Anglicans United & Latimer Press

Your Statement at the same time leaves me, and perhaps others in the Southern Hemisphere, unclear on several crucial points. I look to you, as an archbishop charged with huge responsibility under God, for your further clarification, that your actions can lead to the strengthening of the faithful across the worldwide Communion at this time of deep crisis and uncertainty.

1. What is the particular nature of the crisis before the Communion today? You mentioned several times in your Statement that the issue is over “biblical standards”, especially “in the biblical view of sexual ethics”. I wonder if that depiction adequately reflects the crux of the matter. After all, some other churches and congregations from different traditions have also departed from the “biblical views”. I wonder if the issue before the Anglican Communion is rather this: How do we see ourselves keeping the faith and witnessing together as part of the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church” across the ages and across the oceans? Perhaps at the heart is an ecclesiological issue. So the contention has never been simply on biblical view of sex, but on the particular issues of episcopal election of a candidate living in a committed same-sex relation ship, and on the rites of blessing for same-sex unions. The process of discerning the Word and on keeping faith to what is revealed as a community go hand in hand. I suggest this interpretation may perhaps be fundamental, and determines how we respond and map the way forward.

2. What are the particular heritage within the Anglican history you wish to retain? Your Statement recalls us back to the “biblical roots of our faith”. Perhaps our faithful needs clearer guidance on how Anglicans across the ages have understood the Scripture and defended the faith. Without this historical understanding, how would Anglicans be able to mark themselves out as an identifiable community? To put this in another way, would you wish to affirm that the historic formularies are foundational to the Anglican traditions of worship and theology? I am sure. Would then subscription to Canon A5 and Canon C15 of the Church of England be the necessary and sufficient condition for biblical orthodoxy? Or are you suggesting a more rigorous and tighter definition for Biblical faithfulness required for Anglicans?

3. Related to the above is your silence over the Anglican Covenant, which of course is determinative for the future of the Communion. Successive Global South communiqués support the Covenant processes. In fact, Global South Anglicans are instrumental in producing the present draft. Do you intend to support the Anglican Covenant processes which I trust is a main feature of Lambeth 2008? What hopes do you have for Lambeth 2008? And how do you see the discussion on the Anglican future in the proposed Conference related to that in Lambeth 2008?

4. The above leads me to ask for clarification on the agenda of the proposed Conference. Your Statement rightly highlights the crisis in the North American churches. Indeed, the list of Conference organizers are those who urgently need to take common counsel on how “orthodox” Anglicans in North America can work together as one identifiable body. It requires much patience and humility in working out how Anglican congregations (within CANA, AMIA, ACN etc.) support one another, not to mention how churches under different ecclesiastical authority can work together. The June Conference rightly should focus on this.

At the same time, can the Conference realistically discuss issues “such as Anglican identity, fellowship, theological education and mission” at a global level? I am unsure. First, some may say: “Primates, heal yourselves. If you cannot sort yourselves out in North America, are you merely spreading your mess and divisions to Anglican churches worldwide?” Second, can we in practice talk about an Anglican future for the global Communion if the Primates of all the Communion are not present? Or are you thinking of devising strategies for crossing boundaries to the churches worldwide that are deemed not to be orthodox?

5. I agree with your remark: “We live in a new world”. This observation calls for radical discipleship. I wonder if it ever crosses your mind in Nairobi a few weeks ago why there are no theologians from the Global South in your discussions. At least this is not apparent in the Statement issued by the organizers. I note of course the presence of eminent colleagues from the UK. I wonder if you feel any unease whether you may be still putting the new wine in old wineskins. In how you define the problems in the Communion, I am unclear whether you are not still perpetuating the theological debates that belong to a world long gone. The issues, as you depicted, are so focused on America. What contribution do you think the Global South churches can offer, other than the numbers? What theological contribution do you see Global South churches are making? Would you ask the Global South to refer in the first instance to their own theologians than to the elites in the North? Should you not exercise a charitable restraint to create space for the global churches to work out their agenda? John Stott’s lasting legacy is to bring about the maturing of the churches in the Southern Hemisphere, even if that means the “waning” of the Evangelical Fellowship of the Anglican Communion. He laboured for the birth of churches, and not merely for the victory of an ecclesiastical party. This is why he is held in high esteemed by all. The “new” in the Communion is that for the first time we live as a worldwide Communion of autonomous churches, defined by geographical boundaries, and called to work together across the geopolitical and socioeconomic realities. We are no longer a church defined by party lines. We seek not the victory of a party.

6. Do you think the “orthodox” Anglicans on their own can carry the Communion forward without the blessing of Canterbury? I am unsure. Anglicans – as any other religious bodies – have a social and public identity that is informed by tradition. Such tradition stabilizes tiny Anglican communities across the globe, and offer them tangible hope in times of deep crisis. I think here for example of Myanmar and Sri Lanka. It would be a sad day if Anglican churches across the Communion are presented with the choice: between a particular understanding of biblical faithfulness, and allegiance to Canterbury. It is easy to be rebels with causes. It is a different matter, you would agree, to bring about a new world order.

So we wait patiently and pray for the glorious coming of Christ.

With warm wishes in Christ,

Affectionately yours,

Michael Poon
Priest, Diocese of Singapore

In correspondence obtained by VOL, Archbishop Mouneer wrote saying he wanted to share his thoughts on the proposed GAFCON meeting.

"It will be a great joy for the Liberals if the conservatives boycott the Lambeth Conference. They will not find any resistance like the one made by the Global South Bishops in 1998. Secondly our absence will create a vacuum. I expect that at least 50% of the African Bishops will attend Lambeth Conference. Many of those do not have enough IT access and resources to fully understand the current crises. This means that 80% will attend and the strong voices from the South will be missed. The conservatives will find themselves as a minority between the Liberals and unaware African Conservatives.

"If we all attend, because Lambeth and the Anglican Communion are ours, we can change many things as in 1998. No one will force a specific agenda if we do not accept. Our presence can help those who are not aware of the problems."

Mouneer went on to cite St. Athanasius of Alexandria and his Bishop who went to Nicaea and fought the good fight against Arius. "They won. The creed that we say today was the result of this."

Mouneer said he was encouraged by the meeting in Nairobi, "where you reflected on the future of our Anglican presence. Like you, I am so disappointed in regard to the new theological direction of the churches in North America and other parts of the West. This direction undermines the authority of the Scripture, the nature of Christ, His death and resurrection. Like you, I am so disappointed because of the lack of discipline within our Communion. It is sad that we waste our time in meeting after meeting while TEC and Canada ignore all the warnings and requests of such meetings.

"I totally agree that we, the orthodox Anglican, should meet and discuss the challenges that are facing us and the ways that we go forward in the future. However, I am concerned about the timing you chose for such a meeting."

"It will be seen as an event to replace Lambeth Conference (LC). Especially after several of us have declared that we will not attend Lambeth Conference. This will prevent many orthodox Anglicans, especially from the West from attending such a meeting. Waiting for after Lambeth Conference will help us to understand what issues we need to discuss and how we can move forward. This will be mainly about the covenant. Will it be agreeable or will it be reduced to an unacceptable form? This also will help us to draft an acceptable one for the covenant which can be circulated before our meeting and signed during it. Many orthodox Anglicans will not be ready to sign any covenant before Lambeth Conference. We need to aim to be a covenantal family.

"If we met after LC, say November, will give us enough time to study and develop a structured network for the orthodox Anglicans in the world with all the needed statements of faith, mission, constitution and organizational structures. It will also give us time to agree beforehand about the possible outcome and recommendations of this meeting. A successful meeting requires very good preparation for the outcome; otherwise it will become another event like the previous Global So uth events. Without good preparation, possible division may occur during the meeting, especially among Global South members and those from the West who join for the first time.

"In regard to the site, 'Jerusalem', I doubt that we will get the support of the Bishop there for various reasons. Even if he agreed initially, things may change several months afterwards. This will put us in an awkward position. It is my region and I know it better than you. To say we will do a pilgrimage to attract Bishops, and yet it is not entirely a pilgrimage, is not right in my point of view.

"For the above reasons I would be grateful if you could reconsider the timing and the venue."

In a letter back to Mouneer, Akinola wrote saying how much he shared his perceptions and analyses of the situation we are in. "The new theological direction of the North American Churches and the lack of discipline are matters we both grieve about. I am also grateful that we share the same judgement that it is important that the orthodox Anglicans should meet and discuss the challenges before us. "You have again raised issues of the timing and the venue of such a meeting. I appreciate your concerns. I also agree with you that any discussion of a structured network for orthodox Anglicans with statements of faith, constitution and organisational structure needs proper preparation. We are not at that point yet and that is why we need to meet in June.

"I think it would be rather too precipitous to meet for the first time within a few months after Lambeth to try and engage in such structured realignment. What is most urgently required is an opportunity to meet and concentrate on our Lord, on the gospel, on his ministry and his mission and its implication for our obedience. We have dissipated so much energy and focused on TEC agenda for four years that we have not adequately discussed these matters of the greatest importance. We began to do so at the Africa Bishops conference at Lagos in 2004. We now wish to meet as a Global Fellowship to build on those discussions. Our meeting must not be in reaction to Lambeth. We must set the agenda of the gospel first.

"As we talked together at Nairobi, it became clear than a number of primates, leading a substantial number of bishops, feel they need to provide the spiritual care and encouragement which they would otherwise hope to receive at Lambeth, but which they cannot provide because of their principled objection to the current composition of the conference, which I believe you share. So our meeting is also necessary to provide that spiritual care.

