Archives

By David W. Virtue Walter C. Righter—the former Bishop of Iowa and central figure in the 1996 “Righter Trial” (which controversially concluded the Episcopal Church had “no core doctrine” after he ordained a non-celibate gay man)—says dissenting orthodox bishops and organizations should leave ECUSA. Writing on the House of Bishops/Deputies listserv, Righter said: “If the continuing dissenters must go, I say ‘Go with God,’ and now let us get on with the work of the church.” He criticized the idea that bishops could “allow what the canons and constitution do not allow” or “cede control that is not theirs to cede.”“Even if they wanted to, they cannot. If outfits like the AAC and the Network et al. must have a plan cast in concrete, they are stuck with it.” Righter compared the current standoff to post- presentment negotiations in the 1990s: “My presenters acted as if they would negotiate. The PB appointed people to negotiate with them. When they met, it was clear there was only one way—the presenters’ way. No negotiation. So… everything was called off. So it is now.” He accused dissenters of seeking attention, ignoring mission, and refusing to engage in the church’s “continuing urging… to enter into conversation with homosexual persons.”“Who are they kidding?” he asked. The retired bishop lives in Maine with his third wife.

This week, the ECUSA House of Bishops meeting in Navasota, Texas, announced a proposal for Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO) —a response to the crisis over broken trust between revisionist bishops and orthodox congregations. Thoughtful Episcopalians say it addresses symptoms, not systemic problems. The question is whether DEPO—described as a compromise between Episcopal Pastoral Care and Alternative Episcopal Oversight —offers real relief, or is merely a bureaucratic veneer preserving the status quo. Not all orthodox bishops attended. Four bishops boycotted entirely. Five—including Pittsburgh Bishop Bob Duncan—attended meetings but stayed off-site. Some who did attend limited their participation, refusing to share the communal life of the House. They know what “reconciliation” à la Griswold means: staying together until you agree that pansexuality is “good and right in the eyes of God.” A deliberate effort to place Duncan in a small group with New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson failed—Duncan refused to be sequestered for a “see I’m normal—why can’t we all get along?” huddle. Quincy Bishop Keith Ackerman did not attend, citing personal reasons. The stakes were high. Just prior to the meeting, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold received a private letter from Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams urging caution—and warning that failure to act responsibly could threaten Griswold’s own position. Yet Griswold never shared the letter’s contents with the House—fueling speculation that disciplinary action against the “Ohio Five” would trigger strong reprisals from the Primates. In the end, the five bishops involved in the Ohio confirmations were not formally punished—only mildly reproved and spared trial. Meanwhile, Griswold did publicly release a letter from the Primate of Brazil, Bishop Orlando Santos de Oliveira, who condemned his own Bishop of Recife, Robinson Cavalcanti, for participating in the Ohio event. Cavalcanti faces discipline; Griswold does not—even though he presided at Robinson’s consecration after signing a public pledge in London not to do so. A Brazilian source explained: “The Brazilian Church depends on ECUSA for money. Orlando is not a conservative, but he is also not an active liberal. Do not expect anything from the Brazilian church except support of ECUSA.” Orthodox leaders universally condemned the DEPO plan: The American Anglican Council (AAC) called it “inadequate.” Canon David Roseberry, an AAC leader, echoed that verdict. An orthodox theologian said it was “dead on arrival.” Forward in Faith North America (FIFNA) , the Anglo-Catholic wing, declared: “We will not accept this. We are committed to Adequate Episcopal Oversight as defined by the Archbishop of Canterbury.” — Fr. David Moyer, FIFNA leader. Only the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes (NACDP) offered a measured response. Its moderator, Bishop Duncan, said the DEPO plan would require “tremendous generosity and charity on the part of the bishops and an extraordinary new level of trust on the part of the people and clergy” —if it is to work. When asked how he copes with the burdens of office, Griswold said he works out at the gym, reads fiction, and visits his country house in New Hampshire. He made no mention of prayer, Scripture, or the Holy Spirit. Bishop Pierre Whalon (Convocation of American Churches in Europe) described the closed-door meetings as having an “undertone of dread.” Bishop Charles Jenkins, chair of the Presiding Bishop’s Council of Advice, presented a plan for adequate oversight—but faced “much pressure against it,” saying, “The stakes are high.” The AAC noted that no faithful congregations or their representatives were consulted —reinforcing the perception of “continued arrogance” among Griswold and his allies, who prioritize institutional power over pastoral care. Virtuosity learned that the Ohio confirmations were planned under unprecedented secrecy. Canon David Anderson (AAC General Secretary) said: “We caught them absolutely flat-footed. We were not even telling our midlevel AAC folks where it was to be—and third-level folks didn’t even know when. We kept it so secret because we didn’t want ‘ungodly admonitions’ to be given to the six rectors, who would then—if they showed up at all—be vulnerable for violating an ‘ungodly admonition.’” Then Anderson added: “There will be more.” It is now clear the AAC is prepared for sustained conflict—not retreat. Griswold repeatedly invoked the “ministry of reconciliation” —a phrase drawn from 2 Corinthians 5:18. Yet in context, that passage calls for repentance and reconciliation to God . To Griswold, it has become a demand that orthodox Anglicans reconcile to him and his agenda. As one exegete noted: “Truth is constantly being turned on its head… what issues forth from his mouth is his own theobabble that baffles Global South bishops but feeds the revisionist episcopate.” In Southern Virginia—where the bishop voted against Robinson’s confirmation—2004 pledges have dropped 24%. Bishop David Bane appointed a reconciliation commission, led by Herman Hollerith of Bruton Parish (the largest Episcopal church in the diocese), who says the gay bishop does not threaten his theology—but he will not perform same-sex blessings. Yet Bane opposes President George W. Bush’s proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, saying: “It is imperative that we not try through the legislative or legal process to short-circuit or pre-judge ongoing conversations about the moral and religious issues involved.”This kind of flip-flopping , a reader wrote, “has people screaming into their coffee cups and pulling their hair out.”

