Archives

By the Rev. Dr. Ronald Moore THE SOUTHERN ANGLICAN February 11, 2026   The period between the Resurrection of Christ (traditionally dated around A.D. 30–33) and roughly A.D. 125 represents one of the most formative yet least institutionally documented eras in Christian history. This was the age of the Apostles and their immediate successors — a time before formal creeds were standardized, before canon lists were fixed, and before the later episcopal structures became fully developed. Yet it was hardly an unstructured or chaotic movement. The earliest Church possessed recognizable order, authority, worship patterns, and doctrinal continuity, even while still developing. Understanding this era requires drawing from three principal sources: the New Testament itself, early non-canonical Christian writings (such as the Didache, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Papias), and Roman historical references. When taken together, these sources provide a surprisingly coherent picture. Apostolic Authority as the Foundation The earliest Church was unquestionably apostolic in governance. The Twelve, along with figures such as Paul, James the Lord’s brother, and others recognized as apostles, served as the primary authoritative teachers and organizers of Christian communities. Acts presents a Church that is both charismatic and ordered. Leadership decisions — such as the selection of Matthias (Acts 1) or the appointment of the Seven (Acts 6) — demonstrate structured discernment rather than spontaneous individualism. Apostolic teaching carried normative authority, and doctrinal unity was guarded carefully, as seen in the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). This apostolic authority was not merely administrative; it was theological. The Apostles were regarded as witnesses to the Resurrection and custodians of Christ’s teaching. Their role established what later Anglican theology would call apostolic succession: continuity not merely of office, but of teaching and sacramental life. Emergence of Local Leadership: Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons By the latter part of the first century, three ministerial roles are clearly visible: ·        Episkopoi (overseers/bishops) ·        Presbyteroi (elders/presbyters) ·        Diakonoi (deacons) In the earliest decades, “bishop” and “presbyter” sometimes appear interchangeable (e.g., Acts 20; Titus 1). However, by the time of Ignatius of Antioch (c. A.D. 110), the monoepiscopal structure — one bishop with presbyters and deacons assisting — is clearly established in many regions. Ignatius’ letters repeatedly emphasize unity around the bishop as a safeguard against doctrinal fragmentation. This suggests that episcopal leadership was not a later medieval invention but an early post-apostolic consolidation meant to preserve apostolic teaching. Deacons, meanwhile, served both practical and liturgical functions, continuing the pattern established in Acts 6. Their role combined charitable administration with participation in worship life. Worship Patterns and Sacramental Life The earliest Christians did not invent entirely new forms of worship; they adapted synagogue patterns while centering everything on Christ. Core elements included: ·        Reading of Scripture (initially Hebrew Scriptures, later apostolic writings) ·        Teaching or exhortation ·        Prayers (often structured, sometimes inherited from Jewish liturgical forms) ·        Eucharistic celebration The Eucharist was clearly central from the earliest days. Paul’s discussion in 1 Corinthians 11 demonstrates both its established nature and the seriousness with which it was regarded. The Didache (late first century) provides explicit Eucharistic prayers and instructions for baptism, fasting days, and traveling prophets. It reflects an already structured liturgical life. Notably, Christian worship had moved decisively to Sunday (”the Lord’s Day”) by the late first century, marking the Resurrection as the organizing center of Christian time. Doctrine Before Creeds While formal creeds such as the Nicene Creed lay centuries in the future, the earliest Church possessed clear doctrinal boundaries. Baptismal formulas, Eucharistic prayers, and apostolic preaching functioned as proto-creeds. Common affirmations included: ·        Jesus as Lord and Son of God ·        The bodily Resurrection ·        The expectation of Christ’s return ·        The moral transformation required of believers Heresies did arise early (Gnosticism, Docetism, Judaizing movements), but the Church consistently appealed to apostolic teaching and continuity of leadership as safeguards against innovation. Mobility and Missionary Expansion The earliest Church was strikingly missionary. Apostles, evangelists, and traveling teachers moved constantly throughout the Roman world. Roman roads, common Greek language (Koine), and diaspora Jewish networks facilitated rapid spread. By A.D. 100, Christian communities existed throughout the eastern Mediterranean and were present in Rome, North Africa, and likely parts of Gaul and Mesopotamia. This missionary dynamism required organizational adaptability. Local leaders often emerged quickly, trained by visiting apostles or their delegates. Persecution and Identity Formation Persecution during this period was sporadic rather than empire-wide, but it played a formative role. The Neronian persecution (A.D. 64), Domitianic tensions, and local hostilities forced the Church to clarify identity and leadership structures. Martyrdom became a powerful witness. Early martyr accounts emphasize loyalty to Christ, Eucharistic identity, and unity under episcopal leadership. Continuity Rather Than Innovation One of the most important historical observations is that the early second century Church already looks recognizably catholic (in the small-c sense): ·        Structured ministry ·        Sacramental worship ·        Apostolic authority ·        Doctrinal continuity ·        Missionary outreach Rather than radical institutional invention in later centuries, the evidence suggests organic development from apostolic foundations. Implications for the Church Today The earliest Church reminds modern Christians that structure and Spirit are not opposites. Authority did not quench vitality; it preserved it. Doctrine did not restrict mission; it clarified it. Sacramental life did not stifle faith; it nourished it. Perhaps most importantly, the Church between A.D. 33 and 125 demonstrates that authentic Christianity has always balanced three realities: apostolic faithfulness, communal order, and missionary urgency. Remove any one of these, and the Church risks either fragmentation, stagnation, or doctrinal drift. For those seeking renewal today, the lesson is clear: recovery rarely means innovation. More often, it means remembering — returning to the apostolic pattern that sustained the Church when it possessed neither political power nor cultural dominance, yet transformed the world.   The Rev. Dr. Ronald Moore is a theologian and writer whose work explores the Church’s identity and mission in a rapidly changing cultural landscape. He holds degrees in Theological Studies, History, and Psychology, and his essays—featured regularly on VirtueOnline and other publications—often examine the intersection of faith, tradition, and contemporary society.

