marriages between a male and a female—not same-sex.” The government reiterated it has no plans to introduce same-sex marriage. Note: In the House of Lords vote on Lady O’Cathain’s amendment (to expand religious exemptions), only Bishops of Manchester, Newcastle, and Worcester voted against it; Winchester abstained. Final tally: 149 against, 144 in favour.

A press release from the Anglican Communion News Service (ACNS) claiming that the upcoming CAPA (Conference of Anglican Provinces in Africa) bishops’ meeting in Lagos “is not a reaction to current crises in the Anglican Communion” is flatly contradicted by the actual agenda and statements from organizers. The CAPA bishops intend to take up the serious matters of faith and morals confronting the Communion. The ACNS statement omitted the stated agenda items from the CAPA announcement. Topics to be discussed include HIV/AIDS, political instability, technological stagnation, poverty, ecclesiastical issues, and the current state of the worldwide Anglican Communion. All Anglican Bishops from Africa will meet for the first time in Lagos, Nigeria, from October 24 to 31, 2004, for the Africa Anglican Bishops Conference (AABC). The historic gathering’s theme is “Africa Comes of Age: An Anglican Self-Evaluation.” Approximately 300 Diocesan and Suffragan Bishops are expected to attend. The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) is hosting the meeting, while CAPA serves as the Conference Secretariat. The CAPA Design Committee has been meeting to plan the event; bishops are responsible only for their own transportation, with accommodation provided by the Church of Nigeria. A directory containing contact details and passport photographs of all African bishops and dioceses is being prepared for release at the conference. Bishops were urged to confirm participation by April 2004 and to submit their information to the CAPA Secretariat. Virtuosity has removed the offending ACNS report from its website.

A Hard Look at the Numbers By The Rev. Kevin Martin In the current Episcopal Church crisis, a number of claims are being made about the health and vitality of our denomination. Most of these are based on political spin, not on any hard data. I would like to try to move beyond this spin and take a look at our present organizational situation. Let’s start with the most extreme statements I am hearing on the liberal and conservative sides of the church. The Dean of EDS tells us that the actions of General Convention will open the doors of the Episcopal Church to thousands of new people because it declares that we are an open and inclusive church. One conservative leader has stated that ECUSA could lose 50 percent of its membership over the next few years. But, I believe that the most interesting — and potentially most dangerous — spin comes from the Chancellor of the National Church and represents the “official line” of 815. The chancellor is assuring Episcopal leaders that we have lost people before over the issue of prayer book revision and women’s ordination, but the denomination “recovered from this and went on.” What are we to make of these comments? For many in the church, their position seems to be “Our minds are made up; don’t confuse us with the facts.” But this is precisely what the leaders of our community need — to look at the facts. Let me also assure you that the data that I am using comes from the National Church’s own information. In other words, I am not making this up! So let’s begin with a 60-year look at two pieces of information: actual ECUSA membership and the percentage of U.S. population represented. From 1930 to 1965, both grew — peaking in 1965 at 3.6 million members (1.9% of the U.S. population). Since then, both have been in steady decline — and percentage has dropped faster than raw membership. Key observations: • For the past 40 years, ECUSA has been in steady decline. • Only the period immediately after the 1979 Prayer Book and women’s ordination saw a temporary slowdown in decline. • The fastest decline came in the first five years of Presiding Bishop Edmond Browning’s tenure. • A slight slowdown occurred early in Frank Griswold’s tenure — but the current crisis will likely accelerate decline again. These trends refute both liberal optimism (“we’ll attract new members”) and conservative alarmism (“we’ll lose half our people overnight”). Realistically, attrition may be ~100,000 in the near term — but the deeper concern is the erosion of core active members (estimated 840,000 who attend regularly and supply 70% of giving). Why are the Chancellor’s remarks dangerous? Because they foster complacency. Leadership denial is widespread. As a member of the 2020 Taskforce, I can confirm that neither the House of Bishops nor Executive Council has reviewed this data. When we suggested they do, we were told not to be “negative,” since the Presiding Bishop did not want to portray our situation negatively. Two conclusions: ECUSA has not demonstrated a sustainable place in U.S. society for 40 years — and current actions will likely worsen decline. If trends continue for just five more years, ECUSA’s status may fall to that of fringe groups like Christian Scientists or Unitarians. Today, more people believe they’ve been abducted by aliens than are members of ECUSA. And unlike us, their numbers are growing.