David W. Virtue The revisionist Bishop of Pennsylvania, Charles E. Bennison, is facing increasing pressure from orthodox priests in his diocese who disagree with him over the faith, ECUSA’s liberal positions on sexual morality, and the way he runs the diocese. “Diversity is disappearing—instead, we have a liberal narrowness. It’s a paradox. Genuine openness is slowly vanishing and becoming deliberately narrow,” said the Rev. Don Sehulster, the evangelical rector of Good Shepherd, Hilltown, PA. At a recent meeting of the Bucks Deanery Clericus at Grace Church, Hulmeville, several priests raised their voices at the direction the Episcopal Church was going—and specifically at the way Bishop Bennison was running the diocese. Following a Bible study, Sehulster weighed in on the topic of Episcopal pastoral oversight, offering that the Episcopal Church was sick. “We cannot heal ourselves; we need intervention from the outside. We need a pastoral leader from outside of ECUSA to help us—a Primate.” At the clergy meeting, Bennison revealed that he had discussed with 14 bishops of Province 3 their strategy for responding if a parish refused a pastoral visit. “Bennison said that two of the bishops would not make a pastoral visit, two more said they didn’t know, and 10 said they would go—and if they were not allowed into the church, they would hold a service outside on the parish grounds” (shades of Bishop Jane Dixon at Accokeek in the Diocese of Washington). Bennison added, “We have learned from the ’60s that we must confront evil wherever we find it.” The Rev. Larry Snyder, rector of St. Luke’s Newtown, voiced opposition to Bennison’s remark that everyone who disagreed with him theologically was “evil.”“I took offense at that remark,” said Snyder. Fr. Sehulster also opposed the comment. Bennison scrambled for an explanation, saying he meant not people but those “who believed in the heresy of schism.” Snyder told the bishop he was using the canons to “beat us who don’t agree with him into submission.” An Anglo-Catholic priest, Snyder has repeatedly asked Bennison for another bishop to do confirmations—and only recently was allowed to have Quincy Bishop Keith Ackerman visit for a teaching mission. He was permitted to celebrate but not to confirm. Bennison exacts a heavy price for cooperation. “I ask three or four times a year, but with little success. I am hoping the new ruling from the House of Bishops for Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight will give us some freedom,” Snyder told Virtuosity. In a March 12 letter, Snyder castigated Bennison for breaking a promise made upon election: to continue the practice (under Bishop Alan Bartlett) of permitting traditionalist bishops from outside the diocese to make Episcopal visitations. Bennison had reportedly said, “If it ain’t broke, why fix it.” Snyder accused the bishop of breaking that promise: “I lack confidence in your word, your revisionist theology, your insensitive approach and your unperceived pastoral concern for the spiritual needs of traditionalists [which] have caused some congregations to attempt to secede from the Episcopal Church, to withhold voluntary mission giving, and to walk away from their buildings to start a new congregation under the A.M.I.A.—and with some rectors declining to agree to visitations you demanded.” Snyder blasted the bishop for “upping the ante,” adding more demands before an outside bishop would be considered for a supplemental visitation. “When you phoned me on February 23 to remind this parish that they had not made a pledge to the mission program of the diocese, you asked what you could do to convince us to do so. I suggested that you permit an outside traditionalist bishop to make episcopal visitations.” Such visitation would not replace Bennison or his assisting bishop—only supplement them: one for one. “Bennison responded that he would only permit such additional Episcopal care after he and other bishops assisting in the diocese had made a visit—plus the parish now had to give a tithe of their income to the diocesan mission program.”