Archives

Church fails forthcoming in revealing actual churchwide statistics  Church shows loss of 47 congregations nationwide TEC spent $2,545,648,636 leaving a deficit of $28,412,259   By Mary Ann Mueller  VOL Special Correspondent  www.virtueonline.org   October 29, 2025      The Episcopal Church is being cagey when it comes to the transparency of its 2024 statistics.   Last week at its fall Executive Council confab TEC released its summary of church stats entitled: The Episcopal Church by the Numbers: Analysis of the 2024 Parochial Report Data, prepared by the Hartford Institute for Religious Research (HIRR) for the “Executive Officer of the Episcopal Church” namely Presiding Bishop Sean Rowe. This is his first detailed report to the wider church.    Under the new Presiding Bishop’s watch the number of Episcopal churches dropped from 6,754 to 6,707 a 7% loss of 47 worshipping congregations.   However, the slick 26-page document is not detailed enough to actually get a clear look into the spiritual life of the church. Even coupling it with the previous year's Analysis of the 2023 Parochial Report Data, doesn't give a complete picture. As a result, the Episcopal Church has only offered up a superficial glance into the sliding statistical numbers of the church.      The 2024 Foreword explains: “This year's report represents a significant departure from the previous annual publications, because the content of the report form changed significantly for 2024,” it says. “The House of Deputies' Committee on the State of the Church, with the approval of Executive Council, significantly revised the questions included in the 2024 Parochial Report form to better capture the evolving needs and circumstances of Episcopal congregations. This means that certain data points collected in previous years may not be directly comparable to this year's findings.”   The Episcopal Church is trying to develop a yearly report to remain “relevant and responsive to the current landscape of congregational life,” and to provide “a comprehensive picture of The Episcopal Church.” The Hartford Institute for Religious Research (HIRR), which put out the analytical report, is the religious research arm of the Hartford International University for Religion & Peace (HIUR&P). It is dedicated to developing a “better understanding of the life and dynamics of the lived reality of faith communities.”   The small 192-year-old institution, based in Hartford, Connecticut, has Congregational Church roots but now considers itself a non-denominational seminary partnering religion with the pursuit of peace. The university also focuses on the Study of Islam and the fostering of Christian-Muslim Relations. It also has an accredited Islamic chaplaincy program.   The Episcopal Church’s HIRR Analysis of the 2024 Parochial Report Data was penned by Charissa Mikoski, an assistant professor of research at Hartford International University for Religion & Peace (HIUR&P); and B. Clarvon Watts who is a postdoctoral research fellow and she also is a visiting faculty associate at the same university.   The HIRR branches out past the scope of the sacramental life to explore other aspects of congregational life and function.     One of the other aspects of congregational life includes identifying the 45 separate languages that Episcopal services are conducted in with English-only services being held in 5,828 out of the 6,707 worldwide congregations. Another 243 congregations conduct bilingual worship services. Other TEC congregations conduct services in Spanish, which is the most common non-English language used in Episcopal worship, followed by French and Haitian Creole.   The Episcopal Church’s dioceses span the globe across 22 countries with services being conducted in such varied languages as Arabic, Dutch, Hindi, Swahili, Greek, Latin, Bengali, Hmong, German, Hawaiian, Ojibwe, Chinese, Marshallese and a host of other dialects and tongues.    Somewhere along the line the 2025 Annual Table of Statistics should be released detailing complete parochial numbers across all dioceses and provinces. The detailed data which tracks the exact number of open churches, membership figures, active communicants, ASA, baptisms, confirmations, converts, weddings, and funerals, something the Episcopal Church called its vital statistics. Those statistical numbers show how many turn to the Episcopal Church in the living out of their faith walks during the touchstone points of their spiritual lives – getting married, baptizing the baby, presenting junior to the bishop for confirmation, and burying grandpa.   For many – other than celebrating the occasional spiritual encounters of their faith – merely show up usually on Christmas and Easter which briefly swells church attendance. Unfortunately, that quick twice-a-year dose of the religion is not transformative enough to encourage them to cross the church’s threshold more often to allow the Gospel message to bring them closer to Christ, develop a relationship with Him and allow Him to shape their lives    The 2024 Analysis of the Parochial Report shows that 960,207 worshippers did indeed show up to welcome the Baby Jesus on Christmas with nearly 10,000 fewer coming back (950,275) to celebrate the Resurrection of the Crucified Christ on Easter.   Churchwide there were 523,133 celebrations of the Service of Holy Communion with an in-person ASA of 413,034 and another 121,545 tuning in online.   The Episcopal Church is now tracking both in-person attendance and online participation, a result of the impact of the digital age.    Last year (2024) the Daily Office was read in the church 258,004 times. Another 183,156 worshippers participated in person at a midweek or some other week day service.    The spiritual health of the church is not reflected in the number of languages which are being used in worship nor the statistical figures but in the participation of the spiritual touchstones.    Those spiritual touchstones – baptisms, confirmations, receptions and funerals all showed a drop from 2023. Only the number of marriages went up.   Baptisms fell from 20,247 to 19,624 a -3.1% loss meaning 623 fewer children and adults did not experience Episcopal baptismal waters being poured over their heads.    Confirmations dropped by 2,253 or -15.2% in 2024. Dropping from 14,853 in 2023 to 12,600.    Converts coming into the Episcopal Church fell by -28.1%. In 2023 a total of 7,567 non-Episcopalians were received in the Episcopal Church, yet in 2024 only 5,441 non-Episcopal Christians made the spiritual leap to TEC, resulting in a loss of 2,125 souls not seeking to join the Anglican Communion through the Episcopal Church.    In 2024 the Episcopal Church also saw 713 fewer people turning to the Episcopal Church for their burial rites. The number of burials fell from 24,878 in 2023 to 24,165, a -2.1% drop in funerals.    Only Episcopal weddings showed a +1.3% increase with 4,951 couples heading to an Episcopal altar to pronounce their vows in 2024 with an uptick of 65 weddings from the 4,886 figures in 2023.   The figures also show that there are 9,717 clergy (bishops, priests and deacons) in the Episcopal Church with another 27,360 lay men and women laboring behind the scenes to keep the wheels greased and grinding.   Of the 6,707 congregations in 2024 only 1,803 enjoy the ministry of deacons.    Not counting Sunday schools, the report delineates that there are 765 preschool and/or nursery schools programs operating across the church. Another 170 churches run K-8 elementary or grade schools and 9-12 high schools are a part of 62 Episcopal congregational educational outreach. However, neither Episcopal related colleges nor seminaries were counted.   The size of the Episcopal Church’s carbon footprint seems to be important.    The question: “How is your parish reducing your carbon footprint,” is answered in four ways – (1) energy efficiency; (2) recycling and waste reduction; (3) water conservation; and (4) paper reduction & digital communication.   Very few congregations are doubling down in their carbon footprint. A total of 1,858 churches is concerned about energy efficiency; another 1,227 parishes are working on recycling; keeping an eye on the water meter interests 438 churches; and a mere 374 congregations report an effort to reduce paper use.   One congregation – St. Peters in Chicago – reports it's working hard to reduce its carbon footprint.   “Within the last five years, our parish family significantly remodeled our church as a part of the remodeling, our parish installed a new, efficient HVAC system. The system is controlled by programmable thermostats that can be controlled through a wireless connection. This ensures that we are only heating or cooling our building when we are using it, “the Chicago church reports. “Our parish used individual cups to distribute wine during communion. A parishioner found small paper cups suitable for communion. This parishioner takes the cups and combustion after the service.”   Province IV, consisting of 20 dioceses in nine Southern states running from the American Southeast along the southern Atlantic and western Gulf Coast, is numerically the healthiest.     The province boasts 1,240 congregations with an in-person ASA of 105,033. There are 1,910 clergy serving the province with a lay support staff of 6,041. The total income is reported to be $673,283,605.   The numerically smallest, yet far flung Episcopal province, is Province IX which spreads across South America, Central America and the Caribbean. However, it does not include the foreign Episcopal churches in Europe, Taiwan, Puerto Rico, Cuba and the Virgin Islands.    Province IX sustains 256 congregations with an in-person ASA of 7,759 served by 210 clergy supported by a lay staff of 483. The foreign province’s income is $28,948,185.   Financially the Episcopal Church spent more than it brought in during 2024. The Church took in a total of $2,517,236,387 of which $1,449,045,120 came through the Plate and Pledge offerings.   However, the church spent $2,545,648,636 leaving a $28,412,259 red ink deficit.   “For the first time total expenses are greater than the total income,” the report states.   The HIRR analysis also reveals other interesting nuggets such as the median age of Episcopalians is 60-years-old. So, the Episcopal Church is rapidly graying even with the Episcopal Church being spread across the globe 95 percent of those professing to be Episcopalians are White Caucasians. Mary Ann Mueller is a journalist living in Texas. She is a regular contributor to VirtueOnline.   For more analysis click here: https://www.anglicanwatch.com/episcopal-church-releases-preliminary-2024-parochial-report-data-the-results-are-not-pretty/

