Anglicans United & Latimer Press

A hearing is set today in Fairfax County Circuit Court to resolve whether about 75 now anonymous defendants — all vestry members or trustees of eight dissident churches — can be named in the suit.

The Episcopal Diocese of Virginia is suing to reclaim the properties after one of the most high-profile rifts within the Christian Church in modern American history. The conservative congregations left the Episcopal Church in December after a long-standing feud over the interpretation of scripture, a fight intensified by the ordination of a gay bishop four years ago in New England.

“It’s just harassment of defendants, that’s all it is,” Jim Oakes, vice chair of the Anglican District of Virginia, the umbrella group for the churches, said of the most recent motion. “It’s frankly intimidating to soccer moms and people who aren’t used to encountering our legal system.”

Patrick Getlein, a spokesman for the diocese, calls the motion to name the congregates “a procedural matter.” When the lawsuit was first filed, the names of some of the vestry members were unknown. Hence, the diocese left them as “John Doe” and “Jane Roe.”

“Members of the vestry are the elected leaders of the church,” he said. “They are the ones who are responsible for the actions of that church.”

In its motion seeking to use the real names, the diocese argues it is not adding new parties to the lawsuit, only naming members who “have known for some time that they were the intended defendants in these actions.”

Oakes, a vestry member of Truro Church in Fairfax City, is also named as a defendant.

Former congregations

The Episcopal Diocese of Virginia is seeking to name members of eight dissident congregations as part of a lawsuit to reclaim its former churches:

» Truro Church

» Church of the Apostles

» Church of the Epiphany

» St. Paul’s Church

» St. Margaret’s Church

» Church of the Word

» Church of Our Savior

» The Falls Church

wflook@dcexaminer.com

Examiner

The Episcopal Church and Diocese of Virginia Seek to Sue More Unpaid Volunteers of Virginia Churches

FAIRFAX, Va. (June 29, 2007) – Counsel for the eleven churches, including their rectors, vestries and, in some instances, their trustees, which have been sued by The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia, filed a memo opposing the denomination’s motion to add more volunteer trustees and lay leaders (known as “vestry members”) as defendants in the lawsuit (Multi-Circuit Property Litigation, Case No. CL-2007-0248724, Fairfax County Circuit Court).

If granted, The Episcopal Church’s and the Diocese’s motion would automatically add 76 additional unpaid church volunteers to the lawsuit and anyone else who might volunteer to serve as a Vestry member or Trustee of any of the local churches in the future.

“We remind The Episcopal Church and the Diocese that these unpaid volunteer Vestry members and Trustees have made no individual claims to the church property, and Virginia law grants complete immunity from civil liability to those who serve religious organizations without pay. The Episcopal Church and the Diocese have already sued almost 100 unpaid church volunteers who are immune from being sued, and now they want to add more. It is unfortunate that they feel the need to involve these volunteers in the court battle when they have nothing to gain by doing so,” said Jim Oakes, vice-chairman of the Anglican District of Virginia, an association of Anglican congregations in Virginia and a part of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA). All 11 churches named in the lawsuit are members of ADV.

“It is hard to understand The Episcopal Church’s and the Diocese’s motivation for attacking these volunteers and our churches. The motivation appears to be intimidation, but we remain open to negotiating a reasonable solution. We are simply remaining steadfast in our faith and have chosen to stay in the worldwide Anglican Communion.

“At the core of this case is that The Episcopal Church and the Diocese claim they have a ‘trust’ interest in the congregations’ properties. But the Virginia courts have held time and again that denominations cannot claim an ‘implied trust’ in member congregations’ property. The Episcopal Church even admitted in its complaint that it does not hold title to any of these eleven churches and that the churches' own trustees hold title for the benefit of the congregations.”

The Anglican District of Virginia (ADV), incorporated on December 5, 2006, is an association of Anglican congregations in Virginia and part of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA). ADV members are in full communion with constituent members of the Anglican Communion through their affiliation with CANA, a missionary branch of the Anglican Church of Nigeria, a constituent member of the Anglican Communion. ADV members are thus a part of the worldwide Anglican Communion, a community of 77 million people.

The property dispute stems from the decisions of the three parishes last year to split from the Episcopal Church as a result of a theological divide within the denomination nationwide in recent years.

Moves such as the Episcopal Church's ordination in 2003 of an openly gay bishop have gained more media attention, but have grown out of a broader theological dispute about what the Bible means, who Jesus Christ is, and whether the Bible and other doctrine should be re-evaluated and changed because of today's culture, said Eric Sohlgren, an attorney for the local breakaway parishes.

St. John's in Fallbrook, St. Anne's in Oceanside and Holy Trinity in San Diego are among several congregations that have severed ties to the Episcopal Church because of the rift. The congregations have aligned themselves with foreign dioceses of the Anglican Communion, which includes 38 worldwide branches called provinces. The Episcopal Church is the American province of the worldwide communion.

The diocese also represents three Episcopal churches in Southwest County.

As Anglican parishes, the three churches have continued to meet in the same locations as when they were Episcopal parishes.

The San Diego diocese alleges in a lawsuit filed Monday in the Superior Court that the parish property must be used for the ministry of the Episcopal Church and that the three parishes remain subordinate to the diocese despite their actions last year to split from it.

The diocese is asking the Superior Court to decide that all church records and other property of the three parishes are "held for the ministry and mission of the Episcopal Church and the Diocese." The diocese also seeks a ruling that the local parishes named in the lawsuit "may not divert, alienate or use" parish property unless it is allowed by the constitutions and canons of the Episcopal Church and the diocese.

Howard Smith, the diocese's chief financial officer and canon for administration, finance and communication, said individual parishes are formed, overseen and dissolved by an Episcopal convention.

"Episcopal churches can't wake up one day and decide that they're going to be Methodist," Smith said. "All of these churches were built when they were part of the Diocese of Los Angeles, so there were contributions from the Episcopal Diocese to build these Episcopal churches."

Officials at the Fallbrook and Oceanside breakaway parishes and the attorney for the parishes said, however, that the deeds to the property are in the names of the local congregations and the property belongs to them.

"Our view is that that is our church," said Rick Crossley, the lay administrator of missions and ministry at St. John's parish. "We're the ones that paid for it and maintained it. It's in our name and always has been, and in our view, they (the diocese) have no claim to the property."

If the diocese prevails in the lawsuit, congregants currently attending the parishes affiliated with the Anglican church would have to move to different locations and those who have remained Episcopalians would be able to resume meeting at the existing parish sites, Smith said.

Smith said members of St. John's who wanted to remain Episcopalians are continuing to gather in Fallbrook, but meet at a different location. St. Anne's Episcopal parish temporarily disbanded, Smith said.

The Rev. Anthony "Tony" Baron, senior pastor at St. Anne's, which now is an Anglican parish, said only three church members left when the parish split from the Episcopal church, and attendance has grown in the last 18 months by 44 percent.

"We're just really growing and focusing on making disciples for Jesus Christ," Baron said. "We won't let this (lawsuit) deter us."

Contact staff writer Scott Marshall at (951) 676-4315, Ext. 6623 or smarshall@nctimes.com.

Isn’t that what a leader is supposed to do within an organization during a time of difficulty? Be a non-anxious presence?

After all, there is much good ministry and mission going on in Episcopal churches day in and day out. If we could just get the word out about all the good ministry that is going on in The Episcopal Church, people would realize that we really are doing quite well.

What’s wrong with this picture? What is wrong with this picture is that it is not the complete picture.

Max DePree, author of Leadership Jazz and Leadership is an Art, says that the first task of the leader is to define reality. The problem with this quote from our Presiding Bishop-and she has said much the same thing in several venues-is that although there are places of health and vitality in The Episcopal Church, this assessment amounts to no more than happy talk.

What is “happy talk”? John Kotter, professor of leadership at Harvard Business School, says that too much happy talk from senior leaders can lull everyone into a sense of complacency. Mr. Kotter states that the failure of leaders to establish a (healthy) sense of urgency is one of several reasons that organizations fail.

A survey of The Episcopal Church taken a couple of years ago, “Faith Communities Today,” asked congregations to complete a survey which asked questions similar to those found on the parochial reports. When the compilers of the survey compared the completed surveys with those of that congregation’s parochial reports, it was determined that the survey results contradicted the parochial report data. Only those churches that were growing 10 percent or more per year “told the truth.” The vast majority of churches reported that they were doing better than their parochial reports indicated. Happy talk.

The task of the leader of an organization in a time of crisis is two-fold: to be a non-anxious presence, and to develop a sense of urgency. A look at the baptized membership and average Sunday attendance in The Episcopal Church indicates that we are a denomination in decline. Here are the figures from the last 10 years:

1996: 875,400 ASA, 2.366 million baptized members
1997: 838,048 ASA, 2.339 million baptized members
1998: 822,923 ASA, 2.318 million baptized members
1999: 919,405 ASA, 2.297 million baptized members
2000: 908,971 ASA, 2.319 million baptized members
2001: 846,640 ASA, 2.317 million baptized members
2002: 860,686 ASA, 2.320 million baptized members
2003: 823,017 ASA, 2.284 million baptized members
2004: 795,765 ASA, 2.248 million baptized members
2005: 787,271 ASA, 2.205 million baptized members

These numbers indicate that we are a denomination that is growing smaller. Say what you will about the health and vitality of various churches, the overall direction of our statistics indicates a church that is declining . . . precipitously. Evidently fewer and fewer people want what we have to offer. Since 1999 our average Sunday attendance has shrunk by 132,134 persons per Sunday, or nearly 15 percent. In other words, in the past six years we have lost the equivalent of nearly everyone in the pews of our churches in Provinces 6 and 7 combined!

