Board Never appointed Mr. Bloom as the CEO of BA, say majority board members. For the record Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo had no hand in the writing of this rejoinder.   September 9, 2025   The following statement is from the majority UK Board members of Barnabas Aid in response to a “New CEO Trying to Save Barnabas Aid” by Tim Wyatt, 16 July 2025 https://www.christianitytoday.com/2025/07/new-ceo-colin-bloom-save-barnabas-aid/   The metaphor of the crashing plane (p2) implies that Barnabas Aid was about to crash when Colin Bloom took over the leadership. It was actually going from strength to strength – growing income, stable staff, good reputation. It was after Colin intervened that the income plummeted, staff began leaving in droves, and the Charity Commission started their statutory inquiry.   “Bloom is at the head of Barnabas Aid because the board of trustees forced out founder Patrick Sookhdeo and three top officials in 2024.” (p2) Patrick and the other three people were forced out by the board of Nexcus International, not by the board of Barnabas Aid UK. This needs to be made clear.   “Cursory internal investigation” (p3). This is an unsubstantiated criticism of those who conducted the internal investigation and those who conducted the appeal which followed.   Patrick did not pressure any Barnabas Aid staff not to cooperate with the police (p4).  The witness intimidation charges arose from a talk he gave to a crowded staff meeting in a room crammed with people when he poured out his heart to his colleagues, in the mistaken belief that the two staff who were to be prosecution witnesses were not present.   Patrick was not sentenced to community service (p4). He was sentenced to 3 months of curfew and had to pay a small sum of money.   “Network of interconnected charities all controlled by Sookhdeo and close associates.”  (p4) This would need unpacking as regards “close” and “controlled”. Some of the trustees of some of the charities were people that Patrick and those close to him never knew before those people joined the boards. Trustees would doubtless reject the allegation that they were being controlled by Patrick and his close associates.    The 2018 trial ended with a “not guilty” verdict arrived at very quickly and announced by the female foreman of the jury with a smile.  Tim Wyatt is unjustified in describing this as the jury concluding there was “not enough evidence to convict” (p4), Unless Tim Wyatt was a member of that jury, he cannot know what discussion went on in the jury room. Unlike the 2015 trial, the 2018 trial was a unanimous verdict.  Mr Wyatt should not refer to the allegation as a “crime”, especially after a not guilty verdict. This is disgracefully biased journalism.   Patrick Sookhdeo did not receive any communication from Tim Wyatt.  We have had an email from Rev. Michael Hewat, chair of the board of Nexcus International, telling us that he was informed by Tim Wyatt that Mr Wyatt had “emailed Patrick on 27 June using his personal hotmail address, giving him 5 days to respond to a list of specific questions and giving him the opportunity to respond to the allegations made against him in the CT article.”  We do not doubt that Mr Wyatt sent the email described, but it did not reach Patrick because Patrick can no longer access his hotmail address since his laptop and phones were seized by the police when he was arrested on 7 November 2025. The devices are still in the possession of the police.    Nexcus International’s IT team control the necessary passwords thus making it impossible for Patrick to move his hotmail address to another device.  So, Mr Wyatt’s email may have been read by Wiltshire Police but it has not been read by Patrick. Mr Wyatt may wish to take this up with whoever gave him the useless email address for contacting Patrick.   “An authoritarian who brooked no dissent and made financial decisions on a whim. ‘There was no rigor,’ Bloom said, ‘It was like a Roman emperor – thumbs up or thumbs down.’ Staff claimed the ministry was pervaded by a culture of fear and anyone who spoke out was punished. Retribution was swift and brutal.” (p5) This seems to be a description of the anonymous whistleblower complaints, designed to force Patrick out.  It would have been good if Tim Wyatt had reminded readers of this.  Bloom himself has never seen Patrick leading the work so is probably relying also on these same whistleblower complaints, which, as Mr Wyatt himself says, were made with the deliberate intention of forcing Patrick out and, as Mr Wyatt omits to say, were anonymous.   Other staff have made written statements in praise and appreciation of Patrick’s leadership style. If you would like to quote some, we will be happy to provide them. Since the introduction of an International CEO position in about 2015, Patrick became increasingly isolated from most of the staff, with the ICEOs (first Hendrik Storm, then Noel Frost) telling him and those close to him not to interact directly with the staff but to communicate with staff through them, the ICEO. There were processes for financial decisions and making payments, and all financial movements were known to and controlled by the ICEO.  There was a committee to decide on project grants. See below.   The article contains quotes from the Crowell and Moring report (p5-6) but does not say that the report is one-sided in that Patrick and the others accused did not respond to Crowell and Moring because they did not have confidence that Crowell and Moring were able to investigate impartially. Instead, they asked the board of Nexcus International (BAI) and Colin Bloom at least four times to provide an alternative investigator, one who was in a position to be independent and impartial, for whom they would be happy to answer questions.   It is not the UK government but the Charity Commission of England and Wales who must currently authorise payments over £4,000 (p6).   “The board replaced Sookhdeo with Bloom.” (p6). It should be made clear that this is not the board of Barnabas Aid UK but the board of Nexcus International (called in this article Barnabas Aid International) who brought in Colin Bloom, ostensibly to replace Noel Frost as International CEO. Colin Bloom has not assumed the title of “International Director” which was Patrick’s role.   