Anglicans United & Latimer Press

260 leaders of congregations across Canada gathered at short notice. Nothing could be finalised until the Province of Southern Cone synod on 5-7 November had re-elected Gregory Venables as Presiding Bishop and permitted North American churches to affiliate with the Province.

Bishop Don Harvey, retired Bishop of Eastern Newfoundland and Labrador who takes his retreats at Mirfield, led from the front. He resigned his orders in the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC) on November 15, and one minute later was licensed as a Bishop in the Province of the Southern Cone. He spoke of sorrow, not regret: “The most hurtful thing was to hear the letter (from the Primate of Canada) read in church last Sunday (November 18) which declared that my basic right to celebrate the Holy Communion has been stripped from me. There was no “ I regret to have to do this” in the letter. Will all the Southern Cone bishops will be ostracised in Canada as well? "

Bishop Harvey declared the revolution in his Pastoral Charge to the newly launched Church: “There is no reference in the Bible to a diocese, border, or boundary. I have heard ‘Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel’. We have lawyers and doctors and engineers without borders. We are launching bishops without borders.”

Bishop Venables addressed the gathering by video and letter. “The division which has led to these moves is a severance resulting from a determined abandoning of the one true historic faith delivered to the saints.”

“Schism is a sinful parting over secondary issues. This separation is basic and fundamental and means that we are divided at the most essential point of the Christian faith. The sin here is not one of schism but of false teaching which is not at its root about human sexuality but about the very nature of truth itself.”

Dr James Packer, now 82, underlined that this was not schism, despite the protestations of his own (former) Bishop Ingham of New Westminster in the press.

Dr Packer said “Schism means unjustifiable dividing of organized church bodies, by the separating of one group within the structure from the rest of the membership. Schism is sin, for it is a needless and indefensible breach of visible unity. But withdrawal from a unitary set-up that has become unorthodox and distorts the gospel in a major way and will not put its house in order as for instance when the English church withdrew from the Church of Rome in the sixteenth century, should be called not schism but realignment, doubly so when the withdrawal leads to links with a set-up that is faithful to the truth, as in the sixteenth century the Church of England entered into fellowship with the Lutheran and Reformed churches of Europe, and as now we propose gratefully to accept the offer of full fellowship with the Province of the Southern Cone. Any who call such a move schism should be told that they do not know what schism is.”

“The present project is precisely not to abandon Anglicanism but to realign within it, so as to be able to maintain it in its fullness and authenticity”

Dr Packer set out the identity of Anglican Network in Canada:

“We are a community of conscience, - committed to the Anglican convictions - those defined in our foundation documents and expressed in our Prayer Book.

The historic Anglican conviction about homosexual behaviour contains three points:
It violates the order of creation. God made the two sexes to mate and procreate, with pleasure and bonding; but homosexual intercourse, apart from being, at least among men, awkward and unhealthy, is barren.

It defies the gospel call to repent and abstain from it, as from sin. This call is most clearly perhaps expressed in 1Cor. 6: 9-11, where the power of the Holy Spirit to keep believers clear of this and other lapses is celebrated.

The heart of true pastoral care for homosexual persons is helping them in friendship not to yield to their besetting temptation. We are to love the sinner, though we do not love the sin.
Second, we are a community of church people, committed to the Anglican Communion.

More than 90% of worshipping Anglicans worldwide outside the Old West are solidly loyal to the Christian heritage as Anglicanism has received it, and we see our realignment as enhancing our solidarity with them. We are not leaving Anglicanism behind.

Third, we are a community of consecration, committed to the Anglican calling of worship and mission, doxology and discipling. Church planting will be central to our vision of what we are being called to do.

Fourth, we are a community of courage, heading out into unknown waters but committed to the Anglican confidence that God is faithful to those who are faithful to him.”

By contrast “Liberal theology as such knows nothing about a God who uses written language to tell us things, or about the reality of sin in the human system, which makes redemption necessary and new birth urgent. Liberal theology posits, rather, a natural religiosity in man (reverance, that is, for a higher power) and a natural capacity for goodwill towards others, and sees Christianity as a force for cherishing and developing these qualities. They are to be fanned into flame and kept burning in the church, which in each generation must articulate itself by concessive dialogue with the cultural pressures, processes and prejudices that surround it. The church must ever play catch-up to the culture, taking on board whatever is the “in thing” at the moment; otherwise, so it is thought, Christianity will lose all relevance to life.

In an interview with 100 Huntley Street, a TV station, Dr Packer elaborated:
“The basic liberal attitude to human wisdom and liberal theology is poison. Poison is a vivid word. It shocks people awake. Poison takes the strength and life out of a system and if not contained is terminal. Liberal theology takes people away from the real knowledge of the real God to imaginary knowledge of an imaginary God. Their imaginary God is dumb. He does not speak. This is a different God. Liberal theology leads people astray and undermines their health. The real God is not taken seriously and is kept out of the picture.”

Bishop Malcolm Harding, who after retirement led Anglican Renewal Ministries in Canada, was appointed a second Bishop of the Southern Cone for Canada. Rev Canon Charlie Masters, the Director of Anglican Essentials Canada was appointed Archdeacon and Mrs Cheryl Chang from Vancouver as Chancellor. Bishop Harvey’s pastoral charge affirmed that “Women have the same status as men in all ministries in ANiC. We have adopted the same rule and policy as Common Cause. There is no second class citizen. We are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Two congregations not currently part of the Anglican Church of Canada, St John’s Richmond and the Church of the Resurrection, Hope, both in British Columbia, were received into the ANiC. Congregations which belong to ACC have to vote as congregations to transfer. Ownership of the properties has yet to be tested in law. But 8 clergy have already been summoned to appear before their bishops, and the Rev Charlie Masters, the Director of Essentials, expects to be deposed this week.

On Saturday December 2 ordinations have been arranged in Vancouver. Dr. Ingham has sent threatening letters to Bishop Donald Harvey, not to ordain priests for conservative parishes in New Westminster, to the potential ordinands (asserting that only his ordinations are recognized in the Anglican Church of Canada and, speaking imperially, the world-wide Anglican Communion), and to conservative priests in his Diocese (not to support any irregular ordinations). The official launch of the Church will be April 25-27 in Vancouver and the first Synod will be held in November 2008.

Revolutions are legitimized through recognition by others. Supportive greetings and recognition were sent to Bishop Harvey and the new entity by the Primates of Uganda, West Africa, Kenya, Central Africa, the Indian Ocean, South East Asia, and by Bishop Mouneer Anis (Egypt), Archbishop Peter Jensen (Sydney), Bishop Robinson Cavalcanti (Recife) and from Bishop Bob Duncan (Pittsburgh), Bishop John Guernsey (Uganda) and Bishop Martyn Minns (CANA) from the USA.

From England greetings were sent from Bishop Michael Nazir Ali (Rochester) and by Bishop Wallace Benn, Bishop of Lewes & President of Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) and leaders from CEEC, Reform, New Wine, Church Society, Anglican Mainstream, Forward in Faith, the Covenant Group for the Church of England, Crosslinks and the 1990 Group of General Synod. (See letters page).

The Conference Presentations on Church Planting, Governance, Structure, and Media Relationships can be found at http://www.anglicannetwork.ca/events.htm

After the congregation's vestry voted in June to leave the Episcopal Church, leaders faced the prospect of a long and costly legal battle with the diocese over the local parish's buildings, which include a church, community center and rectory.

"We said all along that we would not go to court for our buildings," said the Rev. Anthony Seel, pastor of St. Andrew's Anglican Church. "We do not believe that Christians ought to be suing Christians. The diocese had already sued St. Andrew's in Syracuse (which also withdrew), and we decided we weren't going to get involved in a court battle."

St. Andrew's in Vestal, which has aligned itself with the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, intends to relinquish the keys to its buildings on Saturday to a representative of the Central New York diocese.

The diocese will immediately consider at its options for the abandoned properties, said the Rev. Canon Karen C. Lewis, assistant to Bishop Gladstone "Skip" Adams, who's headquartered in Syracuse.

Lewis said the diocese will talk with other Episcopal leaders in the Vestal area to determine a ministry plan. A new Episcopal church in the buildings is a possibility, she said.

St. Andrew's Church in Syracuse is the only other congregation to withdraw from the Central New York diocese. Church leaders initially wanted to stay in their facility on South Salina Street, but they eventually opted to leave rather than continue costly litigation with the diocese over ownership of the properties. The congregation expects to move elsewhere sometime early next year.

Under state law, Lewis said, church property is held in trust by a local parish for future generations of Episcopalians. When a church withdraws from the denomination, it has broken the trust because it is no longer related to the Episcopal Church. Across the country, dioceses have prevailed in court cases concerning property of congregations that have opted out of the Episcopal Church.
At the root of both congregations' discontent is the national Episcopal denomination's stance on homosexuality and blessings of same-sex unions. The controversy has triggered theological schisms across the denomination, including affirmative votes from several regional dioceses to withdraw from the Episcopal Church on the grounds that it was swayed from orthodox teachings.

Seel said a final worship service for St. Andrew's at the congregation's Mirador Road building is scheduled for 6 p.m. Friday.

At 9 a.m. Sunday, St. Andrew's congregation will worship at Memorial Park Baptist Church, whose leaders voted last Sunday to share space with the new Anglican congregation. The two congregations will hold separate services -- Memorial Park worships at 11 a.m. -- but will look for ways to share ministries, Seel said.

