Anglican Crisis deepens: Schori consecrates a Lesbian to Bishop of Los Angeles

The crisis in the Anglican communion deepened further this past week as Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori (Satan's representative on Earth) pushed forward the homosexual agenda by consecrating open lesbian Rev. Mary Glasspool as Bishop of Los Angeles which has led to a further distancing of the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA) from the World-Wide Anglican Communion.

This act led to an outpouring of criticism from within the Anglican Communion including Bishop of the The Anglican Church of Peru, the Rt. Rev. Dr. H. William Godfrey - who condemned the action as "against all the teaching of Scripture and the Church." according to Virtueonline.org. Further, VirtueOnline.org published the following:

"The decision of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America to consecrate as a bishop a woman in a sexually active lesbian relationship is gravely concerning and wrong," he wrote to VOL."The Bishops of the Anglican Communion have consistently made clear the moral teaching of the Church in this respect, that practising homosexual and lesbian relationships, and practising heterosexual relations outside marriage, are incompatible with Christian teaching. (See Bishops' Resolution 1.10 at Lambeth Conference 1998.) With this clear discernment they have implored the Episcopal Church NOT to go ahead with the consecration of a person in such a relationship."Godfrey said God's purpose is for the gift of sexuality to be enjoyed in a life-long married relationship between one man and one woman, husband and wife.

This is not the first time ECUSA has pushed forward their agenda which dates back to the appointment of Gene Robinson, a homosexual activist, as presiding Bishop. Robinson's appointment reached a boiling point which started the Anglican Schism that is presently underway.

There is a bit of silver lining to the story. The intentional activist decision of Bishop Schori confirming another homosexual Bishops sets the stage for Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) to perhaps finally be recognized as an authentic Anglican Church within the Communion. Previously, there was fear that recognizing ACNA would be seen as an antagonistic action on the part of the Communion, however ECUSA's actions after repeated warnings may leave it little alternative that the the recognition is now necessary, else credibility of the Anglican Communion to take any measure to ensure a traditional legacy in the USA would be greatly diminished.

It is most conservative or traditional Episcopalian's view that the Anglican Communion is several years overdue in recognizing a separate traditional Anglican Church in the United States. The endless delays and calls for tolerance and discussion have led to a very weakened conservative constituency within the ECUSA. Thus, most traditionalist have already left the ECUSA for "higher ground" which was always the hope for the liberals within the ECUSA, and moreover hundreds of rectors have left the church in favor of other denominations, and are unlikely to return. Given such little response to years on inroads against the foundations of the Church, the ECUSA is nearly lost. With very little time left, the Anglican Communion must now look to assist the new Anglican Church gain respectability and ground through its formal recognition.

Anything less is unacceptable at this point.

A full reading of the ongoing cultural deterioration of the ECUSA via its recent Lesbian Consecration published by David Virtue can be found here and here.

Bishop Anderson's Latest comments off the ACC Blog

Now that the election is over, we can get back to basics:

A Message from Bishop-elect Anderson

Beloved in Christ,

This week, an Associated Press news article quoted the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church (TEC), Katherine Jefferts Schori, making a pejorative statement about the orthodox. The statement was ment to make the orthodox seem absurd. In it, she said, "Obviously a handful of our church leaders are still upset and would like to see the church never ordain and never baptize a gay or lesbian person." The orthodox generally do not recognize homosexuality as a permanent state of human existence, but rather an inclination that contravenes God's established order and which, if acted on, is sinful. Therefore, if an individual were engaged in sinful acts or in supporting and encouraging others to engage in sinful acts, they would not be a candidate at that point for baptism or ordination. If they repented of their actions, they could be baptized; if God called them to ordained ministry, they could be ordained. Many homosexual people were baptized as infants and later moved into an actively homosexual lifestyle, and of course if they don't repent and turn aside from such, they would not be candidates for ordination. Indeed, why does Jefferts Schori think that they would be candidates? Only in TEC could that make sense!

She also has announced that TEC's House of Bishops is proceeding with punitive action against former TEC bishops William Cox, Andrew Fairfield and Dave Bena. Bishop Cox transferred to the Southern Cone, Bishop Fairfield to Uganda and Bishop Bena to Nigeria, so it is absurd for TEC to go through the motions of disciplining bishops they no longer have authority over. And the crime? Leaving TEC without permission! I picture Captain Schori standing on the deck of the TEC Titanic, screaming at passengers and crew as they lower the life boats, "You can't leave...I haven't given you permission to leave....you must stay and die with us or we will punish you!"

