Archives

By William A. Wheatley 2/4/2004 Recently I made a trip to the Republic of Sudan, and wish to report on the conditions I witnessed while I was there. I was in Khartoum from Tuesday, 24 February 2004, until the evening of Wednesday, 03 March 2004. While the purpose of my trip was to scout for business opportunities for a client once the US sanctions are lifted, I was also very curious and concerned about what I have read in the press regarding the treatment of Christians in Sudan. My client is a Saudi Arabian company that is investing heavily in Sudan - something American companies are prohibited from doing because of unilateral US sanctions imposed against Sudan by President Clinton. Upon arrival, I was met at the airport by Waiel, one of my clients partners. Waiel is Sudanese, the son of the head of the Nubian tribe. The Nubian tribe is the largest of the Sudanese tribes. You may remember from the Bible that Moses first wife was a Nubian. Much of Nubia is in what was the Lower Kingdom of the ancient Egyptians. Most Nubians today are Islamic, although a number are also Coptic Christian. Waiel is well educated, holding a Doctorate in Nuclear Science from a Russian university and a Doctorate in economics from a German University. While in Russia he met his wife, a charming young woman from Finland, a Christian. He is rearing his children as Christians (her condition for marrying him). He said his father was a bit put off by that but came around and is a doting grandfather. My understanding prior to going to Sudan (and Waiel confirmed the information) is that the lighter-skinned Arabised, Sudanese, which include the Nubians, occupy predominantly the north of the country and are predominantly Islamic, with a mix of Anglican, Roman Catholic, Coptic and Protestant churches operating in the North. The further North one goes, the more Coptic Christians one finds. The South and Southwest are the regions that have been at war with the central government until recently. The South is darker skinned - so dark as to appear black on the border with purple. The Southwest, the Dafur region, is lighter skinned than the South but still definitively black by comparison with the north. However, there are many blacks from the South and Southwest in Khartoum, where they fled to escape the fighting. The south is a mixture of Animist and Christian tribes, and the Southwest is a mixture of Animist, Islamic, and Christian tribes. Waiel's tribe, and especially his family, have set up free clinics and schools to provide medical care and education for them as well as job training. Waiel himself is running a program that finds maintenance and interior construction work for them. He formed a number of corporations to do this contracting, in each of which six blacks from the south are equal partners with him. He pays the overhead (salaries, etc.) and hopes to be reimbursed when they turn profitable. Of the ten companies he formed, two are now profitable, three are at break even, and he has great hopes for the rest. "If we of Islam do not show charity towards our Christian brothers, we will never have peace," he told me. "If we of Islam are to prosper, we must help the Christians to prosper, too." The country has been in a state of civil war almost since the British abandoned the country in 1958. According to the Sudanese, they petitioned the British for a movement towards self-government, and the British just left. A military junta took control, and the country has been ruled by a series of military dictators since. In the 1990s, with Osama Bin Laden in residence in the country, it became designated as a State Sponsor of International Terrorism. In 1997, after finding that the policies and actions of the Government of Sudan, including continued support for international terrorism, ongoing efforts to destabilize neighbouring governments, and the prevalence of human rights violations, including slavery and the denial of religious freedom, constituted an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, President Clinton issued Executive Order No. 13067, declaring a national emergency to deal with that threat. The Sudanese government has gone through several internal upheavals and changes since then. Soon after President Clinton imposed sanctions, a new Sudanese government rounded up Osama and his followers and offered them to the US, but the US refused to receive them, so Sudan expelled them and they went to Afghanistan. The rest is history. US Government officials recognise that the Republic of Sudan has made great strides toward ending the strife, opening its markets and establishing democracy. There is now an elected legislature, and as a result of peace negotiations sponsored by the US, the cabinet is now a mix of politicians from the North and the South. All major issues in the civil war have been settled, and final signature on the final peace agreement is expected any day. Last week, Sudan arrested a number of military officials and politicians who have been sponsoring the Islamic militias that have been terrorizing Christians in the Dafur region. At one time allied with the government, they remained in the region after government troops withdrew and continued their marauding. Now there are hopes that they will finally be stopped. During my trip I met with a number of government officials, and had the opportunity to discuss frankly with them the religious issues that have received so much coverage in the American press. As the business that took me to Sudan involves airlines, the first government official with whom I met was Eng. Joseph Malwal Dong, a black Christian from the South. He told me that the reports of atrocities against Christians, while containing truth, were much exaggerated. He pointed out that they occurred only in the areas that were in rebellion against the central government, and not against Christians in the North. "They were killed because they were fighting. While the militias were brutal and involved civilians, they were attacks against villages that were fighting and in rebellion. They did it not because the village was Christian but because it was in rebellion. There were equal atrocities committed against Islamic villages that were in rebellion in Dafur." I asked him about the stories of captives being pressed into slavery. "Sure, some of that went on," he said. "But again it is much exaggerated in your press. American evangelists come over to buy slaves and free them, and the villages quickly figure out a scam. They round themselves up, dress one of themselves as Islamic, sell themselves to the evangelist, and then when he has freed them and left, they divide up the money and go home." He admitted that while real slavery did exist in parts of the south and southwest, the government was trying to suppress it, and once the peace was established and government control of the areas established, it would be eradicated. He said he knew of no slaves being kept in the North, although there are blacks from the south working at very small wages in the north. "But there are northerners working at very small wages, too," he added. I attended Ash Wednesday services at the large Anglican church in Khartoum (I was told it is the Cathedral, but I could not read the Arabic sign in front, and I don't know whether my informer understands what a cathedral is. He referred to the Presbyterian church as a cathedral, as well.). I saw many people on the streets, in offices and stores during the day wearing the ashes on their foreheads. Attendance at the Ash Wednesday services at the Roman Catholic Cathedral was so large, they held the services in the square in front of the Cathedral. The next day, my friend took me to the largest Mosque in Khartoum which has a large and beautiful arcaded courtyard. In the courtyard, the Imam and the Roman Catholic archbishop were working together, gathering medical supplies, clothing and foodstuffs to be trucked as relief aid to the South. Sudan Airways has stopped flying regularly scheduled flights to the South - partly because of the war, but mostly because US sanctions do not permit it to get spare parts for its aircraft. It was struggling to keep international flights operating while I was there, and ran out of money and ceased operations a few days after my return to the US. The President of Sudan issued a plea to the US government to lift the sanctions so that US investment in Sudan can help to cement the peace. They need such investment, but more importantly, they need the parts to get the airline flying again to speed the delivery of relief supplies to the South. At present, the sanctions are hurting only American businesses and the poor in the Sudanese south. Being in Khartoum gave me a different picture of the state of affairs in the country than one gets from the American press especially the Christian press. Yes, conditions for Christians have been very bad in the past; but they have improved dramatically in the last year and official persecution has vanished. I believe it is now time to lift the sanctions and let Americans help Sudan build democracy and rebuild their infrastructure. Let us all pray for the coming of peace and freedom to this troubled region. Mr. Wheatley is a Philadelphia-based businessman. He is an Anglo-Catholic and an active member of the Church of the Good Shepherd in Rosemont, PA.

By Cal Thomas March 20, a lesbian Methodist pastor was acquitted on charges stemming from her sexual orientation and will continue her ministry. A jury of pastors in Bothell, Wash., deliberated 10 hours before a majority ruled the homosexual relationship between the Rev. Karen Dammann and another woman, who recently "married," is allowable under church social principles, although the Methodist Book of Discipline declares homosexual practice "incompatible to Christian teachings." Should anyone be surprised? Having abandoned Scripture and the teachings of Methodism's founder, John Wesley, who believed the Bible was God's infallible Word to man, it is a short step to rejecting all statements, "doctrines" and "principles" based on eternal truths. If the church can't uphold an eternal principle involving sexual expression and male-female relations, it puts everything up for negotiation in our increasingly relativistic age where the truth can never be objectively determined. The conservative wing of the Methodist Church, known as the Confessing Movement, has it right. Its Web page (www.confessingumc.org/tract3.html) says: "The moral relativism of our time rebels against Jesus Christ's gracious rule over human sexuality. This relativism and rebellion have found their way into the United Methodist Church. There are those in the church who understand marriage as a short-term contract, who desire to legitimize homosexual practice, and who care little about protecting the unborn child and mother. In some quarters of our denomination, premarital sex, extramarital sex and serial marriage are silently tolerated. A confusion has arisen in our church between the Lordship of Christ and the reigning cultural virtue of tolerance. The Confessing Movement challenges the misuse of the principle of tolerance to set aside the authority of Scripture and [the] church's teaching on human sexuality." In his closing arguments at the church trial, Miss Dammann's counsel, the Rev. Robert C. Ward, articulated a doctrine more befitting "the church of what's happenin' now" than the historical and once doctrinally strong Methodist Church: "We need to be careful about creating rules that exclude people." I guess he has never heard of the separation of sheep from goats, wheat from tares, the saved from the unsaved and the afterlife separation of dwellers in heaven from residents of hell. Would Mr. Ward include in his doctrine of inclusiveness practicing adulterers (who, along with all other unrepentant sinners, are listed as people who have no hope of attaining heaven)? How about murderers, thieves and liars? They are on God's exclusionary list, too. It is too late for the Methodist Church (as with Episcopalians and their heretical brethren). All of the "confessing" movements and attempts to turn things around are unlikely to succeed. Once a denomination starts down the road of compromise, caring more about what the world thinks than what God requires, it is nearly impossible to bring it back. Only Southern Baptists in modern times have succeeded in reversing a liberal trend, but not without a bruising fight. The only course for people who still care what God thinks is to follow the instructions of Paul the Apostle: "Come out from among them and be separate." John Wesley believed in absolutes that those who claim him as their spiritual ancestor have abandoned. He wrote: "But the Christian rule of right and wrong is the word of God, the writings of the Old and New Testament; all that the Prophets and 'holy men of old' wrote 'as they were moved by the Holy Ghost'; all that Scripture which was given by inspiration of God, and which is indeed profitable for doctrine, or teaching the whole will of God; for reproof of what is contrary thereto; for correction of error; and for instruction, or training us up, in righteousness." (A reference to 2 Timothy 3:16.) Miss Dammann isn't the first lesbian ordained in the Methodist Church, but she should be the last tolerated by church members faithful to something higher than the shifting winds of cultural change. At the Methodist Church trial, a majority of jurors failed their God and Methodism's founder. They have lost their authority to speak for God or to man on God's behalf. Methodists would be well advised to seek a denomination where God and not man is the supreme authority. Cal Thomas is a nationally syndicated columnist.