Patrick has never said he is still in charge of the real Barnabas Aid (p6). TBF Trust, of which he is chair, is a charity that was formed before the charity Barnabas Aid and was for some years called “The Barnabas Fund”. For a few years, before the formation of Barnabas Aid, it was the public face and channel for giving to Barnabas Fund. However, the initials TBF now mean “The Believers’ Fellowship”.   Neither the Barnabas Aid board nor Patrick is aware of any “Sookhdeo’s supporters” turning up at Colin Bloom’s home and photographing his family (p7). But we wonder if Tim Wyatt has been made aware of the scandal surrounding Colin Bloom and his family and pets moving into a large house, owned by the charity Servants Fellowship International (SFI) without the knowledge or agreement of SFI’s board. The family’s presence and furniture prevent the building being used any more for Christian work.     “Today, every penny is accounted for.” (p8) “What has changed is our resolute commitment to acting with integrity.” (p9). These are two quotes from Colin Bloom in the article.  Under Colin Bloom, however, donations are not being used for the purposes for which they were given. At one end of the scale Mr Mark Ellse has asked for the return of a large gift which could not be used for the purpose for which he gave it but Colin Bloom has not responded.    At the other end of the scale, Waverton Evangelical Church has been giving small monthly donations to support a particular Kenyan couple which are no longer being forwarded to Kenya, but the donor church has not been told.  This kind of thing would not have happened before Colin Bloom took charge.   Colin Bloom is said to be holding regular town-hall-style meetings with donors to show them where all the money is going (p8). Even the board of Barnabas Aid UK are told virtually nothing about where the charity’s money is going despite asking for this information. So, it is hard to believe that the donors are told more.  Colin Bloom also holds “town-hall” meetings for the staff at which he indicates he will answer any questions they have, but some staff have commented that there are many questions asked at such meetings which he does not answer either on the day or in the future.  When asked about his own salary at one such meeting, he refused to give a figure. He also refused to give a figure when asked by a member of the Barnabas Aid UK board what his salary was.   Staff are said to now “make spending decisions based on evidence and data, not the whims of the founder” (p8). If this is a reference to project grants, then we have been told that the grant decisions are now made by a committee comprising representatives from each of the national boards. The identity of most of these individuals has been concealed from us, the majority of the board of Barnabas Aid UK, but from what we do know and from what we know about the other members of the national boards, it does not appear that they are people who have relevant experience to guide them in the decision-making on project grants.  Before Colin Bloom’s leadership, project decisions were made by a Projects and Disbursements Committee comprising people chosen for having relevant experience and expertise. No project decisions were made by Patrick alone and sometimes his suggestions were overridden by others in the Projects and Disbursements Committee meetings.   We have no evidence that Barnabas Aid is sending more funds [presumably meaning as project grants] than ever before, as claimed on p8.  In fact, what evidence is available to this board suggests the opposite. The management accounts of 31 March 2025 compare grants for the first quarter of 2025 (by the end of which period Colin Bloom had been in place for almost a year) with the first quarter of 2024 (ending a few weeks before the ousting of Patrick Sookhdeo).  It shows that project grants for this period in 2024 were $2,793,000 whereas project grants for the same period in 2025 were $2,304,000.   Staff members are reported to have told Christianity Today that the changes from Sookhdeo’s leadership to Bloom’s are “night and day” (p8).  We wonder if Mr Wyatt was made aware that over 20 UK-based staff in Barnabas Aid and Nexcus have left since Bloom took over.  Some were made redundant (it is noticeable that these were people loyal to Patrick Sookhdeo) and others left because they were unhappy working in Colin Bloom’s Barnabas Fund. We are aware of at least one more who is only waiting to get another job before they too leave.  Some staff have described Colin Bloom as a dictator who makes all the decisions himself.   Mark Woods describes Colin Bloom as a very experienced Christian leader (p9). But the only previous experience of Christian ministry which Bloom is known to have had is in connection with the Conservative Party and running a network of Christian care homes. Tim Wyatt himself says this in the article. Neither of these seem relevant to Barnabas Aid.   Additionally, the Chair, Mr Philip Richards, wishes to remind Tim Wyatt, the journalist, that he has been the Chairman, as indicated on both the Charity Commission of England and Wales and Companies House UK websites, for over a year. Why didn’t he contact the chair for comment?   On behalf of Philp Richards, Chairman of Barnabas Aid UK and the Majority BA UK Board. – Dr. Chris Sugden

PRESS RELEASE September 6, 2025   Dear Seminary of the Southwest Alumni and Friends,   With a heavy heart, I write to inform you that yesterday the Board terminated Dean and President Scott Bader-Saye effective immediately.   Dean Bader-Saye’s termination comes following his admission of developing an inappropriate relationship with an employee with whom he was in a supervisory relationship. The behavior violates the professional standards required of all employees of the Seminary by the Personnel Handbook and the Safeguarding God’s People policies included therein, and of the faculty by the Faculty Handbook. As Dean and President, he was responsible for abiding by those policies himself, as well as ensuring they were upheld by all members of the community and responding appropriately when they were not. As Professor of Christian Ethics and Moral Theology and Dean and President of the Seminary, Dr. Bader-Saye bore the greatest responsibility for careful compliance with these policies and for leading by example.   