About 130 members of St. Andrew's will make the move, Seel said. Membership is down from 180 in 2003 when the Episcopal Church elected and consecrated Gene Robinson, a practicing homosexual, as bishop of New Hampshire. Many consider that event to be the catalyst that ignited the current controversy between traditionalists -- who believe homosexuality is incompatible with biblical teaching -- and others, including Adams, who believe Christ welcomes all people, regardless of sexual orientation.

Earlier this year, Adams wrote a letter to pastors, saying he would "not ask gay and lesbian people to go to the back of the bus for a time."

Central New York has roughly 22,000 members in 100 Episcopal churches from Alexandria Bay south to the New York-Pennsylvania border, east to Utica and west to Waterloo

To that end, our church has diligently participated in various processes and responded to various documents which have sought to deepen and enhance the Communion and give expression to our common life.

2. In particular we highlight the responses of our Province to:
a. 'Belonging Together' (response in 1992)
b. The Virginia Report (response in 2001)
c. The Windsor Report (response in 2005 and 2007)

3. In addition we have responded to ecumenical documents in which Anglicans have been involved: agreed statements with Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Orthodox, and World Council of Churches' documents such as Baptism Eucharist and Ministry.

4. In the process of developing such responses, we have consulted widely with parishes, dioceses, and our internal provinces, and have tested the responses through our constitutional processes.

5. We are now being asked to respond to An Anglican Covenant: A Draft for Discussion. At the General Synod of 2007 we committed ourselves to 'the development and possible adoption of an Anglican covenant'. However, the timeframe proposed is impossibly short for us to engage in the adequate process of discernment and affirmation that our polity requires. The Covenant is an extremely important proposal, with long term implications for all Anglicans, and we will need to take more time to prepare a response that truly speaks for the Anglican Church of Canada. Thus all we can do at this point is to repeat affirmations we have previously made and concerns we have raised, to offer some comment about the shape of the proposed draft covenant, and to ask some critical questions of the text in the light of those affirmations and concerns.

6. General Synod in 2007 endorsed a response to the Windsor Report. We commend the whole document for consideration by the Covenant Design Group and the instruments of communion, and wish to emphasize especially in this context paragraphs 30 & 31:

30. We affirm the idea of developing an Anglican Covenant, noting the call of Windsor that it be developed through a "long-term process, in an educative context, be considered for real debate and agreement on its adoption as a solemn witness to communion." (118) We are committed to such a long-term process and would hope that such a covenant would promote mutual responsibility and interdependence within the Communion. We have reservations about the constitutional tone of the example provided in the Windsor Report. We find that example too detailed in its proposals and we are concerned that such a model might foster the development of a complex bureaucratic structure which might stifle change and growth in mission and ministry. We would prefer a shortened and simplified covenant, perhaps based on the model of the baptismal covenant, or ecumenical covenants such as the Waterloo Declaration between the Anglican Church of Canada and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, or the covenant proposed by the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Mission and Evangelism. We value the Ten Principles of Partnership cited in Appendix 3 of Windsor and would hope that they inform the drafting of a covenant. We affirm that any group given the responsibility of developing an Anglican Covenant needs to be broadly representative of the membership of the Church, including men and women, clergy and lay people, a variety of geographical regions and theological emphases.

31. The Covenant process could provide a place where the evolving structures of the Communion can be discussed and agreed upon. The current practice seems to be the development of ad hoc agreements or actions based on reports which have not yet been received by the whole Communion. We affirm that "we do not favour the accumulation of formal power by the Instruments of Unity, or the establishment of any kind of central 'curia' for the Communion." (105) In responding to the Virginia Report in 2001, many Canadians felt that the present structures serve well when used fully and creatively. "The personal and relational life of the Church is always prior to the structural. … Right structuring and right ordering provide channels by which, through the power of the Holy Spirit, the mind of Christ is discerned, the right conduct of the Church encouraged and the gifts of the many are drawn upon in the service and mission of the Church." (Virginia Report, 5.4) We would be wary of the over-development of structures which would make it difficult for the Church to respond quickly and easily to fulfill its mission in its local context. We are distrustful of the development of structural changes driven primarily by issues and in the midst of acute crisis.

7. The report of the Covenant drafting Group requests from Provinces an initial response to the fundamental shape of the covenant. We have experience in Canada of two previous covenants. The 'New Covenant' of 1994 is an invitation from indigenous peoples for the rest of the church to walk with them in partnership in a particular way. The 'Waterloo Declaration' of 2001 is also a relational covenant. In that Declaration, Anglicans and Lutherans in Canada declared themselves to be in full communion on the basis of a shared history and an affirmation of shared convictions. As churches in full communion we then made commitments to one another to ensure the closest possible collaboration and consultation to further our common mission in Christ. We believe that this shape of telling our common story, making common affirmations, and making commitments that arise from these is a helpful model.

8. Thus in this case, our approach was to analyze the motivation for the current draft; to assess the strategy employed to achieve that motivation and to examine the broad outline of how well that strategy has been achieved. With that in mind, we believe that there appears to be an overall consistency in both intent and presentation in the shape of the Covenant Design Group draft but the text itself could obviously be improved by careful editing. As already indicated, we are not able at this time to express an appropriate measure of consent to this text, as requested in the report of the Covenant Design Group, but study is continuing throughout our church.

9. We appreciate the emphasis on mission in the preamble to the document. We believe that the call to common mission could effectively become the central organizing principle of the covenant, and that this would be a faithful expression of the Anglican Communion's vocation to proclaim the good news afresh in every generation. It would, however, require a shift in emphasis and ordering of the remaining sections of the document.

10. We also understand that our common mission originates in and returns to the eucharistic fellowship which is established by God the Holy Trinity. Only at the table of the Lord can we discern our common calling and be fed by common food for the journey.

11. We recognize that the community falls into disputes, and may need to have agreed upon means of resolving those conflicts as we stay at the table. However, we are troubled by Sections 5 & 6. Section 6 is an attempt to describe those means, but these sections have aspects which are non-synodical and raise serious concerns that will require broad consultation both in the Anglican Church of Canada and throughout the Communion. We are particularly concerned about 6.6. and the potential role and power of the Primates' Meeting. We stress, as noted in para 31 of our response to Windsor, that this process needs to unfold over a much longer period of time, lest we create structures only in response to a particular crisis.

12. We thank the Covenant Design Group for their careful work on behalf of the Anglican Communion which we all love.

Adopted by the Council of General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada
November 19, 2007

Typically, such children can't go on a school field trip, join a sports team or attend an R-rated movie without parental consent. Ah, but this case involved an attempt by the legislature to encroach on what the political left regards as its most sacred of rites, the right to abortion.

And even though Alaska's House and Senate passed the act by substantial majorities, it only took three judges to torpedo the law. The judicial sages held that the act encroached on a minor's "fundamental right to privacy" protected under the state's constitution. Parental rights, which the legislature sought to protect, were jettisoned by the court. The court held that a minor's decision to abort, unlike all other medical decisions, cannot be hindered by a parental "veto power."

Never mind that Alaska's constitution doesn't mention the right to an abortion anywhere in its text. And never mind that the U.S. Supreme Court (comprised of a majority of judicial activists who seemingly genuflect at the altar of abortion) has approved parental consent statutes in other states. Of course, it is the parents of the minor child -- not the judges of Alaska's Supreme Court -- who will have to deal with the emotional and physical trauma of the child's decision to kill the baby resident within her womb. And if the procedure goes awry, it is the parents, not the judges, who will have to pay the medical bills for the costs of correcting the error. Nonetheless, the right to abort -- even by a child who has barely reached estrus -- trumps all. And it is not to be encroached without undergoing strict scrutiny by the high priests of radical feminism.

These potentates of privacy have incredible powers of divination. They are capable of discovering "emanations from penumbras" that are invisible to legislators and executives. They discern meanings in words that are incomprehensible to other readers. Indeed, they have the capacity to infuse words with new meanings that would boggle the mind of any linguist.

It's amazing what one can accomplish with a law degree, a black robe and limited accountability. And, therein, lies the problem.

Increasingly, we the people are being ruled, not by our readily accountable elected officials, but by unelected jurists with limited accountability. As a result, our constitutional republic is rapidly being transformed into a judicial oligarchy in which the judicial branch of government is increasingly becoming more equal than the others.

America's Founding Fathers never intended such a result. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison wrote in "The Federalist No. 78" that, in a government characterized by separation of powers, "... the judiciary ... will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive ... holds the sword of the community. The legislature, not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary ... may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment, and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."

The founders, thus, envisioned the judiciary as the "weakest of the three departments of power," thereby posing the weakest threat to our liberties. Much has changed since our Constitution was adopted, however, and the judiciary, having arrogated unto itself powers rightly belonging to the executive and legislative branches, currently represents the biggest threat among the branches to our liberties. Hamilton and Madison acknowledged this threat by stating, "[T]here is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers."

When judges make law from the bench, they short circuit the democratic process. Even if the end result appears to be a desirable outcome, it comes at the expense of representative government. In a democracy, the process is no less important than the product. Robert Bork in his book, "The Tempting of America," observed, "The democratic integrity of law ... depends entirely upon the degree to which its processes are legitimate.... Those who would politicize the law offer the public, and the judiciary, the temptation of results without regard to democratic legitimacy."

Sadly, executives and legislators have been complicit in this accretion of power in the judiciary. In the politically charged environment in which we live, elected officials have, all too often, been too willing to let the judicial branch of government make the final call on tough decisions involving political hot-potatoes -- abortion, homosexual issues, prayer in schools, etc. They think that if the judicial branch makes the calls, the political branches will be immunized from the adverse political fall-out. Therefore, rather than acting to check and balance a run-away judiciary, the political branches all too often defer to imperious court rulings that misrepresent the requirements of state and federal constitutions.