A RESPONSE FROM THE COLLEGE OF BISHOPS TO SUBMISSIONS MADE AS A RESULT OF DISCUSSION OF THE PUBLICATION HUMAN SEXUALITY: A STUDY GUIDE In 2001, the General Synod received Human Sexuality: A Study Guide and resolved that the Study Guide produced by the Working Party on Human Sexuality be received by the General Synod and that its use be commended to those congregations who wished to explore the issues addressed by it. Subsequently, 31st December 2003 was fixed as the deadline for receiving feedback on the Study Guide. Approximately 25 responses were received and a synopsis of these, commissioned on behalf of the College of Bishops, was prepared by the Rev Christopher Smith, the Chaplain to the Archbishop of Wales. As undertaken in Human Sexuality: A Study Guide, the synopsis is now being made available to Boards and Committees of the General Synod as a way of informing them of the views received. The College of Bishops is grateful to individuals and to congregations for the various submissions sent to it. The College is conscious that during the period of that consultation a number of divisive issues concerning homosexuality have arisen within the life of the Anglican Communion, and within the legislative programme of the Scottish Executive. The College recognises that, in the Scottish Episcopal Church, strongly held, and intelligently articulated, views are being put forward by a whole range of interested persons and parties, each trying to understand what God might be saying to the Church and to the world. The College therefore: Is convinced that, within the Scottish Episcopal Church, open debate, a deeper mutual understanding, and an agreed way ahead in our life together, will ultimately best be achieved by working to maintain the strong bonds of trust and respect which already exist among those who disagree with each other. Recognises that significant debate on sexuality is taking place both inside and outside the church, and that this can cause puzzlement to some and pain to others. Believes that differences over matters concerning sexuality, though important, are generally second-order disagreements, which should be capable of being handled within the life of our Communion, and are not ones that should cause a major fracture in it. Believes that in this area the Church is called to set an example to the world as to how debate on matters involving deep disagreement and sincerely held conviction could be conducted. Recognises that the Primates of the Anglican Communion have called for a period of mutual listening, and of reflection on documents such as those produced by the Lambeth Conference and by the meetings of Primates. To enable this to happen the College does not, in this area, propose any change in current policy, or alterations to the Canons or Liturgy of the Scottish Episcopal Church. Rather, it expresses the hope that within existing provision, clergy and laity will be able to minister sensitively and pastorally to each other regardless of issues of sexuality or gender. February 2004 RESPONSES TO STUDY GUIDE ON HUMAN SEXUALITY 1. SCALE OF RESPONSE: (25 RESPONSES IN TOTAL) Number of responses to the Study Guide received: 20 Individual: 12 Vestries: 3 Other Church groups: 5 Seven of the feed back forms provided with the study guide were forwarded, some were groups responses, others from individuals within groups where an overall group response was also included. A number of groups and individuals responded to the questions at the end of each section of the guide rather than using the questions in the feed back form. Also included in the papers were a number of letters and documents on the subject of homosexuality, which make no reference to the study guide: i. A letter in response to the appointment of Jeffrey John to the Bishopric of Reading (dated 28.06.03) ii. 2 general letters on the subject of homosexuality, the Scottish Episcopal Church scripture (dated 11.08.03/23.12.03) iii. A short treatise (45 pages) on the Church's argument against Homosexual Conduct, covering the Old and New Testament, the Fathers, Feuerbach, reductionism and its consequences and a chapter on the casualties and consequences of a change in the Church's teaching on homosexual conduct. As an appendix the author has attached a copy of St John Chrysostom's Homily on Romans 1: 26-27 iv. A copy of an address given to a church on the subject: The homosexual crisis-a matter of authority. v. One correspondent included a photocopy of an article by Jack Dominian from The Tablet reflecting on the use of the term Marriage for same sex partnerships which the writer felt would make a useful contribution to the debate vi. A lecture appended to one response: Towards a theology of transfiguration. Some responses included substantial background papers and/or fuller details of their discussion. 2. THE STUDY GUIDE: Thanks were expressed for the work involved in producing the Study Guide. Those who responded and expressed a view were pleased to have the opportunity for informed discussion. Some felt the Guide could have been more usefully structured for group discussion. One group in their response felt the guide did not wrestle fully enough with the issues involved, focusing on problems rather than solutions and failing to offer a theological or practical vision for how churches in the SEC might wrestle with issues of human sexuality. Some felt the report polarised those of different viewpoints. Some writers found additional material useful in reaching their conclusions. One writer, working in the field of the sociology of sexuality and socio-epidemiology of Aids/HIV, criticised the Study Guide's coverage of homosexual orientation and sexual relations as scientifically deficient and misleading, asking to be allowed to comment on future draftings or recommendations. Among some points, which writers felt could have been included for discussion, one respondent felt that the report should have dealt with adolescent same sex feelings which can be a passing phase in the life of a teenager. One response felt that the report failed to address the question of the morality of homosexual practices and provided a lengthy description of, and discussion on, this point. STATISTICS FROM REVIEW FORM: (COMMENTS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE SUMMARIES BELOW) Q.1. Do you think that taking part in the discussion: helps gain greater understanding unanimously yes creates unhelpful conflict 1 yes 6 no builds bridges – 1 don't know 6 yes worthwhile – unanimously yes Q.2. Study Guide useful see above Q.3. Scale of 1 – 4 in importance Strong moral leadership; 2, 3, 3, 1, 3, 2 Acceptance and openness: 4, 1, 1, 2, 1, 3 Inclusion of minority groups: 4, 3, 2, 3, 2, 1 Adherence of biblical authority: 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 1 Q.4. Strong agreement reached on: No one should be excluded from church membership because of sexuality the libertarian point of view the church must bring its doctrine up to date (agreement but not strong) love and marriage essential for growing relationship, married or not Q.5. Heated debate on: Scripture Should homosexuals become bishops? Should the term marriage be used for homosexual partnerships? homosexual marriage Should clergy have stricter attitudes in their sexual relationships? Q.6. Personal views changed by discussion Yes 4 – no 2 Q.7. Is it important for the Church to enter the debate: Yes unanimously 3. OVERVIEW: It is difficult to divide the responses to the Study Guide into groups labelled conservative or liberal as requested, (groupings suggested in the covering letter) since in some cases this would require reading more into the responses than is perhaps there. However, where it is possible to discern a clear opinion the division between conservative and liberal would be roughly equal with a number of feed back forms avoiding making any firm decisions on the questions. In the letters and writings on the subject of sexuality which make no reference to the report, the overall tone of the letters is conservative but not unanimously so. It might be worth making two general observations. First, there is little evidence in many responses of the individuals or groups having used the study guide, or related material, to open up the issues involved in this debate. This is why I have tried to distinguish in the above figures between responses to the report and general writing on the subject. Secondly, some of the contributors seem to be dealing with the issue in the abstract as if they have never met any homosexual people. There was surprisingly little evidence of contact with, or input from, homosexual, lesbian or transsexual people. 4. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO THE STUDY GUIDE CONCERNS: i. That God's love for all people includes those who have homosexual feelings or practise homosexuality and that they should be welcomed into the Church to hear the Good News with love and respect. ii. That homophobia should have no place in society or in the church. iii. That the Church's treatment of homosexuals should be addressed as an issue of justice iv. The need to find the loving thing to say in shaping our Church's policy; especially in relation to the Gay and Lesbian Community. There has been far too much hatred, rejection and dislike of these fellow human beings and far too little recognition of their positive contribution to our common life. v. There is a need to hold together an orthodox view of scripture and at the same time a practical compassion towards people. vi. That the Scottish Episcopal Church will focus its discussions on the question of what the Bible teaches on these issues and how we should live under its authority. vii. That a balanced reading of scripture requires an awareness of scripture and the Gospels, the Christian Tradition embodied in the Church, the leading of the Spirit within the Church and an individual's God given reason, experience and understanding. viii. That the Scottish Episcopal Church, rather than following the example of the North American Episcopal Church will following the lead of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates, abide by the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1:10 at this present time. ARGUMENTS: i. That homosexual practice of any kind is incompatible with scripture, tradition and arguably even reason. ii. That homosexual practice (and some heterosexual practices) are immoral. iii. From scripture it appears that sexual activity finds its right expression between a man and a woman in a married relationship. Any other form of sexual activity, i.e. sex before marriage and sex outside marriage, whether heterosexual or homosexual is sinful and should be met with a call to repentance, the offer of forgiveness through faith in Christ and the pastoral support of the church to assist in holy living in the future. iv. That scriptural texts regarding homosexuality need to be read in context. Only one gives a reason why homosexuality is immoral and none seem to look at homosexuality from the point of view of loving committed relationships. v. That same sex eroticism, when expressed in a committed interpersonal love is definitely not against the word of God. vi. Celibacy, with the help of the Holy Spirit, is possible for homosexual and single heterosexual people. vii. The belief of one respondent, that the Holy Spirit in this, as in many issues through the ages, is leading us to re-think attitudes. viii. Priority of God's word of truth over the changing notions of fallible, sinful mortals needs to be affirmed ix. That the Church's understanding of Christian marriage is far less uniform than the study guide suggests and that the Church's understanding of the primary purpose of marriage is that husband and wife may comfort and help each other, living faithfully together in need and plenty, in sorrow and in joy. x. If homosexual people, in committed relationships, can manifest the fruit of the Spirit, on what basis do we condemn them? ISSUES RAISED: i. That homosexuality is legal and that homosexuals are able to live openly does not mean that homosexuality should be regarded as the norm, nor that homosexuals should be appointed to posts where their life style would bring them into conflict with the traditional nature and teaching of that post. ii. A gay or lesbian relationship expressed in church would be a problem for one group since they wouldn't want their children exposed to it. iii. The notion that church teaching on any issue has changed significantly is challenged by one group. iv. That in some areas, a paradox is at work i.e that one response from a group which felt that scripture did not permit same sex partnerships did feel that in terms of justice regarding the rights of gay partners in law, they would be actively supportive of such moves as it would be uncompassionate and unjust for such partners not to enjoy the same rights as heterosexual partners in situations such as bereavement. v. On the question of same sex marriages, one group felt that the Church couldn't bless what God doesn't. vi. It should be possible for a covenanted lesbian, gay, transsexual relationship to be blessed by God (SEC 2002 marriage rite allows for this implicitly) (Since the term marriage carries a lot of baggage some wouldn't want to use this term.) vii. The recognition of the need to become more open to the inclusion of a homosexual bishop in the Anglican Communion. viii. The central issue in the debate is about relationships; God and person, person and person, person and sexual partner/spouse. ix. Human sexuality is very varied (complex) x. In the light of current events, the Church's attitude to homosexuality requires further constructive discussion. xi. The College of Bishops should bring this issue back to the General Synod xii. That the issue that the Church come to terms with the equal valuation and treatment of homosexual and heterosexual relationships and individuals should be passed by Synod to the Provincial Faith and Order Board for further consideration. One vestry provided voting figures on the responses to three questions: the first: Is it wrong to be a practising homosexual or lesbian? (3 answered Yes, 5 answered no and 2 abstained) the second: should a practising gay person be ordained? (4 answered yes, 4 answered no and 2 abstained) and thirdly: should we find ways of blessing same-sex unions (not marriages)? 6 answered yes, 2 answered no and 2 abstained). ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE It was unclear from some letters whether they were responses to the Study Guide or simply letters responding to events in the Anglican Communion in recent months. From these letters, points which have not been covered above, are: i. A clear distinction needs to be made between same sex friendships and same sex sexual relationships. ii. There is a need for certain standards of behaviour to be expected from those in leadership in the church. iii. The human body's sexual organs are designed so as to enable copulation. The College of Bishops expresses its gratitude to the Rev Christopher Smith for the production of the above summary. It is being sent to the Conveners of the Boards and Committees of the General Synod, as was indicated in the Study Guide. END

By David W. Virtue ATLANTA--The split was amicable. There were no hard feelings or fights, just a sense of sadness and loss that it had reached the point that long time friends must now part. "It was like a death in the family. Most of the congregation was on the same side, making the parting just that much sadder and harder," a departing member said after seeing the devastating moral blunder committed by the Episcopal Church in consecrating a self-proclaimed homosexual to the episcopacy. "It was sheer madness, and now we are seeing the consequences in busted churches and broken relationships," said Lee Buck a former lay Episcopal evangelist. St. Jude's in Marietta, an Episcopal Church parish suddenly shrank overnight and down the road, The Light of Christ Anglican Church was born, coming under the ecclesiastical authority of the Bishop of Bolivia, the Rt. Rev. Frank Lyons. Bishop Lyons spent a week with the new parish encouraging them and to receive into ordination as a Bolivian Anglican priest the Rev. Bill DeArtega. However, Lyons made it clear that it was a temporary rescue, "and we don't know what the future holds." He said he would not desert the orthodox bible-believing people in the US, and specifically at this time in Atlanta. During his stay Bishop Lyons reiterated his criticism of ECUSA for its action in consecrating a non-celibate homosexual priest to the episcopacy. The action in bringing the parish under his ecclesiastical protection was at the instigation of his boss the Most Rev. Gregory Venables, Primate of the Southern Cone. The Rev. Frank Baltz, one of a handful of Evangelical Episcopal rectors in the revisionist Diocese of Atlanta weighed his options and decided to stay on at St. Jude's. "He did not come with us," said former Episcopal lay evangelist Lee Buck, who left the Episcopal Church after more than half a century, to join the new congregation. "We thought he was coming, but he decided he couldn't. The parting was sad but amicable," he told Virtuosity. About 100 have joined the new church. This does not include some 70 Hispanic Anglicans who will worship at the 'Light of Christ' with the Rev. Bill DeArtega who also left St. Jude's. The new church has temporary headquarters in a former bank now called Everett Manor in Smyrna. They already have an office and a secretary. The Rev. DeArtega was ordained an Anglican priest by Bishop Frank Lyons of Bolivia a week ago. He recognized and validated DeArtega's ecclesiastical orders of the CEEC - the Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches. "I am the temporary rector till they find a full time one," DeArtega told Virtuosity, by phone from Atlanta. "I will serve the Hispanic community here. It will be a multi-racial, Bible-believing, liturgical fellowship of Anglican believers." The church has committed itself to a budget of $270,000 in its first year, said Buck. "Money is not the primary issue, growing the church is." Buck, 80, a former Insurance executive, has been an evangelist for more than 40 years, says he plans to pull out all the stops to make the new church plant grow. "You are only as old as you feel. I believe God has got a few good years left in me to preach His word right here in Atlanta, particularly Cobb county," he told this reporter. DeArtega says he feels comfortable with whomever they pick. "They want an Anglo priest and that's fine by me. I will be the Hispanic rector and serve as the church's celebrant till a new priest is found." DeArtega, the author of several books on church renewal says he wants to appropriate Wesleyan revival into the new church. "The original sin was separating the Wesleyan revivalist tradition from Anglicanism." Wesleyan Methodism was a convergent church and they are themes DeArtega has written about in his book "Forgotten Power." "The church of Wesley's time was deeply evangelical and deeply sacramental to the point that they recovered the love feast in Wesley Methodism. They empowered the lay people unknown in Anglicanism today." He has also authored "Quenching the Spirit" on spiritual growth. "It has been enormously liberating separating from ECUSA and we have a felt a lightness of the spirit and joy in really forming a convergent church." This church will bring revival to Atlanta, he said. "This church will be self consciously a convergent church, with a strong charismatic element. I want to be self consciously not high church. I want to see a joyous and joyful congregation with the aim of bringing revival to Atlanta." Wesley wrote a book of Eucharistic hymns, which the church has forgotten about, said DeArtega. DeArtega said the unusual split resulting in them coming under the Southern Cone Primate Greg Venables through one of his bishops Frank Lyons got the interest of TIME magazine. "They are writing a story about us," he told Virtuosity. "It's going to be the church of Jesus Christ, first and foremost," said Buck. In response the Rev. Baltz said their departure was a matter of timing. "We are still an orthodox Anglican parish, and we are still within the Episcopal Church attempting to work through this process," he told Virtuosity. "People in good conscience could not stay in ECUSA and they needed to leave. The timing was one thing. The timing of the rest of the people was another and they decided to leave sooner." Baltz who is a trustee of the American Anglican Council said the process would take longer. "We are on the same page but not the same timing page." Baltz said the numbers were not as bad as first thought. "We had an average attendance of 450 (200 on the Anglo-African side and on Sunday afternoon 250 Hispanics). We have now dropped from 450 to 350. We have lost $125,000 or about a third of our budget." "For the moment we have put the issues on the backburner. On the front burner we are focusing on worship, fellowship and ministry. The School is still functioning, and breaking even and we have some 218 in our Hispanic ministries." Baltz had nothing but good things to say about those who departed. "We love them and hope they are successful in picking up unchurched people." END