Jefferts Schori has also written threatening letters to Bishop Bob Duncan of Pittsburgh and Bishop Jack Iker of Fort Worth, warning them that if they don't cease and desist from actions recently taken (diocesan voting to remove the accession clause from their canons), they will be dealt with most severely. Bishop Schofield of San Joachim can expect a similar letter in the mail any day. To say things are getting tense is an understatement. Although Pittsburgh and Fort Worth have to pass a second reading of their canonical changes, and this potentially puts an actual departure as much as a year away, Schori and her Canonical Army may invade at any time. It would be wise for all these dioceses to have rapid response teams in place 24/7.

Now if this isn't sad enough, there are TEC dioceses such as Rochester, New York, which just passed a resolution defying Schori and General Convention, stating that they don't intend to be limited by resolutions of General Convention. They have in mind the Resolution B033, which agreed to "exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church". Beyond Schori there are many who have drifted even further away from Anglicanism, and they help govern TEC.

Good news, however, comes with the word that the Provincial Synod of the Southern Cone, meeting in Valparaiso, Chile, has passed a historic agreement to welcome into their membership (on an emergency and pastoral basis) Episcopal Church dioceses that are separating from TEC.

This may well be a place for the three American dioceses that are contemplating departure. It does raise some questions as to how enrollment in Southern Cone will affect their participation in the Network and in the Common Cause Partners. Common Cause has an executive meeting planned in December and I am sure that some of the questions will be answered then, if not before. A possibility is that the Southern Cone safe harbor will be a temporary measure until Common Cause is further along, ready to actually merge the separate entities and ask for Provincial status - and that could be several years away. Difficult questions will need to be dealt with by the Common Cause Partners, such as the ordination of women, harmonization of the Canon Law of the separate bodies, and prayer books. Those who continue to use the 1979 American Prayer Book or translations of it - although it has some useful aspects - open themselves to the flawed theology that runs through it and has assisted TEC in getting where it is today.

The Global South Primates' Communique calls for three things that seem very reasonable and wise: 1) the urgent need for a Primates' meeting fairly soon; 2) the postponement of the Lambeth Conference 2008; and 3) an early Global South 4th Encounter. Of these three, the Archbishop of Canterbury has the privilege of convening the Primates, and the AAC suspects that he will deliberately NOT do this because they might well move beyond his comfort zone. He also has the right to call the Lambeth Conference of Bishops, and his financial investment and obligation may be beyond what he can reverse. Still, if he arranges a meeting and only a partial representation participates, it shows the entire world that his power to convene has been lost.

Although the Global South probably cannot prevent Lambeth 2008, they can stay away. The third item on the list is fully within the power of the Global South to accomplish, and ideally would be planned for the first quarter of 2008 - in time to impact the balance of the year's Anglican events.

Meanwhile, I usually speak with one priest or vestry member per day who is planning a departure from TEC, either personally or as a church. A significant part of the American Anglican Council's pastoral work is to advise, counsel, and make resources known so that the best decisions can be made. Remember in prayer those who are walking away from their church homes, their careers, their salaries, health insurance and pension in order to be faithful to the Gospel. The Holy Spirit is a refining fire, purifying the church and her people.

Blessings and Peace in Jesus,
The Rev. Canon David C. Anderson
President, The American
Anglican Council
Suffragan Bishop-elect CANA

Diocese of Connecticut begins legal proceedings against Trinity Episcopal Church Bristol.

I reported this back a few weeks ago, and some individuals thought I might have misread or exaggerated the fact that the Diocese of Connecticut would go so low as to file suit against individuals. Well, sadly here we have an update from the American Anglican Council regarding exactly that:

The Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut has commenced a legal action against the former rector and former wardens of Trinity Episcopal Church, Bristol, who have refused to turn over possession of Trinity Episcopal Church properties and assets as requested. The complaint is available online here.

Sad that Bishop Andrew Smith is taking this unprecedented step to personally attack parishioners of the Church. ArchBishop of Canterbury and our traditional Anglican brethern - we hope that you are watching. We hope that you see the kind of creeps running the Diocese of Connecticut, adorning the collar, falsely asserting that they are working on behalf of the Lord, and how low they are willing to stoop. They have no sense of Christian duty or morality.