By Michael J. McManus Ethics & Religion This week the Senate began debating re-authorization of Welfare Reform that includes a "Healthy Marriage Initiative" to increase the percentage of couples who marry - and enjoy healthy marriages. The House passed its version of the bill a year ago. Only 54 percent of adults are married today and half of new marriages end in divorce. When Welfare Reform was passed by Congress in 1996, it was denounced by Sen. Pat Moynihan as "the most brutal act of social policy since Reconstruction." Marion Wright Edelman of the Children's Defense Fund, called the law "an outrage...that will hurt and impoverish millions of American children." However, Welfare Reform has been spectacularly successful at two levels. First, welfare rolls have plunged by 60 percent, as welfare recipients were required to go to work and day care was provided for their children. Even during the recession, when experts predicted that welfare rolls would grow again - they continued to fall. Second, the poverty rate has fallen. In 1996, 40 percent of black and Hispanic children were poor. In 2002, the percent fell to 31.5 among blacks and 28.6 of Hispanic kids. And the percentage of single mothers in poverty fell from 50.3 to 39.8. People earn more working than on welfare. On the other hand, welfare reform had no impact on out-of-wedlock births, which grew from 1.26 million to 1.35 million children. A third of all births are now to unwed parents. Therefore, President Bush proposed a "Healthy Marriage Initiative" to reform Welfare Reform that would earmark $120 million a year of federal grants to promote marriage education and another $120 million a year if states put up $120 million. "The President feels strongly...about the need to increase the number of children who are growing up in healthy, married households. They do far better than on every measure of child welfare compared to children growing up in unmarried households," said HHS Assistant Secretary Wade Horn at a press conference Wednesday. Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback provided evidence: "Children growing up without fathers are five times more likely to be in poverty, are two to three times more likely to suffer from emotional and behavior problems as teenagers and to drop out of school. They are more likely to commit crime, engage in early promiscuous behavior and substance abuse. "By contrast, marriage is a good way out of poverty. It would lift 70 percent of those in poverty out of it if two people are working in a family rather than one." How marriageable are the poor, and are they even considering marriage? "Fragile Families" research of 4,700 new and unwed parents in inner cities found that at the birth of the child, half are living together, and another quarter are romantically involved. Furthermore, the fathers are much more "marriageable" than has been thought. Some 82 percent are employed and earn $17,500 on average. Two-thirds have at least a high school education. Only 2 percent had hit or slapped the mother. And most important, four out of five of mothers and fathers are considering marriage. But a year after the child's birth only 15 percent are married. The Healthy Marriage Initiative would provide funds to help those couples improve their skills of conflict resolution so they might actually marry - and be equipped to build a healthy marriage. Those skills can be taught by mentor couples in churches for free. But for the non-religious, counselors would be paid. "The need is clear," observed Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. "For every $1,000 we spend on public programs addressing the breakdown of the family, we only spend $1 trying to prevent that breakdown in the first place. The President's initiative puts the emphasis in the right place - prevention." The funds can also be used to help those in the middle class build, enrich and restore marriages. This is a way to prevent families from falling into poverty. However, passage of welfare reform with the Healthy Marriage Initiative ground to a halt Thursday when Republican leaders were unable to get 60 votes to cut off debate. Democrats who opposed the bill in 1996 oppose this bill too. However, they know if they were recorded as voting against a bill to strengthen marriage, that would not look good. So they filibustered. It is tragic that partisanship kills this bill that could lift millions out of poverty. END TXT. Copyright 2004 Michael J. McManus

Rift in church growing Some Episcopalians want a new bishop By ANNE RUDERMAN Monitor staff April 04. 2004 7:03PM Conservatives don't want to recognize Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop, as their leader. ROCHESTER - Conservative New Hampshire Episcopalians who opposed the consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson said yesterday they would like to be reorganized under the jurisdiction of a more orthodox bishop from another diocese or even another country - so they could remain a part of the church without recognizing Robinson as their leader. "We haven't left the church. We're still part of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire, and that's the problem," said Lisa Ball, a vestry member of the Church of the Redeemer in Rochester. "We don't want to follow Gene Robinson." Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in church history, has been at the center of international controversy since New Hampshire Episcopalians first nominated him last summer. Since then, conservative parishes around the country have wrestled with how to respond. Yesterday's 75-person meeting in Rochester marked the first gathering of the New Hampshire cluster of the Anglican Communion Network, a national orthodox organization started in January in response to Robinson's appointment. A grassroots effort, the Network functions as a shadow organization to the Episcopal structure, coordinating parishes and individual Episcopalians who feel the church has strayed too far from the dictates of Scripture. "We're raising the voice of loyal Episcopalians throughout the state of New Hampshire who have had no opportunity to voice their dissent in the diocese," said the Rev. William Murdoch, rector of the All Saints' Episcopal Church in Massachusetts and head of the New England chapter of the Network. Although the Network is a new organization, it is very closely aligned with the American Anglican Council, an established conservative group within the Episcopal church. Members said they hoped the international church organization will allow them to circumvent Robinson and choose a bishop from another place, like New York, Canada or even somewhere in Africa or Latin America, to be their leader. That solution - which would be unprecedented - was first proposed among conservative bishops in March but was voted down during a national bishops meeting. Robinson said yesterday he was against the idea of organizing bishops on ideology and not geography because it would reverse the entire history of Anglican Communion organization. Plus, he said, it would be entirely impractical. "It begins to be completely chaotic to try to organize completely under ideology," he said. Robinson said he is willing to offer conservative parishes like-minded bishops for counseling and leadership. But in the end, he is still in charge. "I'm willing to do all kinds of things to provide the pastoral care they think they need, including letting another bishop come in, but he won't have jurisdiction over that congregation," Robinson said. Some conservative church members have already started voting with their feet. A southern New Hampshire contingent has already split off from several Episcopal churches to form the Seacoast Missionary Fellowship, and the Church of the Redeemer in Rochester has come out publicly against Robinson. "We thought there was no way Scripture and the vote for Gene could be reconciled, and we thought scriptural authority was more important than this new doctrine of inclusiveness," said Joel Hansford, 41, who now belongs to the Seacoast Missionary Fellowship. The conservative wing of the Episcopalian church objects to Robinson on the grounds that he is divorced and openly gay, living with his longtime partner Mark Andrew. Conservative parishioners say they accept gay members in their churches but consider homosexuality a sin that demands repentance. "The problem is we hold our spiritual leaders to a higher plateau," said Richard Ellwood. "We expect them to admit their sins, rather than flaunt them." Still, church leaders yesterday said it was not the Network's intention to split with the Episcopal Church over Robinson. "The language of leaving the Episcopal Church is not what this is about," Murdoch said. But some parishioners, like Les Hanscom, 66, weren't as sure. He said he thought it would be best for conservative Episcopalians to split from the Episcopal Church altogether. "This is something most people here never thought they'd be included in; it's a minor revolution," said Hanscom, a member of the Seacoast Missionary Fellowship. "You didn't think there'd be conflict in the church." Rochester's Church of the Redeemer has been an epicenter of that conflict. Parishioners there have made a point of their opposition to the bishop, even though the church itself hasn't made a formal split. Robinson plans to meet with the church's vestry, or board of directors, tomorrow night to discuss how they might patch up relations. "I'm going to sit down with the people of the parish of Rochester, and we're going to talk about how we can live with one another," he said. "In dealing with parishes like Rochester, we'll bend over backwards to give them the care they need." But if Episcopalians at yesterday's meeting were confident of one thing, it was that there are a lot more like-minded parishioners out there who haven't yet had the courage to voice their dissent. "There are many people and parishes in New Hampshire that are scared to stand up and do what we're doing," Ball of Redeemer Church said. END