"Be assured that we considered your important arguments carefully as we met in Nairobi. But we came to the unanimous conclusion that we needed to proceed. "I hope that you will trust the discernment of your brothers, their wish to remain in fellowship with you, and their earnest hope that you will feel most welcome to be with us in this time of gathering together and pilgrimage to lay the first steps for the future we all desire."

END

The article said the Episcopal Bishops' meeting in New Orleans failed to stem either the ongoing defection of conservatives over the church's position on homosexuals, or the likelihood of a worldwide Anglican split over the same issue.

The story was voted 5th following Pope Benedict XVI lifting the ban requiring a bishop's permission to celebrate mass in old-school Latin, but ahead of a story about Green Evangelicals, a group concerned about global warming, along with poverty and torture, becoming hot issues to a maturing conservative Christian movement.

By any estimate, it was a bad year for The Episcopal Church (TEC). Growing talk of schism in the wider Anglican Communion only heightened the tensions that continued throughout the year.

There were more consecrations by overseas Anglican provinces, more fleeing Episcopal parishes, and increasing legal dogfights from coast to coast over property ownership with a million or more dollars being spent in 2007 on legal fees.

The year had an inauspicious start when the Diocese of Virginia announced they were issuing lawsuits against 11 of its 15 departing congregations, continuing the scorched earth policy begun in 2006 against dissident congregations. The eleven announced they were leaving TEC and joining the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), a missionary outpost of the Church of Nigeria.

Lawsuits continued throughout the year with Virginia Bishop Peter James Lee inhibiting 21 clergy from the seceding congregations after litigation was initiated against them in order to evict them from their places of worship.

By year's end, there was still no legal resolution and, with some $30 million dollars in real estate at stake ,emotions were running high. An answer from the judge is expected sometime in January 2008.

2007 saw the continued realignment of the Anglican Communion, now in full swing, and gathering momentum almost weekly. Before the year ended, the evangelical Archbishop of the Southern Cone, the Most Rev. Gregory Venables, had stepped up to the plate announcing he would offer a safe "haven" to any diocese or bishop who wanted to flee either the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Church in Canada.

Two retired Canadian bishops immediately transferred their licenses to the Southern Cone Primate. A political uproar ensued in the Canadian Anglican Church with threats and more coming from both the new Archbishop of Canada Fred Hiltz and New Westminster Bishop Michael Ingham. Undeterred, Bishop Donald Harvey, Network Moderator for Canada, and Bishop Malcolm Harding, retired Bishop of Brandon, announced that they would minister under Archbishop Gregory Venables.

Both were distressed by the seismic shift in the theology and practice of the Anglican Church of Canada. Five former American Episcopal priests were consecrated as bishops to African provinces this year including Canon David C. Anderson, president of the American Anglican Council, and the Rev. Canon Roger Ames for CANA; The Rev. John Guernsey for Uganda and the Revs William Murdoch and Bill Atwood for Kenya.

The Rt. Rev. William Cox, former assisting bishop of Oklahoma and retired suffragan of Maryland, set sail for the Province of the Southern Cone, avoiding a possible trial for ordaining former TEC priests into another Anglican jurisdiction. Hell hath no fury like liberal bishops scorned.

In March, The Rt. Rev. Dr. David J. Bena, Suffragan Bishop of Albany retired and joined CANA to serve under CANA's aggressive Missionary Bishop Martyn Minns. CANA moved into high gear and began swallowing parishes left right and center, ending the year with more than 60 congregations under its wing.

The only missionary movement bigger was the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA) which saw their flock of parishes increase to 132. The Rt. Rev. Andrew Fairfield, retired Bishop of North Dakota, joined the Church of Uganda.

The highlight event of the year, as far the Episcopal Church was concerned, which TIME magazine noted, was the meeting of the House of Bishops in New Orleans.

This occasion saw the Archbishop of Canterbury (and members of the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council) make cameo appearances to listen to the US bishops express themselves on the pressing issue of conformity to the Windsor Report.

It was an indecisive occasion marked by a good deal of uncertainty over whether TEC had conformed to the Windsor Report, and, if not, would it be disciplined by the ABC for its refusal to adhere to the Dar es Salaam statement.

The inconclusive draft version of a proposed Anglican Covenant offered little for orthodox Anglicans to believe that the TEC would ever conform to Scripture over faith and morals.

It was an occasion that saw Bishop Gene Robinson publicly berate Archbishop Williams over the ABC's refusal to issue an open invitation to the homogenital prelate to next years' Lambeth conference.

By year's end, most provinces agreed that the Episcopal Church had not adequately addressed the Tanzanian accord of archbishops. Turmoil reined. There was no peace in the valley, at the cathedral, at 815 2nd Ave., or in Lambeth Palace.

Prior to his coming to New Orleans, Archbishop Williams sent out invitations to next years' Lambeth conference thus cutting off speculation as to who would or would not be invited.

Not invited were Robinson, (at least officially, though he will come to offer private lectures on the joys of sodomy) or Bishop Robinson Cavilcanti (Recife) and the offshore American-African bishops, prompting the Archbishop of Rwanda Emmanuel Kolini to declare that he would not come if his AMiA bishops were not invited. Ugandan Primate Henry Luke Orombi uttered a similar "nyet" with the Archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, making similar threats if his CANA bishops were not extended an invitation.

By years' end, it was clear Dr. Williams would not widen the circle of bishops. With the threat came word that an alternative Lambeth conference was in the air, setting the Communion's leaders teeth on edge with cries that that it would send a "negative message" to Anglicans worldwide.

A kairos moment did occur at the HOB meeting in New Orleans when the Bishop of the Diocese of the Rio Grande, the Rt. Rev. Jeffrey N. Steenson, announced he was resigning from TEC and going to Rome.

A few months later, he was followed by the Bishop of Southwest Florida, John B. Lipscomb, who retired and announced his intention to also go to Rome. In all, four bishops, including Bishop Dan Herzog and Clarence Pope, crossed the Tiber to enter the embrace of the Mother Church. (Meantime, the Traditional Anglican Communion, with its 400,000 members and Australian-based Archbishop John Hepworth, also reached out to Rome in the hope that it, too. would be accepted under Rome's umbrella, albeit with an Anglican Use Rite.)

With Bishop David Bena going to the super evangelical Province of Nigeria and four bishops going to Rome, the great Protestant divide begun by Martin Luther 500 years ago seemed as alive as ever, despite major attempts over the years to bridge the Great and Historic Christian Divide. "They all might be one" is seemingly a distant vision, fulfilled perhaps only at the Second Coming, but certainly not before.

What did emerge was the reality that in the boxing ring of the Anglican Communion, two Titans (Rowan Williams, the Affirming Catholic, and Peter Akinola, the evangelical) are set on 16 rounds, as the rest of the communion watches with baited breath to see who will still be standing at the end of the fight.

It was a year which saws dozens of evangelical and Anglo-Catholic parishes fleeing the Episcopal Church with the cry that TEC is no longer able to affirm the authority of Holy Scripture. There were cries that the church's innovations such as sodomy and same-sex unions were the offending causes and besetting issues.

Large cardinal parishes, mainly on the East and West coasts, led the way with notable departures including the pro-cathedral of St. Clement in El Paso, Texas; the historic Christ Church, Savannah where John Wesley once preached; and the majority of Grace and St. Stephens in Colorado Springs.

The Diocese of Western Michigan lost its cathedral of Christ the King, Portage, in a fire sale (it was sold for less than the cost of building it) to a non-denominational Evangelical mega church. The cathedral was the product of the massively ego-driven Bishop Charles E. Bennison Sr. whose two sons were later unceremoniously dumped by their respective dioceses for sexual crimes and diocesan mismanagement.

In the Diocese of Los Angeles, four congregations continued protracted litigation as the year drew to a close. Decisions about who owned church properties were continually being overturned by one court or another. A lower court ruled that church properties belonged to the congregations, but an appellate court later overturned that ruling saying the church properties belonged to the diocese.

In the end, the California Supreme Court will decide the ownership of these parish properties. Perhaps the most incisive comment on the departures came from the Rev. Canon Filmore Strunk, rector of St. Margaret's Episcopal Church in Waxhaw, NC, who took 50% of his parish out of TEC saying the church had abandoned the historic Christian faith, practiced unbiblical sex, and embraced Gnosticism. "The Episcopal Church is not going to repent. I knew I was going to have to leave this building I had worked in for so many years to build. I was in tremendous sorrow, but I was not prepared to trade a beautiful building against my eternal soul."

For the Episcopal Church, the discussion was never over "the faith once delivered to the saints". It was, and is, all about properties and who owns them for future generations that won't be there. (Half the congregations can barely muster 70 people. The average age is 66.)

At pre-trial hearings in Fairfax, Virginia, Mrs. Katharine Jefferts Schori disclosed that parishes could be sold to saloons and other Christian groups, but not to other Anglican churches who desire a foothold for Anglican orthodoxy on US soil.

Her attorney, David Booth Beers, confirmed that even if the National Church adopted a non-Christian faith and declared holy war on the United States, the Diocese did not have the authority to withdraw from the denomination.

Undaunted by a realignment that seemed to be going against orthodox Episcopalians, seven diocesan bishops and 43 other Anglican bishops met as Common Cause Partners to build, what in time will become a new North American Anglican Province for a new Anglican future. At their first meeting in September in Pittsburgh, they announced the creation of a new ecclesial structure "to build a federation of orthodox Anglicans in North America."