The executive and legislative branches must act to end the hegemony that the judicial branch has acquired through distorting the requirements of the Constitution. Judges, no less than legislators and executives, are capable of running afoul of the Constitution. When they do, the other branches should act decisively to check their excesses. If they don't, then the people should replace them with those who will.

Nothing less than the future of our representative republic hangs in the balance.

Ken Connor is chairman of the Center for a Just Society based in Washington D.C., online at www.centerforajustsociety.org.

The Vatican press office confirmed today that the head of the Holy See delegation to the Tuesday meeting will be Monsignor Pietro Parolin, undersecretary for relations with states at the Vatican Secretariat of State. Monsignor Franco Coppola, a counselor at the office of the nunciature, will accompany him.

Last Sunday, before praying the midday Angelus, Benedict XVI seconded an appeal from the U.S. bishops to pray for the success of the meeting.

In Annapolis, with help from the international community, Israelis and Palestinians will try to relaunch negotiations and aim for a just and definitive solution to the conflict that has bloodied the Holy Land for 60 years, the Holy Father said.

In his appeal, the Pope recalled the many "tears and sufferings" the conflict has caused the two peoples. He asked people to "implore the Spirit of God for peace for that region so dear to us and to give wisdom and courage to all the protagonists in this important meeting."

The day of prayer marked by the U.S. bishops' conference is another step in an ongoing plea for peace in the Holy Land, L'Osservatore Romano reported in its Italian edition today.

The Annapolis encounter "offers a lot of hope," newly elevated Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, archbishop of Galveston-Houston, Texas, told the Vatican newspaper. "I hope that those who are involved in this international conference dedicate themselves with diligence to a resolution that effectively assures peace in the regions of the Middle East."

Cardinal DiNardo said parishes and Catholics all over the United States "are praying, following the encouragement of the prelates, so that the prospect of peace between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples becomes a concrete reality." He added that even in a political initiative, such as the Annapolis meeting, prayer "has a great value, also for the future."

"We are called to persevere in prayer," the Texas cardinal concluded, "entrusting to God our hope for peace in the coming weeks and months."

"I did everything by the book," Bowker said. "You had to blow a trumpet, you had to have an interpreter, you had to say, 'Go home,' three times or, 'I'll fire.' "

It was no use. The crowd could not be calmed and soon pulled the donkey limb from limb. While witnessing the spectacle, Bowker had an epiphany.

"I suddenly realized I wanted to understand why religious people hated each other so much," he says. His career has included Anglican priesthood and editing The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. He also has written several books, including "Licenced Insanities: Religions and Belief in God in the Contemporary World."

"My answer is that religions are so dangerous because they matter so much," he said.

The Modesto area is not without its share of religious fights. Church woes have led to new congregations. Court cases have been filed over church property taken over by unscrupulous leaders. Charges against pastors have split churches and communities.

Take two recent cases: Infighting at Modesto's Shree Ram Mandir Hindu temple has led to lawsuits, restraining orders, changed locks and even charges of defamation against a deceased man. And the U.S. Episcopal Church's struggle with its parent body, the worldwide Anglican Communion, has pitted conservative believers against those who hold more liberal views, threatening a split in the San Joaquin Diocese from the U.S. church and creating deep divisions within the Fresno-based diocese, with court cases looming.

Hindus split over court costs

The Hindu case doesn't involve theological divisions. Instead, it began with a 2006 vote of new board members. Two men who didn't get elected, Ug Sen and Sant Kumar, wanted to look at the proxies used in the election, but Shree Ram Mandir temple officials declined, saying a three-person elections board found no irregularities. Sen and Kumar filed a lawsuit in May.

A group of temple members generally supports Sen and Kumar but, more importantly, wants to make sure its temple donations aren't frittered away on attorney and court costs. Four members of the nine-member temple board tried to call a special meeting in September to deal with that issue. It failed because they didn't follow the temple's by-laws, and they subsequently received a letter from the chairman of the board, Brij Prasad, saying they had forfeited their right to be members of the temple and part of the board.

Meanwhile, a larger group of people held another special meeting, this one on Nov. 11. The 25 or so people who were there, along with their 100-plus proxy participants, voted to get rid of the old board and elected an interim board of directors, which included the four who had been ousted, and voted to spend no more temple funds on attorney fees.

Two days later, the temple's attorney, Michael Abbott, sent the four ousted board members a letter saying that efforts to dissolve the "duly elected and official Board of Directors" was "unethical and illegal" and that they must stop their activities.

"If you do not," the letter signed by Abbott said, "I will seek to have a judge of the Superior Court make you stop."
On Nov. 16, the four ousted men were served with notices to appear in court Tuesday to explain their actions to a judge. On Tuesday, the restraining order sought by Abbott on behalf of the old guard was not upheld by Stanislaus County Superior Court Judge David VanderWall.

Abbott said that's because the attorney representing the four men, Cort Wiegand, said they had given assurances that they would not change the locks or alarm code on the temple without notice, and thus there was no need for the restraining order.

When asked what will need to happen to resolve the dispute that now involves three attorneys, Abbott said, "The resolution is the resolution to the first case, which was filed by two board nominees. When that case gets resolved, everything else goes away. Basically, it will be the law of the Old West until the judge issues a restraining order, with locks changed and then changed back."

The dispute has split not only the temple, but families. Board Chairman Prasad is the brother of Kumar, one of the men filing the lawsuit against the temple. Both were candidates in the 2006 election.

Prasad said the dispute arose over proxy votes and that revealing those ballots and the resulting determination of which ones were accepted and which were rejected would "create more conflict. The temple's constitution doesn't stipulate anything to allow them to check the vote."

When asked who was now in charge of the temple, his group or the interim board approved at the special meeting, he said, "We are. The new board is not to be recognized until they submit the documentation to us and it is verified by the executive committee and the board of elders. If they think it's legal, let them bring the paperwork."

That drew laughter from Chandrika Nath, one of the four board members ousted from the temple and subsequently reinstated during the special meeting. "They don't want to show their records to anybody, but they want to see our records? Does that make sense?" Then he added, "Our record would be for the public. No problem. We don't want to take any wrong step with the temple, and we won't."

He previously told The Bee that he was mainly concerned about using temple funds for attorney fees. "Unfortunately, we did have to hire an attorney to represent us," he said. "God knows how many more attorneys will be involved. Right now, I'm paying for my own attorney from my own pocket."
He doesn't see a solution for temple unity at the moment, but said he wants a peaceful solution for future generations.

"My son is 19 years old and he doesn't want to come to the temple because of all the fighting there," he said. "I don't even want anybody taking sides. I just want my temple fixed. I could care less who is running the place, but run the place with truth for future generations."

Prasad, too, acknowledges the divisiveness of the dispute. "I think we're fighting over a very small thing; I think it's very sad," he said.

But he's still opposed to revealing the 2006 ballots. "It would create more division, more community conflict, which we are trying to prevent," he said. "It's better for a mediator or a court to see it."

The original lawsuit has not yet been set for trial.

Episcopalians vote next month

In the Episcopal case, Bishop John-David Schofield has firm beliefs and a diocese that tends to be more conservative than liberal on faith issues.

He and a handful of dioceses around the country have taken issue with the national church, preferring the stance by the international Anglican Communion against homosexual bishops and gay marriages, while supporting a conservative theology that says Jesus Christ is the one and only way to God and a heavenly reward.

Rumblings in the Episcopal Church -- the U.S. arm of the Anglican Communion -- came to a head in 2004 when openly homosexual Gene Robinson was ordained as a bishop in New Hampshire. Those rumblings grew explosive when Katharine Jefferts Schori brought her very liberal theology to her role as ruling leader of the U.S. church.
Individual churches began breaking away, but some dioceses, like San Joaquin, wanted to remain with the larger Anglican Communion. A vote taken last December at the annual diocese convention approved a change in the diocese's constitution, which will allow it to align itself with an Anglican body if it is approved at a second reading at this year's convention, Dec. 7-8.

Schofield has promised that if individual parishes want to remain with the Episcopal Church, they can retain their property and do so, but only if they are not in debt to the diocese.

In the past year, however, support for the bishop and his Anglican goals seemingly have waned a bit.
"Bishop Schofield has broken the hearts of many faithful Episcopalians," said Leslie Littlefield of Turlock. The 49-year-old woman, who said she has been an Episcopalian all her life, stepped down this year as a member of the St. Francis Episcopal Church's vestry (ruling elders). She said she now attends St. Anne's in Stockton, which has a more liberal priest.

She agrees with a Web site, remainepiscopal.org, which supports the national church.

On the other side, Father Rob Tobias of St. Matthias Church in Oakdale said he believes the second reading of the motion will pass.

"If it does," he said, "the diocese will accept the invitation of the Province of the Southern Cone as a temporary place of sanctuary, with the hope of a 39th province coming into being in North America, unless the Episcopal Church changes its direction. If it does, we can stay in fellowship.

"I think difficult times are still ahead," he added. "I think it's been a big issue for a minority of people in our congregation. I think the majority just wishes it would go away. Of course, it hasn't."

The Rev. Canon Bill Gandenberger, the bishop's assistant, said Wednesday that diocese officials expect this year's vote to again support the diocese's direction to set up a change of oversight from the national Episcopal Church to part of the Anglican Communion. An invitation was announced last week that the Anglican Southern Cone province, which represents South America, has agreed to provide temporary oversight.