By Jay Tokasz News Staff Reporter The Buffalo News 4/2/2004 The Episcopal Diocese of Western New York is facing a major budget deficit caused in part by the withdrawal of more than $100,000 in pledges from parishes that disagree with the confirmation last summer of a gay bishop. At least five parishes are withholding most of their "fair share" gifts to the diocese in 2004 because of the national church's confirmation of the Rev. V. Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire. An additional 22 parishes - out of 63 in the diocese - have yet to submit a pledge or have pledged less than the diocese requested. The total revenue deficit - including shortfalls stemming from other reasons - is more than $200,000 in a budget of about $1.1 million, said Bishop J. Michael Garrison. The bishop cited a combination of economic difficulty within many parishes and a "significant amount of protest" over the approval of a gay bishop. The shortfall will lead to the imminent layoffs of the equivalent of two full-time diocesan employees, and reductions in part-time staff, he said. The layoffs could come within a few weeks, he said. The diocese currently employs 11 people in its offices on Delaware Avenue and five field staffers. The Episcopal Church USA affirmed Robinson, who is openly gay and involved in a long-term relationship with another man, at its general convention last August. Garrison was among a majority of bishops nationwide who voted to confirm Robinson. The confirmation shocked and outraged church members who view it as an affront to Scripture and historical church teaching, and bishops across the country are now struggling to mend fences with many parishioners. Garrison said he was saddened by the stance of the five parishes in Western New York: St. Stephen's in Niagara Falls, St. Bartholomew's in the Town of Tonawanda, St. Michael and All Angels in Buffalo, St. Mary's in Salamanca and St. Mark's in Orchard Park. In a column he wrote for the diocesan newspaper, Church Acts, he chided the parishes for their "childish act" and urged them to reconsider. Garrison also sent strongly worded letters warning the parishes that they could be designated "dependent" and "delinquent" for their failure to support the diocese. Those designations would mean the loss of autonomy in making decisions such as who serves as clergy. The diocese currently operates on an annual "fair share" pledge system. Each year, it requests a gift of about 15 percent of a parish's revenues averaged over three years. St. Bartholomew's, for example, had average revenues of $436,849 for the last three years. The diocese's fair share was set at $67,565 for 2004. Last fall, the St. Bartholomew's vestry, a council of 11 members that governs church finances, voted to hand over only a small percentage of that amount. "We didn't believe that the national church was headed in the right direction," said James Glownia, senior warden for the parish. "It was the only thing we could really do to protest against it, so to speak." Glownia said giving at the church actually has increased since the vestry voted not to send the money to the diocese. The gifts are being passed on instead to six local Christian ministries and to the American Anglican Council, a national network of parishes and individuals opposed to Robinson's confirmation. The Diocese of Western New York is one of a few in the country that do not have required assessments on its parishes, and Garrison has proposed amending the diocesan canons to make the "fair share" mandatory. Such a change would have to be approved by a vote of the Diocesan Convention, which meets this fall. Garrison said he would work to mend the gap between the diocese and those parishes that have publicly disagreed with him on the Robinson vote. But clergy from those parishes said the bishop's stance on finances does not seem conciliatory. "As far as I'm concerned, money should never be the basis for our union," said the Rev. Arthur W. Ward Jr., rector of St. Bartholomew's. The vestry of St. Stephen's in Niagara Falls also voted to redirect the parish's giving to other ministries. The Rev. Richard Molison, rector, worries that the diocese will try to recoup fair share giving from the first quarter of 2004 - money that already has been spent elsewhere. "The people have a right to choose how they want their money spent," he said. "How can we now go back to our parishioners and violate the ethical contract we've entered into with them?" Acknowledging discontent by some parishes, Garrison said most congregations had put the vote last summer behind them. "As I go around the diocese," he said, "in most places, it's water under the bridge." END

A Contra Perspective By David Thorman I do not intend this to be an argumentative response to Bob Seitz's case study, but I had to add a few things from where I sit. I am friends with people on both sides of the current issues at Grace Episcopal Church in Tampa, Florida. I hope by writing this I have not offended any of them. That is not my intention. As a point of clarification, My wife and I are individual members of the AAC. I was the first of the speakers at the March Vestry meeting where the resolution to join the AAC was defeated in a 6-6 tie. I was and am still in favor of the resolution which would have made our Parish a confessing member of the AAC. Bob Seitz and I are on the same side of this issue, although I am not as well spoken or well read as he. I have remained at Grace where some of my closest friends and brothers in Christ have left. I have been offered and accepted one of the vacated Vestry seats. I see the Episcopal world through different eyes than most of my counterparts in this debate. I was raised Jewish and brought to Christ at Grace just over 3 years ago. It was through the efforts of a loving Rector and the Alpha course that I gave my life to Christ. To both Father Bob Cain and Nicky Gumbel, and others, I owe my salvation and my heartfelt thanks. These teachings molded me into what I now see to be an Anglican, as I can find little similarity between what I was taught and the current position and beliefs of many ECUSA leaders. I know with all my heart and all my soul, that in the darkest moment of my life, God led me to Grace, and there he saved me from myself. Most of the people who ended up fighting for the resolution to make our Parish a confessing member of the AAC were happy members of the blissfully unaware until the events of the General Convention of last year. I too, was oblivious to the actions and beliefs of the leadership of ECUSA before that meeting. I was too busy running the High School Youth Group, singing in the choir, and attending Basic Anglican Discipleship classes in anticipation of my confirmation in a few weeks. What the untrained eye saw as these events developed was a small group of people meeting in private homes, although their purpose was unknown at the time. Secret whispers in private after services on Sunday. These meetings seemed to be almost dubious until I did what most of the congregation at Grace did not do, I showed up at one. I found a group of passionate and caring individuals truly concerned about the future of our church and more importantly the faith family we had come to love. Recently elevated to parish status, and currently starting the search for a new Rector, Grace hardly needed another issue to contend with, but the decision of the General Convention demanded action among some of our congregation. Even after numerous pleas from the retiring Rector to wait until the new Rector was found to address this issue, this group pressed on with getting this resolution before the Vestry to be decided. It was only recently that the urgency of this decision seemed to cool in my mind. We were in such a rush to make a statement, to help the AAC to cause reform in ECUSA that we didn't recognize what I see as two crucial things. If the AAC which was formed in 1995 to give a voice to the members who spoke for orthodoxy and realignment had not in 9 years been successful in stopping the events of General Convention, what made us think that in less than 5 months we could energize the apathetic masses to this cause and get this vote passed in our own Vestry? The only people showing up for the discussions were those who had clearly made a stand, not the people who needed to be informed of the issues and what they meant on a local level. The level of urgency created by this small group led to many unfortunate confrontations and misunderstandings. So although my own common sense said, get the resolution passed now so that an incoming Rector has a clear idea of what we expect, further reflection revealed that this would not be prudent. By slamming this through we would be creating a divide now, during a transitional period, and most likely a divide again later as well when a new Rector is chosen. If we are truly worried about what type of rector will be called to Grace I think we need not worry. If nothing else good came out of the General Convention decisions, now there is a over abundance of orthodox or conservative clergy who no longer feel as at ease serving under their revisionist leadership and seek to be in a more welcoming fold like the one we enjoy here in Southwest Florida. I would venture to guess that our new Rector, whoever he (or she) may be, will be well suited to our flock. Overall I am saddened most by the behavior on both sides. During numerous group meetings to discuss issues in an open and loving atmosphere, anyone sharing an unpopular viewpoint was subject to crowd murmur, snickering and childish gasps of amazement. Misspoken words, statistics based on fantasy, misinterpreted meaning and an emailing frenzy, which I must admit I helped fuel, full of insinuation, anger and frustration an fear further diluted the core issue into an annoyance to the general population of the church. At the Vestry meeting itself I am convinced, unfortunately, that at least one vote was swayed by the inappropriate behavior in the gallery. How sad to get so close to resolving something powerful, and falling short due to emotional outburst. I don't know which is sadder, the discontent in the gallery or the inability of the Vestry to vote on the actual issue. Either way our runaway emotions diluted the purpose we all were so passionate about. Did the Vestry truly vote in support of the revisionists that night? In my opinion, no. I have had numerous dialogues with some of the Vestry members since that night and I believe that if the vote were on the true issue, Biblical authority, not muddied by politics and bullying, and threats of departure if the vote doesn't go one way or the other, that it would have been close to unanimously in favor of the resolution. The only winner here was Satan, who managed to twist the passion of believers into anger and outrage. He managed to use the apathy of the masses to limit dialogue to a few excited individuals and swayed the debate off of the true issue and into the mire of emotional confusion and anger. A small group of concerned, faithful believers that would have been hard pressed to imagine leaving Grace five months ago, did exactly that. A few weeks have passed now, and Grace has returned to that quiet, peaceful place it once was, almost as if the debate had never existed. I don't know if I am happy or sad about that. The day after the vote I found myself reading the current issue of ENCOMPASS, the AAC newsletter where I was struck by the letter from AAC President the Rev. Canon David C. Anderson. In it he wrote, "I implore you: Do not leave your churches, do not give up; do not lose heart. Rather, take heart in the sure and certain knowledge that God will not leave us nor forsake us, if we faithfully seek his presence. Stand firm on and for your faith and await the joy of the Resurrection!" David Thorman attends Grace Episcopal Church Tampa, Florida. He has been a Christian for 3 years and spends his spare time trying to make up for lost time reading scripture and attending theology classes.

