News Analysis By David W. Virtue August 14, 2004   It's been going on for years. Secret, closed-door meetings, the equivalent of smoke-filled rooms and Tammany Hall styled politics. Latterly it became semi-public small groups where bishops of opposing theologies and morals would face each other and attempt, with deep pain-filled looks, to try and smooth over irreconcilable theological and moral differences. If that didn't work everyone then took Eucharist together — the great Episcopal leveler. That is how the Episcopal Church House of Bishops has been operating all these years; and always with the hubris of "graceful conversation," "listening," and the new buzzwords of "inclusivity" and "diversity" filling the air, but in the end agreeing with whatever it is the Presiding Bishop thinks the direction the church should go in. It was always a shell game. The revisionists playing for time, often using local option, while pushing their liberal agenda. The orthodox kept drawing more lines in the sand and the revisionists kept pushing even further. Spong got louder and uglier in his bullying tactics, and the conservatives kept retreating for fear of offending the "moderate middle," hoping that the HOB might not swing radically to the left. It was all horrible self deception and lies. But this week back room politics and "smoke-filled rooms" came to a screeching halt. In an open letter to the Episcopal Church's Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, five senior bishops (all retired) expressed deep regret that a pattern of secrecy still continues in Episcopal leadership even as the doctrinal crisis in the denomination grows daily. What they were upset about was this. On March 14 of this year these five senior bishops crossed diocesan lines and confirmed 110 at an unprecedented and historic service in the Diocese of Ohio at a multi-congregational Service of Confirmation and Holy Eucharist representing five Episcopal churches and one Anglican church plant, from various communities in northern Ohio. A meeting planned for August 13, 2004 between the Presiding Bishop's Council of Advice led by Louisiana Bishop Charles Edward Jenkins III and the five bishops was cancelled after the Presiding Bishop refused to allow non-participating observers to attend. "We feel strongly that a meeting of this importance should not be held in secret," the letter reads. "There is a history of closed door meetings in the House of Bishops. Our distrust of closed meetings on vital issues, as well as our assessment of the gravity of the current crisis in this Church, compelled us to insist that our meeting with your Council of Advice include non-participating observers." The five bishops including C. Fitz-Simons Allison, Maurice Benitez, William Cox, Alex Dickson and William Wantland know only too well what such a meeting without observers would yield. The "Ohio Five" said in their letter that the real issue was the serious "departure from the faith" at the 2003 General Convention when bishops defeated Resolution B001, a measure affirming the historic faith. "It is difficult to understand how bishops could vote against the faith they swore to uphold at their consecration," they said in their letter. "It has been reported that bishops did this for political reasons. If this is true, then this is in pitiful contrast to our predecessors who stood for the Faith, even in the face of death." Then Bishop Maurice Benitez delivered the coup d'etat for the group. He wrote: "This defeat of B001 was in many ways worse than the two highly publicized decisions on V. Gene Robinson and same sex blessings because it tore away the foundation on which those decisions should have been based. We have abandoned 2000 years of Christian teaching on sexuality, but more importantly we have ignored the authority of Scripture. The result has been chaos in the Episcopal Church — ECUSA has lost large numbers of individuals and congregations, ecumenical relationships have been damaged and the denomination is now in a state of impaired communion with 22 of the 38 Anglican Provinces. The survival of the entire Anglican Communion is at stake." The five bishops said they were committed to public clarity on the issues rather than "private dialogue" which has so failed the church. "We need to acknowledge the reality of what has been wrought by ECUSA's faithlessness," said Bishop Alex Dickson. "Our concern is for those faithful Episcopalians who feel they cannot accept pastoral care from revisionist bishops and priests and feel 'like sheep without a shepherd.' We pray the Primates of the Anglican Communion will discipline ECUSA as well as provide pastoral relief to our Church," he concluded. — END —

By Frederica Mathewes-Green   My mother lives far from me. It's about a thirteen-hour drive to get there. She is in pain frequently now, though she brushes it off; her thinking gets confused, though she is always cheerful, in the wry and whimsical way I remember from childhood. I hear her faint voice on the phone, but she usually says she can't hear me. I rely on my sisters, who live closer, to manage most of her daily needs. Excellent doctors, pharmacists, and in-home caregivers help to make long-distance parental care possible, if not quite perfect. Care of elderly parents has been a burden throughout human history. From an aspect of cold calculation, elder neglect or abuse is a sensible crime. Little children are demanding, non-productive, and soil their pants, but you expect a return on your labor some day. Elderly parents are just as troublesome, but they're not going to get better. They're larger and heavier and sometimes smell just as bad. While interacting with a baby gives a mom or dad satisfaction and joy, emotions aren't as unclouded when all parties are older and care moves in the other direction. A son or daughter may feel a complex net of resentments and fears toward the parent they must now tend, wipe, and feed. August 15 is the day we remember the death of the Virgin Mary. She must have been an old woman then, though we never picture her so; paintings and icons always show her young. But she must have been about fifty when she gathered with the Apostles on the day of the first Pentecost. After that, according to Orthodox Christian legend, she volunteered to be a traveling evangelist, and drew lots along with the others to see which nation each should go to and preach. In her old age Mary went with St. John the Evangelist to the city of Ephesus in modern-day Turkey. This is the John who was standing with Mary at the foot of the Cross when Jesus spoke. "Woman, behold your son!" he said to her, and to John, "Behold your mother!" "And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home" (John 19:27). This was more than just hospitality. In undertaking the duty of a son to the Virgin Mary, John assumed a burden as well as a blessing. While some cultures have permitted adult children to abandon or even end the life of an elderly parent, the Hebrew Scriptures insist that the elderly are to be treated with respect, protected, and cared for, to the very end. It takes a strong command to guarantee such care, because eruptions of frustration and disgust, and the obvious question "What am I getting out of this?," push natural inclination the other way. When John took Mary to his own home, he accepted a solemn obligation. We don't know what her declining years were like. She may have been toothless and dim toward the end. John may have fed her soup from a spoon, settled her head on fresh pillows, turned her and changed her dressings. It is very hot in Ephesus this time of year. We can imagine a one-room stone house on a hillside, dark and still inside, yellow flowers dusting pollen outside the open window, children shouting on the hillside, a fly buzzing outside the wooden door. As one early August day succeeded another it must have become obvious that her end was very near. According to Orthodox legend, all the Apostles gathered at her bedside just before she died. In the icon we see them standing and kneeling around her little body stretched on a bed. Her eyes are closed and her small, thin hands are crossed on her chest. The Apostles stare and weep in distress at the departure of their beloved mother. In the midst of them Christ stands within a shimmering blue halo that surrounds his whole body, holding a tiny, white-swaddled figure in his arms. It reminds us of the familiar images of youthful Mary clasping her infant child, but this time it is the Son who holds the radiant soul of his mother. The feast of the Dormition, or as Roman Catholics call it, the Assumption, focuses on the departure of the Virgin Mary from this mortal human life. But there is another person in the story, John, who cared for her through all her last years, up till her death on that hot August day. John kneels next to her bed, tear-struck, clutching a bit of her mantle in his hands. Many of us who care for and worry about elderly parents need a patron saint to be a guiding example, to support us through hard daily toil and through even harder decisions. Holy Father John, pray to God for us. — END —