Submitted by David W. Virtue Atlanta Bishop J. Neil Alexander voted last fall in favor of Bishop V. Gene Robinson’s ordination, consistent with the wishes of his inner-city constituency, but alienating the much larger population of the diocese living in the suburbs and throughout north Georgia. Here is his statement. A Statement from Bishop Alexander on Those Leaving the Episcopal Church In recent weeks, some of our sisters and brothers, mostly from St. Alban’s Church in Monroe and St. Jude’s Church in Marietta, have decided to leave the Episcopal Church and venture out on their own. I am saddened by this turn of events, because the principal work of the church is to bring everyone into a reconciling relationship with God and with each other. Reconciliation is hard work, and it takes time and effort. In both parishes, a strong core of people remain, excellent lay leadership is emerging and new commitment and vigor to the work of Christ is abundantly clear. At St. Jude’s, the Rev. Frank Baltz is giving clear and effective pastoral leadership, assisted by Ramon Beances, a fine Hispanic pastoral leader who will soon be welcomed into the priesthood of our church. At St. Alban’s, strong lay leadership is in place, and we are working hard to find a faithful pastor for them as they look forward to calling a new rector. It is clear to me that the Holy Spirit is working mightily in both of these parishes and that God is going to bless their continuing ministry. Both the groups that have left have placed themselves under the pastoral direction and guidance of the bishop of Bolivia. This is a most unusual development, because in Anglican tradition a diocese is a defined geographic territory under the jurisdiction of its own bishop. Both in the American Episcopal Church and in worldwide Anglicanism, it is well understood that a bishop does not become involved in the internal affairs of another diocese. In Anglican tradition, when a member of the clergy or a parish is at odds with its bishop, all parties are expected to do the hard work of reconciliation for the sake of the ministry of Christ among us. I am saddened that the members who have left have done so without at least making the effort living more deeply into the reconciling work of the Gospel of Jesus. I hope that such reconciling opportunities will be open to us in the future. I believe that it is also responsible to point out that the leadership core at the heart of both groups are good, faithful people, but who have a history of schismatic behavior. The people who are at the heart of the movement to leave are folks who have left other parishes, and have even left the Episcopal Church before, have come back, and are now leaving again. Schism breeds schism. It always has. I hold in mind the great wisdom of the ancient church: if you have to choose between heresy and schism, choose heresy. For heresy is, in the end, just an opinion — and opinions come and go. Schism tears the fabric of the Body of Christ and is irreparable. For those deeply committed to the body of Christ, breaking fellowship is never a faithful option. I do not believe that all of the fine people who have decided to stay with us and continue to build our parishes have done so because they are in agreement with me or with the actions of the General Convention on these issues before the church in these days. I am, in fact, quite clear about the fact that many of those who have stayed are quite clearly in disagreement, but have determined that separating themselves from us is not the way to work through those issues that divide us. I honor them for their willingness to work with me, even in times of tension, and I will do everything I can to be as able and faithful a bishop and chief pastor to them and to all. To be in agreement, and to be in fellowship and mutual love, has never been the same thing among faithful members of the Anglican tradition. I do not have to agree with someone in order to be a faithful pastor to them. I am looking forward to deepening my pastoral relationship with the people of St. Alban’s and St. Jude’s. I believe our mutual commitment to the Lord of the Church is deeper than our differing viewpoints on the issues before us. This is a wonderful time to be in the church. In the midst of the present uneasiness, it is clear that the Spirit of the Risen Savior is vitally present among us. Every day I continue to be encouraged by the wonderful news of the ministries that are going on around our diocese and throughout the church: faithful Episcopalians finding ever more ways to share the good news of Jesus and to demonstrate God’s love to us by reaching out to others in Christ’s name. At the national level, the Episcopal Church has deployed more foreign missionaries — deacons and priests, teachers, doctors and nurses — than we have in decades. And many of these folks are going at the invitation of our sister churches throughout the Anglican Communion, even to those who have been critical of us in recent months. The fabric of the Anglican Communion is much stronger than many seem to realize. It is abundantly clear that God is using us and our common life to invite others into a deeper and more profound relationship with the Risen Christ. God is clearly not finished with us yet. I am grateful for our partnership in the Gospel of Jesus. To God be the glory! — The Rt. Rev. J. Neil Alexander Bishop of Atlanta This letter by the bishop was published in the current issue of DioLog, the diocese’s semi-monthly newsletter.