Though his departure will require careful planning and attention, both in the short term and for the healthy future of the Seminary, the Board, Academic Dean Ben King, the President’s Cabinet, and the faculty have begun that important task. We all have deep confidence in the day-to-day work of the formation of students and of the administration of the Seminary’s mission.   To support the Faculty and Administration in their work, the Board is looking for a short-term Acting Dean preparatory to calling an Interim Dean to serve during a search process.   The current Ethics class will be taught by Dr. Tony Baker, Professor of Theology, whose PhD is in Theology, Ethics, and Culture, and who worked with Dr. Bader-Saye to design and coordinate the Theology and Ethics portions of our curriculum. Other adjustments to duties will be communicated as they are determined.   I know that this news will be unsettling individually and collectively. I invite you to join me in prayer for all those affected, especially for our students, faculty, and staff. We place our trust in God’s deep love and power to heal. Know that we are providing pastoral resources for the community and for individuals in the coming days and weeks. In challenging moments, I find it helpful to remember our purpose, articulated in our mission statement: “Rooted in the reconciling ministry of Christ, the mission of Seminary of the Southwest is to form people for vocations of ministry, service, and healing.” Upholding the dignity of every person, maintaining healthy boundaries, and respecting professional standards are central to the lives and work for which this Seminary forms its students. These principles require truth-telling, repentance, and appropriate consequences as part of the journey of reconciliation.   I ask your continual prayers and support as we seek to be true to this mission.   With trust in the God who redeemed all of us, all sinners, through the life, death, and resurrection of God’s Son and our Savior Jesus Christ,   Signed: Rt. Rev. Kathryn M. Ryan: chair, Board of Trustees                  Rt. Rev. Andrew Doyle, Bishop of Texas

By RICHARD N. OSTLING ASSOCIATED PRESS     PLANO, Texas (AP) - Conservative Episcopalians appeared on track to launch a new nationwide protest organization Tuesday as they began the second and final day of a meeting to launch their Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes.     The movement, which hopes for significant support from foreign Anglicans, was prompted by the decision of an Episcopal Church’s convention last August to approve openly gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. But Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, the group’s leader, told a Monday news briefing that Robinsons name wasn’t even mentioned during the first days deliberations.     Instead, he said, the 100 bishops, representing 12 dioceses and various conservative parishes in other dioceses, focused on building a united, orthodox and missionary Anglicanism in the United States.     The delegates at the meeting plan to complete an organizational charter for the network. They also are trying to produce a new theological statement based upon previous conservative platforms.     Organizers say the network is no schism but a church within a church whose followers will remain Episcopalians. One reason not to quit: most parishes would be forced to surrender their properties to the denomination.     Duncan said the Episcopal Church’s split from its own history when it endorsed Robinson, while the network upholds traditional Episcopal teaching, so who left?     Episcopal Church’s headquarters in New York has issued no formal statement about the meeting.     The Episcopal Church’s is the U.S. branch of the international Anglican Communion, in which many overseas churches have protested Robinsons consecration. Some have broken fellowship with the Episcopal Church’s or its majority of pro-gay bishops.       The network hopes to become the American entity to which foreign Anglicans can relate. Canon Bill Atwood of the Texas-based Ekklesia Society, which aids churches in developing nations, said in a phone interview from Uganda that bishops who lead a majority of the worlds Anglicans are preparing a joint statement to recognize the network.       A leaked memo from one network activist said the ultimate goal is a replacement jurisdiction aligned with world Anglicanism. A key leader said Sunday that the concept originated with the overseas Anglican leaders and decisions on replacement are up to them.       The chief business of the Plano meeting is to agree on an organizational charter to govern the network's early phase. Some delegates worked Monday night in hopes of also fashioning a theological declaration drawn from previous conservative documents.     Perhaps the touchiest issue is whether the network should send bishops to minister to conservative parishes in liberal dioceses, even without denominational permission.       The 12 dioceses at the heart of the network have 235,000 members, or a 10th of the nation’s Episcopalians, though some parishioners in these dioceses hold liberal views.     The world Anglican leader, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, named a commission to report by Sept. 30 on solutions to the global division over the U.S. actions and a parallel dispute over Canadian church blessings for same-sex couples.     END

By David W. Virtue 1/19/2004     PLANO, TX-An orthodox Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes representing some 100 bishops, clergy and lay delegates from 12 Episcopal Church’s dioceses met for the first in time in an historic meeting here, with moderator Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan telling a press conference briefing that what will emerge is a united, orthodox and missionary Anglicanism The Episcopal Church’s is currently being torn apart over recent decisions by the church’s General Convention to pass legislation affirming same-sex rites and for consecrating an openly non-celibate homosexual to the episcopacy. Five major Christian groups: Roman Catholic, Russian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox and Armenian Orthodox have suspended relations with the ECUSA, with two expressing solidarity with orthodox Episcopalians. Nine Anglican provinces have suspended (impaired and/or broken) communion with ECUSA over its moral actions.       