They met in Orlando in December to take the process to the next level. The Council unanimously elected Bishop Bob Duncan as Moderator, and Canon Charlie Masters of the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC) as General Secretary, making this a trans-provincial structure designed in part to force Rowan Williams to recognize them.

By the end of the year, he had made no such guarantees. In his Advent sermon he questioned the legitimacy of bishops in the AMiA, CANA, Kenya and Uganda USA and deemed them unworthy to sit with him at Lambeth in 2008. In one quote he said, "And while ... I understand and respect the good faith of those who have felt called to provide additional episcopal oversight in the USA, there can be no doubt that these ordinations have not been encouraged or legitimized by the Communion overall."

The end result of it all is that Williams steadfastly refuses to pin down The Episcopal Church or place on probation those who violated doctrine while accommodating those whose moral actions were deemed non-normative to structure and discipline.

Many now believe that Anglicanism, as it is now constructed, has failed. The cry of many is "do we need to go through Canterbury to get to Jesus?"

In his Advent Letter, there was no call for The Episcopal Church to repent, but to realize that we are, for better or worse, locked into TEC's pansexual agenda. A bad marriage for sure, but divorce will not be permitted.

Soon after the September Pittsburgh meeting, Mrs. Jefferts Schori announced that 12 bishops (were they modeled on the 12 Apostles?) had been nominated as "episcopal visitors". They will be made available to parishes and dioceses at odds with the innovations of the Episcopal Church.

Ironically, no such visits have been announced, largely because the orthodox are leaving in droves and believe that compromise of any sort is no longer on the table. Mrs. Jefferts Schori announced a new organizational plan for the staff at the Episcopal Church, relocating staff members to four regional offices in the U.S. including Los Angeles.

General Theological Seminary underwent a makeover incorporating a $27 million conference center dedicated to Archbishop Desmond Tutu, all part of an $88 million makeover. However, no change was announced concerning the seminary's theological direction which pushes inclusivity and diversity rather than the exclusive claims of our Lord. The former disgraced homosexual Governor of New Jersey announced, while divorcing his wife in a bitter struggle over child custody, that he wanted to be a candidate for Holy Orders and entered the seminary to begin his studies. (His male partner will continue to practice law.)

Trinity (Episcopal) School for Ministry in Ambridge PA., saw the resignation of the Very Rev. Paul Zahl who has taken the rectorship of All Saints parish in the revisionist Diocese of Washington, but he will be under the protection of the former Bishop of South Carolina, Ed Salmon. The Rev. Ian Markham became the dean and president of Virginia Theological seminary, but no change in the seminary's liberal direction is expected. He got Virginia Bishop Peter James Lee's imprimatur which speaks volumes. The Very Rev. Doug Travis became the dean and president of the Episcopal Theological seminary of the Southwest, replacing the temporary leadership of Dr. Philip Turner.

The Bishop of Pennsylvania, Charles E. Bennison, was inhibited (finally) by the Presiding Bishop after years of financial mismanagement, but the charges were "conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy". In this instance, it was for a sexual abuse case involving his brother, John Bennison, who was dumped from the priesthood after it was revealed he had sexual relations with a 14-year old girl in Charles' home, when Charles was a priest in California. Bennison has mounted a public relations offensive, but with a presentment by the Standing Committee still in the works and an ecclesiastical trial more than six months away, it is generally accepted that Bennison is history, as far as reclaiming his see is concerned.

The theological and moral breakdown in the church continued apace with a female Episcopal priest, the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding, on the staff of St. Mark's Cathedral in Seattle, Washington, announcing that she was now a practicing Muslim and saw no contradiction in remaining an Episcopal priest. The Rt. Rev. Geralyn Wolf, Bishop of Rhode Island, saw differently and promptly inhibited her for a year asking her to reflect on her faith, if any, that she might have.

The Executive Council of the National church met in three different locations of the U.S. and only succeeded in rejecting any notion of primatial oversight, a pastoral plan proposed by Anglican primates in Tanzania earlier in the year. Episcopal bishops consistently rejected any notion of primatial "interference" in TEC affairs including a commonly sought Constitutions and Canons, arguing that it violated their independence while, at the same time, strenuously demanding a place at the Anglican table on its terms. Few saw the contradiction.

A slew of liberal bishops were elected to various liberal and revisionist dioceses with little fanfare in 2007. The one notable exception was in the Diocese of South Carolina, where the orthodox Rev. Mark Lawrence finally got consents during a second round of balloting, adroitly fudging the language of "will I or will I not take the diocese out of TEC when I am elected."

He will succeed Bishop Ed Salmon in January 2008 when he is consecrated. Saying he will remain faithful to the Anglican Communion doesn't necessarily mean he will stay faithful to TEC. Lawrence has endorsed separating the Diocese of South Carolina from the Episcopal Church and has advocated that the authority of the General Convention be surrendered to the primates of the Anglican Communion. We will know more ere long.

One of the oddest elections to the episcopacy was the boy bishop of Northwestern Pennsylvania, Sean Rowe. At 32, he is one of the youngest bishop ever appointed. (William Gordon of Alaska was 29 1/2 and had to wait 6 months to be ordained - Lyman Ogilby of the Philippines and later PA was about 31.) The resignation of the 44-year old bishop of Oregon, Johncy Itty, raised eyebrows after only 36 months on the job. The Diocese of Chicago narrowly avoided a constitutional crisis by not electing a lesbian, Tracey Lind, to replace the outgoing William Persell. The diocese elected the liberal Jeffrey Lee, Rector of St. Thomas Episcopal Church in Medina, Washington. Bishop Mark MacDonald resigned as the diocesan leader of Alaska to become National Indigenous Bishop in the Anglican Church of Canada, while remaining Bishop of Navajoland with no one questioning the issue of boundary crossing except when it is done by overseas primates rescuing orthodox parishes from revisionist Episcopal bishops.

Eight retired bishops died, the most notable being the evangelical Stephen Jecko, former Bishop of Florida. He was assisting the Bishop of Dallas James Stanton when he went to be with our Lord.

Early in December, VOL revealed that the National Church spent close to $1 million in lawsuits in 2007, while the denomination continued its slow but steady decline in numbers throughout the year as tens of thousands of orthodox Episcopalians exit the church for safer spiritual climes under African primates and a Southern Cone archbishop.

The Office of Congregational Development revealed that membership in the churc h declined by more than a 1,000 a week, a total of 50,000 during 2006 with average Sunday attendance dropping by just under 22,000. Only a small handful of dioceses, mostly conservative, showed any growth in 2007.

At its annual convention in December, the Diocese of San Joaquin took an historic step and voted to disassociate from The Episcopal Church. The convention also accepted an invitation from Archbishop Gregory Venables and the bishops of the Province of the Southern Cone of South America to be welcomed into their membership.

According to San Joaquin Bishop John-David Schofield this was the first time in American Anglican history that a diocese had realigned with a like-minded province. He said the vote was a resounding affirmation by his clergy and laity to remain within the worldwide Anglican Communion with its heritage and universally accepted teaching based on the word of God.

Numerous African and Latin bishops made forays onto US soil and into liberal Episcopal dioceses in 2007 drawing down the wrath of liberal Episcopal bishops, but there was little they could do about it. There seemingly will be no let up in 2008.

The hemorrhaging of The Episcopal Church is expected to pick up dramatically in 2008 when other dioceses, including Pittsburgh, Ft. Worth and Quincy, and perhaps three or four more, are expected to vote to leave TEC.

The realignment in The Episcopal Church is now firmly underway. Schism, it would appear, is inevitable.

END

I was proud of her exquisite, sparkling work, featuring snowflakes and icicles in shades of silver, white and blue. But there was something very sad about it. It seemed cold and empty compared to the cheery reds, greens and golds of Christmas. The songs were unfamiliar to me. Even "Frosty the Snowman" was taboo -- I guess because it mentions Christmas. Perhaps I should not be surprised at the way things have progressed. The religious aspects of Christmas have been taboo for awhile. Now even the childhood fun of the Christmas celebration is being stripped from the nation's public schools.

Yes, Christmas is over. But it's worth one last look at what has become an annual legal and political battle against Christianity that actually takes place throughout the year.

Legally, the acknowledgement and discussion of Christmas is not forbidden in schools or the public square. But city officials and school administrators across the country downplayed it for fear of being sued by the ACLU and their "offended" clients. Christmas vacation is now universally referred to as "winter break." The Christmas program is now the "winter concert."

The courts pretty much agree that, in public schools and on government property, manger scenes are required to be combined with secular symbols like reindeer and Christmas trees, or Santas and Frostys. Christians have kind of come to grips with that. But the secularizers are not satisfied. In recent years, even the non-religious but traditional aspects of Christmas are being challenged.

Town officials are finding themselves in the peculiar position of having to decide whether Christmas -- I mean "holiday" -- parades can include the presence of Santa Claus. This year, in Fort Collins, Colo., there was a fight over red and green Christmas lights. A city-appointed task force, which included a member of the Northern Colorado ACLU, proposed the colors be banned. (An overwhelming outcry by citizens convinced the city council not to "mess with tradition.")

This year, the Seattle airport took its Christmas trees down, and, after a chorus of disapproval, put the trees back up. In the name of inclusiveness, symbols that have nothing to do with the Christian aspects of Christmas are banned from the public square. You have to wonder, do people other than ACLU lawyers really want these changes? The answer to that question appeared last month in the form of a survey released by Rasmussen Reports. One thousand adults were polled and 67 percent said they preferred that retailers use the words "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays" in their seasonal advertising. Most people are weary of this politically correct nonsense.

