Bishop of London left in dark over secret gay service

December 31st, 2007 Posted Dominic Kennedy

The Archbishop of Canterbury kept a special communion service for gays so secret that he failed to tell the Bishop of London it was happening in his diocese, The Times has learnt.

Dr Rowan Williams inflamed the row over homosexuality which is tearing apart the Anglican Church when it was reported that he had agreed to hold a eucharist for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender clergy.

But even his critics have been taken aback to learn that he did so by making an incursion on to the patch of the Bishop of London, the Right Rev Richard Chartres, without giving notice or seeking permission.

Dr Williams now risks being seen as, at best, discourteous and at worst, in breach of canon law, for sneaking into a church near the Tower of London under the Bishop’s nose. Canon law says that only a bishop can authorise services in his own diocese and infringements may result in an intruder being removed from office.

The gays’ venue of choice was drenched in symbolism. The stones and beams of the 7th century church of All Hallows by the Tower have borne witness to the persecution of misunderstood, but ultimately vindicated, Christians down the ages. The headless bodies of the martyr saints Sir Thomas More, John Fisher and William Laud were taken there after their executions at the Tower.

Lambeth Palace is justifying the sortie by relying on a rule designed to provide short-term stand-ins for sick or holidaying vicars. But a spokesman made no reply when The Times suggested that the Archbishop’s behaviour might be seen as rude.

The Bishop of London’s spokesman said: “The Bishop wasn’t aware it was taking place.” He described the event as a private function.

The spokesman was asked by The Times if he considered there had been a discourtesy. “I am not able to comment on that,” he replied.

Such security surrounded the communion service for priests, monks and nuns organised by the Clergy Consultation support group that the guestlist was shredded by Lambeth Palace.

The location was changed after the original venue, the liberal St Peter’s Church in Eaton Square, was “outed” on a hostile website.

Dr Williams’s covert methods are a gift to opponents threatening schism at next year’s Lambeth Conference.

The Times emailed the previous Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, a more conservative primate, to ask if such a thing would have happened in his day.

The 72-year-old replied promptly by Blackberry: “I am sure that Rowan was acting for the very best of reasons viz. to show that he cares for all and wishes to hold minorities in the church. What would I have done? I would not have agreed to a private Eucharist; after all, the Eucharist, by definition, is open to all Christians.

“I am surprised to hear that the Bishop of London’s permission was not sought. Check your facts. If that is so then it is a failure of courtesy but it could be a staff member’s fault! Happy Christmas”.

Lambeth Palace at first implied that it was acceptable to bypass the bishop because the invitation had come from an independent group rather than a parish.

Asked where canon law permits services without a bishop’s blessing, a spokesman pointed to Canon C8, paragraph 2 (a). This allows ministers to invite a “priest or deacon” to serve in their church for up to seven days without telling the bishop.

However, a canon lawyer said there was no wording in that rule which mentioned invitations to external bishops.

The Bishop of London now has the drastic option of reporting Dr Williams to the Archbishop of York who could order a tribunal hearing with ultimate powers of removal from office. Nobody is suggesting that the Bishop would exercise these rights but those familiar with him say he would be disappointed to have been kept in the dark.

The Rev Bertrand Olivier, vicar of All Hallows and a former convenor of Clergy Consultation, said: “It’s nothing to do with the Bishop. Why would the Bishop need to be told?”

The Rev Colin Coward, a gay priest at the gathering, said: “The consulation has always met in confidentiality of venue and time to preserve the safety of those who come.”

Traditionalists are dismayed that the Archbishop condoned practising gay clergy by choosing to give communion, instead of just listening to them. Canon Chris Sugden of Anglican Mainstream said: “Obviously they were wanting to communicate that this is acceptable behaviour for those who are at the table of the Lord.”

The Conscience of an Anglican

The Conscience of an Anglican
A man under authority

by Alan Jacobs
Christianity Today
12/24/07

For some time now, people have been asking me why I haven't written anything on the current-or, depending on your point of view, everlasting-crisis in the Anglican world. After all, I have been an Anglican for nearly twenty-five years, virtually all of my adult life; indeed, my experiences in other denominations, before I discovered Anglicanism, were so brief and tentative that I don't even know how to be a Christian except as an Anglican. Nor do I wish to be a Christian in any other way. Surely I have some opinions on the mess the Anglican Communion is now in, on how it got this way, and how it might get out again?

Well, yes, I do have such opinions. But they are worthless. All such opinions amount to little more than the assignation of blame for past events and predictions of the future-the latter usually involving punishments to come for those blamed for the past-and neither of those activities interests me. There was a time when they did, but I have long since learned how futile such pursuits are, and (more important) how powerfully they distract from the core practices of the Christian life. This is the primary reason why, after too long a season scanning the Anglican blogs daily, I now check just one of them, and once a week, at most. This abstinence has calmed my spirit and removed, I think permanently, my taste for such things.

Moreover, I remind myself that the churches of the Anglican world are governed by bishops, and I am not a bishop. One of the chief reasons I have held firm to Anglicanism over the years is that I believe that the threefold order of ministry-bishop, priest, and deacon-is the model taught by the apostles, the governance particularly approved by God. In this model I, as a layman-even though I am also a member of the priesthood of all believers-have a highly circumscribed role. If my pastor asks me to teach, I teach; otherwise I shut up. In the unlikely (and unwelcome) event of a bishop of the Church asking for my thoughts I would share them; otherwise I keep them to myself, at least in public. The decisions that will shape the future of the Anglican Communion will be made by bishops, not by laypeople, nor even by priests; if I care about that Communion-and I do-I had best be praying for those bishops, and not repeating the error of Job in darkening counsel by words without knowledge.

Like the Roman centurion, then, I am a man under authority, and also like him, I have some responsibilities of my own. Chief among them is to raise my son Wesley in the faith of the Gospel. Around four years ago now I left the Episcopal Church because-thanks to various changes in our parish's life that followed the consecration of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire-I knew that if we stayed my son would be taught doctrines which I do not hold, and, just as important, would not be taught doctrines which I hold and believe it important for all Christians to hold. People who encouraged me to stay reminded me that, as (relatively) theologically knowledgeable persons, my wife and I could correct any sins of omission or commission when we got home. But the idea that the family holds the full responsibility for forming children in the faith, with the church being nothing more than a place of worship, is one of the ideas that I don't want to teach my son. Another one is this: that bishops can ignore or repudiate significant portions of the doctrine and discipline of the Church-something the Bishop of Chicago did on a regular basis-and still be thought of as legitimate pastoral overseers for their people.

In leaving the Episcopal Church, then, I believe that I acted according to what Cardinal Newman long ago called "the supreme authority of Conscience ... the aboriginal Vicar of Christ." For Newman, conscience is anything but "private judgment": it is, rather, the testing of one's own private judgments, and sometimes those of others, against Scripture and against the long testimony of the whole church of Christ. And if we test those judgments so, and invoke our consciences, we enter perilous territory: as Newman reminds us, the fourth Lateran Council (1215) affirmed that Quidquid fit contra conscientiam, ædificat ad gehennam-Whatever is done in opposition to conscience is conducive to damnation.

