By Kevin Martin 7/22/2004 What has been the consequence of last year's controversial decision to consent to the election of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire? As I travel about the Episcopal Church — my most frequently asked question these days is, "What do you think will happen next in the Episcopal Church?" As we approach the first-year anniversary of the consent to Gene Robinson's election, I would like to address some of the issues related to this question. This decision has badly fractured and divided the Episcopal Church. Further, it has provoked a crisis throughout the whole Anglican Communion. Locally, many congregations and dioceses have experienced a drop in financial support. They have had to cut staff and program and make serious adjustments. Many congregations have lost significant families. Many congregations have redirected funding. Some congregations have removed themselves from ECUSA. A series of spin-off congregations have formed that are looking to the Network or AMIA for affiliation and support. Of course, we also have become inwardly focused as a denomination and less concerned about the great commission or the great commandment and more concerned with who will be in control. Meanwhile, our national leadership seems to be largely in denial over the negative effects of this decision. Our own Presiding Bishop and many others try to spin present events in a positive light. In fact, we seem to be following the culture in its political life in two ways. First, spin has become the name of the game for both liberals and conservatives. Second, there is a great deal of demonization and lack of tolerance and understanding toward those on the other side of issues. We show all the signs of a growing polarization. Most of our present leaders seem to be fueling this polarization and few seem to be addressing it. Many people on the pro side of this issue claim that this decision has opened the doors of the Episcopal Church to thousands of new people. Some have pointed out the threats of a major split have not played out. On the other hand, many people on the conservative side have claimed that large numbers of people are leaving. What is really happening regarding membership and numbers? As I said, many of these comments are just spin. What we mostly hear are anecdotal stories. For example, from the liberal side, we hear of people joining the church because of our decision. I think this has minimal statistical effect. We have been a declining denomination and we will continue to be so. The current crisis is predictably accelerating this decline. It is true that even a declining church brings in new people and it is probably true that our front door is more open right now to those on the political left of the current culture wars in America. This is a bit of a shift at the front door when you consider that the primary evangelistic tool of recent days has been the Alpha program. In addition, the Episcopal Church, which has had a very low public profile, is now unfortunately seen as a divided church. Most un-churched people don't look for a polarized community when seeking a spiritual home. Some conservative people are attempting to spin events too, but it is clear that the Church has clearly taken a hit. We saw this first in 2004 financially and will see this further in 2005. Remember, the financial effect in 2004 was based on 6 months, not a full year's effect. This means that some dioceses and parishes have over projected income for 2005. We will not see the total effect upon our attendance until the 2005 parochial reports are out. When they are out, we will see a decline in average Sunday attendance. There will also be a turn down in membership, however this will not be seen fully statistically until the 2006 parochial reports. While the financial turn down is of significance, the more important issue for the long run will be average Sunday attendance. I believe we will see a 5-to-10-percent decrease over the next four years. We don't know yet how deep the drop will be because many issues are still yet to be decided. What will be the next steps in this crisis? Right now we are living in a transitional moment. Things are on hold. I know personally that many people are waiting to hear from the wider communion and are being very patient, surprisingly so. We have reached a point where there seems to be little that the Episcopal Church can do to resolve this polarization. Essentially, we are waiting on three predictable next steps. First will be the report of the Eames Commission in October. I believe this commission will make some effort to distance the whole communion from the American and Canadian Church. It will be impossible to hold the worldwide communion together without some strong language directed at North America. It will be interesting to see if beyond the strong language whether any proposals will be made with real teeth in them. I predict the report will contain both strong language and typical Anglican ambiguity when it comes to actions. In the long run, the Commission will attempt to hold the Communion together by affirming all sides. Second will be the reaction of the Primates to the report. If the report is not strong enough, the global south may very well threaten alternative action. A key player in this is, of course, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. While I believe he will want a more moderated response, he may be forced to choose between the global South and North America. Given that choice he must choose the vast majority. Without Asia and Africa, there would be no global Communion. What he will predictably do is twofold. He will take a moderating role and he will continue to point out that he has little authority to actually do anything. I doubt the communion wants to give him this power, but by default this power may revert to the Primates — the right to declare who is an Anglican and who is not. Third will be the first House of Bishops meeting following these two events. This will be a sort of last chance for the American Church to moderate its strident and self-righteous tone and take a more reconciling position toward the wider communion. This will be a most critical moment for ECUSA. Personally, I don't believe the present House of Bishops is up to the challenge. I believe they will attempt to defend their decisions and hold the line affirming their autonomy as a province. If they do this, they will hasten the realignment of Anglicanism both here and on the international level. What should the Bishops of the Church do? Following the controversial decision last August, I believe the Bishops' task was to bring the church back to stability by finding a resolve to the present polarization. They needed to find a way to affirm those who in good conscience were dissenters from the Robinson decision. I can't say too strongly how much I believe the Bishops failed in this task. At their meeting last March, they voted to maintain the status quo and thus to extend the controversy. It was a sad moment for the Church. Didn't the House of Bishops provide a means of alternative pastoral oversight for dissenters? No. When 11 of the 12 Network Bishops were not in the room at the end of the meeting, the solution offered was not an effective reconciliation. Any solution that did not have Bishop Duncan and Bishop Griswold shaking hands failed the resolution test. Now the decision passes to the wider communion. Have Conservatives been effective in their response to these developments? "We" (I consider myself to be one) have been effective in articulating our dissatisfaction with the Robinson decision. The various "Plano" conferences and the formation of the Network point clearly to the depth and degree of dissatisfaction that is out there. We have been ineffective in developing a strategy and response beyond voicing our unhappiness. Essentially, I think conservatives are hoping the communion