As if it were not depressing enough to observe the secularization of Christmas, we also get to live through another attempt by atheist Michael Newdow to strip God from the Pledge of Allegiance. Newdow was back in federal court in early December, demanding "under God" be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance and the currency. The case is the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the same court that affirmed Newdow's challenge to the pledge in 2002.

Hollywood is cooperating with the outright promotion of atheism to kids. Just in time for the Christmas movie-going season was the epic fantasy film, "The Golden Compass." The film has the look of the Chronicles of Narnia movie that was so successful a couple of years ago. But it's the anti-Narnia. The Golden Compass is based on the first in the "His Dark Materials" book trilogy written by British atheist Philip Pullman. At the end of the trilogy, God dies.

Several recent bestselling books by atheists have become weapons in this secular war on Christians and their beliefs. Conservative author Dinesh D'Souza describes the struggle and counters their arguments in his new book, "What's So Great About Christianity?" He argues that atheists have developed a strategy to win the minds of the next generation. Involved, believing parents are the counter to this and the atheists know it. Atheist Richard Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion," calls faith a mental illness, and raises the question as to whether or not parents should "be free to impose their beliefs on their children." Atheist Christopher Hitchens, author of "God is Not Great," asks. "How can we ever know how many children had their psychological and physical lives irreparably maimed by the compulsory inculcation of faith?"

Free nations should welcome religion, specifically Christianity, because it preserves freedom. Totalitarian regimes benefit when the culture is stripped of religion, or religious celebrations. In the former Soviet Union, Communists feared Christianity and gradually secularized the Christmas holiday. They wrote Jesus out of Christmas carols, banned St. Nicholas, and banned Christmas trees. Not willing to let go, the people moved these traditions to New Years.

Our nation is still overwhelmingly Christian. We pride ourselves on our tolerance of all religions -- or no religion. But Christians should remain vigilant and winsomely seek to remain the primary drivers and influencers of culture in America.

Penna Dexter is a board of trustee member with the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Dallas, TX

Dan Furmansky, executive director of the homosexual activist group Equality Maryland, told The Gazette news service in Maryland he is working to get moderate and conservative Democrats on board supporting "gay marriage." Maryland and Washington have Democratic-controlled legislatures and Democratic governors.

"I think that marriage equality will mirror every contentious social issue that the Democratic Party faces. This is a flashpoint issue," Furmansky said. "These elected officials are sent to Annapolis to make life better for all of their constituents, and they need to address the problems that same-sex couples face because they're treated like legal strangers."

The Maryland Court of Appeals -- the highest court in the state -- issued a ruling in September refusing to legalize "gay marriage."

Maryland Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. said "gay marriage" is an issue "whose time has not yet come," but Del. Heather R. Mizeur, a Democrat and open homosexual, said the issue shouldn't be put on the backburner, either.

"The fundamental question in this debate is how do we get equal justice under the law," she told The Gazette. "There aren't many permutations to that answer."

In Washington state, where that state's Supreme Court ruled against "gay marriage" in July 2006, homosexual activists are pushing for additional legislation a mere five months after a new same-sex domestic partnerships law went into effect. The law grants homosexual couples some of the legal benefits of marriage.

"We hope to increase the protections available to gay and lesbian families in Washington state," Josh Friedes, advocacy director of Equal Rights Washington, told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. "We recognize that we are not at the point were we can pass the marriage bill. In the interim, while we continue the dialogue about marriage, we do believe it is possible to increase the rights."

Additionally, supporters of "gay marriage" say that with an election approaching, they will work to put legislators in office who are more favorable to the issue.

"The entire focus had been on the courts," Washington state Sen. Ed Murray, an open homosexual, told the Seattle newspaper. "We have yet to go through an election cycle where we talk to legislators and raise money for legislators around the issue of marriage."

Expanding the domestic partnerships bill, Murray said, would be another step toward "gay marriage."

Meanwhile, an election in Washington state between Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire and Republican Dino Rossi -- who Gregoire defeated in a recount after the 2004 election -- could impact the issue. Rossi opposes "gay marriage." Gregoire signed the domestic partnerships bill and previously said she opposed "gay marriage" but has not said as such recently. Asked her views on the issue recently, she said, "I do not believe the state should discriminate against any citizen."

N.H. LAW TO TAKE EFFECT -- New Hampshire's civil unions law takes effect Jan. 1, and same-sex couples -- including Democratic state Rep. Gail Morrison and her partner -- are planning to have a group ceremony on the steps of the state capitol at midnight. The law will grant couples the legal benefits of marriage, minus the name.

"My partner and I have been talking about wanting to do it the minute it was possible, and where else do you celebrate those state accomplishments?" she told the Associated Press. "It's a combination of very private dedication to one another, but within the context of a historic state event, so the Statehouse steps seemed absolutely the perfect place to be."

TWO FATHERS, TWO MOTHERS, ONE BABY -- Christian conservatives worried about the collapse of the natural family found another reason in mid-December to have concern when the Los Angeles Times reported the birth of a baby born essentially with two mothers and two fathers.

With the help of a fertility clinic, homosexual couple Chad and David Craig of Atlanta had their sperm -- mixed so they would not know who the father was -- united with a donor's egg and implanted into a surrogate mother. The baby boy, O. Jansen Hodge Craig, has a biological mother, birth mother and two fathers -- one of them being the biological father.

But that was just the end of the story. They had been trying for four years to have a baby, and as the Times reported, "went through three egg retrievals, 65 eggs, seven fertilization attempts, three surrogates and more than $200,000 in expenses."

The birth mother, who lives in Massachusetts, even is pumping and freezing breast milk and shipping it in dry ice to Atlanta weekly.

One of the men said of taking care of the baby, "[W]e're just going through what all parents go through."

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council disagrees.

"[T]hey have gone to such great lengths to ensure that this child will not 'go through' the experience that most children enjoy of being raised by both a mother and a father," Perkins wrote in his daily e-mail. "It is outrageous that courts in some states have become complicit in this denial of biological reality by allowing homosexual couples to have custody of newborns and birth certificates that mislead about the true parentage of the child."

Michael Foust is assistant editor of Baptist Press.

Israel is planned as a venue because it symbolises the biblical roots of our faith as Anglicans. I want those in the fellowship of our Diocese to know what this is about and why I am involved.

In 1998, the Lambeth Conference made it clear that the leaders of the overwhelming majority of Anglicans world-wide maintained the biblical view of sexual ethics – that sexual relationships are reserved for marriage between a man and a woman. Five years later, however, actions were taken in Anglican Churches both in Canada and the United States of America which officially transgressed these boundaries in defiance of the Bible’s authority.
There was an immediate adverse result for those who wanted to maintain orthodoxy within these churches. They courageously protested against these actions, and as far as possible withdrew their fellowship from those who they perceived had broken God’s law. In doing so, they wished the world to know that they remained as genuine Anglicans. They had made no change in their basic beliefs and they understood themselves still to be in fellowship with the mainstream of the Anglican Church elsewhere in the world.

The American actions also impacted churches all around the world. In particular the churches of the Global South had to own the name ‘Anglican’ while living in societies where the actions of the Americans was condemned by all, especially Muslims. The action of some North Americans severely hurt the witness of these churches. It also hindered the good effect that membership of the Anglican Communion has for those who live in a situation where Christians are in a minority.

Since 2003, patient attempts have been made to call the offending North Americans back to biblical standards. Many American Anglicans are now more aware of the distress which their actions have caused others, and regret this impact. At the same time, however, others have condemned attempts by Global South Bishops to provide ministry for the orthodox Christians who still wish to be Anglican, but cannot continue to do so in the fellowship of the American churches. Individuals, parishes and even dioceses have left the original church, becoming associated with other dioceses in other parts of the world, and with new bishops being appointed from overseas to care for the disaffected.

Such has been the fall-out that it is now clear that we will never go back to being the Communion which we once were. There has been a permanent change. We live in a new world. Some American Anglicans are as committed to their new sexual ethics as to the gospel itself, and they intend to act as missionaries for this faith, wishing to persuade the rest of us. The problems posed by the American church are not going to remain in North America. This means that the rest of the Anglican world must be vigilant to guard the teaching and interpretation of scripture. Bound up in this are other issues such as Anglican identity, fellowship, theological education and mission. How are we going to help each other remain true to the authority of God’s word? How are we going to help each other to preach the gospel of God’s transforming power and grace? These matters require urgent attention.

The next Lambeth Conference has been summoned for July-August 2008. The Archbishop of Canterbury is responsible for the guest list, and he has invited all except for the Bishop of New Hampshire on the one hand and some of the new bishops appointed to care for the dissidents on the other. Thus, for example the Bishop of New Westminster has been invited although his actions have caused the Reverend David Short and his congregation (which includes Dr Jim Packer) to withdraw as far as they can from the Diocese. An invitation to share the Conference under these circumstances has posed a real difficulty for many of us.

Several African Provinces have indicated that they will not be attending Lambeth, because to do so would be to acquiesce with the North American actions. They are not ending the Anglican Communion, or even dividing it. They are simply indicating that the nature of the Communion has now been altered by what has occurred. They see that since the American actions were taken in direct defiance of the previous Lambeth Conference, the Americans have irreparably damaged the standing of the Conference itself. They asked without success for the Conference to be postponed. They do not think that this Conference is what is needed now. To attend would be to overlook the importance of the issues at stake.