But there is no coercing the consciences of others, especially in what Rusty Reno has called "the ruins of the church." One acts according to conscience, but it takes a certain rashness to commend one's own precise course to others. My dear friend Charles Marsh published a book this year called Wayward Christian Soldiers, and while I disagree with much that he argues in it, one chapter of the book has has often come back to my mind in an especially powerful way. Its title is "Learning to be Quiet in a Noisy Nation (and in a Nation of Noisy Believers)." The historical moment Charles invokes, and encourages all Christians to consider, is that of the German church in the Nazi era. I am not, let me hasten to say, casting anyone in the role of Nazi or Nazi sympathizer; the point of comparison between Lutheranism in 1930s Germany and Anglicanism in North America today is simply that both churches are broken, ruined; both present their adherents (clergy and laypeople) with potent challenges to faithfulness. And in the midst of such challenges-so said Dietrich Bonhoeffer, consistently, from the time of the Nazi accession in 1933 to his execution in the spring of 1945-almost the first requirement of the Christian is, simply, silence. "The time of words is over," he said; sometimes words have to be forgone in order to save time and energy and focus for what is more essential than words: "prayer and righteous action."

Not because I am taking a general vow of silence, but for other reasons, I am now concluding this online column. Its title, as you can see, is "Rumors of Glory," from a Bruce Cockburn song I particularly admire. Those of us living in the ruins of Anglicanism might be especially inclined to say that we have nothing more to go on than rumors, a handful of slightly hopeful whispers fading into imperceptibility. This could be deeply worrisome for those, like me, who see in Anglicanism a beautiful and compelling vision, a church that draws together the Catholic and the Reformed strands of the Christian life and thereby brings both of them to their fullest realization. I do not enjoy the thought that the Anglican experiment may be over, since, as I have said, I don't know how to be a Christian any other way; but I do not believe that that experiment is over; in fact, I have hope-I hear certain rumors-that it may be only beginning.

But even if that experiment is drawing to a close, I am not worried-a little sad, maybe, but not worried. I could learn to be a Christian some other way, if I had to, because, after all, there is one Lord, one faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all. Plus, I'm thinking about Christmas, which, among other things, teaches us that all those rumors are true: the Lord of All came once, in meekness and humility, in the form of a servant. And he will come again-but next time in glory.


---Alan Jacobs teaches English at Wheaton College in Illinois; his history of Original Sin will be published in Spring 2008 by HarperOne.
Printer Friendly Page

TEC Has No Legal Claim To Church Properties

Canon Bishop Says National Church Has No Legal Claim To Church Properties

An exclusive interview with the Rt. Rev. William Wantland, the retired Bishop of Eau Claire. Bishop Wantland was bishop of the diocese from 1980 - 1999. He is a canon lawyer and lives with his wife in Oklahoma. He agreed to be interviewed by VirtueOnline about church property lawsuits, a number of which are making their way through various courts in the United States.

VOL: Bishop Wantland, because of the Dennis Canon there is the overwhelming belief, substantiated in a number of state courts, that all parish properties are held in trust for the local diocese. Is that true in all cases? If not why not?

WANTLAND: Generally speaking, there is a trust interest running from the parish to the diocese. In 1570, the British Parliament passed legislation restricting the disposal of parish property. This was carried over to New York law, where an early statute provided that the Bishop and Standing Committee would have a say in the disposition of parish property, but so would the New York Legislature. This (without reference to State bodies) was added to Title II (now Canon II. 6) shortly after the Civil War. In the 20th century, a similar Canon was enacted in Title I, adding all parish property to that requirement, not just church or chapel buildings. Most States in the U.S. follow Implied Trust principles of law, so in those States, the diocese would prevail. Several States follow Neutral Principles of Law, and in those States, the local parish might, under certain circumstances, prevail.

VOL: Recently in the State of California, the Court of Appeal reversed a lower court ruling placing three parishes at risk of losing their parishes. They reversed an Orange County Superior Court's prior ruling that three former Episcopal churches, which disaffiliated from the national denomination in 2004, did not forfeit their property. This division of the appellate court broke with nearly thirty years of California church property law, and instead ruled that hierarchical church denominations can take over local church property. Where is this going?

WANTLAND: It is going to the California Supreme Court, which has already agreed to hear the matter.

VOL: Attorney Eric C. Sohlgren said the decision puts one division of the appellate court in direct conflict with other California court of appeal decisions that for almost thirty years have rejected the idea that a court must automatically defer to a church denomination in church property disputes. He said that idea offends basic principles of fairness and property ownership. Do you agree?

WANTLAND: The latest Appellate Court decision certainly offends the previously settled law in California. However, nothing would prevent the California Supreme Court from rejecting the Neutral Principles idea, and moving to Implied Trust.

VOL: It is also alleged that all properties are also held in trust for the National Church. Is that automatically true if the diocese can also lay claim?

WANTLAND: What is the National Church? We commonly use that title, but the so-called National Church has no current machinery for holding title to property outside of New York. While the Canons in both Title I and II recognize an interest in parish property for the diocese, this only re-states law that has been a part of our Church for over 400 years. Further, a careful reading of the Dennis Canon does not grant any real interest in diocesan property to 815 2nd Avenue.

VOL: What exactly is the National Church? Is it an ecclesiastical body or strictly an administrative body?

WANTLAND: The so-called National Church is an administrative body with very limited authority. It has defined itself in a number of documents over the years as a confederation of dioceses. Neither General Convention nor Executive Council has any jurisdiction over dioceses granted in either the Church Constitution or Canons.

VOL: In the 'which came first, the chicken or the egg', is the national church a product of General Convention, or are the dioceses the product of the national church and General Convention?

WANTLAND: The Episcopal Church came into being in 1789. Dioceses preceded the existence of TEC by a number of years. For example, the Diocese of Connecticut not only existed for years before 1789, but elected a bishop and had him consecrated in Scotland in 1784. New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia also elected bishops and had them consecrated in England in 1787. Clearly, the dioceses came together to create the Episcopal Church by adopting a Constitution and Canons and a Book of Common Prayer. The dioceses created the Episcopal Church, and not the other way round.

VOL: If the national church or general convention is the product of dioceses and not the other way round, then what legal claim can the national church make in court for parish properties?

WANTLAND: The only way TEC could even claim a trust interest in parish property is to rely on the imprecise language of the so-called Dennis Canon. However, prior to 1979, the so-called National Church never claimed any trust interest in parish or diocesan property. A basic principle of trust law is that two people can agree to create a trust interest in property which one of the parties owns. However, a third party cannot then claim a trust interest in that property without the consent of the original parties. While it might be possible, I am not personally aware of any diocese which has recognized the interest of 815 2nd Avenue in any property. To the contrary, a number of dioceses have specifically rejected any claim of the so-called National Church to property within those dioceses. With the possible exception of the Diocese of California, I am not aware of any parishes voluntarily granting an interest in their property to 815. In the absence of such a granting of trust interest, I doubt any court would uphold it.