will bail us out. As I said above, the Communion's answer will take some time to play out. Our laity may not be patient enough to wait out the next two years. This is the time I believe it will take to get to the next place of stability. Why have Conservatives been less effective on the strategic level? Conservatives are not a single group, but rather a coalition of dissident groups without a common vision for the future. Essentially, I see at least four primary dissenting groups: There are the true Evangelicals who see the Church's authority arising from Scripture and who cannot reconcile same sex relationships with the clear Biblical teachings against this. Then there are the conservative Anglo-Catholics. Their long-standing vision has been for reconciliation with Rome and a unified catholic church. The Robinson decision has dashed their hopes for this. I predict that many in this camp will move to Rome over the next few years. We also have culturally conservative people — especially among our laity. These folks don't like the change and are unhappy with this new direction. Lastly, I would mention the traditionalists. These folks believe the mission of the Anglican Church is to preserve the brightest and best of English (and European) high culture. They have been dissenters since the passage of the '79 Prayer book. What holds the present coalition together is twofold. First, the dissenters share in common a strong reaction to the Robinson consent. Second, the dissenters correctly sense that the progressive wing has decided to force conformity to their agenda. Most progressives are so convinced of the rightness of their views in these matters that they cannot tolerate those who will not conform. While these threats hold the conservatives together, it makes planning a strategy almost impossible. Will Progressives really try to force conformity on this issue? Yes, we have already seen this begin. However the biggest test of this will come when one of the Network Dioceses has to elect a new Bishop. Suddenly, most of the Bishops who argued that the Church had to respect the local decision in New Hampshire will argue that any new Bishop must be willing to accept the ministry of "all" the Bishops including Gene Robinson. We already see the forces gathering together for this in both Rio Grande and San Diego. These elections will push the true level of tolerance within our denomination to its limit. Are there other outcomes of last year's decision? Yes, one of our most unintended consequences is that our national leadership decisions are forcing our local congregations into further and further isolation and congregationalism. People expect local congregations to be places of mutual love and support. They don't go to church to fight with people or to have deeply felt emotional disagreements. A second consequence is the end of the 2020 movement. Any sense that ECUSA could double its size by the year 2020 has evaporated with this controversy. Over the next five years, ECUSA will get smaller, not larger. Recently, the Executive Council voted two elements of 2020. One is to run an ad campaign for the Episcopal Church. The other is to authorize a major gifts campaign. Both of these are good ideas. The church needs a more positive image out there than one of a divided church. The church also needs to take advantage of the tremendous resources still out there in the GI and Silent Generations who might be willing to support the Church that they have loved and supported for so many years. But these two elements are not the essential heart of the 2020 movement, they are just strategies. The strategies alone cannot return us to the initial vision — one church, united in mission, doubling its size by reaching secular people and making them disciples of Jesus Christ. Another unanticipated consequence of last August has to do with planting new congregations. I learned recently that ECUSA planted fewer churches over the past three years than in any 3-year period during the last four decades. Ironically, if we looked at the larger picture, it could be that ECUSA has caused the largest number of new church plants in recent memory. When we count the number of Anglican congregations that have split or new ones spun off from ECUSA congregations, we may see the seeds of a major new surge of Anglican mission in North America. It wasn't what ECUSA or 2020 intended, but it may be what God intends to do with our present turbulence. Prior to August 5, 2005, there were 38 different groups that claim Anglican roots or identity in North America. By 2005, this may number closer to 45. This is sad news in one sense, however these non-ECUSA churches are showing an increasing willingness to work together in common mission. A critical issue for the future will be how Canterbury relates to these different groups. I predict that we will see growing affirmation of them. The Rev. Kevin Martin heads Vital Church Ministries based in Plano, Texas. END

By Kathy Routliffe Staff Writer, Glencoe News 7/22/2004 A group of North Shore area Episcopalians who say they don't like the "liberalization" of their church have formed an Evanston congregation dedicated to what their spokesman called orthodox values. Those include rejection of last year's decision by the Episcopal Church USA to consecrate Gene Robinson, a publicly gay Episcopal minister, as a bishop in New Hampshire. Members of the new Church of Christ the King held their first service June 6 in rented chapel space at the Levere Memorial Temple, 1856 Sheridan Road, spokesman Wes Schneider said last week. They hold both high and low rite services at 9 a.m. each Sunday and plan to expand the service schedule when the fledgling congregation's two rectors are able to do so, he said. Schneider, a Kenilworth resident who once attended the Church of the Holy Comforter, is one of the founders of Christ the King. He said Friday that he and a small number of Kenilworth congregation members began last fall, after Robinson's consecration, to discuss the possibility of forming "an orthodox classic Anglican parish" in the Chicago area. "I believe a number of our parishioners believed that the Episcopal Church and its teachers have become much more liberalized than what we were taught," Schneider said. The new church is keeping to faith "as found in the Bible, the Book of Common Prayer and the 39 Articles of Faith, and that which is espoused in the Nicene Creed," he said. Robinson's consecration was inconsistent with those, he said. Prospective congregation members heard about the new church through word of mouth and now hail from as far south as Chicago, as far west as Arlington Heights and as far north as Lake Zurich. Members include non-Episcopalians, such as Lutherans concerned about their own church's increasingly liberal policies, and Roman Catholics who are concerned about issues in that church, Schneider said. The chapel is at Sheridan Road and Chicago Avenue in the building commonly known as Sigma Alpha Epsilon men's fraternity headquarters. Congregation organizers heard last fall that it might be available and negotiated with the fraternity to rent it. The congregation's acting rector is Rev. Joseph Murphy, an ordained Anglican and Episcopal priest from Virginia. It will also have another minister when the Rev. Robert Barasa returns from a trip to Kenya. Barasa will provide Saturday night services, Schneider said. The group is now establishing a Sunday school curriculum and intends to have a fall fellowship dinner in October, inviting prospective members. It also plans to reach out to young people through the Saturday services. It has organized itself as a not-for-profit group and those who wish to support Christ the King can write checks to the attention of the treasurer of the church, at 1856 Sheridan Road in Evanston, Schneider said. Founders of Christ the King not only oppose the consecration of Robinson, but believe the American church is moving "further away from scripture and further and further towards reason, and interpretation and change and revisionism," Schneider said. Schneider said the decision to leave his Kenilworth congregation was personally difficult "because I'm a cradle Episcopalian" confirmed by the 9th bishop of Chicago, James Winchester Montgomery, and involved in his former parish for seven years. A spokesman for the Chicago Episcopal Diocese said the formation of the church was disappointing to Bishop William Persell, head of the diocese. "It's distressing that people feel they have to leave their parish. The bishop is firmly behind the idea that we can grow in mutual fellowship," said David Skidmore, communications director for the diocese. "He would prefer people to work together even though they disagree, and to have mutual respect, to work through disagreements." Schneider said he and others who shared his belief in the Kenilworth congregation tried to bridge the differences between them and the rest of the congregation but were unable to do so. Schneider said Christ the King has been approached by representatives of the Anglican Communion Network to become an affiliate. That group comprises a conservative group of American Episcopal dioceses and parishes. Schneider said Christ the King members have not yet decided whether to affiliate with the ACN. "Our desire is not to be divisive," Schneider said. "It's to be positive, to say that the message we bring forward is that the faith in its historic teachings is being maintained at the Church of Christ the King." END

By The Rt. Rev. William C. Wantland In recent years, more and more congregations have declared "open Communion", that is, any baptized Christian may receive Communion at our altars. Some have even advocated Communion for the unbaptized. Never mind that baptism has always been seen as a prerequisite to receiving the Sacrament. Canon I. 17. 7 specifically states that no unbaptized person shall receive Holy Communion in this Church. In 1979, General Convention adopted Resolution A-43, which provides: Resolved, that the following standard be adopted for those of other Churches who on occasion desire to receive the Holy Communion within the Episcopal Church: a. They shall have been baptized with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and shall have previously been admitted to the Holy Communion within the Church to which they belong. b. They shall examine their lives, repent of their sins, and be in love and charity with all people, as this Church in its Catechism (PBCP, p. 860) says is required of all those who come to the Eucharist. c. They shall approach the Holy Communion as an expression of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ whose sacrifice once upon the cross was sufficient for all mankind. d. They shall find in this Communion the means to strengthen their life within the Christian family "through the forgiveness of (their) sins, the strengthening of (their) union with Christ and one another, and the foretaste of the heavenly banquet . . ." (PBCP, p. 859-60). e. Their own consciences must always be respected as must the right of their own Church membership to determine the sacramental discipline of those who, by their own choice, make that their spiritual home. The Resolution also provided that the Commentary on Eucharistic Sharing prepared by the Standing Commission on Ecumenical Relations be used as a pastoral context for the interpretation of these standards. The Commentary declares: "If local circumstances present a pastoral need for a public invitation, it should not in any way be coercive, nor should it be in terms of an 'open Communion' applied indiscriminately to anyone desiring to receive Communion." The Commentary goes on to state: "What about those times when Christians cannot communicate at the same altar because of church doctrine, discipline or reasons of conscience? One of the realities of life within a divided Church is this very brokenness at the Table of the Lord. There is a great temptation to pretend that this is not true or to believe that we as individuals can do what denominations still feel should not be done. This is an experience of the Cross in a sinful world. Often it is more appropriate to bear the pain and give testimony to the integrity of faith and discipline in one's church than to act as though full unity existed where it does not." Neither the Resolution nor the Commentary has ever been amended or repealed by General Convention. It appears that too many in the Episcopal Church are either ignorant of the teaching of the Church, or simply don't care. Bishop Wantland is the retired Bishop of Eau Claire. END

Special Report By David W. Virtue KAMPALA, (7/22/2004) — A missionary couple appointed by the American Episcopal Church have been told by the Primate of Uganda that they can no longer minister to his people because his province is in a state of broken communion with the ECUSA. In a letter to the couple, The Most Rev. Henry Orombi wrote to Phil and Jennifer Leber praising them for their work and ministry, but said that in light of the state of broken communion with ECUSA, and the deadlines established by CAPA and the Lambeth Commission, "I am compelled to advise you to explore alternative oversight and funding for your missionary work in Uganda. Consider transferring your affiliation to another mission agency as soon as possible." "We feel very strongly that God intends for us to remain in Uganda to continue the work we have been doing since 1998. It is clear that we can no longer serve as Appointed Missionaries from ECUSA, but we are assured that the Lord will faithfully provide for our ministry through other means," said Leber in a personal note to Virtuosity. Said Orombi: "The Primates of the Council of the Anglican Provinces of Africa (CAPA), on 19 April 2004, issued a very strong statement regarding the position of ECUSA in violation of Lambeth resolution 1.10 of 1998. The Church of Uganda endorses the CAPA statement in its call for discipline of ECUSA in the event ECUSA refuses within three months to repent of its decision to permit the consecration of a non-celibate, openly homosexual priest as Bishop. "I am committed to prayerful support for the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lambeth Commission set by him to report, by September, 2004, on the appropriate action recommended to be taken against ECUSA by the Anglican Communion as a whole. "As you know, the Church of Uganda has previously communicated that it is in a state of broken communion with ECUSA over this issue, and that we will no longer accept funds or missionaries from ECUSA. You are currently assigned as Appointed Missionaries from ECUSA to the Provincial Office of Missions and Evangelism. The Church of Uganda recognizes your unwavering commitment to the Word of God, and we greatly appreciate your years of service to the people of Uganda. We strongly desire that you will continue standing with us as we carry the Light of Christ throughout Uganda and beyond. "May our Father richly bless you as we join hands to reach the people of Uganda with the love of Christ." In a subsequent letter the Archbishop strongly endorsed the ministry and mission of the Lebers and urged faithful Episcopalians to provide the financial support for the missionary couple to carry on saying, "We need them to continue standing with us as we carry the Light of Christ throughout Uganda and beyond." "The Church in Africa has boldly proclaimed the authenticity of Scripture and we stand firm in guarding our faith. We are determined to be a steadfast voice of Truth and righteousness, and we will not compromise the integrity of the Gospel. In fact, the Church of Uganda has severed its relationship with the Episcopal Church of America (ECUSA) due to its actions at General Convention last summer." The archbishop went on to express his deep appreciation for Phil and Jennifer Leber, who