What next? Star Chamber? We hope God is watching and punishes Andrew Smith and his crownies for their horrible antics.

Episocopal Church

American Anglican Council Petition! Please disclose the expenditures and funding sources for these endless lawsuits!

The American Anglican Council sent this along. It's well worth the time and effort of anyone interested in helping traditional Christians in our the struggle against The national Episcopal Church's acts of aggression against churches and dioceses across the Nation.

Simply put, we want the Episcopal Church to disclose how they are funding the enormous number of lawsuits against churches, individuals, and dioceses. We demand full disclosure for who is paying the bill.

Please sign the petition!

You don't have to be Episcopalian or Anglican to help us!

AAC Blog: Four Retired Bishops Call for Financial Transparency on Litigation

This story is from the American Anglican Council blog.

Looks like retired Bishops of The Episcopal Church (TEC) are screaming for transparency for the funding of their parade of lawsuits.

Everyone I know has been of the opinion that TEC is endowed with tons of cash and a bottomless wallet. Well, it seems that this isn't the case. If the lawsuits go in the direction that they did in California, then perhaps its worth their while to struggle if they win in the end.

We can only hope that there are more sensible districts than the one in California.

Strategy of Episcopal Church Leaders revealed!

This essay captured by David Virtue gets to the heart of the strategy created by Episcopal Church leaders, including Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori and her attorney David Booth Beers, when it comes to dealing with traditional Christian-Anglican Churches.

The question is will the Courts eventually intervene to protect freedom of religion issues that may be raised by parishioners in traditional dioceses? Or will the Court ignore the matter and allow the liberal perpetrators to steamroll traditional Anglicans?

The obvious point to make that is clearly being lost is that the overbearing position of Episcopal Leaders is simply anti-Christian. The fact is that even if they [Schori and her crowd] manage to choke out individual parishes and steal away their Houses of Worship, they won't be able to simply plant a new rector of their choosing with the expectation that all of a sudden the parish will flourish under the new age Episcopal banner - and they know this.

In their selfish view, they'd rather the parish die out, and Christians of a differing (traditional) viewpoint literally die off, or leave the Church. Why? Because deep down they know that over the long run they can't survive or compete with a traditional Anglican/Episcopal Church. After a while, the emptiness of what the new age folks have to offer will decompose the Church and their will be little left to maintain in an empty and pitiful congregation of liberal activists.

I hope the Archbishop of Canterbury sees what is happening here. And sees the megalomania involved by ECUSA Leaders.

What other course of action can their be? The Archbishop should move immediately to excommunicate the Episcopal Church United States.

Muslims stealing our Episcopalian leaders?

See this article from the Blog: The Deacon's Bench.

When it rains, it pours. Not only does the Episcopal Church struggle to keep its parishes and dioceses intact, while it withers away from Anglican Communion over the new age doctrines being introduced by ECUSA's left-wing leadership, but it looks as though at least one Episcopalian Rector has "taken off the collar" to weigh all options, and decide whether or not it's time to covert to the Muslim faith.

I have to agree with the Catholic author above in his commentary that Christianity and Islam have two very distinct approaches and have irreconcilable differences, particularly with regard to doctrines and history. Christianity is very direct in its claim that salvation comes through Christ alone. Islam is rooted in "golden rule" philosophies via Prophet Mohammad and is rooted in the Koran, and not the Word of God as found in the the One True Holy Bible. Having read both (required reading), neither are compatible. Salvation is through Christ - there are no substitutes in this category folks.

But with the confusion out of the Episcopal Church, and the heavy recruiting by Muslim clerics and followers, I can see where anyone can make the case that the ECUSA has fast lost its moral position (if not moved the point of endorsing immoral behavior in the case of Bishop Robinson and other matters found in the ECUSA's liberal agenda), and perhaps Islam tends to hold closer to moral precepts than new age Anglicanism. I'm sure that's hard for some to accept, but it actually may be true.

Interesting thoughts to ponder.

ALERT: Episcopal Bishop Andrew Smith to Storm small Bristol Connecticut Episcopal Church (through legal means, of course)!