So what is the reason for our decline? Is it the conflict over human sexuality? A declining birth rate? An aging membership? Lack of evangelism? Conflict in the denomination? Whatever the reasons, these numbers indicate a crisis that our leadership is ignoring and refuses to address. Our leaders tell us that it is only a few churches that are leaving, and that there are only a few disgruntled members that are unhappy with the direction of The Episcopal Church and that there is much health and vitality in our denomination.

The reality is that our denomination is in severe decline. That decline preceded the 2003 General Convention vote to approve the consecration of Canon V. Gene Robinson as the Bishop Coadjutor of New Hampshire.

Is there much health and vitality in many of our churches? Yes. Is our denomination healthy and vital? No. Anything to the contrary is simply happy talk.

The Rev. Canon Neal O. Michell is canon for strategic development in the Diocese of Dallas.

“Now, although I am ‘retired’ from a jurisdictional and financial point of view, I seek further Christian service, especially in the process of this transition in Anglican orthodoxy,” Bishop Fairfield stated, noting that he had written to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, resigning from the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church.

Archbishop Orombi said it was an honor to receive Bishop Fairfield into the Ugandan Church, adding he would be a “great support to Bishop-elect John Guernsey and all the congregations in America that are under our care.”

Elected Bishop of North Dakota in 1989, Bishop Fairfield retired in 2003. Prior to his consecration he served as an assistant to the Bishop of Alaska.

Bishop Fairfield is the fourth member of the House of Bishops to quit The Episcopal Church this year. In March, the Rt. Rev. William Cox, a retired Assistant Bishop of Oklahoma, moved to the Church of the Province of the Southern Cone; the Rt. Rev. David Bena, retired Suffragan Bishop of Albany, was received by the Church of Nigeria and serves as an assistant bishop in the Convocation of Anglicans in North America; and the Rt. Rev. William Herzog, retired Bishop of Albany, was received into the Roman Catholic Church.

(The Rev.) George Conger

But then the upcoming Lambeth Conference will hardly be conventional.

The Archbishop of Canterbury himself played down its significance in his letter of invitation. He wrote: “It is not a formal Synod or Council of the bishops of the Communion, which would require us to be absolutely clear about the standing of all the participants. An invitation to participate in the Conference has not in the past been a certificate of doctrinal orthodoxy. Coming to the Lambeth Conference does not commit you to accepting the position of others as necessarily a legitimate expression of Anglican doctrine and discipline, or to any action that would compromise your conscience or the integrity of your local church.”

The conference already feels more like a graduate seminar with discussion groups, or “ndabas” as they will be called. So the inevitable question is asked: “Precisely what will be the value of any of its pronouncements?” Perhaps the Archbishop does not want them to be particularly momentous. In which case perhaps he gives comfort to those who do not think any previous pronouncements of Lambeth Conferences are momentous. There are those who continually downplay the significance of Lambeth 1.10. Are we seeing the dumbing down of the Lambeth Conference? In which case, why all the expense and effort? The African Bishops have said in The Road to Lambeth (see below): “There is no point, in our view, in meeting and meeting and meeting and not resolving the fundamental crisis of Anglican identity.”

There are significant omissions from the invitation list so far. Bishops who have stood up for orthodox Christian faith and practice against the errors of The Episcopal Church have not been invited: these are 6 bishops of the Anglican Mission in America, Bishop Martyn Minns of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, and also Bishop Robinson Cavalcanti of Recife, Brazil who stood out against the decisions of The Episcopal Church against the province of Brazil and was derecognised by the province as a result.

The AMiA bishops are members of the House of Bishops of Rwanda and the CANA Bishops are members of the House of Bishops of Nigeria. The Nigerian Primate has said “the withholding of invitation to a Nigerian bishop, elected and consecrated by other Nigerian bishops will be viewed as withholding invitation to the entire House of Bishops of the Church of Nigeria.”

Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire has also not been invited. But he may be invited as an observer it has been suggested. But the quarrel is not with Gene Robinson.

The Archbishop of Uganda has already said: “We note that all the American Bishops who consented to, participated in, and have continued to support the consecration as bishop of a man living in a homosexual relationship have been invited to the Lambeth Conference. These are Bishops who have violated the Lambeth Resolution 1.10, which rejects “homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture” and “cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions.” Accordingly, the House of Bishops of the Church of Uganda stands by its resolve to uphold the Road to Lambeth” a paper which was adopted by the Council of the Anglican Provinces in Africa in 2006.
Between them Nigeria and Uganda account for 130 bishops, or 15% of the total, and represent 26 million churchgoing Anglicans, about half the church going Anglicans in the world.

Can anything be done? Archbishop Williams wrote that “with the recommendations of the Windsor Report particularly in mind, I have to reserve the right to withhold or withdraw invitations from bishops whose appointment, actions or manner of life have caused exceptionally serious division or scandal within the Communion.” If he were to withdraw invitations to the 60 consecrators of Gene Robinson, he would remove a cause of stumbling for at least 130 of his Episcopal colleagues.

It remains of course to be seen what other African Archbishops and also English Bishops who strongly disagreed with the consecration of Gene Robinson themselves and many of whom have partner diocese arrangements with Nigeria and Uganda will do. The Archbishop has asked for their RSVP by July 31.

Canon Dr Chris Sugden co-authored with Vinay Samuel “Lambeth – a View from the Two Thirds World” on the 1988 Lambeth Conference and was secretary of the Mission Section of the 1998 Lambeth Conference.

Ed: The Road to Lambeth Statement –

THE ROAD TO LAMBETH

The following draft report was commissioned by the Primates of the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa (CAPA) in February 2006; it was received with gratitude by the CAPA Primates on 19 September 2006 and commended for study and response to the churches of the provinces in Africa.

The Anglican Communion is at a crossroads. The idea of a crossroads – a meeting and parting of two ways – is woven into the fabric of Scripture. The people of Israel is confronted with the choice of ways – the way of the Covenant or the way of idolatry – and more often than not choose the latter (Jeremiah 6:16). So too Jesus describes a narrow road that leads to life and a broad avenue to perdition (Matthew 7:13). Hence the church must choose to walk in the light and turn from the darkness of sin and error (1 John 1:6-7).

The Church in Africa and the Anglican Communion

We are the voice of the Anglican churches in Africa. We are grateful for our Anglican heritage, brought to us by missionaries committed to the Scriptures and inspired by our Lord’s Great Commission to evangelize the nations. We are equally grateful to be sons and daughters of Africa, whose ancient cultures prepared a rich spiritual soil for the Gospel to blossom. We hope these two inheritances can be kept together, but events of the past decade have called this hope into question.

Although the Anglican Communion came into being at a time of theological and ecclesiastical crisis – the so-called Colenso case – the Lambeth Conference of bishops has by and large managed to avoid doctrinal disputes and disciplinary cases that might have led to controversy and even disunity. Instead the Communion has functioned under the broad umbrella of biblical faith, historic order and Anglican worship, as summarized in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. Although there have been tensions from time to time, e.g., over the ordination of women, most Anglican churches have been content to live with what seemed to be secondary differences. Until now.

At the same time, huge shifts have occurred in the constituency of the Communion and the Lambeth Conference in the past half century. What began as a colonial council of expatriate bishops has become at least in theory a parliament of equals. Its members’ complexion has changed from all-white and Anglo to largely non-white, Latino, African and Asian. Its Provinces have become self-governing. And its evangelical and spiritual dynamism is centred in what is now called the Global South or the majority world. While these changes have affected the demography of the Communion, they have not been reflected in its governance, which has stayed put or even gone in the opposite direction. In particular, the advent of the Anglican Communion Office has concentrated power in the hands of those who “pay the piper.” It is remarkable, for example, how few Global South church leaders are appointed to positions of real authority in the Communion.

The growth of the global Communion has spawned a number of alternative structures. The foremost of these is the Primates’ meeting, which has emerged in the past twenty years as the senate of the Communion. In addition, regional associations and gatherings, such as CAPA, CAPAC and the South-South Encounters are bringing together majority-world Anglicans to address their particular needs.
The Current Crisis

The opposing trends noted above – the growth of the churches of the Global South and the tight control of power by the Anglo-American bloc – came to a head at the Lambeth Conference in 1998. The presenting cause was the acceptance of homosexuality in the Western societies and churches. Despite a determined effort by the Communion bureaucracy to blunt the issue, the Global South bishops managed to get a Resolution to the floor which stated that homosexual practice is “contrary to Scripture” and “cannot be advised.” Resolution 1.10 on Human Sexuality was approved by the Conference by an overwhelming majority.