Gandenberger reaffirmed Schofield's promise to let parishes move out of the diocese and remain part of the U.S. Episcopal Church, keeping their property if they are not in debt to the diocese. He said the majority of the diocese's 50 parishes and missions have little or no such debt.

"I think that's the gracious and godly way to handle the situation, as opposed to the lawsuits that come from the Episcopal Church," Gandenberger said.

In the meantime, he acknowledged the diocese has set up a fund for legal fees if the Episcopal Church files a lawsuit to retain the diocese's property and that of any parishes and missions that align with the Anglican Communion.

"We will defend ourselves as we are able," he said.
S
an Joaquin would be the nation's first diocese to leave the national church. Fresno definitely will be the focal point for those on both sides of the issue on Dec. 7-8.

Bee staff writer Sue Nowicki can be reached at 578-2012 or snowicki@modbee.com.

"It is one thing to take over a territory and then pour energy and resources into administering it and normalising it. Rightly or wrongly, that's what the British Empire did - in India, for example. It is another thing to go in on the assumption that a quick burst of violent action will somehow clear the decks and that you can move on and other people will put it back together - Iraq, for example."

ONE, who is clearing the decks and moving on? And who are the "other people" putting Iraq back together? Iran? Saudi Arabia? China? The British in Basra? First, we read from the anti-war Left that the US is wasting a trillion dollars and thousands of its lives in Iraq, and yet now that we are clearing the decks and not putting it back together? Which is it?

TWO, Williams should read a little about British military campaigns in India, and then count the corpses.

THREE, he should also tally up the amount of money the U.S. has spent for civic and economic development in Iraq over four years, and then compare that to what Britain invested in any four-year period in their centuries-long occupation of India.

FOUR, I don't recall the British, after their second year in India, fostering nation-wide elections.

FIVE, if he is worried about the soul of civilization in general, and the U.S. in particular, he might equally ask his Muslim interviewers about the status of women in the Muslim world, polygamy, female circumcision, the existence of slavery in the Sudan, the status of free expression and dissent, and religious tolerance (i.e., he should try to visit Mecca on his next goodwill, interfaith tour) .

SIX, all Williams will accomplish is to convince Episcopalians in the U.S. not to follow the Anglican Church, and most Americans in general that, if they need any reminders, many of the loud left-wing British elite, nursed on envy of the US, still petulant over lost power and influence, and scared stiff of the demographic and immigration trends in its own country, are well, unhinged.

11/25 04:13 PM

Aim of Talk

Do you remember Peter Sellers, creator of Dr. Strangelove and Inspector Clouseau, man of a thousand voices as they called him? He was once asked to record the whole Bible on disc, and he refused. “To do something like that,” he said, “you need to know exactly who you are. I don’t know who I am.”

Do we know who we are? I think we do, and I will state what I think straight away. We are sinners, miserable and hell-deserving, saved by the glorious grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. We are orthodox biblical Christians, members of the worldwide Anglican Communion, who value the Anglican heritage of wisdom and faithful devotion, and who cannot in good conscience go along with the increasing slippage from Anglican standards of the Anglican Church of Canada. We are in fact increasingly isolated in our church, much as Jeremiah long ago was isolated in Jerusalem - and if we do not feel something of Jeremiah’s distress at being so placed, I would say there is something wrong with us.

But we are so placed, and action is called for, and my aim in this talk is to ensure that we move ahead with clarity in our minds as to who we are, where we come from, what we are doing and why, and how to explain our action when we are challenged and criticized for it, as surely we shall be.

May I say: I tackle this talk with both a sense of compulsions and a heavy heart. When God called me from England to Canada three decades ago, I thought I was leaving behind the world of intra-church conflict in which I had been involved for twenty years, but no. In England, when Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones called on evangelicals ministering in doctrinally-mixed denominations to leave them, I resisted the idea. I did not expect that in Canada withdrawal from the diocese and province that had welcomed me would become an issue of conscience, but so it is. Like other Christians, I find peace in doing what I believe I have to do, but I cannot always find pleasure in it, and this for me is an instance of that. However, I move now to my argument.

The Anglican Communion

The Anglican Communion is one expression of the church universal, militant here in earth, and this is where I start.

a. The Church of God

What is the church? I state what I believe to be the Bible’s teaching. In its visible aspect - that is, as we see it in this world - the church is the entire community of those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. This church is gathered in local assemblies, each of which, in the words of Anglican Article 19, is “a congregation” (that is, an association) of faithful men (that is, believing people). In its spiritual aspect, that is, in terms of its relationship to God, the church as a whole is three things together, corresponding to the three persons of the Holy Trinity. It is the family of the Father’s adopted children; it is the body of the ascended, glorified and enthroned Son of God, Jesus Christ our Lord; and it is the community, or fellowship of mutual love and service that is created and sustained by the ongoing activity of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit draws us close to each other by drawing each of us close to Christ, and by so doing transforms God’s children in character, animates Christ’s body in ministry, and builds up each fellowship in love. Every congregation is called to live as an outcrop, microcosm, sample and specimen of the one holy universal fellowship.

b. The Church’s unity

Paul analyses the church’s given unity in terms of one body and one spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism and one family, and speaks of the resultant reality as “the unity of the Spirit,” which all Christians must work to preserve “in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4: 3-6). So the unity of God’s holy universal church is something to be recognized and expressed. Jesus’ prayer in John 17: 21-23 that all his disciples may be one as he and the Father are one shows us how this is to be done. The Father and the Son are one in thought, in love, in mutual honour and in disciple-making purpose (they were on mission together, we may truly say, at the time when Jesus prayed, just before his cross). So, too, the church, which is already one in Christ, must express its unity in all appropriate forms of communication, communion, and cooperation.

Togetherness with other congregations is integral to expressing Christian unity, and two principles of organized togetherness have emerged down the centuries: the geographical, which expresses the purpose of covering a particular area with functioning congregations, and the denominational, which expresses the sense that one is a trustee for some truth or practice that is not universally accepted, but that all need for biblical fullness of life together, so that as many churches as possible that have this distinctive feature should be founded. The two concerns, of course, regularly go together, distinct though they are. Thus, different patterns for connecting congregations have grown up, ranging from the pyramidal global structure of the Roman Catholic Church, with its Italian base, to the legally registered foundation deeds of each small addition to the 20,000 or so Protestant denominations that the statisticians tell us we can find if we look.

Now, it is in relation to these organizational structures, large or small, that the notion of schism should be defined. Schism means unwarrantable and unjustifiable dividing of organized church bodies, by the separating of one group within the structure from the rest of the membership. Schism, as such, is sin, for it is a needless and indefensible breach of visible unity. But withdrawal from a unitary set-up that has become unorthodox and distorts the gospel in a major way and will not put its house in order as for instance when the English church withdrew from the Church of Rome in the sixteenth century, should be called not schism but realignment, doubly so when the withdrawal leads to links with a set-up that is faithful to the truth, as in the sixteenth century the Church of England entered into fellowship with the Lutheran and Reformed churches of Europe, and as now we propose gratefully to accept the offer of full fellowship with the Province of the Southern Cone. Any who call such a move schism should be told that they do not know what schism is.

c. The Anglican Communion

Now, within this frame of reference, how are we to define the Anglican Communion? It is not, and never was, an integrated, pyramidal global organization with the Archbishop of Canterbury as its head. It is simply, as its name proclaims, a Communion - that is, a fellowship of independent provinces sharing ministry and sacraments on the basis of a shared faith, and bound together by a distinctive and very precious heritage - tradition, or style, as you might say - which all appreciate, and wish in some form to conserve. This heritage may be described as follows. (This is familiar ground, so I move over it quickly.)

First, Anglicanism is biblical. Anglicanism says to the world: “Show us anything in Scripture that should be taught and that we are not teaching, and we will teach it. Show us anything we are teaching that is contrary to Scripture, and we will stop teaching it.” The Bible, straightforwardly interpreted as revelation from God through human writers, is the Anglican rule of faith.

Second, Anglicanism is creedal, embracing and building on the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, which highlight the Trinity, the incarnation, Christ’s saving ministry and the reality of salvation itself. The 39 Articles dot i’s and cross t’s and fill gaps in the Creeds, clarifying in particular the doctrines of faith, of grace, of justification and of the sacraments.

Third, Anglicanism is liturgical, in continuity with the church of patristic and pre- Reformation days. Through Archbishop Cranmer we inherited a superlative Reformed Prayer Book, in which the thematic sequence, sin - grace - faith runs through the set services, so that it is a truly evangelical book, and should be appreciated as such.

Fourth, Anglicanism is pastoral, centred upon the making of disciples both domestically and through outreach. Bishops are ordained to give pastoral leadership, caring for both clergy and congregations, and their jurisdiction is to be exercised for the furtherance of pastoral goals.

Fifth, Anglicanism is missional in the sense of being committed to transformation through the gospel - transformation of individuals through teaching and nurture, transformation of congregations through preaching a renewal, transformation of culture through the wisdom and values of the gospel. The transformational purposes of the Reformers and Puritans, the eighteenth-century revival and later revivals, and the latter-day renewal movements, have permanently shaped authentic Anglicanism in a missional way.

Sixth, Anglicanism is not hierarchical nor maintenance-motivated, though it has sometimes appeared to be both; but in fact it is service-oriented. Dioceses exist to resource and help parishes, and provinces exist to coordinate both diocesan and local church ministry; Anglicanism is service-oriented at every level, and it is in loving practical service, shaped by the divine Word and empowered by the divine Spirit, that Anglican unity is finally expressed.

