________________________________________

Beloved in Christ,

The  situation in the Episcopal Church is very complex and not apt to be sorted  out neatly and cleanly for some time. It is clear to those who are willing  to look that the leadership of TEC has left the historic Christian faith in  pursuit of a new religion, called Anglican, but with the contents changed.  It sees Jesus as a religious figure, a way to find God, but not as Jesus  himself put it, "...the Way, and the Truth and the Life..."  The attack  on historic Christian beliefs within TEC began with undermining confidence  in Holy Scripture and challenging its authority as described, for example,  in II Tim 3:16. The second line of attack has  been on Jesus-who he is and what he has done, including his sacrificial  atonement itself. A third attack has been the spiritual version of the  1970's book, I'm OK, You're OK, by Thomas A. Harris. If we would believe the  premise of the spiritual version of this, who are we to "judge" the  wrongdoing of others and their breach of core doctrines of Christianity? If  we are all OK then there is no sin (except continuing to reject this new  progressivism). With no sin, there is no need for Atonement and no need for  a Savior, for after all "I'm OK, You're OK". In order to arrive at this  foolish and incorrect assessment it is necessary to "reinterpret" or  "deconstruct" Holy Scripture, otherwise many verses in the Bible would  create a problem, such as "For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory  of God." (Rom 3:23)

Within the "progressive" movement, which many of  us usually call liberal or revisionist, the TEC leadership is intent on  using every resource available to woo or coerce and to invite or threaten  the remaining orthodox Episcopalians to fall into line. If you have a bishop  who isn't persecuting you at the moment, the natural tendency for many  orthodox Episcopalians is to keep the head down, try and not be noticed, say  your prayers and stay out of the line of fire. This is a formula for short  term safety and long term annihilation. TEC is a train going somewhere you  don't want to go, and you don't want to find out by staying on until the  final stop. Spiritually, the cost of staying on to the final destination  could cost you your faith, your relationship with God and everything else  that is of primary importance. This earthly segment of our eternal life has  eternal consequences, and I fear for and pray for those who are trapped for  various reasons.

For some in TEC the immediate cost of realigning to  an orthodox portion of global Anglicanism seems way too high. I visited a  little church that had just enlarged their property; they had bought and  paid for everything themselves. They had painted it, carpeted it, roofed it,  and used it, and it was their home. The bishop of that diocese says it's  his, not theirs. If they want to leave, put the keys on the table and get  out. They could do this and start over worshipping in a school perhaps, but  for a very small congregation that also might break the congregation into  such small pieces that nothing survives. In many of these cases the cost to  defend law suits brought by the bishop and the national Episcopal Church are  many times greater than the value of the property-to buy or sell it-and the  small congregation simply doesn't have the financial resources to fight.  Some are walking away and starting over, some are leaving with the property  and trying hard to finance the litigation brought against them, and many are  caught and feel trapped.

In parishes throughout TEC, there are  individuals who know that things aren't right and can tell that the false  teaching of TEC's "progressives" are working their way into what is preached  and taught, but the problem is where to go. Many small towns in America only  have one Episcopal church. They can leave Anglicanism and go to a Lutheran,  Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregational or other flavor mainline church, but  the same problems in TEC are generally found there also. Some leave TEC and  opt for evangelical churches. Others go to Roman Catholic Churches, and some  go to the Eastern Orthodox. If there are enough people who are looking for  an Anglican alternative, a small home church can be formed and led by a lay  person or available Anglican clergy. Many people, however, are staying in  TEC because they are older, more frail, and don't have options they can  readily turn to, and some are just staying home.

The intent of TEC to use its resources is far reaching. The Executive Council of TEC has approved using $500,000 of income from trust funds for litigation and harassment of the orthodox, and especially to be used against Bishop John-David Schofield, Bishop Robert Duncan and Bishop Jack Iker. This week the House of Bishops attempted to depose Bishop Schofield and retired Bishop Bill Cox. At the same time they are preparing to try several orthodox bishops, including retired Bishop Edward MacBurney (Quincy) for the canonical crime of ministering to one of the Southern Cone Anglican parishes in the "territory" of the Diocese of San Diego. We have learned that Presiding Bishop Jefforts Schori intends to try to depose Bishop Duncan in May, before Lambeth, even though the three senior members of the House of Bishops did not agree with her proposal to inhibit him for abandonment of communion. We should know more about this soon, but the clear message is fear and terror. If you try and leave they will still come after you. If you try and hold onto the property that is yours, they will sue you and keep you in court until your funds for defense run out.