By Terry Mattingly It’s hard to watch Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ without concluding that the suicidal Judas Iscariot was chased by demons into the pit of hell. On the other hand, it’s hard to watch the ABC television movie Judas without concluding that somehow, before he hung himself, his sense of remorse put him back on the road to redemption. These movies offer radically different takes on the Passion and events that led to it. While Gibson has been attacked for his stark, traditional Catholicism, Judas (March 8, 9 p.m. ET) offers a modern, made-for-television, post-Vatican II Catholic approach. “It’s hard to have your little movie compared to a $25 million epic by an Academy Award winner,” said Charles Robert Carner, who directed Judas when it was filmed back in the summer of ’01. “We don’t want people to see this as some kind of cheesy TV rip-off of this big movie.” “We did our thing long before anybody knew Mel Gibson was making the Passion. We’re just thankful that our movie finally has a chance to be seen.” Produced by the Catholic media pioneers at Paulist Productions, Judas began nearly a decade ago as one of the final projects of the late Father Ellwood “Bud” Kieser, founder of the Humanitas Prize. The goal was to create a mini-series called Jesus and Company, which would tell the same story a number of times, only seen through the eyes of characters such as Peter, Mary Magdalene, Judas and others. In the end, only Judas became a reality. The movie was shot in only 23 days in Morocco with a $5 million budget. The 106-page script came from executive producer Tom Fontana, who is best known for his gritty work in crime dramas such as Oz and Homicide: Life on the Streets. Judas was supposed to have aired during the Easter season in ’02. “The movie is coming out now because of The Passion and all of the publicity it has generated,” said Father Frank Desiderio, president of Paulist Productions. “Our movie deals with some of the same material, but in a very different way. We would like to bring more light, rather than heat, to some of the issues that are being discussed.” Judas opens with a crucifixion, only the man on the cross is one of hundreds of Jews being executed by the Romans. The man is Judas’s father and this event plants a fierce hatred of the “Roman bloodsuckers” in the heart of his young son. Judas grows up to become a bitter urban rebel and his anti-establishment anger prevents him from grasping the peaceful, sacrificial message of Jesus. Another major difference between Judas and the controversial Gibson movie is that Pontius Pilate is portrayed as a kind of Machiavellian hedonist who conspires to pin the blame for the death of Jesus on Caiaphas and a few other corrupt members of the Jewish establishment. The goal was to look traditional and sound contemporary. Jesus is shown performing miracles that literally take place on screen, while speaking in modern, even chatty, language. Some viewers and critics may find it jarring, but the Judas team did this intentionally. Desiderio is also unapologetic about the movie’s hopeful ending. Judas, of course, hangs himself in a fit of guilt, despair and madness. Still, the voice of Jesus is heard in a flashback, telling Judas: “I want you to spend eternity with me — with my Father. It’s not too late. It’s never too late.” Later, Peter and two apostles pray over the traitor’s lifeless body, because that is what Jesus would have wanted them to do. So did Judas go to heaven? This may seem like a radical idea, said Desiderio. But it’s a logical question for modern Catholics. “Without that flashback, I would never have made the movie,” said the priest. “That’s the point. It’s never too late. That’s the message to Judas and to each and every one of us. The Catholic church teaches that there is a hell, but we don’t know if anyone is in it. Only God knows if Judas was somehow able to repent and find forgiveness. “That is what this movie is saying: It’s never too late to turn back to God.” Terry Mattingly (www.tmatt.net ) teaches at Palm Beach Atlantic University and is senior fellow for journalism at the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities. He writes this weekly column for the Scripps Howard News Service.

By Michael J. McManus Two new studies commissioned by America’s Catholic Bishops document the scale of the sexual abuse of minors by priests that has been front-page news for two years — and its causes and proposed remedies. From 1950–2002, some 4,392 priests — 4 percent of those who served in those years — sexually abused 10,667 children whose average age was only 12. More than 80 percent of that abuse was of a homosexual nature. Those numbers are undoubtedly low. Half of the priests were accused of a single offense. Studies reveal that child molesters violate 60 children before an incident becomes public. Many victims never report the abuse. For example, a fifth of victims say their siblings were also abused. The church paid $572 million to support victims and settle lawsuits, not counting the $85 million recently paid in Boston nor the amounts of 14 non-reporting dioceses. What caused the abuse? A National Review Board of distinguished Catholic lay people appointed by the bishops came to two conclusions. First, “Some men became priests over the last fifty years who never should have been admitted into the seminary or...allowed to continue to ordination.” For decades, boys aged 13–14 entered the seminary — so young their sexuality was immature. Most “minor seminaries” are now closed, but even major seminaries “yielded to a culture of sexual permissiveness” in the 1970s and 1980s, and were often so dominated by a gay subculture that heterosexuals fled. The seminaries actually taught little about sexuality, and that was in