are mission partners with the Church of Uganda. "The Lebers have a firm commitment to the orthodoxy of Scripture, and we need them to continue standing with us as we carry the Light of Christ throughout Uganda and beyond." The Primate said he first met the Lebers in 1995, when Phil accompanied him as he ministered in the U.S. Since that time, their families have developed a strong friendship. In 1998, they joined the staff of the Provincial Office of Missions and Evangelism as mission partners. The focus of Phil's ministry is to encourage the renewal of worship that is Biblically rooted, culturally relevant and energized by the power and presence of God. Jennifer has a heart for discipling young women who will be future leaders of Uganda, and she has a vital ministry to orphans and street girls, said Orombi. "Phil and Jennifer have my full support and blessing in their ministry. Their lives exhibit a deep love for the Lord, and they share a passion to teach the Word. We are very blessed by their unwavering commitment to the Word of God and their love for the people of Uganda." "I am aware that the position of ECUSA will have significant financial impact on the Lebers' mission, as they will no longer be associated with ECUSA as Appointed Missionaries. They are seeking a replacement sending agency, and I am asking that faithful churches continue to support their work here. If you are not a part of their network of prayer and financial supporters, please consider joining their team. Support for the Lebers is support for Uganda." For those interested in supporting the Lebers they can be reached at: leber@ugandamission.org. Their website can be accessed at www.ugandamission.org. END

By Michael F. Bird Word from the Bird March2, 2026 Introduction The Jerusalem Statement emerged from the 2008 Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) as a rallying cry for orthodox Anglicans who felt increasingly alienated from the direction of parts of the Anglican Communion, particularly regarding attitudes to biblical authority, apostolicity, and catholic unity. Born from frustration with what many saw as theological drift in Western provinces, this fourteen-point statement seeks to articulate a robustly orthodox Anglican identity rooted in Scripture, the historic creeds, and traditional Christian ethics. The Jerusalem Statement represents more than conservative reactionism, it’s an attempt to forge a coherent theological vision for twenty-first-century Anglicanism that is defined by courage rather than capitulation to a post-Christian culture. While critics dismiss it as American fundamentalism imported into Africa, in actuality, it is a restatement of the “faith delivered once for all to the saints” over and against an Anglican establishment that can be ideationally vacuous: who stand for nothing other than repeating certain political platitudes. The declaration draws deeply from Anglican formularies whilst addressing contemporary controversies head-on, particularly around marriage and sexuality. Whether one agrees with its positions or not, the Jerusalem Statement has undeniably reshaped global Anglican politics, creating new networks, partnerships, and new lines of division. Understanding this document is essential for grasping the current state of global Anglicanism. What follows is a commentary on articles 1 and 2 1. Gospel and Grace We rejoice in the gospel of God through which we have been saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Because God first loved us, we love him and as believers bring forth fruits of love, ongoing repentance, lively hope and thanksgiving to God in all things. In my mind, a good theology begins with the gospel, because the gospel is the boundary, centre, and integrating point for all theology. So I’m impressed with the centrality of the gospel in the Jerusalem Statement (see my Evangelical Theology, Five Views on the Gospel, and my gospel summary video). The opening move of the Jerusalem Statement is to set out the gospel: salvation by grace through faith, energized by the Holy Spirit. The language echoes Ephesians 2:8-9, whilst emphasizing the transformative nature of genuine conversion. Notice the role of the Holy Spirit – often neglected – there is no gospel or transformation without the Holy Spirit. Notice too the progression: God’s prior love elicits responsive love, which produces practical fruits including repentance, hope, and gratitude. This is Calvinistic grace united with Wesleyan piety: what a combo! This isn’t cheap grace or abstract theology, it’s practical Christianity, faith that transforms lives. The emphasis on “ongoing repentance” signals that the Christian life involves continual reorientation toward God rather than static decision-making. I love the mention of “lively hope,” it is N.T. Wright-esque, and captures the eschatological dimension of the Christian life, looking forward to Jesus’ return whilst living faithfully in the herein now. By beginning here, the Jerusalem Statement roots everything that follows in the gospel itself. Which goes to show that the Jerusalem Statement isn’t about Anglican politics, but about God’s grace, love, and hope that meets us in Jesus and is sealed by the Holy Spirit. The Anglican faith is the gospel of God’s love and the story of our common hope! 2. Biblical Authority in the Anglican Church We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God written and to contain all things necessary for salvation. The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading. Here we encounter what many consider the Statement’s most controversial yet foundational claim: Scripture contains “all things necessary for salvation” and must be read in its “plain and canonical sense.” This affirmation draws directly from Article VI of the Thirty-nine Articles, asserting Scripture’s sufficiency and clarity. Notice the absence of the words “inerrant” and “infallible,” not because those terms are rejected (though they can be problematic), but because the issue of biblical authority is not be framed in terms of the American “Battle for the Bible” that shaped US denominations in the twentieth century. As I’ve argued here, global Christianity does not need to Americanize it’s language to maintain a high view of Holy Scripture. Otherwise, see my contribution to the book Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy. The phrase “plain and canonical sense” attempts to navigate between wooden literalism and interpretive free-for-all, suggesting Scripture possesses an intelligible meaning accessible through a careful reading within the church’s interpretive tradition. The reference to “the church’s historic and consensual reading” acknowledges we don’t interpret Scripture in isolation but within a community of interpretation stretching across centuries. Critics argue this masks interpretive diversity and privileges particular readings as “plain” when they are actually contested positions. True, what is “plain” can be subjective. But I would counter that core Christian doctrines emerge clearly from Scripture when read faithfully. There is room for diversity in secondary and tertiary matters – GAFCON includes numerous views about the inclusion of women in Holy Orders. But the Trinity, Jesus’s divinity, and atonement are not up for negotiation or negation. In many Anglican provinces, where Orthodoxy was made optional, it was soon mocked, and then proscribed. That is precisely what the Jerusalem Declaration seeks to address. The five-fold emphasis on Scripture, i.e. translate, read, preach, teach, and obey, stresses Scripture’s practical role in Christian formation. This isn’t Bible-as-museum-piece but Bible-as-living-authority. The Bible is not an authority because it is a magical book, but because God the Holy Spirit speaks in it (WCF 1.10). The Jerusalem Statement stakes everything on Scripture’s veracity and authority, making this point foundational for all that follows.