The Anglican Future Conference is not designed to take the place of Lambeth. Some people may well choose to go to both. Its aim is to draw Biblical Anglican Christians together for urgent consultation. It is not a consultation which can take place at Lambeth, because Lambeth has a different agenda and far wider guest list. Unlike Lambeth, the Future Conference is not for Bishops alone – the invitations will go to clergy and lay people also. But it is a meeting which accepts the current reality of a Communion in disarray over fundamental issues of the gospel and biblical authority. It therefore seeks to plan for a future in which Anglican Christians world-wide will increasingly be pressured to depart from the biblical norms of behaviour and belief. It gives an opportunity for many to draw together to strengthen each other over the issue of biblical authority and interpretation and gospel mission.

I am supporting this Conference and am part of the planning team for it. I am hoping that we will also see Sydney laypersons and clergy in attendance with our bishops. We must look to the future, and network with Anglican Christians from around the globe who share our fundamental trust in the authority of God’s word. We have much to learn from them and they can benefit from our fellowship also. I hope that you will pray for the Conference and support our decision to attend.

The event, which was agreed at a meeting of Primates in Nairobi last week, will be in the form of a pilgrimage back to the roots of the Church’s faith. The Holy Land is the planned venue. From 15-22 June 2008, Anglicans from both the Evangelical and Anglo-catholic wings of the church will make pilgrimage to the Holy Land, where Christ was born, ministered, died, rose again, ascended into heaven, sent his Holy Spirit, and where the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out, to strengthen them for what they believe will be difficult days ahead.

At the meeting were Archbishops Peter Akinola (Nigeria), Henry Orombi (Uganda), Emmanuel Kolini (Rwanda), Benjamin Nzimbi (Kenya), Donald Mtetemela (Tanzania), Peter Jensen (Sydney), Nicholas Okoh (Nigeria); Bishop Don Harvey (Canada), Bishop Bill Atwood (Kenya) representing Archbishop Greg Venables (Southern Cone) , Bishop Bob Duncan ( Common Cause Partnership and Anglican Communion Network), Bishop Martyn Minns (Convocation of Anglicans in North America ), Canon Dr Vinay Samuel (India and England) and Canon Dr Chris Sugden (England). Bishops Michael Nazir-Ali (Rochester, England), Bishop Wallace Benn (Lewes, England) were consulted by telephone. These leaders represent over 30 million of the 55 million active Anglicans in the world.

Southern Cone Primate Gregory Venables said: “While there are many calls for shared mission, it clearly must rise from common shared faith. Our pastoral responsibility to the people that we lead is now to provide the opportunity to come together around the central and unchanging tenets of the central and unchanging historic Anglican faith. Rather than being subject to the continued chaos and compromise that have dramatically impeded Anglican mission, GAFCON will seek to clarify God’s call at this time and build a network of cooperation for Global mission.”

The gathering set in motion a Global Anglican Future Conference: A Gospel of Power and Transformation. The vision, according to Archbishop Nzimbi is to inform and inspire invited leaders "to seek transformation in our own lives and help impact communities and societies through the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ”. Bishops and their wives, clergy and laity, including the next generation of young leaders will attend GAFCON. The GAFCON website is www.gafcon.org.

Canon Chris Sugden added: "While this conference is not a specific challenge to the Lambeth Conference, it will provide opportunities for fellowship and care for those who have decided not to attend Lambeth. There was no other place to meet at this critical time for the future of the Church than in the Holy Land .”
Ends.

For further details:
Paul Eddy (UK Press Officer) 44-(0) 7958 905716; Bishop Lawrence Dena (Kenya) 254-721-99-0236 and 254-202-714755; Russell Powell (Australia) 61-(0) 411-692499, 612 9265 1507; Ven. AkinTunde Popoola (Nigeria) 234-802-3420161; Peter Frank (USA) 1-724-777-3246; Canon Dr Chris Sugden (UK) 44 (0) 1865 883388.

Editor’s Notes:

Frequently asked Questions

1. Who is sponsoring the Conference?
The Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) is being called by those who took part in the Nairobi Consultation:

Archbishops Peter Akinola (Nigeria), Henry Orombi (Uganda), Emmanuel Kolini (Rwanda), Benjamin Nzimbi (Kenya), Donald Mtetemela (Tanzania), Archbishop Peter Jensen (Sydney) Archbishop Nicholas Okoh (Nigeria). Bishop Don Harvey (Canada) and Bishop Bill Atwood (Kenya) who also represented Archbishop Greg Venables (Southern Cone).

Bishop Bob Duncan (Anglican Communion Network and Common Cause USA.), Bishop Martyn Minns (Convocation of Anglicans in North America), Canon Dr Vinay Samuel (India and England), Canon Dr Chris Sugden (England)
Bishop Michael Nazir Ali (Rochester, England) and Bishop Wallace Benn (Lewes, England) were consulted and also form part of the Leadership Team.

These bishops and their colleagues represent over 30 million Anglicans out of the 55 million active Anglicans. ( Nigeria 18m , Uganda 8m Kenya 2.5m Rwanda 1 m Tanzania 1.3 m plus Southern Cone, US, Sydney, England). The notional total of the Communion is 77m. The active membership is nearer 55 m, since of the 26m notional members in CofE 3.7m attend at Christmas Services)

2. Whom do you expect to come?
We will be inviting bishops and their wives, senior clergy, church planters, and lay people including the next generation of young leaders. We aim to make it a Global Anglican Conference with its eye on the future and future leadership.

3. Is this a Global South Initiative?
Not quite. Many of the Primates at the Nairobi Consultation are in the Global South, but it also included Anglican leaders from parts of the world beyond the geographic Global South.

4. Why a pilgrimage?
We are looking to the future of the Global Anglican Communion, which is itself a pilgrimage.

Those who want to hold on to the Biblical and Historical faith need to come together to renew their faith and develop a fresh vision for our common mission. The way we have chosen to do this is to undertake a pilgrimage to a land whose heritage we all share, the land where Jesus Christ was born, ministered, died, rose again, ascended into heaven and sent his Holy Spirit, and where the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out. We believe this will strengthen us for the difficult days ahead.

The conference will outline the mission imperatives for the next 25 years for orthodox Anglicans. It is important therefore to reconnect with our roots in the biblical story.

5. Is not Israel/Palestine a controversial venue?
Israel/Palestine has been a place of conflict for decades. That should not keep us from making pilgrimage to a land that is our common heritage. We want to bring fellowship and bear testimony to the Christian communities in Israel/Palestine. Those of us from Africa are no strangers to the pressure that Christian communities are put under from other religious groups and communities.

6. Why call it in June?
The pilgrimage is to strengthen bishops at a crucial time in the life of the Anglican Communion. Many bishops will not be able to accept the invitation to the Lambeth Conference as their consciences will not allow it. Some will attend both gatherings. The purpose of the consultation is to strengthen them all spiritually.

7. Is it not really an alternative to the Lambeth Conference?
No.

It is not at the same time or in the same region as the Lambeth Conference. So there will be some who will attend both conferences and thus be able to consult with the Archbishop of Canterbury and others there.

As Archbishop Gregory Venables has said: “While there are many calls for shared mission, it clearly must rise from common shared faith. Our pastoral responsibility to the people we lead is now to provide the opportunity to come together around the central and unchanging tenets of the central and unchanging historic Anglican faith. Rather than being subject to the continued chaos and compromise that have dramatically impeded Anglican mission, GAFCON will seek to clarify God’s call at this time and build a network of cooperation for Global mission.”

GAFCON is a call to vision and action for mission based firmly on the “faith once delivered to the saints” and revealed in Scripture, to reform the church and transform persons, communities and societies through the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. African Bishops had this focus at their Lagos 2004 conference. The Episcopal church’s agenda has recently overshadowed it. We now need to develop this gospel agenda for all like-minded in the communion.

It is to outline the mission imperatives for the next 25 years and how to begin to respond to them.

It is a pilgrimage to the places of the Biblical story to renew our faith and commitment. It is to envision the Global Anglican Future.

The Lambeth Conference has a different agenda.

8. Is this all over a gay bishop?
No.

GAFCON is about churches being grouped by what they have in common. We're for growth, we're for being passionate about the truth. We want to look to the future. That's what the conference is about - Global Anglican Future.

9. Aren't you splitting the church?
No. Communion depends on having something in common. Churches in the Global South are growing. They're passionate about the truth and their faith. We are building on this strength.

As the Anglican Communion develops, some of the old bonds are loosening, and some new bonds are being formed. That's a good thing. These bonds involve churches which are growing, and which have something distinctive to say to the world. GAFCON is enthusiastic about mission. Its focus is the future.

More than a fifth of the Church of England's bishops could face the axe under new proposals being drawn up by its leaders.Secret documents discovered by The Daily Telegraph reveal that the Church Commissioners - the financial wing of the Church of England - are considering reducing traditional funding for the hierarchy.

The proposals come in the wake of criticism that the Church is top heavy and the bishops too costly, while congregations are shrinking and parishes are strapped for cash. But they are likely to anger some bishops, who feel they are already overstretched and undervalued.All of the Church's 113 bishops are currently paid for centrally by the Commissioners, last year to the tune of nearly £25 million.

The cost includes housing for 44 senior diocesan bishops, some of whom live in historic palaces and castles.But under the proposals being discussed by the Archbishops and other leaders, the Commissioners would reduce their support to no more than two bishops per diocese.According to confidential Church papers, any diocese with more than two bishops - nearly half have between three and six - would have to fund the extra posts themselves or scrap them. While a few wealthy dioceses may be able to raise enough from donations, most would be forced to shed posts.