Latin, rather than English. Curiously, future priests were not taught how to be celibate, though it was expected. More importantly, when instances of child sexual abuse by priests became known to bishops, “too many failed to respond to this problem forthrightly. Their responses were characterized by moral laxity, excessive leniency, insensitivity, secrecy and neglect,” said the National Review Board, made up of distinguished lawyers, psychologists, a judge, a newspaper publisher and Leon Panetta, former White House chief of staff. The Board said the bishops “all too often treated victims of clerical sexual abuse as adversaries and threats to the well-being of the Church, not as injured parishioners in need of healing.” Offending priests were considered “misdirected individuals in need of psychological treatment or a simple change of environment rather than as criminal offenders to be removed from ministry and reported to civil authorities.” These approaches exacerbated the problems. Why did bishops rationalize or ignore misconduct, and transfer priests from one parish to another where more children were victimized? Initially, church leaders viewed sexual abuse as an isolated moral lapse. Later they saw it as a pattern that could be cured by therapy. The threat of litigation caused bishops to “disregard their pastoral role and adopt an adversarial stance not worthy of the church.” Many bishops did not meet victims, which would have prompted a more pastoral response. Few understood the decades-long impact of the abuse that led to depression, drug dependency, sexual dysfunction and even suicide. “Unless you listen to victims, survivors, you don’t really have that sense of horror,” one bishop told the panel. It must be added that child sexual abuse is far more prevalent outside the church than within it. Studies indicate that up to a fifth of men and a quarter of women were molested as children — often by stepparents, teachers or others with access to children. The Board recommended enhanced screening and training of seminarians, increased sensitivity to victims by bishops, more active lay advisory boards and better selection of bishops. However, these remedies seem thin. One poll reveals that 80 percent of Americans favor criminal charges for offending priests and for bishops who covered up the crimes. Yet only 220 of the 4,392 offending priests have been charged with crimes and none of the bishops. In the last two years, 700 priests have been forced to resign along with several bishops who were also abusers. But only Cardinal Bernard Law has been removed due to transferring molesters from parish to parish. Many more bishops should resign, such as the bishops of New Hampshire and Cincinnati who filed guilty pleas with prosecutors. Cardinal Roger Mahoney of Los Angeles is allowing ten priests facing abuse charges to remain in parish ministry. The Bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska refused to cooperate with the National Review Board. No one is holding such bishops accountable. Finally, the celibacy issue itself needs to be reconsidered. I will explore that issue in next week’s column. © 2004 Michael J. McManus

Episcopal diocese votes to join ranks of protest network Delegates want panel to explore ways to reconcile By Dave Munday of The Post and Courier Staff CHARLESTON, SC — The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina at its annual convention Friday joined a controversial network formed to protest the election of an openly gay bishop. Delegates also voted that the diocese should form a commission to try to keep the church from splitting over the issue. The vote to join the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes had been expected because S.C. Bishop Edward Salmon Jr. was one of the founding members and because the diocese’s standing committee and executive committee had each voted unanimously to join. But a couple of delegates spoke against it at the meeting at the North Charleston Convention Center. “I believe this resolution would continue the divisiveness ... because it would institutionalize a movement that not all parishes agree with,” Andy Brack, a lay delegate from St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church in Charleston, told the 296 clergy and lay delegates before the vote. Brack suggested that individual parishes, rather than the diocese as a whole, should vote on whether to join the network. Herbert Drayton III, another lay delegate from St. Stephen’s, announced he would boycott the convention because the resolution reminded him of the way the Episcopal Church treated women and Blacks in the past. “I can certainly tell you, bishop, as an African-American, I certainly do not want to go back to yesterday,” Drayton said before walking out. Salmon endorsed the resolution in his annual address before the business session. “Endorsement does not mean that individuals and congregations who do not agree are thus co-opted against their will,” he said. “As a diocese, over the years, we have had a number of initiatives endorsed by the diocese and supported by many and ignored by others. It does mean that this is not just the personal position of the bishops.” The resolution to join the network passed on a show of hands, with about two dozen voting against it. South Carolina is the seventh of the denomination’s 108 dioceses to join the network, and bishops from another five have endorsed it, according to a tally kept by the American Anglican Council. It’s not a move to leave the denomination, Salmon said. The network was formed in January to oppose changing the church’s standards on sexuality, to funnel money to other missions and to remain in fellowship with other Christian bodies who say they can no longer deal with the Episcopal Church since the denomination’s