VOL: Does the Presiding Bishop have any canonical authority in a diocese, any diocese, either liberal or conservative?

WANTLAND: The authority and duties of the Presiding Bishop are set forth in Canon I. 2. 4. In regard to dioceses, the PB shall consult with the Ecclesiastical Authority of the diocese if there be a vacancy in the office of bishop, but the PB has no authority to act, only to consult. Further, the PB is to visit every diocese, and takes order for the consecration of bishops within a diocese. No other duties in regard to dioceses are delineated. All other duties apply to the administrative structure of the Episcopal Church.

VOL: Mrs. Jefferts Schori, while holding the title of Presiding Bishop, is in reality the bishop of nothing. She has no diocese, unlike the Archbishop of Canterbury who is both the titular head of the Anglican Communion and the Archbishop of Canterbury. In that case, does she have any legitimate (legal or ecclesiastical) authority over the leadership of a Diocese?

WANTLAND: The Presiding Bishop has no authority over the leadership of a diocese, except if charges are brought against a bishop. The PB does have certain responsibilities in regard to the charges, as set forth in Title IV of the Canons. However, there is absolutely NO authority in any instance over Standing Committees, Diocesan Councils, or other diocesan leadership.

VOL: Ft. Worth Bishop Jack Iker said to his diocese recently that "there is no such thing as "the national Church." We are a confederation of Dioceses, related to each other by our participation in General Convention. He went on to say that from the earliest days of the beginnings of the Episcopal Church in this country, including the formation of dioceses and eventually the creation of the General Convention itself, there has been a strong mistrust of centralized authority that is deeply rooted in our history as Episcopalians. We do not have an Archbishop in this Church, who has authority over other Bishops and their Dioceses. Instead, we have a Presiding Bishop, with very limited canonical responsibilities, mainly administrative in nature." Do you agree with him?

WANTLAND: Bishop Iker has stated precisely what I feel the situation to be.

VOL: Mrs. Schori has said she will allow the sale of properties back to the parishes, even to other religious groups, but not to another Anglican jurisdiction. In your mind is that legal? Can she in fact do that? Is she breaking some federal statute by saying that a property sale can be restricted because she says so?

WANTLAND: Federal law does not apply here. The law of the State rules. I would simply observe that the previous Presiding Bishop declared in Louisiana that the so-called National Church had no interest in property disputes between a parish and the diocese, and would not intervene unless asked to do so by the diocese. Therefore, if a diocese is negotiating with a parish to avoid a costly lawsuit, what right does a Presiding Bishop have to dictate terms? None whatsoever.

VOL: Recently the Diocese of Western Michigan sold their cathedral to an independent evangelical mega church without apparently a whimper from the national church or David Booth Beers, Mrs. Schori's attorney. But when the pro-cathedral in El Paso, Texas, under the ecclesiastical authority of then Bishop Jeffrey Steenson in the Diocese of the Rio Grande, wanted to leave the diocese and TEC, I was told by Steenson that Beers raised all hell. Steenson told me that he did not want to litigate and furthermore the parish gave the diocese $2 million as part of the deal! Why do you think Beers ignored one situation and yet weighed in on another?

WANTLAND: Because of prejudice against so-called conservatives.

VOL: David Booth Beers bills out his time at $600.00 an hour less 15% discount for TEC at a cool $510.00 an hour, so I have been told. Presumably he has a team working with him. He seems to be everywhere, - Virginia and Philadelphia (recently). I can't imagine that at the end of the day millions of dollars in legal fees are being given to him by the national church. Where, in your opinion, is the money coming from?

WANTLAND: The money, in all probability, is coming from the endowment funds of TEC, which funds are more than $200,000,000.00.

VOL: A number of bishops, including yourself, have asked Mrs. Jefferts Schori where the money is coming from for the present litigation, but she has not replied. Why is that?

WANTLAND: I was one of the bishops to raise this question. To date we have received no answer. My guess is that TEC doesn't want to start the precedent of providing full and complete information about anything. The name of the game is "spin".

VOL: Is it possible that litigation costs could, in the end, bankrupt the Episcopal Church?

WANTLAND: I doubt it. While the cost of litigation is ridiculous, I don't think it will deplete the endowment funds.

VOL: Can the Trust Funds be raided without accountability and financial responsibility to pay legal costs?

WANTLAND: Some of the trust funds are unrestricted, and can be used however 815 2nd Avenue sees fit. Others are restricted, and cannot be legally used for purposes other than stated in the establishment of those funds. In any instance, the matter of our Treasurer (Ellen Cooke) who went to jail for misuse of trust funds proves that there must be accountability.

VOL: In the end, if the National Church takes possession of dioceses that will be 90 per cent empty, is the victory anything more than pyrrhic?

WANTLAND: In the highly unlikely event this were to occur, it is not really a victory of anything. What do you do with property you can't use? History has shown that it gets sold at a great loss.

VOL: With empty or near empty churches which will have to be sold in the open market, what is the ultimate victory for the National Church?

WANTLAND: The only victory is for the forces of Satan and secular humanism.VOL: Thank you Bishop Wantland.

NOTE: This story may be posted on Blogs and used by newspapers. The content may not be changed and full credit and links to VirtueOnline must be posted. www.virtueonline.org

His Last Supper

The last week of the life of our Lord, the time that we refer to as Holy Week, was the most significant of his life. For three Sundays we will have been examining in some detail the events that occurred during that period. We will have looked at Sunday, the day of celebration, Monday, the day of emotion, and Tuesday, the day of questions. Here I would like to examine Wednesday, the day of transition, and Thursday, the day of fellowship.

Jesus’ final week can be divided into three phases. The first two days of the week find the masses in a mood of acceptance and praise. The middle of the week they began to question and challenge. By the end of the week their attitude had completely changed to rejection and crucifixion. Wednesday is the day in between. It is the day I like to refer to as the day of transition. Jesus knew this change was coming. So, on Wednesday he went apart from the crowd to be in meditation and communion with God. He needed to lay hold of the power of God that would enable him to turn defeat into victory.

This scene reminds us that we occasionally need to be free of the things and circumstances that clutter our lives. We need time to clear our heads and be in fellowship with the divine. David Stanley, the New York Times reporter who went to darkest Africa in search of Dr. Livingston, wrote a fascinating biography. He noted that for several days his safari made excellent time, but then, one morning, the porters refused to move at all. He asked the guide what the problem was. It is a native superstition, he replied. They feel that they must stop a day to give their souls a chance to catch up. We too need to stop and let our souls catch up.