Lambeth Conferences, Primates’ meetings, the Anglican Consultative Council, and other national and international gatherings at leadership level, can only be called instruments of unity in a significant sense as they seek to further Anglicanism’s service in the gospel to a lost humanity. For the fundamental unity is unity in truth and in mission based on truth; nothing can ever change that.

Such, then, is Anglicanism; and if I may speak personally for a moment, one reason why siren songs urging me to abandon Anglicanism strike no chord in my heart is that I value his heritage so highly, and am so sure that if I walked away from it under any circumstances I should lose far more than I gained. The present project, however, is precisely not to abandon

Anglicanism but to realign within it, so as to be able to maintain it in its fullness and authenticity - and that, to me, is a horse of a very different colour. In this I recognize the calling of God.

Anglicans Adrift

For what should we think of global Anglicanism today? It has often been said during the past few years that the Anglican Communion is like a torn net, due to denials by some of things that the rest believe to be integral to the gospel and affirmation, mainly by the same people, of behaviour that the rest believe the gospel absolutely rules out. In certain cases communion with a small “c” - that is, full and free welcome and interchange of clergy and communicants at the Lord’s Table - has been suspended. How, we ask, has this come about? In brief, it is the bitter fruit of liberal theology, which has become increasingly dominant in seminaries and among leaders in what we may call the Anglican Old West - that is, North America in the lead, with Britain and Australasia coming along behind.

This has been the story over the past two generations, since Anglo-Catholic leadership began to flag. Let me explain. Liberal theology as such knows nothing about a God who uses written language to tell us things, or about the reality of sin in the human system, which makes redemption necessary and new birth urgent. Liberal theology posits, rather, a natural religiosity in man (reverance, that is, for a higher power) and a natural capacity for goodwill towards others, and sees Christianity as a force for cherishing and developing these qualities. They are to be fanned into flame and kept burning in the church, which in each generation must articulate itself by concessive dialogue with the cultural pressures, processes and prejudices that surround it. In other words, the church must ever play catch-up to the culture, taking on board whatever is the “in thing” at the moment; otherwise, so it is thought, Christianity will lose all relevance to life. The intrinsic goodness of each “in thing” is taken for granted. In following this agenda the church will inevitably leave the Bible behind at point after point, but since on this view the Bible is the word of fallible men rather than of the infallible God, leaving it behind is no great loss.

Well now; with liberal leaders thinking and teaching in these terms, a collision with conservatives - that is, with upholders of the historic biblical and Anglican faith - was bound to come. It came over gay unions, which liberals wish to bless as a form of holiness, a quasimarriage.

As part of its current agenda of affirming minority rights (that is the “in thing” these days), western culture has for the past generation accepted gay partnerships as a feature of normal life. Despite the pronouncement of the 1998 Lambeth Conference in favour of the old paths, New Westminster diocese began in 2002 to bless gay couples, and others followed suit.

The Windsor Report called for a moratorium on this, which was not forthcoming. The St. Michael’s report said that the issue, though theological, was not against Anglican core doctrine so was not a matter over which to divide the church. On a side wind and by a stopgap motion, the General Synod of 2004 declared gay unions to be marked by “integrity and sanctity”. The 2007 General Synod affirmed the St. Michael’s position. So here we are now, the Anglican Network in Canada, accepting the invitation to realign in order to uphold historic Anglican standards, not only regarding gay unions but across the board, as those standards were formulated in our church’s foundation documents and reformulated in the Montreal Declaration of 1994.

Anglicans Anchored

So, who are we today, and where do we stand at this moment in relation to all that is happening in the storm-tossed Anglican Communion? In light of what I have said so far, I put it to you that there are four things we can and must now say. They are as follows.

To start with, we are a community of conscience, - committed to the Anglican convictions - those defined, I mean, in our foundation documents and expressed in our Prayer Book. The historic Anglican conviction about the authority of the Bible matches that which Luther expressed at the Diet of Worms: “My conscience is captive to the Word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe” - that is, it imperils the soul. As for the historic Anglican conviction about homosexual behaviour, it contains three points:

First, it violates the order of creation. God made the two sexes to mate and procreate, with pleasure and bonding; but homosexual intercourse, apart from being, at least among men, awkward and unhealthy, is barren.

Second, it defies the gospel call to repent of it and abstain from it, as from sin. This call is most clearly perhaps expressed in 1Cor. 6: 9-11, where the power of the Holy Spirit to keep believers clear of this and other lapses is celebrated.

Third, the heart of true pastoral care for homosexual persons is helping them in friendship not to yield to their besetting temptation. We are to love the sinner, though we do not love the sin.

We must hold to these positions, whatever the culture around us may say and do. So a biblically educated conscience requires.

Second, we are a community of church people, committed to the Anglican Communion.

We rejoice to know that the more than 90% of worshipping Anglicans worldwide outside the Old West are solidly loyal to the Christian heritage as Anglicanism has received it, and we see our realignment as among other things, an enhancing of our solidarity with them. As I said earlier, what we are doing is precisely not leaving Anglicanism behind.

Third, we are a community of consecration, committed to the Anglican calling of worship and mission, doxology and discipling. Right from the start church planting will be central to our vision of what we are being called to do.

Fourth, I think we may soberly say of ourselves that we are a community of courage, heading out into unknown waters but committed to the Anglican confidence that God is faithful to those who are faithful to him.

"We have only one global hegemonic power. It is not accumulating territory: it is trying to accumulate influence and control," the spiritual leader of leader of the world's Anglicans
said in an interview given to the December issue of the UK Muslim lifestyle magazine
Emel.

Williams said the British Empire, the largest empire in modern history and for a time was the foremost global power, had left indelible marks on its former colonies at a wide array of fields. America, he says, has just done the opposite.

"It is one thing to take over a territory and then pour energy and resources into administering it and normalizing it. Rightly or wrongly, that’s what the British Empire did — in India, for example," he said.

"It is another thing to go in on the assumption that a quick burst of violent action will somehow clear the decks and that you can move on and other people will put it back together — Iraq, for example."

By 1921, the British Empire held sway over a population of about 458 million people, approximately one-quarter of the world's population. It covered about 36.6 million km² (14.2 million square miles), about a quarter of Earth's total land area.

As a result, its legacy is widespread, in legal and governmental systems, economic practice, militarily, educational systems, sports, and in the global spread of the English language.

The United States invaded oil-rich Iraq in 2003 to oust its then president Saddam Hussein. Fours years on, the country has plunged into a political mayhem and an abyss of overlapping civil conflicts that killed tens of thousands of civilians.
American inspectors and auditors have accused the administration of wartime leader George W. Bush of creating an environment "vulnerable to waste and fraud" in Iraq.

Over eight billion dollars supposed to be spent on rebuilding vanished by the time US Civil Administrator Paul Bremer left his post in 2004.

Williams has been a persistent critic of the war in Iraq. Last month, he said the conflict had wreaked "terrible damage" on the Middle East region and "urgent action" was needed to stabilize Iraq.

Myth

In his interview with Emel, Williams poured scorn on the "chosen nation myth of America" concept.

It means that "what happens in America is very much at the heart of God’s purpose for humanity," he said.

Williams, a senior archbishop of the Church of England, also said the US has lost its "moral high ground" in the aftermath of the terrorist 9/11 attacks.
He said the crisis was caused not just by America’s actions but also by its misguided sense of its own mission.

Williams had spearheaded critics of the so-called US-led global war on terror, describing the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2002 as "morally tainted."
He also criticized the US treatment of terror suspects in the notorious Guantanamo prison in Cuba.
Williams suggested that serious and generous aid programs to "societies ravaged" by the United States could help improve its badly, globally tarnished image.

He also called for "a check on the economic exploitation of defeated territories," and a "demilitarization" of the US presence in such areas in order to recover.
The imperialist empire commonality is not unprecedented.

David Walker, director of the US Congress's Government Accountability Office (GAO), said in August that there were "striking similarities" between America’s current situation and the Roman Empire.

Top US historian Herbert Bix said last month that America under Bush Jr. was similar to imperial Japan under wartime emperor Hirohito.

Rowan Williams claimed that America’s attempt to intervene overseas by “clearing the decks” with a “quick burst of violent action” had led to “the worst of all worlds”.

In a wide-ranging interview with a British Muslim magazine, the Anglican leader linked criticism of the United States to one of his most pessimistic declarations about the state of western civilisation.

He said the crisis was caused not just by America’s actions but also by its misguided sense of its own mission. He poured scorn on the “chosen nation myth of America, meaning that what happens in America is very much at the heart of God’s purpose for humanity”.

Williams went beyond his previous critique of the conduct of the war on terror, saying the United States had lost the moral high ground since September 11. He urged it to launch a “generous and intelligent programme of aid directed to the societies that have been ravaged; a check on the economic exploitation of defeated territories; a demilitarisation of their presence”.

He went on to suggest that the West was fundamentally adrift: “Our modern western definition of humanity is clearly not working very well. There is something about western modernity which really does eat away at the soul.”

Williams suggested American leadership had broken down: “We have only one global hegemonic power. It is not accumulating territory: it is trying to accumulate influence and control. That’s not working.”

He contrasted it unfavourably with how the British Empire governed India. “It is one thing to take over a territory and then pour energy and resources into administering it and normalising it. Rightly or wrongly, that’s what the British Empire did — in India, for example.

“It is another thing to go in on the assumption that a quick burst of violent action will somehow clear the decks and that you can move on and other people will put it back together — Iraq, for example.”

