02/02/2004 Associated Press A 157-year-old Episcopal church is becoming a ghost town on Sundays, as its conservative members have broken off to form their own congregation. Historic St. John's Episcopal Church in downtown Versailles, Kentucky, drew only 60 people to its three Sunday services. Most of its former members left after diocesan leaders fired the entire governing board at St. John's. The conservative board had clashed repeatedly with the diocese bishop, Stacy Sauls, because of Sauls' support for the ordination of openly gay bishop V. Gene Robinson, a Lexington native. Church leaders were removed by the diocese's executive council on Jan. 7, after they allegedly failed to follow proper procedures for hiring a new minister. Days after the firings, peeved St. John's members voted to form a new church, called St. Andrew's, and contributed $40,000 in seed money. The group, which met informally in a supporter's living room for three weeks, had its first formal worship service on Sunday and welcomed its new pastor, the Rev. David Brannen, to Versailles. About 180 people attended St. Andrew's on Sunday, gathering at the Falling Springs Arts and Recreation Center in Versailles. A former St. John's senior warden, Tom Thornbury, now St. Andrew's top lay leader, asked God to "instill in us the resolve to carry on, I give us the courage to continue, and never be satisfied with what we have accomplished." "Friends," Thornbury said, "we have undertaken a monumental task. We have stepped away from the comforts of our beloved church-home, and we are walking together toward an uncertain, frightening, yet exciting future." The church building they left has stunning stained glass, shiny brass lectionaries, marble, artwork and polished wood. Former President George Bush and Britain's Queen Elizabeth II have worshipped there. Back at St. John's, there's hardly any choir left. Only two of its members were there Sunday. The rebuilding has begun, though, according to the Rev. Phillip Haug, who is temporarily serving as minister-in-charge. A new treasurer has been picked, and a committee has been formed to work with Sauls. "It's a sign of wholeness that many have stepped forward," Haug said. END

January 30, 2004 These are some of the ramifications that have been reported as of the end of December 2003. The fallout is expected to continue in 2004. Ecumenical The following Churches have postponed or suspended dialogue with the Episcopal and/or Anglican Church: Roman Catholic Church Russian Orthodox Church Coptic Orthodox Church Syrian Orthodox Church Armenian Orthodox Church Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox have expressed solidarity with orthodox Episcopalians, as have the worldwide leaders of the Anglican Communion. The Russian Orthodox Church specifically expressed a desire to "maintain contacts and cooperation with those members of the Episcopal Church in the USA who clearly declared their loyalty to the moral teaching of the Holy Gospel and the Ancient Undivided Church." Interfaith Dialogue Meeting Between the Anglican Communion and Al Azhar Al Sharif, one of the most authoritative centers of the Islamic World, was cancelled because of Muslim outrage over the consecration. International Anglican Communion Nine provinces within the Anglican Communion (representing over 38 million Anglicans – a majority), have announced they are in some form of impaired or broken communion with ECUSA: South East Asia Kenya Nigeria Uganda Tanzania Rwanda Central Africa Congo Southern Cone (South America) Zambia (diocese) Within ECUSA The new Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes has been formally launched. It was formed at the suggestion of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Organizing Convocation was held January 19-20, 2004, in Plano, TX. Twelve Episcopal dioceses sent representatives to the Convocation. Broad-based harassment, persecution and intimidation tactics used against orthodox clergy and laity and parishes by revisionist bishops, dioceses and/or churches. Some dioceses have repudiated the consecration of Robinson and refused to recognize him as a bishop. There has been widespread redirection of funds away from dioceses and the national church. Some Episcopalians have already left the church and many others are still trying to determine what to do. The American Anglican Council 1110 Vermont Avenue, NW Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 800-914-2000 or 202-296-5360 Fax: 202-296-5361 E-mail: info@americananglican.org http://www.AmericanAnglican.org/News/News.cfm?ID=961&c=21

Episcopalians: There are seemingly irreconcilable differences and disputes over who gets to keep the house. By Frank Langfitt Baltimore Sun Staff January 30, 2004 MELBOURNE, Fla. - When Pat Vander Poest says goodbye to St. John's Episcopal Church, the toughest part will be leaving her daughter, Julie, who died in a car crash two decades ago and whose ashes lie in the shade of a moss-draped oak in the parish's memorial garden. "I would prefer to stay," said Vander Poest, 69, a retired junior high school teacher. "But it's not about me, it's about God." To stay true to her faith, Vander Poest says, she must give up her daughter's grave just as Abraham agreed to follow God's orders to sacrifice his son, Isaac. Vander Poest and several hundred members of St. John's congregation are scheduled to vote tomorrow on whether to leave the Episcopal Church over the November consecration of an openly gay bishop, the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. By all accounts, most parishioners plan to go. If they do, they will probably have to leave behind their spiritual home, a white wooden church with a pine-paneled interior that dates to 1897 and overlooks a marina here, about an hour's drive east of Orlando. Under canon law, the Episcopal Church's real estate, worth billions, is held in trust for each local diocese and, ultimately, the national church. Real estate is a pivotal issue in the battle over homosexuality raging between biblically orthodox Episcopalians and much of the rest of the 2.3 million-member denomination. Robinson's consecration has created a dilemma for tradition-minded congregations such as St. John's and scores of others around the country. Simply put, they must choose between their strict reading of scripture - which forbids homosexuality - and the emotional and financial pain of leaving churches where many have spent the most important moments of their spiritual lives. "A lot of people are having trouble breaking their psychological connection to the property," said the Rev. John Miller, who is resigning as St. John's pastor and urging parishioners to join him in starting a new church. Although many parishes are angry over Robinson's consecration, splits like this one are not typical. Jan Nunley, deputy director of the Episcopal News Service, the church's official news agency, said she knows of perhaps a dozen parishes where a significant portion of the membership has left over Robinson's consecration. They include St. Timothy's Episcopal Church in Catonsville, where the Rev. Steven R. Randall resigned in September and took some of the congregation with him. Randall did not lay claim to the property. In fact, real estate is a major force binding dissident parishes to the national church. Charles Nalls, executive director of the Canon Law Institute in Washington, D.C., which advises conservative parishes, said that in the past 10 months he has received more than 200 inquiries about whether congregations could leave the national church with their property. Nalls has not been encouraging. Under the church's 1979 Dennis Canon, parish property is essentially owned by the diocese and the national church. He said most congregations stand, at best, a one-in-three chance of winning a court case over real estate - with legal fees starting at about $500,000. "I know a lot people in Virginia alone who would walk instantly but for the building," says Nalls, who has been involved in nearly a dozen Episcopal church property cases. Last week, 100 bishops representing 12 dioceses and about 10 percent of the church's national membership established an organization of biblically orthodox Episcopalians called the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes. Leaders said they aren't splitting from the national church, but are instead creating a haven for traditionalists within its framework. The Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion, which emerged from the Church of England and now has 75 million members. Many Network members hope the Communion will eventually recognize them as the true Episcopal Church here. They're moving cautiously, though, warning parishes not to make a complete break for fear of sparking lawsuits. Members at parishes such as St. John's are disappointed that the network has not parted ways with the national church and taken what they consider a more principled stand against its liberal drift. "We've gotten tired of waiting, and it seems to us that things continue to go downhill," said Miller. "It could be years before we could have a settlement and get our property and do what we want." The Episcopal Church's decision to approve Robinson as New Hampshire's bishop has sent other financial ripples through the country as angry conservative donors withhold funds. An hour's drive south of Melbourne in Vero Beach, the Rev. Lorne Coyle is struggling to fund a $10 million expansion of Trinity Church, the second largest in the Diocese of Central Florida. After the national church approved Robinson as bishop, one of Coyle's donors canceled most of a $300,000 construction pledge. "I've never been so out of control," said Coyle. His parish, he said, is running a deficit for the first time, in part because of former donors angry with the national church. At St. John's, Miller had to abandon plans to build a new church. Robinson's consecration, he said, "kind of destroyed my capital campaign." Last week, Miller told his congregation that he was leaving the Episcopal Church to join the Anglican Mission in America, which was established in 2000 and has 60 churches. The Anglican Mission is overseen by several Anglican archbishops in the developing world, but it is not recognized by Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury and effective leader of the Anglican Communion. Miller said that if a large percentage of parishioners join him, he hopes the Diocese of Central Florida will offer to sell them the church. Its bishop, the Rt. Rev. John Howe, is among the 100 bishops who joined the church's dissident network. But even though he shares St. John's opposition to Robinson's consecration, he said he is not free to offer the property. Any decision to sell would also require approval by the diocesan board and standing committee, he said. Even then, under church law the diocese would have to seek the best price in open bidding. "If we start giving away properties at a dollar an acre, the national church would say, 'Wait a minute, there is a breach of fiduciary responsibility,'" Howe said. While many parishioners are willing to walk away from St. John's, some find the prospect too painful. Robert Stitzel has spent more than four decades in the parish, where his three sons, Robert Jr., Michael and Dennis were baptized, confirmed and married. He was the only member of the 12-person vestry to vote against leaving. Stitzel, a 68-year-old developer, donated his time and money to build the parish offices, expand the parish