Wednesday of Holy Week says to us that we must occasionally take time out of our busy schedules of daily life and have time for introspection. That is harder for some than others. For Type A personalities such as myself, it can be extremely difficult.

Most of us are Familiar with the story of Elijah the prophet. He was the one who took on the 450 prophets of Baal on the top of Mt. Carmel. He was totally successful in routing the godless enemy, but he was stunned to discover that even though he had won the battle, wicked Queen Jezebel was still on the throne. Not only that, she had put a contract out on him. So Elijah ran. And he ran and he ran until he was totally exhausted and he could run no more. He prayed to God: Take my life. You see, when we are exhausted we are not ourselves. We do things and say things that are not like us. It is at that point that God comes to Elijah and asks: What are you doing here, Elijah? Now, you see, that is what is known, as a rhetorical question. God knows the answer. He wants Elijah to say it so that he will have to hear himself. When we run from our responsibilities God asks us: What are you doing here?” Has God your attention: It is time that you stop, be silent, and know that I am God. No TV, no radios, no phones, no beepers.

There is another reason why we do not do that and it has nothing to do with schedules. It is because the thought of being alone with ourselves frightens us. It is safer to be busy.

What is so disturbing is that it is so easy to be religious yet still miss the Kingdom. It is so easy to be centered in ourselves that we cease growing. If we are not open to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit we can miss it all. On Wednesday, Jesus took time to be in communion with God.

If Wednesday was the day of transition and meditation, then Thursday was the day of fellowship. In the evening of that day, an admirer of Jesus, we do not know who, loaned the upper Floor of his house to the disciples and Jesus to come together to partake of the first Seder of the Passover.

In this ancient meal, Jews eat certain symbolic foods to remind them of their former bondage in Egypt. A bitter herb is eaten to remind them of the bitterness of the experience. Applesauce is eaten to remind them that they were required to make bricks without straw.It was at this point that Jesus took the matzo bread and broke it and spoke the ancient words of the Baruch: Blessed art thou O God, LORD of the universe, who brings forth fruit From the earth. Suddenly Jesus broke with tradition and began to speak in his native Aramaic: Take, eat, this is my: body broken for you. Jesus then took the cup and said: Take, drink, this is my bloodshed for you. Thus, to an ancient symbolic meal Jesus added the symbolism of his broken body and shed blood for us.

This marvelous mystery even today is misunderstood by many of today's modern world. How does one, except through complete faith explain the miraculous transformation that takes place in simple bread and wine. There is no adequate description of the oneness with God that is experienced by the communicant when we receive the Blessed Sacrament during communion.Anna Pavlova, a Russian ballerina, was once asked what she meant in a certain dance she had just performed. She replied: IF I could have said it, I would not have danced it. On Thursday of Holy Week, Jesus dramatized the mystery of faith. What God could not be conveyed in words alone he expressed in human flesh-—the body and blood of his own son.

In the same way fellowship within the church needs to be understood. We hear it and we think of a potluck meal where we share food and fellowship together. True fellowship is expressed in the words of John Wesley: if your heart is like my heart, then give me your hand and we walk together. We need to cherish our times of coming together-— as families, friends, and as the church.

The day was not yet over. Jesus went up to the Mt. Olivet and prayed and spoke to a crowd. It was here that Judas came up to him and gave him a kiss. I have often wondered why he did that. I mean, why did he not spit in his Face. Why did he not slap him? But he gave him a kiss. It’s a sobering reminder that even in the name of love we can sometimes still hurt those we love. When we do not give people room enough to let them grow, we can hurt in the name of love. When we love our ideas more than we love people, we can hurt in the name of love. We all love Christ, but we have all hurt Christ at one time or another. The kiss of Judas perhaps should remind us that we can end up hurting the ones that we love the most.

We are told that after the Lord’s Supper the disciples sung a hymn and departed, as we all do when we collective leave the Church following mass. Let it be a reminder of the importance of our fellowship. And let it connect all of us to our brother, friend and Saviour Jesus for whom on that Thursday night so long ago the clock was now ticking. Jesus’ date with destiny could now be measured in hours. Calvary awaits.

The Advent Season

Well the Advent season has arrived as it always does after our gorging on the bounty of Thanksgiving. After all that it takes a good deal of self control and personal discipline to keep our minds focused on this very important period of the Christian season. Now, in today's society, we are besieged with the pressures of advertising and other secular distractions that would cloud our devotions in this joyous season. With in our communities we live with other Christian churches that do not keep the Advent season as a time of spiritual preparation to celebrate the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. These good people are more caught up in the celebration of Christmas than the devotions of Christmas. Rather let us keep Advent in the true spirit that which it was meant to be observed , as a period of devotion in the life of one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

With quite joy we again travel in our mind and scripture readings to that cold December night when a innocent babe was born. Nothing pretentious as a kingly procession announcing his birth amid the clanging of cymbals and the blare of horns. Rather the quite sweet songs of heavenly host declaring to the people of the earth that a Saviour had been born. Can we yet imagine of the fright that those humble shepherds felt as this heavenly declaration was made unto them and all mankind.

We are called in Advent to look deep into our hearts as we ponder the miracle of God’s coming into our world as a man. We are told that as we read the first collect of the season where we are called to “cast away the works of darkness and put upon us the armor of light, now in the time of this mortal life in which our Lord Jesus Christ came to visit us in great humility….” This is a season where more than ever the Lord becomes the really central figure in our lives and causes us to once again offer ourselves anew to his love which he so freely gives to us. That love to Him returned as we, here on earth, wait quietly for his eventual return, doing all those things that are pleasing in His sight.

Therefore in this period of preparation let us continue to pray for the all conditions of mankind, the further establishment of His church here on earth and peace among nations. As Christians let us love others more, provide for the needy and care for the homeless. I remember the statement of a old Ag professor so many years ago. “If there is one hungry person on this earth we have no surplus of crops rather a serious problem with its distribution.” This holds true to the needy of all mankind. If they are in need we fail our Christian duty. Let us, as a church body, serve in our communities participating in the various programs that need our help.

As the Sundays of Advent come upon us let each of us prepare to celebrate the coming of the Prince of Piece and God of Love who came among us then and will come again in that glorious day for all mankind.

Shalom

Reflections 2006

The following article was penned by The Rev. Dr. Deuel Smith of St. Patrick's Church in Hurst, TX. It is so complete and so to the point that it was felt that all should have a opportunity to read it. In visiting with Fr. Smith we were graciously given permission to reprint the article.

Reflections

Over a brief but crucial period of time, a final settlement of major issues occurred in the life of the Anglican Communion and what is now officially called The Episcopal Church (TEC). This "definitive moment" spanned ten all too-brief days in June in Columbus, Ohio. Through actions taken and actions postponed, the 75th General Convention of TEC has brought an end to the worldwide Anglican Communion of Churches and has declared once and for all the complete autonomy and independence of TEC. TEC will "walk apart" from the vast majority of the Anglican Communion and will irreparably split the Communion into traditional/orthodox and liberal/revisionist factions.