By Evelyn Kwamboka NEWS FOCUS February 10, 2004 The move by the Anglican Church of Kenya (ACK) to block the ordination of one of their own by a bishop from the pro-homosexual church in the US has again brought to the fore the sharp split in the church. The Kenyan deacon was stopped from graduating to priesthood by the ACK – simply because the ceremony was to be presided over by a bishop from the United States' pro-gay Episcopal Church. The church is well known for backing gay bishops like Gene Robinson. The latest controversy started in Los Angeles, US, when an ACK deacon cleared the first phase of his theological studies. The deacon is said to have called Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi to get the Kenyan church's blessings, which the prelate promptly gave. The deacon then prepared himself for the Feb. 1 ceremony. But it was not to be. According to the ACK provincial secretary, Bishop William Waqo, Primate Nzimbi decided to investigate the matter. "The archbishop gave the go-ahead simply because he did not know that it was the pro-gay bishop who was to preside over the ceremony," he said. When Nzimbi discovered that a bishop from Robinson's church was to ordain the Kenyan, it took him a minute to cancel the ceremony at the 11th hour. "The archbishop called the deacon and asked him to call off the ceremony immediately," said Waqo. Sources told the East African Standard that the cash-for-prayer bishop Peter Njoka travelled to the US to represent the archbishop, only to find that it was to be presided over by one in Robinson's camp. Njoka is said to have called the archbishop immediately to cancel the ceremony. Waqo said the church's stand was very clear: Had it been a church that is not in support of the gays, Nzimbi would have approved. "The archbishop refused because we are not in fellowship with those in support of gay bishops," he added. Waqo declined to give the deacon and bishop's names, saying "he had forgotten". He said of the deacon: "He agreed to step down and continue with phase two of his theology studies, then he will come back home to be ordained," he said. Since the gay issue brought a sharp division in Anglicanism, deacons, priests or bishops studying in the US or Britain have to inform the Kenyan church of who is to ordain them. Anglican members, bishops, deacons or priests visiting the two countries are allowed to go only to churches recognised by the Kenyan House of Bishops. "For them to be ordained, they have to choose from the list of Anglican Churches we have given them (anti-gay)," he said. And Waqo did not mince his words. Had the ceremony taken place as earlier planned, the deacon would not have been allowed to serve as a priest in Kenya. All Saints Cathedral provost, the Rev Peter Karanja, said it was difficult for the church to give the deacon's identity as he would be associated with the gay bishop. Last year, Robinson – a divorced father of two who has since lived with his male partner since 1989 – openly became the first gay bishop, a move that brought a sharp division in the world of Anglicanism. Robinson was quoted in a section of the international media saying he knew a good number of gay bishops, both in the US and abroad. "There are enormously gifted Episcopal priests around this church who are gay and lesbians who would make wonderful bishops and they are going to be nominated," he said. However, sources at the All Saints Cathedral, Nairobi, said the House of Bishops decided to treat the matter confidentially. END

Kenyan Bishop pulls back from fete linked to US Episcopal Pro gay bishop By MIKE MWANIKI Daily Nation 2/10/2004 Cash-for-prayers bishop Peter Njoka has narrowly escaped a new storm — he was stopped at the last minute from attending the ordination of a Kenyan deacon by clergymen allied to the controversial American gay bishop. Bishop Njoka, who is at the centre of a Nairobi City Council payments scandal, was reportedly scheduled to attend the elevation in Los Angeles, United States, of a Kenyan deacon by churchmen linked to the first openly homosexual cleric to become a bishop. A message from Anglican archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi forced him to cancel plans to attend the ordination of Mr. Johnson Muchira by churchmen in California blacklisted by the Kenyan Church for supporting the ordination of Bishop Gene Robinson. The ordination last year split the Anglican Church worldwide. A stiff letter also went to Mr. Muchira, who later cancelled the ceremony, after being reminded of the Kenyan Church's opposition to homosexuality and its decision to break links with bishop Robinson's diocese and priests who had backed his ordination. Bishop Njoka is in the United States seeking assistance for various projects in his diocese. He has been accused by auditors of receiving payments from the financially-strapped Nairobi city council for serving as the Mayor's Chaplain. Bishop Njoka was reported by a special inspection team appointed by minister Karisa Maitha of receiving a monthly pay for giving spiritual services to the council, while workers went without pay allegedly for lack of cash. He was ordered by the team to repay the Sh1.7 million he had received over the years or face an investigation by the Kenya Anti-corruption Commission. Kenya's Anglican Church broke links with American Episcopalians in the diocese of the openly gay bishop Robinson and vowed not to have any dealings with clergymen who supported his ordination. Archbishop Nzimbi said those who backed Bishop Robinson's ordination would be seen to have removed themselves from the Anglican community. On Thursday, the Anglican Church will hold a synod meeting to discuss the accusations against Bishop Njoka in the cash-for-prayers affair. The issue would then be referred to the House of Bishops, the highest decision-making organ of the church. The bishop was asked to repay the money early last month by an Extraordinary inspection team led by Mr. Erastus Rweria, which is investigating council finances. Media reports yesterday said deacon Muchira, who has been studying in California, cancelled the ordination after learning that he risked being excommunicated by Kenyan Anglicans if the ceremony was handled by Bishop Robinson's allies.

Text of remarks by the Archbishop of Canterbury to General Synod. [ACNS source: Lambeth Palace] Madam Chairman: as the Dean of Derby indicated there may be some members of Synod who have some questions in their mind about the issue affecting the wider Anglican Communion, and whether it is appropriate to debate such issues in this forum. And I hope you'll bear with me if I say just a word about some of those wider issues, perhaps in explanation of why we have not thought it fit at this point to encourage such a wider debate - though questions will undoubtedly arise. I'm thinking, of course, of developments particularly around decisions taken in the United States of America and the extraordinary meeting of Primates which took place in Lambeth Palace in October of last year. And Synod members will, I am sure, remember the statement issued at the end of that two-day gathering at Lambeth Palace. One of the things for which it called was the setting up of a Commission to examine some of the issues that were arising and would continue to arise for the Communion in the light of actions by any one province or diocese which created acute difficulties for the maintenance of communion. You will be aware that that Commission has been set under the Chairmanship of Archbishop Robin Eames to whom it is obligatory to refer all difficult and delicate matters in the Anglican Communion. And under his expert guidance that Commission is actually beginning its work; even as we speak, as they say, its first meeting takes place this week at Windsor. I hope that Synod will hold that meeting in prayer during its time together this week. They have been charged with an exceptionally difficult and delicate task. But precisely because of that it would be very difficult indeed, and I think inappropriate for either myself or the House of Bishops or Synod to attempt to second-guess the work of that Commission and its recommendations and reflections on these large issues of Communion, maintenance of Communion and breakage of Communion. The Primates' statement in October also mentioned the situation in the diocese of New Hampshire, where the consecration of Gene Robinson as coadjutor Bishop has already taken place as you may have noticed. And many Synod members will be aware of some of the reaction to that that continues in the United States and elsewhere. Now the Primates in their statement in October called on provinces to make adequate provision for episcopal oversight in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury for those in conscience unable to accept certain dispositions made by their provinces. In line with that request from the Primates, I want to say that I remain fully committed to searching for arrangements which will secure a continuing place for all Episcopalians in the life of the Episcopal Church in the United States and I have been involved in working with several parties there towards some sort of shared future and common witness, so far as is possible. It is in that light that I've been following sympathetically the discussions around the setting up of a network within the Episcopal Church of the United States of America engaged in negotiating some of these questions of episcopal oversight. I have also been sharing with Archbishop Eames the relevant documents and statements which have come from a number of parties around the world in this debate, so that the Commission may be fully aware of them and use them as a resource as appropriate in making their assessments and recommendations, in due course, concerning the future of the Communion. The Commission has deliberately a limited life. It will report to the Primates probably at the very beginning of the next calendar year, and interim reports will be issued meanwhile. I hope Synod will have take account of this very brief, necessarily very sketchy, update in order to put some of these matters in context. I hope Synod will be receiving and reflecting on the interim reports that will come from the Commission to which I am extremely grateful for already a good deal of work that has already gone on. As I have indicated on a number of occasions in recent months we do, as a Communion, face perhaps unprecedentedly difficult challenges and it's all the more important that we keep those involved in these discussions - in controversy and also in the work of the Commission - in our prayers, to equip all of us in the Communion for the task that lies before us. (c) Rowan Williams 2004