With other sources of  funds they are working the field, "visiting" primates and bishops who have a  desperate need for funding for their ministries and handing them the keys to  brand new Land Rover SUVs. They appear to be working with the Anglican  Communion Office staff, Lambeth Palace staff and the Archbishop of  Canterbury himself to strengthen TEC's position and divide the conservative  orthodox.

Within the conservative orthodox in the USA there are those  who either have separated from TEC (often at significant cost) or are in the  planning stage of doing so. Others are not quite there, but are evaluating  their options about leaving. There are those, however, for whom the  emotional and cultural and perhaps, some would argue, spiritual tie to Canterbury is so great that even though there is the equivalent of spiritual  abuse coming from the father, the children are trying to decide whether it  is better to leave and stop the abuse or to stay, maintain the relationship,  and continue to be abused. Some orthodox in the USA and perhaps in the UK  are struggling with this decision. A simple answer is to stay and put a stop  to the abuse, but alas, that is what the Communion and specifically the  Global South primates have been trying to do since the 1998 Lambeth  Conference, and although significant progress has been made, the tide of  battle has not been turned yet.

The realignment that is afoot in the  United States and Canada is based on the most basic doctrines of  Christianity, and compromise with heresy and apostasy is not an acceptable  alternative. In other areas of the Communion the issues and the divide may  not be as crystal clear as it is in the USA. This pernicious false gospel of  theological revisionism and cultural adaptation is nevertheless spreading  throughout global Anglicanism; Western European and Western hemisphere  churches are heavily impacted. It is true, however, that exceptions do  exist: the Anglican Communion Network in the USA, groups in Canada, and   missionary outreaches of Rwanda, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, and the  Province of the Southern Cone, and in these can be found the faith once  delivered to the Saints.

The question remains, however, what of the  many people who are orthodox and are still in TEC and the Church of England?  How can the witness and work of the orthodox provinces change the Anglican  Communion in such a way that real help comes to those who presently have no  viable options? If we look at the tools available, the so-called Instruments  of Unity are not uniformly helpful. The leadership of the Archbishop of  Canterbury has been concerned with holding together a badly damaged  Communion rather than fixing the Communion. The Anglican Consultative  Council (ACC) receives more than a fourth of its funding from TEC, and  Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori, as a member of the Primates Standing  Committee, also sits on the ACC Standing Committee. Needless to say, the ACC  on a good day is not helpful to reforming and refining the Communion, and on  a bad day it works in concert with the aims of TEC. The third Instrument of  Unity is the Primates, meeting together. Some good work has come from this  body, but in each case the Archbishop of Canterbury has been able to  summarize the issues, shape the remit to a body charged with doing  something, massage the reports coming forth, and manipulate the way the  Primates do or don't address these as they meet together.

Unless the  ABC repents of his direction and style and becomes more concerned about the  deep issues of "who is Jesus" and what obedient moral discipleship means,  there is little likelihood that the Anglican Communion can proceed in its  established form. If the future is uncertain, some questions need to be  asked before the day of crisis is fully upon us, and one of those questions  is "What is the essence of Anglicanism/Anglican Christianity and what does  it look like if Canterbury and England are not at the center?" As I ask the  question, I myself don't have the answer, but the time to begin asking the  question has arrived, even as we beseech our Lord Jesus to honor and  accomplish his prayer that all might be one.

Blessings and Peace in  Christ Jesus,

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President,  The American Anglican Council
___________________________________

Deposition Votes Failed to Achieve Canonically Required Majority

Source:  The Living Church
Date:  March 14, 2008

By: The Rev. George Conger and Steve Waring

Slightly more than one-third of all bishops eligible voted to depose  bishops John-David Schofield and William J. Cox during the House of Bishops' spring retreat, far fewer than the 51 percent required by the canons.
 
