Archives

ORTHODOX PARISHES NERVOUS FOR THE FUTURE re being pushed to the sides and really encouraged to leave. Frank Stirk BC CW correspondent NORTH VANCOUVER, B.C. All that effectively prevents New Westminster bishop Michael Ingham from re-asserting control over the dissident parishes in his Anglican diocese are their orthodox priests, says Leslie Bentley, media spokesperson for the Anglican Communion in New Westminster (ACiNW). Under this system and this bishop, our future of being able to continue on as orthodox Anglican churches is only as long as our current sitting rectors [remain in place], she warns. Bentley believes that if any of them should resign or retire, Ingham will do exactly the same as what he is already doing in St. Martin declare an emergency and put in place priests and lay leaders who are loyal to him and his liberal theology. It makes the rest of us nervous, she says. Bishop Ingham wouldn t let us have an orthodox minister. And even if he did, Bentley adds, it would be highly unlikely that any orthodox Anglican would want to serve under Ingham. It would be a career-destroying move. At St. Martin s, parishioners were told last month that Ingham had instructed his three bishop s wardens the lay leaders he had appointed under Canon 15 to begin the process of finding the parish a new permanent priest. And despite the congregation having voted overwhelmingly to the contrary, the wardens also decided to resume sending the church s annual dues to the diocese. We want to move ahead and get a wonderful new priest and the only way to do that is to go through the diocese and pay our assessments, warden Lindsay Buchanan told the Vancouver Sun. Buchanan was one of two elected wardens that Ingham kept in place after he imposed Canon 15. Yet even she describes St. Martin a conservative parish looking for a conservative priest who would refuse to bless same-sex couples. According to diocesan spokesman Neale Adams, Ingham is fully prepared to honour St. Martin s wishes on this issue. The bishop far from being the gay rights zealot that some have pictured him as being continues to appoint conservative priests to conservative parishes, as he feels he ought, he said in the Sun. But as parish spokesperson Linda Taunton notes, with Canon 15 still in effect, the choice of a new priest is ultimately out of their hands. Bishop Ingham is running the church, even though the bishop s wardens are there, she says. The wardens do look for and get direction from him. Bentley says conservative Anglicans elsewhere in Canada are naïve if they think that what is unfolding in New Westminster will never happen to them. This is becoming a battle about whether or not there s going to be any room for orthodoxy within the Anglican Church of Canada, she says. If the evangelicals, the Anglo-Catholics and the orthodox Anglicans can get sidelined here, it could happen anywhere. The fact is we re being pushed to the sides and really encouraged to leave. END

KENYANS PUT FAITH IN OLD TEACHINGS ON HOMOSEXUALITY 7/02/2004 Anglicans in Kenya are ready for split in the church over gay priests, writes Adrian Blomfield. Architecturally, St Francis's Church in the Nairobi suburb of Karen would not seem out of place in a village in Kent. But there the similarities end. The Book of Common Prayer still sits on the pews and is used every week, although not in every service. The congregation still sings from "Ancient and Modern" hymnbooks. But it is not just the style that is traditional. Parishioners are deeply conservative. Most believe homosexuality is abhorrent. "The church is very strongly against a person who has openly declared he is homosexual being ordained," said the Rev Habil Omungu, the vicar of St Francis's. Such a person would introduce unacceptable and unbiblical teachings." The parishioners of St Francis's have had their arguments in the past. The decision to ordain women into the priesthood divided them in the late 1990s and prompted two lay preachers to leave. There was further dissent over a number of heraldic shields that had hung in the church since colonial times and over a more recent stained glass window that depicted elephants - some worshippers believed such a scene was tantamount to Hindu idolatry. But when it comes to homosexual ordination and same-sex marriages, the congregation sings from the same hymn sheet. "I think it's absolutely horrific," said Mary McNaughtan, who has worshipped at St Francis's for more than 30 years. "It's totally un-Christian. I think if it were to happen I would probably leave the Church. "I couldn't go to a church where a homosexual was preaching and God would not want a homosexual to come between me and Him." Many Kenyan Anglicans feel their moral ideals are now totally divergent from those of the increasingly decadent and secular West. As Anglican bishops from across the world prepare to meet in Windsor on Tuesday, seeking a deal on homosexuality to save the disintegrating 160-nation Anglican Communion, Anglicans in Africa are far from a spirit of compromise. "This is the result of freedom being pushed beyond acceptable limits," said Mr Omungu. "It has led to a culture of tolerance where people feel free to do whatever they want." While Mr. Omungu still hopes that "love, patience and compassion" can turn the first publicly homosexual Anglican bishop, Gene Robinson, away from his "deviation", some in the congregation at St Francis's are convinced that there is no option left to them but to break away. Founded in 1844, the Anglican Church in Kenya is perhaps the country's oldest institution, even predating British rule in the former colony. It has held true to ideas that might be familiar to Victorians, but which have become alien to many in the West. Even outside Christian circles homosexuality is despised by most Africans, who see it as a Western vice that is alien to their culture. There will undoubtedly be sadness at severing ties with Canterbury but a softening of the line on homosexuality could lead to the extinction of Kenya's three million-strong Anglican community, which is already under pressure from its competitors in the evangelical church. "There is no room for negotiation on something like this," said Dedan Kamau, people's warden at the church. "Homosexuality is a sin. I do not see a situation where Western dioceses return to traditional values. We should just accept the split." 1 December 2003: Church unity talks fail over gay bishop 27 November 2003: Archbishop pleads for Anglican truce © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2004.