“That was never part of the deal,” said Snyder. “Bennison just keeps upping the ante—for one thing: money and power.” Snyder clarified he was not seeking to leave the Episcopal Church, “nor even deny his position as the diocesan bishop—only to live our faith and to meet the spiritual needs of the congregants.” He added: “Due to your well-publicized positions on faith and morals, your visitations have always caused stress and turmoil within the parish. Parents have told me that they will not have their children confirmed if you are the bishop celebrating the Laying-on-of-Hands, and others have stated they will not be present, or will not receive, if you are the celebrant of the Eucharist.” No debate regarding the Articles of Religion and Anglican polity will change this, he said. The traditionalist priest said the tithe Bennison was demanding was now 10 percent of the previous year’s diocesan budget. Snyder said he had handed out a questionnaire after the consecration of V. Gene Robinson in New Hampshire—and his parish voted 90 percent for biblical views on human sexuality. “We have gay couples who are welcome here in the parish, who know they are welcome—but we will still accept the biblical teaching on all aspects of sin.” At the clergy meeting, Bennison said he was “toying with the idea of dropping retired clergy medical benefits,” calling it “a large chunk of change—$40,000.” Questions have been raised about unnecessary monthly legal fees spent attacking traditionalist parishes. Sehulster criticized Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold: “If I had done what he had done, I would have been asked to resign. His actions have harmed the church—and knowing the consequences, he went ahead and consecrated Robinson. He is a poor leader. I don’t want the church to break up; I just want to see it get back on track.” Virtuosity was also told that lay people from Emmanuel, Holmesburg—who presently have no priest but only a supply priest—said Bennison recently stated: “I am a heretic. I am a universalist… I just don’t believe that God would condemn any of his children to the damnation of hell.”

By Dave Munday, Charleston, S.C., Post and Courier A retired S.C. Episcopal bishop who was censured for invading another bishop’s territory calls the rebuke by church leaders the height of hypocrisy. Retired Bishop FitzSimons Allison of Georgetown joined four other retired U.S. bishops and a bishop from Brazil in confirming 110 Episcopalians at a March 14 interchurch service in Akron, Ohio. The parishioners said they could not allow themselves to be confirmed by Ohio Bishop Clark Grew II, who voted in favor of an openly gay bishop at the denomination’s General Convention last summer. Performing services in a bishop’s territory without his permission is a breach of Episcopal church law. Wednesday, the denomination’s House of Bishops released a statement calling the actions “discourteous, disruptive and a willful violation of our Constitution and Canons.” They warned that if it happens again, the clergy members will be brought to trial. Allison said Thursday he found the bishops’ censure hypocritical: “The House of Bishops is willing to censure and threaten five bishops crossing diocesan lines to support faithful Episcopalians. At the same time, they are unwilling to censure or even dissociate themselves from denials of the faith among themselves. This is a clear testimony to the bishops’ attempt to establish our Episcopal unity on canons (church rules) rather than the Christian faith.” Allison didn’t use the word hypocrisy in his statement but said that’s exactly what he meant when asked on the phone. When asked if he plans to perform confirmations in other dioceses without the permission of the resident bishops, Allison said: “I think we probably will. The main issue is not sexuality. It’s a departure from the authority of Scripture.” While censuring Allison for crossing geographical boundaries, the bishops have refused to censure retired Newark, N.J., Bishop John Spong, who publicly denied every tenet of the orthodox Christian faith in his “12 Theses.” Allison noted the most revealing action at last summer’s General Convention was when the bishops voted down a resolution affirming the Episcopal Church’s commitment to the Bible. “Their departure from Scripture to pander to the pressures of this present age has been a major factor in the loss of 400,000 Episcopalians in a decade supposedly devoted to evangelism,” he said. The original statement was also signed by retired West Tennessee Bishop Alex Dickson, who is based at All Saints Church of Pawleys Island. Dickson was one of the five retired bishops who performed the confirmations. The online version also included Bishops Maurice Benitez, William Cox, and William Wantland. The House of Bishops outlined a plan for alternate oversight this week at their meeting in Texas. Theological conservatives such as the American Anglican Council rejected it, saying it leaves too much control in the hands of the bishops. Allison is working independently of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes, of which S.C. Bishop Edward Salmon Jr. is a charter member.