Under another option, the Commissioners, who also manage the Church's historic investments, would fund more than two bishops only if certain "objective" criteria were fulfilled.The proposals are being considered by the House of Bishops' Standing Committee, chaired by the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, as part of a wider review of the role of bishops.

The Church is already setting up a new national commission with sweeping powers to recommend the scrapping or merging of dioceses.Church spokesmen confirmed that "various options" were being considered, but said that no final decisions had yet been taken.Some clerics believe that a quarter of the Church's suffragan, or assistant, bishops should be shed, saving millions of pounds a year.

They want more money to be pumped into missionary initiatives to attract people back to church such as Fresh Expressions, the Archbishop of Canterbury's scheme to promote alternative worship.Supporters of the bishops say they are needed to spearhead such initiatives, even though their role has become increasingly weighed down with bureaucracy generated by government red tape.

But critics of the hierarchy point out that in 1900 there were 57 bishops - 31 diocesan and 26 suffragan - and about 24,000 clergy. While there are now 113 bishops - 44 diocesan and 69 suffragan - and only 9,000 full-time parish clergy, supplemented by a similar number of part-time clergy and licensed lay people.One Synod member said yesterday: "Frankly, half the bishops could go and they wouldn't be missed. Those that are left should be out and about taking the Gospel to the country rather than sitting in meetings all day."Diocesan bishops are paid £35,890 a year while suffragans, who are generally provided with accommodation by their diocese, get £29,560.

Legislation introduced by Sens. Sam Brownback, R.-Kan., and Robert Byrd, D.-W.Va., that would return "In God We Trust" to a more visible location is awaiting President Bush's signature.

The Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2005 was meant to honor the nation's presidents by issuing $1 circulating coins featuring their images in the order that they served. The first four honoring Presidents Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison were issued this year.

The coins feature what the mint calls edge-incused inscriptions -- used in other countries -- of the year of minting or issuance, "E Pluribus Unum," "In God We Trust" and the mint mark. The size, weight and metal composition of the presidential coins is identical to that of the Sacagawea Golden Dollar. The 2005 congressional bill mandated the inscriptions be placed along the edge to allow "larger and more dramatic artwork" on the front and back. It was not a decision made by the mint.

But some coins made it through production without having the inscriptions stamped on the edge, and some experts say the wording on the coin's edge could rub off over time. Others expressed concern that moving the "In God We Trust" motto to the side of the coins was the first step in removing it altogether.

"Since the colonial beginnings of the United States, citizens of this nation have officially acknowledged their dependence on God," Brownback said in a news release Dec. 6. "It is important that our national motto, 'In God We Trust,' is prominently displayed on all of our currency. We should not relegate our heritage to the side."

Brownback's legislation is included in The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, which is several hundred pages long. Section 623 specifies that the motto be moved from the edges of the presidential coins to the obverse (front) or reverse (back) of the coins. The move "shall be put into effect by the Secretary of the Treasury as soon as is practicable after the date of enactment of this Act."

According to the Treasury Department, the motto was first placed on United States coins largely because of increased religious sentiment during the Civil War.

"Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins," the department says on its website.

The first recorded appeal came in a letter to Secretary Chase dated Nov. 13, 1861 from M.R. Watkinson, a minister from Ridleyville, Pa., noting that recognition of "the Almighty God" had been "seriously overlooked" on the nation's coins.

"You are probably a Christian," Watkinson wrote. "What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation?"

Watkinson suggested the words "God," "liberty" and "law" be inscribed on the coins.

"This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism," he wrote. "This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters."

Chase then instructed the director of the Philadelphia mint to prepare a motto. In a letter dated Nov. 20, 1861, Chase wrote, "No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins.

"You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition."

In 1863, Chase approved the motto "In God We Trust," and the motto first appeared on the two-cent coin in 1864.

In 2005, Michael Newdow, an atheist and lawyer from Sacramento, Calif., sued Congress and several federal officials because he said the motto's presence on U.S. coins and currency violated his First Amendment rights. A federal judge in Sacramento ruled against him in 2006, the Associated Press reported, and Newdow appealed.

Newdow argued his case against the motto along with his case for removing the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance before a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Dec. 4, saying both references disrespect his religious beliefs.

Complied by Erin Roach, Baptist Press staff writer.

"It's been coming," said Mary Reich, a parish leader. "You can't run a parish on 30 people. Most of our members are over age 55."

The final service will be at 9 a.m. Sunday at the church, 10961 S. Hoyne. After worship and a time of socializing, a letter from the bishop of the Chicago Episcopal Diocese will be read.

The Rev. Michael Stephenson, a diocesan official, said the letter officially "secularizes" the building. Future use of the property will be determined by the bishop, he said.

"It's unfortunate, as it always is, when a church closes," said Stephenson, who will be on hand Sunday. "There's also times when it's the most appropriate thing that can be done."

The diocese has 41,000 members across northern Illinois. Last month, a new bishop, the Rev. Jeffrey Lee, was elected to replace outgoing Bishop William Persell. Lee's consecration is scheduled for February.

"St Matthew's Gospel," he remarked in a radio discussion, "says they're astrologers, wise men, priests from somewhere outside the Roman Empire. That's all we're really told."

But think how deeply these three men have entered our imagination as part of the Christmas story. "A cold coming they had of it at this time of the year, just the worst time of the year to take a journey, and specially a long journey, in.

The ways deep, the weather sharp, the days short, the sun farthest off, in solstitio brumali, the very dead of winter."

Those words, in a tremendous sermon by Lancelot Andrewes that King James I heard on Christmas Day 1622, were brilliantly stolen by TS Eliot and incorporated into his poem The Journey of the Magi.

And we can see it all: the camels' breath steaming in the night air as the kings, in their gorgeous robes of silk and cloth-of-gold and clutching their precious gifts, kneel to adore the baby in the manger.

Yet, that is not entirely what the Gospel says. The wise men, as Dr Williams points out, figure only in the Gospel according to St Matthew. That's no surprise, since Mark and John do not give accounts of the infancy of Jesus.

St Matthew tells of them in just 12 verses, beginning: "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, 'Where is he that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.'"

It doesn't say they were kings, or that there were three of them. We suppose they were three because they brought gold, frankincense and myrrh.

From the earliest times these gifts were accorded mystic significance: gold for kingship, incense for worship, and myrrh for anointing, just as Christ was anointed with precious spices for his tomb.

Of course, our imagination is filled by the images that artists have provided. There's a lovely ancient mosaic in Ravenna, 1,500 years old, showing the kings, sorry, I mean, wise men, in oriental garb of trousers and Phrygian caps, carrying their gifts past palm trees towards the star that they followed.

Their names are picked out in bright tesserae above them: Balthassar, Melchior, Gaspar. Those names are not in the Bible either.

In a funny way, these three wise men, the Magi, are older than Christmas. They come at Epiphany, which we celebrate (or ignore) on January 6. That's what Twelfth Night is all about. This day was in the earliest Christian times the great feast of the coming of Jesus.

At the Epiphany three events were marked: the birth of Jesus (called in prophecy Emmanuel, meaning "God with us"); the manifestation of this saviour to the Gentiles (us), represented by the Magi; and the baptism of Jesus, as an adult, when a voice from heaven was heard saying "Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." It's with this baptism that St Mark chose to begin his Gospel.

Christmas, as the actual birthday of Jesus, only began to be celebrated as a separate feast on December 25 three centuries or so later by Latin-speaking Christians in north Africa. It was a different world in north Africa then.

There was no Arabic, nor were there mosques (Mohammed was not born for another couple of centuries), and small cities were run by men in togas, writing rather good Latin and debating heatedly just how much God the Father was the same as God the Son. No turkey on Christmas Day, but no snow either.

Yet old Bishop Andrewes spoke of the wise men coming in solstitio brumali, which he expected King James (who prided himself on his learning) to recognise as the winter solstice, when the days are shortest.

A lot of nonsense is talked today about Christmas "really" being the Roman festival of misrule, Saturnalia, or the feast of Natalis Soli Invicti, the birth of the invincible sun. But people then were quite capable of distinguishing one from another.

Christians cheerfully adopted artistic representations of Jesus as Apollo, for example, because he was a bit like the (fictional) sun-god.

The Christians had a prophecy to prove the point, taken from the book of Malachi in the Bible: "Unto you that fear my name," said the Lord, "shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings."

This prophecy, by the way, explains the puzzling line in the carol Hark the Herald Angels by Charles Wesley, where it speaks of Jesus "risen with healing in his wings". The wings are metaphorical, but they're biblically based too.

Equally so, then, is the metaphor of Jesus as the Sun. If customs had developed slightly differently, we might be celebrating Christmas at the summer solstice in June, when the sun is brightest.

Of course, midsummer is precisely the time that Australians do open their Christmas presents. No one had planned for them in the fourth century, because, although educated people knew that the earth was spherical, they thought no one lived in the antipodes, because the burning latitudes at the equator would be too hot to get past.

I mention these details as an indication that people hundreds of years ago had thought about such questions quite as much as we do today, sometimes more. It is just that they assembled their thoughts in a different pattern from us, and we can easily mistake their drift.

So, the first time someone tells you that the ox and the ass are not mentioned in the biblical account of Jesus's nativity, it can come as a shock. One checks the Gospels carefully, and indeed no ox nor ass appears.