By Ted Schroder   In 490 B.C. King Darius of Persia invaded Greece and threatened the city of Athens. The Athenians sent their champion runner Pheidippides to Sparta to summon help. Pheidippides ran for two days and two nights the 140 miles to Sparta only to find that the Spartans were unwilling to respond until the moon was full. He ran back to Athens with the disappointing news. The Persians had landed on the Greek coast and gone into camp on the plain of Marathon, about 25 miles away. Pheidippides joined the famous Ten Thousand Athenian warriors who charged down upon the Persians and defeated them. Pheidippides was asked to carry the news of the victory back to Athens. He staggered into the city and announced, "Rejoice, we conquer!" then collapsed and died. Pheidippides is immortalized in history as the first marathon runner. It may be why the athletic footwear company chose Nike as its name: Nike being the Greek goddess of victory. St. Paul urges us: "Stand firm then ... with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace." (Ephesians 6:15) What we wear on our feet determines our stability, and our mobility. What shoes we wear affects how far we can walk or run comfortably. The wrong choice of footwear can cripple us, slow us down, and make us drop out of the line of march. An army may march on its stomach but it also marches on its feet. That is why care of one's feet, and one's footwear is a priority for a soldier. A soldier who cannot deploy himself quickly on his feet is a sitting duck, asking for trouble. When we get footsore we slow down and limp. The word we use for this condition is — lame. We also use this word lame to describe a person who is weak, inarticulate, or whose power is diminished by his position, e.g. lame duck. An argument that is weak and has no merit is called lame. The enemy harasses the lame, and takes advantage of their weakness. A lame Christian limps along in life, subject to attack, unstable and almost immobile, getting nowhere in his spiritual journey. Because he is lagging behind, and not keeping up with his commanding officer, he is vulnerable to attack. He suffers from neglecting to pay attention to his basic form of locomotion — what shoes he wears on his feet. Lameness is the result of wearing shoes that are inappropriate for the journey. Sore feet occur when we choose our footwear for appearance and for fashion rather than for comfort and utility. Can you imagine a soldier going into battle wearing dress shoes, or high heels? Yet we can walk through the hours of each day being more concerned for appearance, what looks cool, what blends in, than with substance and integrity. When we choose appearance and current fashion in order to meet our needs of acceptance and self esteem, we are vulnerable to spiritual attack and injury. We are relying on our being able to impress others for our peace of mind. This is why clothes and footwear are so important to us from childhood on. They help demonstrate what identity we want to project to others. A strong motivation in our lives is the desire to want to look good in the eyes of others. We want to impress our gang — our peers. Our peace is often dependent on that acceptance. Some people want to stand out and be different. Others want to blend in. Either way we are tempted to opt for inappropriate footwear — footwear that causes us to be unstable and immobile, sitting ducks for the enemy of our souls. What is the appropriate footwear for the battle of life — for the time of testing that we experience in this life? It is the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. The gospel of peace prepares us to be ready to deal with what life throws at us. If we are clothed with the gospel of peace, we are ready for what life may bring. What is this gospel of peace? First, it is the good news of peace with God. St. Paul argues that, as a result of being "justified by faith [i.e. having put on the breastplate of the righteousness of Christ], we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand." (Romans 5:1,2) If we are to fight the enemy of our souls, and win the victory, we have to be clear about our relationship with God. We need to be clear about our sinfulness, our need for salvation, for forgiveness, for acceptance before God. We need the stability of a harmonious relationship with God if we are to stand firm. There should be nothing that comes between us and God. We are to keep short accounts with God — confessing our sins and accepting his cleansing each day. It is what Jesus did for us on the Cross that purchased our peace with God. As we appropriate that peace by faith in Christ, we gain access into a relationship that ends our alienation from God. The gospel of peace is also peace within. We need peace within ourselves if we are to win the victory. Our stability comes from confidence about God being able to take care of us in daily life. If we are guilty, anxious, and worried about the issues that can distress us, we cannot defeat fear and despair. St. Paul urges, "Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus." (Philippians 4:6,7) A person who is shod with the gospel of peace will not be worried, anxious, troubled or frantic. Fear defeats us even before we start to run the race. Over the door of the mess at Virginia Military Academy are the words, "Never take counsel of your fears." When Jesus stilled the storm on the sea of Galilee he said to the disciples, "Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?" (Mark 5:40) His feet were shod with the gospel of peace. He could sleep in the midst of the storm. He could do so because he knew that his life was in the hand of God, and he trusted him. He could let go the need to be in control. He could be willing to suffer rather to trying to devise ways of avoiding suffering or making others suffer instead of himself. He found that inner peace in sacrificing, in caring for others more than himself. That resignation gave him peace within. We do well to follow his example. The gospel of peace is also peace with others. St. Paul gives his instruction on how to live in harmony with one another. He tells us not to be defensive. "Do not repay evil with evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." (Romans 12:17,18) How hard this is to do. We are so sensitive that we are quick to take offence. Our egoes are so fragile, our pride is so pervasive, that any slight, any implied criticism, any unconscious omission can inflame us and provoke us to retaliate. Again, the example of Christ is critical. If we claim to be Christians we will follow in his steps, shod with the shoes of the gospel of his peace. "When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead he trusted himself to him who judges justly." (1 Peter 2:23) He did not feel that he had to defend himself. It is God who judges justly, and we must trust him. Defensiveness just makes matters worse. The gospel of peace is the call to reconciliation, to living at peace with one another. The soldiers of the army of Christ are not meant to be fighting one another, but employing all their combined energy of the Spirit to fight the true enemy and conquer. The gospel of peace enables us to find the humility to do what it takes to live at peace with everyone. The gospel of peace has to be put on, just as shoes need to be put on and laced up. It requires us being willing to wear it every day. We put on these shoes of the gospel of peace through prayer. St. Francis of Assisi gave us this prayer: "Lord, make us instruments of your peace. Where there is hatred, let us sow love; where there is injury, pardon; Where there is doubt, faith; where there is despair, hope; Where there is darkness, light; where there is sadness, joy. Grant that we may not so much seek to be consoled as to console; To be understood as to understand; to be loved as to love. For it is in giving that we receive; It is in pardoning that we are pardoned; And it is in dying that we are born to eternal life." Amen. Eric Milner-White gave us this prayer: "Grant me, O God, the great gift of your peace, throughout the day and in the night season: using in quietness all the faculties you have given. Bestow a tranquility of mind and soul out of a faith settled and lively, secure from the world's fevers, Serene in the knowledge of your nearness, and of your perfect, unchanging will; dwelling in the light eternal and the truth invisible drawing from the wells of your wisdom. In the world we may have tribulation; in you we shall have peace. But let this peace be never a flight or escape from issues of difficulty from right decision, from open war against wrong; never passive, but aglow with Christ's Spirit, and Christ's love." — END —