From Cynthia Brust, Director of Communications, American Anglican Council We are not surprised by the House of Bishops censuring the five of us for providing support to those congregations in revisionist dioceses who cannot in good conscience accept the radical actions taken by General Convention and who now find themselves alienated from their diocesan leadership. The House of Bishops continues its long retreat from its sworn responsibilities concerning the Christian faith—from the time of Bishop James Pike to Bishop John Spong’s “12 Theses,” to its present failure to support faithful Episcopalians in unfaithful dioceses. The action of the 2003 General Convention, in repudiating 4,000 years of biblical teaching regarding sexuality, and the action of the House of Bishops in repudiating their consecration vows regarding Holy Scripture, were acts of defiance—defiance against the resolutions of the Lambeth Conference, the express position of the 38 Anglican primates, and the explicit wish of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The House of Bishops is willing to censure and threaten five bishops crossing diocesan lines to support faithful Episcopalians. At the same time, they are unwilling to censure or even dissociate themselves from denials of the faith among themselves. This is a clear testimony to the bishops’ attempt to establish our Episcopal unity on canons rather than on Christian faith. The most generous interpretation of this failure to fulfill Episcopal responsibility regarding the faith, as this church has received it, is to assume a theological incompetence on the part of the House of Bishops—who cannot tell the difference between heretical teaching and the Nicene Creed. Departing from Scripture to pander to the present age resulted in the loss of 400,000 Episcopalians in the decade dedicated to Evangelism! We stand in solidarity with the 21 global Anglican provinces who have either “impaired or broken communion” with the Episcopal Church and who continue to grow as they proclaim the Gospel to a broken world. The Right Rev. FitzSimons AllisonThe Right Rev. Maurice BenitezThe Right Rev. William CoxThe Right Rev. Alex DicksonThe Right Rev. William Wantland

By Jan Nunley, Episcopal News Service   Saying that they “repudiate and deplore the unilateral actions” of five retired U.S. bishops who conducted confirmations in Ohio without the diocesan bishop’s permission, the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops declined to proceed with disciplinary action—for now. The vote on the resolution was unanimous. Retired bishops FitzSimons Allison, Maurice Benitez, William Cox, Alex Dickson, and William Wantland confirmed 110 individuals from five congregations and celebrated Eucharist on March 14 in Akron—without the knowledge or permission of Bishop J. Clark Grew II of Ohio. They were joined by Bishop Robinson Cavalcanti of Recife, Brazil. The House of Bishops stated: “In so doing [they] used the sacrament of unity in Christ as an instrument of division and defiance. Secretive in its planning, their action was discourteous, disruptive and a willful violation of our Constitution and Canons.” Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, Bishop Grew, bishop-elect Mark Hollingsworth Jr., and the Presiding Bishop’s Council of Advice issued strong rebukes. The Primate of Brazil confirmed Cavalcanti violated Brazilian canons and promised disciplinary review. No discipline—for now—but the House warned: “In the future any bishop performing Episcopal acts without the permission of the diocesan bishop will be subject to discipline under our canons.” The bishops urged dissenters to “share their views directly with their bishops” and pointed to the newly endorsed Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight plan as the proper path forward. CRISIS IN THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION By The Rev. Dr. Andrew Goddard This coming year will likely prove decisive for the future of worldwide Anglicanism. Attention has shifted from disputes over homosexuality to deeper questions: What is the Anglican Communion—and how must it change to survive? The crisis arises because one diocese (New Westminster, Canada) and one province (ECUSA) have taken actions violating the mind of the wider Communion—and, many believe, Scripture itself— without consultation or restraint. Is This Really Novel? Three key differences from past controversies (e.g., women’s ordination): Theological : Lambeth 1998 declared homosexual practice “incompatible with Scripture”—a far stronger position than the “inconclusive” stance on women’s ordination. Procedural : Past innovations followed consultation (e.g., ACC 1971); ECUSA acted unilaterally despite explicit Primates’ warnings. Political : Provinces are now declaring impaired or broken communion with ECUSA—something largely avoided during the women’s ordination debate. As Bishop Peter Selby noted: “The language used to justify bypassing the Anglican Communion sounds not that different from the language used to justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq without waiting for the UN Security Council.” ECUSA Schism? The Primates have called for “adequate episcopal oversight” for dissenting minorities—but ECUSA’s leadership has largely refused. Many Global South Primates now question whether ECUSA’s claims to autonomy outweigh accountability to the Communion. The emerging Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes may offer a canonical alternative: remaining Anglican, orthodox, and globally connected—without recognizing ECUSA’s innovations. Whither the Communion? The