hall, create a youth building and construct a new parking lot. "That's my ministry," he said. He said the church has become a refuge for his family, especially as they struggle with the health of Michael, a quadriplegic. It's easier for someone like Miller to leave, he said, because the pastor has served there only seven years. "We've been there so long, it's become a very special place of comfort," said Stitzel, relaxing one evening in a T-shirt at home. "We say this with all the love and care, [but] he doesn't have the length of time to have the relationship with the buildings." Many members of St. John's view the Bible as the word of God and not something to be endlessly interpreted in light of the times. Some, though, read the Bible differently, particularly the passages banning homosexual conduct. Among them is Hasty Miller, 65, a retired design engineer not related to the pastor. Miller's daughter, Laurie, is a lesbian. He says she fought her attraction to females during her teen-age years but eventually quit. Miller believes that one day scientists will prove that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, but an innate drive or a function of the environment. When that happens, he said, congregations that break away over the issue of homosexuality will become isolated and unsustainable. "They are founding the church on something that will be proven incorrect," Miller says of the those who plan to go. Still, he worries that a mass defection might leave the remaining members unable to fund the parish he joined 23 years ago. "It makes me feel sad," he said, "because I doubt that St. John's is going to survive." Copyright © 2004, The Baltimore Sun Episcopalians: There are seemingly irreconcilable differences and disputes over who gets to keep the house. By Frank Langfitt Baltimore Sun Staff January 30, 2004 MELBOURNE, Fla. - When Pat Vander Poest says goodbye to St. John's Episcopal Church, the toughest part will be leaving her daughter, Julie, who died in a car crash two decades ago and whose ashes lie in the shade of a moss-draped oak in the parish's memorial garden. "I would prefer to stay," said Vander Poest, 69, a retired junior high school teacher. "But it's not about me, it's about God." To stay true to her faith, Vander Poest says, she must give up her daughter's grave just as Abraham agreed to follow God's orders to sacrifice his son, Isaac. Vander Poest and several hundred members of St. John's congregation are scheduled to vote tomorrow on whether to leave the Episcopal Church over the November consecration of an openly gay bishop, the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. By all accounts, most parishioners plan to go. If they do, they will probably have to leave behind their spiritual home, a white wooden church with a pine-paneled interior that dates to 1897 and overlooks a marina here, about an hour's drive east of Orlando. Under canon law, the Episcopal Church's real estate, worth billions, is held in trust for each local diocese and, ultimately, the national church. Real estate is a pivotal issue in the battle over homosexuality raging between biblically orthodox Episcopalians and much of the rest of the 2.3 million-member denomination. Robinson's consecration has created a dilemma for tradition-minded congregations such as St. John's and scores of others around the country. Simply put, they must choose between their strict reading of scripture - which forbids homosexuality - and the emotional and financial pain of leaving churches where many have spent the most important moments of their spiritual lives. "A lot of people are having trouble breaking their psychological connection to the property," said the Rev. John Miller, who is resigning as St. John's pastor and urging parishioners to join him in starting a new church. Although many parishes are angry over Robinson's consecration, splits like this one are not typical. Jan Nunley, deputy director of the Episcopal News Service, the church's official news agency, said she knows of perhaps a dozen parishes where a significant portion of the membership has left over Robinson's consecration. They include St. Timothy's Episcopal Church in Catonsville, where the Rev. Steven R. Randall resigned in September and took some of the congregation with him. Randall did not lay claim to the property. In fact, real estate is a major force binding dissident parishes to the national church. Charles Nalls, executive director of the Canon Law Institute in Washington, D.C., which advises conservative parishes, said that in the past 10 months he has received more than 200 inquiries about whether congregations could leave the national church with their property. Nalls has not been encouraging. Under the church's 1979 Dennis Canon, parish property is essentially owned by the diocese and the national church. He said most congregations stand, at best, a one-in-three chance of winning a court case over real estate - with legal fees starting at about $500,000. "I know a lot people in Virginia alone who would walk instantly but for the building," says Nalls, who has been involved in nearly a dozen Episcopal church property cases. Last week, 100 bishops representing 12 dioceses and about 10 percent of the church's national membership established an organization of biblically orthodox Episcopalians called the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes. Leaders said they aren't splitting from the national church, but are instead creating a haven for traditionalists within its framework. The Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion, which emerged from the Church of England and now has 75 million members. Many Network members hope the Communion will eventually recognize them as the true Episcopal Church here. They're moving cautiously, though, warning parishes not to make a complete break for fear of sparking lawsuits. Members at parishes such as St. John's are disappointed that the network has not parted ways with the national church and taken what they consider a more principled stand against its liberal drift. "We've gotten tired of waiting, and it seems to us that things continue to go downhill," said Miller. "It could be years before we could have a settlement and get our property and do what we want." The Episcopal Church's decision to approve Robinson as New Hampshire's bishop has sent other financial ripples through the country as angry conservative donors withhold funds. An hour's drive south of Melbourne in Vero Beach, the Rev. Lorne Coyle is struggling to fund a $10 million expansion of Trinity Church, the second largest in the Diocese of Central Florida. After the national church approved Robinson as bishop, one of Coyle's donors canceled most of a $300,000 construction pledge. "I've never been so out of control," said Coyle. His parish, he said, is running a deficit for the first time, in part because of former donors angry with the national church. At St. John's, Miller had to abandon plans to build a new church. Robinson's consecration, he said, "kind of destroyed my capital campaign." Last week, Miller told his congregation that he was leaving the Episcopal Church to join the Anglican Mission in America, which was established in 2000 and has 60 churches. The Anglican Mission is overseen by several Anglican archbishops in the developing world, but it is not recognized by Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury and effective leader of the Anglican Communion. Miller said that if a large percentage of parishioners join him, he hopes the Diocese of Central Florida will offer to sell them the church. Its bishop, the Rt. Rev. John Howe, is among the 100 bishops who joined the church's dissident network. But even though he shares St. John's opposition to Robinson's consecration, he said he is not free to offer the property. Any decision to sell would also require approval by the diocesan board and standing committee, he said. Even then, under church law the diocese would have to seek the best price in open bidding. "If we start giving away properties at a dollar an acre, the national church would say, 'Wait a minute, there is a breach of fiduciary responsibility,'" Howe said. While many parishioners are willing to walk away from St. John's, some find the prospect too painful. Robert Stitzel has spent more than four decades in the parish, where his three sons, Robert Jr., Michael and Dennis were baptized, confirmed and married. He was the only member of the 12-person vestry to vote against leaving. Stitzel, a 68-year-old developer, donated his time and money to build the parish offices, expand the parish hall, create a youth building and construct a new parking lot. "That's my ministry," he said. He said the church has become a refuge for his family, especially as they struggle with the health of Michael, a quadriplegic. It's easier for someone like Miller to leave, he said, because the pastor has served there only seven years. "We've been there so long, it's become a very special place of comfort," said Stitzel, relaxing one evening in a T-shirt at home. "We say this with all the love and care, [but] he doesn't have the length of time to have the relationship with the buildings." Many members of St. John's view the Bible as the word of God and not something to be endlessly interpreted in light of the times. Some, though, read the Bible differently, particularly the passages banning homosexual conduct. Among them is Hasty Miller, 65, a retired design engineer not related to the pastor. Miller's daughter, Laurie, is a lesbian. He says she fought her attraction to females during her teen-age years but eventually quit. Miller believes that one day scientists will prove that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, but an innate drive or a function of the environment. When that happens, he said, congregations that break away over the issue of homosexuality will become isolated and unsustainable. "They are founding the church on something that will be proven incorrect," Miller says of the those who plan to go. Still, he worries that a mass defection might leave the remaining members unable to fund the parish he joined 23 years ago. "It makes me feel sad," he said, "because I doubt that St. John's is going to survive." Copyright © 2004, The Baltimore Sun