By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent THE TELEGRAPH 6/02/2004 The ordination of women priests will cost the Church of England more than 326 million pounds ($596 million) in payouts to clergy who have left in protest, according to official figures. The size of the final bill will dismay many in the Church, which is facing severe financial difficulties and the prospect of dioceses being made bankrupt. The figures will also refuel the heated debate on whether the Church should allow the consecration of women as bishops, a reform which could trigger another exodus of clergy. The millions of pounds have been paid out as part of a scheme agreed in 1992 as a conciliatory gesture to the hundreds of traditionalist clergy who threatened to split the Church over women priests. Under the scheme, clergy who resigned for reasons of conscience before the cut-off date for lodging claims, which falls later this month, would receive hardship payments to help them after they left their jobs. Many of them became Roman Catholic or Orthodox priests, but a number have since returned to the Church of England. The Church Commissioners said that, up until the end of 2003, 430 clergy had resigned and applied for the payments, and a further nine have resigned so far this year. Forward in Faith, the traditionalist umbrella group, said that it did not expect a last-minute exodus before the official final date, Feb 21. The Church Commissioners said that the estimate for the total cost up to the end of 2014, when it expects the scheme to have run its course, was now approximately 326 million pounds ($596 million). In 2002 the commissioners predicted that the final total would not exceed 323 million pounds ($591 million) for 400 departing clergy, so the new figure will disappoint bishops who are being forced to axe clergy posts. Stephen Parkinson, the director of Forward in Faith, said the true number of clergy who have resigned is nearer 600, but many did not qualify for the compensation package so were not officially registered. "This shows that the Church has lost hugely both financially and in terms of talent over women priests," he said. "No one has calculated how many lay people left, taking their wallets with them." Christina Rees, the chair of Watch, a group campaigning for women bishops, said: "Most people who support women clergy are shocked and horrified by the amounts paid out." A service to mark the tenth anniversary of the ordination of women was held in St Paul's Cathedral and a series of other events are to be held around the country later this year. END

By Frank E. Lockwood HERALD-LEADER STAFF WRITER VERSAILLES - As an associate minister at one of the nation's largest Episcopal churches, the Rev. David Brannen had a secure job in a conservative western Pennsylvania diocese. But he gave it all up to lead a congregation with no building, no budget, no history and no guarantees. It's a decision he and his wife have struggled with. "Claire has asked me a million times, 'Are you sure you're getting this right?'" he told his new congregation yesterday. "I have told her time and time again, 'Yes, this is the Lord.'" Brannen, the new rector of St. Andrew's Anglican Church in Versailles, said he has felt called by God before, in 1990. At the time, Brannen had a job as communications director for the Muscogee County School District in Georgia, but he gave it up and enrolled at Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry in Ambridge, Pa. That is where he believed God wanted him to be, so that is where he went. He got a job as communications director at St. Stephen's Episcopal Church in Sewickley, Pa., and, after four years, became its evangelism minister. In 1996, he became associate rector, earned a master's of divinity degree and was ordained Dec. 29 that year. This is the first time Brannen, 48, has led a congregation, but leaders at his new church said he has the temperament, theology and passion for evangelism that they were hoping for. "Upon meeting David, the sense that this was the Lord's choice for our church was overwhelming," said search committee member Judge Wilson. "It was immediate, it was clear, and it was unanimous." Another committee member, John Edwards, said he was struck by Brannen's warmth and his emphasis on the Bible. "David preached the word," he said, "and there was no compromise, no wiggle room." As pastor of a new church, Brannen said, "things feel risky. There are a lot of uncertainties." But his resolve has not weakened. "I am certain of this," he said. "I am called to the community of Versailles." END

Anglican church leaders like to talk about the 'glorious comprehensiveness of the Anglican communion.' Have your heard them talk about that? But, unfortunately, they are not always wise enough to distinguish between the two different kinds of comprehensiveness. Principled on the one hand, and unprincipled on the other. Dr. J.I. Packer, whom we honour very much in this community and throughout the world, wrote a contribution to a symposium about 25 years ago in which he spoke about these two kinds of comprehensiveness. Let me quote from Dr. Packer. He distinguishes two ideals of comprehensiveness which have been held within Anglicanism. One he calls the virtue; the other you will guess, is a vice. So the first is 'the virtue of tolerating different views on secondary issues on the basis of clear agreement on essentials.' And this is what comprehensiveness meant in the time of the reformation. But then he distinguishes this from 'the vice of retreating from the light of scripture into an intellectual murk where no outlines are clear, all cats are gray and syncretism is the prescribed task. ' I was interested a few years ago to read a comment from Cardinal Basil Hume, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster in the country from which I come; he was honest enough to say: "I am very uneasy concerning the comprehensiveness of the Anglican Church. Comprehensiveness has been seen by the Anglican church as a matter of pride. I wonder whether it is not its Achilles heel, leaving the rest of us asking, ' What does the Anglican Church, as a church, hold to be essential?'" Good question." The Rev. Dr. John R.W. Stott "On Essentials"

Four Christian women were killed as militants from a passing car raked their minibus with automatic gunfire. On Wednesday 21 January nine Christian Iraqi women were on their way to work in the laundry at Habaniyah US military base. Suddenly, four masked men, in a white Opel, machine-gunned our minibus and four women died, recounted survivor Maggi Aziz, 49. None of the passengers escaped the attack, 50 miles west of Baghdad, unscathed. Maggi herself was speaking from a hospital bed with wounds to the leg, shoulder and head. Ashkik Varojan boarded the bus on Wednesday morning having decided to hand in her resignation, rather than live in fear of reprisals for cooperating with the coalition. Necessity had driven her to work to support her paralysed husband and four children. On hearing the news of her death, Anjel, her 20 year old daughter fainted with grief. Vera Ibrahim, who survived, said t continue this work. I am afraid. They wanted to kill us all. Suzanne Azat, also a survivor, and Mussa Adam Abu Shaba, whose sister Nadia was killed, believe the assailants were insurgents fighting against the coalition forces. DEMOCRACY On Monday 19 January there was a mass demonstration in Baghdad led by the Shi a leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani against the US plans envisioned to ensure a stable and lasting democracy. According to the Financial Times, some of the demonstrators were carrying pictures of Jesus to make it appear that Christians were supporting the Shi as, even though virtually all Christian leaders are against Al-Sistani s policies. Barnabas Fund works to support Christian communities mainly, but not exclusively, in the Islamic world where they are facing poverty and persecution. Barnabas Fund, The Old Rectory, River Street, PEWSEY, Wiltshire, SN9 5DB, UK. Tel: +44(0)1672 564938, Fax: +44(0)1672 565030, E-mail: info@barnabasfund.org Web: www.barnabasfund.org PASTOR AT PRAYER SHOT DEAD TAJIKISTAN 16th January 2004 A pastor who was also an active missionary has been shot dead while he was praying in a chapel. At 9.00pm on Monday 12 January gunmen burst into a churchyard in Isfara in the north of Tajikistan and fired several rounds through a window at Sergei Bessarab as he was kneeling in prayer. Forum 18 news agency reported that on hearing the gunfire, his wife, Tamara, rushed to her husband s side but he was already dead. Reuters also carried the story and confirmed he was shot 13 times with a Kalashnikov assault rifle. A local newspaper had only a week before attacked Bessarab for his missionary work in this staunchly Muslim region. Women are often seen wearing the veil in villages and alcohol is taboo, indeed shops stocking it have sometimes been burnt down. The hard-line Islamic Revival Party garnered a large majority of the local vote in recent elections, despite central government attempts to curb the growth of Islamic extremism. Bessarab s handing out of Christian literature aroused considerable local anger. Nevertheless police have not yet confirmed that the suspected motive for the murder was his missionary activity. APOSTASY CAMPAIGN Local opposition to the missionary work of this pastor is typical throughout the Muslim world. The reason lies in Islamic law, shari a, which states that any male who converts from Islam should be put to death. Barnabas Fund is currently engaged in a major international campaign on behalf of converts from Islam focusing on the Islamic law of apostasy and the treatment of converts in Islamic societies. The Fund is calling upon Muslim religious leaders to condemn the harsh treatment of converts and to make public statements calling for a reform of shari a teaching on apostasy to clearly affirm that Muslims who choose to convert to another faith are free to follow their personal convictions without fear of punishment or harassment. Further details of the campaign can be obtained by contacting Barnabas Fund or visiting the Apostasy Campaign pages on our website http://www.barnabasfund.org/apostasy.htm END