Williams supports Americans who oppose gay bishop BY RUTH GLEDHILL, RELIGION CORRESPONDENT The London Times The Archbishop of Canterbury. Dr Rowan Williams, has offered his support to a network of traditionalist churches being set up in America to oppose the gay Bishop Gene Robinson. Dr Williams, addressing the General Synod of the Church of England said that he had been following "sympathetically" the discussions about setting up a network to operate within the Episcopal Church of the United States. His comments came as the commission assembled to resolve the controversy in the Anglican Church over the ordination and blessings of homosexuals met for the first time in Windsor yesterday. Dr Williams said: "We do, as a communion, face perhaps unprecedentedly difficult challenges and it's all the more important that we keep those involved in these discussions - in controversy and also in the work of the commission — in our prayers, to equip all of us in the communion for the task that lies before us." He said the commission, headed by the Primate of Ireland, Dr Robin Eames, had been charged with "an exceptionally difficult and delicate task". Because of this, Dr Williams said, it was inappropriate to attempt to second-guess the recommendations "on these large issues of communion, maintenance of communion and breakage of communion". He said he was looking for "some sort of shared future and common witness, so far as is possible". The aim is to find a way of offering "episcopal oversight" or pastoral care by bishops to conservative parishes in a form that is acceptable to the ruling liberal majority. Even as he spoke, however, it became clear that the divisions over homosexuality were deepening when 13 primates from around the world issued a statement condemning once again the actions of the episcopal church of the US. The primates, headed by the Most Rev Peter Akinola of Nigeria the Most Rev Drexel Gomez of the West Indies and the Most Rev Greg Venables of the Southern Cone said the consecration of Bishop Robinson had "created a situation of grave concern for the entire Anglican Communion and beyond". The action of the American Church was "a direct repudiation of the clear teaching of the Holy Scriptures, historic faith and order of the Church''. END

Commentary By Uwe Siemon-Netto UPI Religious Affairs Editor WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 (UPI) -- More than 50 million Americans, perhaps even twice as many, including a substantial segment of Catholics, consider themselves evangelicals, according to the Rev. Gerald R. McDermott, an Episcopal scholar. They are a highly diverse group of Christians united in, among other things, their faith in Jesus Christ as incarnate God and Lord and Savior of sinful humanity -- and the supreme authority of scripture. But if you watched CBS's "60 Minutes" Sunday, you'd think most evangelicals fervently embraced the kind of theology expounded in Tim LaHaye's and Jerry Jenkins' "Left Behind" bestsellers describing the impending end-time tribulations. You'd think most evangelicals are convinced that God will all of the sudden remove all children and the elect -- meaning true-believing Christians -- to a safe place and then condemn all others to eternal suffering." You'd think the likes of President George W. Bush, an evangelical Methodist, ranked themselves among the former, whereas people such as "60 Minutes" reporter Morley Safer belonged to the latter -- in the eyes of most evangelicals. "What would be my fate?" Safer asked the Rev. Todd Wagner of the Watermark Community Church in Dallas. "Folks like yourself that are gonna be here, are gonna go through all the events Christ outlined in Mark 13 and Matthew 24 -- some of which are quite horrific," the pastor replied. The "60 Minutes" narrative then informed the viewers: "For evangelicals, the rapture and what follows are factual history, history of the future, prophecy. "It's not a minority view. ... It's a very mainstream view," Wagner told Safer. Not surprisingly, this stereotypical portrayal of their faith group infuriated many evangelicals, who consider themselves the new mainstream of U.S. Protestantism and have in recent decades made enormous strides in theological scholarship. "I was appalled," fumed Richard Cizik, the Washington-based vice president of the National Association of Evangelicals. "They ("60 Minutes") have merged a speculative theological belief system with contemporary evangelical political views. "They created a caricature that might apply to some evangelicals on the fringe. It's hard to know where to begin to correct the stereotype. One gets to the conclusion that the interviewer had his mind made up before he started the program." Was it this -- or was it another example of the "religiously ignorant journalism," which sociologist Christian Smith of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill keeps chastising with increasing urgency? He may have a point. The shoddiness of the "60 Minutes" story was further evidenced by images of non-Christians facing tribulation. They showed, for example, worshiping Sikhs -- a strictly monotheistic Indian religion -- and called them Hindus (who believe in thousands of deities). Smith fumed at the "ridiculous broad-brushing of evangelicals, a highly complex community." His charge that the media enter an alien universe when it reports on evangelicals echoes a decade-old complaint by Peter Steinfels, the former New York Times religion editor. Steinfels attributed the media's failings in covering religion properly to a multiple of "I's" -- ignorance, indifference, incompetence, ideology and insufficient resources. As McDermott, Cizik and Smith pointed out, the likes of LaHaye, Jenkins and Wagner are not representative of U.S. evangelicalism, which is affiliated with superb academic institutions such as Wheaton College in Illinois, Calvin College in Michigan, Pepperdine University and Fuller Seminary in California, and Baylor University in Texas. Nor is the American Airlines pilot who allegedly spoke to passengers over the loudspeaker on Flight 34 from Los Angeles to New York last Friday about Christianity a typical evangelical. Over the loudspeaker, he reportedly asked Christians to identify themselves and urged non-Christians on board to seek out advice from passengers who had obediently raised their hands. As McDermott said, evangelicals reiterate simply what the church has taught for nearly 2,000 years -- tenets whose reversal by liberal Protestantism has gradually emptied mainline sanctuaries over the last 200 years. Evangelicals differ little from Roman Catholics and Lutherans in their biblically grounded belief that nobody but God himself knows the time of Christ's second coming (Acts 1:7) and that therefore all eschatological expectation was impermissible. They also agree that Christ is the only way to salvation. But according to McDermott, they differ over whether one must consciously know and name Christ before death in order to be saved. There are the "exclusivists" who say, you must. But then, said McDermott, there is the growing "inclusivist" wing of evangelicalism, which concurs with the Roman Catholic position, that one must not necessarily know Christ before death for salvation. Nobody can tell if a person accepts Christ at the moment of death, or if a non-Christian will be given a chance to meet and embrace Christ after death. Moreover, McDermott added, "exclusivists often don't realize that they have to be inclusivist in principle because even they believe that babies and the retarded go to heaven -- and that the Old Testament saints went there as well." What evangelicals find so egregious about the "60 Minutes" report is that it lumped them together with a minority called the dispensationalists, whose center today is Dallas Seminary. Their system of theology sees God working with man in different ways during different ages; in Christianity, the term "dispensation" refers to a period in history in which God dealt with man in a specific manner -- conscience, the law, and grace. According to dispensationalists, the present era of grace will soon be followed by the future millennial kingdom. They insist that the millennium described in Chapter 20 of the Book of Revelation cannot be interpreted as symbolic. This is not the place to discuss the merit of this theology, other than to quote scholarly evangelicals such as Gerald McDermott who hold that it is based on a false reading of scripture. And this is precisely what makes the stereotyping of perhaps a third of all Americans by their own media a dangerous undertaking -- it sets them up for ridicule. (CBS correspondent Morley Safer did not return UPI's call Monday.) Byline Type: author Slugline: bc-us-evangelicals-commentary Dateline Date: 2004-02-09 00:00:00.0 Publish Date and Time: 2004-02-09 16:43:00.0 Desk: International(p) Genre: Opinion IPTC Codes: Cults & sects, Belief (Faith), Religions, christianity , history , sociology Status: Published Checked Out: No Urgency: 5 City/State/Country: Washington, DC, United States Abstract: If you watched CBS's "60 Minutes" Sunday, you'd think most evangelicals fervently embraced the kind of theology expounded in Tim LaHaye's and Jerry Jenkins' "Left Behind" bestsellers describing the impending end-time tribulations. END