New AMIA priest invades his diocese By David W. Virtue The Bishop of Upper South Carolina, the Rt. Rev. Dorsey Henderson, Jr. has sent an angry letter to all his clergy condemning the invasion into his diocese of a former ECUSA priest, now with the Anglican Mission of America. In a message To the Clergy, Sisters and Brothers he writes: "This morning the Right Rev'd Victor Scantlebury, Assistant Bishop of Chicago, telephoned to share some startling--although not surprising--information. The Rev'd Charles (Chip) Edgar, Rector of St. Mark's, Glyn Allen, announced his resignation to his Vestry on Monday and indicated that he would be serving henceforth under the Bishop of Rwanda in the Diocese of Upper South Carolina--for the purpose of starting new churches." "I have shared this information with Bishop Salmon and intend today to communicate with both the Bishop of Rwanda and the Archbishop of Canterbury, protesting the action of both the Bishop of Rwanda and the Rev'd Mr. Edgar." I shall keep you informed of further developments. In the interim, should the question arise, the Rev'd Mr. Edgar is not licensed for any purpose or function in the Diocese of Upper South Carolina--not, of course, that this will deter him. I suggest that you share this information with the members of your congregations, especially your lay leaders. That's not quite how The Rev. Charles "chip" Edgar, 39, sees it. The decision to leave the Episcopal Church after 12 years as a priest with a wife and four small children was not one that was taken lightly and without some pain. In fact it was rending decision bearing in mind that he had the fastest growing Episcopal parish in the Diocese of Chicago - St. Mark's in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, about 25 miles west of Chicago. "When my wife and I decided to leave there was a lot of grief in the parish and in our lives. We had taken the parish from 260 to 470 and we had students and faculty coming from nearby Wheaton College, an independent Evangelical university, one of the best in the nation." What prompted his departure was the growing awareness that the Robinson consecration was a growing divisive issue. "Our parish had been moving in a strong evangelical direction with more than half the congregation solidly behind Scriptural authority. But on August 5, 2003 we found the consecration of V. Gene Robinson divided the church. It generated a lot of support when I came down hard against the consecration, but not all the congregation was on board. But the vestry voted to pursue alternative Episcopal oversight." Two things happened, he said. A sizeable portion of folk objected to AEO and Bishop Bill Persell told me that AEO would not be realized or allowed in his diocese. "I don't see that AEO is on the horizon," he told me. "I knew then that I needed to find a safe place where I could live more truly into my theological convictions." Following his decision to resign in the first week of January he met with Bishop Persell's Canon to the Ordinary, where he had what he describes as a "generous conversation". "They are not going to immediately depose me. They are having a wait and see policy. He suggested we keep the doors open, or voluntarily renounce my orders. He wanted to make a way for me to come back. The Diocese has been kind to me." Chip Edgar had been aware of the Anglican Mission in America for some time but did not take it seriously to begin with, but over time he became convinced that it was the way to go for him. He was a coup for the AMIA. "Their bishops immediately linked me with a number of people in Columbia, SC. There was a core group of 75 very committed folk who have already committed themselves in the first year to a budget of $300,000." Are they ex-ECUSAN's? "No. Only about 40 percent are from The Episcopal Church. We are drawing from a wide area, with many coming from Columbia International University (formerly Columbia Bible College). These students would never go to a regular Episcopal Church that doesn't know what Biblical morality or Scriptural authority is." And his reaction to Bishop Henderson's letter? "My goal is not to steal sheep from ECUSA but to reach people who don't know Jesus, so I don't see myself as a threat to the Diocese of Upper South Carolina. "The Episcopal folks here are looking for an alternative, but they are not my target audience. "It was an enormous emotional and intellectual challenge to join the AMIA. When the AMIA started, I was not convinced it was the thing to do, but over time I became convinced. It has been difficult in ECUSA for years and years and I can only see it getting worse for those orthodox rectors who remain. Basically my experience in the Diocese of Chicago was positive. I have no real complaints." I made my decision based on my theoligcal convictions, though it has been emotionally challenging. It was a wonderful parish, godly people, and it has been so very hard to leave. The Rev. Chip Edgar will move to Columbia March 1, to begin his new ministry. They will meet in a clubhouse in a Columbia subdivision with evening services. "I am excited that a church which is really excited about sharing the gospel with people are not weighed down with a lot of baggage and canonical structures which hinders the mission of the church rather than advancing it. My hope in Columbia is to reach out the unchurched." END

Response of Archbishops Emmanuel Kolini (Rwanda) and Yong Ping Chung (Southeast Asia) January 28, 2004 We issue this Response, as archbishops of the Anglican Communion, to the January 2004 document written by The Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner entitled "A call to accountability: the parable of the AMiA." The document demands a direct and clear response. It is incorrect in its facts and troubling in its spirit. The author's obvious and unwarranted hostility obscures his message, but it appears that he objects to three things: (i) some suggested refusal of accountability by the Anglican Mission in America, (ii) a perceived damage to the orthodox witness in the Diocese of Colorado and creation of obstacles faced by ECUSA's opposition by the clergy and laity who are now in the Anglican Mission in America, and (iii) an asserted autonomous "self-ordering" by the Anglican Mission and its leaders. We know that this error-filled document has recently been sent out all over the world on the Internet. It presents false allegations about the Anglican Mission in America and is full of distortions of the actual facts and gross misrepresentations of the events related to the founding and existence of the Anglican Mission in America. It is an attack by a parish priest in Colorado upon the actions and motives of three archbishops (++Tay and ourselves, ++ Kolini and ++Yong) of the Anglican Communion. We - as the sponsoring archbishops of the Anglican Mission in America - reply to this "parable" in the name of honesty. From the very beginning under the direct oversight of two Anglican Communion archbishops, the AMiA has concentrated and focused on the Gospel work we, as Christians, are called by God to do. We have sought not to get involved in criticizing and slandering the work and policy of other orthodox bodies. Though we have not been perfect in this regard, it is the desire of our heart. We want to work together. Despite the difference in approach and policy, we - as the Anglican Mission's two primates - keep urging and exploring ways for orthodox groups in the United States to so work together for the sake of the Gospel. The battle in America is bigger than any one of us can do. Let it be clearly and strongly stated that since its inception in July 2000, the Anglican Mission in America has been under our primatial authority. Its leadership has been accountable to us. It is beyond our comprehension that anyone at this point could be questioning that reality. The fact is that many of our colleagues who urged delay in a response to the crisis in ECUSA has since acknowledged that our action was necessary. In addition, the international understanding, encouragement and support for the Anglican Mission in America and its reason for existence continue to grow. Blaming AMiA for the state of orthodox Anglican witness in the United States is inconceivable. Should we ask orthodox clergy to submit to a corrupt institution and weak or apostate bishops? Let it be said that the Anglican Mission in America is our response to the unilateral actions by the Episcopal Church in the United States over the last forty years in drifting away from the authority of Holy Scripture and the centrality of our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ. The blame for that which is happening in ECUSA and in the Anglican Communion should be placed at the feet of those in ECUSA who have turned away from Biblical Truth and the counsel of Lambeth 1998. This attack on the Anglican Mission in America is based, in its essence, upon the tired, old arguments of institutional unity over Scriptural Truth, and, as such, we believe that it is simply wrong. Archbishop Tay has stated that "Biblical unity must come from being in Christ." I (Kolini) have said that "Biblical unity is found only at the foot of the Cross. The Gospel and its commands come first, then unity." The charge of autonomous "self-ordering" by those faithful Christians in the Anglican Mission in America is both offensive and inaccurate. Those who have taken the time to meet with the godly men and women who have taken up this challenge know the truth. Those who, for whatever personal reasons, choose to slander the character of others say more about themselves than those they would harm by their words. The document by Dr. Radner is not a "parable." It is a scandalous broadside attack against orthodox and faithful Christians within the Anglican Communion who took action in January 2000, almost four years ago to the very day in the consecration of missionary bishops, to provide a way for faithful Christians to remain in the Anglican Communion. The members of the Anglican Mission in America - at all levels - have taken seriously the admonitions of the New Testament (some of which are contained in Attachment One) to keep away false teachers, be not be unequally yoked with unbelievers, to come out and be separate from those who are not of God and to condemn (i.e., anathema) such. To attack these bold Christians who have sought to follow these Scriptural commands is not helpful. The document in question is apparently shaded by a personal bias and misunderstanding of the purposes by someone who was not a party to the events surrounding the founding of the Anglican Mission in America in July 2000. It is of interest that Dr. Radner has publicly expressed in his statements at previous SEAD Conferences in Charleston, SC that the Protestant Reformation of the 1500s was a mistake. Therefore, many of his present comments are understandable in light of this unfortunate perspective, the essence of which is that institutional unity should be paramount above doctrinal orthodoxy. These comments against the Protestant Reformation from an Episcopal priest, benefiting from that very Reformation, are inconsistent at best. It must be also noted that for Radner to compare ECUSA's lack of discipline of apostasy and heterodox teachings and actions to the founding and Gospel-mission of the Anglican Mission is simply absurd. We must ask: Who is he - a parish priest in Colorado - to take it upon himself to attempt in such a public and provocative manner to make such an outrageous and erroneous accusation? In any event, the Anglican Mission is not a rejection of Christian accountability, but rather a personification of it under our primatial authority and accountable to us. As the archbishops of the Anglican Mission in America, we believe that blatant false teaching and doctrine as well as practice should not be accommodated by remaining in fellowship with those who espouse such. Efforts at drawing analogies from the Old Testament or 16th and 17th century history should not thwart what Holy Scripture admonishes. The foundation of the Anglican Mission in America is Biblical and in fact agrees very much with the witness of the Early Church. KAMPALA The consecrations of Bishops Rodgers and Murphy were foreshadowed in the letter produced at the international meeting in Kampala in November 1999 of archbishops and their representatives from nine or ten Anglican Provinces. I (Kolini) chaired that very meeting. The letter statement resulting from that Kampala meeting clearly stated that "We assure you, too, that among us are those ready to respond to specific and urgent situations which may arise in the months before the Primates' Meeting in Portugal from 23rd to 28th March. Parishes