The exact number is impossible to know, because both resolutions were approved by voice vote. Only 131 bishops registered for the meeting March 7-12 at Camp Allen, and at least 15 of them left before the business session began on Wednesday. There were 294 members of the House of Bishops entitled to vote on March 12.
 
When questioned about canonical inconsistencies during a telephone press conference at the conclusion of the meeting, Bishop Michael Curry of North Carolina said the bishops had relied on advice provided to them by canonical experts, and did not examine canonical procedure during plenary debate prior to the votes to depose bishops Schofield and Cox.
 
Bishop Schofield was consecrated Bishop of San Joaquin in 1989. Last December, he presided over a diocesan convention at which clergy and lay delegates voted overwhelmingly to leave The Episcopal Church and affiliate with the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone. Bishop Cox was consecrated Bishop Suffragan of Maryland in 1972. He resigned in 1980, later serving as Assisting Bishop of Oklahoma from 1980 to 1988. In 2005, Bishop Cox ordained two priests and a deacon at Christ Church, Overland Park, Kan. Christ Church affiliated with the Anglican Church of Uganda after purchasing its property from the Diocese of Kansas.
 
Both bishops were charged with abandonment of communion. The procedure for deposing a bishop under this charge is specified in Title IV, canon 9, sections 1-2. The canon stipulates that the vote requires "a majority of the whole number of bishops entitled to vote," not merely a majority of those present. At least a dozen bishops voted either not to depose Bishop Schofield or to abstain, according to several bishops. The number voting in favor of deposing Bishop Cox was reportedly slightly larger than the number in favor of deposing Bishop Schofield.
 
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori was questioned about the history of the canonical proceedings against Bishop Cox. At first she said during the press conference that she had not sought the canonically required consent of the three senior bishops of the church for permission to inhibit Bishop Cox pending his trial. However Title IV, Canon 9, sections 1-2 do not describe a procedure for deposing a bishop who has not first been inhibited.
 
Consent Never Sought

Later in the press conference, Bishop Jefferts Schori clarified and extended her remarks, saying she had been "unable to get the consent of the three senior bishops last spring. That's why we didn't bring it to the September meeting" of the House of Bishops. One of the three senior bishops with jurisdiction confirmed to The Living Church that his consent to inhibit Bishop Cox was never sought.
 
In 2007, Bishop Cox sent a written letter to Bishop Jefferts Schori, announcing his resignation from the House of Bishops.  Since he was already retired, he did not have jurisdiction, and therefore unlike Bishop Schofield, his resignation did not require consent from a majority of the House of Bishops. A trial of the 88-year-old retired bishop was not mandatory.
 
Bishop Cox also does not appear to have been granted due process with respect to a speedy trial. Once the disciplinary review committee formally certifies that a bishop has abandoned communion, the canons state "it shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to present the matter to the House of Bishops at the next regular or special meeting of the house." The review committee provided certification to Bishop Jefferts Schori on May 29, 2007. His case should have been heard during the fall meeting in New Orleans last September. When asked about the apparent inconsistency, Bishop Jefferts Schori said initially she did not include Bishop Cox's case on the agenda for the New Orleans meeting "due to the press of business."
 
Title IV, canon 9, section 1 requires the Presiding Bishop to inform the accused bishop "forthwith," in other words immediately, after the review committee has provided a certificate of abandonment, but Bishop Jefferts Schori did not write to Bishop Cox until Jan. 8, 2008, more than seven months afterward.
 
The two-hour business session at which the deposition votes were taken ran slightly longer than originally scheduled. First a resolution was read followed by prayer from the chaplain. A period of silence followed the prayer. After the silence was broken, the bishops discussed the resolution in small table groups followed by plenary discussion. When it appeared that everyone who wanted to speak had done so, the voice vote was taken. Each resolution was read and voted on separately.
__________________________________

Former Quincy Bishop Charged

Source:  Diocese of Quincy Press Release (via email)
Date:  March 13, 2008 

Bishop Edward MacBurney, bishop retired of the Diocese of Quincy, has been formally charged with canonical violations by the Episcopal Church in the United States of America. These charges stem from events occurring in June, 2007 when Bishop MacBurney was invited to make a pastoral visit to a non-Episcopal church in San Diego,  California. MacBurney, 80 years old, retired from his position as a diocesan bishop in 1994, but as a bishop in good standing still actively ministers to churches throughout the country and also in other parts of the Anglican Communion.     