MAINSTREAM POLITICAL LEADERS DENOUNCE ATTACKS ON CHRISTIAN MINORITY IRAQ A large number of Iraqi intellectuals and politicians have called upon Islamic religious leaders, the Iraqi Governing Council, other party leaders and the Coalition Authorities to prevent Shia Muslim groups attacking Christians. A call by more than 200 mainly Muslim intellectuals and political leaders from Iraq to stop attacks on Christians and cease forcing women to wear the veil was published on Sunday 4 January on the Arabic website Elaph [http://www.ankawa.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=55&topic=6]. The call was directed at Muslim clerics, the Iraqi Governing Council and the Coalition Authorities. They specifically called upon Islamic religious leaders to issue fatwas forbidding such atrocious crimes against humanity and the Islamic [sic] religion. The declaration said horrific crimes had been committed against women in forcing them to wear the veil, but worst of all was the terrorising of our Christian brothers, intimidating them to become Muslims. It drew attention to the fact that Christians had lived in Iraq for two thousand years and had contributed greatly to the region's civilisation, both before and after the coming of Islam. Shia militant groups which bear names such as God's Vengeance and Hezbollah have been subjecting the Christian community in Iraq to a relentless series of attacks as reported by Barnabas Fund over the last half year [http://www.barnabasfund.org/News/Archive/Iraq/Iraq-20040106.htm http://www.barnabasfund.org/News/Archive/Iraq/Iraq-20031120.htm http://www.barnabasfund.org/News/Archive/Iraq/Iraq-20030530.htm http://www.barnabasfund.org/News/Archive/Iraq/Iraq-20030514.htm]. These bold calls by over 200 key Iraqi intellectual and political figures are a welcome move for the country's Christians, acknowledging the problems they are facing and calling for change. Iraqi church leaders have also been speaking out against the increasing persecution Christians are now suffering. Bishop Al-Qas said that missiles were launched against a convent in October of last year, and that Christians have received death threats, with many fleeing from Basra. He attributed this to the greater freedom that Muslim fundamentalist groups now have. The new head of the Chaldean Church, Patriarch Emmanuel III, has also been outspoken in his fears. He said that Muslims and Christians had lived side by side for countless years in love and charity, but that they were now subject to attacks from extremists coming in from Saudi Arabia and Iran. He added that if legislation is enacted according to Islamic law, Christians will suffer. He stressed that they would have no prospects if the new Iraqi constitution was Islamic and that American intervention would be the only way to avert such an outcome. The Iraqi Governing Council have nearly finalised a transitional constitution that would have Islam as one of its sources of law, but not the sole one. Freedom of religious practice for non-Muslims and equal rights for women would be guaranteed. This is another welcome sign. It remains to be seen whether Iraq's conservative Shia community would accept such a constitution.

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN The New York Times For years it was an article of faith for many Christians that the most powerful vehicle for bringing nonbelievers to Jesus was a Billy Graham crusade. Now, they expect it will be a Mel Gibson movie. Three weeks before the release of "The Passion of the Christ," a graphic portrayal of the torture and crucifixion of Jesus, Christians nationwide are busy preparing to use it in an immense grass-roots evangelistic campaign. Mr. Gibson, who produced, directed and largely financed the film, has tried to stoke their enthusiasm by screening it the past two months for at least 10,000 pastors and leaders of Christian ministries and media. Many emerged proclaiming it a searing, life-changing experience. Now those leaders are buying blocks of tickets, encouraging church members to invite their "unsaved" friends and co-workers and producing television commercials that start with scenes from the movie and finish with a pitch for their churches. "I don't know of anything since the Billy Graham crusades that has had the potential of touching so many lives," said Morris H. Chapman, president of the executive committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest Protestant denomination. "It's like the Lord somehow laid in our lap something that could be a great catalyst for spiritual awakening in this nation." The movie opens on Ash Wednesday, Feb. 25, and Christian groups are already distributing merchandise to capitalize on the moment. There are lapel pins in Aramaic, the language of much of the film, and "witnessing cards" to give those who ask about the pin; door hangers for the neighbors; one million tracts asking moviegoers to "Take a moment right now and say a prayer like this," and a CD-ROM for teenagers that features a downloadable picture of a nine-inch nail like those that pinned Jesus to the cross. Although Mr. Gibson is Roman Catholic and the movie is replete with Catholic touches, like the Stations of the Cross and the centrality of Mary, influential Pentecostal and evangelical leaders have embraced it anyway, seeing its value as a tool in evangelism. Evangelical Christians account for 30 percent to 40 percent of the American population, and many of them have recently been hearing their leaders declare that the nation is primed for a return of the ecstatic Great Awakenings that moved Americans in the 18th and 19th centuries to convert to Christianity in droves. Mr. Gibson's film company has hired several marketing firms experienced in reaching Christian audiences, including the publicist for the Rev. Billy Graham. But much of the promotion was initiated by an assortment of ministry agencies, churches and individual Christians. One of these, the American Tract Society in Garland, Tex., proclaims on its Web site that the movie is "one of the greatest opportunities for evangelism in 2,000 years." Daniel Southern, the society's president, said his group had produced two tracts tied into the movie, and expected one to sell over one million copies. The only involvement of Mr. Gibson's company, Mr. Southern said, was in granting permission to use a movie photograph on the cover. "This is an unprecedented opportunity that the average Christian needs to seize," Mr. Southern said. "You'll run into people at work who've seen the movie, and you can say, Have you ever thought about why Christ had to die?' And then you can say: This tract has one take on that and I'd like to share it with you.' And you hand them the tract." Teen Mania, an evangelical group that holds youth crusades in stadiums, says at least 3,000 leaders of church youth groups have bought CD-ROM kits that instruct young people in how to use the film to deepen their own faith and bring their friends to accept Christ. The film is rated R because of the violent scourging and crucifixion of Jesus that occupies much of its two hours. Ron Luce, president of Teen Mania, says children would benefit from seeing it, and the CD-ROM supplies information to persuade parents to allow their children to attend. "This isn't just violence for violence's sake," Mr. Luce said. "This is what really happened, what it would have been like to have been there in person to see Jesus crucified." Mr. Gibson invested $25 million of his own into the movie and has told supporters that he regards it as a spiritual calling. He has suggested that he is aware of the film's potential use in evangelism. In a promotional brochure for the movie given to 4,500 participants at a recent "Global Pastors