General Convention accepted the election of the Rev. V. Gene Robinson, a divorced man with a gay lover, as bishop of New Hampshire last summer. A second resolution calls on Salmon to form a Reconciliation Commission. The commission is supposed to try to keep Episcopalians who are divided over the ordination of Robinson and same-sex blessings from formalizing the growing split. Salmon also endorsed that resolution in his address. The problem in the church is not just that the two sides don’t understand each other but that they “often don’t even talk the same language,” Salmon said. Geoff Place, a lay delegate from All Saints Episcopal Church of Hilton Head Island, introduced the resolution on the floor. “How can we start to address some of these differences ... that are starting to negatively impact God’s work in the church?” Place asked. “I suspect ... the road ahead of us is going to be long and very bumpy.” The Rev. Kendall Harmon, canon theologian for the diocese and a priest at Christ St. Paul’s on Yonge’s Island, lauded the resolution’s goal. But he said reconciliation would be possible only if those who caused the schism by voting for Robinson recognized the seriousness of their actions. He proposed that the resolution be amended to include references to “profound ecclesiastical and theological differences” and a “deep divide.” Place agreed with the changes, and the resolution passed with only a couple of hands raised in opposition. The commission is supposed to come up with a plan to address the differences by Oct. 1. A third resolution, also offered by Place, calls on the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops to talk about ways to bring the two sides together when the bishops meet March 19. Salmon also endorsed that resolution in his address. Harmon proposed the same changes, Place agreed, and the resolution passed overwhelmingly. Salmon reported a number of major church expansions since the last convention. He said half of the $1.5 million needed to build the first Episcopal church on Daniel Island has been raised. Since 1990, the net disposable income of churches in the diocese has grown from $9.6 million to $26.2 million, Salmon said in his address. He endorsed the work of Agape Ministries on Charleston’s impoverished East Side. The ministry is led by the Revs. Dallas Wilson and Jimmy Gallant, who grew up in Calvary Episcopal Church. The diocese recently accepted them as postulants, or candidates for ministry. Salmon proposed that the diocese affiliate with Healing Farm Ministries, which supports families with developmentally disabled members. It’s led by Mary Tutterow, a member of St. Michael’s Episcopal Church.

I have just finished reading David Virtue’s interview with Dr. Ephraim Radner, and that in the context of some studies of how the Church Universal has dealt with the matter of false teaching and rank immorality. I do not believe Radner’s responses to these matters lead us in the right direction. As a result, I am forced to take pen in hand, or rather, fingers to keyboard, to address this vital issue. The place to begin is Jesus Christ. According to Radner Jesus was a “stayer” not a “leaver.” By this he means that Jesus did not abandon Israel. Rather, he subjected himself to the Jewish authorities, even to death on the cross. This act of humiliation fulfilled the law and the prophets, above all Israel’s Exile. As such, it is the pattern of God’s redemptive work. Therefore, Christians should submit themselves to Church authorities and stay, not leave. Further, when David Virtue asked Radner if it was not true that “Jesus finally abandoned Israel,” with the implication that there are times when one must separate, Radner replied, The notion that Jesus “abandoned” Israel is nonsense, David. Indeed, a very pernicious nonsense, if I may state it so strongly. Jesus died for Israel, in the form of Israel, and tied to Israel. The passage you cite (Matthew 23:38) expresses the sorrow of Jesus at Israel’s rejection of his love, not his own rejection of their person. Radner goes on to fortify his point that Christ did not abandon Israel by discussing Romans 9–11, and from there to the notion that “radically supersessionist view of Israel is in fact historically tied to the promotion of separatism and schism within the Christian Church itself …” Since Jesus did not abandon Israel, we should not abandon ECUSA. Let us be clear. The primary matter facing us is not whether Jesus was a “stayer” or a “leaver,” but whether or not we are “stayers” or “leavers” in regard to Jesus. The question is not whether Jesus abandoned Israel (he did not), but rather, whether Israel or anyone else abandons Jesus. That is the question we face, first and foremost. When that question is placed first, and it must be first, then we can see clearly that Jesus is the Lord of Israel, that he formed a new Israel, that he called people to decide for or against him, and that this decision created a division between those who decided for him and those who did not. This is utterly clear from the gospel records. Jesus knew it, his disciples knew it, his opponents knew it. He was not crucified because he was a “stayer” or a “leaver,” but for blasphemy. He was the Lord, claiming an authority above the law and the prophets. As Lord, he decided to stay and be crucified, but he was first Lord, and as the Lord, he created and still creates a division between those who recognize his Lordship and those who do not. By framing the issue in terms of whether Jesus was a “stayer” or “leaver,” Radner has defined the issue in terms of obedience to religious authority, rather than in terms of obedience to Christ. This covertly places the Church before Christ, rather than Christ as Lord of the Church. How is the decision for or against Christ made