The liberal/revisionist faction will encompass England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, the United States, most of Australia, South Africa, and Central America – representing a minority of the worldwide Anglican Communion. The raditional/orthodox faction will encompass some "faithful remnants" in the United States, Australia, Canada and England, most of New Zealand, South America, Africa, and Asia - representing the vast majority of Anglicans worldwide.

No longer "Anglican" in ethos or philosophy (in the sense of practicing a Reformed Catholic faith in the Anglican tradition), the "New" Anglican Church is no longer a valid branch of Christ's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The still-emerging "Traditional" Anglican Church will perhaps be unified in purpose but will be split along evangelical-charismatic and Anglican-Catholic lines without common worship or "prayer". No longer will "communion with the See of Canterbury" be the sole criteria for those churches to be considered validly "Anglican".

This leads one to define what being an "Anglican" truly means. There is no simple answer, but here are some guidelines that may prove helpful:

As a branch of Christ's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, Anglicans practice an ancient and unchanging faith founded on the belief that Jesus the Christ is the Incarnate Word of God, that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the written word of God and that the apostolic witness ("tradition") is the proclaimed word of God. That foundation continues to be unchangeable and unshakeable regardless of the tempest and storms battering against it.

During the Reformation, the Church in England emerged as a unique institution. It retained its Catholic heritage as expressed in the Creeds and decisions of the General Councils of the undivided Church, in its ancient liturgy and sacraments, in Apostolic Succession and the threefold order of ministry of bishops, priests and deacons. The Church in England emerged as the 'middle way' between the extremes of both Protestantism and Catholicism. The Church in England reformed itself by removing many nonessentials in the practice of faith that arose in the Medieval Church, and by returning to the practices of the earliest Christians. First and foremost is an insistence upon the authority of the Holy Scriptures to be the rule and guide to Christian faith and practice.

What became known as the Church of England underwent its formative period during the reign of Elizabeth I. Members of the Church of England entered the American colonies during the 16th and 17th centuries, and became the "official" or established Church in many of those colonies. Following the Revolution, Anglicans in America established an autonomous branch of the Church which was officially known as the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, (PECUSA).

Over the course of the last thirty or so years the Episcopal Church abandoned most of the traditional, historic Anglican faith and practice that emerged at the Reformation. Many faithful Anglicans in the United States opposed the innovations of the Episcopal Church and sought to preserve their traditional Anglican identity.

A meeting of faithful Episcopal clergy and laity was held in Mobile, Alabama in 1968 - from this meeting the 'American Episcopal Church' emerged. In 1977, a Congress of Concerned Churchmen was held in St. Louis, Missouri faithful Anglicans from Canada and the United States were in attendance. The Congress issued 'The Affirmation of St. Louis' which affirmed as unalterable the received Faith and Tradition of the Church: the Holy Scripture, the Church's ancient and universal Creeds, teachings of the Early Church Fathers, decisions of the General Councils of the undivided Church, and the historic Apostolic Ministry of male bishops, priests and deacons descended in unbroken succession from the first Apostles.

Several groups of traditional Anglicans emerged in Canada and the United States following the meeting in St. Louis. The "continuing Anglican" movement in Canada prospered while the movement in the United States was not able to attain complete unity and separated into several different "jurisdictions”.

The "continuing Anglican church movement" in the United States, treated with disdain by most "Episcopalians", continues to be thoroughly grounded in the Holy Scriptures. These orthodox Anglicans believe that the Apostles', Nicene and Athanasian Creeds sufficiently express the faith of the Church and are to be understood by all as they were written. Orthodox Anglicans support the teachings of the Early Church Fathers and decisions of Church Councils of the undivided Church.

Ethics and morality practiced among Anglicans are expected to follow the teaching that 'every Christian is obligated to form his conscience by the divine Moral Law of the Mind of Christ as revealed in Holy Scriptures, and by the teachings and Tradition of the Church' (The Affirmation of St. Louis).

Orthodox Anglicans come to church not to receive something, but to give worship and praise to God.

Orthodox Anglicans worship and pray using the traditional Book of Common Prayer as their liturgical guide. The principal act of Christian worship for Anglicans is the Holy Eucharist, also called the Mass, the Holy Communion, the Lord's Supper and the Divine Liturgy, .which together with Daily Morning and Evening Prayer constitute the regular services of public worship. Anglicans believe in the 'real presence' of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Any who believe in traditional, orthodox Anglican teachings and practices, as evidenced by Confirmation at the hands of a Bishop in valid Apostolic Succession, are allowed to receive Holy Communion - for this reason, traditional, orthodox Anglican churches are not considered to be "open communion" churches as are nearly all "Episcopal" and other so-called "Anglican" churches.

Orthodox Anglicans believe that the Sacraments are 'objective and effective signs of the continued presence and saving activity of Christ our Lord among his people, and his covenanted means for conveying His Grace' (The Affirmation of St. Louis). The two Gospel Sacraments of Baptism and the Holy Eucharist are considered to be 'generally necessary to salvation'. Five other sacramental rites, in their Biblical sense, are also termed 'sacraments': Confirmation, Penance, Unction, Marriage, and Holy Orders.

Any who hold to teachings and innovations antithetical to those espoused by traditional, orthodox Anglicans are rightly called "apostates or heretics", but not "Anglicans". We must continue to pray for the salvation of our once fellow "Anglicans" who have placed their mortal souls in jeopardy by following after false teachers and heretics in The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. May Almighty God in His infinite Goodness forgive them their sins and grant them eternal salvation. In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Fr. D+ -July 2006

An Answer to Cahos

As we stand here today the entire Anglican Communion continues to reverberated down to it’s roots following the actions of the 2006 General Convention of the Episcopal Church of the United States.

The world looks at what has taken place and wonders as to the validity of the Anglican Faith. Devoted Christians are shocked, confused and demoralized as to the actions of their national Church. Many parishioners are abandoning their traditional faith and moving over to other denominations. Where and when will this madness stop? What can we as concerned Anglicans do to help right this dilemma?

First we must pray constantly for Gods guidance in this matter.

Secondly we must reach out to those hurting. We must let them know that there are Traditional Anglicans out there to help assist them in finding answers to their quandary. We must stand up and let the world know that there are still dedicated Christians who believe in and live by the Holy Scriptures with out being influenced by so called politically correct interpretations.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has produced a paper titled Challenge and Hope which delves into some of the underlying problems of this quandary. A copy of the synopsis of his paper is is found at the link below. The content is well worth any concerned Anglicans reading and consideration.