We have a seven fold purpose: To bring the Network into existence, adopt a simple charter with provision for incorporation; to give hope to the orthodox of the Episcopal Church’s, with some sense that there is a future; to adopt a structure appropriate to the Networks early life; to elect the Networks officers; to begin to create and to live as a Network with Missions DNA; to prosper the cause of Adequate Episcopal Oversight and to renew international, ecumenical and North American Anglican relationships, said Duncan.       The Pittsburgh bishop has emerged as the leader of the biblically orthodox in ECUSA and is an Evangelical Anglo-Catholic in theology and ecclesiology. He is the convener of the Network.     Duncan was at pains to avoid language like schism, parallel jurisdiction or a church within a church at a press conference, telling some 30 media that V. Gene Robinsons name was never mentioned during the first day of the two-day meeting.     We want to renew Anglicanism in this part of the world. We have a vision for a united orthodox and missionary Anglicanism. This is what this meeting is about.     We worked on the articles of a draft charter including why we felt it was necessary to produce this charter. We will also be working on a theological statement, from several groups that have already produced such statements like the American Anglican Council (AAC), Forward in Faith North America (FIFNA) and the Anglican Church Dioceses of Parishes Advent statement.     Duncan said the 12 orthodox dioceses sent its bishop and four representatives, representing clusters from different parts of the country where there is hostility to what we stand for. He cited the need in such areas as New England, Southeast US and West Coast where there were small clusters of biblically orthodox believers in largely hostile dioceses.     Responding to a question about how this Network can work inside the Episcopal Church’s when clearly it could not hope to win politically, Duncan responded by saying that The Episcopal Church’s exceeded its own constitution and was functioning outside of its own authority but we are working within that constitutional framework.     Duncan acknowledged that there was disagreement about how we did this. We are faithful Episcopalians. We are staying within the constitution. We want to be in The Episcopal Church’s but not of it.     The other side split from its own history and the communion this summer [at General Convention], not us.     Asked what brought them to this point, Duncan replied that there were theological developments and a decision that 13 of our bishops took in November with a Memorandum of Agreement. We are about historic faith and order. Robinson is not the issue. He [Robinson] would not have been consecrated if there had been an agreed upon understanding of its [the church’s] constitution. The Episcopal Church’s can’t do that it must come back.     Duncan said 11 of the 12 bishops were there; the 12th Bishop Terence Kelshaw from the Diocese of the Rio Grande could not be present but sent a full voting delegation.     The conference is being held at the 2,000-member Christ Church, Plano parish under the rectorship of Canon David Roseberry.     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 Councils 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 ECUSAs 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 Communions 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 Networks 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 FIFNAs 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 Hookers]     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 Dioceses 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 criterion for our Lords 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.

Vice Chancellor Uganda Christian University   By Stephen Noll   While there are many high principles of theology and ecclesiology worth discussing at this time of historic crisis, the bread-and-butter political issue facing most conservative leaders in ECUSA is how to keep the property.     Several years ago, I wrote that the key issues were twofold: international recognition and property. In my opinion, the first issue is now settled. Conservatives have already received adequate recognition by the Primates-Who-Count to consider themselves an ongoing part of the Anglican Communion. It strikes me that most conservatives are willing even to forego recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury if they can be partnered with the Province of Nigeria. Is this not so. So the main problem now is property. I begin with an anecdote from one of the first AAC Board meetings in 1996. I posed to an AAC bishop the question: What if your liberal counterpart in the House of Bishops came to you with a proposal to stop the infighting in the Church by means of a property settlement, for example, by allowing each congregation to decide whether it wanted to affiliate with Church A or Church B. I asked: Would you take up the offer?  In a moment! was his reply.       Again, one of the truly great post-mortem remarks from GC 2003 was Canon David Anderson's comment that the AAC was looking for as amicable a separation as Gene Robinson had gotten from his wife.     Acrimonious divorce       The problem is, when it comes to church property, the Episcopal establishment is not interested in amicable settlements. Why? Because they wrote the divorce law in such a way that no-fault divorce and equal division of the property is not an option. And they are either mean-spirited and power-hungry or self-deluded enough to make it stick.       One might think true liberals would say: OK, we admit it. We have made a daring departure from 2,000 years of Christian teaching on sexuality. We believe this decision is prophetic, but we acknowledge that many will see it as a deviation from Scripture and tradition on a matter of conscience. Therefore, in the spirit of Gamaliel, we are willing to let conservatives follow their conscience and take their property with them. When our cause is vindicated, we shall graciously welcome them back into our fold. But they don’t say that, because they are mean-spirited and power-hungry, governed by neo-Marxist convictions that all conflicts of right are veiled conflicts of might, in which case they think: We've got the power, they want it; why should we give it up? Or they are self-deluded, believing their own theo-propaganda that homosexuality is unarguably the work of the Holy Spirit which conservatives are resisting.       