By Ed Thornton Church Times December 25, 2010   A BISHOP in the Church of Nigeria has urged Primates from the Global South not to boycott the Primates' Meeting in Dublin in January. Writing in the Church Times today, the Bishop of Kaduna, Dr Josiah Idowu-Fearon, who was a member of the Lambeth Commission which produced the Windsor report, pleads with the Primates "not . . . to give room for the Communion to break up, during the time God has given [them] the privilege to represent [their] various provinces". "An archbishop may hold a strong position on a particular theological debate, but that should not be a reason to silence those of his colleagues with an alternative opinion as representatives of their dioceses," Dr Idowu-Fearon writes. Speaking on Friday, he said that his intervention was not prompted by pressure from any individual, "but by my conviction to work for the unity of this communion". He said that he feared that some of the Primates had "not actually consulted properly" before announcing their intention to boycott the meeting. There was "a huge desire" among "ordinary members" of the Church of Nigeria for the Communion to stay together, he said. Responding to the suggestion made by the Primates that "the current text" of the Anglican Covenant is "fatally flawed", Dr Idowu-Fearon said: "If those Primates believe they have a superior wisdom than the collective wisdom of those who produced the Covenant, let them meet and present their wisdom and not start throwing tantrums." In his article, Dr Idowu-Fearon writes: "History reminds us that all the 22 Councils of the Christian Church contained both those in favour and those against the subjects under discussion, and that the discussions were not always eirenic." He argues that meetings such as the Council of Chalcedon in 451 were called "precisely because people disagreed . . . where would the Church be today if 'orthodox' bishops had stayed away from the main councils of the Church?" Dr Idowu-Fearon said he had sent a copy of the article to the Primate of All Nigeria, the Most Revd Nicholas Okoh, and intended to talk to him. He admitted that "some of these Primates would hardly give the idea of not going a second thought", but said: "The Lord can do anything." — END —

By David Straw www.virtueonline.org March 30, 2026 Not Another Debate on Women Clergy Before anyone misunderstands, this is not simply another article about women in ordained ministry. It is not that simple, and it is not that small. The issue runs deeper. It touches the biblical pattern for choosing bishops, the meaning of apostolic leadership, and what happens when that pattern is quietly set aside in favor of something that looks more like institutional momentum than discernment. That said, one fact cannot be avoided. Sarah Mullally is the first woman appointed to lead the Church of England. Several provinces in the Anglican Communion do not recognize women as priests, let alone bishops. That was known. It was not hidden. And the decision was made anyway. So, the question is not whether the Church of England had the authority to act. It did. The question is whether it acted with any regard for Scripture, for history, or for the fragile unity of the Communion, or whether it simply chose a course that would almost certainly inflame it. The Biblical Pattern for Leadership In First Timothy 3, St. Paul does not give us a theory of leadership. He gives us a pattern. A bishop must be blameless. Not impressive, not strategic, not historically significant, but blameless. Sober. Steady. Given to hospitality. Able to teach. And not a novice. That last one matters more than we tend to admit, because leadership in the Church is not seized. It is not engineered. It is recognized, over time, by people who have had the chance to see whether a life actually holds together under pressure. The same logic governs the diaconate. Let them first be proved. Then let them serve. Character before office. Reputation before authority. The order is not accidental, and it is not negotiable. St. Paul goes further still. Give no unnecessary offense. God is not the author of confusion, but of peace. Leaders are not to be quarrelsome. The Church is warned against those who cause divisions. And in Acts 15, the apostles go out of their way not to burden the wider body in ways that would fracture it. Even when they were right. Even when they had authority. Even when the cause was just. They moved carefully. They wrote letters. They sent trusted men alongside the letter to explain it in person, because they understood that the manner of a decision is never entirely separate from the decision itself. Put all of that together and the picture is clear enough. Leadership in the Church should strengthen trust. It should preserve communion. It should not knowingly create a crisis that everyone can see coming from miles away. The Decision in Context Set that beside the appointment of Archbishop Mullally. It was historic. Everyone said so. It was public, it was celebrated, and it was made in full awareness of the state of the Anglican Communion, already strained, already fragile, already divided along lines that did not require much additional pressure to widen into something permanent. No one was surprised. That is precisely the difficulty. Authority allows the Church of England to act. No one denies that. But authority does not remove responsibility. It never has, and the history of the Church is littered with decisions made by bodies that had every right to act and very little wisdom about whether they should. So a simple question presses in. If a decision is made that predictably places entire provinces in a position where they cannot recognize the ministry of the Archbishop of Canterbury, can that decision be squared with the apostolic concern for unity, for peace, for leaders who are above reproach across the breadth of the Church’s life? That is not a political question. It is a biblical one. And the answer the New Testament gives is not complicated. Lessons from the Early Church The early Church understood something about this that we have largely lost. Bishops were not unknown quantities. They were not surprises, not symbols, not instruments of institutional change. They were men whose lives had been seen at close range, whose teaching had been heard, whose conduct under difficulty had been weighed, whose neighbors and colleagues and local clergy could speak to who they actually were when no one particularly important was watching. Recognition was not automatic. It was earned, slowly, sometimes painfully, through years of ordinary faithfulness. Cyprian, writing in the third century, insisted that the bishop belonged to the people who would receive him, that election without the knowledge of the local church was no election at all. The Nicene canons built neighboring episcopal approval into the process for the same reason: a new bishop’s legitimacy depended partly on whether the wider body of the faithful could receive him. Not agree with every position he had ever taken. Receive him. When that breaks down, everything else follows. Structures remain. Titles remain. But confidence slips quietly, and trust weakens in ways that no amount of carefully worded communique can repair. Conclusion The real issue is not simply the appointment itself. It is what the appointment represents. A church acting unilaterally on a matter it has repeatedly acknowledged belongs to the whole Communion. For years the Church of England said that the ordination of women to the episcopate affects the entire Communion. That unity is not optional. That provinces should avoid actions that impair it. And yet. It proceeded anyway. Not by accident, not through oversight, but with full awareness of the consequences and with the confidence, apparently, that the consequences could be managed. That is more than inconsistency. It signals a shift in how the Church of England understands its relationship to the rest of the Communion, a shift from mutual accountability to something closer to notification. A church cannot appeal to the shared life of the Communion while acting as though that shared life carries no real weight. At some point the language and the actions have to line up, and when they do not, the gap between them becomes its own kind of statement. Leadership matters. Character matters. Unity matters. These are not slogans. But they are also not self-executing principles that enforce themselves automatically. They require the willingness to bear a cost, to move slowly when speed is tempting, to forgo the historic moment when the historic moment would come at the expense of the body you were called to serve. Scripture calls the Church to discernment, not to spectacle. That distinction has not aged. It has not been superseded. And it does not become less true simply because it was inconvenient. The Rev. David Straw is Rector of Trinity Anglican Church and a lifelong Anglican, ordained in 2007. He graduated cum laude from the University of Southern Indiana and completed graduate work for ministry at Wesley Seminary in Marion, Indiana.