Episcopal bishop requests shelving of 4 resolutions By RICHARD VARA Houston Chronicle Religion Editor Bishop Don Wimberly will ask delegates to the Episcopal Diocese of Texas' annual meeting next week to shelve four resolutions that concern biblical sexual morality and the national church's approval of an openly gay bishop. In his address to the council, Wimberly also plans to declare out of order a proposed amendment to the diocesan constitution and canons that would nullify any national church assembly action that was "contrary to Holy Scripture and the Apostolic Teaching of the Church." More than 1,100 clerical and lay delegates will begin meeting in Tyler Thursday to act on diocesan business and policy matters. It will be their first meeting since the national church's General Convention voted in August to approve the consecration of V. Gene Robinson, an openly gay priest, as bishop of New Hampshire. Not everyone is happy about Wimberly's request on the resolutions. "There is an elephant in the room, and I wonder if we as a church have to have courage to address it," said the Rev. Lanny Geib, who is among the clergy who submitted the resolutions for council consideration. "There is a great exodus out of this church right now because people are so disgusted because we don't have the courage of our convictions," said Geib, who has lost 10 families from his 300-member congregation at St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Katy over the Robinson issue. Another four families are ready to leave, he said. "They are sick and tired of it," Geib said. Nonetheless, Geib said he would not bolt the Episcopal Church. "I am not leaving the church," Geib said. "Never. I will stand and fight this thing until I can't preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and him crucified. Period." Robinson's consecration provoked a firestorm of controversy in the 2.3 million-member Episcopal Church in this country and the worldwide Anglican Communion. Several national Anglican churches have broken ties with the American church and have threatened to leave the worldwide communion if Robinson is not ousted. In his pre-published council address, Wimberly, who voted against Robinson's consecration, asks delegates not to bring to the floor resolutions that: Call for affirmation of sexual intimacy between a man and a woman only in marriage. Repudiate the General Convention's approval of Robinson and acceptance of the blessing of same-sex unions. Commend the August vote of Diocese of Texas delegates who opposed Robinson and the blessing of same-sex unions. Affirm historic Anglican doctrines and policies that state Scriptures trump actions of human councils. "If we learned anything at General Convention, it is that voting against one another will only divide this house further instead of allowing us to name our concerns, fears and opinions in a healthy forum," Wimberly says in the address. "Bringing them to the floor of Council will only mire us in parliamentary maneuvering rather than addressing the state and welfare of the church as a whole," he states. The bishop asks delegates to air their differences instead in a special hour-long "conversation." "We must engage one another in a loving, respectful and honest manner," the address says. The Rev. Susan Bear, rector of St. George's and St. Patrick's Episcopal Church in Houston, is one of the 30 clergy endorsers of the resolutions. But she said she was willing to heed Wimberly's call to lay them aside. "Part of my ordination vows is that I will be obedient to my bishop, and I trust Bishop Wimberly's judgment," Bear said. "I may have my own ideas in mind, but he is my bishop and I will listen to what he has to say at this council. "As long as there will be room for some dialogue and some discussion, and it is my understanding that is what we will have," Bear said. The Rev. Laurens "Larry" Hall, rector of St. John the Divine Episcopal Church, is a leader of traditionalist diocesan clergy. His church has recently aligned with the conservative American Anglican Council. But Hall said he supports the bishop's position. Hall believes the bishop and the church worldwide are waiting for the titular head of the Anglican Communion, Archbishop Rowan Williams of Canterbury, to issue a statement on the Robinson issue this fall. "In some ways, everybody is waiting for somebody else to make some kind of decision," Hall said. The Rev. Helen Havens, rector of progressive St. Stephen's Episcopal Church in Houston's Montrose area, will support the bishop's request. "He is simply suggesting, as many people have suggested, that we would be far better off sharing our ideas, praying together, listening to each other, being civil to one another rather than duking it out in a legislative battle on the floor," Havens said. The Rev. Joe Reynolds, dean of Christ Church Cathedral and a progressive, said debating issues is part of church tradition. "That is the nature of the Episcopal Church -- we like to fuss," Reynolds said. "I don't think anyone will say the Episcopal Church is terribly united right now. But I don't think the Council will be divisive." The annual meeting will begin with a service Thursday night at Tyler's First Baptist Church, the only church in the East Texas City large enough to accommodate the delegates. Business sessions will be held Friday and Feb. 14 at Harvey Convention Center. Wimberly also will ask the diocese to focus on missions and outreach. He plans to convene a diocesan-wide gathering with a goal of increasing average Sunday attendance by 10 percent. The council will also vote on a $5.6 million diocesan operations budget and a $3.2 million missionary budget, which funds missions, outreach and other programs, said Ron Null, diocesan treasurer. About $400,000 will go to the national church, slightly less than last year, Null said. The overall missionary budget is down 5 percent from last year's $3.4 million budget. He said that reflects continuing economic woes and some parishes' displeasure with the national church's actions. "It is not anything that is crippling the ability of the diocese to do good missionary work," Null said. END

By David W. Virtue Patricia Young should know. She has been a traditionalist member of St. Martin's parish in North Vancouver for a number of years and the actions by two members of the vestry installed by revisionist Bishop Michael Ingham to return the parish back to the New Westminster fold, does not sit well with her. In fact she is downright angry. "It is not the will of the people who worship there," she told Virtuosity at an Anglican Mission conference recently in Destin, Florida, recently. She was once an elected alternate delegate to synod. "What the bishop is doing to us is not what the majority of St Martin's wants. We do not want to remain under an apostate bishop and we are not in a state of crisis that the bishop alleges. We want to stay in the [ACINW] coalition and we do not want our funds and money being paid to the diocese under his leadership. What is happening is being done against our will and desires." The Anglican Communion in New Westminster will continue to recognize St. Martin's membership as a full member until its congregation democratically chooses otherwise, Young said in the interview. Two new lay leaders installed by the Diocese of New Westminster announced that St. Martin's was no longer a member of the eleven-church coalition known as the Anglican Communion in New Westminster and wold start repaying its assessments. But a September 2002 saw 76 percent majority of the church seek an alternative bishop to oversee their parish, and by 79 percent to withhold monthly diocesan taxes. "That has not changed." "The decision to withdraw from the ACiNW and begin repaying assessments was made exclusively by a small handful of leaders installed by the diocese without consulting the congregation. The decision shocked many members of St. Martin's who wish to remain within the coalition but feel they've lost control of their church. Young said the parish had dwindled from its usual 200 on a Sunday to less than 100. "We have lost half of our active congregation, as a result we have significantly reduced donations to the church coffers." "We once had three wardens and two trustees, now we have two trustees appointed by the bishop. The bishop invoked Canon 15, so he could fire the church committee, trustees and wardens and re-appointed two who are now doing his bidding." Ingham has only 15 percent of the parish behind him despite his takeover and apparent acquiescence of the church to his will, said Young. "He fired a youth pastor, and made the counters unwelcome. He doesn't mind gutting the church, he has lots of money." Young said that when Canon 15 was invoked the church needed spiritual guidance. "Ed Hird rector of St. Simon's in North Vancouver and Silas Ng, rector of Emmanuel Church in Vancouver and Barclay Mayo of St. Andrew's, Pender Harbor joined with us." While acknowledging that she has no status to decide the way forward or whether to fight the battle for the buildings she will not lay down and be walked over. The game is not over. I am leaving this AMIA conference to go back and meet with fellow parishioners to discuss alternatives for our future." "I want people to know that what Michael Ingham is doing is not what the majority of parishioners at St. Martin's want." She said Ingham will appoint a permanent priest who will please nobody. He will only be happy when St. Martin's pews are empty then it will be a pyrrhic victory. Asked how she thought the parish would react, Young said, "people will be reluctant to leave because they have a long history with the church. It is particularly hard for older people who go back several generations." "The younger ones will leave if they see the church has been co-opted permanently by Ingham. My own future is uncertain. My husband and I and our two children will weigh our options after we have had a good look at the situation." Other parishioners have been just as vocal and many expressed their anger at the local SUN newspaper for what saw as a biased newspaper article. The story invited the wrath of several St. Martin's parishioners to come down on the newspaper. "With regard to your article entitled "Dissident Anglican Parish back in fold", I wish to clarify the situation. Bishop Michael Ingham, through his appointed wardens, is forcing the parish to rejoin the diocese. The last parish vestry meeting clearly instructed the elected trustees and wardens, who have since been dismissed by the Bishop, to continue allegiance with the ACiNW. The Bishop will not hold another vestry meeting because he knows that a clear majority of parishioners would vote