Here is a story sent to me by a reader. It's from the New York Times dated July 7th, and oddly enough there is no story in the Hartford Courant today. So chalk up one for the Times over the Courant on local Connecticut coverage.

This story is sad but true. You can feel the sadness of the parishioners that only wish to practice their faith and be left alone by Bishop Andrew Smith and his militant band of lawyers and blinded followers. All that's missing from Bishop Smith's uniform is the swastika - as he strong arms churches into adapting his warped view of the world, crushing each one that defies him. What an outrage! This is what liberalism is.... hurting your neighbor, forcing them to believe what you believe, or shutting them down. So much for loving your neighbor. It must be nice to be a Bishop - and be above God's Word.

Parish Falls Out of Step, and Favor, With Diocese
By ALISON LEIGH COWAN

BRISTOL, Conn., July 5 — Standing inside the handsome sanctuary on Summer Street that has been home to Trinity Church since 1949, Fred Clark said that he was married here, baptized his children here and held funeral services here for the child he lost.

And although Mr. Clark, the congregation’s senior warden, said he and about 150 fellow parishioners were not eager to lose a place that had been a spiritual home to them and their ancestors since before the Revolution, they may not have a choice come Sunday.

Last month, Connecticut’s Episcopal bishop, Andrew D. Smith, defrocked the Rev. Donald L. Helmandollar and ordered the congregation’s lay leaders “to vacate the property of Trinity Church, Bristol, and release every claim on the assets of this parish by July 8, 2007.” The parishioners had objected to the church’s position regarding homosexuals in the clergy.

But Father Helmandollar, 68, who joined the clergy late in life, has no plans to go quietly. He said he was confident that parishioners would persevere even if they lost the right to the church, rectory and burial grounds they had held for generations in a fight that seems headed for court.

“It’s the people, not the steeple,” he said, quoting Rick Warren, a popular evangelical author.

The courtroom is increasingly familiar territory these days for Episcopal congregations. Growing dissatisfaction within the church over its acceptance and promotion of homosexuals in the clergy has led several dozen congregations to affiliate with more conservative Anglican groups overseas, including the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, which reports to the Church of Nigeria Anglican Communion. Father Helmandollar and Trinity Church took that step this spring.

The result has been several bruising battles over property rights and other issues. Just last month, a California appeals court supported the claim of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles that property did not belong to individual congregations in a hierarchical organization, but was held in trust for the diocese. Similar cases are pending in Virginia and Massachusetts.

In Connecticut, six conservative parishes, including Trinity, accused the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut in federal court of violating their civil rights. A district judge dismissed the lawsuit last summer, and the plaintiffs, known as the Connecticut Six, abandoned their appeal last month. Although some plaintiffs cited a recent plea from senior Anglican officials that parties refrain from litigating as the reason for their about-face, Michael P. Shea, the lawyer who represented the diocese, said, “I think that’s just an excuse for a weak appeal.”

In Rhode Island, Kansas and Texas, negotiated settlements have been struck that allow local parishes, assuming they have the money, to buy the buildings where they worshiped.

At the heart of these disputes lies a metaphysical question: Just whose church is it, anyway?

In Trinity’s case, parishioners say their situation is different, since the church traces its roots to 1747, 38 years before the first general convention of the Episcopal Church in the United States.

Moreover, Trinity’s real estate and other property has “always been held in its own name,” according to a letter sent Monday by the parish’s lawyer, Howard M. Wood III, to Bishop Smith. Mr. Wood also warned that “any interference with the property rights of Trinity Church Society will be met with a claim of trespass.”

Local police are aware of the situation at the church but believe a showdown on Sunday is unlikely. “We had a discussion with the diocese, and it appears that there isn’t going to be any action taken on Sunday,” said Lt. Thomas Grimaldi, a spokesman for the Bristol police. “They’re going to take the legal route.”

John W. Spaeth III, a top administrative aide to Bishop Smith in Hartford, dismissed the notion of a confrontation. “There are canonical ways we will work with to seize the property,” he said.
“We’re not people who move quickly. We’re people who are thoughtful and try to negotiate.”

Nonetheless, Father Helmandollar and his staff are taking precautions in case the diocese tries to take control of the parish, which happened two years ago at St. John’s Episcopal Church here when the rector, the Rev. Mark Hansen, fell out of favor with the diocese.