and clergy under threat because of their loyalty to the Gospel and to Anglican standards must be supported, and we will play our part in such support." The pleas for intervention continued after the Kampala Meeting. In addition, the report of the fact-finding bishops to Presiding Bishop Griswold's invitation to "come and see" became public in December 1999 after that Kampala Meeting; it was, according to The Church of England Newspaper, "damning" of ECUSA. Archbishop Tay and I (Kolini) acted in response to these continued pleas and the worsening situation in ECUSA. I (Kolini) chaired those meetings, and I sat in on all of the conversations - both among everyone and privately along with Archbishop Tay among the Primates. I (Kolini) was also one of the consecrators in Singapore in the end of January 2000. The statement from that meeting warned that if nothing was done soon that actions would be taken. Thus, for anyone who was not present to now claim otherwise as to what was forewarned and transpired is disingenuous. SINGAPORE AND AMSTERDAM On January 29, 2000, the consecrations of two American clergymen to become missionary bishops of the Province of Rwanda to the United States took place at the hands of Archbishops Tay and myself (Kolini) as well as three other bishops of the Anglican Communion from two other countries than ours. This was a pastoral effort to help keep good Christians who were leaving ECUSA within the Anglican Communion and to charge them to carry out our Lord's Great Commission. Many would have left the Anglican Communion altogether but for the establishment of the Anglican Mission in America. The Anglican Mission in America was not established until six months later in July 2000 at a meeting in Amsterdam. We were there. We insisted on accountability and have received it at all times since then. Also, it is noteworthy that present in Amsterdam and supportive of the endeavor was The Most Rev'd Harry Goodhew, Archbishop of Sydney, Australia and The Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan of the ECUSA Diocese of Pittsburgh who is now the Moderator of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes. Let us be clear in light of Radner's premise, since both the consecrations in January 2000 and the founding of the AMiA in July 2000, every congregation and all clergy have been under our oversight. The Anglican Mission is not "self-ordering," as erroneously asserts. The congregations and clergy of the Anglican Mission in America are accountable to us! To declare or to imply otherwise is wrong. RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PROVINCE OF RWANDA AND THE ARCHBISHOP OF SOUTH EAST ASIA Additionally, Radner should know - but fails to acknowledge - that there is nothing "tenuous," as his incorrect terminology would lead one to think, about the ties between the AMiA and the Province of Rwanda. Prior to the consecrations of January 29, 2000, the House of Bishops of the Province of Rwanda approved at its meetings on January 13-14, 2000 "to have Missionary Bishops in place to see that the negative forces that prohibit God's flock (Christians) from coming to know Jesus." This Resolution followed a September 1999 Resolution supporting me (Kolini) in my "struggle against those who do not believe that the Scriptures are the true Word of God." Radner owes the House of Bishops in the Province of Rwanda an apology for his misleading statements. Furthermore, the bishops of the Anglican Mission in America are seated missionary bishops in the House of Bishops of the Province of Rwanda. The Anglican Mission in America is fully supported by me (Kolini) as its archbishop, by the House of Bishops of our Province and by the Provincial Synod of the Province of Rwanda. It is pertinent that there are more Anglicans worshiping on Sundays in my (Kolini) tiny nation of Rwanda (with a population today of about 7,000,000 since the genocide of 1994) than in ECUSA in the huge United States with a population almost forty times that size. Also, the "parable" overlooks the reality that the synod of South East Asia, by its Resolution of February 26, 2000 in firmly upholding the 1998 Lambeth Resolutions 111.1, 111.5 and 1.10 on Biblical Authority and Morality, respected the principles upon which Bishop Tay had acted in the consecrations of January 2000. The Province of South East Asia recognized that "the AMiA is placed directly under the Most Reverend Datuk Yong Ping Chung, the Archbishop of the Province [though not formally involving the Province of South East Asia." Thus, I (++Yong) am authorized to provide oversight to the Anglican Mission as well. PURPOSE OF THE ANGLICAN MISSION It is appropriate at this point to note that the purpose of the Anglican Mission in America exists to glorify God and to serve, grow and multiply local churches that love Jesus Christ and reach the world He died to save (John 3: 16-17; Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 2:14-47). The goal is to so glorify God by building an alliance of congregations in America which are committed to gathering, planting and serving dynamic churches in the Anglican tradition. The AMiA is not focused upon the institutional and church politics of ECUSA. The Anglican Mission is seeks to so glorify God by building an alliance of congregations in America which are committed to gathering, planting and serving dynamic churches in the Anglican tradition. The focus is upon the 130,000,000 unchurched Americans who make up the largest English-speaking mission field in the entire world. ENDORSEMENTS Radner would do well to read some of the recent endorsements of support from Primates of the Anglican Communion for the growing work and expanding witness of the Anglican Mission in America. For example, The Most Rev'd Dr. Diropka Balufuga Fidele, the Archbishop of the Anglican Church of the Congo and Bishop of Bukavu and Kinshasa Dioceses, has this month written as follows: "We come here to bring to you the support of the House of Bishops and the Christians of Congo, not just the Anglicans, but all the confessing Christians of Congo, for your courage, having stood firm in the traditional faith of the Anglican Church, and in the doctrinal foundation: The Bible ...." "The Archbishops Emmanuel Mbona Kolini and Yong Ping Chung were also persecuted [d]ue to their support of the creation of AMiA (which defends a just cause) ... AMiA courageously followed the right path and today we see the results. We must courageously reject all that is against the Word of God and seek His will." "The initiative of AMiA is a prophetic vision. Today's sad events in ECUSA seek to break a communion that has been built for five centuries, through the living out of the Christian orthodox faith, based on the Bible. My hope is that the missionary work of AMiA and all those who choose the orthodox faith will save the Anglican Communion ...." "I also want to once again reassure you of our sincere support, our prayers and our hope for the success of this winter conference [January 14-18,] 2004. Our great hope is to see AMiA prosper and become a powerful instrument of mission and witness to the Risen Christ in the United States and around the world. May the work of the Holy Spirit continue to be visible in AMiA ministry." The understanding of the House of Bishops of the Province of the Congo and their Archbishop comfort us at times of attacks like this being leveled against us. We very much appreciate Archbishop Diropka's support and prayers as well as those of the House of Bishops in the Province of the Congo. OVERLAPPING JURISDICTIONS Radner goes on to muse that the "evangelical ravages cannot be to embrace some alternative autonomy." This statement needs to be placed in perspective. The Anglican Communion is in a period of realignment. Such is quite clear for all to see from the actions deemed necessary by numerous seated Archbishops and/or their Provinces, of which at least nine have now declared broken or impaired communion with ECUSA. As a result, the Provinces of Rwanda and South East Asia do not stand alone in offering orthodox spiritual covering for faithful Anglicans in the United States: Radner is also implicitly criticizing the work of the largest Province of the Anglican Communion, Nigeria, in its establishment of the Church of Nigeria in the United States. Radner is implicitly criticizing the work of the Province of South India which has for decades sponsored churches in the United States. Radner is implicitly criticizing Archbishop Bernard Malango of the Province of Central Africa for providing an ecclesiastical haven for a persecuted priest and congregation from a heretical bishop in the United States. Radner is implicitly criticizing the Archbishop of Kenya for also providing spiritual covering for clergy and congregation in the United States. Radner is further implicitly criticizing the steps by the Province of the Southern Cone and the Diocese of Bolivia in recently providing oversight for two congregations in the United States. Radner has been selective in his criticism, but his reasoning is at odds with the efforts of many in the Global South to hear and to respond to the cries for help by the orthodox faithful in his country. The historical underpinnings of Radner's positions against both the Protestant Reformation and the Anglican Mission in America are misguided. Radner seems not to realize that the practice of overlapping jurisdictions is not foreign to Anglican polity and was not introduced by Archbishop Moses Tay and me (Kolini) in consecrating as Bishops John H. Rodgers, Jr and Charles H. Murphy III in January 2000 and in the subsequent founding of the Anglican Mission in America in July 2000. Overlapping jurisdictions have existed in the Anglican world since 1745. Furthermore, the 1968 Lambeth Conference declared: "the demands of a new age suggest the wisdom of also consecrating bishops without territorial jurisdiction but with pastoral responsibility." Bishops should not be territorial monarchs, but pastors to specific people wherever they may live. For over 300 years, there have been multiple jurisdictions, over-lapping jurisdiction and bishops for people of different races, cultures, theologies and political parties. The British Parliament long ago set into place laws authorizing two Anglican Churches in one locale. Attachment Two discusses this matter in some detail. The current examples of over-lapping or non-geographic bishops and jurisdictions are numerous. COLORADO In mentioning at length the situation in Colorado to try to make some sort of case for remaining in an apostate institution, Radner overlooks specific Scriptural admonitions in this regard. Some important Scriptures are contained in Attachment One to this Response. Surely Radner is not placing holding together one apostate, man-made institution above the call to follow these Scriptural admonitions? As to Colorado, we have been told that this same Diocese - before the AMiA was even established and before any Colorado clergy left to join it - voted down the Lambeth 1998 Resolutions on Biblical authority and human sexuality. This is not, in our estimation, the actions of "a moderately conservative diocese," as Radner would lead one to believe. Additionally, Radner has his facts wrong when he states about the Anglican Mission that "initially they had no [bishops] in America" to whom the local Colorado clergy could be accountable. Radner fails to understand the plain facts that: The consecrations of Bishops Rodgers and Murphy in Singapore