against him. He must be held accountable for his actions, said Florence Wilton, a parishioner at St. Martin's . "As a member of St. Martins for the past 25 years, none of Bishop Ingham's appointed wardens speak for my wife and I or the majority of members of St. Martin's. Bishop Ingham has disobeyed the House of Bishops, the worldwide Anglican Communion, and breached the obligations he swore to when Consecrated - specifically, to be an instrument of unity in the church, and uphold the teachings of the church. He answers to no one. He has portrayed the "dissenting" parishioners of St. Martins as homophobic and divisive rebels, even though we are in keeping with what Anglicans believe around the world," said Gordon & Erica Barrett also of St. Martin's. "I am rarely moved to write letters to the editor, but I find that I simply must protest Douglas Todd's article today. Regardless of what the Diocese of New Westminster may be claiming, the majority of parishioners at St. Martin's have NOT agreed to the things which the bishop's warden may be suggesting. They have not been allowed to express any opinion in a democratic fashion since the bishop took over, so how these claims can be made as though they were the will of the parish defies any definition of "truth". It is quite clear, if the facts are investigated, that a handful of diocesan appointees are making unilateral decisions on behalf of the diocese, and claiming that these are the decisions of the parish. The diocese may make whatever claims it wishes, using whomever may be willing to be used as their spokespersons, but that does not establish those claims as true. "In fact, the leaders chosen by the legitimate vote of the parishioners have been systematically removed and replaced since the diocesan takeover. Every person in any position of leadership or authority (right down to the Sunday school teachers) who do not agree with the bishop or the diocese have been removed or barred from exercising ministry in the parish. The parish has not been consulted regarding their wishes, nor have they been afforded any opportunity to make decisions about the future of the parish. "It is difficult to imagine how this could be construed as a "way forward". When the expressed wishes of the people are being ignored, when their right to be consulted about the future of their own parish is being denied, and when they are being dictated to by unelected leaders appointed to do the will of the diocese it is difficult to imagine how any sort of "wonderful sense of community" can possibly be built, exploded Linda Seale, Chairperson of the ACiNW media committee. Gerry and Linda Taunton, two parishioners said, "for Douglas Todd to say that the 'lay leadership' of St. Martins has decided to return to the fold by restoring relations with the Diocese of New Westminster is to imply that Lindsay Buchanan (cited in the article) and the other wardens appointed by Bishop Michael Ingham somehow have the moral and legal authority to make such a decision. However, these wardens do not enjoy the support of the majority of parishioners of St. Martins. If they think they do, they should call a vestry meeting to see if they can persuade others to their point of view. Fat chance." "On Sept 7, the Bishop FIRED the entire elected Church Committee, as well as the Newsletter Editors, Roster of Collection Counters, Telephone Coordinator & even the Youth Pastor. He then imposed a form of MARTIAL LAW." "How could these actions help St. Martin's? On Sept. 28, an ALL Parishioners Vestry meeting was held. Trustees were confirmed, Wardens, Treasurer and a full slate of committee members democratically elected, but are ignored." "The bishop Michael Ingham has repeatedly stated in public meetings that if parishioners cannot abide by his actions they are welcome to leave, go and worship elsewhere. But it is our parish. The diocese did not build St. Martin's. The diocese has never contributed to St. Martin's. The properties were paid for and are registered in the name of the parish corporation. The parish voluntarily joined the diocese and the parish voted to reject Michael Ingham." The macro issue is the revisionist movement in the Canadian Anglican church and the moving away from traditional beliefs and worship. A sub-issue is blessing same-sex unions. The immediate issue at St. Martin's is the abuse of power by a renegade bishop. The bishop has disregarded requests by the highest church authorities asking for a truce and agreed to a truce in exchange for an alternative bishop removing his services and support from dissident parishes in the diocese. St. Martin's is an example of the tyranny of the bishop in the diocese and it is the pain, stress, time, energy and money being bled from St. Martin's parishioners that prevents other parishes in the diocese from speaking out and rejecting this abomination of due process and pastoral care. The parishioners of St. Martin's would like very much for the bishop to remove his presence from St. Martin's so the parish can get on with it's mission and worship as part of the worldwide Anglican communion. The parish is part of that communion. The bishop is not, said Ron Barrett of St. Martin's. All of this is merely the execution of a strategy to force the conservative/orthodox parishioners out of the parish by creating an atmosphere that does not recognize them as parishioners or honour their deeply held beliefs. While those parishioners are willing to wait for the House of Bishops to complete their deliberations to find a solution to the impasse in this Diocese, Bishop Ingham apparently is not, said Ron & Carolyn Edwards. In September 2003, New Westminster Bishop Michael Ingham fired the parish's elected leaders, installing his own appointees and changing the locks on the church doors. Parish leaders appointed by the bishop have since fired the youth pastor and scuttled the parish's official newsletter and Website run by volunteer editors who were supportive of the parish's decision to seek an alternative bishop. A group of parishioners representing over half the congregation have also been refused use of their own church for a worship service on Monday nights. The crackdown has had a significant cost. In 2001, St. Martin's drew an average of 200 worshippers on a weekly basis. But a recent Sunday morning service drew fewer than 70 to hear Bishop Ingham speak. Bishop Ingham has taken a hard line with churches that have held to their request for alternative leadership. One week before Christmas he terminated Holy Cross, Abbotsford for seeking alternative episcopal oversight. END

By Julia Duin THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published February 10, 2004 Episcopal Church officials yesterday announced a $3 million shortfall in the church's 2004 budget, caused chiefly by parishes and dioceses withholding funds to protest the ordination of a homosexual bishop. The shortfall equals 6 percent of the $48 million in revenue the church had expected this year. Church officials, according to documents obtained by The Washington Times, have revised the budget to $45.1 million. Figures released at an Episcopal executive council meeting in Tampa, Fla., showed the denomination's 107 dioceses are giving $2 million less this year. A reduction in government funds for social-service programs produced an additional drop of roughly $900,000. Conservative Episcopalians say the budget reduction is a direct result of the Nov. 2 consecration of V. Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire, the first openly homosexual ordained to such a position by the church. Bishop Robinson, who is divorced, lives with his male companion. "This is a result of the uproar they said would never happen," said Canon David Anderson, president of the American Anglican Council, the lead conservative group protesting the Robinson ordination. "If you stand on the air hose, the diver surfaces pretty quickly to see what's going on." At an October meeting of the AAC, 2,700 Episcopalians pledged to "redirect our financial resources, to the fullest extent possible, toward biblically orthodox mission and ministry, and away from those structures that support the unrighteous actions of the General Convention." Thus, conservatives say, the revenue losses by the end of 2004 will be even worse than denomination officials predict. "These are all hopeful numbers put out by the national church by people trying to diminish any effect Robinson might have," said the Rev. Don Armstrong, an AAC leader and rector of the 2,400-member Grace and St. Stephen's Church in Colorado Springs, the largest church in the Diocese of Colorado. But Kurt Barnes, the national church's treasurer, called the reduced contributions "almost not material" in their effect on church operations. "The reduction is well below what naysayers and doomsdayers were predicting last August," he told the Associated Press. Only 84 dioceses have told church headquarters in New York what their contributions will be this year, but of those dioceses, 40 have promised to equal or exceed their yearly gift of 21 percent of their budget. Two dioceses are giving no money, and 42 have reduced their contributions, giving between 3 percent and 20 percent of their income. The Diocese of Virginia, for instance, is giving 16 percent of its budget. Mr. Armstrong predicted more reductions as Episcopalians continue to divert their offerings to other causes. "This is just the beginning," he said. "People will be more excited about supporting hospitals in Tanzania and soup kitchens in the United States than [Presiding Episcopal Bishop Frank] Griswold in a limousine." In a related matter, a group of 14 Anglican archbishops from mostly Third World countries released a statement Friday condemning the Episcopal Church as having departed "from 5,000 years of Judeo-Christian teaching and practice." The primates, from 13 Anglican provinces, represent 45 million parishioners, more than half of the world's 70 million Anglicans. "We reaffirm our solidarity with faithful bishops, clergy and church members in North America who remain committed to the historic faith and order of the church and have rejected unbiblical innovation," they said. Specifically, the primates praised the newly formed Network of Anglican Dioceses and Parishes, created last month during a meeting of conservative Episcopal bishops, clergy and laity in Plano, Texas. Copyright © 2004 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.