instruments of unity (Archbishop of Canterbury, Primates, Lambeth, ACC) face existential pressure. Proposals include: “Observer status” for provinces acting contrary to Communion teaching Greater primatial authority in emergencies Structural reforms to prevent further fragmentation Invitations to global meetings are not legal rights—they are at the Archbishop’s discretion. Institutional innovation may be necessary to preserve theological coherence. What About the Church of England? Archbishop Rowan Williams has consistently upheld Lambeth I.10. The Church of England now faces a stark choice: Side with ECUSA (and risk global fracture), or Uphold Communion teaching (and face domestic division) The real issue is not “diversity” but whether mutual accountability and scriptural faithfulness can be maintained . If not, “mere anarchy is loosed upon the world”—and the centre may not hold. “The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity.”  — W. B. Yeats, The Second Coming

MINNEAPOLIS, MN — An organization calling itself SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests) will file a lawsuit against an Episcopal priest who abused a California youngster years ago, and still serves in a parish today. David Clohessy, 46, a national director of SNAP, expressed concern: “I fear that some 400 ex-Roman Catholic priests will surface in other denominations including the Episcopal Church.” (Aug. 2, 2003) Selected global cases (U.S., Australia, Canada, U.K.) include: South Australia: 217 victims and 48 possible offenders identified in Anglican Church abuse investigations (The Age, July 16, 2003) Rev. Robin Everett (UK): Convicted of indecently assaulting two young girls (UK Telegraph, June 7, 2003) Fr. Sapsford (Queensland, AUS): Molested dozens of altar boys while married; Archbishop accused of covering up (ABC Online, May 8, 2003) Provincetown, RI pastor: Resigned after admitting he molested a teenage boy more than 25 years earlier (Boston Globe, Dec. 25, 2002) Donald Shissler (Denver): Sentenced to 24 years for sexually assaulting at least two boys; evidence suggests up to 20 additional victims (Oct. 17, 2002) Peter Hollingworth (Governor-General of Australia & former Anglican Archbishop): Resigned amid multiple abuse cover-up scandals (2002) Fr. Robert K. Orr (Philadelphia): Convicted of possessing and distributing child pornography (1998–1999) Fr. Bruce Jacques (Connecticut): Defrocked for offering oral sex to a 13-year-old boy as a “confirmation gift” (1998) Fr. Greydon Copeland (Florida): Allegedly molested a minor; committed suicide after church investigation (1999) Fr. Thomas Berlenbach (New Jersey): Accused of raping a 14-year-old altar server and fondling a 40-year-old parishioner (1999) Fr. Michael W. Jones (Virginia): Accused (but not criminally charged) in multi-victim abuse case involving baby sitter Richard Weaverling (1998) Rev. Sandra Wilson (Colorado): Acknowledged “relationships” with two women in her congregation; reinstated after internal inquiry (1998) Fr. Alex MacDonell (New Jersey): Sued for sexual intimacy with female parishioner during counseling; court upheld breach-of-trust claim (1997) Brooklyn priests: Episcopal Church investigation confirmed Penthouse allegations of sex orgies with youths, including from Brazil (1997) Eugene Maxey (Wisconsin/Texas): Imprisoned 20 years; admitted abusing multiple boys at Nashotah House seminary (1997) Bishop Steven Plummer (Utah/Navajo): Reinstated after admitting 2-year sexual relationship with teenage boy (1995) Rev. Antoine Campbell (South Carolina): Cleared in one church trial, relieved of duties during second trial on misconduct charges (1994) Rev. Robert L. Ducker (California): Sentenced to 12 years for repeatedly molesting two parishioner boys (1994) Fr. Douglas Hodges (Ohio): Charged with sexual battery during counseling (1993); later sued civilly Byron Bruce Newell (Virginia): Accused by six women of sexual misconduct; $4M lawsuit filed (1993) St. Andrew’s music minister (Missouri): Confessed to molesting 15-year-old parishioner; terminated after 17 years (1993) Rev. W. Graham Pulkingham (Virginia): Suspended after admitting sexual relationship with counselee, destroying the man’s marriage (1992) Rev. Paul Robinson (U.S.): Settled $575,000 for extramarital affair during counseling (1992) Bishop Owen Dowling (Australia): Charged with soliciting male officer for prostitution (1992) Rev. Stephen P. Apthorp (Arizona/Mass.): Pleaded guilty to ~830 rapes of stepdaughter; sentenced to 12 years (1992) Adam Tannous (Pennsylvania): Sexton sentenced to 35–70 years; claimed 400 victims over 40 years (1992) Rev. Wallace A. Frey (New York): Resigned as top U.S. Episcopal priest after charges of abusing young men (1992) Rev. Charles Griggs (Canada): Pleaded guilty to molesting 13-year-old; received suspended sentence; church secretly settled civil suit (1989) Rev. William Thompson, Jr. (Maryland): Headmaster pleaded guilty to child pornography and molesting 7 boys (1989) Rev. James Leech (Minnesota): Charged with molesting 15-year-old; resigned; criminal charges filed (1988) Rev. Francis Papworth (California): Sentenced to 7 years; $120M lawsuit filed claiming church knew and failed to act (1987) Rev. Thomas Dobson (Washington): Chaplain convicted of trading meth for sex acts with homeless boys (1987) Kenneth Behrel (Maryland): Found guilty of abusing 14-year-old at St. James School (2000s, incident in 1980s) Note: Numerous Australian state cases (1990s–2000s) involving priests, chaplains, teachers, and youth leaders convicted of abuse—many involving systemic cover-ups by bishops and church institutions.