took place in January 2000. The Anglican Mission in America was not founded until July 2000. No Colorado clergy left ECUSA for the Anglican Mission until after the General Convention of ECUSA in July of 2000. Since its inception, the AMiA clergy and churches have been under our authority and accountable to us. Thus, Radner's argument in this regard as well is without merit. OTHER ASSERTIONS Radner incredulously comes to the opinion that "the AMiA represents, therefore, one aspect of ECUSA's and the Communion's internal malaise." Of all the things that can be said about the Anglican Mission in America, contributing to any "malaise" within ECUSA and the Anglican Communion is not one of them. Radner mentions in his document that accountability involves being "charitable." However, we see no charity in the pejorative language he uses in his "parable." Throughout he uses inflammatory language. This is sad. We also find it quite interesting that Radner references "mutual accusations and recriminations" when it is he who has participated in these very acts since 2000 and is still doing so in his document of January 2004, almost four years after the Singapore consecrations. We would encourage him to live into the Kingdom Norms which he signed and is dated November 29, 2000 of "honoring one another's ministries in word and deed, even where disagreement exists," "to consulting personally where malice is alleged or perceived" and "to not speak ill of one another" as well as "to working together in mission." It is time to cease attacking those who have left an apostate institution in accordance with the above Scripture admonitions and in order to seek to carry out the mission of the Gospel and its Great Commission. The issue should be Christian faithfulness, not institutional or political repercussions. We would hope that Radner could let go of his obvious anger over these long-past events and move forward with us in the Gospel mission of the orthodox in the United States. We invite him to do so. Preaching unity while sowing seeds of division serves no godly purpose. This Response has been written to set the record straight regarding the Anglican Mission in America in the face of the false allegations, the distortions of the truth and the gross misrepresentations contained in The Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner's "A call to accountability: the parable of the AMiA." We have sought to clarify matters for those who may have read that document. In Christ, The Most Rev'd Emmanuel Kolini. Archbishop of Rwanda and Bishop of the Diocese of Kigali The Most Rev'd Yong Ping Chung, Archbishop of South East Asia and Bishop of the Diocese of Sabah ATTACHMENT ONE: SOME SCRIPTURES SUPPORTING LEAVING ECUSA Galatians 1:6-8: "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" Romans 16:17-18: "I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. For such people, are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery, they deceive the minds of naive people." II Corinthians 6:14-7:1: "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said, "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people." "Therefore come out from them and be separate," says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you. "I will be a Father to you and you will be my sons and daughters," says the Lord Almighty. Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God." II Thessalonians 3:6: "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us." II John 7-11: "Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work." Isaiah 5:20: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." ATTACHMENT TWO: OVERLAPPING JURISDICTIONS It is observed in "An Apologetic for the Anglican Mission in America: The Basis of Anglican Unity: Territory or Faith?" that in 1745, Parliament recognized two Anglican churches in Scotland. One church was the Scottish Episcopal Church; the other was the Church of England in Scotland. The House of Lords in 1849 debated whether the chapels in Scotland using the Church of England Prayer Book may have their own hierarchy. The Scottish bishops asked Parliament to discipline the English and Irish bishops who supported the English chapels in Scotland. Parliament declined to do either. It noted that the law allowed two Anglican jurisdictions in Scotland, each in communion with the Church of England. English and Irish bishops provided Episcopal oversight, on theological grounds, for these chapels until 1923 when the separation ended. In 1871 a legal opinion was given on the question as to, "Whether a Bishop who has held a See in England, Ireland, India or the Colonies will, in accepting the office of Bishop over the congregations of members of the Church of England, protected and allowed in Scotland, commit any Act of Secession or Disqualification in reference to the Church of England?" The answer provided was that it would not. As the Apologetic also reports at length, canon law, custom, history and tradition clearly support the method of sending missionary bishops from one part of the Communion into another. Current examples of over-lapping or non-geographic bishops and jurisdictions include: Theology: England/Wales: The Provincial Episcopal Visitor or "Flying Bishop" program. This allows a parish to seek alternate episcopal oversight for reasons of theology. Australia: The Diocese of Sydney has planted parishes in neighboring dioceses, retaining oversight and jurisdiction. Occupation: Bishops for the Armed Forces in the United States and Australia exercise non-geographic oversight of military and prison chaplains. Race: New Zealand/Aotearoa: Five Maori dioceses, created for the indigenous people of this area, overlap the seven dioceses created for the descendants of European settlers. South Africa: The Order of Ethiopia maintains parishes independent of its system in the Province. United States: The Church of South India (CSI) has 20 parishes in the United States and Canada with oversight held by the Moderator of the CSI Arabian Gulf: The Church of Pakistan sent a missionary bishop to the Arabian Gulf to work with expatriate Pakistanis in the diocese of Cyprus and the Gulf. The CSI also maintains parishes in the Gulf under the oversight of the Bishop in Kerala. The American Church has a diocese in Europe and the Church of England has its own diocese in Europe. These are in addition to the Portuguese and Spanish national Churches. One can attend an American Cathedral in Paris or an English Cathedral in Paris. END

By the Rt. Rev. David J. Bena January 28, 2004 Last week, as I was checking in at an airport, the airline staff person asked if I happened to be a Catholic or an Episcopal priest. When I said I was an Episcopalian, she responded, "Well, are you an inclusive Episcopalian or an exclusive Episcopalian?" Sensing that I was being baited, I replied, "What does the word 'inclusive' mean to you?" She hesitated, and then said, "Oh, I don't know...a place here everybody can go and feel welcome." "Good answer," I quickly shot back, "Then I am a part of the inclusive church...But tell me, when you say a place where everybody can go and feel welcome, do you mean that there should be no rules regarding ethical behavior for the members of the church? Is it OK for someone to come every week and steal a purse on the way out? Do we need to teach him some ethics about stealing being wrong, even though some would say that kleptomaniacs don't choose that lifestyle - it just seems to be with them from birth?" "Well, of course we have to have rules. I don't want someone stealing my purse. What I'm talking about is an inclusive church that welcomes everyone in spite of their sexual proclivities." "Oh," I responded slowly, "so actually, when you say inclusive church, you're really confining it to a SEXUALLY inclusive church?" "Right!" she said gleefully, seeing that she had made contact! "OK, now let's look at that. Do you mean there should be no rules regarding sexual behavior? Is it OK for another woman in the pew to hit on your husband? I've been told that some people find it impossible to sustain a life-long relationship with another person, and that they have within them an uncontrollable need to have multiple sexual relationships. If we find folks like that, should we say it is OK for them to commit adultery or go through a number of marriages and to feel really good about themselves in spite of that problem?" "You are being difficult!" she responded impatiently. "Of course it would be wrong for someone to think that they can have my husband sexually. You know what I'm talking about - same sex!" "So," I stated tentatively, "in your estimation, an inclusive church is simply a church where people can practice sex with people of the same gender and be told that it's perfectly normal." "Well, not exactly. Only as long as they're wired that way, and then it would be OK." "Three problems here," I said, as gently as I could. "One - there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that anyone is 'wired' that way. There is opinion, but no scientific evidence. While we do know about chromosomes and gender determination, we do NOT know about a gay gene - after extensive searching, no gay gene has been found. We really don't know why some people prefer same-sex relationships. It's possible that some were taught that way as children, that some were curious and got into the life style; that some craved a lost relationship with a parent; and that some do not remember a time when they were not drawn to same-sex relationships. That's the first problem - we don't know what causes it. The second problem is that, even if some may be 'wired' that way, that does not mean therefore that homosexual activity is an acceptable alternative lifestyle. It looks like some people are 'wired' to be lifelong pedophiles; some are 'wired' to have many sexual relationships at the same time; some are 'wired' to have an ongoing sexual relationship with both genders at the same time. Does being inclusive mean that there are no sexual standards beyond how one is 'wired?' The Church has always tried to be compassionate and inclusive. But it does have a teaching responsibility. It has to hold up standards in a compassionate way...or there will be no standards at all. And the third major problem is that our Scriptures and Tradition hold up only heterosexual relationships as honorable. The whole theme of the bible (not just a few proof texts) about sexual activity is that it a gift of God to be shared between a man and a woman in a covenanted relationship. What I'm saying is that we are inclusive, in that all are welcome to come worship, accept Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, and be a part of the family. But just as a nuclear family has a teaching responsible, so does the Church. We need to, in a loving but firm way, teach the ethics and morals of the Historic Church, and raise up leaders who will model that behavior. To use a trite phrase: we need to love and welcome the seeker after truth, but not honor lifestyles that do not honor Christ. If we REALLY love seekers as Jesus loves them, we need to be teaching them and assisting them to break free from lifestyles that enslave them. And teachings from the scriptures are really the authoritative way we can do that. THAT is what really makes us an inclusive, loving Church." "Thank you," she said, as she continued her work, pondering these things in her heart. The Rt. Rev. David Bena is Bishop Suffragan of the Diocese of Albany, New York.