Anglican Communion News

A MS Word version of the entire text is at the following link

Challenge and Hope

Quickly following the conclusion of the ECUSA convention the Diocese of Fort Worth requested alternative primate oversight, and it is almost assured that a number of other dioceses will follow suit in the near future. In addition, there are cries heard daily throughout the Christian community from individuals and congregations who are seeking help in leaving the heterodoxy of ECUSA and who have lost heart for Anglicanism. Many laity departing ECUSA are leaving quietly, going to Rome, independent churches, or most sadly, no church at all. This week, the largest church (in average Sunday attendance) in ECUSA, Christ Church, Plano, announced its decision to disassociate from the Episcopal Church. It is feared that tens of thousands of individuals will be lost from Anglicanism forever unless immediate, though interim, intervention is provided. The face of Anglicanism has been changed, and it behooves us as Traditional Anglicans to be creative in the midst of the restructuring process before us. The situation in the American church is rapidly deteriorating, and it is critical to act now in order to prevent the “balkanization” of the entire Anglican Communion.

A Matter of Sheep and Goats

There comes a time near the end of the season when the Sheppard brings all of his animals into a confined area and systematically begins separating the sheep from the goats. The sheep he will lovingly place into a protected place of plenty during the winter and later put them out in the spring to multiply. Most of the goats will be sold and sent to slaughter.

Are we like the sheep and the goats in the Anglican Communion? Christ said “I am the good Shepherd; and I know my sheep, and am known by My own." "My sheep hear My voice and I know them, and they follow Me." Goats have always had a bad reputation with the Sheppard’s of old. They were always wandering off, climbing into inaccessible and dark places, never listening to the voice of the shepherd. That is exactly why the goats were always getting into trouble.

This same characteristic of the goats marks some of our Brothers and Sisters in the Anglican community. They have wandered far a field, failing to heed the voice of the Good Shepherd. Like most goats, due to their own hard headedness, they are now teetering on the brink of denominational damnation.

There can not be a cafeteria exercise of faith in traditional Christianity. The bible says exactly what it means. To understand the message you must read the before and after of a particular bit of scripture in order to correctly grasp the entire meaning of the passage. You can not take a little scripture here, another bit there and formulate a basis of correct scriptural dogma. You can not be a true Christian and also be politically correct.

Trust me when I tell you there is no "Mother Jesus".

Trust me when I tell you that the practice of homosexuality is a sin according to strict interpretation the bible by all knowledgeable Biblical scholars.

Trust me when I tell you that marriage is a God given sacrament between one man and one woman.

Trust me when I tell you that good Anglicans are fed up and are looking again at the moral values of the Traditional Anglican Church as a refuge from the madness of the so call politically correct religions.

This Sunday morning in the process of leaving for church I stood in the kitchen with my sermon under my arm gulping down the last cup of coffee. Glancing at the morning’s paper I happen to see the following Editorial by nationally known columnist Cal Thomas. Suddenly I became aware that there were others out in the world community that were as disgusted and saddened as myself at the actions of a national Church which appears to have gone morally and spiritually corrupt. I have included Mr. Thomas’s article below for your edification and you draw your own conclusions.

Cal Thomas
Church lite

The new leader of the Episcopal Church in America, Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, says she does not believe homosexuality is a sin and that homosexuals were created by God to love people of the same gender.

As the Episcopal leadership continues to huff and puff to catch up with the world, it would be helpful if it could tell its members what it regards as sinful behavior, or will the very concept of sin soon be up for negotiation in order to avoid giving offense to anyone?

Truly what Paul, the Apostle, warned would happen in the "end times" is coming true in our day: "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine, instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn away from the truth and turn aside to myths." (2 Timothy 4:3-4 NIV).

Meeting at the Episcopal General Convention in Columbus, Ohio, the denomination passed a resolution expressing "regret" for consecrating a homosexual bishop three years ago, but it declined to repent of its action. On Tuesday, they voted to continue consecrating homosexual bishops and to permit same-sex unions. But, just 24 hours later, they reversed themselves yet again and adopted a resolution to avoid consecrating additional gay bishops. Apparently, they are so wishy-washy; they are even wishy-washy about their wishy-washiness.

Bishop Schori, a former oceanographer for the National Marine Fisheries Service in Seattle, says, "The Bible tells us about how to treat other human beings and that's certainly the great message of Jesus to include the unincluded."

This is so outside orthodox Christianity that only biblical illiterates or those who deny the supreme authority of the only book that gives foundation to the faith will accept it.

Anglicanism has suffered from probably irreversible Corruption since the days of the late C.S. Lewis and John Stott, who is still with us. These men combined intellectual heft with orthodox belief and had little regard for trends, fads or cultural diversions. They have been replaced by theological dim bulbs that are less concerned about proclaiming truth and conversion than in not offending anyone

Maybe the question for Bishop Schori and her fellow heretics should be: if homosexual practice is not sin, what is? And how do we know? Or is it a matter of "thus saith the opinion polls" and lobbying groups, rather than "thus saith the Lord"? With the bishop's "doctrine" of inclusion, why exclude anyone? How about applying the religious equivalent of "open borders" and let everyone into the church, including unrepentant prostitutes, murderers, liars, thieves and atheists. If the Episcopal Church denies what is clearly taught in scripture about important matters like sexual behavior, why expect its leaders to have any convictions about anything, including directions to Heaven? How can anyone be sure, if the guidebook is so full of errors?

The leader of Anglicanism, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has promoted this doctrinal wishy-washiness. Williams, who has acknowledged ordaining a priest who is a homosexual, says he opposes cohabitation by heterosexuals because it has a harmful impact on family stability. But the same book that speaks against what we used to call "fornication" before such words died along with the accompanying doctrines, also speaks against the "sin" of homosexual practice. So how can anyone be sure one is true and the other not true, or the reverse, or neither, or both? And who is to say if the church leaders don't know or are afraid to say because they might be criticized as "exclusive."

The Episcopal Church isn't the only denomination having trouble deciding what it believes. The Presbyterian Church (USA) has voted to "receive" a policy paper on sex-inclusive language for the Trinity. Instead of the traditional (and biblical) Father, Son and Holy Spirit, these liberal Presbyterians will consider using "Mother, Child and Womb," or "Rock, Redeemer, Friend," among others. Never mind what God calls Himself. These people want a name change without asking permission.

No wonder liberal denominations are losing members while the conservative ones are growing. The liberal ones don't seem to care. Seeking only to be "relevant" they face condemnation from the One they are supposed to represent, whose attitude about such things is anything but "inclusive."Conservative Episcopalians are too few in number to stop the theological drift. If they intend to preserve their congregations without further theological seepage, they should "come out from among them and be separate."


Where do we go from here???

We pray with out failing for the hand of God to direct the hearts of those in positions of responsibility to realize the error of their ways and return to the Sacramental fold of Christ’s Church on Earth.

We open our hearts and parishes for those who flee from this madness while we continue to pray lovingly for those left behind.

A Test of Faith

The Episcopal Church of The United States is meeting in solemn session to determine it's path to embark on for eternity. There have been many resolutions that have been drafted in response to the Windsor report. None of these which respond directly to the concerns of the report but rather dance around the fringes of truth.