The importance of this Resolution cannot be overstated. By using the phrase “contrary to Scripture,” the bishops indicated that homosexual practice violates the first principle of the Communion’s Quadrilateral and indeed the fundamental basis of Anglican Christianity (as expressed in Articles VI and XX). They were saying: “Here is an issue on which we cannot compromise without losing our identity as a Christian body.” Such was the understanding of the Global South bishops, and hence they were taken aback when Resolution 1.10 was immediately ignored and denounced by bishops of the Episcopal Church.

In the subsequent Primates’ meetings, the Global South bishops have repeatedly called on the Episcopal Church USA and now the Anglican Church of Canada to repent and bring their practice in line with Scripture and with the mind of the Lambeth Conference. The African attitude toward the actions of the North American churches has been consistent throughout this crisis. It is based on several assumptions:

§ the supreme authority of Scripture as the ultimate standard of faith and life (C-LQ 1);

§ the clarity of the Church’s teaching on “the unchangeable Christian standard” of marriage between one man and one woman (Lambeth Resolution 66 [1920]);

§ the practice of homosexuality as a sign of fallenness and a sin separating one from salvation (Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Ephesians 5:3-5);

§ the need for repentance by individuals who sin, even more so for those who teach sin as blessing (Matthew 5:19; 18:6); and

§ the requirement that believers not associate with openly immoral church members (1 Corinthians 5:9-13; 2 Thessalonians 3:14).

The crisis reached fever pitch in 2003 when the Diocese of New Hampshire (USA) elected an openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church confirmed him as Bishop, and the Presiding Bishop presided at his consecration. The Episcopal Church could not have sent a clearer signal that it was going its own way, and nothing would stop it.

After the Robinson election, many provinces chose the only instrument of discipline available: declaration of impaired or broken Communion. In February 2004, thirteen Global South Primates, including eight from Africa, denounced the actions of the Episcopal Church as a “direct repudiation of the clear teaching of the Holy Scriptures, historic faith and order of the church.” In April 2004, the CAPA bishops pledged to reject donations from pro-gay American diocese.

A Word to the Primates and the Archbishop of Canterbury

The principal body through which the churches of the Global South have expressed their distress over these events has been the Primates’ Meeting, where they are well-represented. The Primates of the Global South have not simply denounced the agenda of the North American churches. They have also sought to find a way forward. In 2002, two Primates proposed a careful scheme of inner-Communion discipline (To Mend the Net). The ecclesiastical politicians, seeking to avoid such discipline, managed to get this proposal sidelined.

They could not, however, avoid the storm of protest that followed the Robinson election. In response to this crisis, the Archbishop of Canterbury called an emergency Primates’ meeting in London in October 2003. Many Global South Primates were ready at that point to excommunicate the violators, but in the end they agreed to Archbishop Williams’s plan to form a Commission and receive a Report one year later. From the point of view of the African bishops, the Windsor Report was considered a vehicle by which the offending churches might realize the enormity of their actions and turn back. It was never seen by us as a process that would preempt the decisions of the Lambeth Conference or the Primates. And the Report, while restricted in its scope and cautious in its language, did present a thorough exposé of the ways in which the Episcopal Church arrogated to itself unilaterally a practice condemned in Scripture, tradition and the Resolutions of this Communion.

The churches in Africa, while grateful for the overall judgement of the Windsor Report, felt that it often did not go far enough in spelling out the needed steps of repentance and return. In various responses to the Windsor Report, member churches made the following points:

§ That full repentance in word and action is called for by those who have violated God’s holy will in Scripture;

§ That this repentance would include the resignation or removal from office of Gene Robinson and the passage of legislation which would bar any similar ordinations of priests and consecrations of bishops;

§ That this repentance would include a reaffirmation of the biblical standard of marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one woman and the exclusion of all other configurations as a violation of that standard;

§ That responses from our provinces to requests for alternative oversight from churches in North America are of an emergency order and not to be compared to the full and blatant violations of biblical morality by the churches of North America.

We in CAPA want to say clearly and unequivocally to the rest of the Communion: the time has come for the North American chu rches to repent or depart. We in the Global South have always made repentance the starting point for any reconciliation and resumption of fellowship in the Communion. We shall not accept cleverly worded excuses but rather a clear acknowledgement by these churches that they have erred and “intend to lead a new life” in the Communion (2 Corinthians 4:2). Along with this open statement of repentance must come “fruits befitting repentance” (Luke 3:8). They must reverse their policies and prune their personnel.
It is clear from the actions of the recent General Convention of the Episcopal Church in the USA, including electing a Presiding Bishop whose stated position on sexuality – not to mention other controversial views – is in direct contradiction of Scripture and Lambeth 1.10, that that Province has refused to repent. Accordingly, we commend those churches and dioceses in the USA that have renounced the actions of the Convention and sought alternative oversight.

The current situation is a twofold crisis for the Anglican Communion: a crisis of doctrine and a crisis of leadership, in which the failure of the “Instruments” of the Communion to exercise discipline has called into question the viability of the Anglican Communion as a united Christian body under a common foundation of faith, as is supposed by the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. Due to this breakdown of discipline, we are not sure that we can in good conscience continue to spend our time, our money and our prayers on behalf of a body that proclaims two Gospels, the Gospel of Christ and the Gospel of Sexuality.

It grieves us to mention that the crisis is not limited to North America. The passage of the Civil Partnerships Act in England and the uncertain trumpet sounded by the English House of Bishops have made it unclear whether the mother Church of the Communion is fully committed to upholding the historic Christian norm. We note, for instance, that it appears that clergy in the Church of England are obliged legally and without canonical protection to recognize the immoral unions of active homosexual church members and may soon be forced by law to bless homosexual “marriages.” Recently, the British media reported that a senior clergyman, supported by his bishop, “married” his same-sex partner, also a clergyman.. So far as we can see, the Archbishop of Canterbury as Primate of All England has failed to oppose this compromising position and hence cannot speak clearly to and for the whole Communion.

In light of the above, we have concluded that we must receive assurances from the Primates and the Archbishop of Canterbury that this crisis will be resolved before a Lambeth Conference is convened. There is no point, in our view, in meeting and meeting and not resolving the fundamental crisis of Anglican identity. We will definitely not attend any Lambeth Conference to which the violators of the Lambeth Resolution are also invited as participants or observers.

We are frankly disappointed that the announced plans of the Lambeth Design Team avoid discussion of Communion order and discipline, which have been clearly strained to the breaking point. We are disappointed that the central issue of an Anglican Communion Covenant is not front-and-centre on the agenda of the Conference. If any group should be expected to consult on these most important issues, it should be the assembled bishops of the Communion.

To add to our reservations about the 2008 Lambeth Conference, we note the huge expense of such an event. Our African churches are asked to divert funds from much needed work of evangelization and charity to a 3-week meeting which has no authority and which is blatantly ignored by “autonomous” member churches. In some cases, poorer provinces are “assisted” by donors from the West who have a deliberate agenda of buying silence from these churches. We conclude that if a regular all-bishops’ conference is to continue in the Anglican Communion, it should be held in the Global South, where the costs are much less and the local economy can benefit; that it be shorter in duration; and that every church be required to pay its own way (we in CAPA will take care of our own genuinely needy members).

A Word to Fellow Churches and Leaders in Africa

At the outset of our Lord’s ministry, he began preaching: “The time (kairos) is fulfilled; the Kingdom of God is near” (Mark 1:15). A kairos moment is a special time when God rotates the hinge of history in a new direction. It may also be called a “crisis” time (krisis), exposing the difference of light and darkness (John 3:19). We believe that such a kairos moment and krisis time have come to the Anglican Communion.

The Church in Africa is also at a crossroads. We are no longer colonial appendages. We say we have come of age. It is for this reason that the first Resolution of the African Anglican Bishops Conference in 2004 states:

that the Church in Africa nee ds to become self-reliant, just as the Church has been self-governing and self-propagating; through economic self-empowerment, that compels a new orientation and thinking in the area of investment and economic activities.

We the members of CAPA must take forward this Resolution with a unity and seriousness of purpose. Otherwise we shall be continually tempted by those outside our borders who dangle money in return for silence on controversial issues, such as has occurred recently in several of our provinces.

We recognize the strategy employed by Episcopal Church and certain Communion bodies to substitute talk of Millennium Development Goals for the truth of Scripture. These choices are false alternatives: it is the Christ of Scripture who compels us to care for the poor and afflicted. But we must take the initiative in these areas and not accept the patronizing of those who are rich in endowments but who are not rich toward God. Even among the churches on this continent, there are differences in economic resources, in political stability and in religious maturity. It is time for the stronger among us to empathize with and come to the help of the weaker, and not always be looking overseas for help.

It is also a time for reflection and repentance for our churches as well. Our churches must not be unwilling to “listen” and learn to understand better the phenomenon of homosexual attraction. We do not deny that such practices occur in our culture, even that such tendencies will increase as our countries modernize and Western media influences us. We acknowledge our own failures in promoting strong marriage relation ships in a traditional culture which allows for polygamy and dehumanizing treatment of women and children. What we are not prepared to do is to suspend the unchangeable standard of God as a part of this conversation. Let the Western churches first affirm God’s plan for the sexes, then let us dialogue.