News Analysis By David W. Virtue The Bishop of Utah, Carolyn Tanner Irish, recovering alcoholic and an ex-Mormon who never got baptized as a Christian, says that from a biblical perspective there is very little to support current views of marriage and family. "Many Christians speak of marriage as a 6,000-year-old tradition. But historical and cultural evolution challenges that view and the Latter Day Saints (Mormon) tradition is a prime example of that." The "sacramentality" that religious faiths now claim for marriage has also evolved. It is doubtful that Jesus would even recognize our institution of marriage as it is, she writes in an Op-Ed article for the Salt Lake Tribune. "Further, one must look elsewhere than the Bible to support the vague category called 'family values.' I know of no consistently good 'family values' stories in the Hebrew or Christian Scriptures. Support for marriage as we define it hard to find in Scripture," she says. The way we view marriage and family itself has evolved over centuries, says the bishop. "Propagation of the species was, of course, its biological foundation, but culturally it was property arrangements among tribes or clans that followed, and persist in many cultures to this day." Tanner said that some people believe that homosexuality is a moral issue, not a given orientation. "This implies that these citizens are, in some situations, 'undeserving' of certain political recognition and protection. To others such a view smacks of ignorance or intolerance, sustaining the idea that 'these people would be better if they were more like me [us].' Similarly, some married heterosexuals believe they and their families would be threatened by legal partnerships for same-sex couples and their families. Why? How? Is there any factual basis to support such fear?" Morality doesn't "belong" to any group on the basis of their sex, their religion or political alliances, said the bishop. Infidelity, exploitation, abuse, oppression and harm -- or their opposites -- can be found among people of either sexual orientation. Morality consists principally of values, which may be shared, upheld and lived by a broad range of people and institutions. The civic ordering of a democratic society should seek support for such common values as widely as possible, she said. Ms. Tanner is clearly not familiar with the theology of marriage as it is given to us in Holy Scripture. The vision of marriage found in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures is one of reuniting male and female into an integrated sexual whole. Marriage is not just about more intimacy and sharing one's life with another in a lifelong partnership. It is about sexual merger -- or, in Scripture's understanding, re-merger -- of essential maleness and femaleness, says Dr. Robert Gagnon, a prominent Presbyterian theologian. "The creation story in Genesis 2:18-24 illustrates this point beautifully. An originally binary, or sexually undifferentiated, adam ('earthling') is split down the 'side' (a better translation of Hebrew tsela than 'rib') to form two sexually differentiated persons. Marriage is pictured as the reunion of the two constituent parts or 'other halves,' man and woman." "This is not an optional or minor feature of the story. Since the only difference created by the splitting is a differentiation into two distinct sexes, the only way to reconstitute the sexual whole, on the level of erotic intimacy, is to bring together the split parts. A same-sex erotic relationship can never constitute a marriage because it will always lack the requisite sexual counterparts or complements." "Gay marriage" is a contradiction in terms, says the orthodox theologian. "First, legal and ecclesiastical embrace of homosexual unions is more likely to undermine the institution of marriage and produce other negative effects than it is to make fidelity and longevity the norm for homosexual unions." "Second, and even more importantly, homosexual unions are not wrong primarily because of their disproportionately high incidence of promiscuity (especially among males) and breakups (especially among females). They are wrong because 'gay marriage' is a contradiction in terms. As with consensual adult incest and polyamory, considerations of commitment and fidelity factor only after certain structural prerequisites are met." "By definition homosexual desire is sexual narcissism or sexual self-deception. There is either (1) a conscious recognition that one desires in another what one already is and has as a sexual being (anatomy, physiology, sex-based traits) or (2) a self-delusion of sorts in which the sexual same is perceived as some kind of sexual other." Gagnon says that the New Testament recognizes the importance of the Genesis creation stories for establishing a "two-sexes" or "other-sex" prerequisite for marriage. "St. Paul clearly understood same-sex intercourse as an affront to the Creator's stamp on gender in Genesis 1-2. In his letter to the Romans, Paul cites two prime examples of humans suppressing the truth about God evident in creation/nature: idolatry and same-sex intercourse (1:18-27)." Gagnon says that idolatry and same-sex intercourse constitute a frontal assault on the work of the Creator in nature. Those who suppressed the truth about God transparent in creation were more likely to suppress the truth about the complementarity of the sexes transparent in nature, choosing instead to gratify contrary innate impulses. "There is good evidence that societal approval of homosexual practice may increase the incidence of homosexuality and bisexuality, not just homosexual practice." Gagnon says that since the homosexual life is characterized by a comparatively high rate of problems in terms of sexually transmitted disease, mental health issues, nonmonogamous behavior, and short-term unions -- even in homosex-affirming areas of the world -- an increase in homosexuality and bisexuality will mean more persons affected by such problems. "Gay marriage," as the ultimate legal sanctioning of homosexual behavior, will bring with it a wave of intolerance toward, and attack on the civil liberties of, those who publicly express disapproval of homosexual practice, says Gagnon. "Gay marriage" is wrong because the idea of "gay marriage" is an oxymoron and a rejection of a core value in Judeo-Christian sexual ethics. "Marriage requires the two sexes to reconstitute a sexual whole. By definition same-sex erotic attraction is predicated either on the narcissism of being attracted to what one is as a sexual being or on the delusion that one needs to merge with another of the same sex to complete one's own sexual deficiencies." Gagnon says that "gay marriage" is also wrong because, rather than moderating the excesses of homosexual behavior, it will weaken the institution of marriage. If Ms. Tanner still believes that any alternative to heterosexual marriage is biblically permissible then she ought to resign her office. To go against 2,000 years of historical biblical and theological teaching is to violate her teaching and pastoral office.

Says Lambeth Report May Bring Structural Change or Division in Its Wake By Jim Brown, AgapePress July 21, 2004 A conservative Anglican theologian is lamenting the latest fallout from the Episcopal Church's approval of an openly homosexual bishop and so-called 'same-sex blessing' ceremonies. North Carolina Bishop Michael Curry recently told churches in his diocese they were authorized to bless homosexual unions. His announcement follows similar moves by Episcopal leaders in Nevada, Utah, Los Angeles, Washington, DC, and Vermont. American Anglican Council member Dr. Kendall Harmon, who serves as Canon Theologian for the Diocese of South Carolina, says Curry is the first southeastern bishop to okay same-sex blessings since the denomination's General Convention in Minneapolis, Minnesota. "It's discouraging," Harmon says, "because a lot of his diocese is opposed to his vote, and now he's not simply voted for the New Hampshire election, but he's going further than that. And it's going to further divide the diocese." The Anglican leader advises conservatives in Curry's diocese to network among themselves and "prayerfully prepare" for the October Lambeth Commission report, which will address the rift in Anglicanism over homosexuality. He says Anglican conservatives need to be ready to move into a realigned future, the exact shape of which may not be clear until the Lambeth report is released. Harmon feels too many church-going Episcopalians are being passive in what he calls "the American sense," which he describes as "basically sitting in the chair and pressing the remote." What they should be doing, he says, is actively waiting, according to the biblical understanding of what it means to wait. He points out, "Isaiah 40 says, 'They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength. They shall mount up with wings like eagles.' And biblical waiting is strategic networking, prayerful thoughtfulness -- you know, serious preparation." The Anglican Council spokesman sees two possibilities for the future of the Anglican Communion. Either a major structural response can be expected, internationally, to the Anglican crisis in America, or a "sad bifurcation," Harmon says.