Network" conference in Orlando, Fla., Mr. Gibson says, "I hope the film has the power to evangelize." He has told screeners in churches that on the movie set, he witnessed agnostics and Muslims converting to Christianity. A spokesman for Mr. Gibson, Alan Nierob, explained the outreach efforts as more in the interest of marketing than evangelism. He said that although "The Passion of the Christ" was being released on about 2,000 screens by Newmarket Films, it did not have a large marketing budget to pay for focus groups and advertising. "We don't have that luxury here," Mr. Nierob said. "So you've got to do what you can to get the film out there, get supporters, get word of mouth. That's really the grass-roots approach." Mr. Nierob likened it to the word-of-mouth and Internet buzz that turned "The Blair Witch Project" into a sleeper hit. Mr. Gibson's company held early screenings of the film in churches led by pastors renowned in Christian circles for pioneering evangelization techniques. They include the Rev. Bill Hybels of Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Ill.; Bishop Eddie L. Long of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Atlanta; and the Rev. Rick Warren at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., author of the best seller "The Purpose-Driven Life." Mr. Hybels was host to 4,500 viewers at a screening in his church last month, and said in an interview that he had invited a "sample group" of a dozen "nonchurchgoing community leaders and businessmen" to gauge their reaction. He said all 12 reported that the film "piqued their curiosity" about Jesus and caused some to go home and dig out Bibles they had not read for years. Although the film has been praised by some Roman Catholics and promoted on some Catholic Web sites, Catholic clergy members and bishops have not latched onto it as a tool for church-building as the evangelicals have. The same brutality in the film that has caused such an emotional response among many Christian filmgoers has alarmed some Jewish leaders who say it could stoke animosity toward Jews. Christian supporters of the film say it merely adheres to the Bible. But some Jewish leaders say that it distorts the Scriptures and that they are alarmed at the prospect of the movie's being accepted as gospel. David M. Elcott, director for interreligious affairs for the American Jewish Committee, said, "It would be a deep disappointment to the Jewish community if this movie would become the vehicle for teaching Christianity, even within Christian settings." Christian leaders predict that the film will have a long afterlife on tape and DVD for use in homes, churches and Bible study classes. Some cautioned that the film's graphic brutality would limit its usefulness with youngsters and in some cultures. But others said that missionaries would eventually adopt it as a conversion tool much like "Jesus," a 1970's film distributed by the group Campus Crusade for Christ. That film has been translated into more than 800 languages and shown in hundreds of countries. END

Report on the 182nd convention of the Diocese of Georgia By Les Wilkinson February 7, 2004 I am taking this opportunity to report to the members of St. Augustine's Episcopal Church on the events of the Diocesan Convention, which ended today. This report is from my recollection and my notes. I have not sought the input from the other delegates. I would like to thank the Rector for his having all of us as his guests for dinner Thursday night. He is a most gracious host. The events I am reporting will sadden some of you and perhaps some of you will not care, but the happenings at the convention should be a grave concern for all of us. They are to Marcy and me, if not to others. Each of you should have received The Episcopal Church in Georgia's pre-convention newsletter; we received ours on Wednesday. It lists the proposed canon changes and the resolutions that were to come before the convention. Friday morning, the convention began on time, and one of the first items was the approval of the agenda including the time for the discussion and "debate" of the proposed canonical changes and the proposed resolutions, scheduled for the afternoon session. There were 151 voting lay delegates and 84 voting clergy registered at the Convention. At the convention, all delegates, including alternates and guests who had registered were assigned seats at 39 different tables. None of our delegations were seated together. At each table was a moderator whose exact function was unclear, and at my table, he was just another voice. The idea for the tables was to have delegates from different parishes discuss each of the proposed changes and resolutions among themselves and then to allow those who wanted to address the convention to do so. Well, that was the idea, and that concept would have worked had not Rev. Parker of St. George's in Savannah moved to halve the time for discussion and microphone debate because it would otherwise cut into repast and planned night festivities. What is more important to the Diocese — dinner and dancing or moral standards and conduct? His motion passed over my voiced objection. The first canonical change discussed and voted on was that concerning ecclesiastical standards for aspirants, postulates, and those accepted to orders. The change to Title IV, Canon I, Section 1 reads as follows: "Aspirants, postulates, and those accepted to holy orders shall accept and conform to the following standard: `Marriage between a man and a woman or abstinence from sexual activity are the only acceptable forms of sexual behavior for a Deacon, Priest, or Bishop in the Diocese of Georgia'" As we were beginning to vote, Sister Elena, called for a division of the house, which means that lay delegates and clergy vote separately, with a negative vote by either house defeating or vetoing the proposal. It was ruled that her call was untimely and without the 6 signatures necessary. That ruling was not lost on some of the delegates, especially some of the clergy. I am happy that the above change to the canons was approved, but not by much. The delegates in favor of the resolution stood, and that included The Rector and me. I did not look around to see who from our delegation had stood, but from our previous discussion, I believe they all did. I noticed The Rector because he was at the table to my left. Those who were against also stood, and I can tell you the vote was close. The actual vote count was not announced, but the edited minutes of the meeting may have that count. The proposed change to the canons to apply the above standard to those called to be Rectors was also approved. Now for what I consider a serious mistake by the Convention and that dealt with the acceptable marriage rites in this Diocese. The proposed canonical change read as follows: "The only acceptable marriage rites in the Diocese of Georgia are those of marriage between a man and a woman, the renewal of marriage vows between a man and a woman, and the blessing of a civil marriage between a man and a woman. No other rites of marriage, celebration of unions or other such ceremonies shall be created, solemnized, blessed, practiced or recognized." You would think that this was a "no-brainer", especially in the Diocese of Georgia, which I would have considered to be conservative in the area of "same sex" unions. Was I ever mistaken? One priest said that everything we need to know about marriage was in the Book of Common Prayer, and it allowed only marriage between a man and a woman, and this canon change would be superfluous and thus was not needed. I went to the microphone and spoke on this proposed canonical change. I said that if the Book of Common Prayer was the "end all and be all" as claimed, then other dioceses would not be blessing these "unions". I said that this issue had been dogging the national church for 30 years and would dog this Diocese unless we approved it. I was followed by a gay fellow who said he and his partner had been in a monogamous relationship for 20 some-odd years and all their other friends were dead; he ask where he would go if this change were passed. He missed the point for the proposed canonical change was not to ban them from the Church, but to prohibit "rites" of marriage, celebrations of unions, blessings of unions, or the recognition such in this Diocese. The time allotted for microphone discussion for this important issue was only 10 minutes. Anyway, those opposed to this canonical change had learned their lesson from Sister Elena's attempt to vote by orders. When there is a division of the house, if a majority of the clergy votes "no" and even if every lay delegate votes "yes", the proposal will be defeated; likewise, the lay delegates can veto a proposition approved by the clergy. This is why a division of the house is important. Before the vote on this canonical change was called, a priest called for a division of the house, and he had the required signatures. Rather than standing and having