The fact is, they do hold the power in the constitutions and canons of the Episcopal Church’s USA, which are the only governing documents recognized by the secular courts in matters of property ownership. Case after legal case has demonstrated this. Again, one may have a theoretical debate about whether the Dennis canon is the mother of all evils. The irony, of course, is that the same people who believe the Bible “ the fundamental constitution of the Christian Church “can be twisted into pluriform knots become wooden literalists when it comes to the Episcopal Church. But that’s the way it is: we can’t change this fact.     Exodus strategy     In my opinion, this reality explains much of the apparent machinations and win-win statements of the American Anglican Council. To be sure, the AAC began with the hope that the Episcopal Church could be reformed from within. I think that in recent years, at least since GC 2000 and GC 2003, most of the AAC leaders and members have come to agree that the Episcopal Church is unreformable. The problem they are facing is: how do we get out of Egypt with the booty?       The problem of property also explains why the most coherent and the best short-term reactions to the present crisis have been happening at a diocesan level “but only in dioceses with a strong bishop that have already been thoroughly infiltrated by conservatives (Pittsburgh, South Carolina, Florida, Central Florida, Fort Worth, Quincy, Albany, any others?). Constitutionally, the national church will find it hard to depose the bishops and recapture whole dioceses, although it may be able to prevent them from freeing their parishes (for example, if the lawsuit against the Diocese of Pittsburgh succeeds, which it may). Parishes and clergy in hostile or lukewarm dioceses, however, seem extremely vulnerable. I assume this is one reason why some have kept a low profile over the last decade as the spectre of Gene Robinson slouched toward Minneapolis to be born. I would assume that this is because some clergy have sworn to live and die with their episcopal boots on and have foolishly kept their congregations in the dark on the pending crisis. Honestly, how many of you clergy out there wouldn’t jump at the chance to join a parallel orthodox jurisdiction within the Anglican Communion if you could take your pension, your buildings, and your budget with you?     Viable options     The problem is, it looks like you can’t have it all, barring an act of God. Look at your options:     1. Take the Anglican Mission in America route and leave now.     2. Wait and see if the Primates and the AAC leaders can carve out an alternative jurisdiction with at least quasi-rights of tenure and property ownership via alternative episcopal oversight.     3. Muddle along congregationally and hope your bishop or the next GC don't force you out.     Have I missed any other options? A long-shot might be a lawsuit claiming that the Episcopal Church’s has violated its Constitution and thus its canons are of no effect.     This option, it seems to me, would only work if the Primates, including the ABC and/or the Lambeth Conference, excommunicated ECUSA and named an alternative jurisdiction as the legitimate USA branch of the Communion. This will not happen immediately, and even if it does, I’m not sure we’d get the property from the secular courts.     Let me conclude with a brief spiritual reflection. By focusing on the property issue I am not necessarily accusing conservatives of bowing the knee to Mammon. As someone recently noted, all property is Gods and we have an obligation to be stewards of it as best we can. We also have responsibilities to provide for our families “though not necessarily in the manner to which we have been accustomed. We also know that Jesus sometimes calls his disciples to sell all that you have and follow me. This is part of our Reformation Anglican heritage “ let goods and kindred go and has been experienced on the mission field and in the Global South churches.     I am sure that there is room for us conservatives to think together about the ecclesiastical crisis we are in “both theologically and politically. But let’s be patient and charitable, aware that we are working within very constricted parameters, and let’s be attentive to Gods call in case at some point we may have to get out now.   END

By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent and Jonathan Wynne-Jones THE DAILY TELEGRAPH 1/19/2004     The Church of England is being asked to take its biggest step towards accepting the primacy of the Pope and the concept of infallibility since Henry VIII broke from Rome 450 years ago.     A joint Roman Catholic and Anglican report arguing that the Pope should be recognised as the universal primates to be debated by the General Synod next month. Church leaders anxious to promote unity have welcomed the proposals, but they will meet fierce resistance from conservative Protestants.       The Rev David Phillips, the general secretary of the Church Society and a Synod member, said: We would reject universal primacy even if the papacy is reformed. There is no way we would want to be linked to the Roman Catholic Church. On some issues, its teaching is even worse now than it was at the Reformation.       The Gift of Authority report was published several years ago by the Third Anglican/ Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC).       It argued that Anglicans should accept the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as long as the Pope devolved much of his power to his bishops and local churches.       More controversially, the report also suggests that the Church as a body could, in certain circumstances, make infallible pronouncements on matters of teaching.     Most Anglicans, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, are opposed to the present concept of papal infallibility, which allows the Pope to make such declarations, which cannot be overturned, on his own. In reality, however, there have been only a few such ex cathedra statements, relating mainly to the Virgin Mary. Catholic teaching on controversial issues such as birth control is not covered.     The Pope has recently signalled his willingness to re-examine his role and even evangelical bishops have indicated that they could accept him as a spokesman.     However, many will view the Synod debate as largely academic as unity talks have been derailed by the Anglican decision to ordain women and the row over homosexuality.     Moreover, the Bishop of Peterborough, the Rt Rev Ian Cundy, who is the chairman of the Church of England’ s Council for Christian Unity, is expected to slow progress on the ARCIC report further when the Synod meets from Feb 9.       While the bishop will welcome moves towards greater unity between the Churches, he will criticise aspects of the report and ask for more detail and clarity in key areas.      END