First Lady of Nigeria preaches on God’s mercy at Lambeth Palace By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org March 30, 2026 As part of the UK–Nigeria State Visit engagements, PSJ UK an International Organisation for Peace Building & Social Justice UK convened a high-level breakfast policy dialogue at the UK Parliament, bringing together policymakers, civil society leaders, and members of the Nigerian diaspora. The session offered a platform to reflect on Nigeria's current realities and explore practical pathways towards peace, stability, and inclusive development. As bilateral discussions took place at the highest levels, the dialogue ensured that community perspectives and concerns remained central to the conversation. Nigerian Christians have faced severe persecution from militant Islamic groups like Boko Haram with more than 7,000 Christians killed in Nigeria during the first 220 days of 2025, a civil-society watchdog said. This is an average of 35 killings a day, according to the recent report published by the Nigeria-based human-rights NGO International Society for Civil Liberties and the Rule of Law (Intersociety). At the PSJ UK summit several key themes and discussions were heard 1. Security and Protection of Communities Participants highlighted the scale and urgency of insecurity across Nigeria, including ongoing violence, displacement, and threats to civilian life, emphasizing the need for strengthened protection mechanisms and coordinated responses. 2. Governance, Accountability, and Trust Transparent governance, accountability, and the rule of law were identified as critical foundations for long-term stability and public confidence. 3. The Role of Advocacy and Diaspora Engagement The session underscored the importance of advocacy in ensuring that lived realities inform high-level decision-making. The Nigerian diaspora was recognised as a vital bridge in shaping policy conversations and sustaining engagement. 4. UK–Nigeria Cooperation Participants explored opportunities for deeper collaboration between the UK and Nigeria, particularly in security, institutional strengthening, and humanitarian support. Outcomes and Reflections The dialogue created space for meaningful exchange, bringing diverse perspectives into a shared, solutions-focused conversation. Key takeaways included the need for: · Continued engagement beyond the State Visit · Stronger alignment between policy discussions and on-the-ground realities · Coordinated advocacy to drive accountability and action There was broad recognition that the momentum of the State Visit must translate into tangible outcomes for communities affected by insecurity and instability. PSJ UK will build on this dialogue by: · Engaging stakeholders across government, parliament, and civil society · Sharing policy insights and recommendations from the session · Strengthening advocacy to sustain attention on key issues · Expanding platforms for collaboration and dialogue First Lady of Nigeria preaches on God’s mercy at Lambeth Palace Premier Christian News reported that the First Lady of Nigeria told a gathering at Lambeth Palace that God’s mercy brings “fresh benefits” to her each morning. Mrs Tinubu is a Christian, whilst her husband, President Bola Tinubu, identifies as a Muslim. The couple were welcomed to Lambeth Palace by the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion, Rt Revd Anthony Poggo. They were joined by Rt Revd Lusa Nsenga-Ngoy, the Church of England’s lead bishop for interfaith relations, Rt Revd Rose Hudson-Wilkin, Bishop of Dover, and Rt Revd Dr Emma Ineson, Acting Bishop of London. David Smith MP, special envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief, was also in attendance. “I love the King James Version of the Bible,” she continued, before reading from Ephesians 2:4-6: “For God, who is so rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us. Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, by grace ye are saved; and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." “This is the only time God is referred to as being ‘rich’ in anything at all: mercy,” she declared. “There are things I dwell on – fresh manna in the morning. God doesn’t give us anything stale, he always gives us things that are fresh. “The mercy I have today is different from the mercy I had yesterday. God gives us benefits, fresh benefits, fresh mercy and fresh bread every day.” Rt Revd Anthony Poggo described the visit as “excellent" and said that they had prayed together for “the people of Nigeria and the needs of the world". For many Christians, the state visit has been deeply controversial due to ongoing persecution in Nigeria. Dr Richard Ikiebe, president of Peace Building and Social Justice UK (PBSJUK), told Premier Christian News he worried the Nigerian government “would rather focus on ‘optics’ and public relations" than attacks on Christians. He urged churches to speak up against the persecution of believers in Nigeria, saying: "The people pushing the narrative are quite happy for us to do nothing." END

"The Good & True Shepherd" By Bradley T. Page When I became the Episcopal Chaplain to Florida State University I started attending college chaplain and young adult ministry events within the National Episcopal Church. And it didn't take long for me to realize just what a theological mess we were in (and this was well before last year's General Convention).   For me the penny dropped — like a millstone — while I was sitting in a small-group college ministry track at the National Church's Christian Education Conference in Chicago almost two years ago.   I was with a group of Episcopal priests (several of whom were college chaplains, and several of them were in homosexual relationships). In one of the few brief periods where we weren't talking about homosexuality we discussed how we as college chaplains might identify the students to encourage toward priesthood.   How could we shape the future of the ordained leadership of the Episcopal Church, we wondered, and thereby shape the church? Who were the best candidates... the ones we should be encouraging to seek Holy Orders?   The Episcopal chaplain from a large Mid-western university offered an example of one such student. The ideal candidate, in his view, for the Episcopal priesthood of tomorrow was a young man in his college ministry. He was a champion for social justice, morally inclusive, theologically curious and open minded, ecumenically Unitarian. Interested in Judaism, a disciple of Islam, deeply involved in walking the path of the Buddha. In describing him this priest never once mentioned if this student was interested in, or in any way inclined toward Christianity, and yet my small group of college chaplains was awash with "oohhs" and "ahhs" of affirmation as this was clearly the perfect candidate for the priesthood of a "revised" 21st century Episcopal Church.   In the group discussion that followed his comments there was no mention of any expectation regarding faith, no Christian particularities here... NOT ONE! Only social activism and openness to anything and everything seemed to be what was needed for the priest of tomorrow (if not the priest of today).   When I could stand it no longer I spoke up, and I suggested that surely the Christian priesthood required more than that. For example, was there nothing unique we could say about Christ? Wasn't he the Messiah, the Son of God, the full revelation of God in the world? Wasn't He central to the Church and its ministry? Wasn't our job as college chaplains to be more than just some sort on Unitarian Clearing House?   