By Michael Paulson, Globe Staff June 18, 2004 In a move that is likely to further inflame tensions in the global Anglican Communion, the Episcopal bishop of Vermont today will introduce two new rites, very similar to the liturgy for Episcopal weddings, for priests to use while presiding at civil unions of gays and lesbians. Episcopal priests in Vermont have already been quietly solemnizing and blessing civil unions for four years, since the state legalized them for same-sex couples. But in introducing standardized rites — a symbolically significant step in a highly liturgical church — the Vermont diocese is signalling it fully endorses same-sex relationships. ''The commitment we are asking of persons who are entering into holy unions is of the same nature as the commitment we are asking of couples who are entering holy matrimony," Vermont Bishop Thomas Clark Ely said in a telephone interview from the diocesan headquarters in Burlington. ''These relationships are expressive of God's love . . . and the church should be willing to recognize and embrace these loving and committed relationships." Ely said the rites will be used on a trial basis and will be evaluated annually for three years. The action by the Diocese of Vermont comes as the global Anglican Communion, and its American province, the Episcopal Church USA, are riven by controversies over homosexuality, many playing out in New England. Last summer, the Diocese of New Hampshire elected a gay priest as its bishop; now the dioceses of Massachusetts and Western Massachusetts are grappling with how to respond to the legalization of same-sex marriage in this state. A global commission, appointed by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, this week was meeting in North Carolina as it examines the impact of the controversies on the 70 million member Anglican Communion. Ely, who said he has blessed the civil union of a gay Episcopal priest, said the Anglican Communion needs to recognize the ''context" in which Episcopalians live, and that in Vermont, that context is that civil unions for gays and lesbians have been legal for four years, and many gays and lesbians are active participants in the Episcopal Church. The lead plaintiff in the case that led to the creation of civil unions in Vermont is a lay Episcopalian who now serves as senior warden at the diocesan cathedral; the state representative who headed the legislative committee that oversaw the creation of civil unions is also an Episcopalian and now the chancellor of the Vermont diocese; and the Episcopal bishop at the time testified in favor of civil unions. ''I'm hoping that the local context in which we're doing our pastoral work is recognized — the context in Vermont is very different than the context in Nigeria, and I wouldn't presume to understand the cultural context of Nigeria, but I would respect the local culture and context in which that diocese operates," Ely said. Nigeria, with an estimated 15 million Anglicans, has more Anglican adherents than any other nation, and the Anglican primate there has been an outspoken critic of homosexuality and gay relationships. The Episcopal Church USA has 2.3 million members, including 8,700 in Vermont. ''Vermont has had four years [of civil unions], and Vermont hasn't fallen off the map," Ely said. ''I believe that we're in a better place because of our capacity to be able to affirm the loving, committed relationships of gay and lesbian people, and because those couples enjoy the legal rights that are so desperately needed for them." Because the decision by Vermont is to be announced today, there has been little reaction thus far. But, told of the planned action by a reporter, the New England head of an evolving national coalition of conservative Episcopalians expressed dismay. ''It's a very destructive act in terms of the traditional doctrine of marriage, and the status of the whole Anglican Communion," said the Rev. William L. Murdoch, who is rector of All Saints Church in West Newbury and who serves as dean of the Northeast convocation of the Anglican Communion Network. ''It is contrary to the wishes of the archbishop of Canterbury, the primates, and the global leadership of the church, and it shows a disregard for the catholicity of the global church." Ely said dissent in Vermont over the liberal movement of the national church has been minimal — he said no parishes in Vermont have asked to affiliate with the Anglican Communion Network or have asked for supervision by a conservative bishop. He said he expected ''a few" priests in Vermont would decline to officiate at civil unions for same-sex couples and that clergy would not be required to do so. The situation in Vermont is unique because civil unions are legal there, but many Episcopal dioceses around the country are struggling with whether and how to bless same-sex couples. Priests in Vermont can sign the state documents couples use to form civil unions, a contrast to Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal but there are no civil unions, and where the bishop has asked Episcopal priests not to sign marriage licenses. Although Massachusetts Bishop M. Thomas Shaw has barred priests from solemnizing same-sex marriages, he has authorized the blessing of married same-sex couples so long as the actual signing of the marriage license is done by someone other than an Episcopal priest. Ely said he agrees with Shaw's decision, and that there is no question the Episcopal church's canons bar same-sex marriage. Last summer, the Episcopal Church's general convention passed a resolution declaring that ''local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions," and dioceses in Delaware, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Washington, D.C., have official policies allowing the blessing of same-sex couples, according to Integrity USA, an organization that advocates for gay and lesbian Episcopalians. In Vermont, Ely plans to ask priests to use essentially the same process for uniting gay couples as they use for straight couples — requiring at least one partner to be a baptized Christian, asking couples to go through relationship counseling before being blessed, and imposing the same restrictions on people who seek a second civil union after a first one breaks up as the church places on couples who seek to remarry after a divorce. Gay and lesbian couples will be asked to sign a ''declaration of intention" that is nearly identical to the declaration used by heterosexual couples getting married in an Episcopal Church. In the declaration, the same-sex couples will state, ''We believe that the union of two partners is intended by God for their mutual joy, for the encouragement and support given one another in daily life and changing circumstances, for the deepening of faith as they experience God's love in their love for one another, and (if it may be) the physical and spiritual nurture of children." Priests will then solemnize the civil unions and pronounce, ''In exchanging vows of love, support and fidelity, N and N are now joined in holy and civil union, as celebrated by this community of faith, and as recognized by the State of Vermont. May the grace of God be with them for ever." Michael Paulson can be reached at mpaulson@globe.com.