By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent THE TELEGRAPH 13/01/2004     The Church of England lost 100,000 worshippers between 2000 and 2002, according to figures that will make gloomy reading for the clergy.     The decline of nearly eight per cent is greater than some statisticians expected.      Figures show signs of growth in attendance among the young.   In 2002 the average number of people attending a church at least once a week was 1,166,000, down from 1,274,000 two years earlier, the Church’s provisional figures show the average number going to a service on Sunday but not during the rest of the week was 1,002,000, down from 1,058,000 in 2000. Between 2001 and 2002, one diocese lost 5,600 weekly worshippers and another lost 4,700.     But the Church said there were signs of growth among young people, with the average number of under-16s attending church at least once a month increasing by one per cent between 2001 and 2002.     It is evidence for the first time in a long time that the rapid decline in the numbers of young people going to church may have stopped, a Church of England spokesman said.     Peter Brierley, the executive director of Christian Research, an independent organisation, said the overall drop was worrying and needed urgent attention. Dr Brierley, a former Government statistician, predicted that the decline could speed up after about 2020 when ageing churchgoers died.     He said his research suggested that smaller churches tended to do better than larger ones. A few churches, mostly evangelical, were growing.     The Church’s official figures show that a number of dioceses, including London, Exeter and Manchester, added to their numbers between 2001 and 2002.     Others suffered dramatically. Blackburn lost 3,000 worshippers at weekly services, Liverpool lost 3,000, Lichfield 4,700 and Chester 5,600.     END

By RICHARD N. OSTLING The Associated Press     PLANO, Texas (AP) - Episcopalians opposed to a gay bishops consecration and other liberal church trends are threatening to establish a ``church within a church that could pose a significant threat to leaders of the denomination.     A two-day meeting beginning Monday of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes involves conservative bishops, clergy and lay delegates from 12 dioceses with 235,000 members, a tenth of the nation’s Episcopalians. The network's temporary leader, Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, says the meeting will give traditionalists some sense there is a future.      Delegates will adopt an organizational charter, elect leaders and debate how to help conservative parishes in liberal dioceses. Planners insist the network isn’t a breakaway denomination or schism, but a ``church within a church.     Outside observers and reporters have been barred from the meeting and the network has been tightlipped about most details, including who wrote the charter draft and what it proposes.      One reason conservative parishes don’t want to officially leave the church is that under secular law they usually surrender their properties to the denomination. The Rev. Donald Armstrong, a delegate representing Midwestern and Mountain states, says of his Colorado Springs, Colo., parish, ``Weve got a $12 million facility and we can’t just walk away from it.     The Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch of the international Anglican Communion, consisting of denominations that stem from the Church of England. Many foreign Anglican churches have denounced or broken fellowship with the Episcopal Church’s over its November consecration of New Hampshire's V. Gene Robinson, who has lived for years with a gay partner.     A dispute over network intentions last week showed the edginess of the moment. A leaked memo from a network leader said the ``ultimate goal was a ``replacement jurisdiction aligned with the conservative majority in world Anglicanism.       The host bishop, James Stanton of Dallas, says calling the network schismatic “gets things exactly backwards because” the act of schism was the national denomination's approval for Robinson.       On Sunday night Canon David Anderson, president of the American Anglican Council that is helping organize the network, charged that attacks were unleashed to “derail the network meeting.”     Anderson said the Episcopal Church’s actions created the need for a new structure “through which orthodox Episcopalians can remain in full fellowship with Anglicans worldwide, and any” replacement is up to overseas Anglican leaders who suggested the idea.       Within the United States, the crunch point is likely to involve conservative congregations existing under pro-gay bishops. The Episcopal Church’s presiding bishop, Frank Griswold, has proposed a plan for temporary visiting bishops for disgruntled conservatives, but network leaders say its inadequate.   Parishes in 37 dioceses have applied to the network to provide visiting bishops. An ecclesiastical tangle would result if the network sends bishops into dioceses without permission from regular local bishops. Last week’s leaked memo said such disobedience of church law ``may be necessary and conservatives should be prepared to risk trials in church or secular courts.     However, Bishop Stanton opposes such lawbreaking. He wants a positive tone so the network can gain further support among the 43 Episcopal bishops who voted against the elevation of Robinson. Sixty-two bishops backed Robinson.       END