What Are We To Do? The Humiliation of Anglicanism Ephraim Radner A talk given at the Anglican Communion Institute Conference in Charleston, SC, 8-10 January 2004 What are we to do? What are we to do when leaders of our church teach error and drive the flock astray? What are we do to when the Communion of the Church, when the teaching Scriptures and the witness of the Saints – all inestimable gifts of God -- are alienated from our midst by neglect and open contempt? What are we to do when congregations of the "little ones" are thrown into turmoil by such error and by such driving and alienation, when hopes are starved and faith grows cold? [Note: Due to length constraints, I'll note that this is an extremely lengthy theological essay by Dr. Ephraim Radner. The full document continues with detailed theological discussion of church humiliation, historical examples including the Nonjurors and the French Revolution, and practical considerations for the present crisis. The document is approximately 20+ pages in length when formatted.] Would you like me to continue with the remaining articles, or would you prefer a different approach to handling this very lengthy document?

By Geoffrey Kirk The question of what, if anything holds together the Anglican Communion has recently become a painfully immediate one,' writes Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury in a new book 'Anglican Identities', a excerpt from which recently appeared in The Times. Dr Williams is joining a brave and distinguished company, from Garbett through Neil to Sykes, who have tried to make sense of a protean phenomenon. The Times, unaccountably, gave the Williams excerpts the title 'Do the Anglicans need a Pope?' - a question the archbishop, understandably, does not ask. Dr Williams's own chosen title gives more of a clue to the contents. He is in search, not of an Anglican identity, but of 'Anglican Identities'. They are by no means the same thing. An Anglican identity, if it could be tracked down, would describe the characteristics of a world-wide church with clear doctrinal parameters. Having described a core of what were, indisputably, 'Anglican Activities', it would then be possible to determine what were, in consequence 'Un-Anglican Activities'. That is not the Williams way. His prose style (one of elegant and scholarly opacity), and his personality (one of studied ambiguity and charming contradiction) make him the quintessential Anglican. He does not see the need for an Anglican identity. Like Anglicanism itself, he is a living contradiction. He incarnates what our ecumenical partners find difficult to get on with Though he has probably come to regret it, his statement announcing the withdrawal of Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading claimed that to appoint as a bishop one whose ministry many people both in the diocese and the wider church would be unable to receive, contradicted the role of the bishop as a focus of unity. And yet he remains as committed as ever to the consecration of women as bishops -with arguably far wider consequences for Anglican unity and ecumenical progress. It is presumably on the strength of both opinions that he recently kissed hands at the Vatican. But in his somewhat post-modern attitude to catholic ecclesiology Rowan is a mere novice. The recently resigned Co-chairman of ARCIC, Frank Griswold, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the United States, on the other hand, carries the principle to extremes. Committed, no doubt, as an ARCIC member, to the notion of eucharistic fellowship as the final expression of full visible unity, he was nevertheless (until they caught him at it), given to donning jeans and a cowboy shirt and receiving communion at a Catholic Church not far from his office in New York. In the recent crisis over the consecration of an actively gay bishop, he signed a statement by all the Primates of the Communion deploring such action, and then returned to the United States in order to act as chief consecrator himself. Small wonder, then, that Cardinal Kasper has put the International Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission (IARCCUM) on hold and that the Oriental Orthodox Churches have decided the 'the on-going dialogue would be better served by waiting, at present, for the Anglican Communion to take proper account of and reflect on the consecration which has taken place.' It is clearer now than ever that dialogue with Anglicans is time wasted: for they can deliver neither consistently and nor internationally on agreements made. With Anglican Provinces busily excommunicating each other, and two provinces having already consecrated bishops to operate as 'missionaries' in the America province, it looks as though the 'waiting' will extend to the Greek Kalends. Truth to tell it is hardly possible to overstate the acrimony and confusion which presently reigns in the Anglican Communion. Dr Williams has bought time by the usual ruse of setting up a Commission to assess the situation, with Robin Eames, the genial Archbishop of Armagh as its chairman. But we have been here before. Eames also chaired the Commission on Communion and Women in the Episcopate. It made recommendations which were almost universally ignored, and not implemented even in Eames's own province. So how, you will ask, did things get like this? The saga of the manufacture of modern Anglicanism is a fascinating one. Until relatively recently Anglicans relied for stability on what was called 'Hooker's three legged stool' - scripture, tradition, and reason. (There was a degree of chicanery in attributing the notion to Richard Hooker, who would never have agreed that its three elements ought to have equal emphasis; but no matter.) Provincial autonomy, in those days, was not a doctrine; it was an accusation. In the seventies of the last century this idea was radically altered by giving the stool a fourth leg: 'experience'. Contemporary experience (the Zeitgeist) soon displaced reason, replaced tradition and became the criterion by which scripture was judged and found wanting. It was a wind that blew all hedges down. For liberal Anglicans, who have effectively gained control of the first world provinces, the three-legged stool has subsequently given way to another trinity: the remarriage of divorcees, the ordination of women, and the blessing of same sex unions. These are taken to be self-evidently desirable 'developments'. That the three are inextricably linked and that they are a deliberate challenge to the authority of scripture and tradition is clear from the reasoning of even their most moderate proponents. The now-famous Canon Jeffrey John, in his paper 'Permanent, Faithful, Stable' argues for the blessing of homosexual relationships on the grounds that they are no more contrary to scripture than other practices of the modern Church. "A faithful homosexual relationship is not 'incompatible with scripture', (certainly no more so than the remarriage of the divorced, or the leadership of women ...)." It is an argument which shamelessly appeals to all those who have committed or condoned a scriptural infidelity to rally round and support further transgression. It leads, one need hardly say, to an horrendous but inevitable conclusion. Nothing could be further from the scripturally based, systematically developed, traditionally grounded, rationally presented ethics of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, rooted as they always are in the core doctrines of the faith. The ethics of modern liberal Anglicanism are clever, brittle, adventitious and based upon special pleading. That the special pleading presents itself in the guise of self-evident truth merely adds insult to injury. 'Do the Anglicans need a Pope?' asks the headline writer, after an all too cursory glance at Archbishop Rowan's polished in-conclusions. The question bears no relation to the book the man wrote: but it is a perfectly good question. And the answer? The answer surely is that if Anglicans wanted a Pope they would have invented one already. The genius of Anglicanism (a curious word I agree under the circumstances) has, on the contrary, been to shun and disparage any sort of regulative authority. The more, in recent times, Anglicans have spawned what are curiously called 'Instruments of Unity' - the Lambeth Conference of Bishops, the Anglican Consultative Council, the Primates' Meeting - the more they have wilfully asserted the autonomy of provinces, and even dioceses, against them. The self-effacing fidelity to the Ordinary Magisterium, which compelled the present Holy Father to pronounce the ordination of women to the priesthood to be beyond the competence of the Church, would be simply incomprehensible to the majority of Anglicans. If Anglicans had a Papacy, ten to one they would use it finally to relativise scripture, debunk the tradition and so complete the systematic agenda on which they are presently engaged. Geoffrey Kirk is Vicar of St Stephen's, Lewisham and National Secretary of Forward in Faith.