manifest? From the beginning, Christ’s Lordship was first proclaimed in baptism and celebrated in Eucharist. One enters into his body by baptism, and one’s life is Christ is sustained by Holy Eucharist. Can just anyone be baptized, can anyone receive the Holy Eucharist? Baptism means surrender to Christ as Lord and Savior. Eucharist means living that commitment in life. Not everyone is admitted to baptism, and for those baptized, not all are automatically admitted to Eucharist. The witness of the New Testament, as well as the teaching of the Church Universal, is that only those who are committed to him can be baptized. Further, once baptized, grossly immoral, unrepentant persons and false teachers are not admitted to the Eucharist. To my mind this is the clear teaching of the New Testament as well as the witness of the Church Universal. This should be obvious. I find it rather strange that Radner did not address the question of who can be admitted to Holy Communion. Before we discuss whether we should stay or leave, before we decide for or against institutional unity, we must decide a prior question—With whom shall we share the body and blood of Jesus Christ? That is the first and fundamental question once we have committed ourselves to Christ as Lord. David Virtue then poses several questions regarding Paul and other New Testament writers who seem to teach that Christians should separate themselves from immoral persons and false teachers. Radner addresses these questions in terms of Paul, and he does to Paul what he did with Jesus. According to Radner, Paul understands that his “people are a trust he has been given,” they are his “little children, he is their “mother” a “parent” who is “responsible for his charges, and accountable for their lives unto the end.” Paul, like Jesus, is a “shepherd who leaves those who are well in order to find the one who has wandered astray.” From this perspective, Paul exercises discipline, and may even ask the Corinthians to “banish one of their immoral members from their midst” but this “is done for the offender’s ultimate salvation (1 Cor. 5:5).” Paul also urges his congregations, quoting Radner, “to keep clear of false teaching, false teachers, and immoral persons. He urges them to do this as members of his flock, within a given church. He does not urge them to leave churches and to divide congregations for they are his in a special way!” Furthermore, “Paul never asks that congregations split over their adherence to this or that teacher, however false they may be.” As one reads this section two factors become apparent. First, Radner is thinking of Paul as one whose primary task is to maintain unity in the Church, and within that context, exercise discipline. This is similar to his framing Jesus’ ministry in terms of being a “stayer” or a “leaver.” Paul wants the people in his congregations to be “stayers” not “leavers,” and so does Radner. But staying and leaving was not Paul’s primary aim, though that is very important. Paul’s primary responsibility was to proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord and to live under his Lordship. If Paul’s ultimate aim had been Church unity, he could have applied the solution of ECUSA’s revisionists—allow all baptized persons to come to the Eucharist. But Church unity was not Paul’s ultimate aim. There was a norm that stood over the Church, the Lordship of Jesus Christ. By that norm Paul and the early Church judged that grossly immoral persons and false teachers had violated their allegiance to the Lord, and therefore, they were not admitted to Church fellowship nor to the Eucharist. Dr. Radner doesn’t face that fact straight on. In fact, his treatment is a bit muddled. He wants to present Paul as one who “does not urge them [his congregations] to leave churches and to divide congregations,” yet Paul insisted that his churches exercise discipline. In the end, these two requirements are mutually exclusive. Here is Radner: It is from this position that Paul encourages Christians to keep clear of false teaching, false teachers, and immoral persons. He urges them to do this as members of his flock, within a given church. He does not urge them to leave churches and to divide congregations for they are his in a special way!—but rather to exercise within their own ranks the “discipline” necessary to maintain a clear witness and godly context of common formation. In light of ECUSA’s present apostasy, the phrases of this quotation contradict themselves. Christians are to “keep clear of false teaching, false teachers, and immoral persons,” they are to discipline “within their own ranks,” yet they are not to “leave churches and to divide congregations.” What discipline was available to the early Church or to the Church today? One can think of gentle admonishment, earnest teaching of those gone wrong, rebuke, warning, and finally, exclusion from fellowship and the Holy Eucharist. Now, when a major sector of a Church has gone over to false teaching, elected a unrepentant grossly immoral person to its highest office, refused admonition, teaching, and warning, become incapable of disciplining itself, what course is left? Only one alternative remains—the faithful must not participate in Holy Eucharist with the apostate. When that happens, the Church as a whole will divide, unless of course we maintain some form of institutional unity while avoiding each other eucharistically. (I will discuss this shortly). As it is, however, in the present circumstance, discipline and Church unity are mutually exclusive. The practice of the Church of the first few centuries confirms the foregoing. I have just finished reading Werner Elert’s incisive analysis, Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries. He confirmed what I have known since seminary. The ancient