When I had said all of that my colleague responded by pointing me to the chapter from John that contains our Gospel reading for today. It's a chapter that talks about Jesus as the shepherd of the sheep and with an image from the verses just prior to today's reading, this fellow chaplain reminded me that Christ is the gate to the sheepfold. "But," he added "What you need to understand is that this is a gate that swings both ways." "Our job as chaplains," he said "is to help students move out of that sheepfold if that is where their spiritual journey is leading them." Well, I have to tell you I was scandalized by that comment. As a chaplain I am to facilitate and assist the "spiritual" journey of my students when that journey is taking them out of Christianity? And out of the Church. And out of the flock — and sheepfold — of Christ?   What an amazing and tolerant deception that is! What an outrageous distortion — not only of my role as a Christian priest and Chaplain to students... but of the Gospel itself!   And yet, this distortion is so widespread within American Anglicanism that even the revisionist Episcopal Bishop of Atlanta had to confess in a sermon three weeks ago that "...the Church we have known, which taught us the gospel and the sacraments and which we grew up in, that Church is no longer part of us."   We have lost much! And what we are seeing is a distortion of the Church propagated by the leaders of the Church — our shepherds. Even the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, whose embrace of a wooly Unitarianism he calls "pluriform truth" has made him duplicitous in his dealings with fellow archbishops and presiding bishops, and with all those under his pastoral care.   Some of you may have seen another example of this distortion in the news last week as the retired Episcopal Bishop of Utah — following in the steps of the Bishop of New Hampshire — has divorced his wife, and on Thursday "married" one of his male lovers.   We see it promoted by Gene Robinson who, as a new leader of the 21st century Episcopal Church, will participate in yet another fund-raiser to support the rigorous distortion of the church's teaching (and not just on sexuality issues, either). I was interested to note that at this latest event — for an additional $10,000 contribution to the revisionist cause — you can have a private dinner for two with the new bishop at the elite Ritz Carlton.   In all of these things (and in so many more) there is a willful misuse of the role of priest, and especially the role of bishop, as shepherd of the flock of Christ! And, along with the teaching expressed by that college chaplain in Chicago, there is a tragic distortion — if not a wholesale rejection — of the call of Christ the Messiah, who is the ultimate, true, and good Shepherd.   The relationship of Shepherd to sheep that Jesus talks about throughout the 10th chapter of John's Gospel is actually something quite different from all of this!   During Jesus' time sheep in Palestine were largely kept for their fleece for making wool; this meant that the sheep were often with their shepherds for years. The daily routine of their lives was intertwined. The shepherd really cared for his sheep... he would name them, and look out for them, and they would know his voice and respond to it, because they knew they could trust it. The shepherd thought of the sheep before he thought of himself...and he would do everything he could to protect them from harm and abuse.   This is the relationship that Jesus is talking about when he says in today's gospel: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me, and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand..." That relationship. That protection. The caring for the sheep. The sacrificing for the sheep. The leading to good pastures, to clean water, to life... all of that is part of the relationship between the Good Shepherd and the sheep of his flock.   It should be the relationship that is emulated by bishops and leaders of the church, though sadly this is not the case.   But beyond this, beyond this at the moment glaring human failure, is of course the most important thing about Jesus' use of the image of Shepherd and Sheep. Which is that it speaks to the relationship between Jesus, and you and me, as faithful Christians who hear his voice and seek to follow him... because we trust him? Because we know that his VOICE, his WORD... in fact HE IS TRUE.   This is Jesus, the Messiah, the Christ, the Good Shepherd, (He who is "one with the Father" as the Gospel today tells us). The ONE who seeks us when we are lost.   Here is the Good Shepherd, the ultimate Shepherd, the God-Incarnate Shepherd, who calls to us because of God's love for us. The Shepherd who gave his life for us, his sheep. And who through that giving and that love invites us to participate more and more (not in some willy-nilly spirituality, but) in the eternal life of the one true God. To know him and respond to his love for us are what bring us into the community of the Church... into a community of Christian Faith... into the Lord's sheepfold... and into life everlasting.   This truth — and that's what it is, TRUTH — is not something we should be ambiguous about. It is not something that any of us should be turning folks away from, nor should we "facilitate" their denial of it, or help them walk out the door of the Church and into another religion or, into some freeform "spirituality" that sees all truth as relative, and thereby denies Christ, who is "...the way, the truth, and the life."   Our job (Chaplain, priest, people) is to follow Christ's example... to bring folks in!   And that, my brothers and sisters, is the task of this great parish. All of you together, in all your wonderful diversity, are actually called to be something quite particular: A community of Christian Faith!   And I believe that Jesus has brought you into the sheepfold — or is bringing you into the sheepfold — through the ministry of this place. I believe that there are shepherds here who strive to be good and faithful shepherds, and who would never want to facilitate your departure from the Church, but want you to hear the voice of Christ as he calls you, more deeply into his flock, and as he calls all of us (both "in here" and "out there" in the larger Episcopal Church) into the deepest levels of faithfulness to him... who is the Shepherd of the Sheep.   The Good Shepherd, who in the midst of danger and strife envelops us and holds us. Who will sustain us in all peril and uncertainty. And who — because of his perfect love and faithfulness — calls us, and seeks us, repeatedly, so that he will redeem us, and (if we let him) he will bring us home.   This is where our hope... for now, for the 21st century of the Episcopal Church, for our future... this is where our hope must be fixed. And as we work to bring others into the sheepfold here at St John's, and as we — each and every one of us — seek to hear God's call to us, we long and pray and we hope for that day when all those who are departing from the faith will gather with us in the sheepfold of Christ, and sing in unison with us once more: "Perverse and foolish oft I've strayed, but yet, in love, He sought me. And on His shoulder gently laid, and home, home, rejoicing brought me."   May it be so for our beloved Episcopal Church. May it be so for us all.   The above was a sermon preached by Fr. Bradley at St John's Episcopal Church Tallahassee, Florida.   The Rev. Canon Bradley T. Page is Canon for College Ministries in the Apalachee Region and Episcopal Chaplain to The Florida State University.