Four decades of incremental erosion of Christian faith and morals in the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC) and the Episcopal Church in USA (ECUSA) became evident in 2003 with the consecration to the episcopate of a non-celibate homosexual in New Hampshire and the approval of same-sex blessings (SSB) in New Westminster. An emergency meeting of the Primates called by the Archbishop of Canterbury to deal with this crisis issued a statement requiring the ACC and ECUSA, in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates, to provide for adequate alternative episcopal oversight (AEO) for dissenting minorites unable to accept this innovation. A request by the churches of the Anglican Communion in New Westminster to the Primate of Canada to permit immediate temporary AEO pending the outcome of the Eames Commission was ignored by Archbishop Peers. The Archbishop of Canterbury acknowledged the appeal but has not intervened. The following is a critique by members of the Anglican Communion in Canada (ACiC) of the report of the Canadian Primate's Task Force for the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada concerning Adequate/Alternative Episcopal Oversight for Dissenting Minorities, published on 3rd March 2004. Numbers in brackets refer to points in the report. The Report Legitimizes Local Option for False Teaching and Practice (6.1). This is an unacceptable way for a Province to move forward theologically. The Book of Judges is critical of the situation where "everyone did what was right in his own eyes". To abrogate responsibility as a National Synod to the level of Diocesan synods is a misuse of the principle of subsidiarity. Bp M Ingham's unilateral action in approving the blessing of same-sex unions is given legitimacy. Conservatives are expected to stay in communion, albeit in a form of parallel jurisdiction with a Bishop who has violated the Lambeth Quadrilateral. This is an attempt to add sticking plaster to the wounds created by decades of liberal theology. Parallel jurisdiction is unacceptable as it authorizes what scripture regards as sinful. Replacement jurisdiction is the only way forward. The Report falsely assumes that this is an issue over which Christians can agree to disagree and that the unity of the Church is more important than truth. There is no hint of discipline by the ACC of Bp M Ingham or his wayward Synod. The Report acknowledges a breach in Communion but sees this as something time can heal. (4.1). AEO receives only grudging acceptance and is seen as a last resort to prevent schism. The majority of those consulted "believe that AEO must be interim in nature" Is this what the Primates envisaged in London? (4.2). "AEO must be temporary in nature since to institutionalize it would de facto institutionalize schism". If provision is only to be temporary, how does this honour those of us who see this issue as one which is, in the words of (5.3), "so serious that it can place one's salvation in jeopardy"? It is assumed that over the next six years orthodox parishes will get used to the new reality and cease their protest. (5.5). The Report acknowledges that the division is so strong that "healing and reconciliation can be served best by the implementation of AEO." There is no recognition that reconciliation is contingent on repentance. Having acknowledged that for conservative Christians this is a salvation issue the report assumes it can be overcome and unity maintained despite permitting SSB's. There is no admission that the minority position in Canada is the official position of the Anglican Communion, nor that the approval of Local Option in Canada would lead to a breach in communion with the majority of Anglicans world-wide. Another assumption is that the Canadian conservative Bishops will remain in a collegial relationship with revisionist Bishops without addressing the biblical understanding of koinonia or how to proceed while Bishops are in broken communion with one another over this issue. The Report Offers 3 Models of AEO Model 1 assumes that General Synod approves local option at diocesan level. Model 2 assumes New Westminster continues with local option regardless of General Synod rejecting it. (6.1). "The task Force sees the way forward in the voluntary agreement of the bishops to some temporary ceding of jurisdiction. All of the models are premised on this "generosity of spirit. Is it enough for conservative clergy and congregations that the agreement is both voluntary and temporary when the process to date has not been characterized by generosity of spirit? We are not convinced that this is what was in the minds of the Primates when they met in London in October 2003. (6.4.1 & 6.5.3) These paragraphs make it clear that under Model 3, which it acknowledges is not AEO, the Diocesan Bishop may make "informal arrangements with a retired bishop or a bishop of an adjacent diocese to care for the needs of dissenting or distressed parishes". The danger with this model is that it allows a Revisionist Diocesan Bishop to control the process. This is not what the Primates envisaged and is similar to the ECUSA proposal of Supplemental Pastoral Care. Power is Consolidated in the Hands of Revisionist Metropolitans (6.2.1 ) Dissenting and distressed parishes are to be placed in Trust by the Diocesan Bishop and delivered into the hands of a Metropolitan. This is a worrying trend and new to Canada: that the Metropolitans are accruing power to themselves. We see this as a denial of the clear intent of the Primates from October 2003. AEO Bishops are nominated by the Metropolitans. The parishes have no say in the appointment of their bishop. The AEO bishop is designated as Episcopal Assistant to the Metropolitan This is to be done regardless of the theological position of the Metropolitan at large and his or her stand on the blessing of same-sex unions (SSU's). Dissident parishes could find themselves still inextricably linked to members of a hierarchy who accept the blessing of SSU's. Orthodox Parishes Must Continue to Contribute Financially to Revisionist Dioceses (6.6.4) The AEO parishes' apportionment is payable to the AEO bishop's office. However, there is still a link with the liberal Diocesan Bishop in that an agreed amount of the parish apportionment finds its way back into the local diocesan coffers. AEO parishes sacrifice their vote as to how that money is to be spent. This is taxation without representation. (6.6.5). Some of these funds will continue to finance the Provincial and General Synods. It is unconscionable for orthodox parishes to have to finance heretical institutions. (6.6.9). Property and buildings remain held in trust by the liberal Diocese on a nominal rent. AEO parishes remain subject to the revisionist Diocese's canons and regulations (including property canons) unless an agreement can be reached as to the suspension of those canons and regulations. True AEO should provide for the AEO parishes to be subject to the canons of the AEO bishop's Diocese, not those of the bishop with whom they are no longer in communion. There seems to be a strong attempt by the Bishops to keep their power base and not to see parochial or Diocesan boundaries transgressed. Orthodox Parishes Remain Vulnerable The actual nature of AEO with jurisdiction is never really explained. eg. Can they appoint new conservative priests to parishes without consulting the Diocesan? Under whose license? Can they ordain conservatives from Regent and Wycliffe without the insistence on attendance at a liberal college as well, as is required in the Diocese of New Westminster at the moment There is no provision for the selection, mentoring, formation and ordination of new clergy. Without this, orthodox clergy will be eliminated by attrition. That which is not explained in detail is open to Revisionist interpretation and the spirit of AEO from the Primates meeting of 'adequate to the dissenting parish' will be lost. (6.2.2) "The appointment of an AEO bishop must be temporary, we suggest that the appointment be for a six month term, renewable but not exceeding six years, with a review every two years". Every six months a conservative parish must vote by an unprecedented majority of 80% of those present at a meeting (see 6.6.3) to accept AEO. There is no continuity of care in this arrangement. Presumably, only a simple majority is required for a parish to perform SSB's. (6.6.7) The Diocese would be able to have a representative for every 5 parishes on the AEO Council. This would inevitably stifle the openness of AEO Council meetings as presumably a report of the proceedings would go directly to the Revisionist Diocesan. The Great Commission is Violated (6.5.1) While receiving AEO a parish agrees not to Church Plant. This means that for six years, and possibly thereafter, unless revisited by the HOB, no Church Planting can be undertaken by orthodox parishes. How can a conservative parish agree to this and yet remain true to Matthew 28? The local church is the basic unit of ministry. Only by planting new churches will the Church at large, and the Anglican expression of this, be able to reach an unchurched generation with the gospel. Conclusion We understand temporary adequate alternative episcopal oversight to mean: "temporary" is as long as necessary. (i.e. until either the Diocese of New Westminster and the ACC repent OR are evicted from the Anglican Communion, accompanied by the establishment of a Replacement Jurisdiction.) "adequate" is to be defined by those receiving it. "alternative" entails no juridical or institutional connection with apostate bishops. Episcopal oversight requires full jurisdiction. The offer from the International Primates meets these criteria. The Task Force report does not. It is for these reasons that members of the ACiC thank God for the provision of Temporary Adequate Episcopal Oversight (TAEO) that has allowed them to leave the ACC while remaining connected with the vast majority of Anglicans throughout the world. We ask for TAEO to be made permanent as soon as is it is evident that the ACC has no intention of re-affirming the historical Christian Faith. END

Special Report By David W. Virtue Five orthodox priests and a deacon in the Diocese of New Westminster resigned from the Diocese late last week over Bishop Michael Ingham's approval of same-sex unions and his support of the consecration of gay American Episcopal bishop V. Gene Robinson. Yesterday the five parish priests woke up and got on with their collective ministry despite the fact that the revisionist bishop now regards the priests as having left his diocese and the Anglican Church of Canada and says their properties belong to the diocese. The priests involved are the Rev. Barclay Mayo, rector of St. Andrews, Pender Harbour, the Rev. Silas Ng, rector of the Church of Emmanuel, Richmond, the Rev. Ed Hird, rector of St. Simon's, North Vancouver, and the Rev. Paul Carter, a priest on leave from the diocese. Four of the priests stated in letters to Bishop Ingham that they have left the Anglican Church of Canada, and now consider themselves missionaries in North America under the ecclesiastical authority of the Archbishop of Rwanda, Emmanuel Kolini. "We have not joined the Anglican Mission in America, despite what Ingham has written," said spokesperson Paul Carter. "We have formed the Anglican Communion in Canada (ACiC)," said Carter. "We have accepted the offer from the Primates of the Provinces of Congo, Central Africa, Rwanda and South East Asia of temporary Adequate Episcopal Oversight made available to the clergy and congregations of New Westminster, and to other Canadian clergy and congregations who seek such covering," said Carter. This included temporary Adequate Episcopal Oversight, as contemplated by the Primates Meeting of October 2003 offered in consultation with the Primates and the Archbishop of Canterbury. "Our administrative head is missionary Bishop T. J. Johnson of the Diocese of Rwanda who is also a bishop with the Anglican