In the interview in Emel, a Muslim lifestyle magazine, Williams makes only mild criticisms of the Islamic world. He said the Muslim world must acknowledge that its “political solutions were not the most impressive”.

He commends the Muslim practice of praying five times a day, which he says allows the remembrance of God to be “built in deeply in their daily rhythm”.

As conservative denomination members attending a two-day conference in Burlington, Ont., heard plans for the orthodox Anglican Church in South America to establish a parallel jurisdiction in Canada, the primate of the Canadian church announced he would issue a letter next week to be read in all Anglican parishes.

Archbishop Fred Hiltz’s letter is expected to be temperate, but to explain that the head of what is known as the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone of America, Archbishop Gregory Venables, has committed an outrageous wrong by trying to extend his authority into another church jurisdiction.

Archbishop Hiltz is also expected to make clear that congregations that vote to leave the Canadian church wouldn’t be taking their buildings with them, a subject much discussed at the Burlington conference.

In the United States, the Anglican Episcopal diocese of Virginia is fighting 11 congregations in court over ownership of church buildings. The congregations voted recently to quit the Episcopal Church and affiliate with the Anglican Church in Nigeria.

In Canada, national Anglican leaders for the most part pointedly have made no comment on dissident activities, likely out of a desire not to polarize the issue any more than it already is.

They were caught by surprise when a second retired bishop, Right Rev. Malcolm Harding of Manitoba, announced that he would turn in his Canadian minister’s licence and join the South American Anglicans. He follows in the footsteps of retired Newfoundland bishop Donald Harvey.

And what has brought matters to a head is the South American church’s formal intrusion into Canada and the plans announced by Bishop Harvey to ordain priests in Canada.

Well-sourced reports said that Canadian priests who have been flirting - if not climbing into bed - with the South Americans and a parallel church could find themselves disciplined in the next few days by their bishops.

The executive body of the Canadian church, the Council of General Synod, issued a statement at its meeting this month asking Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, titular leader of the 77-million-member world Anglican Communion, to tell the South Americans to cease and desist.

Archbishop Williams has remained silent.

“His silence doesn’t surprise us,” a senior Anglican cleric said yesterday, speaking only for background.
“But, as you know, when you avoid confrontation, you can wind up causing confrontation.”
The senior cleric said that if, as reported in one British newspaper, Archbishop Williams was exploring the idea of recognizing parallel jurisdictions, the world church would likely be irrevocably fractured.

). He made it clear that he was not at this stage advancing his own interpretation of these responses.
He would include his own reflections in his (annual) Advent Letter to the Primates in the coming weeks .

A summary of responses to the consultation on the House of Bishops' response to the request for certain clarifications in respect of the Windsor Process, and the subsequent report of the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and the ACC, is posted below.

Response of the Primates of the Anglican Communion and Members of the Anglican Consultative Council to the Report of the Joint Standing Committee

Introduction
1. At the beginning of October the Archbishop of Canterbury wrote to the Primates and Moderators of the Anglican Communion, sending to them the initial response of the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and the ACC to the recent communiqué of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church. In his letter, the Archbishop invited the Primates to consult within their Provinces and asked for a response by 31 October 2007. He also asked that ideally their response should offer some indication of what process of consultation had been possible within that timeframe.
2. The two questions posed in the Archbishop’s letter were:
· How far is your Province able to accept the JSC Report assessment that the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops have responded positively to the requests of the Windsor Report and those made by the Primates in their Communiqué at the end of their meeting in Dar es Salaam?
· What proposals do you have for any next steps that should be taken?
3. The Archbishop also wrote in a similar vein to the members of the Anglican Consultative Council. In that letter, the Archbishop asked:
· Each member of the ACC to advise on how they see the situation.
· How each member thinks the issues raised in the report should be assessed and responded to.
Primates’ Responses
General Overview

4. To date (6 November 2007), the Archbishop has received 26 responses from Primates, with no reply from 12 Provinces (see Figure 1).
The Provinces where a response has not yet been received can be categorised as follows:
· 5. CAPA Provinces (3) – the Archbishop of Central Africa retired in September, and the primacy is vacant at present. The (retired) Archbishop of Central Africa was a signatory of the recent CAPA communiqué, as were the Provincial representatives from the two remaining CAPA Provinces where a reply has not yet been received (the Archbishop of Sudan is currently in hospital, and is due to retire at the end of this year).
· South and Central American Provinces (2)
· United Churches (3)
· Other Provinces (4) although the Primate of one of these is on the JSC.
6. Many of the Primates have consulted widely, with their House of Bishops or at General Synod. A number intend to do so at the next meeting of their House of Bishops. A few have commented that in the time available, they were not able to consult as widely as they would have wished.

Detailed Comments
7. Many of the responses received so far raise specific points in reaction to the JSC’s conclusion on particular issues raised in the report. The report acknowledges that the House of Bishops has ‘laboured long and strenuously to come to a conclusion, and to offer its response to the requests of the Windsor Report, as reiterated in the Communiqué of the Primates Meeting in Dar es Salaam in February of this year’. Many of the positive responses acknowledge the work done by the House of Bishops to come to a common mind, reflecting their wish to maintain unity with other Provinces of the Anglican Communion:
· “We are mindful that these steps of humility and for some compromise, may come at a considerable internal cost so pray that God will equip them with tolerance, forgiveness of those who think differently, and grace during the days ahead.”
· “We felt the American bishops have tried hard to maintain unity in the Anglican Communion. We should appreciate their attitude in this matter and to encourage them to create the ‘third space’ rather than taking sides.”
· “We believe that the process to make such response has required of the TEC bishops a great deal of self-examination and evaluation on what and how they have to respond to the God’s call to His mission and evangelism in their context. We know that many TEC bishops have experienced much frustration and humiliation in order to produce such response. But as a result, this response clearly indicates that the TEC’s desire to remain in the Anglican Communion and to maintain good relationship with every Province of the Anglican Communion.”
· “[We] would wish to commend the House of Bishops in America for their response and the gracious tone in which it is offered. We consider that all requirement made of them have been met and look forward to the whole Communion now moving forward in a spirit of generosity …”
· “The Episcopal Church has borne unprecedented scrutiny into its affairs, often with scant regard either for its legitimate internal polity or for the principle … of local jurisdiction and non-interference, and in the face of all this has had the courage to take hard decisions.”