The Anglican Mission in America has added three new churches to its growing roster - one in Minneapolis, the other two in Nashville and Ohio.   The new church in Minneapolis has deep roots in the community, according to AMIA spokesman Jay Greener. The new Church of the Cross began with its own building: lock, pew and pulpit.   The building was an older Lutheran church that had served as a synagogue for the last two decades and is a mere 15 minutes from downtown in an area that is experiencing revitalization, said Greener.   "There are a lot of young families moving in, and our people are excited by the opportunities for ministry here," said the Rev. Christian Ruch, the church's new priest and pastor. "The opportunity for a church 'plant' to have its own building is unusual, but when it became available and we saw that we could actually put something together, we knew that it would be foolish not to go forward."   The Church of the Cross recently closed on the property, a move that will save the church from having to rent space in a school, theatre, or off-hours in other church buildings.   The Church of the Cross began its journey last year when Christian, his wife Molly, and their children moved to Minneapolis to pull together a core team — a process that resulted in 30 energetic and gifted leaders stepping up to the plate.   The call to plant a church came while Christian was part of a dynamic congregation in the Chicago area pastored by his brother, Stewart — Church of the Resurrection in Wheaton. "We came to a sense that we had to do this, and as we moved forward, God has provided," Christian stated. "Church of the Resurrection has made it possible for us to do this, and we have tremendous support from the Anglican Mission, as well."   The Ruchs and other members of the new church's core team place a high value on community, with an expectation that open generosity and hospitality will attract those who are not believers. "As an Anglican congregation, our ancient traditions are a draw for people. There is a rootedness and authenticity that so many long to find," noted Rev. Ruch. "There is excitement about reaching the un-churched, and that's why people are getting involved."   The new Minneapolis congregation will shortly take possession of the property and begin needed interior work, including the re-introduction of Christian symbols. They are mindful, however, that a church is not a building. "We have a strong sense that buying this building is not ultimately about us obtaining a permanent worship space," reflected Pastor Ruch, "it's about being equipped to reach the harvest of souls God has called us to reach."   The Anglican Mission in America has also added two new churches recently, one in Nashville and the other in Ohio. The Church of the Redeemer in Nashville, TN, is comprised, to a large degree, of former members of St. Bartholomew's Episcopal Church (St. B's). The Rev. Thomas McKenzie, interim rector of St. Bartholomew's, will serve as priest of the new congregation, which drew some 150 interested participants to its July 1 information meeting.   The core team of Church of the Redeemer had been meeting and praying together since April when the Rev. McKenzie realized that God was calling him out of the Episcopal Church (ECUSA). "Many in our group have known of the AMiA for some time through our long time relationship with Bishop Chuck Murphy and his family," observed one of the new church's members (Bishop Murphy's father had once served as Rector at St. B's).   "Nevertheless, we undertook an investigation of all the options for affiliation that might be open to us. The study concluded that the Anglican Mission was our choice. Church of the Redeemer, Nashville, desires to 'proclaim Christ's redemption, to liberate people from bondage, to recreate them from the inside out, to give them a loving relationship with Himself, to place them in Christian community, and to mold them into proclaimers of liberation to others through the power of the Holy Spirit'" (from the church's mission statement), said McKenzie.   Regular worship services began Sunday August 8th at Otter Creek Church, 5253 Granny White Pike, Nashville.   The AMiA's third new congregation also has roots in the Episcopal Church. Hudson Anglican Fellowship (Ohio) is a plant by some former members of Christ Episcopal Church in Hudson, who were deeply troubled by the unscriptural direction that their church and diocese began to take, most evidenced in the process to select a new Bishop of Ohio, more than a year ago.   Hudson Anglican Fellowship was birthed and began a process of discerning its direction, in terms of affiliation. The Rev. David "Doc" Loomis helped to give direction to the group in its early stages, and was ultimately invited to serve as rector in early December of 2003. Since then the church has grown to almost 100 members. It sought a home for its Anglican vision and mission, and found in the Anglican Mission in America.   The Hudson Anglican Fellowship is also home for a broader regional effort, the Great Lakes Anglican Renewal, which seeks to plant and re-plant Anglican congregations in the Great Lakes region of northern Ohio. GLAR works directly with disenfranchised Episcopalians abandoned by revisionist decisions within ECUSA in order to help them deal with their hurt and anger, "ultimately placing them in safe parishes with Godly leadership and oversight that will carry on the work of the Gospel in America," said Greener.   "Not all churches under GLAR will automatically affiliate with the AMiA, but they will be encouraged to find the best fit in the 'American Anglican fabric'."   The Anglican Mission in America is a growing missionary outreach of the Anglican Province of Rwanda, focusing on the 130 million un-churched in the U.S. www.theamia.org ──────────────────────────────────

During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush was asked who his favorite political philosopher was, and he answered: "Jesus Christ, because he changed my life."   No president has been as outspoken about his faith, or been as inclined to translate those beliefs into political action as George Bush. In doing so, he has made both friends and enemies.   His most committed backers are fellow evangelicals, a quarter of the electorate, 86% of whom support his re-election. They know his story. A man born to wealth and political prominence, whose grandfather was a U.S. Senator, and father, a President. But the fallen-away Episcopalian left the comfort of Connecticut as a young man to go into the Texas oil business, where he became a hard-drinking, unsuccessful businessman.   At his parents' Maine home, Bush took a long walk with Billy Graham, who led him to make a fresh commitment to Christ. No other American President made such a conversion as an adult. His business and political fortunes changed. Today he reads Scripture daily.   "I am... a lowly sinner who sought redemption and found it," he told USA Today. "That doesn't make me better than anybody. It just adds perspective, I hope. I think people are going to find that in tough times...they're going to see a steady hand because the rock on which I stand is something other than the moment, the emotion of the day. Faith can be a steadying influence."   When he considered running for president, he met evangelist James Robison and said, he felt "something was going to happen" and that the country would need his leadership. The crisis of 9/11 seemed to him evidence that Providence chose him to lead the country at the time. His faith was undoubtedly a factor in his characterizing the war against terrorism as a battle between forces of good and evil. Such language was repugnant to secularists here and in Europe.   