It is obvious that almost all of the resolutions as they are currently drafted fail to meet the concerns of the Anglican community as a whole as well the areas addressed by the Windsor report. Basically, at this point in time, it also appears that ECUSA has no intention of correcting its head strong slide away from Christian morality.

As a result of these actions, or should I say skirting around the truth, many prominent church leaders have looked the proposed resolutions and expressed grave concerns to their lack of concrete answers. Such is the case of Dr N. T. Wright, Bishop of Durham. The concluding remarks of his paper on these actions are presented below.


The Choice before ECUSA
by the Bishop of Durham, Dr. N. T. Wright June 2006

Conclusion
19. It is very important not to let the plethora of material, in the official document and in all the various commentaries on it, detract attention from the central and quite simple question: Will ECUSA comply with the specific and detailed recommendations of Windsor, or will it not? As the Resolutions stand, only one answer is possible: if these are passed without amendment, ECUSA will have specifically, deliberately and knowingly decided not to comply with Windsor. Only if the crucial Resolutions, especially A160 and A161, are amended in line with Windsor paragraph 134, can there be any claim of compliance. Of course, even then, there are questions already raised about whether a decision of General Convention would be able to bind those parts of ECUSA that have already stated their determination to press ahead in the direction already taken. But the Anglican principle of taking people to be in reality what they profess to be, until there is clear evidence to the contrary, must be observed. If these resolutions are amended in line with Windsor, and passed, then the rest of the Communion will be in a position to express its gratitude and relief that ECUSA has complied with what was asked of it. Should that happen, I will be the first to stand up and cheer at such a result, and to speak out against those who are hoping fervently for ECUSA to resist Windsor so that they can justify their anti-ECUSA stance. But if the resolutions are not amended, then, with great sadness and with complete uncertainty about what way ahead might then be found, the rest of the Communion will have to conclude that, despite every opportunity, ECUSA has declined to comply with Windsor; has decided, in other words, to walk apart’ (Windsor 157). My hope and earnest prayer over the coming week will continue to be that that conclusion may be avoided. May God bless the Bishops and Delegates of ECUSA in their praying, thinking and deciding.

As Christians the most difficult thing to do in this secular world is stand up for the truths of our faith as set out in the Bible with out compromise. One can not be a cafeteria Anglican and remain true the basic tenet’s we profess to believe.

There are many parishes in ECUSA that are trembling at home as to the possible action to be taken by this Synod of 2006. We reverently pray that their fears may be in vain and their ancient Christian faith restored.

New song - Same dance

THE DIOCESE of California did not elect a gay bishop last weekend, despite choosing from a list of seven candidates which included three living in same-sex partnerships. Clergy and laity voted in a final ballot for the Suffragan Bishop of Alabama, the Rt Revd Marc Andrus, the most senior of the candidates. He was described by the Washington Post as "a violin-playing, yoga-practicing father-of-two".

Much speculation had surrounded the election in ECUSA's most liberal diocese. The candidates the Revd Michael Barlowe, the Revd Robert Taylor, and the Revd Bonnie Perry were all openly living with gay partners.

In a telephone message relayed to the diocesan convention in San Francisco, Bishop Andrus said: "Your vote today remains a vote for inclusion and communion of gay and lesbian people in their full lives as single or partnered people, of women, of all ethnic minorities. . . I take this election to be an expression of our common desire to be part of the whole, the Communion and the world, in what may be a new way."

Key figures in the diocese have been at pains to stress that the candidates sexuality was not an issue. Bishop Andrus won 188 clergy votes and 161 lay, having needed 131 and 148 respectively.

The outgoing Bishop of California, the Rt Revd William Swing, said that while it was understandable to see the election as "straight versus gay, or perhaps men versus women, or perhaps black versus white", it had been about which candidate God seemed to favour.
A lay member of the nominating committee, Craig Martin, said that the election process had been democratic, and the diocese had not been concerned about the impact of its decision on the Anglican Communion.

The Moderator of the Anglican Communion Network, the Bishop of Pittsburgh, the Rt Revd Robert Duncan, was swift to welcome the result and thank the electors "for not attempting to short-circuit the decisions the Episcopal Church must make this June [at the General Convention] about walking with us or apart from the Anglican Communion.

"The world Church has clearly told us what we must do to stay in communion: repent of our decision in 2003 to confirm the election of a bishop in a same-sex partnered relationship, and place moratoriums on further elections of bishops in same-sex partnered relationships, as well as the blessing of same-sex relationships."

The American Anglican Council had no warm words. It asked: "Did the diocese succumb to reported pressure from ECUSA, including Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, to avoid electing a partnered homosexual? Is such pressure in fact part of a co-ordinated strategy to mislead the Communion?"

It is evident the ECUSA has no intent of repenting or correcting their slide from Christian morality. So they did not elect a practicing homosexual, instead they elected a ultra liberal individual that the gay /lesbian community was quick to place their stamp of approval on.

As Christians we are taught to hate the sin but continue to love the sinner. Nowhere in scripture can I find a commandment to approve and promote the sin.

Have I missed something some where?

Time to fish or cut bait

The Episcopal Church of the United States (ECUSA) continues to flounder in the dark swamp of what to do or what not to do in the next general convention. Do they pull back from the abyss that they are tethering over due to same sex unions, ordination of homosexual priest and the elevation of of openly active homosexuals as Bishops. For them, at this point in time, it would be a prudent action however I feel that they will continue to throw all good reason to the winds and plunge stubbornly forward as they have done in the past.

The following excerpt was found today on the AAC web site which is a continuing example of the pulse of the Anglican Communion.

Bishop of Exeter's Reflections Offered to the House of Bishops of ECUSA
*Below is a significant excerpt of the Bishop of Exeter's statement to the House of Bishops; the entire statement is available on the AAC website here.
"...I suppose one of the major challenges for the Episcopal Church now has to do with whether there are enough of you to stand on broadly the same ground, holding a range of opinions on the issue of Lambeth 1.10 but firm in carrying forward the Windsor vision of a strengthened and enabling communion life. This, I believe, is the key question rather than questions (unhelpful questions I think) about whether the Episcopal Church will either be pushed out of Communion or consciously walk away. Let's be clear: On the one hand no one can force another Province or Diocese either to go or remain. We are not that kind of Church. Yet equally, no Diocese or Province can enforce its own continued membership simply or largely on its own terms. There has to be engagement. There is no communion without a shared vision of life in communion (at least that is how I understand Windsor).
"So it does seem to me, as I listen to those other parts of the Communion that I know best, that any further consecration of those in a same sex relationship; any authorisation of any person to undertake same sex blessings; any stated intention not to seriously engage with The Windsor Report -- will be read very widely as a declaration not to stay with the Communion as it is, or as the Windsor Report has articulated a vision, particularly in sections A and B, of how it wishes to be. Having said that, I do believe that I have heard in this house this week, by and large, a desire for shared life in communion and ongoing engagement with others in just what this must involve..."
-The Rt. Rev. Michael Langrish, Bishop of ExeterKanuga, N.C.March 22, 2006

No individual, congregation or province can drift this far from the traditional teachings of the Anglican communion and stay afloat. There comes a time when all concerned simply say "enough is enough." Unfortunately it appears that that time is just around the corner.