Conclusion: The Way Forward

We call on our fellow African Anglican leaders to work together in unity to revive our beloved Anglican Communion. We believe that the initiative for the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant should rest with the Global South churches. We do not have confidence that a Covenant produced by those churches that have caused or condoned the theological crisis will reflect the strong biblical and theological core that a reformed Communion needs. In particular, we call on our African churches to lead in sponsoring a Covenant Assembly for the Global South leaders where we may gather and seek God’s guidance for the future of the Communion.

We Anglicans stand at a crossroads. One road, the road of compromise of biblical truth, leads to destruction and disunity. The other road has its own obstacles because it requires changes in the way the Communion has been governed and it challenges our churches to live up to and into their full maturity in Christ. But surely the second road is God’s way forward. It is our sincere hope that this road may pass through Lambeth, our historical mother. But above all it must be the road of the Cross that leads to life through our Saviour Jesus Christ.

But those within the U.S. branch of Anglicanism – known here as the Episcopal Church – pointed to the slim margin of the Canadian vote as a sign that the two churches are not that far apart.

"Naturally I'm disappointed," said Rev. Susan Russell, the California-based president of the U.S. branch of Integrity, which advocates on behalf of gays and lesbians in the Episcopal Church.

"The fallout will not only be for the faithful gays and lesbians in the United States, but all ministries of the church because it will only further drag out this issue to the detriment of larger questions which should be dealt with."

In Winnipeg, Canada's Anglican bishops voted 21 to 19 against a resolution to allow their churches to conduct blessing ceremonies for gay couples. The Anglican laity and clergy voted strongly in favour of the resolution. A separate resolution, that blessings of gay unions are "not in conflict with the core doctrine" of the church, passed.

Gays and lesbians in the Episcopal Church had looked to the Canadian synod as an ally that could buttress their case in this country.

Instead, the U.S. church, which has not forbidden its clergy from blessing same-sex couples married in civil ceremonies, is left with a slightly more liberal position than Canadian Anglicans. The Episcopal Church has also consecrated the church's first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.

The U.S. moves have split the 77-million-member global Anglican Communion. Some conservative Anglican leaders have set a Sept. 30 deadline for the American church to pledge not to authorize official prayers for same-sex couples or consecrate another gay bishop. If not, they want the U.S. branch expelled from the communion.

"The action of the Canadian Anglican Church will further isolate the leadership of the U.S. Episcopal Church within the worldwide Anglican communion," said John Green, senior fellow in religion and American politics at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

"This is likely to make it more difficult to reach some kind of accommodation between the U.S. church and the rest of the Anglican communion."

Some senior church members, speaking on background, acknowledged there will be anger in the U.S. church over what is seen as Canadian timidity, but said Americans have to realize the Canadian bishops need to be attuned to the church's global views.

"Some American bishops sitting on the fence over this issue will now be given cover to pull back on the question," one church member said.

"We would be fooling ourselves if we didn't believe the Episcopal Church and the wider Anglican community was not watching what happened in Canada," said Rev. Ian Douglas, a professor at the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Mass.

"No church in the Anglican community has explicitly authorized the blessing of same-sex couple and now with Canada saying `no,' the matter has become clearer."

Russell said she still sees Canada as an ally and said the vote of the laity and clergy in Winnipeg showed that it would not cave to "blackmail" from Anglican leaders in Africa and Latin America threatening to expel the Americans from the global communion.

"I would have been happier if the Canadian church had moved forward," she said, "but I don't see this as evidence that it has moved back."

The denomination's executive council declared last week that certain parts of the constitutions of four dioceses, including Quincy, are "null and void," particularly sections which TEC power-structure higher-ups feel might be used to leave the church.

The dioceses are on the record with others as wanting oversight from a province other than The Episcopal Church, which may find itself booted from the worldwide Anglican Communion by the end of the year due to the American church's open acceptance of homosexuality. Leaders in several individual churches and dioceses, including Quincy and Springfield, object to TEC's current direction, saying it's unbiblical.

Quincy officials said the diocesan constitution and canons haven't been changed since 1993. When asked earlier this week to which particular part of the Quincy constitution the executive council was objecting, denominational spokeswoman the Rev. Jan Nunley pointed to a 2006 pastoral letter's reference to one article in the constitution. Neither she nor another TEC official would say why Quincy's 1993 constitution was not considered a problem until recently.

But one question is whether the named dioceses - herewith known as the Null 'n' Void 4 - are being threatened with litigation by their mother church.

Quincy leaders and others say they certainly feel like that's the case, or that at the very least the national church is positioning itself to take them to court.

According to a report by Cherie Wetzel of the Dallas-based traditionalist group Anglicans United, TEC chancellor David Booth Beers said at last week's executive council meeting that "We can sue them," referring to dioceses that have changed their constitutions.

"These are recalcitrant dioceses," Beers was quoted as saying of the Null 'n' Void 4, which are hereby renamed the Recalcitrant 4. "What did they actually do? Those dioceses have said that they don't like what we are doing and they won't go along with it. We will frame our litigation in reference to that."

Nunley said Beers, who declined to be interviewed, wasn't threatening legal action. But Wicks Stephens, chancellor of the Pittsburgh-based Anglican Communion Network, of which Quincy is a member, isn't convinced.

"What we're seeing is an attempt on the part of The Episcopal Church, and now acting through the executive council, to simply issue intimidating language and threats in areas in which they have no authority," Stephens said. "They're after us because we reserve the right not to follow their unbiblical actions."

Nor was the Rev. John Spencer, the president of Quincy's standing committee, persuaded by Nunley's reassurance.

"It's just one more example of the sort of placating talk that we hear from the national leadership," said Spencer, vicar of St. Francis Church in Dunlap. "They continually talk about reconciliation and trying to build bridges and so forth, but in my opinion this was another example of a heavy-handed tactic. 'Submit or there will be legal consequences for you.' "

The church's demands - or suggestions or threats, depending on whom you're talking to - startedabout a year ago, Spencer said.

He said Beers sent a letter to Quincy and other dioceses telling them that if certain parts of their constitutions weren't changed promptly, the presiding bishop would have to decide what action to take.

"It was sort of a veiled threat," Spencer said. "It was a clear statement that we needed to change the constitution in order to conform to the language that they said it needed to have."

"It's threatening the diocese when you put together the various actions, including the statements that David Beers makes," Stephens said. "One can conclude that it's litigation that's being threatened, but they try to deny it."

It's not that The Episcopal Church isn't already in court. It recently sued 11 churches in Virginia that have left TEC.

Spencer said the Diocese of Quincy wouldn't initiate any legal action due to the teaching in 1 Corinthians 6 against Christians suing Christians.

"We don't see the civil courts as a place where our disputes ought to be settled," the priest said. "We need to work out some sort of resolution to this conflict in Christian love and charity."

MICHAEL MILLER covers religion for the Journal Star. Write to him in care of the Journal Star, 1 News Plaza, Peoria, IL 61643, call him at 686-3106, or send e-mail to mmiller@pjstar.com. Comments may be published.

A three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeals upheld a claim by the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles and the Episcopal church that it had rights to property of three breakaway churches, including All Saints, at 346 Termino Ave.

The ruling overturned a 2005 decision by Judge David Velasquez in favor of All Saints, St. David's of North Hollywood and St. James Parish in Newport Beach.

The three churches drew national attention when they broke away from the Episcopal Church over disputes in church doctrine, including the ordination of an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire and the blessing of same-sex unions. The three churches subsequently aligned themselves with an Anglican diocese in Africa.

Even though the dissident churches had bought, maintained and owned titles to their property, the Los Angeles diocese claimed the churches' property and hymnals belonged to the larger church under church canons and were held in trust by the smaller parishes.

Eric Sohlgren, an attorney who has represented the breakaway churches, said the churches were "obviously very disappointed" with the ruling.
He said the churches were considering appealing the ruling to the California Supreme Court.

"I was surprised the court adopted a method that has been overwhelmingly rejected in the state for over three decades," Sohlgren said.

Sohlgren labeled the ruling by the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, an "anomaly" and said it stood in opposition with findings by other appellate courts.

"We have one division in one district going in a different direction than the law that has been developing in California," Sohlgren said.

In his initial rulings in favor of the breakaway churches, Velasquez wrote the Episcopal organizations had not "produced competent evidence of an express trust."

Although the Episcopal Church in 1979 enacted a canon proclaiming property of parishes were held in trust for the larger church, the parishes say they never agreed to the canon and were not bound by it.

However, Presiding Judge David Sills in his ruling wrote "the right of the general church in this case to enforce a trust on the local parish property is clear."

In a seemingly parallel case decided in 1981, in which four parishes broke from the diocese, the appellate court supported three of the churches in their efforts applying so-called "neutral principles" of law.

In his earlier decision, Velasquez used the 1981 decision as his guide.

Bishop J. Jon Bruno of the Diocese of Los Angeles was happy with the ruling.

In a statement, Bruno said "we now have clear judicial recognition that parish property is dedicated forever for the mission and ministry of the Episcopal Church."

Sohlgren said the leadership at the breakaway parishes had only received news of the appellate ruling late Tuesday. He said he expected a decision within a week on whether to appeal to the California Supreme Court.