But the medieval painters did not just invent them. They were familiar with the verse in Isaiah: "The ox knoweth his owner and the ass his master's crib." The painters wanted to show the belief of Christians that Jesus Christ, even as a baby in the crib, was the owner, master and indeed creator of men and beasts.

Whether a wandering magus 20 centuries ago was called Gaspar or not matters to no one much but him. It matters a very great deal whether a child born one summer or winter day in those years was really the prophesied Emmanuel. Dr Williams declares that he was, and that this is the good news of Christmas.

"Without notice of the upcoming visit we have not had the opportunity to prepare candidates for confirmation, nor is the Bishop's Committee prepared to meet with you," Risard continued.

The vicar told Schofield that he has the permission of the mission's Bishop's Committee (which is the mission equivalent of a vestry) to request the clarifications. Risard also noted that he has consulted with legal counsel.
"We would like you to state to us your pastoral and canonical relationship with St. Nicholas Episcopal Church, and myself," Risard wrote in his letter. "You publicly stated at our diocesan convention that you no longer are the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, and instead you are a Bishop within the Province of the Southern Cone. As such, we understand your visit is simply to worship with us; there will be no liturgical role for you, neither celebrating nor preaching. The Episcopal Church welcomes all, and you are most welcome to worship, with the purpose of seeking transformation and reconciliation."

Delegates attending the 48th Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin on December 8 voted overwhelmingly to leave the Episcopal Church and to align with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone.
Congregations and individual Episcopalians who wish to remain in the Episcopal Church are making plans for the continuation of the Diocese of San Joaquin. Continuing Episcopalians and their supporters are exchanging information and resources via the Remain Episcopal website.

On December 14, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori sent a short letter to Schofield asking him to confirm his declaration that he is now under the authority of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone "means you understand yourself to have departed the Episcopal Church and are no longer functioning as a member of the clergy in this Church." Schofield has not yet responded to the Presiding Bishop's request.

In a December 16 pastoral letter meant to be read or distributed in all the congregations of the diocese, Schofield said, in part, that the diocese is "no longer operating under the looming shadow" of what he called the Episcopal Church's "institutional apostasy."

"In all fairness, if the Presiding Bishop has asked for a clarification and hasn't received one, I think that the priests in the Diocese of San Joaquin are entitled to know, too," Mike Glass, a San Rafael, California-based attorney who represents congregations and individuals who wish to remain in the Episcopal Church within the diocese, told Episcopal News Service. Glass added that priests may be rightly concerned about violating church canons by allowing Schofield to preside in their congregations.

"Until that clarification comes from either the Episcopal Church's canonical processes or from the bishop himself, perhaps the bishop ought to refrain from attempting to exercise any episcopal authority," he added.
Neither Schofield nor any other spokesperson could be reached for comment.

Risard told ENS that Schofield spoke to a deacon at St. Nicholas by phone on December 20 and questioned the intent of Risard's letter. The vicar said that he emailed Schofield later in the day to assure him that he has no intention of banning him from worshipping with the mission congregation.

"I would never ban anybody from worship -- not even my worst enemy -- because I would hope that they would be transformed by the Eucharist and the grace of God," he said.

Risard said he is worried that Schofield is coming to St. Nicholas to either announce the closing of the mission or his removal as vicar, actions that Schofield has taken elsewhere in the diocese during his episcopate.
"Is it his intention to support the mission congregations in their call to worship and to serve the poor or does he want to close it?" Risard said. "He needs to go on record about what he's doing."

Noting that following their Eucharist, the mission congregation plans to "go out into the community to deliver groceries and coats to a dozen needy families as we seek to do the work of Mission which comes out of our worship of our Lord Jesus Christ, our Savior," Risard asked in his letter, "Will you be coming as our Episcopal Bishop, having repented of your actions at Diocesan Convention, seeking forgiveness and reconciliation? Or will you be coming to worship as a visiting foreign Bishop seeking to reconcile with your former congregation and Vicar, and, following the Mass, to join us as we take groceries and coats to the poor?"

The mission has sent announcements to the local newspapers "to reassure the public that the Episcopal Church is still present in the Merced area, where ALL are welcome to worship and do the work of the Mission," Risard said in his letter.

While he thinks it is proper for the Episcopal Church to be pursuing canonical procedures to clarify and then respond to Schofield's status and the actions of the convention, Risard told ENS that other issues must be addressed.

"We need a parallel and no less important conversation about filling the pews in San Joaquin," he said. "We all need to focus on the missions of the church -- not for my own self-interest -- but for the mission of the church" to bring people to Christ.

Among the people to whom Risard sent copies of the letter are Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, House of Deputies President Bonnie Anderson, and the Rev. Canon Robert Moore (whom Jefferts Schori appointed to provide an ongoing pastoral presence to the continuing Episcopalians in the diocese).

-- The Rev. Mary Frances Schjonberg is national correspondent for the Episcopal News Service.

Special Meeting and Member Declaration

Pursuant to a notice approved by the Bishop, the Rector will call a Special Meeting of the congregation with the Bishop or his designee at the earliest mutually agreed time. The Bishop or his designee will preside at that meeting, address the congregation, outline the process, and respond to questions and concerns.

Subsequent to the Special Meeting the clergy and members shall be asked to declare in writing in a manner agreeable to the Rector and the Bishop their answer to the question: “Do you wish to continue your affiliation with The Episcopal Church, Yes or No?” The declarations shall be received from the clergy and members who satisfy the canonical definition of a member in good standing, eligible to vote. A current list of qualified electors shall be used and, if a discrepancy is reported, the Bishop or his designee shall rule on the eligibility of any disputed electors. The tally shall be reported to the Bishop or his designee. Clergy and members who have answered this question in the affirmative shall continue in parochial or diocesan office or appointment. Those answering in the negative shall have, by that declaration, resigned any parochial or diocesan office or appointment.

Mutual Discernment

The Bishop will call a meeting of those members desiring to remain in The Episcopal Church as indicated in the declarations. The Bishop, or his designee, will preside at that meeting. The purpose of the meeting shall be one of mutual discernment regarding two key questions: Is there a viable continuing congregation? And if so, can the continuing congregation maintain its life and ministry within the existing physical plant?

Should the mutual discernment be that a viable continuing congregation does not remain the members shall be asked to dissolve the parish and corporate entity, with all assets reverting to the Diocese of Central Florida. Note that: “whenever the number of persons so associated shall fall below 25, the Ecclesiastical Authority may dissolve the mission.” (Canon XIV.5) While this Canon applies to missions, and not to parishes, the Canon provides guidance as to the minimum number of members the Diocese believes is needed to maintain a viable congregation.

Should the mutual discernment be that a viable continuing congregation does remain, and that the continuing congregation can maintain its life and ministry within the existing physical plant, the members shall at that meeting fill any vacancies on the Vestry. Or, the Bishop may appoint at least five of the members of the continuing congregation as an acting Vestry and will appoint an interim senior warden. The Vestry shall take charge of the continuing congregation and establish a plan for its future operation.

Should the mutual discernment be that the continuing congregation cannot maintain its viability in the existing physical plant the continuing congregation shall be asked to empower the Vestry and Bishop to negotiate the sale or lease of the real and/or personal property.

The Bishop shall report the results of the meeting to all parties within one week of the meeting itself.

Possible Sale of Real and Personal Property

Should the continuing congregation be unable to maintain its viability within the existing property, and should the departing congregation desire to acquire the property, the departing congregation shall form a new not-for-profit corporation, “New Church.”

Diocesan Canon XXI, “Concerning Real Estate” shall govern any possible transaction between the continuing congregation (if required), the Diocese of Central Florida and the “New Church.”

The Standing Committee then met separately, and passed a motion "advising the Bishop to use great discretion and caution applying the Protocol to avoid litigation."

Diocese of Central Florida to amend constitution at January convention

Amendment to Constitution posted 12/13/07

In other action, the Board received the preliminary report of the Constitution and Canons Committee which advised against adopting the Board's proposed amendment to our Diocesan Constitution regarding our accession to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church. The Board voted to modify its proposed amendment so that the accession clause would remain as it is now worded, and add to that language from the National Constitution regarding our relationship to the Anglican Communion.

The accession clause would thus read as follows, with the addition underlined:

"The Diocese of Central Florida acknowledges its allegiance to be due to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ; and recognizing the body known as the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America otherwise known as The Episcopal Church to be a true branch of said Church, having rightful jurisdiction in this country, hereby declares its adhesion to the same and accedes to its Constitution and Canons. The Diocese of Central Florida is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, a Fellowship of those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces and regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer."

This possibility was discussed by the Constitution and Canons Committee and they do not object to it.

To walk away from all that is undeniably difficult because these buildings are not just deposits of institutional history, but of very personal history, and given the significant proportion of elderly among my congregation it is perhaps unreasonable to expect the community to walk away, or to divide. They don’t and won’t accept the ACoC position on matters, but neither will they leave their building and the pew they have sat in for the whole of their lives or abandon old Mrs. Soenso whose grandfather chopped the logs for the church, whose uncle sawed the lumber, whose husband helped build the church. Trying to uphold the validity and jurisdictional appropriateness of the leadership and ministry of Bishops Harvey and Harding seems important to me, given these considerations. It’s not just a matter of theology, or of politics, but of helping to make clear the claims on our richer, deeper Anglican heritage.

A number of statements have been made by bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada regarding the ministry of Bishops Harvey and Harding who are now serving under the Primatial authority of Archbishop Gregory Venables and the extended jurisdiction of the Southern Cone. Statements have also been made by some of them regarding the validity of ordinations and the ministry of those who may subsequently be received into the Province of the Southern Cone.