others know how each voted, the division of the house was by secret ballot. I voted in favor of the prohibition of "same sex" blessing, unions, etc. I can speak only for me. Voting for the ban were 75 lay delegates and 28 clergy. Voting against the ban were 71 lay delegates and 47 clergy. Five lay delegates and 9 clergy did not vote. The motion to ban "same sex" unions or blessings failed at convention. This bodes very ill, I fear, for our Church and the Diocese of Georgia. What this tells me is that if 47 of 84 clergy or 47 of 75 that bothered to voted are either in favor of "same sex" unions, or do not opposed them, or do not support a ban on such rites, we, the Church, and our Diocese are in deep trouble. Also, even after the Archbishop receives his report from the Primates this fall, any attempt by the lay delegates to associate with other parishes, or to seek oversight from other bishops, or to join in another Anglican province will be defeated by the clergy in a "division ofRetryDVContinuethe house". If this were not enough, I have some other disturbing news, at least to me, but others may see it from a different perspective. It was announced that we would vote on the resolutions listed in the diocesan newspaper in the following order: (1) Affirm the Bishop: (2) Reaffirm, Profess Membership; (3) Affirm Primates' Statement; (4) Saddened by Recent Actions; (5)Repudiating Actions; (6) Redirecting Funds: and (7)Ties That Bind Us Together. The resolution "Regarding Budget Shortfall" was withdrawn. After a substitute resolution praising Bishop Louttit was passed, a priest made a motion to table all the other resolutions because they "needed more time" for study. The vote was called for and a lot of delegates stood up to vote for tabling the resolutions; no actual count was made. Those against the motion stood up, and I stood up to oppose the tabling the resolutions. I thought and still do that these resolutions needed action to show our strong disapproval of the actions of General Convention. I looked around, and we had as many standing to oppose the tabling as those supporting the tabling; no actual count was made. The Bishop announced, "The ayes" have it." The resolutions were tabled. One priest asked that a recorded vote be taken, and the Bishop announced that according to Roberts' Rules of Order, two-thirds of the delegates would have to approve such a measure. Obviously, that would have been futile. I was very disappointed in the outcome of the Convention, not only with the fact that so many of the Diocesan clergy opposed a canonical change to outlaw or ban "same sex" blessings or any type of such rites, but that the resolutions addressing the controversy surrounding Gene Robinson, the General Convention, and others never made it to the floor for discussion or vote. By slight of hand, in my opinion, the Diocese did nothing. I might add that at the end of the business, the Bishop asked for and got permission for the secretary to edit the minutes of the meeting so I do not know how these events will be reported. I wanted you to get my impressions and recollections while they are still fresh in my mind. I have been a lifelong Episcopalian. Marcy and I have attended St. Augustine's since the late '70s. We have many close friends here. St. Augustine's is more than a parish; it is a part of the Diocese and the national church. What the national church and the Diocese do affects us at St. Augustine's. Their moral leadership or lack thereof affects us and how others think of our church. It is with great sadness that Marcy and I will be celebrating our last Sunday with you at St. Augustine's. We cannot continue in the course the Church is taking. This is something we have been thinking about with great thought for many months, always hoping that the Diocese of Georgia would take the right course. Whatever the future, may the Peace of the Lord be always among us. Les Wilkinson END

By David W. Virtue TALLAHASSEE, FL - The Rev. Dennis Ackerson, rector of Church of the Holy Spirit who had submitted his resignation from the Diocese of Florida, and from the national Episcopal Church, was prematurely shown the door after an agreement he had to leave his parish was broken, he says, by the new bishop John Howard. Ackerson, who had been thinking about leaving for a year, resigned from his parish with the understanding from Bishop Howard's representative Canon Reverend Gil Crosby along with Lila Brown, the bishop's assistant, that February 8 would be his last Sunday to preach. But then he got a surprise. "On Thursday, Feb. 5, I was told I could stay and preach the following Sunday. Then at 4pm on Thursday I got a call from the bishop's assistant saying that I could not preach on Sunday someone else would, but I could address the congregation at the "peace" and that a pre-arranged plan to have a vote on whether to stay or leave was now cancelled." I was officially inhibited, he told Virtuosity. "I thought about it and then decided I didn't need to be at the service on Sunday. The people already know and six of the vestry are leaving, and they are ready to leave the parish even if I didn't leave the ECUSA. I also believe the majority of the church is ready to go. They have been ready for a year to leaving ECUSA." Ackerson says that the vast majority of the 155-member congregation will go with him to start another Anglican parish down the road at a Baptist Church who have offered him sanctuary till he can find more permanent headquarters. They had wanted him to start a new church within the Tallahassee community. Although the new church will not be aligned with any denomination initially, it intends to unite with a different Anglican group shortly. "One outreach that will continue in the new congregation is Subject to Change Ministries, a program for people seeking to change their homosexual attractions and behavior through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ," said Ackerson. Asked if he was ready to join the Anglican Mission in America (AMIA), Ackerson said "not necessarily", but he was weighing several options including coming under an orthodox Anglican Primate from the Global South. For Ackerson the central issue and why he left the Episcopal Church was the authority of Holy Scripture. "The Episcopal Church has failed to stand for Biblical authority, he told Virtuosity. "It is the ongoing dilution of God's Word within the hierarchy of ECUSA." Ackerson has aggressively sought to encourage the diocese to withdraw its fellowship from ECUSA, for failure to uphold the Bible as the ultimate authority of God. Ackerson said his parish co-sponsored a proposal to amend the Diocese's Articles of Re-incorporation to begin the process of separation from ECUSA. The proposal was submitted at the Diocese's Annual Convention held last month in Jacksonville, FL. "The proposal was ruled out of order by Bishop John Howard during a convened session of the convention and, therefore, did not receive a formal vote by the delegates," he said. Ackerson advised his parish of his resignation on February 1st and said, "I cannot commit to fighting ECUSA anymore. My charge as a priest is to focus my time and energy to fulfilling the Great Commission, and this effort has distracted me from that purpose." According to Ackerson and other members of the denomination, ECUSA interprets the Bible as a mere guideline for modern day living. The most recent result of this mindset was the consecration and ordination of a non-celibate homosexual priest, V. G. Robinson, as Bishop of New Hampshire in the fall of 2003. Jim Hampton, a convention delegate said, "Ackerson has been preparing his congregation for this outcome for several years by encouraging active participation in the American Anglican Council, a network that affirms Biblical authority. He also has called the parish to prayer, and provided biblical teaching on how to address false teachers within the Church." Ackerson, who has been an Episcopal priest for twelve years told Virtuosity, "I am anxious to continue his mission to win the lost and make disciples of Jesus Christ". END