Mission in America," Said Carter. The bishop no longer considers the priests in good standing, but the wardens and the vast majority of the parishioners are solidly behind their priests, Virtuosity was told by phone late last night. In a letter to the Bishop the Rev. Ed Hird said, "I am writing to inform you that I have accepted the offer of Temporary Adequate Episcopal Oversight from the Primates of SE Asia; Congo; Rwanda; Central Africa and Kenya. I am now canonically resident in the Province of Rwanda. The Primates have invited Bishop TJ Johnston from Little Rock Arkansas to act on their behalf as my Bishop. I have now come under his authority." "As I have left the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC) terminating all my benefits, I would be most grateful if you could instruct your Diocesan Officers to close my file and return any documents to the address above." Hird then blasted the bishop saying, "your leadership and the decisions and actions of the Synod of the Diocese of New Westminster in relation to the issue of the blessing of same-sex unions, coupled with your own open support of and participation in the Consecration of a practising homosexual for the office of Bishop in the Anglican Communion, have regrettably brought the congregation of the Anglican Parish of St. Simon's Deep Cove to the place where a very difficult decision has become necessary." Bishop Ingham said that the parishes served by three of the priests remain parishes of the Anglican Church in the Lower Mainland, and those parishioners who wish to remain Anglicans in the Canadian Church will be provided with pastoral care, he said in an official diocesan statement. "While a parting of the ways is always sad, I am glad that they have finally clarified the situation and made it clear they are leaving the Anglican Church of Canada of their own volition," said the bishop. "I have been trying unsuccessfully to obtain clarification for the last two years," he added. The orthodox rectors maintain that the Bishop and Diocesan leadership have willfully and unrepentantly disobeyed Article 1 of the Constitution of the Synod of the Diocese of New Westminster, in that they no longer hold and maintain the Doctrine of Christ as the Lord has commanded and the Anglican Church has received them, and have changed, without the authority or approval of the Anglican Church of Canada and the formularies of the church. "Bishop Michael Ingham has not guarded the faith of the church, and has therefore set aside his ordination and consecration vows," said Carter. The four parishes have hired the lawyer who won the Trinity Western University case involving the accreditation of their four year teachers. END

"The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken. Behold, they have rejected the Word of the Lord; so what wisdom do they have?" Jeremiah 8:9 Dear Brothers and Sisters, These words of Jeremiah could be written over the doorposts of the entranceway to Camp Allen, Navasota, Texas as the current holders of apostolic succession - The Episcopal Church's House of Bishops - weighed their recent actions. These words might also be their epitaph. The vast majority of ECUSA's bishops have rejected the Word of the Lord, and so they lack wisdom and knowledge, preferring compromise and the heavy legal hand of the canons and constitutions to keep everyone in line. There is, furthermore, no grace, no joy, no love that drives these men and women, just vitriol,ast and compromise. And it would also seem to be that no matter what tokenism and nonsense the HoB hands out to the orthodox, they always take it and say, "come let us work together and let us see what God can do." As Albany Suffragan Bishop David Bena, a thoroughly orthodox bishop put it in his summation of the events that transpired in Texas recently, "some of the bishops thought the document went way too far in granting alternative episcopal oversight to traditional parishes. One bishop wanted to so obfuscate the document that it would make no sense at all. He was shouted down. And some bishops felt the document went nowhere near far enough to provide oversight." So what is being sought here is not the mind of Christ, or the Word of the Lord, or the wisdom that comes from the very mind of God, but deal making, so no one goes away empty handed. Put orthodox bishop Bob Duncan and homoerotic bishop Gene Robinson in a small group and see what they can come up with. "Find a way forward gentlemen, and we'll hold the champagne glasses till you do." There is no one truth, "it seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit", merely, "find a way through the mess and we'll all meet on a plain with Sufi Rumi and celebrate victory together." And that is the sorry state of the House of Bishops in the US Episcopal Church as we begin the 21st Century. I have written at length about the recent actions of the HOB in today's digest. AND THINGS AREN'T ANY BETTER IN CANADA. The following is a critique by members of the Anglican Communion in Canada (ACiC) of the report of the Canadian Primate's Task Force for the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada concerning Adequate/Alternative Episcopal Oversight for Dissenting Minorities, published on 3rd March 2004. The Report Legitimizes Local Option for False Teaching and Practice ran the headline. "This is an unacceptable way for a Province to move forward theologically. The Book of Judges is critical of the situation where "everyone did what was right in his own eyes". To abrogate responsibility as a National Synod to the level of Diocesan synods is a misuse of the principle of subsidiarity. Bp Michael Ingham's unilateral action in approving the blessing of same-sex unions is given legitimacy. Conservatives are expected to stay in communion, albeit in a form of parallel jurisdiction with a Bishop who has violated the Lambeth Quadrilateral. This is an attempt to add sticking plaster to the wounds created by decades of liberal theology. Parallel jurisdiction is unacceptable as it authorizes what scripture regards as sinful. Replacement jurisdiction is the only way forward. The Report falsely assumes that this is an issue over which Christians can agree to disagree and that the unity of the Church is more important than truth. There is no hint of discipline by the ACC of Ingham or his wayward Synod. The Report acknowledges a breach in Communion but sees this as something time can heal. So there you have it. Compromise. Find a way forward together, time heals all wounds, but the casualty, dear friends, is truth. AND THIS WEEK FOUR VANCOUVER PRIESTS who had had enough, finally told New Westminster Bishop Michael Ingham they were out of there and resigned from the diocese. This is a not a matter of the wheat and the tares, which the owner will decide which is which 'on that day'. This is Galatians 1:8 "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let that person be eternally condemned." They are words that should strike fear into the heart of every bishop. Apparently they don't. These words of the Apostle Paul can never be compromised or pluriformed away. Never. They are cast in stone, set in Holy Writ, forever emblazoned on the foreheads of every person who calls him or herself a servant of the most of high God. And it is the standard God himself has set and He will not compromise or change it for anyone, even and including a bunch of American Episcopal bishops in purple shirts and fancy gold crosses who think they can change God's mind for Him. They are fooling themselves all the way to Hell. The good bishop of Albany is wrong. It is not, as he writes, a case of half a loaf being better than none. It is a either the full loaf of God's truth, or no loaf at all. Once mold has penetrated the loaf it is good only for the birds and squirrels, no sensible human will eat it. You cannot hope to receive God's blessing by brokering in apostasy and heresy and believe God will either blink, wink or turn a blind eye. This is not a discussion on which view of the sacraments is the most biblical or your view of baptism; it is about parishes that do not believe that God has changed his mind about how human beings should behave with their bodies, or have the right to do as they will, and to marry whomever they please. These boundaries have been crossed at the peril of souls being lost for all eternity (1 Cor. 6: 9-10). Truly the Preacher of Ecclesiastes was right: "Whoso breaketh a hedge a serpent will bite." ECUSA lies wounded, perhaps mortally, its people perishing or fleeing, and all we will have left are beautiful buildings and no one in them. One only has to look at the English scene to see the devastation of formalism, a lost gospel and the dry rot of ecclesiasticism. No life, no hope. No vision. The people look up and are not fed, and the husks of inclusion and diversity, ual perversion and doctrinal denial ring hollow with each passing day. THERE WAS SOME DRAMA LEADING UP TO THE HoB meeting this week. Both the Presiding Bishop and representatives of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes were in regular consultation with Archbishop Williams right up to the eve of the meeting. The Archbishop counseled charity on everyone's part, as well as encouragement to go as far as possible in providing adequate Episcopal Oversight for traditional parishes in non-traditional dioceses. Bishop Bena said the Archbishop was instrumental in the development and implementation of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes, because he realized the need the Episcopal Church has for such an organization to act as an advocate for persons and parishes who hold to orthodox Anglican teaching." Interestingly enough Bishop Griswold denied that the NACDP had such approval from Williams. He was wrong. But now we know that he regularly consults with the Presiding Bishop AND with leaders of the Network. Obviously, writes Bena, his consultation had a positive effect on the House of Bishops meeting. While no one got the whole loaf, both sides got half a loaf. The document "Caring for all the Churches," was passed which hopefully offers a way through with the title, Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight. It won't, and most of the orthodox branches of the Episcopal Church have spoken out and said so. But the one question no one is asking is this. WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN? What do parents say to teens coming into puberty? What do mothers and fathers say to their sons and daughters as they watch a moral periwinkle like Michael Jackson with his false face and falsetto voice declaiming about children. Or the Rev. Michael Hopkins or Louie Crew or Otis Charles proclaiming the joys of homoerotic behavior, with every parent wondering if his or her son or daughter won't one day walk through the front door and say, "hey ma, the Rector says that should leave my wife to live with Fred." It will soon be a crime to even suggest reparative therapy. It is in Canada. What do parents say and or do when their daughter discovers that the Diocesan Youth leader in the Diocese of NJ is a pregnant lesbian and conducts "happening" weekends. That's cool? The hell it is. Everybody has forgotten the children, except those who prey upon them. At the last General Convention in Minneapolis a father wrote and told me that his son was constantly being solicited for right under the noses of the bishops and no one cared because of the beloved doctrine of inclusion and "my right" to do as I please and God be damned. One of the "negatives" that Bishop Bena pointed up in the DEPO document was this. "There are no teeth in this document; it can be easily abused by a diocesan bishop indisposed to sharing power." He's got that right. PA Bishop Charles E. Bennison has already gone on the record saying he will never honor DEPO…not now, not ever. So what chance do orthodox parishes have in the Diocese of Pennsylvania of getting around having Bennison force himself on them? The answer