By Carolyn Tanner Irish The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/20/2004 "Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?" -- from the Baptismal Covenant, Episcopal Book of Common Prayer Recent statements of Utah leaders in both the dominant church and the dominant political party supporting a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage prompt me to respond publicly. I do so as a leader in the Episcopal Church but I do not speak for this church or its members. My intent is to broaden the religious and civil context of this debate. Many contend religion and politics shouldn't mix. The fact is they do mix and always have. Nothing could more clearly illustrate such a "mix" than marriage customs, especially in eras and cultures where property is the primary "stake" in both marriage and governing systems. Then, too, the value of justice is integral to both religious and political traditions. For Utah, the separation of church and state is something of a facade. Even so, it is helpful to acknowledge these do represent different perspectives -- and yes, power bases -- between both such institutions, whether or not they "mix." Some people believe that homosexuality is a moral issue, not a given orientation. This implies that these citizens are, in some situations, "undeserving" of certain political recognition and protection. To others such a view smacks of ignorance or intolerance, sustaining the idea that "these people would be better if they were more like me [us]." Similarly, some married heterosexuals believe they and their families would be threatened by legal partnerships for same-sex couples and their families. Why? How? Is there any factual basis to support such fear? Morality doesn't "belong" to any group on the basis of their sex, their religion or political alliances. Infidelity, exploitation, abuse, oppression and harm -- or their opposites -- can be found among people of either sexual orientation. Morality consists principally of values, which may be shared, upheld and lived by a broad range of people and institutions. The civic ordering of a democratic society should seek support for such common values as widely as possible. The way we view marriage and family itself has evolved over centuries. Propagation of the species was, of course, its biological foundation, but culturally it was property arrangements among tribes or clans that followed, and persist in many cultures to this day. In the West, the Renaissance gave rise to romantic, courtly love and some sense of romance still abides. Yet arranged marriages persisted through the 18th and 19th centuries with extended family groups then becoming the norm. Our present notion of "the nuclear family" is a very new (post-World War II) development, as the metaphor "nuclear" itself suggests. Now, excessive individualism and the equality of women have radically reshaped our contemporary understandings of marriage and family, which are of course more independent of each other than ever before. From a biblical perspective there is very little to support our current views of marriage and family. Many Christians speak of marriage as a 6,000-year-old tradition. But historical and cultural evolution challenges that view, and the LDS tradition is a prime example of that. The "sacramentality" that religious faiths now claim for marriage has also evolved. It is doubtful that Jesus would even recognize our institution of marriage as it is. Further, one must look elsewhere than the Bible to support the vague category called "family values." I know of no consistently good "family values" stories in the Hebrew or Christian Scriptures. Instead, such narratives tell of disobedience, jealousy and murder; rape, incest and infidelity. Nor was Jesus promoting "family values" in such a statement as, "Whoever loves father or mother . . . son or daughter . . . more than me is not worthy of me" (Matthew 10:37). What Jesus did do was redefine the nature of "family" -- beyond blood or tribal loyalties. He said, rather, "Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother" (Matthew 12:50). What a radical shift from his religious culture! Thus, from a practical perspective, I have to wonder if this whole debate isn't mere election strategy playing on fear and prejudice. Do we think that a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is really going to defeat love? Home? Family? A desire to share life together? Election politics -- perhaps -- or, more seriously, a giant distraction, so that we won't get down to dealing with the real issues and genuine needs of our society. They are many. The Right Rev. Carolyn Tanner Irish is bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Utah.

By Michael J. McManus 7/22/2004 After a very heated debate, the House of Representatives overwhelming voted on Thursday to strip all federal courts -- including the Supreme Court -- of their power to make one state recognize another state's same-sex marriage. It is the most important victory of the marriage movement, and came only a week after the Senate voted 50-48 to defeat consideration of a Federal Marriage Amendment that needed 60 votes to close debate and 67 to pass it. The House vote was 231 to 194, with 25 Democrats joining 204 Republicans to pass the bill while 15 Republicans voted with 176 Democrats in opposition. Conservatives only needed a majority vote on this measure, with a similar vote in the Senate. There passion on each side was partisan. "This is an extraordinary piece of arrogance to strip the right of Americans to go into court to have their concerns addressed," said John Dingell, D-MI. "Shame! Shame! Shame! It is a precedent we which we will live to regret." Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-WI, replied, "The framers of our government provided in Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution, a check by the legislative branch on the judicial branch....The judicial power is not unlimited." That section states the Supreme Court "shall have appellate Jurisdiction...with such Exceptions and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Republicans and Democrats argued over whether the provision had ever been used. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-CA, said "You have to go back to 1803 in the case of Marbury vs. Madison" to see that the Supreme Court has the right to overrule Congress. Sensenbrenner cited 11 recent cases, such as the Patriot Act, in which Congress said the provisions could not be reviewed by the federal courts. Rep. John Lewis, D-GA, who was beaten up during Civil Rights marches, was angry: "For me this is unreal. It is unbelievable. Those of us who came through the Civil Rights Movement found federal courts sympathetic to our pleas for justice. If I had not been able to go to federal courts, we would be legally segregated in America. I would not be standing here today." Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-AL, argued "This decision defines us as Americans. It is about who we are. It is about who should make the decision about what marriage is." Should it be the courts, who voted 4-3 in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that gay marriage is legal. "Or should the people make the law through their elected representatives? This court decision could lead to a man marrying three women, or a man who chooses to marry his daughter." Normally, one state will recognize another state's granting of a marriage or driver's licence as required by the "full faith and credit" provisions of the Constitution. The Hostetler bill would forbid any federal court challenge of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA, passed overwhelmingly by Congress in 1996 and signed by President Clinton, stated that marriage is defined as one man marrying one woman. Social Security benefits, for example, could not be paid to a lesbian survivor of a lesbian couple who had a marriage license. DOMA also stated that no state has to recognize a same sex marriage of another state, despite the "full faith and credit" clause. However, a Florida lesbian couple who was "married" in Massachusetts recently filed a lawsuit challenging DOMA, demanding that Florida recognize their marriage. They are likely to cite last year's landmark Supreme Court case, Lawrence v. Texas, which says: "...liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex." Many similar cases are likely since gay couples from 40 states have trekked to Massachusetts to get "married." Even if a federal judge rejected the Florida couple's case, due to DOMA, it could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is likely to declare DOMA unconstitutional, given its ruling in the Lawrence case. That would lead to the forced recognition of "same-sex marriage" in all 50 states, even though Congress and 44 states define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The Marriage Protection Act provides a remedy. It was introduced by Rep. John Hostettler who argues, "The nation's founders never intended for the judiciary to be the most powerful branch of government." That will be debated in the weeks ahead. At present, the bill has no chance in the Senate, where court-stripping is seen as a radical step. But it requires only 51 Senators to pass it. This column put a spotlight on the Hostettler bill as an alternative to the Federal Marriage Amendment last November.