Women Priest in the Episcopal Church

Alice Linsley served as a priest and rector in the Episcopal Church until she came to believe that the Episcopal Church has abandonded catholic order. She has renounced her orders in the Episcopal Church and has written about her journey and her position against women's ordination. I especially found this part interesting:

Question: Where do Evangelicals who support women priest go wrong in your view?

Response: The iorny of Evangelicals is that they say they believe in the authority of Scripture but then allow cultural accommodation of ther interpretation of Scripture

I will have to agree. I have never understood why those calling themselves "Evangelical" or scripture based so often look over biblical passages that speak about divorce or women's ordination. These two issues are the most glaring contradictions in the Evangelical worldview - to speak generally, but not absolutely.

Full text of Alice Linsley: Q & A via Pontifications.

Why the flight to Africa or parts unknown?

USA TODAY had an article last week about another parish that has left ECUSA to align with the Anglican church of Rwanda. Part of that has been extracted here.

Each Sunday before beginning the main service at Grace Church in Orange Park, Fla., the Rev. Sam Pascoe tells the assembled congregation that after 125 years, the church they worship in is no longer part of the American Episcopal Church. On the first of the year, Pascoe and most of his 350-member congregation left one of the oldest and wealthiest U.S. denominations and joined the Episcopal Church of Rwanda, a poor, genocide-scarred African nation 7,600 miles away. The hymns are the same, the prayer book is the same, and the U.S. and Rwandan churches are both branches of the worldwide Anglican Communion, headquartered in England and led by the archbishop of Canterbury. But the U.S. church accepts openly gay priests and bishops, and the Rwandan church, like Grace, emphatically does not. The congregation of Grace Church is one of more than three dozen across the country that have left the Episcopal Church USA since it approved in 2003 the election of New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson, who has a same-sex partner. Pascoe and his flock joined the Diocese of Rwanda, which has been recruiting unhappy Episcopalian parishes since 2000.

Other U.S. congregations have joined Anglican dioceses in Uganda, Brazil and Bolivia

One has to question this headlong rush of these parishes to place themselves under the leadership of a far distant province. Most of the administration, bishops and support are all over there and they continue to be in communion with Canterbury. There is some local presence in the United States of administration for one or two of of the provinces but even with this all being taken into consideration is such a move really worth it? Last, but not least, due to the recent stance taken by the Archbishop of Canterbury in regard to continuing to allow homosexuals into the priesthood in the Church of England, same sex marriages or unions, and fostering an any thing goes attitude, then those fleeing parishes will be no better off in that far distant land than they were under ECUSA.

The Anglican Church in America under the leadership of The Most Reverend Louis W. Falk has been and is willing to continue to provide shelter and leadership to all those disparaging Episcopalians. The Anglican Church in America is also a member of The Traditional Anglican Communion which is at this point over one half million strong. They are not in communion with Canterbury or ECUSA due to obvious reasons. The Traditional Anglican Communion is uniformly orthodox and traditional in its teaching and practice, while the Canterbury-based Communion emphasizes "inclusiveness" and embraces a wide range of beliefs. The TAC shares a common ancestry, including Apostolic Succession, with Canterbury, but there is no direct hierarchical or organizational connection between the two.

With the TAC the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, which is still the standard for many Episcopalians, is the same. The Hymnal is the same and last but not least the Order of the Mass is the same. If these parishes are truly upset as to the changes wrought by ECUSA, perhaps then a return to the more Traditional form of worship and values is in order.

The Lenten Journey

"Turn Ye even to me, saith the Lord, with all your heart and with fasting." We read these words in the book of Joel 2:12 and stop to wonder at the words of the writer. Here Joel calls us to a state of holiness where we are to stop and reflect on the goodness of God. To fast so that when the joyful day Easter arrives our hearts and souls may be filled with the love of the risen Christ.

On Ash Wednesday during a solemn mass, ash was smeared on our foreheads in the form of a cross as the admonishment was intoned "Remember O man/woman, dust thou art and unto dust thou shalt return" This reminds us of the fact that we are indeed visitors upon this earth and as all things must we too shall also fade away. But as Christians the wondrous thing is that we shall be reborn again in to the heavenly kingdom of our father. Death would be a empty end to life and have no meaning had not Christ died and rose again.

The season of Lent is a time for all to reflect and renew our lives in Christ. Here we fast and reflect upon the goodness of God and his abounding mercy. Slowly we approach the Easter tide as empty vessels to be filled to the brim with God's love on that joyful day of resurrection.

Do you only profess or really practice your faith?

Looking at today’s rampant slide of many churches from the profession and practice of their traditional beliefs to the quagmire of so called political correctness in religion, many of us have been caught up in speaking out of the both sides of our mouths. One side we state that our religion is based on the tenets and beliefs held dear for so many years. These beliefs were and are biblically based with out any room for political correctness or interpolation. On the other side deviant lifestyles that were totally out of step with mainline Christianity are now being condoned by some. Fornication along with homosexuality, were and still are gross sins and fly in the face of our Creator. One did not have to make justification for those that engaged in these acts, they were wrong and accepted by the traditional church as wrong. Recent research in genetics has firmly established that this deviant lifestyle is not forced upon individuals by some horrible mistake of nature at birth but rather is solely a matter of that individual’s choice.

At this point in time we now have a national church that openly condones these acts even among their clergy including Bishops and the churches membership as a whole does not seem to have the strength of character or Christian morals to rise up against these gross infractions. I can remember growing up in the ranching area of East Texas hearing the old timers say “His word ain’t no good cause he talks out of both sides of his mouth” What they were saying was that individual would tell you one thing and do just the opposite of what he had professed. It met, to them, that his word and value as an individual was to be questioned. This may well referr to the members of those churches who profess to believe the bible and the teachings of Christ but allow this to happen without doing any thing about it. They continue to frequent those churches that condone those acts that are in contradiction to biblical teaching. They continue to attend, tolerate, fund and support those institutions that condone and promote these acts. In all truth they, therefore, speak out of both sides of their mouths

I continue to hear those dear friends caught up in this religious quagmire say “Our church is such a beautiful church and I just hate to leave it”. Remember well that our Christian fore fathers, in the face of death if discovered, met in the fields, upon hilltops and in the catacombs in defiance of others, so strong was their faith. I have also heard other church members say “we have so many friends here and I just can’t leave my bridge group or my golf group”

The question at this point is what is more important to us as so called Christians, our social life, a nice building or the true salvation of our souls? The bible teaches that no man or woman can serve two God’s.

Which God do you choose?

One step forward

This is the old deacons first attempt to enter the world of blogging. Stay posted for further developments