Greg Mellen can be reached at greg.mellen@presstelegram.com or (562) 499-1291.

We remember well how difficult it was for us five years ago when many of us walked out from the Diocese of New Westminster Synod. We have discovered in our experiences as ACiC Churches that there is indeed a way forward. Our calling in Canada is to offer hope with gentleness and humility.

Direct oversight for the Anglican Coalition in Canada is provided by Bishop Sandy Greene, a missionary bishop of the Province of Rwanda and the Anglican Mission in the Americas, with the Rev. Barclay Mayo serving as the ACiC Network Leader. The Anglican Coalition in Canada is licensed by the Anglican Province of Rwanda, assisted by an advisory ACiC Primatial Council of five African and Asian Archbishops.

A video presentation of the ACiC story is available online at http://acicanada.ca/documents/acic.ram . For information on possible affiliation, please click on http://acicanada.ca/affiliate . A small CD introducing the work of the ACiC is available free of charge and DVD’s of talks sharing the vision, passion and DNA of the ACiC are available on request. The ACiC is committed to evangelism, church health and church planting.

For further information about the Anglican Coalition in Canada, please contact the Rev. Barclay Mayo , ACiC Network Leader at bamayo@xplornet.com or (604) 883-1392 or The Rev. Ed Hird, ACiC Communications Officer at ed_hird@telus.net or (604) 929-5350.

But an informal poll by The Washington Times revealed that more than half of these churches can't afford to give funds or have made no plans to do so.

United against them is their former denomination, whose New York headquarters alone claims $300 million in assets.

The two largest parishes, Truro Church in Fairfax and the Falls Church in Falls Church, plan to provide at least $1 million each. So far, Truro has raised $900,000. But estimated contributions from the other nine churches are less than $200,000.

An official for the Anglican District of Virginia (ADV), a confederation formed by the 11 churches, says the money will be raised somehow.

"From our perspective, the Episcopal Church has limitless resources," said Jim Oakes, ADV vice president. "We don't, but we have enough for this situation. They are throwing everything they can at us, but we are in a very solid position legally. I think they know that. But they want to make this such an unpleasant and terrorizing process so that others won't try the same thing."

Some churches have paid a steep price for breaking away from the diocese.

"It's hard to raise money for legal funds," said the Rev. Neal Brown, rector of St. Margaret's Church in Woodbridge, a 170-member church that lost one-third of its members when it left the denomination and the diocese over matters of sexuality and biblical authority.

The Episcopal Church, the U.S. branch of the Anglican Communion, is threatened with losing that status over, among other things, its ordaining an openly homosexual bishop. The breakaway parishes support the worldwide Communion against the Diocese of Virginia, which backed the 2003 consecration of Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.

"We have not the slightest idea how and how much we'll give," Mr. Brown said. "Suing people is not in the Bible, so it's a hard call for conservative pastors. The biblical admonition was to settle out of court."

St. Margaret's has put all its resources into buying land for a new church. So little money is available that the church has yet to fix two broken air conditioners. The priest has a trash can on his desk to catch rainwater dripping from the roof.

The Falls Church sought to raise $342,576 on June 10 to pay off past legal bills before embarking on its $1 million goal. But it fell short, raising $274,919.

"Based on past experience, the congregation will continue to give, if we ask," said Bill Deiss, parish administrator.

Carol Jackson, the junior warden, says the parish plans to approach major donors.

Truro has taken a different tack by issuing "Save Our Sanctuary," a brochure that lists the properties at stake and estimates their replacement value at $30 million if the ADV loses the lawsuit and members are evicted.

"We can raise the funds," it says. "It may take sacrifice, but with God's help, we can do it."

The Rev. Elijah White, rector of the 140-member Church of Our Saviour in Oatlands, said his church has not decided on an amount but predicted the Episcopal Church will fight to the bitter end.

"They are afraid if they lose something like this, a lot of parishes sitting on the sidelines will leave as well," he said.

The Rev. Robin Adams, rector of Church of the Word in Manassas, said his 130-member parish has no fundraising plan.

"We haven't thought about that," he said. "We've been able to pay our part so far, but if [the lawsuit] keeps on going on, we definitely would have to find new money to keep up with this."

The Rev. David Harper, rector of the 425-member Church of the Apostles in Fairfax, declined to estimate how much his church would contribute. The Rev. Robin Ruah, rector of the 250-member Epiphany Church in Herndon, said his parish has accumulated $22,000 in its legal fund. Wayne LeHardy, spokesman for St. Stephen's Church in Heathsville, said it would contribute $80,000 to the legal defense fund.

The Rev. Mark Sholander, the new rector of Christ the Redeemer Church Inc. in Centreville, says that his parish, reincorporated as an independent body, is seeking to be dismissed from the lawsuit.

"We are between a rock and a hard place," he said. "We've never been affiliated with the Episcopal Church, and I've never been under [Virginia Bishop] Peter Lee. For me to pay anything to this lawsuit might make me liable. We shouldn't be at this party."

2. The manner in which the invitations to the bishops of Rwanda were issued is divisive as some of our bishops were not invited. The bishops that provide oversight to the Anglican Mission (AMiA) are not “Anglican Mission bishops,” but rather bishops of the Province of Rwanda given the responsibility to lead Rwanda’s missionary outreach to North America. We are a united body and will not participate in a conference which would divide our number.

3. The invitations to Lambeth 2008 not only contravene the Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10 but also the positions taken in the communiqués that have been agreed upon in previous Primates’ meetings and in the “Road To Lambeth” document prepared for and accepted by the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa (CAPA) bishops.

The following are issues of great concern:

a) This Lambeth 1998 Resolution has not been respected by the Episcopal Church of America (TEC), the Anglican Church of Canada, and other like-minded Provinces, which are now violating the resolution as well as holy orders by making the decision to ordain and to consecrate practicing homosexuals.

b) The leadership of Canterbury has ignored and constantly taken lightly the resolutions from the Primates’ meetings and the statement in the “Road to Lambeth” document prepared for, and accepted by, CAPA which agreed that the crisis of faith in the Anglican Communion needed to be resolved before Lambeth 2008.

c) From his actions and decision to invite TEC, a province which is violating holy orders, biblical teaching and the tradition of the church, and his decision not to invite the bishops of AMiA and CANA, the Archbishop of Canterbury has shown that he has now taken sides because the Primates have asked TEC for repentance in order to be in communion with them. In several meetings and in its response to “The Road to Lambeth”, TEC has continually rebelled against the position and counsel of the Primates.

d) In a letter sent to Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini on 18 June 2007, the Archbishop of Canterbury wrote, “You should know that I have not invited the bishops of AMiA and CANA. This is not a question of asking anyone to disassociate themselves at this stage from what have been described as the missionary initiatives of your Provinces…. I appreciate that you may not be happy with these decisions, but I feel that as we approach a critical juncture of the life of the Communion, I must act in accordance to the clear guidance of the instruments of the Communion….” We would like to know if there are instruments in the Communion more important than the Primates and Provinces themselves. The Archbishop of Canterbury also refers to the consecration of the AMiA and CANA bishops as irregular. We would like to know why their consecrations are considered irregular when the actions of TEC are not considered irregular. We feel that the words of the Archbishop are tantamount to a threat, and we cannot accept this.

Therefore, in view of the above, in good conscience, the bishops of the Province of the Episcopal Church of Rwanda have resolved not to attend the Lambeth Conference 2008 unless the previously stipulated requirement of repentance on the part of the TEC and other like-minded Provinces is met, and invitations are extended to our entire House of Bishops.

Cynthia P. Brust, Director of Communications
Anglican Mission in America
PO Box 3427
Pawleys Island, SC 29585
843-237-0318 Office
843-325-1071 Cell
843-237-4008 Fax

cbrust@theamia.org
www.theamia.org

Below, FYI, is the THE ROAD TO LAMBETH document –

<< In light of the above, we have concluded that we must receive assurances from the Primates and the Archbishop of Canterbury that this crisis will be resolved before a Lambeth Conference is convened. There is no point, in our view, in meeting and meeting and not resolving the fundamental crisis of Anglican identity. We will definitely not attend any Lambeth Conference to which the violators of the Lambeth Resolution are also invited as participants or observers. >>

The following draft report was commissioned by the Primates of the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa (CAPA) in February 2006; it was received with gratitude by the CAPA Primates on 19 September 2006 and commended for study and response to the churches of the provinces in Africa.

The Anglican Communion is at a crossroads. The idea of a crossroads – a meeting and parting of two ways – is woven into the fabric of Scripture. The people of Israel is confronted with the choice of ways – the way of the Covenant or the way of idolatry – and more often than not choose the latter (Jeremiah 6:16). So too Jesus describes a narrow road that lea ds to life and a broad avenue to perdition (Matthew 7:13). Hence the church must choose to walk in the light and turn from the darkness of sin and error (1 John 1:6-7).

The Church in Africa and the Anglican Communion

We are the voice of the Anglican churches in Africa. We are grateful for our Anglican heritage, brought to us by missionaries committed to the Scriptures and inspired by our Lord’s Great Commission to evangelize the nations. We are equally grateful to be sons and daughters of Africa, whose ancient cultures prepared a rich spiritual soil for the Gospel to blossom. We hope these two inheritances can be kept together, but events of the past decade have called this hope into question.