While there may be no locksmiths lurking this time, Father Helmandollar said he expected to see a priest, sent by the diocese, arrive with a letter demanding access to the pulpit. “Without a court order, they aren’t getting it,” he said. Already, he said, the diocese has moved in Probate Court to freeze about $80,000 in trust funds that the parish had expected to receive.

Much of the rift concerns the denomination’s 2003 decision to name Gene Robinson, who is openly gay, as the bishop of New Hampshire. His elevation alienated several conservative parishes and convinced some dissidents that church leaders in the United States were too quick to reinterpret the Bible.

The dissidents argue that such policy shifts take bigger theological leaps than past decisions to revise the prayer book and ordain women. And the dissidents warn that such actions jeopardize the American church’s standing within the larger Anglican Communion, which represents 77 million descendants of the Church of England worldwide.

After Trinity aligned with the Nigerian church, the diocese removed Father Helmandollar as a priest, ordered him to leave the rectory and threatened dissident worshipers with eviction. (The Convocation of Anglicans in North America recognizes Father Helmandollar as a priest in good standing.) But Mr. Clark said the vote to affiliate with the more conservative group was on the order of 60 to 1, a show of unity for a congregation that had trouble agreeing on very much before Father Helmandollar, or “Father Don,” as they call him, arrived in 1999.

More than 40 Episcopal congregations from around the country have lodged similar protests in various degrees since the Robinson appointment, according to a spokeswoman for the Episcopal Church in New York. Some have defected from the denomination or sought affiliations with other groups. Others have withheld funds.

Episcopal leaders have sought to put these situations in perspective.

“There are 7,500 Episcopal churches and only 45 you would deem as being dissident,” Mr. Spaeth said. “If they all left tomorrow, the impact would be insignificant.”

Father Helmandollar disagrees. He said he believed that the Episcopal Church had abandoned its principles and that he must lead his flock elsewhere. For instance, he said he had been pressing to have the word “Episcopal” removed from a road sign that directs motorists to “Trinity Episcopal Church.”

“I’m ashamed to be an Episcopalian,” said Father Helmandollar, who has a certificate in Anglican studies from Yale Divinity School and two master’s degrees. He said he grew up the youngest of seven children in West Virginia coal country, and lived on the streets for two years after dropping out of ninth grade. A father of three, he spent 20 years in the Navy and 17 more as a military contractor before pursuing a career in the clergy.

He said he was dismayed that the church’s philosophy of inclusion did not seem to extend to conservative factions like his own, complaining, “It includes everybody except us.”

“In the last 50 years, as society has changed, the church has changed,” he added. “It has become more revisionist and more liberal.” While he could accept those changes on theological grounds, he said, the recent quarrel over sexuality “has turned out to be the tripwire.”

With the showdown looming, banners made by parishioners have been taken down from Trinity’s nave for safekeeping, and Father Helmandollar has packed up some books he kept in his office. Bank accounts and valuables, he said, have been left alone until an agreement or court order decides their fate.

While the city of Bristol last appraised the church’s property at around $1.8 million, that estimate is old and might be low.

As Mr. Clark put it, “The pricelessness comes from the memories.”

Anglican Bishops link flooding to sin

Here is an interesting take on the rationale for the flooding that's going on in England. It's not typically Anglican for Bishops, Rectors, or Deacons to link human behavior to God's retribution in the form of flooding and/or natural disasters. It's generally the case that this tough talk is something that you might see being shouted out of a "spitfire Baptist" or "guilt-ridden Catholic" sermon, so it's sort of strange seeing it come from pulpit of the often high-brow, soft spoken, peering down their nose at you - Anglican Communion.

Notwithstanding, the timing of the message lends support to the pro-traditionalist, pro-Christian members of the Anglican Communion which has been struggling with the pro-homosexual agenda being fostered by leaders of the Episcopal Church in the United States and Canada.

What's also interesting is that the message didn't just come from just any old Bishops, but from the Rt. Reverened Graham Dow, Bishop of Carlisle, who is a high ranking authority in the Church of England, and from Rt Rev James Jones, who is next in line for the position of Archbishop of Canterbury or Archbishop of York.

Rt Reverend Jones said, "The sexual orientation regulations [which give greater rights to gays] are part of a general scene of permissiveness. We are in a situation where we are liable for God's judgment, which is intended to call us to repentance."