is none, unless you want to face fraudulent charges of "abandoning the communion of the church" Bennison tried (unsuccessfully) to use on Fr. David Moyer. AS A SIGN OF THE TIMES, an evangelical family of a large prosperous metro Washington parish noted that the guest book which lies open in the Narthex had barely a visitor since Dec. 2003. "They have only had 2 visitors a month in 2004 to sign the guest book. In previous years there would have been as many as a dozen," he noted. People are not flocking to the new doctrine of inclusion; many of them are going to upstart church plants with the REC and AMIA. ONE HOPEFUL SIGN ON THE INTERNATIONAL FRONT THIS WEEK WAS that Bishop Robinson Cavalcanti of the Diocese of Recife was found not to have violated the constitutions or canons of the Brazilian Church by performing Episcopal acts outside of his diocese in an unauthorized confirmation service in Ohio on March 14 in defiance of the local diocesan, the Rt. Rev. J. Clark Grew II. There HoB met at approximately the same time as the Episcopal House of Bishops. The episcopal college of the Anglican Church in Brazil rejected a call by its primate, the Most Rev. Orlando Santos de Oliveira, to discipline the Bishop of Recife. The Bishops' Chamber of the Igreja Episcopal Anglicana do Brasil (IEAB) made their ruling on March 23. Not everybody rolls over. UBERPURPLE BISHOP WALTER RIGHTER WHOSE ECCLESIASTICAL activities were reported on in the last digest has been a busy little bishop. He has not only been functioning illegally at Calvary but at five other parishes, Virtuosity has learned. They are; Church of the Redeemer, Squirrel Hill, Pittsburgh PA, Holy Cross Church, Pittsburgh PA, St Brendan's Church Franklin Park PA, St Stephen's Church Wilkinsburg PA and St Andrew's Highland Park, Pittsburgh PA. Bishop Duncan was well aware of these actions but was waiting for the "right" time to play his hand, a source told Virtuosity. The question is when is it the right time? The five dissenting bishops just got their knuckles rapped for performing allegedly illegal acts in Ohio and now the orthodox bishops have a golden moment to come down on Righter with a ton of bricks. The question is whether the orthodox bishops will bring Righter's actions officially to the attention of Griswold! If they do and Griswold does nothing and fails to act against Righter it is "selective prosecution" and "denial of due process" when the revisionists bring charges against the orthodox bishops the next time they cross Diocesan lines. BODY LIFE MOVEMENTS. The Anglican Mission in America announces that one of its bishops will relocate to the northeastern United States in order to help plant a new church and grow a new region for the Anglican Mission. The Rt. Rev. Thaddeus Barnum and his wife, the Rev. Erilynne Barnum, a deacon in the Anglican Mission, will move to Fairfield, Connecticut to assume a leadership role with the newly-named Church of the Apostles and establish an office that will encourage the growth of new churches throughout the northeast corridor. Archbishop Kolini of Rwanda asked the couple to consider this move. They will provide leadership and care to developing new churches in the Northeast, from Washington, D.C. to Maine. This is one dynamic duo. THE AMERICAN ANGLICAN COUNCIL recently saw two new staff additions at their headquarters in Washington, DC. Another dynamic southern duo, the Rev. Canon Ellis E. Brust and his wife Cynthia have landed with a bang inside the Beltway. He has landed the title of COO and Chaplain to the President of the AAC. Brust was formerly Canon to the Ordinary for the Episcopal Diocese of Florida for five years. Cynthia has taken up the position of Director of communications for the AAC. They are two fireball evangelicals. The south is rising again and heading north to convert the highly secularized northeast region. Interestingly enough the Roman Catholic Church learned a long time ago that if you evangelize the centers of intellectual and political power, you will impact the rest of the nation. Recent priestly scandals in Boston, Ct. and New York have opened a door of opportunity for a gospel driven alternative. AS A SIGN OF A SMALL BUT SIGNIFICANT REVOLT at All Saints, Attleboro, Ma. the parish has put a sign out front stating Anglican-Orthodox. CANON JOHN PETERSON, Secretary General of the Anglican Consultative Council is moving to Washington, DC where he will take up his new post as Canon for Global Mission at Washington National Cathedral when his term expires, according to the Anglican Communion Office in London. Peterson spent most of his time working against orthodoxy in the nine years he was in the ACO and was accused by this writer of manipulating two Archbishops of Canterbury with his leftist views and working against the vast majority of global orthodox Anglicans in the Communion. At Lambeth 1998 he was roundly criticized by several Global South Primates including Moses Tay for suspending the Communion's Office of evangelism two years before the Decade of Evangelism ended. Following the historic passage of the resolution saying that homosexual practice "was incompatible with scripture," Peterson said he would work to make sure that future Lambeth Conferences would never be run by bishops and would include clergy and laity to offset the bishops. He was also accused by this writer of attempting to manipulate the annual Primates' Meetings that provided his support. That he has wound up in one of the most revisionist of ECUSA's diocese speaks volumes. He will fit right in. One hopes his successor will be an African, but it is up to the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican primates and the Anglican Consultative Council that chooses the secretary general. Predictions are that it will not be an American or a Brit. The calls from some quarters are for his successor to come from the global South, where Anglicanism is strongest and growing. THE CLAIMING THE BLESSING crowd is having a celebration event called 'It's About Love' in May. Billed as a "blockbuster" event and engineered by Ed Bacon, rector of All Saints Church in Pasadena, California, the honoree will be none other than Vicki Gene Robinson. Jon Bruno, the ex-cop bishop of Los Angeles will also participate and they are also throwing in Norman Lear, Maya Angelou, Dionne Warwick, et al. The 'Rev.' Susan Russell of 'Claiming the Blessing,' will round out this assemblage of Christian Faith deconstructionists. And here's the kicker, you can sit with Vicki Gene at his "platinum" table for a cool $10,000. The event flyer says it's an evening benefit that will bring together voices from both the sacred and secular community speaking in favor of love and justice and against the proposed amendment that threatens to write discrimination into our Constitution. Of course. Now think what $10,000 would do to fight AIDS in Southern Africa. BUT FOR A TRULY UPLIFTING OCCASION GO TO COLORADO SPRINGS April 20-23 to hear some of Anglican's best known theologians and Dr. George Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury. It's not too late to register for the Anglican Communion Institute Conference, Anglicanism, History and Hope: The Future of Anglicanism in North America. Your scribe has been asked to speak at the banquet, so you won't be bored. Along with The Most Rev. Dr. George Carey, is Professor Edith Humphrey, the Rev. Dr. John Karanja, the Rev. Dr. Robert Prichard, the Rev. Dr. Jeremie Begbie, the Rev. Dr. Christopher Seitz, the Very Rev. Dr. George Sumner, the Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner, and the Rev. Dr. Ashley Null. They will offer their perspective, encouragement, and theological basis for thinking Anglicanism does indeed have a future in North America. (See details in the digest.) I AM POSTING A NUMBER OF STORIES TODAY including late breaking news that Nigerian Bishop Peter Akinola has come out slamming Frank Griswold saying that the future of true Anglicanism in the United States lies with conservative groups within the Episcopal Church that oppose gay marriage and the church's approval of an openly gay bishop. Akinola said he will never attend a meeting with the ECUSA leader or attend the 2008 meeting of the world's Anglican bishops if the U.S. hierarchy participates. That's a right hook to the revisionist Presiding Bishop's chin. (See full story in today's digest.) WELCOME TO VIRTUOSITY. Please feel free to forward any story to your friends that you think might interest them and invite people to join VIRTUOSITY or go to the website at www.virtuosityonline.org. To keep this ministry going Virtuosity does need your support. Please give generously. Make the long days and nights worth it to keep you informed. You can make a donation at PAYPAL at the website: www.virtuosityonline.org, or you can send a snail mail Check to VIRTUOSITY, 1236 Waterford Rd., West Chester, PA, 19380. If you are in the UK you can send your tax deductible cheque to: VIRTUOSITY c/- Brycedale 105 Ridgeway Northaw Herts EN6 4BG Thank you for your support. All Blessings David W. Virtue DD

RICHARD N. OSTLING Associated Press The spokesman for bishops who claim leadership of a majority of the world's Anglican Christians denounced the gay-rights policies of America's Episcopal Church on Saturday, following a two-day caucus in Atlanta with U.S. conservatives. Archbishop Peter Akinola said the future of true Anglicanism in the United States lies with conservative minority opposition groups within the Episcopal Church who oppose gay marriage and the church's approval of an openly gay bishop. The Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch of the Anglican Communion. Akinola also said in a telephone interview that unless conditions change, he will not attend meetings alongside the leader of the Episcopal Church, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, or attend the 2008 meeting of the world's Anglican bishops if the U.S. hierarchy participates. Akinola leads Nigeria's Anglican church, with its 17.5 million members, and the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa, a continent that includes half the world's 77 million Anglicans. He is also spokesman for "Global South" archbishops who have severed normal ties with the Episcopal Church. Episcopal Church spokesman Daniel England said Saturday that Griswold understands that Akinola has strong feelings on the issue. "I'm sure the presiding bishop will be disappointed if the archbishop cannot join him at the communion table," he said. Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane of Cape Town has criticized Akinola's strong stand against the U.S. church. But the archbishops announced jointly March 29 that they agree with the stand against gay clergy and blessing of same-sex couples taken by the world's bishops at their 1998 meeting. The dispute over the American church's acceptance of gay activity became a major world issue when it approved an openly homosexual bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. Akinola underscored his support of the conservative minority over the weekend when he met in Atlanta with leaders from the two main U.S. organizations that oppose toleration of homosexual activity: the American Anglican Council and the recently formed Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes. Akinola said the Episcopal Church "is trying to redefine Christianity and rewrite Scripture, and we have no right to do that. The historic faith of the church is what we stand by, and there is no going back." In the archbishop's view, although those who favor liberal policies on homosexuality have a clear operating majority in the U.S. church, he strongly backs the minority and its new network. "It's either repent and come back to the fold, or give up on the Anglican family," he said. But England, the Episcopal Church spokesman, said the church's position stands. "If he's waiting on the network to replace the Episcopal Church, I think he's in for a long wait," he said.