Although the Anglican Communion came into being at a time of theological and ecclesiastical crisis – the so-called Colenso case – the Lambeth Conference of bishops has by and large managed to avoid doctrinal disputes and disciplinary cases that might have led to controversy and even disunity. Instead the Communion has functioned under the broad umbrella of biblical faith, historic order and Anglican worship, as summarized in the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. Although there have been tensions from time to time, e.g., over the ordination of women, most Anglican churches have been content to live with what seemed to be secondary differences. Until now.

At the same time, huge shifts have occurred in the constituency of the Communion and the Lambeth Conference in the past half century. What began as a colonial council of expatriate bishops has become at least in theory a parliament of equals. Its members’ complexion has changed from all-white and Anglo to largely non-white, Latino, African and Asian. Its Provinces have become self-governing. And its evangelical and spiritual dynamism is centred in what is now called the Global South or the majority world. While these changes have affected the demography of the Communion, they have not been reflected in its governance, which has stayed put or even gone in the opposite direction. In particular, the advent of the Anglican Communion Office has concentrated power in the hands of those who “pay the piper.” It is remarkable, for example, how few Global South church leaders are appointed to positions of real authority in the Communion.

The growth of the global Communion has spawned a number of alternative structures. The foremost of these is the Primates’ meeting, which has emerged in the past twenty years as the senate of the Communion. In addition, regional associations and gatherings, such as CAPA, CAPAC and the South-South Encounters are bringing together majority-world Anglicans to address their particular needs.
The Current Crisis

The opposing trends noted above – the growth of the churches of the Global South and the tight control of power by the Anglo-American bloc – came to a head at the Lambeth Conference in 1998. The presenting cause was the acceptance of homosexuality in the Western societies and chu rches. Despite a determined effort by the Communion bureaucracy to blunt the issue, the Global South bishops managed to get a Resolution to the floor which stated that homosexual practice is “contrary to Scripture” and “cannot be advised.” Resolution 1.10 on Human Sexuality was approved by the Conference by an overwhelming majority.

The importance of this Resolution cannot be overstated. By using the phrase “contrary to Scripture,” the bishops indicated that homosexual practice violates the first principle of the Communion’s Quadrilateral and indeed the fundamental basis of Anglican Christianity (as expressed in Articles VI and XX). They were saying: “Here is an issue on which we cannot compromise without losing our identity as a Christian body.” Such was the understanding of the Global South bishops, and hence they were taken aback when Resolution 1.10 was immediately ignored and denounced by bishops of the Episcopal Church.

In the subsequent Primates’ meetings, the Global South bishops have repeatedly called on the Episcopal Church USA and now the Anglican Church of Canada to repent and bring their practice in line with Scripture and with the mind of the Lambeth Conference. The African attitude toward the actions of the North American chu rches has been consistent throughout this crisis. It is based on several assumptions:

§ the supreme authority of Scripture as the ultimate standard of faith and life (C-LQ 1);

§ the clarity of the Church’s teaching on “the unchangeable Christian standard” of marriage between one man and one woman (Lambeth Resolution 66 [1920]);

§ the practice of homosexuality as a sign of fallenness and a sin separating one from salvation (Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Ephesians 5:3-5);

§ the need for repentance by individuals who sin, even more so for those who teach sin as blessing (Matthew 5:19; 18:6); and

§ the requirement that believers not associate with openly immoral church members (1 Corinthians 5:9-13; 2 Thessalonians 3:14).

The crisis reached fever pitch in 2003 when the Diocese of New Hampshire (USA) elected an openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church confirmed him as Bishop, and the Presiding Bishop presided at his consecration. The Episcopal Church could not have sent a clearer signal that it was going its own way, and nothing would stop it.

After the Robinson election, many provinces chose the only instrument of discipline available: declaration of impaired or broken Communion. In February 2004, thirteen Global South Primates, including eight from Africa, denounced the actions of the Episcopal Church as a “direct repudiation of the clear teaching of the Holy Scriptures, historic faith and order of the church.” In April 2004, the CAPA bishops pledged to reject donations from pro-gay American diocese.

A Word to the Primates and the Archbishop of Canterbury

The principal body through which the churches of the Global South have expressed their distress over these events has been the Primates’ Meeting, where they are well-represented. The Primates of the Global South have not simply denounced the agenda of the North American churches. They have also sought to find a way forward. In 2002, two Primates proposed a careful scheme of inner-Communion discipline (To Mend the Net). The ecclesiastical politicians, seeking to avoid such discipline, managed to get this proposal sidelined.

They could not, however, avoid the storm of protest that followed the Robinson election. In response to this crisis, the Archbishop of Canterbury called an emergency Primates’ meeting in London in October 2003. Many Global South Primates were ready at that point to excommunicate the violators, but in the end they agreed to Archbishop Williams’s plan to form a Commission and receive a Report one year later. From the point of view of the African bishops, the Windsor Report was considered a vehicle by which the offending churches might realize the enormity of their actions and turn back. It was never seen by us as a process that would preempt the decisions of the Lambeth Conference or the Primates. And the Report, while restricted in its scope and cautious in its language, did present a thorough exposé of the ways in which the Episcopal Church arrogated to itself unilaterally a practice condemned in Scripture, tradition and the Resolutions of this Communion.

The churches in Africa, while grateful for the overall judgement of the Windsor Report, felt that it often did not go far enough in spelling out the needed steps of repentance and return. In various responses to the Windsor Report, member churches made the following points:

§ That full repentance in word and action is called for by those who have violated God’s holy will in Scripture;

§ this repentance would include the resignation or removal from office of Gene Robinson and the passage of legislation which would bar any similar ordinations of priests and consecrations of bishops;

§ That this repentance would include a reaffirmation of the biblical standard of marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one woman and the exclusion of all other configurations as a violation of that standard;

§ That responses from our provinces to requests for alternative oversight from churches in North America are of an emergency order and not to be compared to the full and blatant violations of biblical morality by the churches of North America.

We in CAPA want to say clearly and unequivocally to the rest of the Communion: the time has come for the North American chu rches to repent or depart. We in the Global South have always made repentance the starting point for any reconciliation and resumption of fellowship in the Communion. We shall not accept cleverly worded excuses but rather a clear acknowledgement by these churches that they have erred and “intend to lead a new life” in the Communion (2 Corinthians 4:2). Along with this open statement of repentance must come “fruits befitting repentance” (Luke 3:8). They must reverse their policies and prune their personnel.

It is clear from the actions of the recent General Convention of the Episcopal Church in the USA, including electing a Presiding Bishop whose stated position on sexuality – not to mention other controversial views – is in direct contradiction of Scripture and Lambeth 1.10, that that Province has refused to repent. Accordingly, we commend those churches and dioceses in the USA that have renounced the actions of the Convention and sought alternative oversight.

The current situation is a twofold crisis for the Anglican Communion: a crisis of doctrine and a crisis of leadership, in which the failure of the “Instruments” of the Communion to exercise discipline has called into question the viability of the Anglican Communion as a united Christian body under a common foundation of faith, as is supposed by the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. Due to this breakdown of discipline, we are not sure that we can in good conscience continue to spend our time, our money and our prayers on behalf of a body that proclaims two Gospels, the Gospel of Christ and the Gospel of Sexuality.

It grieves us to mention that the crisis is not limited to North America. The passage of the Civil Partnerships Act in England and the uncertain trumpet sounded by the English House of Bishops have made it unclear whether the mother Church of the Communion is fully committed to upholding the historic Christian norm. We note, for instance, that it appears that clergy in the Church of England are obliged legally and without canonical protection to recognize the immoral unions of active homosexual church members and may soon be forced by law to bless homosexual “ marriages.” Recently, the British media reported that a senior clergyman, supported by his bishop, “married” his same-sex partner, also a clergyman.. So far as we can see, the Archbishop of Canterbury as Primate of All England has failed to oppose this compromising position and hence cannot speak clearly to and for the whole Communion.

In light of the above, we have concluded that we must receive assurances from the Primates and the Archbishop of Canterbury that this crisis will be resolved before a Lambeth Conference is convened. There is no point, in our view, in meeting and meeting and not resolving the fundamental crisis of Anglican identity. We will definitely not attend any Lambeth Conference to which the violators of the Lambeth Resolution are also invited as participants or observers.

We are frankly disappointed that the announced plans of the Lambeth Design Team avoid discussion of Communion order and discipline, which have been clearly strained to the breaking point. We are disappointed that the central issue of an Anglican Communion Covenant is not front-and-centre on the agenda of the Conference. If any group should be expected to consult on these most important issues, it should be the assembled bishops of the Communion.

To add to our reservations about the 2008 Lambeth Conference, we note the huge expense of such an event. Our African churches are asked to divert funds from much needed work of evangelization and charity to a 3-week meeting which has no authority and which is blatantly ignored by “autonomous” member churches. In some cases, poorer provinces are “assisted” by donors from the West who have a deliberate agenda of buying silence from these churches. We conclude that if a regular all-bishops’ conference is to continue in the Anglican Communion, it should be held in the Global South, where the costs are much less and the local economy can benefit; that it be shorter in duration; and that every church be required to pay its own way (we in CAPA will take care of our own genuinely needy members).