The basis of the charges against MacBurney relate to the allegation that he did not receive permission to perform liturgical rites from the sitting Episcopal diocesan bishop in San Diego. Even though the church MacBurney visited had severed ties with the Episcopal Church in the United States and had re-affiliated with the Anglican Bishop of Argentina, a primate of the worldwide Anglican Communion, the charges allege that MacBurney impermissibly crossed Diocesan boundaries.

Although MacBurney is retired, he remains a member of the Episcopal House of Bishops with seat and voice. The essence of the charge is the claim that MacBurney is prohibited from ministering within the geographical territory of another Episcopal diocese even if the church to which he ministers is no longer affiliated with the Episcopal Church. Attorneys for MacBurney state that the charges raise the theoretical question as to whether an Episcopal bishop exercises total control over a certain geographical territory or whether a Bishop merely exercises control over the Episcopal churches within that territory. The Episcopal Church has suffered internal turmoil for a number of years and it has been common practice for certain retired bishops to minister to parishes experiencing ideological differences from their bishops.

The Rt. Rev. Keith L. Ackerman, current Bishop of Quincy, when asked said, "We support Bishop MacBurney fully in his willingness to provide pastoral care for this non- Episcopal Church parish in California. Because of his love for people and his commitment to serve and uphold the Gospel, Bishop MacBurney acted in good faith with the permission of Archbishop Venables, Bishop of Argentina and Primate of the Southern Cone. Bishop MacBurney is a loving man and is not the kind of man who would refuse to respond to the needs of God's people in any part of the world."
__________________________________

Communique from GAFCON leadership meeting

Source:  Church of Nigeria
Date:  March 13, 2008

We met in England as the leadership team of the Global Anglican Future Conference and Jerusalem Pilgrimage from March 10-12, 2008 and were encouraged by the support and enthusiasm of bishops, clergy and lay leaders around the Anglican Communion who have welcomed GAFCON and expressed their desire to attend.

We affirmed that the goals of GAFCON are to:

1.  Provide an opportunity for fellowship to continue to experience and proclaim the transforming love of Christ.
2.  Develop a renewed understanding of our identity as Anglican Christians within our current context.
3.  Prepare for an Anglican future in which the Gospel is uncompromised and Christ-centered mission a top priority.

We received reports from our various task forces involved in logistics support and program development and are grateful for the remarkable progress already made. We are confident that our time together in the Holy Land will be one of great blessing for the wider Christian community, a positive witness of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour and anticipation of our future as Anglican Christians.

Archbishop Peter J. Akinola
On behalf of the Leadership Team
12th March, 2008
__________________________________

Lambeth Invitations Reviewed

Source:  Church of England Newspaper
Date:  Week of March 13, 2008

By George Conger

THE QUESTION of Lambeth Conference invitations will be reviewed by the Archbishop of Canterbury's  Windsor Continuation Group (WCG), sources familiar with its deliberations tell The Church of England Newspaper.

Chartered last month by the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams, the WCG will take a second look at the decision not to extend invitations to the African-consecrated American bishops of Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda and Nigeria, and may also discuss the question of Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire's non-invitation. Were Dr Williams to accept advice to broaden the Lambeth Conference invitation list, "that would change everything," one global south leader told CEN, and prevent Lambeth from being a "bust."

Dr Williams' decision not to invite Bishop Martyn Minns of Cana and Bishop Chuck Murphy of the AMiA and their suffragans contributed to the decision by the Churches of Nigeria and Rwanda to decline the invitation to attend Lambeth. The Archbishop of Kenya has announced that he will not attend the July 16-Aug 3 conference after his two suffragans, Bishops Bill Atwood and Bill Murdoch, were overlooked by Lambeth. The Kenyan House of Bishops meets later this spring and will review its position at that time, sources in the Kenyan church tell CEN.