PART ONE of the JSC Report

8. In their communiqué, the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops addressed both the specific questions of the Windsor Report and also matters of related concern raised in the Communiqué of the Primates from their meeting in Dar es Salaam. PART ONE of the JSC Report covers the response of the Episcopal Church to the requests made in the Windsor Report, on which the Primates, at their meeting in Dar es Salaam, had asked for clarity – that is, that the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church:
· make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing of same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention (cf TWR, §143, 144); and
· confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention means that a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent (cf TWR, §134);
unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion (cf TWR, §134).
9. The JSC Report concludes that ‘by their answers to these two questions, we believe that the Episcopal Church has clarified all outstanding questions relating to their response to the questions directed explicitly to them in the Windsor Report, and on which clarifications were sought by 30 September 2007, and given the necessary assurances sought of them.
· Public Rites of Blessing for Same-Sex Unions
10. Many Provinces make specific comments in regard to the Episcopal Church’s response to the question concerning the Public Rites of Blessing for same-sex unions.
a. “It appears to be the view of a significant number of Synod members that the Joint Standing Committee’s assessment of the House of Bishops’ response as it relates to consecrations is more acceptable than the response as it relates to the blessing of same-sex unions. The concerns about the latter appear to spring both from the language used by the House of Bishops and from reports that individual bishops may be prepared to authorise or to turn a blind eye to blessings of same-sex unions within their own dioceses.”
b. “In their response the Episcopal Church has continued to use the language of ‘pledge not to authorise …’ with reference to Rites of Blessing for same-sex unions …. There has been and still is no indication of willingness to exercise a moratorium.” …
“On the issue of Rites of Blessing for same-sex unions the impression given is that the ‘local option’ for use of such rites still remains.” ...
“It is therefore apparent that the Episcopal Church has simply rephrased its position but not actually responded fully to the requirements of the Windsor Report paragraphs 143/144.”
c. “Part 1 (of the Report) deals with the responses requested of the Bishops of The Episcopal Church by the Primates at Dar es Salaam. The request of the Primates was that specific and unequivocal responses be received on two issues before 30 September 2007. These responses have now been issued, the Joint Standing Committee (JSC) has concluded that the assurances requested have been fully expressed and I agree that this is the case.”
d. “The statement of the House of Bishops in New Orleans did not meet the request of the Windsor Report that the ‘Bishops must declare a moratorium on all such public rites’. It also failed to meet the request of the Primates at Dar es Salaam that the Bishops should ‘make an unequivocal common covenant that the Bishops will not authorise any rites of blessing for same-sex unions in their Diocese.”
e. “While we disagree with decisions of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America regarding … and the blessing of same-sex unions, in fidelity to the history and traditions of the Anglican Church and its synodical structure we cannot concern ourselves with the legitimate decisions pertaining to another diocese or province.”
f. “The report itself seems to be a determined effort to find a way for the full inclusion of the Episcopal Church with no attempt at discipline or change from their prior position.” …
“Our view has been further corroborated by dissenting statements made by some members of the Joint Standing Committee and numerous declarations made by bishops of the Episcopal Church including Bishop Gene Robinson who on 9 October truthfully explained the situation …in an open letter.”
g. “After ceaseless, protracted and seemingly wasteful efforts in clarifying and specifying the real issues, to say that the TEC HoB have adequately responded to the Primates is most infuriating and unhelpful …. What is required of the TEC HoB is to ‘unequivocally’ confirm that they will not publicly bless same-sex blessings and even as pastoral measure (as it was raised during our discussions at Dar es Salaam).”
h. “Instead of committing to end the practice of blessing same-sex unions, the House of Bishops has acknowledged that these blessings occur and will continue unabated with the full consent and sometimes personal participation of diocesan bishops.”
i. “The JSC accepted the HoB addition of the proviso ‘or until General Convention takes further action’ despite the fact that the Constitution of the Episcopal Church clearly states that the passage of any measures requires consent of both houses voting separately. The House of Bishops, voting as a House, can exercise a veto on any measure.” …
“The HoB response failed to remove the ambiguity between the refusal to authorise public rites of blessings and the acceptance of local pastoral provisions. The Bishops failed to move beyond the position they enunciated in 2005 and have therefore failed to provide the moratorium sought by the Primates and the Windsor Report.”
· Elections to the Episcopate
11. Again, more specific comments are made in regard to elections to the episcopate:
o “It appears to be the view of a significant number of Synod members that the Joint Standing Committee’s assessment of the House of Bishops’ response as it relates to consecrations is more acceptable than the response as it relates to the blessing of same-sex unions.”
o “On the issue of Resolution B033 regarding the exercise of restraint ‘by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider Church and will lead to further strains on communion’ we feel that the clarification given, that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included in that resolution, brings a positive response to the request of the Primates at Dar es Salaam.”
o “The House of Bishops clarified Resolution B033 of the General Convention 2006 in such a way that ‘non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included in the restraint’. But in the same response we find them saying ‘We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God’s children, including gay and lesbian persons are full and equal participants in the life of Christ’s Church.’ What does this mean? This statement contradicts their explanation of B033 which put a restraint on electing and consecrating non-celibate gay and lesbian persons to the Episcopate Order, as it restricts them from full participation in the church.” …
“The request of the House of Bishops to the Archbishop of Canterbury to explore ways for Gene Robinson to fully participate in Lambeth Conference demonstrates clearly that they see that the manner of life of Gene Robinson, as a non-celibate gay, does not present a challenge to the wider church and will not lead to further strains on the Communion. This again contradicts their clarification of General Convention Resolution B033 that it does indeed refer to ‘non-celibate gay and lesbian persons”.
o “We welcome the decision of the Episcopal Church in the United States to provisionally refrain from ordaining candidates to Episcopal orders whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider Anglican Communion. It is our fervent desire that hereafter the Episcopal Church in the United States seeks a real fundamental solution to this issue rather than seeking a conditional decisions based on the unity and cooperation of the Anglican Communion.”
o “Instead of a firm and simple commitment not to consent to the election of non-celibate homosexual bishops, the House of Bishops proclaimed ‘the Gospel that in Christ all God’s children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ’s Church’. Given this ‘gospel’, the call for restraint in Resolution B033 cannot in any way represent repentance or a moratorium but, at most, a necessary but brief and superficial pause on the path toward giving those who engage in sexual sin full access to ecclesial office.”
o “The Primates asked for confirmation that ‘the passing of Resolution B033 … means that a candidate for Episcopal orders … shall not receive the necessary consent’. The HoB responded by stating that B033 does refer to ‘non-celibate gay and lesbian persons’. While this provides welcomed clarification, it does not guarantee that the Bishops shall not give the necessary consent as requested by the Primates.”
o “The conclusion of the JSC Report to the effect that the Episcopal Church and the Communion are on the same page on the two issues relating to sexuality is far too generous. While such a conclusion could possibly be justified in relation to elections to the episcopate, it is impossible to defend in relation to rites of same-sex blessings.”
PART TWO of the JSC Report
12. Part Two of the JSC Report covers pastoral issues, and in particular issues regarding pastoral care of parishes and dioceses within the Episcopal Church that have been alienated from the life and structures of the Episcopal Church because of developments within the Church. The JSC believe that the scheme of ‘Episcopal Visitors’ put forward by the Presiding Bishop offers a viable basis on which to proceed, and that by leaving the ministry flexible for negotiation and development, the Presiding Bishop has opened a way forward. The JSC makes a number of recommendations on the way forward in regard to the provision of pastoral care and oversight for dissenting congregations and parishes:
a. The JSC recommend that the Archbishop of Canterbury encourage the duly constituted authorities of the Episcopal Church, as a matter of urgency, to consult further on the issue of the provision of pastoral care and oversight for dissenting congregations and parishes in consultation with those who are requesting it.
b. The JSC asks the Archbishop of Canterbury to find ways to encourage the leadership of the Episcopal Church to draw those seeking alternative patterns of oversight into conversation about the way ahead.
c. The JSC has also expressed its dismay over the continuing use of the law courts in property disputes and request the Archbishop of Canterbury to use his influence to persuade parties to discontinue actions in law.
13. The following are some of the comments that focus particularly on issues of pastoral care for dissenting dioceses and parishes:
· “… the provision of ‘Episcopal Visitors’ proposed by the Presiding Bishop is a positive step forward that recognises the need for pastoral care.”
· “Part 2 addresses ‘Pastoral Issues’ which also received very considerable attention by the Primates at Dar es Salaam but which did not have applied to them any specific time-frame for response.” …
“It should be noted that many across the Anglican Communion, and not merely within The Episcopal Church, have regarded both the interventions of the Primates and particularly the proposals that include a Pastoral Council, as a challenge to the established historic parameters of ecclesiology generally and of Anglican polity in particular. It is refreshing to see that the Joint Standing Committee has recognised the importance of the initiatives undertaken, of her own motion, by the Presiding Bishop of TEC and I am entirely content to affirm that recognition.”
c. “As to the proposal on the Pastoral Council and Pastoral Scheme requested by the Primates in their communiqué, we understand fully that those requests would jeopardise the status of TEC’s autonomy, and therefore we would like to endorse the TEC’s idea of alternative pastoral oversight by other bishops under the supervision of the Presiding Bishop.”
d. “The House of Bishops came up with another internal plan that allows the Presiding Bishop to appoint Episcopal visitors for Dioceses that ‘request’ alternative oversight. This is completely different from the Pastoral scheme recommended by Dar es Salaam.”
e. “The grossly inadequate and knowingly unacceptable proposal for Episcopal Visitors appointed by the Presiding Bishop after the presentations by Bishop MacPherson and Bishop Duncan and the specific request for the joint-appointing of a Primatial Pastoral Council and Pastoral Scheme at Dar es Salaam cannot but be received as frustrating and not willing to come to terms with the Primates’ concern about the unacceptable pressures imposed on the orthodox bishops and dioceses/parishes to fall in line with with ECUSA’s unilateral innovative policies against discrimination against the gay and same-sex in matters of ordination/consecration and union blessing.”
f. “The Presiding Bishop, in particular, is to be commended for her self-denial in the generosity of the provisions proposed for the ministry of Episcopal Visitors.”
g. “The Presiding Bishop’s plan that was endorsed by the Bishops fails to provide adequately for what we described in Dar es Salaam as ‘the faithful’. It doesn’t make sense to leave all control in the hands of offending bishops. Oversight for parishes and dioceses within the Episcopal Church that wish to remain faithful to God’s Word and Communion teaching, the plan authored by the Presiding Bishop and affirmed by the House of Bishops not only bears no resemblance to the Pastoral Scheme we drafted in Tanzania but, worse, it demonstrates an utter disregard for the needs and concerns of those orthodox parishes and dioceses we sought to help.”
h. “The House of Bishops and the Executive Committee of the Episcopal Church rejected outright the Primates’ proposal for a Pastoral Scheme/Pastoral Council. The alternative offered by the HoB, namely, the Presiding Bishop’s scheme for Episcopal Visitors is not likely to succeed because it places ultimate responsibility on the local diocesan bishop to determine the nature and scope of the proposed oversight.”
Other Issues in Relation to Pastoral Care
14. Proposal for a Communion-Wide Consultation – Two Provinces give their support to the recommendation for a Communion-wide consultation with respect to the pastoral needs of those seeking alternative oversight, as well as the pastoral needs of gay and lesbian persons in the Episcopal Church (USA) and in other Provinces. One of these Provinces qualifies its support by insisting that the Episcopal Church must not be allowed to fully dictate the terms and conditions of the consultation. Another Province comments that in the JSC Report the acceptance by the bishops of TEC of a role for ‘communion wide consultation with respect to those seeking alternative oversight, as well as the pastoral needs of gay and lesbian persons in this and other Provinces’ is interpreted in terms only of the situation in TEC, although this must apply, in principle, wherever divisive issues arise in any Province. The implications of such a generalised acceptance of the potential for extra-Provincial interventions within any Province are clear, and furthermore, it is not clear that such a development has been considered or accepted by any Province, nor could it be demonstrated, without wide-ranging consultation, that such a development commands acceptance and support.
15. Lawsuits – One Primate has commented that the HoB did not address the issue fully in regard to the suspension of all legal actions, whilst another states that there is no evidence that the Episcopal Church is putting an end to lawsuits or property disputes.
16. Interventions – Three Primates oppose the interventions that have taken place. One of these considers that the ordination of missionary Bishops to minister within the United States to be illegal, regardless of the reasons put forward. The principal comment is that the actions of ‘uninvited bishops’ undermine the possibility of reconciliation. Another Primate comments that ‘there seems much less enthusiasm, on the part of the JSC or the Primates, to press for the need for a moratorium on interventions, less still to insist on withdrawal by those dioceses that have and continue to intervene. In this respect, the balance both of the Report of the JSC and of the Primates’ Meeting seems deeply compromised’.
17. The Listening Process – Two Primates support the JSC’s recommendation to intensify the process of mutual listening.
Proposals for Next Steps
18. The Lambeth Conference
· One Primate commented that the Conference should not just be a gathering for sharing experiences but should meet as a council, in the ‘conciliar tradition’ to openly and honestly discuss and decide what holds us together as the Anglican Communion. Furthermore if the Bishop of New Hampshire is to participate in any way, all canonically consecrated bishops without exception should so be invited as well.
· Another suggested that the Lambeth Conference be postponed, because of the current situation in the Anglican Communion, and a fear that the Conference will be overshadowed by human sexuality issues.
19. The Anglican Covenant
a. This is the only concrete step to define and affirm Anglican identity observed one Primate.
· Another Primate comments that issues surrounding extra-Provincial interventions is important ‘not just because it impacts upon the management of the current controversies, but also because the succession of Communion-wide initiatives such as envisaged in Windsor to define an Anglican Covenant and consolidate the influence of the Primates’ Meetings is steadily erecting, by precedent, a ramshackle superstructure at odds with Anglican polity and unauthorised by any representative forum. This cannot be a helpful way to proceed. It requires, in particular, an examination of the authority (and only thereafter the power) of Anglican consultative structures.
20. Primates’ Meeting - Three Primates requested a Meeting of the Primates to at least attempt to settle this crisis, since it is the Primates’ Meeting which has so far played such a crucial and important leadership role in the process.
21. Consultation Group – One Province suggests that a representative group comprising the leadership from the four Instruments of Communion convenes to explore ways and means of resolving the present difficulties associated with full Windsor compliance across the Communion.
ACC Responses
General Overview
22. Of the approximately 75 ACC members (with existing vacancies in some Provinces and new members being elected to the Council to replace members whose term comes to an end just before the next full meeting, membership numbers will change), 64% of the membership has not replied to the Archbishop’s letter of early October. Of the 36% who have replied, the percentage of those agreeing with the findings of the JSC Report is 18%, whilst only 3% have written to say that the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops have not gone far enough in offering the clarifications requested by the Primates’ Communiqué from Dar es Salaam. 11% of the membership (eight members) are members of the JSC – one member has replied formally to the Archbishop’s letter, of course supporting the conclusions of the JSC Report. (See Figure 2 below for a breakdown of responses.)
23. One ACC member (listed as ‘mixed response’) wrote to say that he would not be commenting on the Report for several reasons, one being that it is the Primates who requested a response from TEC at their meeting in Dar es Salaam. (This comment is picked up by the member from another Province, who views the Primates as best able to advise on the adequacy of the HoB’s response and the JSC’s initial response.) The other response listed as ‘mixed’ concludes that it would appear that the JSC Report’s assessment that the requests of the Windsor Report have been met in regard to ordination to the episcopate, but the response to the issue of Public Rites of Blessing for same-sex unions is less clear cut.
24. One of the reasons behind the higher percentage of positive responses to the JSC Report may be that two Provinces have sent joint responses from their ACC members.
Specific Points
25. A number of specific issues are raised by correspondents some of which mirror comments made by some Primates, and others relate directly to the polity of the Episcopal Church, and also issues of governance within the Anglican Communion.
26. Lawsuits It was noted that the JSC report did not address the legal actions against dioceses and parishes over property disputes.
27. Interventions
· The incursion by un-invited Bishops to other Provinces and Dioceses is a matter of concern and needs to be addressed in an honest way.
· One member considers that more importance is being attached to boundaries than warranted. They comment that it is a Christian imperative that the conscience and wishes of those who have appealed for pastoral oversight from outside TEC be heard and understood, and cites Europe as an instance where there is fluidity with regard to oversight and jurisdiction.
28. Role of Primates within the Anglican Communion
· One correspondent has voiced his disquiet at the role that the Primates’ Meeting has taken to itself without endorsement from the wider Communion. Another supports these comments and adds that the process of consultation is in some ways unnecessary, preferring that the Anglican Communion moves forward in the light of the JSC’s assessment.
· As commented upon previously, two correspondents have commented that any response to the JSC Report should come from the Primates. A third JSC member proposes that another Primates’ Meeting should be called to study and review the response of the TEC House of Bishops.
· The ACC members from one Province consider it unwise and unacceptable to include the Primates as additional members of the ACC, since this would not only lead to increased unwieldiness, but also risks diluting the effectiveness of the ACC by diverting it from its primary responsibilities.
· An ACC member from another Province notes that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lambeth Conferences, and the Primates may issue individual opinions concerning these matters, but once the decisions or issues are referred to the ACC and a decision is taken by that body, it then has to be respected and accepted by all concerned. All the necessary reports should therefore be referred to the ACC for consideration at its next meeting.
29. Other Issues Concerning Governance
a. One member is concerned that the questions and assurances emerging from the Primates’ Meeting were directed to the TEC’s House of Bishops whilst decisions for the Church are made by a central decision-making body of democratically elected bishops, priests, deacons, and lay people, and it is thus difficult for the House of Bishops to give assurances for their whole Church.
b. The member further expresses concern that a new governance model is being developed for the Communion that has no stated organising principle or core values (at least until there is an agreed upon Covenant), and that documents and resolutions are being given status that they did not claim when developed (e.g. LC1998 1.10).
c. Another ACC member comments that the JSC Report covers issues relating to TEC as observed and decided by their House of Bishops. However, TEC is said to be synodically governed and episcopally led, and as such it means that the three sections of the Church (the Houses of Bishops, Clergy, and Laity) should be the ones meeting as one body to issue any direction or policy.
30. Anglican Covenant - It will be important for all member churches and Provinces to consider and refine the Covenant if at the end of the day it is to be life giving rather than a device used to measure who belongs to the Anglican Communion.