A Word to Fellow Churches and Leaders in Africa

At the outset of our Lord’s ministry, he began preaching: “The time (kairos) is fulfilled; the Kingdom of God is near” (Mark 1:15). A kairos moment is a special time when God rotates the hinge of history in a new direction. It may also be called a “crisis” time (krisis), exposing the difference of light and darkness (John 3:19). We believe that such a kairos moment and krisis time have come to the Anglican Communion.

The Church in Africa is also at a crossroads. We are no longer colonial appendages. We say we have come of age. It is for this reason that the first Resolution of the African Anglican Bishops Conference in 2004 states:

that the Church in Africa nee ds to become self-reliant, just as the Church has been self-governing and self-propagating; through economic self-empowerment, that compels a new orientation and thinking in the area of investment and economic activities.

We the members of CAPA must take forward this Resolution with a unity and seriousness of purpose. Otherwise we shall be continually tempted by those outside our borders who dangle money in return for silence on controversial issues, such as has occurred recently in several of our provinces.

We recognize the strategy employed by Episcopal Church and certain Communion bodies to substitute talk of Millennium Development Goals for the truth of Scripture. These choices are false alternatives: it is the Christ of Scripture who compels us to care for the poor and afflicted. But we must take the initiative in these areas and not accept the patronizing of those who are rich in endowments but who are not rich toward God. Even among the churches on this continent, there are differences in economic resources, in political stability and in religious maturity. It is time for the stronger among us to empathize with and come to the help of the weaker, and not always be looking overseas for help.

It is also a time for reflection and repentance for our churches as well. Our churches must not be unwilling to “listen” and learn to understand better the phenomenon of homosexual attraction. We do not deny that such practices occur in our culture, even that such tendencies will increase as our countries modernize and Western media influences us. We acknowledge our own failures in promoting strong marriage relation ships in a traditional culture which allows for polygamy and dehumanizing treatment of women and children. What we are not prepared to do is to suspend the unchangeable standard of God as a part of this conversation. Let the Western churches first affirm God’s plan for the sexes, then let us dialogue.

Conclusion: The Way Forward

We call on our fellow African Anglican leaders to work together in unity to revive our beloved Anglican Communion. We believe that the initiative for the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant should rest with the Global South churches. We do not have confidence that a Covenant produced by those churches that have caused or condoned the theological crisis will reflect the strong biblical and theological core that a reformed Communion needs. In particular, we call on our African churches to lead in sponsoring a Covenant Assembly for the Global South leaders where we may gather and seek God’s guidance for the future of the Communion.

We Anglicans stand at a crossroads. One road, the road of compromise of biblical truth, leads to destruction and disunity. The other road has its own obstacles because it requires changes in the way the Communion has been governed and it challenges our churches to live up to and into their full maturity in Christ. But surely the second road is God’s way forward. It is our sincere hope that this road may pass through Lambeth, our historical mother. But above all it must be the road of the Cross that leads to life through our Saviour Jesus Christ.

In August 2004, St. James Church in Newport Beach, All Saints’ Church in Long Beach, and St. David’s Church in North Hollywood, disassociated from the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles and the national Episcopal Church (TEC) because of theological differences, which drew international attention because of similar issues facing the Episcopal Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion.

The appellate court’s ruling returns the lawsuits brought by the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles and TEC against the three local churches to The Honorable David Velasquez of Orange County Superior Court. Still at issue is whether the Episcopal Church validly passed an internal rule claiming to hold local church property in trust for itself, and whether that rule applied to the three local churches. St. James, All Saints’ and St. David’s, as the property owners, never agreed to relinquish their property to the Episcopal Church upon ending their affiliation. St. James, All Saints’ and St. David’s have maintained all along that they have the right to use and possess the property they have owned and maintained for decades.

Legal spokesperson, Eric C. Sohlgren, said, “This decision puts one division of the appellate court in direct conflict with other California court of appeal decisions that for almost thirty years have rejected the idea that a court must automatically defer to a church denomination in church property disputes. Under this ruling, any big church which calls itself hierarchical could try to confiscate the property of a local congregation simply by passing an internal rule. That idea offends basic principles of fairness and property ownership. St. James, All Saints’ and St. David’s are seriously evaluating an appeal to the California Supreme Court.”
* * *

A Brief Recap: The Diocese of Los Angeles brought lawsuits against St. James, All Saints and St. David’s Anglican Churches and their volunteer board members in September of 2004. Subsequently, the national Episcopal Church intervened into the lawsuits against the three local churches.

On August 15, 2005, Judge Velasquez ruled in favor of St. James against the complaint brought by the Diocese of Los Angeles. In October 2005, Judge Velasquez issued a similar ruling in favor of All Saints and St. David’s. The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles appealed the rulings to the California Court of Appeal.

In August 2005, the Complaint in Intervention filed separately by the national Episcopal Church (“TEC”) was still pending in the Orange County Superior Court.

In Fall 2005, the Court granted the three Churches’ challenges to TEC’s original Complaint in Intervention, but gave TEC an opportunity to amend the Complaint (but only if it could do so in good faith). TEC filed a First Amended Complaint in Intervention, which rehashed many of the church-rule arguments the Court had already rejected in prior rulings. The three local churches filed another challenge (called a demurrer) asking the Court to dismiss the First Amended Complaint without further leave to amend on the ground that even if all of the factual allegations were true, they did not state a legal wrong under California law. TEC also appealed that ruling to the California Court of Appeal.

Indeed, with the culture war raging on abortion and same-sex 'marriage', many a Christian has wondered about a coming purgation - a cleansing as in the time of Noah and the flood.

It may come as a surprise to some, but Orthodox Jews too have a belief in a coming purgation. As the man popularly known as "America's Rabbi" told LifeSiteNews.com, we are "moving towards some kind of enormous, humanic and historic upheaval."

Nationally acclaimed speaker and best-selling author, Rabbi Daniel Lapin spoke with LifeSiteNews.com about his newly released audio series "The Gathering Storm: Decoding the Secrets of Noah", in which he looks at the similarities between the time of Noah and our present day.

Rabbi Lapin is the founder and leader of Toward Tradition - a ground-breaking coalition of Jews, Christians and other Americans united in fighting secular fundamentalism and promoting traditional, faith-based American principles of constitutional and limited government, the rule of law, representative democracy, free markets, a strong military, and a moral public culture.

Key to interpreting the Bible (the Old Testament) suggests the Rabbi, is the Hebrew language. In that language, he notes, the Bible tells that in the time just before the flood there were aborted babies. "Everyone is familiar with that section just before the flood, of giants," said Rabbi Lapin. "The King James translation refers to these people as giants - one thing, in the Hebrew, it becomes immediately very clear is that what we really are talking about is aborted people, aborted fetuses."

"In Hebrew," explained the Rabbi there is "one word for giants (and) aborted fetuses." Comparing the time of Noah to the current day, the Rabbi said, "Babies that are aborted eventually bring about a culture of death that destroys society."

Asked if Jews, like some Christians, feel a time of purgation is coming, Rabbi Lapin replied bluntly, "Yes, it is extremely intense."

The Rabbi stressed however that a Judeo-Christian view of the end of time is a hopeful one, in contrast to the secular view of the end of time which sees only doom and gloom. "There is a dichotomy here between a secular world view in which the end of time is hopeless," Rabbi Lapin told LifeSiteNews.com. "It is doomed. It ends in oblivion . . . Right now it is global warming, a few years ago it was nuclear winter. Before that it was that we were all going to starve and die naked and cold when Thomas Malthus at the end of the 18th century made his predictions."

"The secular world view will generate an end of time picture of hopelessness and doom and by contrast a Biblical world view of both Jews and Christians shows an end of time picture that, while it may have its turbulent threshold, is a time of some kind of unimaginable solution to all human problems."

Asked, if it would be "a time of renewal of goodness on earth?," the Rabbi replied, "Exactly right. Yes."

As for God having to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah for not acting on America for its sins, Rabbi Lapin suggests God is in fact acting on America. "God doesn't necessarily act towards every culture in the same way," he said. "Every culture that adopts abortion and homosexuality as normal is a culture that begins to decline and eventually vanish off the stage of world history - that is God acting."

"That is precisely the point. It is not that hard to see in many ways the fortunes of the US of A are simply not where they were before these twin scourges became prevalent. Yes, He is acting - He is not going to have to apologize to Sodom at all. He is being very consistent. He may not be burying us in thunderbolts and mountains of salt but the damage that the US of A is enduring is no less fatal."

Rabbi Lapin sees another striking similarity between our day and the time of the Biblical flood. Noting the political situation in the United States, where the major argumentation seems focussed on abortion and same-sex 'marriage, Rabbi Lapin observes: "Undoubtedly, it was very significant, that never before in a presidential election has there been this much focus on the faith and beliefs of the candidates which again brings us back to this Noah like period in which divisions between people are lining up very clearly on a spiritual level."