Today, Monday (Jan. 19) and Tuesday (Jan. 20) the Organizing Convocation of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes will meet at Christ Church Episcopal in Plano, Texas. Twelve Episcopal dioceses are sending representatives to this historic gathering.  The Convocation is a significant step forward in the ongoing realignment of Anglicanism in North AmericaAttacks unleashed against the AAC   A letter to AAC members from the Rev. Canon David Anderson   1/18/04     Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,   Greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ!   This past week a series of attacks were unleashed against the AAC in a thinly veiled effort to derail the Network Convocation. There is an attempt to divide the participants by painting the American Anglican Council, and those who uphold the biblical faith, as the cause of the current crisis in the Episcopal Church’s.     Here’s how the attacks began: A draft strategy paper drawn up by an AAC subcommittee on Adequate Episcopal Oversight (AEO) was given to at least three media outlets (Washington Post, Religion News Service, and the UKs Guardian) by an unknown source this past week. The draft strategy paper was reported by a Washington Post article as supposed proof of a hidden AAC agenda to supplant the Episcopal Church’s.   While this makes a good storyline, there was almost nothing in the draft strategy paper that the AAC and others haven’t said publicly before.  It is no secret that the AAC has been pursuing Adequate Episcopal Oversight as a way to provide relief and pastoral care for orthodox congregations in hostile dioceses. Since October, we have had an oversight application form and guidelines posted on our website! More importantly, the Anglican Primates said unanimously in October that adequate oversight must be implemented in ECUSA. It is also no secret that ECUSA has abandoned the historic faith and doctrine of the Church and has tragically broken its fellowship with most of the Anglican Communion.  And it is also no secret that, because of ECUSAs actions, there now needs to be a new structure formed through which orthodox Episcopalians can remain in full fellowship with Anglicans worldwide.       As for a desire to replace, it is the mainstream Anglican Primates, themselves, who have suggested it.  Will there ultimately be such a replacement jurisdiction? We can’t know, and even if we desired it, it is not up to the AAC or orthodox Episcopalians to make that decision. It is up to the Anglican Primates.       Expect more of these types of attacks. They will probably get nastier and more personal in the days ahead.  Don’t believe what you hear and be assured that these attacks will not deter the AAC. The plain truth is this: the General Convention of ECUSA brought this pain and division on our Church.     Stand firm and remember that Jesus is the only truth, and His truth will prevail.     Faithfully in Christ Jesus,     The Rev. Canon David C. Anderson AAC President and CEO

With regard to your article entitled Dissident Anglican Parish back in fold, I wish to clarify the situation.  Bishop Michael Ingham, through his appointed wardens, is forcing the parish to rejoin the diocese.  The last parish vestry meeting clearly instructed the elected trustees and wardens, who have since been dismissed by the Bishop, to continue allegiance with the ACiNW.  The bishop will not hold another vestry meeting because he knows that a clear majority of parishioners would vote against him.  He must be held accountable for his actions.     Florence Wilton,  St. Martins Parishioner ---------------       As a member of St. Martins for the past 25 years, none of Bishop Ingham’s appointed wardens speak for my wife and I or the majority of members of St. Martins.   Bishop Ingham has disobeyed the House of Bishops, the worldwide Anglican Communion, and breached the obligations he swore to when Consecrated - specifically, to be an instrument of unity in the church, and uphold the teachings of the church.  He answers to no one.  He has portrayed the dissenting parishioners of St. Martins as homophobic and divisive rebels, even though we are in keeping with what Anglicans believe around the world.                                                                       Gordon & Erica Barrett     -------------- I am rarely moved to write letters to the editor, but I find that I simply must protest Douglas Todd's article today. Regardless of what the Diocese of New Westminster may be claiming, the majority of parishioners at St. Martins have NOT agreed to the things which the bishop's warden may be suggesting.  They have not been allowed to express any opinion in a democratic fashion since the bishop took over, so how these claims can be made as though they were the will of the parish defies any definition of truth it is quite clear, if the facts are investigated, that a handful of diocesan appointees are making unilateral decisions on behalf of the diocese, and claiming that these are the decisions of the parish.  The diocese may make whatever claims it wishes, using whomever may be willing to be used as their spokespersons, but that does not establish those claims as true.          In fact, the leaders chosen by the legitimate vote of the parishioners have been systematically removed and replaced since the diocesan takeover.  Every person in any position of leadership or authority (right down to the Sunday school teachers) who do not agree with the bishop or the diocese have been removed or barred from exercising ministry in the parish.  The parish has not been consulted regarding their wishes, nor have they been afforded any opportunity to make decisions about the future of the parish.          It is difficult to imagine how this could be construed as a way forward. When the expressed wishes of the people are being ignored, when their right to be consulted about the future of their own parish is being denied, and when they are being dictated to by unelected leaders appointed to do the will of the diocese it is difficult to imagine how any sort of wonderful sense of community can possibly be built.       Sincerely, Linda Seale chairperson of the ACiNW media committee.     ----------------       For Douglas Todd to say that the lay leadership of St. Martins has decided to return to the fold by restoring relations with the Diocese of New Westminster is to imply that Lindsay Buchanan (cited in the article) and the other wardens appointed by Bishop Michael Ingham somehow have the moral and legal authority to make such a decision. However, these wardens do not enjoy the support of the majority of parishioners of St. Martins. If they think they do, they should call a vestry meeting to see if they can persuade others to their point of view. Fat chance.       