By The Rev'd Canon John Heidt April 2, 2004 An Open Letter to the Presiding Bishop and House of Bishops Dear Bishop Griswold, It has come to my attention that since the recent meeting of the House of Bishops there are those who claim that the more "liberal" bishops led by yourself were eager to find out what the more "orthodox" bishops really want and would have come up with a stronger statement if more of them had attended the meeting. This is a serious indictment, and knowing several of the bishops involved I have asked myself why they did not attend and what would have been gained if they had. It seems to me that all of us who sincerely want to maintain "the greatest possible communion among us" must try to understand sympathetically their decision before criticizing it. And we must ask what more the HOB could have learned from them about their needs that has not already been made quite clear. I find three interrelated groups who have either decided not to attend any more HOB meetings or, for strategic purposes, to attend only some of the sessions. First is a broadly based group who feel socially marginalized, ecclesiastically disenfranchised, and theologically excommunicated by a large majority of their fellow bishops. That this has happened raises the whole question of how we think we appoint bishops - by popular election or by the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Or have we come to assume that the two are the same: "Vox Populi, Vox Dei" - as those seemed to believe who argued that New Hampshire should have whatever bishop the people elected. This group of bishops find the HOB meetings a waste of time and only attend all or some of the sessions in the hope of still wielding some influence on the rest of the House. I believe these bishops will only be won back, if at all, when the rest of the bishops show outward signs of genuine respect for their convictions, and admit that the majority may be wrong. They will not be won back by accommodation, compromise or toleration. Who, after all, wants to be tolerated? Within this group is a more cohesive group of bishops, represented by many of those taking part in the new "Network of Anglican Churches." These bishops believe it is morally wrong to take part in any future meetings of the HOB. Their argument is simple but clear: Homosexuality is condemned by scripture; the House of Bishops has approved the consecration of a practicing homosexual; therefore the House of Bishops is condemned by scripture. To participate in the house's future deliberations would be guilt by association. The issue for them is not about the Episcopal Church and how it chooses its bishops, but about the primary work of the Church itself - saving souls. This is a so-called "salvation issue" which cannot be compromised. Only a corporate act of repentance by the HOB acknowledging that it was wrong to disregard scripture in allowing the consecration of a public practicing homosexual, can possibly bring them back. Until that unlikely event, they look to the greater Anglican Communion for support. Because they believe they are in a state of "impaired communion" with the rest of ECUSA's bishops they require some form of guaranteed episcopal oversight from those bishops who cannot accept the actions of the last General Convention. Thirdly are the few bishops left who believe that the HOB went into serious error in 1976 when it agreed to permit the ordination of women. Believing such ordinations are invalid, as supported neither by scripture, tradition nor any established catholic authority, they are unable to accept the priestly and episcopal ministries of ordained women and therefore consider themselves in a state of impaired communion with the rest of the bishops. (There are others, and I am surprised at how many there are, who believe that though the 1976 decision was mistaken can still live with it. If they do not go to HOB meetings it is for other reasons.) These few bishops continued to participate in the meetings of the HOB so long as their position was respected. But now that this is no longer the case they have aligned themselves with many of those in the above group. Like them, these bishops want to be in step with the rest of the Anglican Communion, but not so much because they think of themselves simply as Anglican but because they see the Communion itself primarily as a provincial or ethnic portion of the Catholic Church united and authenticated by common faith and sacraments. For them valid sacraments as well as true faith are "salvation issues" because they are the covenanted means by which the church mediates Christ's salvation to each generation. They see no point in being part of a HOB that thinks of the Episcopal Church as one denomination among many with a right to determine its own faith and practice apart from the vast consensus of Christendom. I do not see any possibility of them again becoming involved in the deliberations of the national episcopal church at any level unless the ecumenical dimension of the church is taken into account and their own position is respected by repealing the punitive canons now in force. At the moment what do these groups want apart from respect for their position? I think they have made this quite clear. They want priests and laity to be ministered to by bishops who do not accept the HOB's approval of Robinson's consecration. And they want this ministry guaranteed rather than dependent upon the whim of individual diocesan bishops, and to be assured that priests and laity of their persuasion will not be threatened or harassed legally, politically or economically. (I have learned that one bishop has already sent letters to his clergy warning them that anyone who brought in another bishop would be liable to presentment.) To secure this they want any such oversight to be guided by the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the primates, and not just by someone like yourself who is not of their persuasion. Finally, adequate episcopal oversight is not primarily about jurisdiction but about communion. The juridical is meant to support communion, and when it becomes divisive and/or immoral it sometimes has to be ignored. The Rev'd Canon John Heidt, M.Litt., D.Phil. (Oxon) is Canon Theologian to the Bishop of Fort Worth the Rt. Rev. Jack Iker.