By Cynthia P. Brust, Director of Communication, American Anglican Council (March 24, 2004)   The House of Bishops has proven once again their dysfunction and inability to acknowledge, much less address, the crisis of the Episcopal Church. From a format of “process”, small group discussion and multiple revisions, they have produced a plan for episcopal oversight that is undeniably and woefully inadequate. “Adequate” oversight must be determined by those who are seeking it. The House of Bishops considered the effect of their plan upon the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Presiding Bishop, individual bishops and their House as a whole; but the voices of the people in desperate need of AEO were not heard. The plan is designed to be viable only where it is unnecessary—that is, in the few dioceses where bishops agree to AEO. It gives no relief to orthodox beleaguered Episcopalians. It gives no recourse to those whose very constitutional rights of freedom to associate are threatened. It gives no hope for those who feel abandoned by their church. This meeting was couched in terms of “reconciliation,” but it is impossible to achieve reconciliation without repentance. The call of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates has been flagrantly ignored; the deep division in ECUSA has been ignored; the outcry from the Anglican Communion has been ignored; the condemnation of the larger Christian Church has been ignored. We cannot embrace unity at the cost of faithfulness. We cannot ignore the exhortation of the Primates of the worldwide Anglican Communion: “to make adequate provision for episcopal oversight of dissenting minorities within their own area of pastoral care in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates.” We will proceed as we must, seeking to be faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ, Holy Scripture and the apostolic faith and practice which lies at the heart of Anglicanism. We stand in solidarity with those in beleaguered dioceses, and we pledge our support of senior bishops who courageously and compassionately seek to minister to those in need of adequate episcopal oversight. (Detailed analysis sections on definitional, chronological, and functional flaws omitted for brevity but retained in spirit above.)

By David Roseberry, Plano, TX (March 25, 2004)   The Bishops of the Episcopal Church, in a meeting this week, have revealed a new plan to supposedly provide pastoral oversight for dissenting congregations in dioceses. The plan is inadequate and should be ignored. The Episcopal Church (ECUSA) voted at last year’s convention to consecrate as bishop a man who is living in a homosexual partnership. In addition, they voted to regard the blessing of same-sex unions as within the boundaries of church practice. Both decisions are fatal errors and cannot stand the test of time. God will not bless these actions that so flagrantly disregard the clear teaching of Scripture—even in a casual reading of the Bible. The Primates of the Anglican Communion, in their pastoral letters from the emergency meeting in October 2003, called for the provinces to provide “adequate Episcopal oversight” for some orthodox congregations. This idea was a pastoral measure intended to help heal and lead congregations through very difficult times. The House of Bishops’ plan is so inadequate and procedure-laden as to be just plain silly. It could take two to three years to get a bishop to come for confirmations! It is an imposition—literally—of an elaborate and tortuous process intentionally designed to wear “dissident” churches down. Apparently, the House of Bishops did not solicit comments from, or listen to, a single parish or rector who would want Episcopal oversight. This plan is like a broken ladder—it only looks useful, but it can’t take you anywhere. And so it should be ignored. Orthodox parishes should find oversight wherever they can find it, within their dioceses or outside their dioceses. Congregations should link together through the Network (that is, the “Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes” whose charter was adopted at Christ Church in January 2004) and act together as bodies of believers in a faithless age. There is some good news, perhaps. It might be that this folly from the House of Bishops will reach the missionary ears of the Primates. This tragically broken ladder may actually convince the Anglican Communion that ECUSA needs a major repair or replacement. At Christ Church we continue to stand for the orthodox faith that has been handed down to us. Some say that God is doing a new thing. We say that God does not do new things, but instead makes all things new. We trust that one day He will do this for the Anglican witness in North America. Christ Church will continue to preach and teach the message of the redeeming love of Jesus Christ for all people and the reconciling work of the Cross. Sadly but firmly, we have nothing to do with ECUSA. We send no money to the national church. We receive no direction from the national church. For the time being, we labor alongside our bishop to build the Network in order to maintain our relationship with the worldwide Anglican Communion. And we stand. The Rev. Canon David H. Roseberry is Rector of Christ Church Episcopal – Plano, Texas

Traditionalist Episcopalians upset with the recent confirmation of an openly gay bishop are considering forming their own church in Raleigh.The group, All Saint’s Fellowship, printed notice of its intention to explore starting a new church in its weekly Sunday bulletin. It has been holding Sunday services in the chapel of St. David’s School, formerly St. Timothy’s-Hale High School, since January. “What’s going on here in Raleigh is going on throughout the United States,” said Garland Tucker III of Raleigh, one of the leaders of the effort.Since the Episcopal Church U.S.A. voted last year to confirm its first openly gay bishop, the Rev. V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, many conservative church members have declared a desire to part with the 2.3 million-member denomination. A new organization, the American Anglican Council, headed by Bishop Robert W. Duncan of Pittsburgh and others, recently formed. But it’s not clear how big the group is. Many of the conservative Episcopalians would like to remain part of the Anglican Communion, a worldwide family of churches with 75 million members headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury.But for now, the archbishop recognizes only the Episcopal Church U.S.A. among U.S. Anglicans. Episcopal bishops are discussing alternative oversight for dissenting churches. The core members of All Saint’s Fellowship are, or were, part of the 2,700-member Christ Church in downtown Raleigh. But services at St. David’s Chapel have drawn other disaffected Episcopalians. Attendance at 5 p.m. Sunday services has been between 130 and 420 people, Tucker said. Bishop Michael B. Curry of the Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina, which includes 118 churches across 39 Piedmont counties, was at a meeting of the church’s House of Bishops near Houston and was not available for comment. Curry voted last year in favor of confirming Robinson, the gay bishop, and a majority of Episcopalians in the diocese have signaled that they support him. At the annual diocesan convention in January, conservative delegates proposed a dozen resolutions asking the diocese to change its stand. All were soundly defeated. At Christ Church, conservatives won only one of four vacancies on the governing board in early February. For many opponents of gay ordination, it was clear the diocese was not going to revise its position. Although Christ Church is holding discussions about reconciliation this Wednesday evening and next, some members are determined to leave the church. “We just want to explore the possibility of a new church parish where we can experience biblical teaching with the majority of Anglicans worldwide who are overwhelmingly orthodox in their faith,” said George DeLoache, one of the group’s leaders. In North Carolina, a dozen churches split with the Episcopal Church in recent years—long before the consecration of a gay bishop. The leaders of All Saint’s Fellowship said they do not want to join forces with those churches but would rather wait until new oversight is established. Some of those splinter churches do not recognize the ordination of women; others do not recognize changes to the Book of Common Prayer, the Episcopal church’s book of liturgy. “We respect the other congregations,” said John Wood, one of the leaders of the new group. He added, “Most of our people are not opposed to women’s ordination.” Virtuosity footnote: This group is made up largely of disaffected Anglo-Catholics from a wide geographical circle in North Carolina.

By YONAT SHIMRON Staff Writer News Observer March 23, 2004   RALEIGH, NC—Traditionalist Episcopalians upset with the recent confirmation of an openly gay bishop are considering forming their own church in Raleigh.   The group, All Saint's Fellowship, printed notice of its intention to explore starting a new church in its weekly Sunday bulletin. It has been holding Sunday services in the chapel of St. David's School, formerly St. Timothy's-Hale High School, since January.   "What's going on here in Raleigh is going on throughout the United States," said Garland Tucker III of Raleigh, one of the leaders of the effort.   Since the Episcopal Church U.S.A. voted last year to confirm its first openly gay bishop, the Rev. V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, many conservative church members have declared a desire to part with the 2.3 million-member denomination. A new organization, the American Anglican Council, headed by Bishop Robert W. Duncan of Pittsburgh and others, recently formed. But it's not clear how big the group is.   Many of the conservative Episcopalians would like to remain part of the Anglican Communion, a worldwide family of churches with 75 million members headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury.   But for now, the archbishop recognizes only the Episcopal Church U.S.A. among U.S. Anglicans. Episcopal bishops are discussing alternative oversight for dissenting churches.   The core members of All Saint's Fellowship are, or were, part of the 2,700-member Christ Church in downtown Raleigh. But services at St. David's Chapel have drawn other disaffected Episcopalians. Attendance at 5 p.m. Sunday services has been between 130 and 420 people, Tucker said.   Bishop Michael B. Curry of the Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina, which includes 118 churches across 39 Piedmont counties, was at a meeting of the church's House of Bishops near Houston and was not available for comment. Curry voted last year in favor of confirming Robinson, the gay bishop, and a majority of Episcopalians in the diocese have signaled that they support him.   At the annual diocesan convention in January, conservative delegates proposed a dozen resolutions asking the diocese to change its stand. All were soundly defeated. At Christ Church, conservatives won only one of four vacancies on the governing board in early February.   For many opponents of gay ordination, it was clear the diocese was not going to revise its position. Although Christ Church is holding discussions about reconciliation this Wednesday evening and next, some members are determined to leave the church.   "We just want to explore the possibility of a new church parish where we can experience biblical teaching with the majority of Anglicans worldwide who are overwhelmingly orthodox in their faith," said George DeLoache, one of the group's leaders.   In North Carolina, a dozen churches split with the Episcopal Church in recent years -- long before the consecration of a gay bishop. The leaders of All Saint's Fellowship said they do not want to join forces with those churches but would rather wait until new oversight is established.   Some of those splinter churches do not recognize the ordination of women; others do not recognize changes to the Book of Common Prayer, the Episcopal church's book of liturgy.   "We respect the other congregations," said John Wood, one of the leaders of the new group. He added, "Most of our people are not opposed to women's ordination." END