ABC News The interim head of South Australia's Anglican Church, Archdeacon John Collas, says he is shocked at details of correspondence between former Archbishop Ian George and disgraced former St Peter's College chaplain John Mountford. Copies of the correspondence have been leaked to the ABC. The Reverend Mountford was sacked from the college in 1992 after allegedly molesting a student and until recently worked at St Stephen's School in Bangkok, but is believed to have fled to Cambodia. In the letters, Dr George writes to Reverend Mountford saying he is glad Reverend Mountford was not subjected to the humiliation and the public spectacle of media attention in his case. "I am glad that you were not subjected to the pain, the humiliation and the public spectacle which the media would have relished in your case," he writes in the letter. One of the letters is dated the March 31 1993, the year after Reverend Mountford fled Australia over allegations he sexual molested a St Peter's student. In the letter Dr George tells Reverend Mountford: "You will see that I have done everything I can both to support you, and preserve your reputation." Furthermore, Dr George writes: "There is every likelihood that you would have been charged with an offence," had Reverend Mountford stayed in Australia. Archdeacon Collas says he is personally shocked by the letter but people will have to decide themselves how it reflects upon Dr George. "Gobsmacked would be the right word, I'm just totally shocked," he said. "Especially as there is a clear understanding that any person who has abused children must face the criminal courts." Archbishop George resigned earlier this month after intense pressure over his response to a report detailing allegations of sexual abuse by staff from Anglican agencies in South Australia. He was also criticised for not fully investigating the allegations or reporting them to police.

By David C. Steinmetz Special to the Sentinel June 9, 2004 ORLANDO — In 2003 the General Convention of the Episcopal Church voted to allow the blessing of same-sex unions. It did not authorize the solemnization of same-sex marriages. As far as the official teaching of the Episcopal Church is concerned, marriage is still an institution restricted to one man and one woman. The decision to bless same-sex unions seemed at the time to be on the liberal cutting edge of the culture wars. But that was before Massachusetts and, for a brief time, San Francisco extended marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Liberal Episcopalians, who thought in 2003 they were ahead of the curve of social change, discovered in 2004 they were behind it. The Episcopal Bishop of Boston, the Rt. Rev. Thomas Shaw, long an enthusiastic supporter of gay rights, found himself caught between the conservative rules of his church concerning marriage and the innovative social policy of Massachusetts. He therefore forbade priests in his diocese to conduct gay marriages, claiming that the administration of the rite of holy matrimony to gay and lesbian couples would transgress the laws of the Episcopal Church. He also forbade priests to sign legal certificates of marriage for gay couples, though he had no objection to priests blessing same-sex couples wed in church by a justice of the peace — provided, of course, the service of blessing could not be mistaken for the rite of matrimony. The ban on gay marriage seemed intolerable to some liberal priests in Boston, two of whom, the Rev. Carter Heyward and the Rev. William Blaine-Wallace, have subsequently broken it. The Board of the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Mass., where Heyward teaches, decided to close the chapel of the divinity school to all marriages, gay and heterosexual, until the ban on gay marriage is lifted, which may not happen until 2009. If same-sex couples cannot be married in the divinity-school chapel, then neither can heterosexual couples. Two Episcopal parishes in Milton and Arlington have followed the example of the divinity school. Meanwhile, a former dean of the divinity school was making his own headlines in San Francisco. Bishop Otis Charles married his male partner of two years, Felipe Sanchez Paris. Before his divorce in 1993, Bishop Charles had been married for 42 years and was the father of five children. His partner had been married and divorced four times. Bishop William Swing of the Diocese of California, like Shaw a supporter of gay rights, was not amused by the headline in the San Francisco Chronicle, "78-year-old cleric marries same-sex partner." He revoked the license of Otis Charles as an assisting bishop, claiming he had not been properly consulted in advance. Bishop Charles protested that the much-publicized service had been the blessing of a same-sex union and not a marriage, and that he and his partner had in fact conformed to all the protocols laid down by Bishop Swing. Bishop Swing responded that the Episcopal Church had not authorized the same-sex "marriage" (the quotation marks belong to Bishop Swing) of bishops. If he, Bishop Swing, embraced the action of Bishop Charles, he would be in violation of the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church. Bishop Swing's critics charged that it was not the act itself, but the publicity surrounding the act that had upset the bishop. Even if that were true, it would not necessarily be a fatal flaw. Bishops make poor prophets. They have been called to a more mundane task; namely, to guard the unity of the church and to keep the warring parties in their congregations in at least minimal communion with each other. Otis Charles made that task more difficult and paid the inevitable price. Should anyone pay the price of disobedience in Boston? It is hard to see how it can be avoided, even in the lax disciplinary environment of a mainline church. The canons of the Episcopal Church are the rules according to which Episcopalians have agreed to live together as Christians. They have not been enforced woodenly by Bishop Shaw, who has worked hard to accommodate both traditionalists and liberals in his diocese. The rebellious priests who disobeyed Bishop Shaw violated a fundamental covenant that makes Episcopalians what they are. It's a bishop's job to protect that covenant even if he wants desperately to change its terms. Otherwise, the moral judgment of individual priests is the final arbiter of religious truth, bishops are superfluous, churchwide consultation is pointless, and unity is an unaffordable luxury. Not an Episcopalian way of thinking. David C. Steinmetz is the Amos Ragan Kearns Professor of the History of Christianity at The Divinity School at Duke University in Durham, N.C. He wrote this commentary for the Orlando Sentinel.