Like Woodrow Wilson who was the first to propose a League of Nations, Bush's vision of foreign policy is grand in design. He's said that "Freedom is not America's gift to the world, but God's gift to mankind." Both visions rest on a Christian conviction that "changed people and transformed communities are possible," asserts a National Association of Evangelicals document, "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility," ( nae.net ).   However, both Wilson and Bush's visions were flawed in their execution. The League did not stop Hitler. Bush found it far easier to topple Saddam than to restore security afterwards.   Jesus proclaimed we are to "love our neighbor as ourselves." Therefore Bush supported a $15 billion AIDS initiative to halt the unnecessary deaths of millions of Africans and Asians. And he signed a law to fight the trafficking of women and children for sexual abuse.   Psalm 139 states, "You knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made." Therefore evangelicals believe abortion is an unjust taking of a human life. Bush signed a law to prohibit partial birth abortions, the first limitation of abortion. For similar reasons, his Administration has opposed Oregon doctors using drugs for euthanasia.   Sometimes this principle leads Bush to take unpopular stands, such as his opposition to embryonic stem cell research, on grounds that it requires the killing of potential human beings. Like many politicians, he compromised, however, allowing federally funded research to continue on a limited number of "stem cell lines." While only half of them have been used by scientists, and though there's no evidence embryonic stem cells can cure disease, polls show opposition to Bush's stand.   Knowing that faith-based programs are freeing people from drugs and other problems, he has had federal rules re-written so that churches could compete for federal funds to do such work.   Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 teach that man and woman are both made in God's image, and they are "to be united" in marriage. Bush was the first to say in 2002, "My administration will give unprecedented support to strengthening marriages." He proposed spending $200 million a year to help couples "get married and stay married." However, Congress did not pass that bill. One of his tax reforms removed tax incentives for couples to cohabit rather than to marry.   However, three major tax cuts combined with greater outlays to fight terrorism and to add drug benefits to Medicare have created monster deficits that will cost our children trillions.   Although Bush's record is flawed it has been based on high Biblical ideals.   Copyright 2004 Michael J. McManus

Living with the eschatological tension of Urgency and Patience   How do you go about teaching your congregation to live with eschatological tension? (perhaps, not by using that word, in the first place!).   It is a challenge, though. We have the first fruits of the Spirit, but not yet the full harvest (Romans 8). We are as a bride betrothed to her beloved, awaiting the wedding day (Revelation 21-22). We are, according to 2 Peter, as in the days of Noah — busy with the urgent task of building the ark, enduring the mockery of the unbelievers around us, but certain that, as God has promised, He will send destruction (see Chapter 3).   Yes, this is a tension! And over the years, the Christian Church has swayed between over or under-realised eschatology as it has lived with the tension.   This sense of tension is particularly acute for those of us in the Anglican Communion at the moment. We feel God's hand heavily upon us as the Communion looks set to be torn in two (or many more pieces) following the implications of consecrating a practising homosexual bishop, and a tacit assumption that the mind of Scripture has apparently changed on this issue.   Some may argue, the horizons are not of eschatological proportions. Churches and even denominations come and go, as a cursory reading of Revelation 2-3 reminds us. Where is the living witness in those parts of the world right now?   The shorter term horizons for Anglicans are focussed around the results of the Eames Commission due at the end of the Autumn, and our reaction to the global scene in which Anglicanism now operates.   The tension is acute: How do we continue to operate in the denomination — working for the evangelisation of the nation — when even our Archbishops seem to concede that some kind of 'tearing of the fabric' is looking more likely?   For some, there is a capitulation to the world's agenda. In recent weeks there was a fringe meeting of General Synod of a group calling themselves "Accepting Evangelicals" which requested that evangelicals reconsider its traditional condemnation of homosexual conduct. Evangelicals would surely not have countenanced having such a conversation a generation ago. There is no denying that the pressure on the world is very strong, but in my view, no excuse for adopting the world's agenda!   For others, there is an agreement that this issue has become something of a defining moment over whether or not we will stand by Scriptural truth, but, there is a limit to the action that they would be prepared to take. Recently, a small group of us wrote to fellow evangelicals in Southwark Diocese with concerns over the perception that the official line over homosexual clergy has changed. It was a fairly mild protest which, in the first instance, asked for signatories to a letter which included the line:   "While there are differing shades of feeling about the present uncertainty as we perceive it, many of us are having to reconsider the extent to which we will be able to participate in Diocesan life in the future."   The intriguing, and somewhat frustrating, thing was that a considerable number of Evangelical brethren were not prepared to sign the letter because this statement was included. I do agree that we will differ as to how we should protest and fulfil our desire to reform dioceses and the denomination. Many of those who responded are in positions of influence and preferment in the Diocese. However, what I really hope that we can agree upon is: speaking without any intention of acting can never be right!   My space is running out! However there is a third response which I have come across, and I guess it is the one I have the most sympathy with, but do still have some concerns about.   For some, the urgency of the Gospel mandate requires that we transcend diocesan structures and find co-belligerence wherever we can — for the sake of the Gospel!! And, "amen" to that!   However, when we met together as Council and Trustees a few weeks ago, I shared the concern that we don't confuse Gospel urgency with impatience. I think that the eschatology of 2 Peter 3 helps here. God is our model. He is surely coming! But He is patient. As in the days of Noah, we will be urgent in pleading that the lost may not perish in the impending destruction, but we will also model the Lord's patience.   I think my plea at the moment would be: plan for the worst, pray for the best! Is that naive? I hope not. If we are truly living in momentous days, we do need to gain as many friends as we can in Gospel work. We need to consult widely. We need to realise that the 16th and 17th Century Reformation, though precipitated by a clear Gospel issue, nevertheless took decades to execute. I welcome the consultation process which the Reform Conference in October has committed itself to, and agree with them that action will need to be taken — and urgently!   The eschatological tension with which we live as Christians is being worked out in miniature in our denomination. Let's live in anticipation of a day when the denomination will return to its Reformed and Gospel heritage. Let us also appreciate that such huge changes do not necessarily happen overnight. We need each other to be kept on track. The influence of the world is insipient. And our sinfulness colours all our agendas. But, I think I am convinced of this need to be both urgent and patient.   The Rev. Dr. Simon Vibert is the rector of St. Luke's Church in Wimbledon, London.