By David Catron Most people know, only if anecdotally, that, with the sale of St. Mark's Hospital in 1987, the Diocese of Utah went from penury to affluence almost overnight. Logically, then, many want to know, "Why has the diocesan budget been cut? Where has all the money gone?" The proceeds from the sale of the hospital were placed in several trusts, the largest of which, the Perpetual Trust of St. Peter and St. Paul, had $102,367,112 in assets as of December 31, 2003, up 2% from $100,348,226 at the end of 2002, but still more than 8% below assets of $111,461,790 at the end of 2001. Under the somewhat complicated terms of the Trust Agreement, the Trust is able to distribute about 5% of its assets to the diocese in any one calendar year. In 2003, this distribution amounted to $5,521,603. In 2004, the budgeted distribution is $5,267,655, a drop of just under five percent. Combined with other revenue shortfalls, total diocesan income in 2004 is projected to decline six percent from 2003. (Currently we project a Trust distribution between $5.0 and 5.1 million for 2005, a drop of 3-5% from 2004.) Why a 5% decline in trust revenue if trust assets rose 2%? Because the allowable distribution percent is calculated on a rolling 48-month average. This means a big drop in Trust assets in one year, say 10% from 2001 to 2002, is softened by gains in previous years. That's the good news. The bad news is if the assets grow with improved market performance, say 2% from 2002 to 2003, the allowable distribution is dragged down by the underperformance of preceding years. This system is designed to avoid abrupt changes, and it is working well. Trouble is, if markets go up, people want distributions to keep pace, and they don't. The budgeted $5.3 million distribution for 2004 from the Perpetual Trust constitutes 94% of the operating income of the diocese. By any measure, both of these are big numbers. They attest to the incredible abundance we have to support the work of the diocese and its congregations, work that would be impossible under any other conditions. In addition, a significant portion of the annual distribution from the Trust is restricted for parish support and community outreach. Of the $5,267,655 coming from the Trust in 2004, $2,338,317 is restricted and "passes through" the diocesan budget specifically for parishes and outreach. About $1.5 million of diocesan revenue in 2004 will go directly to congregations in the form of diocesan grants. This amount represents an increase of 3% in budgeted congregational support from 2003, so we have found a way to absorb the revenue decline in other areas. For example, personnel expense (largely diocesan staff) has been cut by 10%, and Communications (which produces this newspaper) by 9%. Other cuts have occurred in much-needed ministries: Camp Tuttle has been cut by 6%, Latino ministries by 12%, and Episcopal Community Services by 15%. Still, given the millions in the Trust, people want to know: Why, if we have a budget shortfall, can't we just make it up from the Trust? Well, we actually do. As stated above, trust assets declined by 10%, but the distribution declined by only 5%. Why can't we take more? Because the framers of the Trust envisioned it as a perpetual trust, to be forever available to the people of the Diocese of Utah. They feared if we started down the slippery slope of spending what we wanted, the Trust would eventually disappear. A decent compromise allows us to take more in distributions than the trust has gained in assets in bad times, but only up to a point. Also, Trust framers operated from a theology of stewardship. Not only was the diocese to be a responsible steward, but congregations were to be encouraged to provide a measure of support as well -- currently about 4% of the diocesan budget. This seems modest enough when compared with other dioceses. Congregations are welcome to become more self-sufficient if they like. Using the oft-cited number of 6,000 communicants, someone observed that if each were to contribute an additional $5 per week, total congregational revenue would increase by $1.5 million! Coincidentally, that is the same amount given this year in parish grants. When I became a candidate for this office, I stated in my profile that my goal was to see congregations as owners, willing to share out of abundance. I cited an example from The Active Life by Parker Palmer in which the author imagines the miracle of the loaves and fishes came about because people were willing to share in community. I believe we are on the verge of seeing this happen in the Diocese of Utah with our new governance and emphasis on improved communication. There is new energy, renewed commitment to ministry, heartfelt willingness to share. For example, two congregations gave up any claim to diocesan support this year. And congregations have repaid a remarkable $260,800 to the diocese for Project Jubilee grants since 1999! David Catron is Diocesan Treasurer for the Diocese of Utah.