By Andrew Goddard At their meeting in Kanuga this week the Lambeth Commission received Communion and Discipline a substantial submission from the Anglican Communion Institute (ACI). This builds on the Institute's earlier work in True Union in the Body? and Claiming Our Anglican Identity — both on the initial reading list for Commission members. The fifty-page document sets out a strong theological and practical case for the Communion to discipline ECUSA because of its actions at General Convention 2003. Sketching features of this 'unprecedented and dangerous moment within the Anglican Communion', it highlights the need for the Archbishop of Canterbury and Primates 'to bring order into a frighteningly chaotic situation'. The argument that the Communion has been here before in relation to the ordination of women and that Anglicans are now in a period of 'reception' in relation to acceptance of same-sex unions and bishops who live within such unions is firmly rebutted. Major differences are highlighted between the two issues and in the way in which the Communion reached the point of innovation. Furthermore, the political reality cannot be ignored: in relation to ECUSA's (and now Canada's unilateral action) 'all too evidently we have entered, not a period of 'reception', but a process of 'rejection''. The 'critically significant role that the authority of Scripture plays in the current crisis' is then examined. The Commission is warned that its response to violations of biblical and Anglican teaching 'could indirectly result in its becoming the first council to state, even if only by implication, that the Church has no clear sense of Scripture's teaching in the area of human sexuality; or that Scripture is not clear or has no word to speak; or that Scripture can contain positions which are mutually opposed'. In order to prevent this it is necessary that 'those in this Communion who have departed from Scripture's plain sense and catholic teaching be disciplined' because 'If the Church will not express and enact such discipline, it will clearly have surrendered and abandoned the plain sense of Scripture'. Such discipline is integral to the church's mission in communion. In fact, discipline 'represents the absolutely necessary and faithful avenue given the churches of the Communion in the face of their current crisis'. Such discipline is not primarily legal but an act of love aimed at reconciliation in the truth. It is not exclusion from communion but the form communion takes in the face of contemptuous disregard for Communion teaching and appeals for restraint. In fact, 'the failure to desire and to enact discipline within the Body of Christ is tantamount to accepting the disappearance of communion itself'. Drawing on earlier work submitted to the Commission by one of its legal experts, Dr Norman Doe, the Institute highlights the limits to 'autonomy' and explores the nature of 'communion' and the importance of viewing authority in more than legal terms. In the light of this it presents a concrete proposal as to the form of discipline which is focussed on invitations to the Lambeth Conference and the Primates' Meeting: 'it would be appropriate for the Archbishop of Canterbury, as primus inter pares, with the Primates to issue no invitation to such gatherings to those bishops who have exempted themselves from the practice of mutual subjection'. Alternatively, the Primates could allow bishops under discipline to attend Communion councils, 'but would reduce their status to that of "observer", without voice or vote'. This discipline would be lifted when forgiveness had been sought and assurances given to adhere to Lambeth I.10 until such time as the Communion revised its teaching. An appendix offers an 'example of a restorative statement to be signed by consenting bishops of ECUSA to demonstrate a Christian commitment to reconciliation with the Communion'. If this has not occurred by Lambeth 2008 then the Primates should 'request that the Archbishop of Canterbury initiate whatever process is necessary within the Church of England to bring about a formal break in communion between the See of Canterbury, ECUSA, and the Diocese of New Westminster, even as other Primates pursue a similar course within their own provinces'. During the period of discipline clergy and parishes whose bishops are under Communion discipline will 'wish to maintain a full connection with the communion through a bishop' and should be free to 'seek adequate/alternative Episcopal Oversight (AEO)'. In so doing they should 'receive the encouragement and moral support of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates expressed in a public fashion'. Andrew Goddard is Tutor in Christian Ethics at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford The full text of the document is available on the web at http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.org/articles/Communion_and_Discipline.pdf

By David W. Virtue ANSONVILLE, NC — The Rev. Daniel A. Brown, 56, got a first hand lesson on what it is like to be betrayed by his vestry. For nearly 8 years he labored as rector of All Souls' Church, Ansonville, and Priest-in-Charge of the 134-member Calvary Church, Wadesboro in the Diocese of North Carolina, faithfully preaching the gospel, declaring the Good News to all who would hear. But Fr. Brown, who describes himself as an evangelical catholic, found out the hard way what it is like to be the victim in the aftermath of the Robinson consecration. "My wife Donna and I came fresh from Sewanee seminary and we were both full of hope, enthusiasm and optimism for a future of shared ministries and the building-up of a Christian community." "For almost eight years I labored to learn and be the pastor and priest of the two churches in my cure and to exercise the gifts for ministry that God had given me. We experienced the usual ups and downs of parish life, but at Calvary we accomplished a Capital Campaign, two major construction projects and the acquisition of properties adjacent to the church assuring the ability to expand the church in the future. While we have not grown in numbers, we have been able to maintain our membership despite the fact that the county we live in is experiencing negative population growth." But in July of 2003 all that changed. On July 21st the vestry of Calvary Church met for its regularly scheduled meeting. On the agenda was the matter of the Diocesan asking, the annual financial pledge to support the Diocese of North Carolina. A discussion ensued and it was agreed to pay last year's asking of $11,888 as opposed to the 2004 of $12, 860 asking. "We did this for budgetary reasons. This action was taken three weeks before General Convention to prevent any linkage between the actions that many were anticipating at the Convention and any action by the vestry," said Fr. Brown. "On August 6, 2003 I mailed a letter to every household in the parish, in which I stated clearly and compassionately my position on the actions of General Convention. In this letter I tried to state clearly my position on church issues in a fair and open manner. I said Bishop-elect Robinson is a gay man, living in an active, sexual relationship with another man. This relationship is not marriage; rather it is an intimate relationship