Quote: » Bishop Ingham said he has also written to the two candidates “to say that their ordinations, if they proceeded, would not be recognized within the Anglican Church of Canada or within the Anglican Communion.” « (Source “Bishop protests unauthorized ordinations”, Marites N. Sison, Anglican Journal staff writer, Nov. 20, 2007 http://www.anglicanjournal.com/100/article/bishop-protests-unauthorized-ordinations/)

Quote: “When any member of the clergy relinquishes the exercise of ministry, he or she relinquishes ministry in the entire Anglican Communion.” (source Retiring Bishop Victoria Matthews, “Pastoral Letter” to the Diocese of Edmonton, Nov. 23, 2007)
Quote: » “Any ministry exercised in Canada by those received into the Province of the Southern Cone after voluntarily relinquishing the exercise of their ministry in the Anglican Church of Canada is inappropriate, unwelcome and invalid.” « (Source “Pastoral Letter” from the Primates and Metropolitans of the Anglican Church of Canada, Nov. 29, 2007)

It seems to me that these statements are reactionary, made without adequate reflection on the tradition, history and theology of Anglican ordination. As such it seems to me that they serve more to confuse and to harass than to inform or to provide pastoral care and wisdom.

There are two distinct issues here. The first one is the question of validity, and the second one is the question of jurisdiction. Regrettably, in these comments the bishops have mashed these two distinct issues together and have thereby increased the confusion for Canadian Anglicans. I wish to attempt to clarify some of this confusion.

Anglican orders historically are valid and in correct apostolic succession because they have been passed down unbroken from validly ordained and consecrated bishops to validly ordained and consecrated bishops from the undivided Church to the present. In the midst of exceptional circumstances during the time of the Anglican Reformation concerns about jurisdiction took a back seat as exceptional measures were taken to respond to the exceptional circumstances and the urgent needs of the Church. This becomes our model for the present exceptional circumstances.

In traditional Anglican ordinations clergy are ordained into the Church, period. That is the official wording of ordinations in the BCP of every Anglican jurisdiction. As I was told during one ordination retreat, this means that all ordinations are valid throughout the Anglican Communion, because we are ordained into the whole Church. The Anglican Church of Canada (in those bygone days) was acting validly and rightly as an agent on behalf of the entire Communion, and the bishop (Reginald Hollis in my case) was acting as a valid representative of the whole Church. I was solemnly told that my responsibility was to the whole Church and that I would be accountable for my vows to the whole Church as well as to Christ Himself as the Head of the Church. It was clearly and solemnly stressed that I was not simply accountable to my diocesan bishop, nor even to the Anglican Church of Canada, but to the entire Communion from which my diocesan bishop derived his validity. (I draw attention to the Windsor Report 124) It appears to me that some bishops have lost sight of their responsibility to the whole Communion and to the Church entire and choose instead to see no farther than their local situation.

It is my understanding that Bishops Harvey and Harding relinquished their ministry in the Anglican Church of Canada, but not in the Church as a whole. Bishops Harvey and Harding did not renounce their vows or terminate their service to the Church, they remain validly ordained and consecrated bishops. Bishops Harvey and Harding correctly and appropriately transferred from one jurisdiction to another within the Anglican Communion in order to keep their vows more faithfully and to perform their episcopal ministry more effectively.
The Anglican Church of Canada is a jurisdiction whose status within the Communion has been reduced by the request that it voluntarily withdraw from the Anglican Consultative Council, one of the four instruments of unity in the Anglican Communion. The request to withdraw from one of the instruments of unity was made because of Canada’s departure from the Communion’s standards of belief and practice and because of the unrepentant attitudes of the Canadian Church’s governing bodies. It is a strong message that we are not in full and good standing in the Anglican Communion.

This request has been accompanied by clear statements from a number of the Communion’s Primates that they and their Province are in a state of broken or impaired communion with us.

Bishops Harvey and Harding validly transferred from the jurisdiction of the Anglican Church of Canada into the jurisdiction of the Southern Cone in order to serve Anglicans who can neither accept the Canadian Church’s departures from the Communion’s official standards of belief and practice nor abide the reduced status of the Canadian Church within the Communion. By doing this Bishops Harvey and Harding provide valid episcopal ministry to Canadians who wish to remain in full communion with Anglicans throughout the world and who wish to maintain the official standards of belief and practice of the Anglican Communion worldwide. Any ordinations or any other Episcopal ministry performed by Bishops Harvey and Harding are therefore valid.

This brings us to the question of jurisdiction. Under normal circumstances all bishops (except some Primates) serve primarily as the spiritual leader of a diocese. The diocese is the geographical and jurisdictional region within which a bishop exercises their ministry and authority. Under normal circumstances no bishop crosses uninvited into another’s jurisdictional region to exercise any ministry or authority. However, for the past several years we have had ample evidence that we are in the midst of extraordinary circumstances and that given these extraordinary circumstances special measures must be taken. These measures were not taken lightly or frivolously, but only after many unsuccessful attempts over a five year period to address the underlying matters and only after long and serious deliberations about possible solutions at the highest levels of the Communion.

The circumstances are indeed extraordinary. Without reviewing at length what has already been well established it suffices to remind readers that in 2003, 2005 and 2007 the Meetings of the Primates, another of the instruments of unity in the Communion, all noted that the Anglican Church of Canada had departed from the standards of belief and practice upheld by the Anglican Communion, as did the Communion’s Windsor Report, released in 2004. Those standards were established by the Communion at Lambeth, another of the instruments of unity in the Communion, in 1998, and those standards have been repeatedly articulated and upheld at every subsequent Meeting of the Primates as they addressed Canada’s departures from those Communion standards.

At those Primates’ Meetings Canada was urged to refrain from what they were doing and to return to the traditions and standards of belief and practice of the Anglican Communion. Each time Canada signalled its disrespect for the Anglican Communion by continuing to pursue their innovative agendas. From a Canadian perspective these circumstances are all the more dire because the constitutional and foundational statement of the Anglican Church of Canada, the Solemn Declaration (BCP viii) requires that the Anglican Church of Canada remain in full communion with “… the Church of England throughout the world…” (meaning the Anglican Communion) and uphold the standards of doctrine and practice of that Communion. Since we have been found to have departed from the Communion’s standards of doctrine and practice, asked to withdraw from one of the instruments of unity (the ACC) and since a number of the Communion’s Primates have declared that they are in broken or impaired communion with the Anglican Church of Canada we are in some degree in breach of our own constitutional statement.

This is certainly an extraordinary set of circumstances. The fact that Canada has ignored the repeated requests to return to the standards of doctrine and practice held by the Anglican Communion and the clear indications that our behaviour has imperiled the unity of the Communion has caused great distress to many Anglicans within Canada and across the Communion. Many Canadians feel that they can no longer serve with faithfulness and integrity in a jurisdiction which has so flagrantly departed from Anglican orthodoxy.

This, combined with mounting evidence that the Anglican Church of Canada has no intention to return to the Communion’s standards of belief and practice, has prompted an extraordinary response from the Communion. With the support of Primates representing a majority of the Communion’s membership several Primates extended their jurisdictional authority and episcopal oversight to distressed Anglicans in Canada and the United States. The actions of those Primates were and are irregular and extraordinary, but they were and are valid. They were made necessary by the actions of the Churches in Canada and the United States who departed from Communion norms and practices, and by the inaction of their bishops when they were called upon to restore and uphold the standards of Anglicanism.

These facts are recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury, another of the four instruments of unity in the Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury agreed with and signed each of the statements made by the Primates’ Meetings which identified Canada’s departure from Communion standards and called for a return to those standards. In September of 2007 Archbishop Gregory Venables met and consulted with the Archbishop of Canterbury and presented a plan to offer a single extension of jurisdictional authority and Primatial oversight rather than continue with the earlier patchwork of Primatial interventions. While a consultation does not automatically mean that the Archbishop of Canterbury endorsed the plan, it is significant that after the consultation he is reported to have acknowledged that it seemed sensible. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2843228.ece)

The single extension of jurisdictional authority begins to tidy up the previous patchwork quilt and prepare for a new Anglicanism in North America which will be fully recognized by the instruments of unity in the Anglican Communion. The valid transfers of Bishops Harvey and Harding into the jurisdiction of the Southern Cone have been approved and even applauded by a number of the Primates. Since Bishops Harvey and Harding validly transferred out of a jurisdiction with a reduced status into a jurisdiction with a full status in order to more faithfully fulfill their episcopal ministry, and since there was full consultation with the instruments of unity, everything appears to have been done “decently and in order”.

All this being the case, there can be no legitimate argument against either the validity or the appropriateness of either the episcopal ministry of Bishops Harvey and Harding nor the ordinations on Dec. 2, 2007. There may be consternation amongst the Canadian and U.S. bishops at the uninvited crossing of jurisdictional boundaries, but those irregular actions were made necessary by the inappropriate actions of the Canadian and U.S. Churches and the extraordinary circumstances that resulted.

They created the circumstances that brought about the irregular but completely valid actions of Archbishop Venables and Bishops Harvey and Harding. There was ample warning of what would take place, and both Canada and the U.S. were involved in all the meetings. It seems both shallow and hypocritical of them to complain now that the ministry of Bishops Harvey and Harding are unwanted; and it is patently untrue to claim that they are inappropriate and invalid. What may we conclude then of statements like those referred to at the outset? Only that they are regrettable, made in haste, in a reactionary manner, and do not stand up under close scrutiny.