Gerry & Linda Taunton St. Martin Parishioners North Vancouver, BC     ----------------     For Douglas Todd’s report in the Vancouver Sun, Fri. Jan. 16, to truly be factual & complete, the following items must be included. I presume this to be your mandate to your readers.     On Sept 7, the Bishop FIRED the entire elected Church Committee, as well as the Newsletter Editors, Roster of Collection Counters, Telephone Coordinator & even the Youth Pastor. He then imposed a form of MARTIAL LAW.     How could these actions help St. Martins?   On Sept. 28, an ALL Parishioners Vestry meeting was held. Trustees were confirmed, Wardens, Treasurer and a full slate of committee members democratically elected, but are ignored.     The Lay leadership consists of an Interim priest & the three (3) imposed Wardens. This in spite of the fact they represent 22% of the Parish, while 78% Orthodox/Conservative Parishioners are being told follow me or leave.     Since when does the Minority rule - only in the Diocese of New Westminster you say! John Hopkins North Vancouver B.C.   END

Jan. 17, 2004   by: BOBBY ROSS JR. Associated Press     PLANO, Texas - The Rev. Canon David Roseberry has built the congregation he started in 1985 with 13 members into the Episcopal Church’s that boasts the largest attendance in the nation.     His success with the flourishing Christ Church Episcopal - which draws 2,200 worshippers each weekend to this Dallas suburb - has helped make him a national leader in the conservative revolt against his denominations consecration of an openly gay bishop.     I feel like a very unlikely leader for all of this, said the 48-year-old rector, whose church will welcome a constituting convention of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes next week. Yet the upcoming meeting puts him, once again, in the thick of the debate over homosexuality within his denomination.     The conventions aim will be to produce a church-within-a-church arrangement, so that Episcopal conservatives - estimated by opponents as roughly 15 percent of the denominations 2.3 million members - can work together directly. Its relationship to the Episcopal Church’s national structure is still emerging.     Bishops, clergy and lay delegates from as many as a dozen conservative dioceses plan to develop an organizational charter and a theological platform during the two-day session, which starts Monday.     Roseberry’s high-profile role doesn’t surprise the Rev. Alden Hathaway, a former Pittsburgh bishop who became the priest’s mentor after a chance meeting in Tucson, Ariz., two decades ago.     He’s a natural leader,  said Hathaway, now retired and living in Tallahassee, Fla. I think one reason why is the way he sees himself. He doesn’t have any aspirations or any ego or any need to put himself forward at all.     When Hathaway first met Roseberry in the early 1980s, the recent seminary graduate was divorced and out of sorts, unsure what he believed. After two years of ministry in his native Arizona, Roseberry said, he was out of gas and had no strength.     I was preaching a kind of open-ended, God-loves-you, easy gospel, and I realized that people weren’t changing.     Hathaway challenged him to take a giant leap of faith and trust the Scriptures.     Roseberry said emphasis on the Bible as the error-free word of God was a new concept for him and changed his approach to ministry. When he started Christ Church, he said, he wanted a parish as rooted in the Scriptures as ceremonial tradition.     His vision of a Bible-believing church plays heavily in his opposition to the Episcopal General Conventions approval last August of the Rev. V. Gene Robinson as New Hampshire bishop. Robinson has lived openly with his male partner for 14 years.     There are fewer subjects about which the Bible is more clear than homosexuality, Roseberry said.     For those on the other side, however, the issue is far less clear-cut.     The Rev. Canon Mark Harris, a Delaware priest, said he finds it offensive when conservatives such as Roseberry so easily dismiss progressive interpretations of the Bible.     I’m glad (Roseberry) is struggling with Scriptures, said Harris, past director of the Global Episcopal Mission Network. It just happens when I struggle with them, I come out in a different place as to whether gays and lesbians ought to have a place in the church.     After the General Conventions vote in Minneapolis, Roseberry resigned as a delegate and booked a flight home.     In October, his church hosted a meeting of 2,700 Episcopal traditionalists at a Dallas hotel. Roseberry moderated the meeting and helped take the groups concerns to Anglican Communion primates in London.     As he has spoken out, his own past has drawn scrutiny. A Dallas Morning News columnist noted that Roseberry’s divorce would disqualify him as a minister or even deacon in many churches. I confessed my sin, Roseberry told The Associated Press. God gave me a new chance.     He and his second wife, Fran, married 20 years ago. He adopted her two children and they had two of their own.     Christ Church combines the liturgy and communion of Roseberry’s youth with a biblical emphasis that he suggests most Episcopal Church’s lack. The musical program ranges from the 18th century All Hail The Power of Jesus Name to the 21st century Here I Am To Worship.     The mix of sacred rites and evangelical-style preaching drew John Bock, who grew up Roman Catholic, and his wife, Melody Bock, who was raised Southern Baptist. An estimated 75 percent of parishioners had no Episcopal ties before joining Christ Church.     God didn’t call me to be Baptist, Methodist or anything else, said Melody Bock, 44. He called me to be his child.     But while denominational labels mean nothing to many of Roseberry’s parishioners, the Episcopal rift deeply troubles their priest.      The Episcopal Church’s that I’ve given my life to and that really raised me has a rip in the hull that is going to send it to the bottom of the ocean in just a matter of decades, he said. I don’t want to have wasted my life on a sinking ship.     http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/7731919.htm