outside the bounds of marriage. The unwholesomeness of this would be true whether he were cohabiting with a man or with a woman. For the church in any way to condone this is a clear repudiation of the teaching of Holy Scripture and the church for over two thousand years." Has the Holy Spirit while visiting in Minneapolis given us a new purity standard for Christians to live by, wrote Brown? The orthodox rector made no secret of where he stood. "I had, along with other concerned clergy signed a letter to Bishop Michael Curry urging him to vote against the confirmation of [then] Canon Robinson and against approving the blessing of same sex unions. I offered to meet with individuals or groups to discuss the issues either privately or in an open forum. But a group of members chose another route." In the weeks following the letter and the presentation of the petition the following acts occurred: "I was accused of being "unchristian" because I opposed the confirmation of Gene Robinson." "I was asked by a member to resign because I disagreed with Bishop Curry's position on Robinson and same-sex blessing." "I was accused of trying to "tear us apart" and being "hateful" because I included in the recent Newsletter the minutes of the August vestry minutes in which a vestry member put forth a motion critical of the position taken by Bishop Curry and called for some punitive action. The motion was withdrawn by the vestry member at my urging." "I was told by another member that a rumor circulated that 'if a homosexual came to the church I would throw them out'." "Insults and rumors were not directed solely at me, but at my wife as well:" "She was accused of being "rude and insulting" to Bishop Curry in a letter she wrote to him, when in fact, during a personal conversation with Bishop Curry on October 8, 2003 he stated that he found her letter "thoughtful and honest"." "She was accused of removing Bishop Curry's picture from the hallway. The removal was in fact done by the Senior Warden for maintenance reasons." "My repeated attempts to engage in any form of meaningful dialogue were ignored or rebuffed." A petition was secretly gathered and presented to the vestry and the rector at the September 22 vestry meeting. The petition stated that forty-nine listed persons "support the Diocese of NC and our Bishops". "No other reason for this petition was given. When questioned, the presenter of this document said, "We have always paid our full asking"." Brown said the issue of money took place in July well before convention. "On October 8, 2003 I met with Bishop Curry during the annual clergy conference at The Summit. At that time I informed him of the above-cited actions and expressed to him my concerns about the effect they were having on me and my wife. I informed him that because of this and the seeming impossibility of opening conversation on these matters the best thing I could do, principally because of the attacks on my wife, would be to actively seek another parish." Brown said Bishop Curry asked him to send his CDO Profile and resume to the Rev. Canon Marie Fleischer, Canon to the Ordinary and Deployment Officer so he could better be put in contact with vacant ministries. On November 9 Bishop Curry visited the parish. During his time here he saw and experienced first hand the strain we had been under, said Brown. "He personally stated to Donna and I that it would be wise for us to find another parish." "Later that same month at the annual parish meeting we elected three new vestry members. I was pleased because two of the three had served with me before and had been supportive. What I did not know is that these three new members came onto the vestry with the express purpose of undermining me and to seek my removal as rector." As the New Year rolled in people expressed their interest and concern over the upcoming Diocesan Convention January 28-30, 2004 when many of the "hot-button" issues would be debated. "Because of the rising tension I scheduled a forum a week following the convention inviting all interested parties to come. Our Delegates and Alternates were present and gave their reports and impressions of the convention business. The text of every resolution passed was handed out. Ample time was given for questions and answers and the floor was open to discuss any problems." A few days after the February meeting the Senior Warden of Calvary Church came to the church and began a casual conversation with Fr. Brown. "During the course of this conversation he informed me there were people in the church who didn't like me. I told him I was aware of that and unfortunately this is a fact of life in any parish." Then it happened. "I received a call from Bishop Curry informing me that a group of eight persons had gone to see Bishop J. Gary Gloster about me, with a list of grievances." "I was stunned," said Fr Brown to Virtuosity. "At no time before this call was I aware of any list grievances nor had it been presented to me or such a list even discussed or presented to the vestry. I called Bishop Gloster for more details and he listed the names of four of the eight people. I was shocked, hurt and deeply saddened to note that the list included the Senior Warden of Calvary, the Bishop's Warden of All Souls' and two members of the Calvary Church vestry." Fr. Brown learned that this group went to Bishop Gloster on their own without informing the vestry or himself. "We later found out through members of the parish that a family with a gay relative was instrumental in compiling the "grievance list" as well as the earlier petition. They allied themselves with a group whose political ideology is supportive of the gay agenda." Bishop Curry said he intended to send in a church consultant to counsel with the wardens and myself, said Fr. Brown. The purpose, he was told, was to map out a process to mediate and reconcile the differences that had arisen. "He asked me to make the appropriate arrangements and schedule the meeting. We met with the consultant in early March and agreed that he [the consultant] would make a formal presentation and proposal at the next Vestry meeting, set for March 22." On that date the full vestry as well as 10-15 parishioners appeared. "The consultant outlined his proposal for a series of two workshops focusing on interpersonal relationships, communication and reconciliation. A vestry member introduced a list of grievances into the record. I noted in my remarks that the accusations were general in nature and unsubstantiated and almost totally represented merely differences of approach and style to ministry. In sum, the "grievances" were, as one parishioner noted, "personal and political"." The vestry voted to take the consultant's proposal under consideration and they formed a committee to investigate the grievances and to ascertain the feelings and opinions of all the parish members. On March 30 the special Vestry met and in its first order of business they voted not to engage the services of the consultant. The committee concluded that they were "beyond reconciliation". "They asked me to leave while they went into executive session. Twenty minutes later two members of the vestry came out and asked to speak to me privately. One then asked me "What would it take to get you to leave?" I responded