While Rabbi Lapin rejects any attempt to fix a date on the coming upheaval, he does say that it is rapidly approaching. "What is unquestionably crystal clear is that time and history is accelerating. Things happen more quickly now than ever before so it is moving rapidly towards this event, whatever it will look like."

To order Rabbi Lapin's audio recordings visit:
http://www.towardtradition.org/index.cfm?PAGE_ID=44

With these words spoken in St. Matthew's Anglican Church in downtown Winnipeg, Frederick James Hiltz, 14th Bishop of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, formally assumed the position he was elected to three days
ago and became 13th Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada.

He succeeds Archbishop Andrew Hutchison, elected in St. Catharines, Ont., at the previous General Synod in 2004, who is retiring.

Hours before, Archbishop Hutchison prorogued or adjourned the 38th General Synod of the Anglican church held during the past seven days in a downtown Winnipeg hotel. This brought to a conclusion the gathering of more than 300 Anglicans representing the church's 30 dioceses across the country.

General Synod is held every three years and the next one is scheduled for 2010 in Halifax, until now Archbishop Hiltz's place of residence.

St. Matthew's was packed for the gala ritual by most members of the General Synod and its staff, by the members of the Canadian House of Bishops, as well as visiting dignitaries, partners from the Anglican Communion including
Canon Kenneth Kearon, the General Secretary of the Communion and by ecumenical partners from other faiths.

Also at the installation was Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church in the United States.

The sermon was delivered by the Most Rev. and Rt. Hon. Dr. John Sentamu, Archbishop of York and Primate of England, who spoke on the theme "Changed from glory to glory: transfigured to serve."

Archbishop Sentamu, at the outset of his sermon, said the following which might have been advice to Archbishop Hiltz:

"As one of those who was installed as Primate of England only 18 months ago, please allow me to share with you what the service of inauguration of my ministry in York did to me. I realized there and then that the whole church
was affirming who and what I was. God is glad and rejoiced in the fact that he created you as you are, and has and is redeeming you, from glory to glory to become Christ-like. So be yourself."

One example is an article about how a defrocked homosexual Pastor, Rev. Bradley Schmeling had become a hero in the eyes of so many religious people who support his homosexual lifestyle.

The article stated that "Schmeling's refusal last year to resign after telling a church bishop he was in a gay relationship has earned him quite a following."

Presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama critical of those who stand against homosexuality and abortion said "Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked,"

Then to add to this chorus of already apostate voices was an article entitled, "Religious Groups Take Lead for Gay Pride" in which a participating Rabbi said that "We stand for a progressive religious voice," said Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum of New York City's Congregation Beth Simchat Torah. "Those who use religion to advocate an anti-gay agenda, I believe, are blaspheming God's name."

BFA President Phil Magnan was in amazement at these outrageous statements made in the name of God. "It seems to me that every one of these so called religious people has lost their ability to read the clear text of Scripture, ignoring the holiness of God. God will not relent in condemning homosexual behavior nor ignore its eternal consequences. Those who are involved in these things are actually under the judgment of God. Romans 1:22-27, 32. 1Timothy 1:8-11 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11."

"But I believe the saddest and most damnable tragedy is that there are Pastors so caught up in tolerating immorality for their own benefit and acceptance that they will lead many of their own people into sin and bondage. There will be many precious lost souls who will not be introduced to the true Savior who is able to free them from this unnatural lust. The pro homosexual religious community has instead glorified perversion in the name of God, which is a blasphemy against God's own nature of holiness."

"And I have a question for Rabbi Kleinbaum; did Moses advocate an anti gay agenda when he was told by God that homosexuality is an abomination? Christ had a similar anti immorality agenda in which He said, "Go and sin no more." What more needs to be said when the Word of God who spoke in the Old Testament is the same Word of God who also said 'depart from Me, you workers of iniquity.' It is a cruel and unloving thing to not warn those who are headed towards God's righteous judgment."

Biblical Family Advocates adamantly condemns the statements from those who are not only misrepresenting Almighty God, but for making Jesus Christ into someone who is tolerant of sin instead of calling people to despise it and forsake it. Magnan continued by saying," What kind of love upholds sin and deception as they deny the very God who calls them out of darkness? Their actions confirm that they have fallen away from the faith by seeking teachers and leaders who follow after their own lusts and do not obey the clear commands of God."

The Standing Committee voted as follows:

“Standing Committee requests the Diocesan Secretary to inform the Rev Canon Dr Bill Atwood of the deep pleasure of the Diocese of Sydney at the news of the announcement by Archbishop Nzimbi, Primate of Kenya, of the forthcoming consecration of Dr Atwood as Suffragan Bishop of All Saints’ Cathedral Diocese, Nairobi on 30 August 2007. We assure Dr Atwood of our continuing prayer for his ministry as he supports Kenyan clergy and congregations in North America.”

2. Invitations to Lambeth.

Being aware that Archbishop Peter Jensen, Archbishop of Sydney, and his five Regional Bishops - The Rt Rev Robert Forsyth, Bishop of South Sydney; The Rt Rev Glenn Davies, Bishop of North Sydney; The Rt Rev Peter Tasker, Bishop of Liverpool; The Rt Rev Ivan Lee, Bishop of Western Sydney; and The Rt Rev Alan Stewart, Bishop of Wollongong -had all received personal invitations from Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury to attend the Lambeth Conference to be held in 2008; and also being aware that Archbishop Williams had requested a reply to the invitation by 23 July, 2007,

Standing Committee engaged in a lengthy discussion about Lambeth 2008 with the Archbishop and Bishops of the Diocese.

Archbishop Jensen commenced the discussion by commenting on the present situation of the Anglican Communion as he observed it and the implications of the invitation to most Bishops in the Episcopal Church, including those who had agreed to or participated in the consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire, but excluding Bishop Gene Robinson and also Bishop Martyn Minns.

In response to the discussion, the Standing Committee resolved the following advice to the Archbishop and Bishops:

“Standing notes that disregarding the clear requests of many bishops, the Archbishop of Canterbury has issued invitations to attend the Lambeth Conference in 2008 to the bishops of the Episcopal Church of the USA who agreed to and/or participated in the consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire.

“Standing Committee therefore -

(a) respectfully requests the Archbishop of this diocese to communicate to the Archbishop of Canterbury our dissatisfaction at the attempt to maintain union with the unrepentant while continuing to refuse fellowship to faithful and orthodox Anglicans such as the Church of England in South Africa,

(b) respectfully requests the Archbishop and bishops of this diocese not to accept the invitation to Lambeth without making public in protest, speech and liturgical action, both prior to and at Lambeth, our diocese’s principled objection to the continued participation of those whose actions have expressed a departure from the clear teaching of scripture, and who have consequently excluded orthodox Anglicans from their fellowship, and

(c) respectfully requests the Archbishop and bishops of this diocese to approach other orthodox bishops of the communion with the purpose of meeting in England at the time of the Lambeth Conference for Christian fellowship and the planning of joint action within the Anglican Communion to contend for the faith of the Apostles once delivered to the saints.”

For Comment on these resolutions,
Contact: Margaret Rodgers
mrodgers@sydney.anglican.asn.au
(W) 61 2 9265 1507
(H) 61 2 9560 9801
(Mobile) 0411 692 499

“I think they (bishops) were trying to respond to what they heard in Synod, people wanting more study, time for discernment,” said Bishop Fred Hiltz, primate-elect of the Anglican Church of Canada, who had voted in favour. “I have my own personal opinion, as you know, but my responsibility is now to work with this decision. There needs to be a pastoral response. We have a very divided church, and no doubt many, many people will be disappointed by this vote. I will try and reach out pastorally to those who are disappointed.”

Bishop Michael Ingham, whose Vancouver-based diocese of New Westminster authorized rites for same-sex blessings in 2002, said, “No one can take comfort from this vote because the majority voted in favour of local option. For many, there would be a sense of betrayal.”

Bishop Sue Moxley said she was “just really disappointed” that the house of bishops “would be holding back when it’s clear other people are ready to go.” She said some dioceses might simply go ahead and allow same-sex blessings.

Bishop Victoria Matthews of Edmonton, chair of the Primate’s Theological Commission, said, “I don’t think there were any winners. We know that people on both sides … leave tonight with a profound sense of sadness that the body of Christ is broken.”

Hugh Matheson, of the diocese of Keewatin, said, “It was in some sense a predictable decision. The house of bishops indicated that there wasn’t enough support for it in their house. I thought that the discussion that we should go ahead was more articulate, this Synod. It will come up again.”

Bishop George Bruce of Ontario said, “The bishops didn’t have enough of a sense of the house. In New Westminster, Michael Ingham didn’t consent until he had 60 per cent (approval).”

Other reactions:

Canon Garth Bulmer, diocese of Ottawa
I’m delighted that the first resolution passed. I think it was another big step in terms of protecting and affirming gay people in their relationships. (I’m) disappointed obviously that General Synod decided not to include the method of implementing it. I think it was a big mistake on the part of the bishops because I think it’s going to happen anyway. I believe there’s an interpretation that it’s not core doctrine and the diocese can decide it.

Canon Murray Still, Diocese of Rupert’s Land
“There’s going to be disappointment on both sides. I think in large part we’re trying to wrestle wi