Turning the screws a little tighter R-15 Affirmation of the authority of the Bishop Resolved, that this 209th Council affirms the authority of the Bishop of the Diocese of Virginia, the Rt. Rev. Peter James Lee as contained in the diocesan and church canons. Council respectfully encourages him to discipline those churches and clergy that do not actively support the mission, fellowship and life of the Diocese or who are actively undermining the mission, fellowship and life of the Diocese. Submitted by the Clericus of Region 13 The Rev. Caroline Smith Parkinson, Dean The Rev. Jeune E. Cunningham The Rev. James Hammond The Rev. Jennings Hobson The Rev. Roma Maycock The Rev. William MacDonald Murray The Rev. Kira Myers The Rev. Ann Stribling The Rev. Linnea Turner Rationale: The Clericus of Region 13 gathered at its regularly meeting on January 15, 2004 shared their collective, grave concern about the ideas and plans contained in a memo being distributed by The Rev. Geoff Chapman, a chief strategist for the American Anglican Council (AAC). By his introductory paragraph in the memo, he implies that the information which follows has the endorsement of the entire group. This memo clearly outlines a plan of a replacement jurisdiction for the Episcopal Church in the United States (ECUSA). It proposes a strategy to disrupt the order of the church and ultimately to dismantle it. We are well aware that some of the parishes and/or Rectors within our diocese are bold in their acclamation of identity with the AAC. People can have honest differences on issues before the Church. Resolving those differences should not involve undermining the authority of the diocesan bishop and attempting to impede the work of this Diocese which has served Virginia Episcopalians for over 200 years. R-16 On Receiving the Ministry of the Diocesan Bishop to Congregations in The Diocese of Virginia Whereas, Article XXVI of the Articles of Religion in the Book of Common Prayer states: Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes evil have chief authority in Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them, which be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise; and Whereas, Peter James Lee is the canonically elected and consecrated Bishop of the Diocese of Virginia; now therefore be it Resolved, that the 209th Council of the Diocese of Virginia affirms the principle established in this XXVIth Article; and be it further Resolved, that the 209th Council calls upon congregations of the Diocese prayerfully to receive the ministry of their Diocesan Bishop. Submitted by The Reverend Dr. Lindon Eaves, St. Thomas, Richmond. Background The article recognizes the deep ambiguity of Church life and that the efficacy of scripture and sacrament depend on the faithfulness of God, not on the perceived or actual virtue of the minister. At open meetings following General Convention, the Warden of All Saints' Church, Dale City, read a letter asking Bishop Lee not to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation in that congregation. The proposed resolution constitutes recognition by Council that such requests are at variance with the Anglican understanding of scripture, sacrament and ministry. END

Church of England Newspaper The Church of England could overturn its traditional teaching on sex outside marriage at the forthcoming General Synod by giving its approval to contractual rights for cohabiting couples. Divisions between traditionalists and liberals are likely to be exacerbated by a number of key debates on the sexuality issue at next month's meeting in London. A York Diocesan Synod motion, asking for people living together to be given the same legal status as married couples, will be the most fiercely contested. While the proposal was tabled before the Government's Civil Partnership Bill that wants greater recognition to be given to gay partnerships, it would extend the Church's support to homosexual couples if successfully carried. It argues that cohabiting couples exist "whether approved by the State and the Church or not and that the absence of a legal contract for such a relationship is a potential cause of injustice and misery". Such a provision is "socially desirable", the motion states, and asks the Archbishops' Council to investigate the issues involved in contractual partnerships, other than marriage, between two cohabiting adults, and then to report back to Synod. Richard Seed, the Archdeacon of York, said: "The church has to accept the fact that couples are living together without any formal bonds of marriage. I would want to support those who are in a relationship that is stable, loving and affirming. "This stable union applies just as much to gay relationships. It makes a lot of us extremely nervous if we accept that all gay relationships are on an equal par, but it is something I look forward to being properly discussed in the debate." Margaret Brown, a prominent traditionalist on Synod from Chichester diocese, described such a move as "one more nail in the coffin for the Church of England". She said: "This is the first step on the road to gay marriages. It would seem that the Church of England is giving moral authority for any changes that the Government makes if it goes along with this motion." Bruce Saunders, Canon Pastor at Southwark Cathedral, warned that the findings of his diocese's report on cohabitation last year had shown cohabiting relationships to be vulnerable. "I sympathise with the impulse behind the motion because I can see that culturally the Church can look dogmatic and out of touch with the variety of relationships these days, but we need to reinvent marriage as an attractive option to young people. We need to affirm people in other relationships without making marriage seem less important." The liberals have risked re-opening fresh wounds in the Church by sending out to all Synod members a copy of Canon Jeffrey John's book, Permanent, Faithful, Stable, which challenges the Church's ban on the ordination of homosexual clergy. It is being distributed by Affirming Catholicism, the pressure group of which Canon John and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, are founder members, to promote their cause ahead of the debate on the House of Bishops' report, Some Issues in Human Sexuality. A covering letter, from the group's senior members, including its President, the Rt Rev David Stancliffe, the Bishop of Salisbury, suggests the book will help issues to "be better addressed from an informed perspective". Although the bishops' report is being presented as a study guide rather than an attempt to change Church policy, some traditionalists have expressed concern that it is opening the way for a more liberal approach to the stance on sexuality. The Doctrine Commission's report, Being Human, is being debated the same day, and deals with the changing attitude towards sex in culture. It says that it has been created to be "a whole person relationship of love and loyalty involving body and self". It continues: "We teach a realism about the goodness and joy of sex together with the ways it can go wrong. Where sex occurs outside the meaning and purpose God has given it in his created order, dangers arise for the participants." Power, money and time are also key themes in the report, which says that wisdom is the most important gift in discerning how to be human. END

Dear members of FIFNA, The switchboard has been lighting up at our Fort Worth headquarters with many calls over the past several days. The basic question from the callers is, "What does FIFNA think about the Network, and are we really part of it or not?" Let me first say that what follows is my personal commentary as President of FIFNA. It is not a Council statement. The Council is scheduled to meet February 11-13, at which time Bishop Duncan plans to be with us, as well as representatives from other Anglican jurisdictions. I would expect that the Council will make a corporate statement at the end of our meeting about the Network, and upon other areas of concern and development. The week following, Fathers Ilgenfritz, Tanghe, and I will travel to London for a meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury along with FIF leaders from England, Scotland, Wales, and Australia. There will undoubtedly be a statement for you at the conclusion of that meeting at Lambeth Palace as well. It would be an understatement to say that the crisis of Faith and Order in ECUSA and the Anglican Communion has intensified in recent months. This greater crisis exists because of the rejection of biblical morality by ECUSA as a body in a highly symbolic way with the election, approval, and consecration of Gene Robinson. You well know that Forward In Faith (and its previous identities as ECM and ESA) has consistently stated that the "ordination" of women to the priesthood (and the subsequent "ordination" of women to the episcopate) was a gross violation of and departure from Biblical teaching, Apostolic Order, and Catholic Truth. I think that Bishop Kapinga of Tanzania's words are worthy of serious reflection. He stated, "With the ordination of women, ECUSA left the Catholic fold of the Church. With the consecration of Gene Robinson, ECUSA left the Christian religion. We now have The Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes before us. You can read its Charter on the America Anglican Council's website. In Article V of the Charter, there is the proposal for a "non-geographical Convocation...known as the Forward in Faith North America (FiFNA) Convocation, and may include all congregations which apply to and are accepted as FiFNA members." The Network understands itself as "a church within the Church. You may remember that this is what the Episcopal Synod of America stated of itself in June of 1989 as its founding Assembly. In July of 1997, our identity was altered in the Good Shepherd Declaration, that ESA/FIFNA would continue in its mission to be the Church....We are not leaving anything or going anywhere&We have said from the beginning that we intend to be the Church. We will continue to be who we are." With the passage of time, and with ECUSA's introduction of and legislation for more theological innovations (along with the selective interpretation of Canons, and the legislative decisions of many Dioceses and agenda of their bishops), the concept of being a church within the Church is deserving of serious reflection. We now see ECUSA as a Province of the Anglican Communion whose actions have been rejected by a large number of Provinces which represent two-thirds of the Communion's membership. Only if the Network interprets itself as a church sharing a common mind with majority of World-Wide Anglicans can their focus and identity be grounded in the theological integrity required. I had hoped to be present at the Network's organizational meeting in Plano, but pastoral responsibilities as the Rector of Good Shepherd, Rosemont, as well as a scheduling conflict, prohibited my attendance. Father Ilgenfritz (one of FIFNA's Vice-Presidents) was there as our official representative. I believe that the creation of the Network (encouraged by the Archbishop of Canterbury) is a good first step towards the Primates' call for Adequate Episcopal Oversight. Let us remember that oversight implies jurisdiction. I also believe that there will be no fundamental change until diocesan bishops are willing to cross diocesan boundaries, and orthodox priests are willing to refuse the sacramental ministry of revisionist bishops. I would hope that in conscience leaders will increasingly be unable to accede to the misuse of Canon Law, false teaching, and the tyranny of revisionist bishops. It is wise for us to appropriate the declaration of the Council of Constantinople: "They who separate themselves from communion with their bishop on account of any heresy condemned by the Holy Synods of the Fathers, while he evidently proclaims the heresy publicly, and teaches it with brave front in Church - such persons, in excluding themselves from communion with their so-called bishop before Synodical cognizance, not only shall not be subject to canonical censure, but shall be deemed worthy, by the Orthodox, of becoming honor; for they condemn as teachers, not bishops but pseudo-bishops; and they do not cut up the unity of the Church by schism, but hasten to deliver her from schisms and divisions." And many centuries later, Richard Hooker wrote, [capitalizations are Hooker's] "Laws touching Matter of Order are changeable, but the Power of the Church; Articles concerning Doctrine not so. We read often in the Writings of Catholic and Holy men touching matters of Doctrine. This we believe, this we hold, this the Prophets and Evangelists have declared. This the Apostles have delivered. This the Martyrs have sealed with their blood, and confessed in their Torments, to this We cleave as to the Anchor of our Souls; against this, though an Angel from Heaven should preach unto us, we would not believe. But, did we ever in any of them read touching Matters of mere Comeliness, Order and Decency, neither Commanded nor Prohibited by a Prophet, any Evangelist, and Apostle. Although the church wherein we live do ordain them to be kept, although they be never so general observed, though all the Churches in the World Command them, tough Angels from Heaven should require our Subjection thereunto, I would hold him accursed that doth obey?" Unsettling and spiritually challenging words from a Church Council and from the seminal mind of our tradition. With the Dennis Canon as it relates to parishes and their property, and with how a Diocese's status could be judged as a binding relationship with the National church, we may be hostages with no seen avenue of freedom. And within this situation, one cannot be reckless or cavalier as stewards of the church. But when we stand before the great judgment seat of Christ, I don't believe that how diocesan boundaries were honored will be a criteria for our Lord's favorable judgment. I pray that this commentary will be received and understood with a generous spirit. I pray that God will continue to use FIFNA as faithful people who are characterized by humility, repentance, steadfastness, and obedience to the Word of God Incarnate and the Word of God written. You have my assurances that FIFNA remains committed to its mission which is: To uphold the historic Faith, Practice and Order of the Church Biblical, Apostolic and Catholic, and to resist all efforts to deviate from it. David L. Moyer+ 22 January 2004 Feast of St. Vincent, D. & M.