By J. C. Ryle (1816-1900) The following Sermon was preached in England, in August, 1858. "Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, like men sent from God" (2 Corinthians 2:17) It is no light matter to speak to any assembly of immortal souls about the things of God. But the most serious of all responsibilities is, to speak to a gathering of ministers, such as that which I now see before me. The awful feeling will come across my mind, that one single word said wrong, sinking into some heart, and bearing fruit at some future time, in some pulpit, may lead to harm, of which we cannot know the extent. But there are occasions when true humility is to be seen, not so much in loud professions of our weakness, as in forgetting ourselves altogether. I desire to forget self at this time, in turning my attention to this portion of Scripture. If I say little about my own sense of insufficiency, do me the justice to believe, that it is not because I am not well aware of it. The Greek expression, which we have translated, "peddle," is derived from a word, the etymology of which is not quite agreed on by linguists who compile dictionaries. It either means a tradesman, who does his business dishonestly, or a wine maker, who adulterates the wine which he offers for sale. Tyndale renders it, "We are not of those who chop and change the Word of God." Another version of the Bible says, "We are not as many, who adulterate the Word of God" [Rhemish versions]. In our margin we read, "We are not as many, who deal deceitfully with the Word of God." In the construction of the sentence, the Holy Spirit has inspired Paul to use both the negative and the positive way of stating the truth. This mode of construction adds clearness and unmistakableness to the meaning of the words, and intensity and strength to the assertion, which they contain. Instances of a similar construction occur in three other remarkable passages of Scripture, two on the subject of baptism, one on the subject of the new birth. (John 1:13; 1 Peter 1:23; 1 Peter 3:21). It will be found, therefore, that there are contained in the text both negative and positive lessons for the instruction of the ministers of Christ. Some things we ought to avoid. Others we ought to follow. The first of the negative lessons is, a plain warning against corrupting or dealing deceitfully with the Word of God. The Apostle says, "Unlike so many" who do it, pointing out to us that even in his time there were those who did not deal faithfully and honestly with God's truth. Here is a complete answer to those who assert that the early Church was one of unmixed purity. The mystery of iniquity had already begun to work. The lesson which we are taught is, to beware of all dishonest statements of that Word of God which we are commissioned to preach. We are to add nothing to it. We are to take nothing away. Now when can it be said of us, that we corrupt the Word of God in the present day? What are the rocks and reefs which we ought to avoid, if we would not be of the "many" who deal deceitfully with God's truth? A few suggestions on this would be useful. We corrupt the Word of God most dangerously, when we throw any doubt on the absolute inspiration of any part of Holy Scripture. This is not merely corrupting the cup, but the whole fountain. This is not merely corrupting the bucket of living water, which we profess to present to our people, but poisoning the whole well. Once wrong on this point, the whole substance of our religion is in danger. It is a flaw in the foundation. It is a worm at the root of our theology. Once we allow this worm to gnaw the root, then we will not be surprised if the branches, the leaves, and the fruit, decay little by little. The whole subject of inspiration, I am well aware, is surrounded with difficulty. All I would say is, that, in my humble judgment, notwithstanding some difficulties which we may not be able now to solve, the only safe and tenable ground to maintain is this--that every chapter, and every verse, and every word in the Bible has been "given by the inspiration of God." We should never desert a great principle in theology any more than in science, because of apparent difficulties which we are not able at present to remove. Permit me to mention an illustration of this important axiom. Those conversant with astronomy know, that before the discovery of the planet Neptune there were difficulties, which greatly troubled the most scientific astronomers, respecting certain aberrations of the planet Uranus. These aberrations puzzled the minds of astronomers, and some of them suggested that they might possibly prove the whole Newtonian system to be untrue. But at that time a well-known French astronomer, named Leverrier, read before the Academy of Science a paper, in which he laid down this great axiom--that it was wrong for a scientist to give up a principle because of difficulties which could not be explained. He said in effect, "We cannot explain the aberrations of Uranus now; but we may be sure that the Newtonian system will be proved to be right, sooner or later. Something may be discovered one day, which will prove that these aberrations may be accounted for, and the Newtonian system will remain true and unshaken." A few years later, the anxious eyes of astronomers discovered the last great planet, Neptune. The planet was shown to be the true cause of all the aberrations of Uranus; and what the French astronomer had laid down as a principle in science, was proved to be wise and true. The application of the story is obvious. Let us beware of giving up any first principle in theology. Let us not give up the great principle of absolute inspiration because of difficulties. The day may come when they will all be solved. In the mean time we may rest assured that the difficulties which beset any other theory of inspiration are ten times greater than any which beset our own. Secondly, we corrupt the Word of God when we make defective statements of doctrine. We do so when we add to the Bible the opinions of the Church, or of the Church Fathers, as if they were of equal authority. We do so when we take away from the Bible, for the sake of pleasing men; or, from a feeling of false liberality, keep back any statement which seems narrow, and harsh, or hard. We do so when we try to soften down anything that is taught about eternal punishment, or the reality of hell. We do so when we bring forward doctrines in their wrong proportions. We all have our favorite doctrines, and our minds are so constituted that it is hard to see one truth very clearly without forgetting that there are other truths equally important. We must not forget the exhortation of Paul, to minister "according to the proportion of faith." We do so when we exhibit an excessive anxiety to fence, and guard, and qualify such doctrines as justification by faith without the deeds of the law, for fear of the charge of antinomianism; or when we flinch from strong statements about holiness, for fear of being thought legal. We also do this when we shrink back from the use of Bible language in giving an account of doctrines. We are apt to keep back such expressions as "born again," "election," "adoption," "conversion," "assurance," and to use a roundabout phraseology, as if we were ashamed of plain Bible words. I cannot expand these statements because we are short of time. I am content with mentioning them and leave them to your private thought. In the third place, we corrupt the Word of God when we make a defective practical application of it. We do so when we do not discriminate between classes in our congregations--when we address everyone as being possessed of grace, because of their baptism or church-membership, and do not draw the line between those who have the Spirit and those who have not. Are we not apt to keep back clear, direct appeals to the unconverted? When we have eighteen hundred or two thousand persons before our pulpits, a vast proportion of whom we must know are unconverted, are we not apt to say, "Now if there is any one of you who does not know the things that are necessary for eternal peace" -- when we ought rather to say, "If there are any of you who has not received the grace of God?" Are we not in danger of defective handling of the Word in our practical exhortations, by not bringing home the statements of the Bible to the various classes in our congregations? We speak plainly to the poor; but do we also speak plainly to the rich? Do we speak plainly in our dealings with the upper classes? This is a point on which, I fear, we need to search our consciences. I now turn to the positive lessons which the text contains. "In Christ we speak before God with sincerity, like men sent from God." A few words on each point must suffice. We should aim to speak "with sincerity" Sincerity of aim, heart, and motive; to speak as those who are thoroughly convinced of the truth of what they speak; as those who have a deep feeling and tender love for those whom we address. We should aim to speak "like men sent from God." We ought to strive to feel like men commissioned to speak for God, and on His behalf. In our dread of running into Romanism [Roman Catholicism], we too often forget the language of the Apostle, "I make much of my ministry." We forget how great is the responsibility of the New Testament minister, and how awful the sin of those who when a real messenger of Christ addresses them refuse to receive his message, and harden their hearts against it. We should aim to speak "before God." We are to ask ourselves, not, What did the people think of me? but, What was I in the sight of God? Latimer was once called upon to preach before Henry VIII, and began his sermon in the following manner (I quote from memory, and do not pretend to verbal accuracy), He began: "Latimer! Latimer! do you remember that you are speaking before the high and mighty King Henry VIII; who has power to command you to be sent to prison, and who can have your head cut off, if it please him? Will you not be take care to say nothing that will offend royal ears?" Then after a pause, he went on: "Latimer! Latimer! do you not remember that you are speaking before the King of kings and Lord of lords; before Him, at whose throne Henry VIII will stand; before Him, to whom one day you will have to give account yourself? Latimer! Latimer! be faithful to your Master, and declare all of God's Word." O that this may be the spirit in which we may always express from our pulpits, not caring whether men are pleased or displeased--not caring whether men say we were eloquent or feeble; but going away with the witness of our conscience--I have spoken as standing before God's sight. Finally, we should aim to speak "as in Christ." The meaning of this phrase is doubtful. Grotius says, "We are to speak as in His name, as ambassadors." But Grotius is a poor authority. Beza says, "We are to speak about Christ, concerning Christ." This is good doctrine, but hardly the meaning of the words. Others say, We are to speak as ourselves joined to Christ, as those who have received mercy from Christ, and whose only title to address others is from Christ alone. Others say, We should speak as through Christ, in the strength of Christ. No meaning, perhaps, is better than this. The expression in the Greek exactly answers to Philippians 4:13, "I can do everything through him who gives me strength." Whatever sense we ascribe to these words, one thing is clear: we should speak in Christ, as those who have ourselves received mercy; as those who desire to exalt, not ourselves, but the Savior; and as those who care nothing what men think of them, so long as Christ is magnified in their ministry. In conclusion, we should all ask, Do we ever handle the Word of God deceitfully? Do we realize what it is to speak as of God, as in the sight of God, and in Christ? Let me put to everyone one searching question. Is there any text in God's Word which we shrink from expounding? Is there any statement in the Bible which we avoid speaking about to our people, not because we do not understand it, but because it contradicts some pet notion of ours as to what is truth? If this is true, let us ask our consciences whether this is very much like handling the Word of God deceitfully. Is there anything in the Bible we keep back for fear of seeming harsh, and of giving offense to some of our hearers? Is there any statement, either doctrinal or practical, which we mangle, mutilate or dismember? If so, are we dealing honestly with God's Word? Let us pray to be kept from corrupting God's Word. Let neither fear nor the favor of man induce us to keep back, or avoid, or change, or mutilate, or qualify any text in the Bible. Surely we ought to have holy boldness when we speak as ambassadors of God. We have no reason to be ashamed of any statement we make in our pulpits so long as it is Scriptural. I have often thought that one great secret of the marvelous honor which God has put on a man who is not in our denomination (I allude to Mr. Charles Spurgeon) is, the extraordinary boldness and confidence with which he stands up in the pulpit to speak to people about their sins and their souls. It cannot be said he does it from fear of any, or to please any. He seems to give every class of hearers its portion--to the rich and the poor, the high and the low, the king and the peasant, the learned and the illiterate. He gives to every one the plain message, according to God's Word. I believe that very boldness has much to do with the success which God is pleased to give to his ministry. Let us not be ashamed to learn a lesson from him in this respect. Let us go and do likewise. Transcribe, updated, and added to Bible Bulletin Board's "Sermon Collection" by: Tony Capoccia Bible Bulletin Board Box 119 Columbus, New Jersey, USA, 08022 Websites: www.biblebb.com and www.gospelgems.com Email: tony@biblebb.com Online since 1986 © Copyright 2001 by Tony Capoccia. This updated file may be freely copied, printed out, and distributed as long as copyright and source statements remain intact, and that it is not sold. All rights reserved. Verses quoted, unless otherwise noted, are taken from the HOLY BIBLE: NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION © 1978 by the New York Bible Society, used by permission of Zondervan Bible Publishers. END