DELEGATED EPISCOPAL PASTORAL OVERSIGHT IS HOB FUDGE   News Analysis   By David W. Virtue   The Episcopal Church House of Bishops has adopted a covenant which they believe will resolve all the problems that now exist between revisionist bishops and biblically orthodox parishes.   After three days of closed door meetings at Camp Allen, Texas where even cell phones didn't work and guards were needed at the gates, in order, one presumes, to prevent anyone wanting to run in and steal the pluriform mind of Frank Griswold, the 100 or so bishops have come up with a plan.   It is so convoluted and confusing that one doubts that even the mystic Sufi Rumi could make sense of it if they all met on a plain in NJ's Meadowlands. Furthermore one seriously doubts the Holy Ghost had much to do with the compromise either. After all the Spirit of Truth will never compromise on sexual sin, that at least is one truth that is absolute.   Griswold said the decision shows the hierarchy's commitment to reconcile the two sides. "We are coming to a new place of mutual discovery and trust," he said.   One orthodox theologian said the Navasota plan is "dead on arrival. It doesn't even come close to recognizing the crisis we face," he said. He is right.   The American Anglican Council came out with a statement declaring it to be "inadequate", scoring it as a failure in terms of "reconciliation." It is impossible to achieve reconciliation without repentance. It is impossible to affect reconciliation when this Church has fragmented itself and will not address the ensuing emergency.   "The House of Bishops has proven once again their dysfunction and inability to acknowledge, much less address, the crisis of the Episcopal Church. From a format of "process", small group discussion and multiple revisions, they have produced a plan for episcopal oversight that is undeniably and woefully inadequate," said communications director Cynthia Brust.   Two opposing ideas were on the table. One was supplemental episcopal pastoral care, proposed by liberals and revisionists, which allowed the diocesan bishop to invite the visitor (an orthodox bishop) but that he (the revisionist bishop) remains in pastoral contact with the congregation. It was understood to be a temporary arrangement, the ultimate goal being the full restoration of the relationship between the congregation and their bishop.   The other side said no deal. What they wanted was Alternative Episcopal Oversight with an arrangement not dissimilar to the Forward in Faith UK plan to allow flying bishops to come in and the diocesan to stay right out of it forever, or if, by some miracle, a biblically orthodox bishop might get elected following the retirement of say a Bennison, Shaw or Chane, that could change.   But that dog will never hunt, because it is not allowed by the canons and constitutions (that's the official excuse), but because it would see a diminishing of the power of the revisionist bishops who are already watching their dioceses in congregational free fall. (See stories on the dioceses of El Camino Real and Ohio). You see the name of the game is power, coupled with a heavy-handed use of the canons to keep the orthodox in line.   So the House of Purple came up with a third way. They recommended something called Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO). What that means, in their words, is this.   "We expect that the first priority in a relationship between a diocesan bishop and congregation is a striving for unity. As such, it is incumbent upon both the bishop and the rector/congregation to meet together, with a consultant, if needed, to find ways to work together. If for serious cause in the light of our current disagreements on issues of human sexuality, the bishop and rector/congregation cannot work together, we propose the following process for Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight."   In the spirit of openness, the rector and vestry, or the canonically designated lay leadership shall meet with the bishop to seek reconciliation. After such a meeting, it is our hope that in most instances a mutually agreeable way forward will be found. If reconciliation does not occur, then the rector and two-thirds of the vestry, or in the absence of a rector, two-thirds of the canonically designated lay leadership, after fully engaging the congregation, may seek from their diocesan bishop, (or the diocesan bishop may suggest) a conference regarding the appropriateness and conditions for Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight. After such a conference the bishop may appoint another bishop to provide pastoral oversight. If no reconciliation is achieved, there may then be an appeal to the bishop who is president or vice-president of the ECUSA province in which the congregation is geographically located, for help in seeking a resolution. Those making such an appeal must inform the other party of their decision to appeal. When such an appeal has been made, the provincial bishop may request two other bishops, representative of the divergent views in this church, to join with the provincial bishop to review the situation, to consider the appeal, and to make recommendations to all parties. If an episcopal visitor is to be invited, that bishop shall be a member in good standing in this Church. When an agreement is reached with respect to a plan, it shall be for the purpose of reconciliation. The plan shall include expectations of all parties, especially mutual accountability. The plan shall be for a stated period of time with regular reviews. The provincial bishop shall periodically inform the Presiding Bishop, the Presiding Bishop's Council of Advice, and the House of Bishops at its regular meetings of the progress and results of this process. On first reading there is a silver lining in this DEPO plan for the orthodox and it is this.   They can run this process out for months, possibly years and never have to see a revisionist bishop ever again.   In the meantime they can take their confirmands to an orthodox diocese for confirmation (that's canonically legal). As one orthodox bishop said to VIRTUOSITY, "if a priest presents confirmands to me at one of my churches and asks me to confirm them, I will do so, there is no canonical violation." The priest can then return and keep the "process" for DEPO running on indefinitely.   Of course all this is about strategy not truth.   The notion that you can reconcile homoerotic behavior with holiness and revealed religion with pansexuality is the biggest lie of all. It will never happen, and that is why, at the end of the day, this plan, like all other plans of compromise, will fail.   NOTE: If you are not receiving this from VIRTUOSITY, the Anglican Communion's largest orthodox Anglican Online News Service read by more than 750,000 persons at www.virtuosityonline.org then you may subscribe for FREE by going to that website.