that I was not prepared to answer that question and told them I needed to talk with Bishop Curry." On April 5 Fr. Brown with his wife met with Bishop Curry in his office in Raleigh. "We had a lengthy session during which he told me repeatedly and emphatically that I had done nothing wrong. He also told me that it was his desire that I leave my parish through a mediated settlement under Canon 41 and avoid the formal "Canon 42" proceeding which he noted is designed not at fact finding but simply for pronouncing conditions for dissolution of the pastoral relationship. Bishop Curry also told me that he would submit my name to be interviewed for a chaplain position at Penick Village, an Episcopal affiliated retirement village." At the regular Vestry meeting on April 17 the vestry voted to accept a mediation facilitated by the same church consultant. The purpose of this meeting was to come to a mutual agreement on dissolving the pastoral relationship under the provisions of Canon 41. Fr. Brown wrote a proposal to let him continue in the ministry while seeking to find another ministry. "We stated our desire to minimize conflict, heal some of the open wounds and to part company with this parish in a way least damaging to both parties. Our proposal was rejected out-of-hand because it "did not include a specific date when we would leave". The "people "want a change" we were told, meaning those who had engineered this entire scenario merely wanted me out without stating any reason." It was useless. "My wife was tired of the conflict and her health was suffering and her high blood pressure and asthma were acting up." Fr. Brown agreed to one year at pay and benefits and six months occupation of the rectory. The orthodox rector said the bishop also did not come through despite repeated calls to his office. "I have not heard from him again. He has offered to telephone other bishops on my behalf but I have not been informed that he has done so nor received any response to date from such efforts." As far as the diocesan office and staff is concerned, and outside of one letter requesting information for a deployment officers meeting he has not had contact with Canon Marie Fleischer, the diocesan deployment officer. Fr. Brown was not selected for the chaplaincy position at Penick Village. Fr. Brown feels deeply betrayed by what happened. "When a priest resigns from a parish, even for the best of reasons and innocent of any wrongdoing, it is very difficult to explain those circumstances to another church. The typical reaction is to assume that "where there's smoke there's fire" and eliminate you from consideration." The rector feels he has been abandoned by both bishops and Canon Fleischer. "It is becoming harder to avoid the conclusion than I am expendable; neither wanted nor welcome in this diocese anymore because I hold theological views opposed to the bishop(s)". "My own integrity and ethics prevents me from doing further damage to this parish by adopting the underhanded and malevolent tactics of this group." Fr. Brown believes he is suffering persecution because of his orthodox beliefs and his stand on Biblical standards which differ from those in his parish and perhaps, more tragically and sadly, being neglected and allowed to "die on the vine" by his own bishop. "What I have suffered (and am suffering today) is a far more insidious form of persecution than direct confrontation. It is neglect from those who have authority in a diocese towards clergy who oppose revisionist theology. It is far more effective than some splashy conflict. The intent is to get us out of the diocese and out of ministry if you can and ruin their chances for another position and reputation to boot." Fr. Brown said that his experience should alert other orthodox clergy in revisionist dioceses. I am mindful of the saying coined by the Jewish writer Elie Wiesel, "The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference". NOTE: If you are not receiving this from VIRTUOSITY, the Anglican Communion's largest biblically orthodox Episcopal/Anglican Online News Service, then you may subscribe FREE by going to: www.virtuosityonline.org. Virtuosity's website has been accessed by more than one million readers in 45 countries on six continents. This story is copyrighted but may be forwarded electronically with reference to VIRTUOSITY and the author. No changes are permitted in the text.

By James E. Flowers Christianity is not a feeling. That is to suggest that it does not address itself primarily, or even secondarily for that matter, to how or what you or I feel. Indeed, as outrageous as it may seem, there is a very real sense that in the long run God is not overly interested how we "feel" at all. Though He certainly weeps when we weep and laughs when we laugh, our feelings, which in the modern sense can mean anything from what we think, to what we perceive, to what we intend, to what we aspire to, are not particularly important. What is important is what we believe. For it is what we believe and not how we feel, which determines whether or not we are Christians at all. Sadly, our me-oriented, self absorbed generation, has elevated "feeling" to the point that in our culture, absolutely nothing is more important. Thus, the criteria of "how I feel" proceeds, and becomes the litmus test for every decision, every commitment, every behavior, regardless of whether or not the decision, commitment, or behavior is right or wrong, noble or ignoble. In short, "feelings" have replaced moral law, the notion of right and wrong, and so have become our chief criteria for living. For more than thirty years now, psycho-therapists have made a good living by simply asking the question, "How does that make you feel?" Now while one can imagine that this could very well be an important question under certain circumstances, the spirit of that question has become pervasive beyond all measure in our culture. Irrespective of what really is. Irrespective of what is true. "If it feels good do it." "How do you feel about that?" "Go with your feelings!" "Trust your feelings!" "Get in touch with your feelings." These are the mantras of popular culture. And the fact of them constitutes, I believe, the single biggest cultural shift of our generation. Moreover, there is no question in my mind but that this orientation to feeling has become nothing less than a religion in this country. It has become the religion of Popular Culture. It is essentially a form of deism or pantheism, wherein God is nowhere and everywhere, and does not really matter all that much anyway, leaving you and me to follow pretty much any path that we want. And the path that we invariably choose is the path of least resistance, which is always determined by how I feel, and which is always the road to hell. What is most frightening is when the Church begins to adopt the orientation of Popular Culture and Popular Religion and apply it to Christian understandings and doctrines. When this happens, a beast is born who must strike terror in the hearts of all the truly faithful. For "Christian Pantheism" is, in fact, not Christian at all. It is a wolf in sheep's clothing. And it's not about God at all. It is about me. It is about how I feel, and what I think, and what I want. And though it may not include