CofE Faces Evangelical Failures and Backlash to Woman Archbishop Appointment//ACNA leadership failures//Continuing Church Mergers   By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org December 30, 2025   Dear Brothers and Sisters,   2025 was not a year to remember or repeat. The steady drumbeat of “reset” and “realignment” continued with a fractured communion. The West and North moved further away from the gospel, even as the Global South embraced the faith with greater intensity.   As the West embraced the culture and ditched the Bible, provinces like Nigeria embraced the gospel and the pain of persecution while adding 15 new dioceses, even as their people were being slaughtered by Islamic terrorists. By contrast The Episcopal Church merged dioceses as their numbers fell and parishes closed.   Western Anglicanism is not worth dying for; there is nothing in it worth saving. It has been hollowed out by years of compromise with the culture over (homo)sex and a refusal to believe that Jesus is the only way to the Father. The Great Commission has long been decommissioned. One is reminded of the words of Jesus; “Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father in heaven. …” Western Anglicanism is frightened of its own spiritual and theological shadow. It fears rebuttal… if you stand for nothing you will fall for anything and that is the state of our Anglican churches in the West today.  Western Anglicanism pays lip service to the creeds, refuses to accept the full authority of scripture and wonders why its pews are empty. Sodomite marriages have not filled pews.   ALL IS NOT LOST   On October 16, 2025, the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) issued a bold statement declaring "the future has arrived." In this declaration, GAFCON announced it had single handedly reordered the Anglican Communion, rejecting the traditional Instruments of Communion and establishing itself as the authentic expression of global Anglicanism.   The GAFCON reset of the Anglican Communion aims to restore biblical authority and has declared that the Anglican Communion will be reordered as a fellowship of autonomous provinces.  Many orthodox provinces have expressed dissatisfaction with the direction of the Anglican Communion, particularly following the election of Sarah Mullally as the first female Archbishop of Canterbury.   Global South leaders claim to represent up to eighty-five percent of practicing Anglicans worldwide with GAFCON positioning itself as the guardian of biblical orthodoxy against the revisionist agenda of Canterbury and the Western provinces.   While there is talk of a formal schism with the West, that seems not to be on the cards. The Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches (GSFA) has been clear in its disapproval of Western Anglican innovations particularly in response to the Church of England's decisions regarding same-sex blessings and the appointment of Sarah Mullally as Archbishop of Canterbury, the first woman leader in the church’s 1,400-year history. She is viewed as progressive (revisionist) on a number of issues but especially sexuality, which has alienated her from the vast majority of the Anglican Communion’s bishops.   However, the GSFA, which has overlapping bishops with their GAFCON brethren, are committed to maintaining the unity of the visible church and the fabric of the Anglican Communion. They will remain true to the historic faith, the Anglican formularies, the authority of Scripture and sexual morality, honoring the 1998 Lambeth Conference Resolution 1:10.   GAFCON will represent the future of Anglicanism in terms of numerical strength and global reach.   If it wasn’t enough to rain on the Anglican parade over same sex marriage, one Anglican province did the unthinkable . The Church in Wales elected an avowed lesbian archbishop to run its affairs, a more in your face act cannot be imagined. Is a transsexual archbishop waiting in the wings?   Among the blows and woes the Church of England suffered, none did as much damage to its evangelical wing as the John Smyth, Jonathan Fletcher and Mike Pilavachi sexual predation over abuse of power and authority issues. The fallout is still being felt after the then Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby resigned following an independent review that found he and other senior church leaders had covered up the abuse of over 100 boys and young men by Smyth.   There was a lot of hype and talk about a quiet revival in the Church of England which turned out not to be the case. New attendance stats released by the Church of England were in marked contrast to the Bible Society’s report of a quiet revival in the UK.   It was touted that attendance at Church of England churches rose for the fourth year in a row, was a headline on the official Church website. “The overall number of regular worshippers across the Church of England’s congregations rose to 1.009 million in 2024, a rise of 0.6 per cent, according to the annual Statistics for Mission findings,” the Church of England “Statistics for Mission” report says.   But Madeleine Davies of the Church Times contradicted the official optimism. “The data, published, record that in 2024 attendance rose for the fourth year, but that recovery since the Covid-19 pandemic has slowed. Increases in attendance since 2023 were smaller than in previous years. In 2019, a “middle-sized” church had an all-age average weekly attendance (AWA) of 34.5; in 2024, the equivalent figure was 26. The median church has just one child in attendance, compared with three in 2019.”  The moral of this story is don’t believe what the church turns out as official news.  A different reading could be that any revival in the UK is occurring outside the Church of England.   EPISCOPAL CHURCH WOES   The Episcopal faced two major issues this past year. The first was its numbers as it decreased its footprint on American soil and the violation of its canons by bishops and clergy alike.   As of 2023, the Episcopal Church had approximately 1,547,779 active baptized members and about 2.4 million total members. The church has seen a decline in membership over the past decade, with a total membership drop of around 21% from 2013. In 2023, the average Sunday attendance was nearly 411,000, reflecting a recovery from the pandemic.   However, a deeper look at the church’s numbers revealed that in 2024 Episcopal Church’s Baptismal number dropped to 19,624 down from 20,247 in 2023. Resulting in a -3.1% drop of 623.   The other issue was the calls for criminal investigations into the Episcopal Church’s failure to fulfill mandatory child abuse reporting obligations, reported by Anglican Watch , the unofficial watchdog of the Episcopal Church. They have called on state attorneys general to investigate the denomination’s ongoing refusal to comply with state mandatory child sex abuse reporting obligations. Of particular concern is the refusal of Episcopal Church officials to report historic child sex abuse cases, notably in New York, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Maryland.   “Anglican Watch is appalled by the fact that senior Episcopal Church officials, including former Presiding Bishop Michael Curry, former Bishop for Pastoral Development Todd Ousley, and retired Bishop Alan Gates all failed to report the allegations that Episcopal priest Richard Losch took one or more boys across state lines for the purpose of raping them,” says Anglican Watch official Eric Bonetti.   “The states in question — Massachusetts, Michigan, and New York — all expressly require reporting of historical abuse and impose criminal penalties for failing to do so. The failed safeguarding performances which reared its head at St. Thomas Fifth Avenue was perhaps the most egregious of all the parish failures. You can read more here: https://www.anglicanwatch.com/anglican-watch-files-title-iv-complaint-against-saint-thomas-rector-carl-turner-believes-lawsuit-against-parish-is-warranted/   and here: https://www.anglicanwatch.com/heres-the-truth-about-the-saint-thomas-church-fifth-avenue-sexual-assault-and-defamation-lawsuit/   But the church that got the biggest public headlines of the year was the Anglican Church in North America.   A major article in the Washington Post accused ACNA Archbishop Stephen Wood of sexual misconduct, abuse of power, plagiarism and much more. Some 3,500 words were written blowing up the orthodox archbishop of the small 100,000-member denomination by one of America’s leading newspapers. He now faces a trial for his behavior which could result in his being tossed out of the church.   ACNA Bishop Stewart Ruch III, accused of mishandling abuse allegations and failing to safeguard parishioners in his care, was found not guilty by a church court on all counts after a tumultuous trial that spanned more than four months.   The decision came more than six years after a 9-year-old child in the Upper Midwest Diocese, which is led by Ruch, first came forward with sexual abuse allegations against a lay minister, who has since been convicted of felony sexual assault and felony child sexual assault. More than 10 clergy and other lay leaders in Ruch’s diocese have been accused of misconduct, a pattern that abuse advocates say resulted from Ruch’s leadership failures.   But the case that could well be the financial undoing of the denomination came from Bishop Derek Jones of the Special Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy (SJAFC). The complaints include allegations of ecclesiastical power abuse, wrongful use of disciplinary processes, backdating or fabrication of church documents, interference with external employment opportunities, wrongful release of a priest from orders, and infliction of financial, emotional, and psychological stress upon persons in Jones' care.   Jones was inhibited. He went on to split from the ACNA and formed his own church - The Anglican Reformed Catholic Church – which includes those bishops ousted from the ACNA. Millions of dollars in lawsuits are at stake here. Leaders describe the new alignment as "Classic Anglican." You can read more here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/jafc-bishops-form-new-anglican-denomination-the-anglican-reformed-catholic-church-will-be-led-by-bi   To cap off the church’s troubles, another article appeared in the Washington Post claiming that the interim ACNA leader Bishop Julian Dobbs was involved in financial scandal.   Dobbs, who suspended the denomination’s archbishop over allegations of sexual misconduct — was himself previously investigated over two separate allegations of financial impropriety, according to a federal lawsuit and a global charity’s internal records. You can read more here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/he-suspended-the-archbishop-but-faced-his-own-probes-financial-ones   The road ahead for ACNA appears rocky, and further schism cannot be ruled out. Whether these developments are isolated events remains to be seen.   On the plus side, The Anglican Church in America reunited with The Anglican Catholic Church.   The House of Bishops and The Executive Council of The Anglican Church in America voted unanimously to reverse a historic schism with The Anglican Catholic Church. Thirty-four years ago, at a meeting in Deerfield Beach, Florida, a failed merger with the American Episcopal Church, resulted in a schism that has lasted until the present. Over the past twelve years, many ecumenical meetings have been convened to discuss how to repair this damage, which is often regarded as the most unfortunate event in the history of the Anglican Continuum.   Early efforts at reunification resulted in the historic communio-in-sacris (shared participation in the sacraments) agreement which was signed in Atlanta, Georgia in 2017. This agreement united the Anglican Church in America, The Anglican Catholic Church, The Anglican Province of America and The Diocese of the Holy Cross in a communion of Anglican jurisdictions. Subsequently, The Diocese of The Holy Cross joined The Anglican Catholic Church. In October, 2023, the General Synod of The Anglican Church in America voted unanimously to join with other Continuing churches at the earliest possible time. On April 8, 2025, the House of Bishops of The Anglican Church in America voted “unanimously and irrevocably” to reunite with The Anglican Catholic Church. The Executive Council in its meeting of April 29, 2025, affirmed and ratified the decision by the House of Bishops.   There are still outstanding issues but a synod will be held within the next seven months to finalize the reunification of the ACA and the ACC.   ****   We are going down to the wire as we prepare VOL for its biggest and best year yet, but we need your support to make it happen.   With my new Substack davidvirtue2.substack.com on the Middle East, we are expanding our coverage in 2026 to include:   ·       The rise of Anglicanism in the Global South as it separates from the Global North. ·       The decline of liberalism and progressive theology, and the growing threat of Islam to our faith. ·       The increasing decline of the Anglican Church of Canada, The Episcopal Church, The Church of England, the Church in Wales and the Scottish Episcopal Church. ·       The rise of GAFCON and the GSFA to counter the threat of western liberalism and secularization. ·       The financial influence by TEC to pressure the Global South with money aimed at persuading African Anglicans to accept pansexuality. ·       How oil-rich Middle Eastern nations use their wealth to shape Western minds and promote Islam while systematically undermining the Christian West. ·       The persecution of Christians throughout the world. ·       We need to raise $30,000 by December 31st to continue our coverage of the Anglican Communion. We are bringing on board new writers with clear insights into Scripture and culture.   VOL has no mega-donors and no grants—just faithful readers like you who believe we tell the truth however difficult it may be. Tens of thousands of enthusiastic VOL readers trust us to expose the most pressing issues facing Anglicanism today.   Please give before December 31st to ensure your gift is tax-deductible this calendar year.   Your partnership allows us not only to continue our work but to grow and do even better with more writers and commentators.   How to Give: Online: PayPal donation link at https://www.virtueonline.org/donate By check (tax-deductible):  VIRTUEONLINE  P.O. BOX 111  Shohola, PA 18458 Thank you for your support,   David