Church excluded unrepentant, immoral persons and false teachers from the Eucharist. Once excluded, they were also excluded from fellowship. Exclusion from Eucharist was done first and foremost to preserve the integrity of the body of Christ. It was done out of obedience. Secondly, exclusion was done for the sake of discipline, to enable repentance. Christ was first, his integrity, and then the discipline, and not vice-versa. Ultimately, for those who would not heed godly council (our present situation), exclusion from Eucharist was the only alternative. Finally, decisions on false teaching needed to be made corporately. Church councils became the primary instrument for making these decisions. This is the positive truth that Radner does advocate. Throughout the interview, Radner had plenty of opportunities to affirm this legacy, a tradition that continued through the Middle Ages and into early Anglicanism. He did not do so. Rather, he obscured the matter. For example, he stated the following: Much could be said about particular passages and about the evolution of the practices of discipline and even of excommunication in the developing Christian Church. These are serious and complex matters, often poorly understood by historians. And they should not be dealt with cavalierly, as they tend to be in the midst of present argument. There are, of course, many things that are “often poorly understood by historians,” yet certain matters are quite clear—there is a vital connection between admittance to Holy Communion and Christian faith and practice. Further, Radner’s response to David Virtue’s question on Cyprian was not that helpful. The clear intent of David’s question was to bring before us the problem of apostate bishops. Radner diverts the issue, beginning with a discussion of Cyprian’s views on the “juridical-canonical” understanding of Church structures, then on to Cyprian’s ideas on clerical contagion, and finally, he affirms Cyprian in his notion that discipline must be “discipline within communion,” with the consequence that the Anglican Communion as a whole must deal with ECUSA’s heretical bishops. Yes, this is true. But what options are open to the primates of the Anglican Communion? Given that ECUSA’s revisionists have been admonished and warned by the primates as well as our ecumenical partners, given that they cannot be expected to discipline themselves, given that Radner thinks that we are “dealing with something akin to madness” among ECUSA’s revisionists, given that he thinks that “Dialogue is useless at present, because there is little shared basis of evangelical commitment upon which to follow the persuasive compulsion of argument,” and given that the primates cannot depose American bishops, they will have but one choice—to refuse to share the body and blood of Christ with revisionist bishops and to call on the faithful in the States to do the same. Whether they take this course or do not, we all will face the same question—“Will we or will we not make Eucharist with those who have publicly and egregiously betrayed the faith?” Rather than reaching these conclusions, Radner seems to be holding out for “unity” at any cost. At the beginning of the interview he was asked if there were any circumstances in which one should leave the Church. He responded with an analogy, the analogy of divorce. All sorts of people evade Jesus’ simple command not to divorce. By analogy, we should never separate from the Church. As Radner puts it, we should ask ourselves the simple question, “Is Christ divided?” and since he isn’t, we should not divide. Well, Christ is not divided, but we are divided, and we are divided over Christ. Radner has led us in the wrong direction by a misleading question. Far more evidence could be presented here to make my critical point, that the fundamental teaching of the Church through the centuries is that notoriously immoral persons and false teachers should be banned from the Eucharist. This was certainly understood at the time of the Reformation by all sides. It was clearly understood by Anglicans. Rome and the Church of England divided, and the issue was doctrine and practice. Both knew it, both felt they must withdraw from the other. The Anglican Church simply thought Rome was in error and set forth its position in the Articles of Religion. One Anglican scholar summarized these Anglican claims in these words: The errors of the Church of Rome can easily be seen from the statements of the Articles themselves. Thus in its “living” can be proved by the celibacy of the clergy (Article XXXII); in its “manner of Ceremonies,” (Article XXIV) and the denial of the cup to the laity may be adduced (Article XXX); in regard to “matters of Faith,” the errors are almost too numerous to mention, including the use of tradition (Article VI) the works of supererogation (Article XIV), purgatory (Article XXII), the seven Sacraments (Article XXV), Transubstantiation (Article XXVIII), and several more.