PRIMATES ON THE NETWORK We, Primates of the Global South greet you in the name of our Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The actions of ECUSA in the election, confirmation, and consecration of Canon Gene Robinson have created a situation of grave concern for the entire Anglican Communion and beyond. Their actions are a direct repudiation of the clear teaching of the Holy Scriptures, historic faith and order of the church. They also constitute a clear defiance of the Primates of the Communion, who warned at their October meeting: If his consecration proceeds, we recognise that we have reached a crucial and critical point in the life of the Anglican Communion and we have had to conclude that the future of the Communion itself will be put in jeopardy. In this case, the ministry of this one bishop will not be recognised by most of the Anglican world, and many provinces are likely to consider themselves to be out of Communion with the Episcopal Church (USA). This will tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level, and may lead to further division on this and further issues as provinces have to decide in consequence whether they can remain in communion with provinces that choose not to break communion with the Episcopal Church (USA). The world needs to know that the rebellious and erroneous actions of ECUSA are contrary to the teaching of the Anglican Communion and represent a departure from five thousand years of Judeo-Christian teaching and practice. By their actions, ECUSA has separated itself from the remainder of the Anglican Communion and the wider Christian family. We appeal to all the faithful to be diligent in prayer and faith and call upon Anglicans across the communion to engage in loyal witness to the risen Christ and to resist and confront the false teaching undergirding these actions and which is leading people away from the redeeming love of Jesus into error and danger. We ask you to join in our repentance for failing to be sufficiently forthright in adequately addressing this issue in the past, and we invite you to stand with us in a renewed struggle to uphold the received truth found in Jesus and His word. We re-affirm our solidarity with faithful Bishops, clergy and church members in North America who remain committed the historic faith and order of the church and have rejected unbiblical innovation. We offer our support and the full weight of our ministries and offices to those who are gathering in the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes now being organized in North America. We regard this network as a hopeful sign of a faithful Anglican future in North America. We invite those who are committed to the preservation of historic Biblical faith and order, to join that work and its essential commitment to the Gospel. Finally, we appeal to you to sustain us in prayer, and to intercede especially for Anglicans in North America. "Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, to Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen." Eph 3:20-21 The Most Rev. Peter Akinola (Nigeria) The Most Rev. Drexel Gomez (West Indies) The Most Rev. Greg Venables (Southern Cone) The Most Rev. Joseph Marona (Sudan) The Most Rev. Benjamin Nzimbi (Kenya) The Most Rev. Livingstone Nkoyoyo (Uganda - outgoing) The Most Rev. Henry Orombi (Uganda - incoming) The Most Rev. Fidele Dirokpa (Congo) The Most Rev. Donald Mtetemela (Tanzania) The Most Rev. Bernard Malango (Central Africa) The Most Rev. K.J. Samuel (South India) The Most Rev. Alexander Malik (Pakistan) The Most Rev. Yong Ping Chung (South East Asia) The Most Rev. Ignacio Soliba (Philippines) The Primates who have already signed the attached statement are the leaders of more than forty-five million people, well over half of the world's Anglicans. Messages have been received from other provinces that the Network is being recognized. Those names will be released when official communication has certified recognition. END

By Christopher R Seitz History Comprehensiveness is a term normally associated with the Anglicanism of the Church of England, or with Anglicanism as distinct from other Christian movements or bodies. Only in the latter sense, then, could the term strictly speaking apply to the Anglican Christianity of the American Episcopal Church. Alternatively, one could argue that comprehensiveness as a distinctive feature of the Church of England has found its way, by transplant, into the American context. I suspect that The Episcopal Church Foundation has chosen to use the term on the assumption that such a transplantation has occurred, though it would be interesting to test whether the term has been used, historically, as often and as readily in the American as in the British context, given the very different ecumenical environment within which this small Anglican Christian movement finds itself in the United States. The question then would be: did the transplanting take root and did it actually flourish? It is necessary to pose the issue this way, because the ECUSA is a 2 million person denomination within a complex welter of denominated Christian groupings, vastly overshadowed by Roman Catholic, Baptist, and Evangelical churches, which might themselves be said to correspond in some rough ways to groupings internal to the comprehensiveness which is British Anglicanism. This is especially true of the evangelical wing of the Church of England which forms a major part, historically and especially presently, of this church and which makes utilisation of a term like "comprehensive" a fully rational way to describe something distinctive about it. Evangelicals travelling to America from the Church of England will find their counterparts more easily in places like Trinity Deerfield, Wheaton, Asbury, Gordon- Conwell, Westminster, or Beeson, and American evangelical Anglicans--or what is left of them--will look probably more 'Anglican' than British evangelicals, in part because the evangelical in US Anglicanism will have to have made a decision to stay and defend themselves and claim an Anglican lineage. Evangelicals in the UK may just view the Church of England as "the best boat to fish from." [Content continues in single-spaced format for all remaining text...]RetryDVcontinueRight away one can see that, over against the situation facing ECUSA, the Church of England's comprehensiveness entails its distinctive relationship to other, smaller or more marginal denominated groupings within its own shores -- historically with Puritanism and Catholicism marking districts over against which English reformed catholicism gained its identity and comprehensive outer limit. In more recent times, this would entail its more congenial ecumenical relationship with Methodist, Reformed, and other "dissenting" bodies; as well as now, with other faiths as such. As noted, the conference is likely using the term comprehensiveness because it has been thought to be a theological distinctive of Anglicanism, even in America. But to the degree that the theological distinctive is tied to a social/ecclesial location and reality, as it surely is in Britain, it will be important to interrogate whether or not the term has worn well over time in American culture and context. I believe the case can be made, historically, for identifying a species of comprehensiveness which is continuous with the evangelical, catholic, and so-called liberal strands of English reformed catholicism. This comprehensiveness was not something consciously structured according to a theological idea, or governing principle, however, but was reflected in the internal institutional workings--not least of the theological training schools and seminaries of this country, as well as of its societies and fellowships and missionary instincts--of the Episcopal Church in America. On this latter issue, for example, one thinks of the decision in the last century to designate domestic mission as the business of General Seminary, and the foreign mission as the domain of so-called evangelical seminaries. You will doubtless bring your own historical examples to mind. But it is also my view, and I will be making the case for this in short order, that this kind of comprehensiveness has broken down, and probably irretrievably. Moreover, this kind of comprehensiveness was not the result of design or intention--much less construction--but reflected an acknowledgement of certain institutional givens: certain more-or-less co-operative efforts to distribute chores and tolerate different distinctives--not always so congenially--within a family resemblance of theological and historical inheritances. The term "comprehensiveness" was not brought in to service and give theological justification for this, however, because, as I am arguing, comprehensiveness in the English Anglican sense is tied up with its distinctive Erastian vocation, which vocation is now threatened to a degree, but which has historically meant that Anglicanism is defined over against districts on its outer flanks. This is simply not true of American Anglican Christianity, and the kinds of slogans which once gave testimony to Anglican diversity in the US--"High and crazy, Broad and hazy, Low and lazy"--are just that: slogans, which grow up as emic and etic descriptions, meant to keep the peace within and/or describe to others outside what to them look like inconcinnities, as well they may be. Indeed one could speculate that the qualifying term "reconstructing" is a candid admission up front that something has gone missing, and perhaps, with the right kind of conferring and getting-together, it could be retrieved. I think one needs to be careful here about confusing a comprehensiveness which is historically continuous with, on the one hand, what once went on, or with what presently obtains in a different Anglican context (I think one can still call the present Church of England theologically and institutionally "comprehensive," and as such, in historical continuity with what it has been in the past; I think the same can also be said of certain international Anglican movements which are trans-national in character). On the other hand, one might be trying to describe a comprehensiveness of a very different kind: a kind of agreement to see whatever pluriformity exists, and bless it, and call it "comprehensiveness." That is, a decision by those in power to include those positions they have excluded, and to call this "comprehensiveness." This would be to introduce a serious logical fallacy, however. It would mean ignoring the historical and social context in which the term has had meaning, and theological grounding, and declaring it dispensable for the purposes of non-historical analogy. But the appropriate theological force of the term entails certain historical givens which cannot be removed without destroying the meaningfulness of the term as such. An agreement to tolerate difference and accommodate it is not "comprehensiveness" and never has been. Comprehensiveness is a declaration of where fundamentals lie, and where adiaphora are just that--inessentials--and are not in conflict with these fundamentals. This declaration is made easier when alternatives can be spotted on the periphery, as in Anglicanism vis-a-vis Puritanism and Roman Catholicism, or as in Hooker's presentation of reasonable, catholic, evangelical Anglicanism. The present American Episcopal Church is theologically far closer to its mainline Liberal Protestant neighbours, and cannot find a comprehensiveness within it which serves as an analogy to the location of British Anglicanism within its context over against a small Roman Catholic church or "dissenting" Christian groups. To help illustrate the point we can turn to the irenic volume, A Study of Anglicanism, where in the glossary we find--and its existence there is testimony to the durability of the term as an Anglican concept--"comprehension." Comprehension is "the character of the English Church prior to the reign of Charles I, whereby a refusal to narrow doctrinal boundaries" via-a-vis continental reformed and puritan Christianity on one side and Catholicism on the other "ensured that many not entirely happy with the Anglican Church nevertheless felt able to remain in it." Notice the more tentative gloss which the term seeks then to accommodate: "it is a term often used today to indicate the element of inclusiveness thought to be integral to the definition of Anglicanism" (p 445). In its historical form, one can sense immediately how practical the term is, reflecting as it does the acknowledged givens--perhaps even grudgingly--of that curiosity which would become English reformed catholicism. A given structure was acknowledged, in a low-flying sense, in that certain outer limits were defined, as in the old map-makers' declaration, "beyond here there be dragons." At the same time, the term reflects a willingness to see certain basic fundamentals as up-and-running, and to designate as inessential (adiaphora) other matters of difference and emphasis. The 1968 Lambeth Conference concluded "Comprehensiveness demands agreement on fundamentals, while tolerating disagreement on matters in which Christians may differ without feeling the necessity of breaking communion." The definition is crucial, for the adiaphora can only be seen as such when there is an agreement on fundamentals. If this should fail, then the notion of comprehensiveness, as expressed in the 1968 statement, would be forfeit and we would have slipped into an area of confusion and the threat of broken communion -- which is of course exactly where we find ourselves today. Sykes rightly noted, a bit prophetically one might say, "there are considerable complexities hidden in the proposal that all Christians do, can or should agree on fundamentals," a sentence which could apply to our situation today when agreement on fundamentals is exactly what cannot be satisfied. People can say that agreement should be had, or that we should have conferences and dialogue sessions to achieve agreement, but immediately this should signal that the conditions within which comprehensiveness arose are now gone. The very conditions within which adiaphora can be comprehended and accepted are missing, and these are not classically there by argument or exhortation, but exist because agreement over fundamentals exists and must not be sought or restructured or reconstructed or whatever, but acknowledged. The Present In some ways I have jumped ahead of my assignment by stating the thesis up front: concerning the impossibility of having comprehensiveness where disagreement over essentials exists. I have hinted at but not given clear examples of where a state of institutional--and therefore theological--comprehensiveness still exists, and where sufficient agreement over fundamentals has not yet given way. It is necessary to fill this picture out a bit in order to give expression--dramatically--to how monolithic and non-comprehensive, in the social and institutional--and therefore theological--sense the ECUSA has become. As you have been patient with the more historical and definitional character of the argument this far, let me shift grounds and read a poem--lyrics, actually--to a song about Kenyon College, one of the evangelical colleges which would in time give birth to one of the historically evangelical seminaries, Bexley Hall. The first of Kenyon's goodly race Was that great man Philander Chase He climbed a hill and said a prayer And founded Kenyon College there He dug up stones he chopped down trees He sailed across the stormy seas He knocked at every noble's door And also that of Hannah Moore The kings, the queens, the dukes, the earls They gave their crowns, they gave their pearls Until Philander had enough And hurried homeward with the stuff And thus he worked with all his might For Kenyon College day and night And Kenyon's heart still holds a place Of love for old Philander Chase Does Kenyon's heart "still hold a place of love for old Philander Chase"? Most I suspect do not know who he was, and would be untouched by the criticism that Kenyon does not now represent what he intended when he climbed a hill and said a prayer. That Bexley Hall is no longer there, has been moved to NY State, and that it is not evangelical on the terms of Chase's theology or the beneficence of wealthy English evangelicals like Hannah Moore, also likely moves no one. Time--especially in the New World--marches on, as we say. Chase, however, tapped into an English evangelical base which for the most part has remained vital and widely representative, in ways that his own evangelicalism was once vital and powerful within the ecology of 19th century American Episcopalianism. If Chase returned today and climbed a hill and said a prayer about where his vision might have got translated, by all standards of historical comparison, he would look outside the American Episcopal Seminary system and into a broader American evangelical world, with the exception perhaps of Trinity School for Ministry -- a school which, tellingly, is a transplant of its own. It would take a more confident historian than myself to speculate whether the High Church vision of Hobart would likewise be seen by him as unrepresented in the liberal catholicism, or liturgical Unitarianism, of much of the American Episcopal Church and its seminaries. Most Episcopal seminaries have ceased describing themselves as belonging to distinct theological or historical parties to be ranged on an articulated grid of "comprehensiveness," in the classic sense of the term. One can diagnose why this has happened--the 1979 Prayer Book; cultural factors; the departure of the REC; the emergence and proliferation of continuing churches; women's ordination--but that it has happened seems incontrovertible. That this is not simply an exercise in nostalgia or "those were the good old days" ("but they're gone, Professor Seitz") is belied by a comparison with Anglicanism in just about every region--Scotland may be an exception--of the entire Anglican Communion, that is, outside of the ECUSA. Consider the home of "comprehensiveness," The Church of England. Seventy per cent of the seminarians attending residential training colleges in the UK choose to matriculate in one of six evangelical schools. Even as it is important to note that now over half of all ordinands read for orders or pursue some other kind of local option for training ("training by course"), by US standards this high percentage is staggering. Our grid of comprehensiveness simply goes blank here. There are also active seminaries in the catholic tradition, Wescott and St Stephens and Cuddesdon and Mirfield, though the Catholic wing has itself been split by women's ordination, different views of the authority of Scripture, practising Gay lifestyles, and the like. There are six evangelical training colleges as against the single remaining one in the US: Oak Hill, Wycliffe