BARNA REPORT (Ventura, CA) - Any objective social analyst would conclude that the United States faces its fair share of moral and spiritual problems. A new research study from the Barna Research Group suggests that a large share of the nation's moral and spiritual challenges is directly attributable to the absence of a biblical worldview among Americans. Citing the findings from a just-completed national survey of 2033 adults that showed only 4% of adults have a biblical worldview as the basis of their decision-making, researcher George Barna described the outcome. "If Jesus Christ came to this planet as a model of how we ought to live, then our goal should be to act like Jesus. Sadly, few people consistently demonstrate the love, obedience and priorities of Jesus. The primary reason that people do not act like Jesus is because they do not think like Jesus. Behavior stems from what we think - our attitudes, beliefs, values and opinions. Although most people own a Bible and know some of its content, our research found that most Americans have little idea how to integrate core biblical principles to form a unified and meaningful response to the challenges and opportunities of life. We're often more concerned with survival amidst chaos than with experiencing truth and significance." Not Just Any Worldview The research indicated that everyone has a worldview, but relatively few people have a biblical worldview - even among devoutly religious people. The survey discovered that only 9% of born again Christians have such a perspective on life. The numbers were even lower among other religious classifications: Protestants (7%), adults who attend mainline Protestant churches (2%) and Catholics (less than one-half of 1%). The denominations that produced the highest proportions of adults with a biblical worldview were non-denominational Protestant churches (13%), Pentecostal churches (10%) and Baptist churches (8%). Among the most prevalent alternative worldviews was postmodernism, which seemed to be the dominant perspective among the two youngest generations (i.e., the Busters and Mosaics). For the purposes of the research, a biblical worldview was defined as believing that absolute moral truths exist; that such truth is defined by the Bible; and firm belief in six specific religious views. Those views were that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life; God is the all-powerful and all-knowing Creator of the universe and He stills rules it today; salvation is a gift from God and cannot be earned; Satan is real; a Christian has a responsibility to share their faith in Christ with other people; and the Bible is accurate in all of its teachings. The Difference a Biblical Worldview Makes One of the most striking insights from the research was the influence of such a way of thinking upon people's behavior. Adults with a biblical worldview possessed radically different views on morality, held divergent religious beliefs, and demonstrated vastly different lifestyle choices. People's views on morally acceptable behavior are deeply impacted by their worldview. Upon comparing the perspectives of those who have a biblical worldview with those who do not, the former group were 31 times less likely to accept cohabitation (2% versus 62%, respectively); 18 times less likely to endorse drunkenness (2% versus 36%); 15 times less likely to condone gay sex (2% versus 31%); 12 times less likely to accept profanity 3% versus 37%); and 11 times less likely to describe adultery as morally acceptable (4% versus 44%). In addition, less than one-half of one percent of those with a biblical worldview said voluntary exposure to pornography was morally acceptable (compared to 39% of other adults), and a similarly miniscule proportion endorsed abortion (compared to 46% of adults who lack a biblical worldview). Among the more intriguing lifestyle differences were the lesser propensity for those with a biblical worldview to gamble (they were eight times less likely to buy lottery tickets and 17 times less likely to place bets); to get drunk (three times less likely); and to view pornography (two times less common). They were also twice as likely to have discussed spiritual matters with other people in the past month and twice as likely to have fasted for religious reasons during the preceding month. While one out of every eight adults who lack a biblical worldview had sexual relations with someone other than their spouse during the prior month, less than one out of every 100 individuals who have such a worldview had done so. Some Groups Are More Likely to Have a Biblical Worldview Adults who have a biblical worldview possessed a somewhat different demographic profile than those who did not. For instance, individuals who attended college were much more likely than those who did not to have this perspective (6% versus 2%, respectively). Married adults were more than twice as likely as adults who had never been wed to hold such a worldview (5% versus 2%). Whites (5%) were slightly more likely than either blacks (3%) or Hispanics (3%) to hold this ideology. One of the largest gaps was between Republicans (10% of whom had a biblical worldview), Independents (2%) and Democrats (1%). Residents of Texas and North Carolina were more likely than people in other states to have a biblical worldview. Among the states in which such a worldview was least common were Louisiana and the six states in New England. The nation's largest state - California - was average (i.e., 4% of its residents had a biblical worldview). Attributes such as gender, age and household income showed no statistical relationship to the possession of a biblical worldview. Some Churches Are Helping People The research found that one of the most effective methods of enabling people to develop a biblical worldview is by addressing seven critical questions that consistently lead to beliefs and behaviors that are in tune with biblical teaching. Outlining that process in a new book he has written as an outgrowth of the research, entitled Think Like Jesus, Barna also noted that many churches are already helping their congregants to implement such a way of addressing daily challenges and opportunities. "The emphasis of these churches is to not only teach biblical perspectives," according to Barna, "but also to help people connect the dots of the core principles taught. Rather than simply provide people with good material and hope they figure out what to do with it, these are churches whose services, programs, events and relationships are geared to weaving a limited number of foundational biblical principles into a way of responding to every life situation. The goal is to facilitate a means of interpreting and responding to every life situation that is consistent with God's expectations. These are not perfect people, but once they catch on to the critical principles found in the Bible and train their minds to incorporate those views into their thinking, their behavior varies noticeably from the norm." Research Source and Methodology The data described above are from telephone interviews with a nationwide random sample of 2033 adults conducted during September through November 2003. The maximum margin of sampling error associated with the aggregate sample is ±2.2 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All of the interviews were conducted from the Barna Research Group telephone interviewing facility in Ventura, CA. Adults in the 48 continental states were eligible to be interviewed and the distribution of respondents coincided with the geographic dispersion of the U.S. adult population. Multiple callbacks were used to increase the probability of including a reliable distribution of adults. The data from the 2003 survey was compared with figures on worldview possession compiled from Barna Research Group surveys conducted in 2002 in order to assess the reliability of the new data. The 2002 surveys also showed that just 4% of the aggregate population and 9% of the born again segment had a biblical worldview. Other repeated measures were compared, producing virtually identical results to the current measures. "Born again Christians" were defined in these surveys as people who said they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as "born again." Being "born again" is not dependent upon any church or denominational affiliation or involvement. The Barna Research Group, Ltd. is an independent marketing research company located in southern California. Since 1984, it has been studying cultural trends related to values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors. If you would like to receive regular e-mailings of a brief overview of each new bi-weekly update on the latest research findings from the Barna Research Group, you may subscribe to this free service at the Barna Research web site (www.barna.org). END