Wow. This didn't come from Pat Roberston and the 700 Club, but from leaders of the mainstream Anglican Church. Don't believe me. You judge for yourself.

Canadian Anglicans reject same-sex unions, but barely

This came my way today. A little late, but noteworthy on the homosexual crisis in the Anglican Communion.

Blessing of same-sex unions defeated

Source: The Anglican Church of Canada
Date: June 24, 2007

The General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada has narrowly defeated a resolution that would have allowed dioceses to decide for themselves whether or not to bless same-sex unions.

Lay delegates voted 78 to 59 in favor of the motion and clergy voted 63 to 53 in favor But the House of Bishops voted 21-19 against it. As a result the motion was defeated, since it required approval by each of the three orders to pass.

The motion read:

"That this General Synod affirm the authority and jurisdiction of any diocesan synod, with the concurrence of the diocesan bishop, and in a manner which respects the conscience of the incumbent and the will of the parish, to authorize the blessing of committed same-sex unions."

The King's Commentary:
A few things are evident. First, the motion was supported by both the laity and the clergy which is of grave concern to everyone seeking to keep the Canadian Anglican Church in lockstep with God's teachings. Second, the House of Bishops defeated the measure by a mere 3 votes (I'm not sure what happens in a tie). This result may not provide immediate satisfaction for those looking to turn the Church on its axis and ram in their pro-homosexuality agenda, but it certainly gives them hope that they may fare better next year.

All things being equal, those pro-Christian delegates have some work to do on the laity side. Obviously Canadian Anglican parishes are sending liberal activists to represent them at their yearly Synod. This is rare occasion where pro-Christian groups have a slight reprieve - a second chance so to speak, and an opportunity to correct the imbalance within the Synod representation.

As for the clergy vote, there is obviously some work to do there. With a margin of ten clergy in the pro-homosexual agenda column, it looks like we are near or at 45-55 disunity within the local Church leadership (perhaps more). Senior traditional pro-Christian groups should route out those who voted in favor of the homosexual agenda and make their names public so that proper scrutiny can be brought upon those individuals, posing as Christian-rectors. These people are leading flocks right down the street of secularism and new age teachings.

O Canada... you are in a better position than us pro-Christian traditionalists here in the USA, but you aren't far behind. While our traditionalists "slept" and decided to pay no attention to the activists and rebel-rousers, we are now up to our elbows in trouble, and most likely schism. You guys have one year to help correct the problem, or else you'll face the same nightmare that we are facing here. Once new doctrines are entrenched, and your Church invested like termites, you are looking at a situation and doctrine that is hard eradicate.

So its time to become counter-activists and push in the other direction - the one leading toward Christ. Whispering angrily in dark corners of the Church will not help your cause. It's time to get vocal, and while you still have a chance - take a stand for Christ!

Good Luck, Canadian Anglicans. Let God save you from the Devil-owned torment we are facing down here.

Lastest comments from Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams...

Sharing this tidbit from Reuters on the latest new regarding the coming Anglican-Episcopalian Schism. For what its worth, the Archbishop and the Anglican Communion have been put in a terrible position by the leaders of the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA).

I can understand the Archbishop's slant to try and slow the schism or even stop it, but with dozens of churches leaving the ECUSA each month, the schism is - in one way or another - already here.

Here is the article from Reuters, courtesy the AAC Blogsite:

Anglican schism not inevitable says Williams

Source: The Scotsman/Reuters by Michael Conlon, Religion Writer June 7, 2007

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, in an interview to be published on Friday, says he is not optimistic about the future of the Anglican Church but adds that a schism over gay issues is not inevitable.

The state of the 77-million-member global church "feels very vulnerable. I can't, of course, deny that. It feels very vulnerable and very fragile, perhaps more so than it's been for a very long time," Williams told Time Magazine.

But he also said:

"I don't think schism is inevitable. The task I've got is to try and maintain as long as possible the space in which people can have constructive disagreements, learn from each other, and try and hold that within an agreed framework of discipline and practice."
Asked if was optimistic, Williams said "I'm hopeful. Not optimistic," agreeing that "hopeful" was a "safer" word.

The Worldwide Anglican Communion, as the church is known, has been shaken and divided since 2003 when the Episcopal Church, its 2.4 million-member U.S. branch, consecrated Gene Robinson of New Hampshire as the first openly gay bishop in more than 450 years of Anglican church history.