At its New Orleans meeting last year, the US House of Bishops asked Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori to treat with Dr Williams, and find a way to bring Bishop Robinson to Lambeth. Acting on behalf of the presiding bishop, the bishops of Northern Indiana, Vermont and Wyoming spoke with Dr Williams' aide, Mr Chris Smith and ACC Secretary General Canon Kenneth Kearon on five occasions. The three reported they had sought to find a way for Bishop Robinson to "have the opportunity to pray with other bishops at Lambeth," to have an opportunity to "build relationships," and that he be given a "voice at the table" during the discussions "on human sexuality." Their approach was unsuccessful and they reported that a "full invitation is not possible," for the New Hampshire bishop. Nor would he be able to participate in the bishops' retreat or study groups.

While he could not be an "observer" at Lambeth, he was offered the opportunity by the organizing committee to be part of the Lambeth Marketplace--a venue where vendors historically displayed their wares. Bishop Robinson told the House of Bishops that he had declined the invitation to set up a stall amongst the  haberdashers, prefacing his remarks by saying he was not "whining", but the marketplace was a "non-offer" already available to him. The controversy had left him "dismayed and sick hearted," he said. However, he would go independently of the invitation process as he had a duty to the children. "I will go to Lambeth remembering the 100 or so twenty- something's I met in Hong Kong this fall, who meet every Sunday afternoon to worship and sing God's praise in a secret catacomb of safety - because they can't be gay and Christian in their own churches. I will be taking them to Lambeth with me," he said.

The secretary to the Windsor Continuation Group, Canon Gregory Cameron declined to confirm or deny its agenda, telling the CEN that it had "decided not to make their work more public" at this stage of the  proceedings.

The WCG met last week in London, spending March 4 with the ACC-Primates Joint Standing Committee and March 5 with Dr Williams. Sources present at the joint standing committee meeting with the WCG note the issue of invitations was not raised. Canon James Rosenthal of the ACC noted that while he could not speak to the invitations issue, Dr Williams was doing everything in his power to see that as many bishops as possible could come to Lambeth. Sources familiar with the deliberations of the WCG report the group will meet two more times and offer its recommendations to Dr Williams. The public brief of the group, which is chaired by the former Presiding Bishop of Jerusalem and the Middle East, Bishop Clive Handford, is to "contribute to the shared discernment of the bishops in strengthening the life and identity of the Anglican Communion."

Finding a way of bringing those boycotting the Conference back into the life of the Communion is a priority, sources tell CEN, and that will include looking once again at the invitation question. While the WCG may recommend several courses of action to address the dysfunction within the Communion, the question of ‘who comes to Lambeth?' is for Dr Williams alone to decide, one global south primate noted.
______________________________

ACN Southeastern Convocation

Join the Anglican Communion Network's (ACN) Southeastern Convocation for its upcoming conference "Common Cause: Working Together in Mission and Ministry" April 17-19 at Holy Cross Anglican Church in Loganville, GA ($90). Bishop Robert Duncan, ACN and Common Cause Moderator, will begin the conference Thursday evening by sharing the broad vision of the Common Cause Partnership followed by Jenny Noyes, ACN Director of Evangelism, sharing testimonies of grass roots cooperation among the Common Cause Anglicans.

On Friday morning, Bishops Alex Dickson and David Anderson will join other Common Cause leaders in a panel discussion on the work that God is doing in raising up Common Cause "clusters"(churches that can effectively partner together at local levels) throughout the country. The workshops and networking time will help equip you with ministry tools to play your part in rebuilding His Kingdom through vibrant Anglican churches.

The Rev. Tom Herrick, Executive Director of the Titus Institute, will present a pre-conference training day on church planting ($85) on Thursday from 8:30 to 4:30. Click here for all the conference details and to register. Discounts available for groups of three or more for the pre-conference and for students/seminarians for both conferences.

The Rev. Jim McCaslin, Dean of the Southeastern Convocation, invites you to join him at this conference for 'the calling of God to us seems clear: Rebuild my Church from the bottom up working together in mission and ministry because the Cause that I am giving you in Common is taking the saving Good News of Jesus to a lost and hurting world.'