Lambeth Palace
20/11/07

His initial position was especially to be commended because The Episcopal Church's (TEC's) Presiding Bishop and other radical TEC bishops have been quick to urge the very strongest measures against those parishes that leave TEC.

Our bishop, of course, is not one of the radicals, some of whom now so reinterpret classic Christian doctrine that, even though they dress up in traditional garb and recite a somewhat familiar sounding liturgy, they are, in fact, like the pagan priests of the late Roman Empire whom Gibbon so devastatingly described as, "Viewing, with a smile of pity and indulgence, the various errors of the vulgar, they digilently practiced the ceremonies of their fathers, devoutly frequented the temples of the gods; and sometimes condescending to act a part on the theater of superstition, they concealed the sentiments of an Atheist under sacerdotal robes."

So the bishop finds himself in a drama worthy of Sophocles: Parishes fed up with TEC's reinterpretation of Christian doctrine have been affiliating with other Anglican jurisdictions and have expected to take their property with them, but TEC's Presiding Bishop and her Chancellor have claimed all parish real estate as TEC's property.
A bishop therefore faces hard choices: On the one hand, to litigate against a departing church is to align himself with the TEC radicals. On the other hand, to give up claim to the property without a fight possibly runs the risk of legal action against himself by TEC for not sticking to "the company line."

TEC has already made such threats against orthodox bishops who want to pull entire dioceses out of TEC.
The present situation is not immediately of the bishop's making, but when assumed his present office in 1995, he knew that thousands of orthodox Christians had already left TEC to form new non-TEC parishes, and he must have known that, one day, entire parishes would be leaving TEC and expecting to take their property.

I intentionally write "their property," because from the very beginning of Christianity, faithful Christians have devoted their time, money and talents to the worship and glory of God and for places of worship, not for the possession of secular, hedonistic organizations such as the present TEC.

Except in the case of new missions (which are presently rare in TEC), the funds to build and maintain houses of worship typically have come "up" from church members, not "down" from a larger Church organization.

In fact, in the United States, diocesan and TEC demands for funds, misused too often for bloated bureaucracies and radical political causes, historically have siphoned resources from parishes, resources that could have been used better for local Christian outreach.

Moreover, contributions from church members certainly have not been given to support litigation against themselves in secular courts. And in the case at hand, the parish existed before the creation of TEC.

Moral issues aside, the bishop's situation is made even more complex by the fact that TEC's claim to parish properties is based on the Denis Canon (religious law) voted on in 1979 by the General Synod of the Episcopal Church. This canon attempted to transfer title of all parish property to the national church. It is now being contested in various secular jurisdictions, and the matter probably will land ultimately before the U.S. Supreme Court.

If the Denis Canon ultimately is held to be invalid, litigation initiated by dioceses will turn out to have been rather Quixotic wastes of resources and good will. If the Canon is upheld, resources and good will still will have been wasted, but thousands of TEC parishioners, more likely hundreds of thousands nationwide, will leave TEC for more orthodox affiliations.

Litigation is a lose/lose situation for TEC and its dioceses. And the Christ Church situation is not unique. Individuals, parishes and dioceses all over the U.S. are examining their options. Even though the national population grows every year, TEC membership declines every year. "He who has ears, let him hear."

A third set of problems concerns the Bishop's allies. He did not choose them, but they are there anyway. Should he remain on the same side as the local critics of Christ Church's Rector, critics who are themselves, in doctrine - or lack of it - more or less in league with TEC's radical innovators?

I repeat: our bishop certainly is not one of TEC's radicals, but to litigate is to do the radicals bishops' bidding while their local disciples cheer.

Virtually all of the public statements by the supporters of Christ Church intended departure have been models of moderation. This generally has not been the case with critics of the move.

Their com