By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent The Telegraph, 7/21/2004 Heaven may have many mansions but Church of England bishops are queuing up to dispose of their imposing residences. The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, the Rt Rev John Packer, yesterday became the latest prelate to announce plans to move to more modest accommodation. Bishop Packer wrote in his diocesan magazine that he felt impelled by the gospel to quit Bishop Mount, his six-bedroom Victorian house in Ripon, so that he could be closer to his flock in Leeds. The Bishop described his present home, which is valued at £1 million, as "delightful", but admitted that it was too large and costly to heat and had extensive grounds that meant paying and housing a full-time gardener. He is not alone in his desire to "downsize" and his move comes amid a review of bishops' palaces and houses by their landlords, the Church Commissioners, which is expected to result in a number of sales. The Bishop of Southwell, in Nottinghamshire, the Rt Rev George Cassidy, has indicated his willingness to move out of the 22-bedroom Bishop's Manor, which was built in the ruins of the Old Palace next to Southwell Minster in 1907. Like the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, Bishop Cassidy, who lives in a six-bedroom wing of the manor, is now negotiating with the commissioners and the diocese about his future arrangements. "I want to do my best to ensure that my successor will have the least disruption in his or her ministry from the word go," said the bishop, who is four years from the normal retirement age of 65. The Old Palace, the hall of which is part of the new building, dates back to the 1400s. Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, Henry VIII's minister, spent his last summer there in 1530 and Charles I retreated to the palace after defeat in the battle of Naseby in the English Civil War in 1645. The Bishop of Bristol, the Rt Rev John Price, is already installed in a new home after the commissioners sold the traditional residence, the Grade II-listed Queen Anne Bishop's House in Bristol, for more than £1.5 million. The Church's portfolio of episcopal residences is worth an estimated £80 million but some members of the Church fear that the buildings encourage a misleading impression that bishops live in grandeur. Of the 44 diocesan bishops' houses, the majority are listed: 13 are classed as heritage properties and nine as palaces. Since 1948, about 30 have been sold, including those in Ely, Gloucester, Lichfield, Norwich and Bristol. New guidelines on suitable accommodation for bishops recommend five bedrooms, two bathrooms, two reception rooms able to hold 12 diners or a buffet for 30, a study, three offices, a staff kitchen and cloakroom, a family-sized garden and parking. The commissioners say that the future of each house will be reviewed when the resident bishop is 62, in consultation with him, his family and the diocese. Nearly half of the bishops are over 60. Properties that could be on the market include Auckland Castle, the Bishop of Durham's residence; Hartlebury Castle, home to Bishops of Worcester for more than 800 years; and Rose Castle, the Bishop of Carlisle's fortified manor, which has a chapel and listed wallpaper.

What kind of evidence would indicate that it is under the blessing of God in 2004? By Peter Toon Since the sixteenth century, Anglican Churches, first in Britain and then in other countries, have claimed that together as a Communion they represent a legitimate jurisdiction within the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. The form of Christianity to which they are historically committed may be described as a biblically based Reformed Catholicism. The Church of England, known for centuries before the Reformation as Ecclesia Anglicana, claimed that what happened to her in the sixteenth century was a washing of her dirty face, a restoring of her original faith and practice, not the adoption of a novel religion. However, Anglicans have always been aware of the fact that any one or more of their Churches or Provinces, or dioceses therein, could reject or revise the received, historic Faith and thereby enter the slippery slope into apostasy. There are grave warnings in Holy Scripture of the danger of apostasy and the history of the Church provides examples thereof. In 2004, the claim of many Anglicans worldwide and an increasing minority of American Episcopalians, who still belong to dioceses or parishes of the Episcopal Church of the U.S.A., is that this Church as a whole in terms of both its governing Convention and many of its dioceses and parishes has crossed the line from error to apostasy. The reason for this amazing claim is the embracing by the General Convention (= Synod) of the ECUSA of a series of innovations in doctrine and morals, culminating in the acceptance of same-sex marriage and the consecration of a "gay" priest as a bishop -- and all this without as yet the slightest sign of repentance, despite calls to this from all over the Anglican world. This minority of Episcopalians within the ECUSA is united under the banner of "The Network". But this group is certainly not the sole representative that is claiming to express an authentic form of the received Anglican Way in the U.S.A.. We need to be aware that at least since the 1970s there have been secessions from the Episcopal Church and these have led to what we may call Extra-Mural Anglican groups, and they are organized in a variety of small jurisdictions (e.g., the Anglican Church of America and the Anglican Mission in America) which now exist alongside the Reformed Episcopal Church, which originated in the nineteenth century. There are some signs of cooperation and inter-communion not only between some of these bodies but also with yet another grouping, Pentecostalists on the Canterbury trail (e.g. the Charismatic Episcopal Church). What they all have in common is the belief that the ECUSA is either apostate or virtually so and that they are preserving the whole or major aspects of the genuine, historic Anglican Way. Let us now return to the question with which we began: What kind of evidence would indicate that this motley crowd of Episcopalians and Extra-Mural Anglicans, seen as a whole, is under the blessing of God and is in some way or another an expression of the genuine Anglican Way of Christianity in the multi-cultural society which is America? Let us be clear that this is a different question to: Are there individual parishes and congregations faithfully worshipping, witnessing and working for the Lord? We can all agree that seen as isolated units not a few of the local churches in this motley crowd are fellowships where God is truly honored and people are genuinely blessed. But let us remember that one unit is neither a jurisdiction nor a communion of churches. For the motley crowd of jurisdictions, missions and societies really and truly to be a genuine expression of the Anglican Way I suggest that the following principles must be evident in and amongst them: 1. That they are fully aware of and committed to the classic foundations of the Anglican Way, that is to the Scriptures as the Authority for Faith and Conduct, and to the historic Creeds and Formularies [classic BCP, Ordinal & Articles of Religion] as the standards of worship, doctrine and discipline. 2. That they recognize that there is a genuine comprehensiveness in the Anglican Way and within it there is a full place for both Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics, Charismatics and others. 3. That they are doing all they can to promote centripetal spiritual and moral forces leading to dialogue, a growing cooperation, fellowship and common worship. 4. That they are doing all they can to deal with the culture, context and failures which allowed the acceptance of innovations in doctrine and morality within the ECUSA and the liberal north American denominations. 5. That they are seeking to cut down the number of bishops being consecrated and making efforts to have fewer bishops who are then accepted across the jurisdictions. 6. That when there is a meeting where members of diverse groups are present the primary acts of worship should be based upon services in the classic Formulary or on services whose style and content are agreed in advance by all parties. 7. That there are seeking together to communicate with leaders from other parts of the Anglican Communion, to share what is going on, and making sure that visits from overseas Anglican bishops are made to a variety of jurisdictions and not only to present or former ECUSA congregations. This is not a complete list but what it attempts to do is to indicate that certain signs must surely be present for a movement/jurisdiction to claim to be, as a movement/jurisdiction, under the blessing of God and a genuine constituent member of the authentic family of jurisdictions which make up the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church on earth. A corollary of this argument is that if the above signs are not present and not likely to be present (for whatever reasons) then the Anglican Way in the U.S.A. is no longer viable and that its members ought to seek another valid jurisdiction of the Church of God on earth and to do so in the fear of the Lord and for the salvation of their souls. The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.), is rector of Christ Church, Biddulph Moor & St Anne's, Brown Edge.