Diocesan News The Synod and Standing Committee of the Diocese of Sydney remain convinced that administration of the Lord's Supper by deacons and lay persons is important both theologically and for the sake of mission. However, no change in the present legal situation is proposed. Standing Committee met last Monday night, and further considered the matter of lay administration and the nature of its recommendation to our synod in late October 2004. It received advice about attitudes to lay administration around the Communion and also the legal situation. As a result, no legislation in the form of an ordinance is intended, but the Standing Committee is asking synod to consider a resolution. In summary, that resolution addresses the following points: 1. That we believe there are good biblical, theological and practical grounds for introducing lay administration, a matter which was stated by the Appellate Tribunal in 1997 to be consistent with the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia. 2. There are differing opinions as to the legal situation, but we believe law should allow that which Holy Scripture allows. However, the Archbishop has made it very clear that he is not prepared to sign an ordinance unless he is convinced that it is legal to do so. 3. The synod is therefore being asked to resolve that until such time as any necessary change in the law can be effected, or it can be determined that no change in the law is needed, no disciplinary or other action should be taken against any person in relation to deacons or lay persons administering the Lord's Supper. 4. The resolution therefore is not in the nature of an ordinance giving permission, but rather a motion affirming the view that lay or diaconal administration is a legitimate expression of Anglicanism. Obviously, it will be synod itself in October 2004, which needs to decide whether to pass the resolution, or not. It will be important for synod to have the full facts before it, including the attitudes of others in the Communion. On the other hand, a motion of our synod is simply an expression of opinion of those present and voting, with no legal or formal force. It does not bind the Archbishop or the Diocese of Sydney, or alter the rights of any person. News of the Standing Committee decision has been disseminated around the world and it is likely that some misinformation may result in some quarters. DECLARATION OF THE SYNOD OF THE DIOCESE OF SYDNEY CONCERNING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE LORD'S SUPPER WHEREAS: (A) With deep conviction under Almighty God, this Synod believes that holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation, so that whatever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any person, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. (B) With deep conviction under Almighty God, this Synod believes that Jesus Christ, in his death on the cross for our redemption, made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world. (C) This Synod thanks Almighty God for the participation of all Christian people in the ministry of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in particular the participation of lay persons in the public ministry of the Word of God and prayer. (D) This Synod believes, with deep conviction under Almighty God, that there is no prohibition or restriction in the holy Scriptures, or in Christian doctrine, on the administration (sometimes referred to as 'presidency') of the Lord's Supper by a suitable person, but who is not a bishop or an episcopally ordained priest. (E) This Synod has actively considered and debated this subject since 1977, receiving reports from committees and commissions in 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1993, 1994, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004. After due consideration this Synod has consistently endorsed the principle that, for theological, pastoral and evangelistic reasons, suitable lay persons and deacons should be permitted to administer the Lord's Supper. (F) The Sydney Diocesan Doctrine Commission concluded in 1993 that there are no sound doctrinal objections to, and there are significant doctrinal reasons for, lay presidency at the Lord's Supper. There are also sound reasons based on our received Anglican order for allowing lay presidency. In the light of this the continued prohibition of lay presidency at the Lord's Supper does not seem justifiable theologically. (G) The Appellate Tribunal of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia in its opinion of December 1997 on the Primate's reference concerning diaconal and lay presidency, by majority, advised that it is consistent with the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia to permit, or authorize, or otherwise make provision for deacons and lay persons to preside at, administer or celebrate the Holy Communion. (H) The same opinion advised, by majority, that it is not consistent with the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia for a diocesan synod, otherwise than in accordance with a canon of General Synod, to permit, authorize or make provision for these ministries. (I) Both opinions of the Appellate Tribunal were opposed by a minority within the Tribunal and have been opposed by others since 1997. Some consider that there is in fact no legal impediment to the authorization of lay and diaconal administration. (J) Differing opinions have been, and continue to be, expressed as to whether there is a law of this Diocese that needs to be changed and, if so, as to the means whereby it may be changed, in order to allow diaconal and lay administration of the Lord's Supper. (K) The Synod believes that law should allow that which holy Scripture allows and for which there are sound theological, pastoral and evangelistic reasons. THE SYNOD OF THE DIOCESE OF SYDNEY DECLARES THAT: (1) This Synod respects the consciences both of those who support the introduction of diaconal and lay administration of the Lord's Supper and those who oppose it. (2) This Synod commits itself to the continuing investigation and implementation in due course of such processes as may be necessary to formally effect a change in the law of this Diocese to remove any conflict in this matter between what holy Scripture allows and what the law may prevent. (3) This Synod believes and urges that, until such time as any necessary change in the law can be effected by an appropriate process (or it can be determined by an appropriate process that no change in the law is needed), no disciplinary or other action should be taken against any person merely because the person, in accordance with this Declaration: (a) authorizes or permits, or purports to authorize or permit, a deacon or lay person to administer the Lord's Supper; or (b) being a deacon or lay person, administers, or purports to administer, the Lord's Supper; or (c) is involved in the administration, or purported administration, of the Lord's Supper by a deacon or lay person. (4) This declaration is intended to have application only to the administration of the Lord's Supper by a deacon or layperson and not to any other area of doctrine or worship, or of faith, ritual, ceremonial or discipline, applicable to and in force within this Diocese.

By Solange De Santis, Anglican Journal — August 10, 2004 American bishop Terence Kelshaw was hospitalized for three weeks in St. John's after falling ill June 4 on a transatlantic flight from Turkey to his home in Albuquerque, N.M. "I had been leading a pilgrimage to the seven churches of Revelation in Turkey. We changed planes in Frankfurt and were heading for Denver. Coming over Canada, I felt short of breath. There was a German doctor on board and he decided I ought not to go to Denver," said Bishop Kelshaw in an interview. The plane made an emergency landing in Goose Bay, Labrador, where Bishop Kelshaw and his family were met by an ambulance. He was in hospital for three days in Goose Bay, then transferred to the Health Sciences Centre in St. John's, where he spent 10 days in intensive care, he said. Bishop Kelshaw, who is 67, was diagnosed with double pneumonia and treated with antibiotics. He was visited several times by Bishop Don Harvey of the diocese of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador and the hospital chaplains, Rev. Garry Parsons and Canon William Noel. Clergy in the diocese offered to host Bishop Kelshaw's wife, Hazel, in their homes, but "she wanted to stay at the hospital because it really was touch-and-go there for a while," said Bishop Harvey. However, said the bishop, "the traditional Newfoundland hospitality rose again." Bishop Kelshaw praised clergy and lay people in the diocese for their visits and the care given Mrs. Kelshaw, who was taken out to dinner and shown around the city. "It was an apostolic experience. Here is a stranger passing through the land and they ministered to me and it was wonderful. It reinforced my view that hospitals need chaplains. The work that Father Noel does and the hope he brings to everyone - not just Anglicans - in the hospital is wonderful," said Bishop Kelshaw. Mr. Noel drove the Kelshaws to the airport at 4 a.m. on June 29 for the flight home, said Bishop Kelshaw. Bishop Harvey also telephoned Bishop Kelshaw's office and one of his episcopal colleagues in the U.S. with regular updates on his progress. As of early August, Bishop Kelshaw was home and still on oxygen, but spending two days a week at the office and, he said, "doing a lot better." Bishop Kelshaw said he and his wife hope to return for a visit and to thank Newfoundlanders for their kindness.