a golden calf, it is the worst, the most deadly form, of idolatry. Further, it is the most prevalent form of heresy in the Church today. What the heretics of our day cannot grasp, is that it is God who judges us, and not the other way around. How we feel, what we think, about the Resurrection of the Body, the Atonement, the Uniqueness of Christ, the Authority of Scripture will, in the final analysis not matter one wit. The only thing that will matter, is whether or not we believe these things, because like it or not they are what defines our Faith. The Church has been occupied i.e. taken over, by those who largely no longer believe these things, nor I suspect do they believe in the God of our Salvation, for seeing no need for salvation, they have made themselves God. Aided by Post Modern Popular Culture, with it's "If it feels good do it." attitude, its tendency toward irreverence, and it's aversion to hard truth, these folks, bishops, priests, laypeople, have managed to pawn off thoroughly un-Christian notions as the "new and improved Christianity". "God evolves." "God changes His mind." "Right and wrong are relative terms." "Sin is a matter of perception." "There are no absolutes." "Bible reading is all a matter of personal interpretation." These are just a few of the tenants of the Post Modern Church which dares to call itself Episcopal. It is time for brutal honesty. It is time for straight talk. Many of our leaders in the Episcopal Church, many of our colleagues, are simply no longer Christians by any reasonable definition. They apparently no longer believe in heaven or hell, right or wrong, salvation, or the need for it. They are deists, pantheists, Wicca, Unitarians, Buddhists, they are not necessarily bad people, but neither are they Christians. It's time for them to come clean. The Rev. James E. Flowers, Jr. is rector of St. Timothy's Church Alexandria, Louisiana

By JOE FRIESEN The Globe and Mail June 22, 2004 A former primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, Archbishop Edward Scott, was killed in a car accident yesterday near Parry Sound, Ont. Archbishop Scott, 85, who led the Anglican Church from 1971 to 1986, was described as a man of compassion whose progressive ideas guided the church through a number of significant debates. He died after the car in which he was travelling left Highway 69 about 18 kilometres south of Parry Sound yesterday afternoon. The car, driven by his close friend Sonja Bird, rolled over and landed upside down on a metal culvert. Police are still investigating the accident but said no other vehicles were involved. Ms. Bird was transported to hospital with serious injuries. Archbishop Scott was born in Edmonton in 1919 and worked in Winnipeg and Vancouver before becoming primate in 1971. He was named moderator of the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches from 1975 to 1983. During that time he helped to focus global attention on the plight of black South Africans living under apartheid. "He was a man with a passionate heart, passionately interested in justice for people," said Terence Finlay, a former archbishop of Toronto. Archbishop Scott spoke out on issues such as abortion, the death penalty and the ordination of women. He was an advocate for the recognition of same-sex relationships. His recent biography, Radical Compassion by Hugh McCullum, quoted him as saying: "Homosexuality is not a choice; it is a discovery. I now have a deep conviction that gays and lesbians were created by God and are loved equally with heterosexuals by God." He received the Pearson Peace Medal in 1998 and was named to the Order of Canada in 1978.

Special Report By David W. Virtue NEWTOWN, PA--The wardens and vestry of St. Luke's Episcopal Church has sent a letter to PA Bishop Charles Bennison asking that he not make an episcopal visit on June 20 because it will cause "deep and unnecessary spiritual distress." In their letter to Bennison, they said the bishop's views have caused "deep spiritual distress" because we cannot accept teachings he has promulgated in person and in print, such as 'we wrote the Bible; we can re-write the Bible.' 'He (Jesus) acknowledges his own sin. He knows himself to be forgiven.' Fr. Larry A. Snyder, rector of the 700-member traditionalist congregation near Philadelphia, said that during a meeting in the bishop's office, in April, Bennison said that Jesus was not the only Messiah, nor the unique means of salvation for the world; and that each of us becomes a Messiah. "Your teachings are in conflict with the biblical message, and therefore do not carry the power of the Gospel, nor present the faith and worship of the Book of Common Prayer as expressing traditional Anglican theology with its appeal to Scripture, the Creeds and the Councils of the undivided Church. Although you have been elected to an apostolic office, your teachings do not bear the authority of apostolic witness," wrote the vestry. The wardens and vestry said they had petitioned Bennison "many times to authorize a traditionalist bishop to make official episcopal visitations." Bennison rejected their pleas saying he had to come to maintain the unity of the diocese. The wardens then lit into the bishop saying; "Your response continues to be closed to any modification for our spiritual needs, even to the minimal offering of the House of Bishops program for Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Authority (DEPO)." In their letter they accused the bishop of having double standards saying that while he was willing to go through the process, "there would be no change of present diocesan (i.e. your) policy." They also challenged the bishop saying that he promoted unity but it was a unity outside "The Prayer for the Whole State of Christ's Church" which clearly identifies that such agreement had to be in agreement with God's Holy Word. "Without unity of faith, there can be no true unity," they said. No members of the parish family will present themselves, they will seek confirmation elsewhere. "Many will not receive communion because you sound an uncertain trumpet in conflict with traditional Christian faith and morals, and many will be present and praying for your return to the faith. No one will receive the laying on of hands from you." In a devastating blast at Bennison they wrote, "We fear that you have denied the need for God's plan of salvation offered in the unique ministry of Jesus, God incarnate, and faith in His atoning death, bodily resurrection, and physical ascension. Therefore, we are concerned for your eternal soul, and pray for your conversion." The rector, wardens and vestry have prepared a 14-page indictment of Bishop Bennison that includes failed reconciliation talks, broken promises over the Parson's agreement for alternative episcopal oversight and more, which they have sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, as well as to Frank Griswold, ECUSA's Presiding Bishop, Irish Archbishop Robin Eames of The Lambeth/Eames Commission, Archbishops Peter Akinola, (Nigeria); Drexel Gomez, (Nassau); Gregory Venables, (Southern Cone); and US Bishop Robert Duncan (Pittsburgh). Copies were also sent to the Rev. Glenn Matis, head of the Diocesan Standing Committee and Canon Ellis Brust a leader in the American Anglican Council.