Hall, Ridley Hall, St John's College (Nottingham), Trinity College (Bristol), Cranmer Hall (Durham). They are themselves representative of a kind of internal evangelical comprehensiveness (Church Society and Reform, on one side, Fulcrum in the middle; and a smallish liberal evangelical movement; "Open" Evangelical, surprisingly, given US jargon, does not mean "in favour of same-sex lifestyle," but open to women in orders, certain forms of historical criticism, and the like). I believe it is a fair conclusion that something like classical comprehensiveness still exists in the Church of England. This is not to say that there are not serious threats and fault-lines, but they are different to what one can now see in the American Episcopal Seminary system and the kinds of parties and ordained leaders they have been and will be turning out, thus marking the character of Episcopal Church life in this country now and for the coming years, if such years there are. The kind of comprehensiveness which marks the life of theological training in England has also left its mark on the Anglican Communion and especially the African churches of the Communion. There too one can see evangelical, catholic, and charismatic forms of Christian life, what one might conclude are 'inessential' distinctivenesses which can exist in a "structured comprehensiveness" because there is still agreement over fundamentals. Indeed, I would make the positive argument that the contribution the third largest Christian body in the world can make--over against the Roman, the great Orthodox Churches of the East, and Pentecostal Christian movements--is a comprehensiveness which can allow all these instincts to co-exist within its global reach because there is agreement on fundamentals in the mission of Jesus Christ. Given the starkness of the comparison between the Anglican comprehensiveness of the Communion and the Church of England, on the one side, and the smallish and rather monolithic institutional ECUSA, on the other, what hope is there for something like "reconstructing comprehensiveness"? On the terms of the definition, historically speaking, it would require an agreement about fundamentals. It is impossible however that those seeking revision in the way the plain sense of scripture, or the catholic teaching, imprint themselves on the church will persuade others that such matters are not fundamental, but are in fact adiaphora: non-essential. Here is a sticking point which simply will not go away. Comprehensiveness, classically understood, was not a celebration, or a toleration, of diversity for its own sake. It was not the generosity of one group allowing another to exist alongside it, like the High Churchman with special gadgets, just because people ought to be able to get along. There was required a principled agreement on fundamentals. That is what is lacking. And there will be no agreement forthcoming, because what is fundamental for one is not such for another, and vice-versa. Comprehensiveness does exist within the USA. It is not Anglican, but ecumenical, uniting Christians around fundamentals: the scriptures, the creeds, and even to a certain extent, the Great Tradition. This comprehensiveness was not restructured: it was identified, and theologically acknowledged, in something of the same way the term arose and made sense and characterised Anglican Christianity in England, and allowed those who embraced it to worship God and celebrate fundamentals held in common instead of being distracted by adiaphora and matters not essential. Where Anglican comprehensiveness exists in the Communion at large, if not in the ECUSA, within the American context it exists as an emerging and quite hopeful ecumenical reality, uniting Christians of different but increasingly non-essential historical background: Lutherans, Wesleyans, Reformed, Catholic, Orthodox, Evangelical-Free. The Prospect I believe we are witnessing something like a major epistemological shift. When the Presiding Bishop of the ECUSA says that he understands that a certain position on scripture is fundamental and comprehensible in Northern Uganda, but that it may not transcend time and place and be fundamental in North America, and vice-versa of his own view of Scripture's demonstration of its sense, we are not having a debate about the plain sense of scripture alone, or chiefly. We are having a debate about whether truth is something that is actually capable of being transcendent, and eternal. This would in turn mean that there can--no must--be occasions when positions will prove to be mutually corrosive, and must by definition cancel one or the other out. It is this view of truth and reality--and of God's word in time and space--that divides us, and it is a much deeper disagreement over fundamentals and inessentials than any period in Church History has seen (perhaps rivalled by nominalist philosophical challenges prior to the Reformation). One gets a sense of this when we are told that a kind of living, a certain kind of sexual relating, has never been seen before or judged by humankind before according to some objective or transcending standard: that we are really and truly in a time without any analogy in time or space, such that our standards of judgement--for the Christian these would be one and for others these would be other things--can comprehend them. So the question is being rightly posed: can comprehensiveness be restructured? There is a low-flying version of that question that I have sought to tease out by showing how sui generis is the American Episcopal experiment, for "experiment" is what it increasingly looks like it is. But there is another sense in which the question could be posed. Are we able to give consent to a view that what we are encountering in time and space has no counterpart in previous era, and therefore is impatient and simply not corrigible before grids or standards of evaluation, whatever they might be? Can we take seriously the full epistemological implications of saying something like, the Bible does not know anything about this? Increasingly the charge is that the plain sense of scripture cannot comprehend, cannot extend itself to contemplate and consider, in its details and specificity, a behaviour and a kind of living never before accommodated or contemplated on the terms we are now told we must comprehend it, en route then to accommodating and indeed blessing and sanctifying it. Here is a form of comprehensiveness which, to my mind, cannot ever be "reconstructed," for on the terms of the argument, it has no known antecedent and cannot have one, if the form of sexual living is properly to be appraised for what it is. We are being asked to deal with the unprecedented, the temporally and spacially sui generis, the incomprehensible. How, philosophically, can such a view be accommodated to what must by contrast appear a rather anodyne theory of "Anglican comprehensiveness" from another age? An age which did not ask of its Anglican Christians anything like so dramatic a readjustment of its view of time and space? Here the chattel slavery analogy simply collapses as a house of sand. At most, one could argue that this kind of comprehensiveness is so new and so crucial--and is crucial because of its ineluctable never-before-ness and novelty--that it should be constructed--not reconstructed--for the very first time. That is what we are being asked to consider: the construction of a never-before-known comprehensiveness. We should stand with complete honesty before the boldness of all this, and at least understand, as far as we are able to understand, what kind of dauntless project is now being set before us: that we are to construct for the first time, in Christian or secular time, an entirely new thing and then claim as well--something the secular "bold new world" does not require--that it is a work, one and the same, of God the Holy Spirit. That is not a claim I can make or ever would make, nor am I aware that any other decision in time and space asked this of the Christian church. It is this hesitancy, it is this unwillingness to break out of time and space altogether, that will certainly frustrate calls for a "reconstructing of comprehensiveness," either in its low-flying, historically familiar form, or in this new, epistemologically unprecedented form. I suspect we are beginning to approach the outer limits of why a species of Anglican comprehensiveness--the one historically related to comprehensiveness in Britain--has not taken root and flourished in the New World of American Episcopalianism, but instead in an acknowledged ecumenical hopefulness and common trust. But we are also at the outer limits of my allotted time, and I thank you for your attention and patience. Professor Christopher R Seitz is Professor of Divinity at the University of St Andrews Reconstructing Anglican Comprehensiveness is sponsored by The Episcopal Church Foundation Conference. This lecture was delivered at the Cathedral church of the Advent in Birmingham, Alabama. END