(1) In light of the foregoing, what must we do? Before addressing that question, I would like to discuss one more matter, the matter of doctrine. As between gross immorality and false doctrine, false doctrine is the more insidious. It is insidious because it so often appears to affirm the normative documents and traditions of the faith. Nevertheless, it takes the fundamental sources of Christian Truth and interprets them in ways that ultimately denies that Jesus Christ is Lord. The heretic Arius, for example, believed in the Scriptures, went to Eucharist, held to the creed of his time, and yet, he understood these sources of Christian Truth in a way that ultimately undermined the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Similarly, the revisionists of today do not deny Scripture, the Creeds, the liturgies, and the great traditions of the Church. Rather, they take these documents and interpret them from an alien perspective that vitiates their saving substance. I have documented this repeatedly in this column and on my web page (www.rsanders.org ). The pious revisionists of today never tire of telling us that they affirm Scripture, that they love the Prayer Book and the tradition, that they find worship sublime. But they will rarely, practically never, lay bare the theological perspective they use to distort these sources of Christian Truth. When this theological perspective is laid bare, it can be seen that revisionist are actually worshipping another god. For example, I am convinced that Frank Griswold is essentially a mystical pagan. I have demonstrated this by analyzing the operant theology of his public speeches. Michael Johnston, author of Engaging the Word, Volume Three of The New Church’s Teaching Series, holds a similar position. Spong’s theology is so incoherent that it can scarcely be classified. The theological presuppositions of William Countryman’s Dirt, Greed, and Sex, have nothing to do with the classical creedal way of interpreting Scripture. These theological approaches smuggle other sources of revelation into the Christian faith so as to undermine the normative revelation of God given in Jesus Christ as known in Scripture. All these people worship in the Episcopal Church, resonate to its liturgies, quote its Scripture, but they do so in a way that substitutes another god for the living Father of Jesus Christ. For that reason, when the orthodox share the body and blood of Christ with them, they are not worshipping the same God. This does terrible violence to the body of Christ. What must we do? Let me begin with the Episcopate. Bishops are especially called to defend the faith. They are visible signs of unity, and this unity entails agreement on fundamental doctrines and moral norms. None of our orthodox bishops, as well as our orthodox bishops abroad, should be taking communion with the ECUSA’s revisionists. Further, no one, laity or otherwise, should be sharing the body and blood of Jesus with revisionist bishops. This is fundamental. Of course, there are many persons, and all of us in some way, who do not hold to the core doctrines of the Church, nor practice holy living. But laity, priests, and deacons are not the visible signs of doctrinal and moral unity. Bishops are. If we must resist, and we must, we must begin there. This implies that orthodox bishops must cross diocesan boundaries to offer Eucharist to congregations with revisionists bishops. The foregoing seems utterly clear. Further, and this point may entail further debate, we must question whether or not we can take communion from orthodox bishops who participate in Eucharists with revisionists. Why? To begin with, when orthodox bishops share the body and blood of Christ with revisionists, they give visible and terrible assent to their ideology. That ideology is simple—profound theological and moral differences are ultimately irrelevant, they are papered over in the sharing of Christ’s very body and blood. This profanes and degrades the Eucharist. Secondly, it is a part of the orthodox faith that the faithful should not share eucharist with the heterodox. One cannot be orthodox and share communion with false teachers. For the ancient Church, if anyone shared communion with heretics, they placed themselves outside orthodox fellowship. Let me quote Werner Elert, speaking of the Church of the first four centuries. All acknowledged that the fellowship of a church can no more be piecemeal than the church itself. Its integrity depends on the integrity of all members. No member may overstep the boundaries of fellowship without the approval of all members. Whoever communicates with a heretic, schismatic, or any man that for any reason is not within the fellowship thereby disqualifies himself from the fellowship. He is guilty of injuring the integrity of the whole. For this reason every member must hold to the sacrament administered within the borders of the fellowship.(2) Although the faithful must not share Holy Communion with revisionists bishops, this does not, to my mind at this point, entail leaving ECUSA. In the longer term, however, broken communion will lead to institutional division. For the moment, I would prefer that institutional division be approached cautiously for the sake of people and property. Further, we need an immediate discussion over the propriety of taking communion from orthodox bishops who communicate with the revisionists. If we share Holy Eucharist with someone, this implies doctrinal and moral agreement on fundamentals. How can orthodox bishops be orthodox if they share the body and blood of Christ with those who overtly and covertly deny the faith? Unless someone can show me differently, I do not see how they can. In short, the essential question is not whether to stay or leave ECUSA as an institution, but rather, whether or not we worship Christ as Lord with those who undermine the faith. (1) W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology, An Introduction to the Thirty-Nine Articles, London: Church Book Room Press, 1951, p. 273. (2) Elert, Werner, Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries, Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1966, p. 174. The Rev. Dr. Robert J. Sanders serves as Associate Rector at St. Mark’s Episcopal Church, Jacksonville, FL. Prior to his service at St. Mark’s, he was the rector for twelve years at St. Paul’s Episcopal Church in Manhattan, Kansas. He has also served in Central America, where he was the Director of Theological Education in the Diocese of Honduras. He did his undergraduate work at The University of the South at Sewanee. He has a Ph.D. in systematic theology.