By Paul Carter The Anglican Communion in Canada welcomes the news today that "The Anglican Mission in America, in tandem with five other groups, is today announcing an unprecedented level of cooperation among leading orthodox Anglican entities in the United States. In a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury leaders of the Anglican Mission (AMiA), along with the leadership of the Anglican Communion Network (ACN), Reformed Episcopal Church (REC), Forward in Faith North America (FIFNA), Anglican Province in America (APA) and the American Anglican Council (AAC) affirmed a commitment "to make common cause for the gospel of Jesus Christ and common cause for a united, missionary and orthodox Anglicanism in North America." We hope that this new day of cooperation can be mirrored in Canada as all orthodox groups work for a common cause of gospel faithfulness and fruitfulness in the light of the recent General Synod's decision to "affirm the integrity and sanctity of committed adult same sex relationships" which as nine orthodox Canadian Bishops have noted "is in error and contrary to the teaching of Scripture and the tradition of the undivided Church, the clearly expressed conviction of the Anglican Communion at the Lambeth Conference of 1998, the overwhelming ecumenical consensus of the Church inside Canada and abroad, and the 1997 Guidelines of our own House of Bishops." We also welcome Bishop Bob Duncan of Pittsburgh, who serves as moderator for the Anglican network (ACN), desire. "To see orthodox Anglican groups move from competition and divisiveness to cooperation signifies a new season in the life of the Church," and we agree that this should not be "a declaration of organic unity-far from it-but it is a proclamation that we can function as allies in the cause of Jesus Christ." "As with the AMiA in the USA, with whom we already have a close working relationship, our focus in the ACiC will also be to fulfill the call we have been given to plant and strengthen congregations and reach out to the un-churched," stated the Rev. Ed Hird. "A similar move in Canada should not be seen as a merger-each group remains distinct. Our leadership continues to be thankful to God for the five International Archbishops who came to our rescue in February of this year and who made the offer of Temporary Adequate Episcopal Oversight. All the clergy of the ACiC are now licensed in the Province of Rwanda and we have our own Bishop Thomas Johnston, who can function with full jurisdiction outside the Anglican Church of Canada." ACiC plans to play a full part in the emergence of a similar 'roundtable' of orthodox Anglican groups across Canada.

TO THE CLERGY AND PEOPLE OF THE DIOCESE: Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ, June 16, 2004 Thank you for your prayers and fasting on my behalf, and on behalf of all who were involved, in testimony before the Lambeth Commission this week. Please continue to pray for Archbishop Robin Eames and all the members of the Commission as its very important work goes forward. Please know that we were graciously received and fairly heard, as was the Presiding Bishop's team (which included our own George Werner). Transcripts of the testimony given will be posted on the Lambeth Commission website. The diocesan website (www.pgh.anglican.org) will link to the transcripts as soon as they are posted. Archbishop Eames made it clear to us that the principal issue the Commission was assigned to address was how the Anglican Communion could re-shape its life in light of a Province (the Episcopal Church in the United States) that has rejected the clear counsel and stated teaching of the Communion. The secondary issue the Commission struggles with – though not its stated assignment – is how deeply it is appropriate to enter into resolutions of the internal dispute within this Province. One aspect of our testimony involved the sharing of a letter of "common cause" sent to Archbishop Rowan Williams, and dated Trinity Sunday, June 6th. Opponents will surely distort the plain meaning of the letter and of what was shared. Following through on the commitment in the Network Charter to "the ongoing reunion of the Anglican diaspora," the common cause letter states that six distinct orthodox groups in the United States – some part of the Episcopal Church and some not – are each prepared to work toward a "united, missionary and orthodox Anglicanism in North America." In this "first-step" the leaders of the six groups also agree to work "under the chairmanship of the moderator of the Network." This letter does not mean that we agree on all theological issues, such as women's ordination, but it is a hopeful sign of our common commitment to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Network team left encouraged and thankful that we are part of the Anglican Communion, and thankful for the Commission which the Archbishop of Canterbury has appointed to recommend how to keep our Communion both faithful and united. Now that the Commission testimony has taken place, I expect to turn my efforts and attentions this summer to our life together and our needs as a diocese. Please continue to pray for me and all our team, both in the diocesan office and in all the parishes, that these summer labors would also be interspersed with the rest and recreation in which so many of us need during these somewhat quieter months. Faithfully in Christ, +Bob Pittsburgh

By Jay L. Greener The Anglican Mission in America, in tandem with five other groups, is today announcing an unprecedented level of cooperation among leading orthodox Anglican entities in the United States. In a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury leaders of the Anglican Mission (AMiA), along with the leadership of the Anglican Communion Network (ACN), Reformed Episcopal Church (REC), Forward in Faith North America (FIFNA), Anglican Province in America (APA) and the American Anglican Council (AAC) affirmed a commitment "to make common cause for the gospel of Jesus Christ and common cause for a united, missionary and orthodox Anglicanism in North America." The Rt. Rev. Chuck Murphy, Chairman of the Anglican Mission in America, welcomed the new day of cooperation, "Even as we watch with some sadness the painful yet necessary realignment in the Anglican Communion, I am encouraged by the willingness of a growing number of orthodox groups and voices to work together to shape a new Anglican witness for the 21st Century." Bishop Bob Duncan of Pittsburgh, who serves as moderator for the Anglican network (ACN), will chair this new cooperative alliance. "To see orthodox Anglican groups move from competition and divisiveness to cooperation signifies a new season in the life of the Church," observed Bishop Duncan. "This is not a declaration of organic unity—far from it—but it is a proclamation that we can function as allies in the cause of Jesus Christ." Orthodox leaders are coming together in the face of a growing crisis within the Episcopal Church USA and the importance of working cooperatively for creative solutions to fulfill the mission of the Church. "For the Anglican Mission, our focus will continue to be on the call we have been given to plant and strengthen congregations and reach out to the un-churched," stated the Rev. Jay Greener, AMiA's Communications Officer. "This is not a merger—each group will remain distinct. But there is a new level of cooperation and mutual appreciation that is honouring to the gospel, and consistent with the missionary values of the AMiA. We look forward to participating in this important 'roundtable' of orthodox Anglican groups." Jay L. Greener, Communications Officer The Anglican Mission in America 719-487-3258 jay@anglicanmissioninamerica.org