His elevation not only splintered the U.S. church but riled defenders of traditional Christianity in the church's "Global South" -- African, Asian and Latin American congregations that now account for half of the world's Anglican followers.

Some U.S. Episcopalian congregations have already placed themselves under the jurisdiction of conservative bishops in Africa and elsewhere.

NIGERIAN CHURCH

The situation became even more strained recently when Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria, a leading orthodox figure, ignored a plea from Williams and came to Virginia to install Bishop Martyn Minns as head of a new Nigerian-based church branch designed as a refuge for orthodox American believers.

Williams later announced that both Minns and Robinson would not be invited to the Lambeth Conference, a major church meeting held periodically since 1867 and scheduled again next year.
In the Time interview Williams said he did that to avoid the two bishops becoming the focus of the 2008 meeting.

"The mode of their appointment in the face of substantial protest simply means their bishoping is going to be under question in large parts of the Anglican world," he said

"Regarding Robinson, one thing I've tried to make clear is that my worry about his election was that the Episcopal Church hadn't made a general principled decision about the blessing of same-sex unions or the ordination of people in public same-sex partnerships," he said.

"I would think it better had the church actually taken a view on that before moving to the individual case. As it is, someone living in a relationship not theologically officially approved by the church is elected to a bishop. I find that bizarre and puzzling," Williams said.

Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, Anglicans are organized as a federation of national churches without hierarchical lines of authority, though the Archbishop of Canterbury holds a first-among-equals leadership position.

"It's impossible to get from Scripture anything straight-forwardly positive about same-sex relationships," Williams said.

"Those theologians who've defended same-sex relationships from the Christian point of view in recent decades have said you've got to look at whether a same-sex relationship is capable of something at the level of neutral self-giving that a marriage ought to exemplify. And then ask, is that what Scripture is talking about? That's the area of dispute," he said.

My Church in turmoil: The Episcopal Church's road to Schism from the Anglican Communion.

This is liable to be a long entry as I've toyed on and off about how to go about drafting what will be a controversial essay on the current state of the Episcopal Church (ECUSA) in the United States. As you've probably read in the newspapers and online, the ECUSA is on the road to schism (that is separation) from the world-wide Anglican Communion. The issues are very straight-forward, and very serious for proponents of both sides of the battle. And the ramifications of the outcome are significant for all of its 77 million baptized members in the Communion since schism holds no neutrality; you are either in or out.

There is a reason that we were told as youngsters to not discuss religion and politics in polite company - both are contentious, and both are deep-rooted in our traditions, beliefs, and ideals. But adults need to have forum to discuss these matters particularly when the outcome of certain arguments can lead to new doctrine, which could have long term implications on critical pillars that are essential to the Church's very existence.

Because this is a commentary, be forewarned that I have a significantly strong, fact-based opinion about the matters concerning this debate. Where feelings are concerned, I expect that mine differ with many in my own Church, locally and on the national level. But I think, except for a small minority who are thriving - literally thriving - on their activism; this debate is painful and antagonistic. Most parishioners on both sides of the equation would rather that the whole thing just goes away. But even I must concede that the idea of agreeing to disagree cannot really apply to such fundamental questions.

There is no doubt that I'm going to offend someone by taking my stand. And I cannot apologize for this because my essay is a response to the insurgency that is undermining the fabric of our Church and its doctrine. While my Diocesan Bishops are doing their utmost to express their views and shape the debate to their side's advantage, I will do my part to present the contrary view - the traditional Christian, Bible-based view.

And while I accept that I am not moral enough or Holy enough or "good enough" to be a Bishop, Minister, or even a Deacon - I do expect that those holding those roles in a Church are; they are called up to uphold the moral values, beliefs and traditions that are expected of leaders of the Church and the Community - that they walk and live not by man's example, but by the Lord's example laid out so clearly in the Holy Scripture. I don't mean that Church leaders should be perfect people, but reasonable, rationale, moral people that have a sense for right and wrong. And by their efforts try to live a Godly and Holy life.

I make this distinction because I admit I am a terrible Christian. Between my poor attendance, lack of compassion, and all the other shortcomings I have, I don't beg to lead the debate on behalf of my side, or be set up as an authority on good and bad -- but at least, I understand who should be leading and who shouldn't be leading, and I recognize correct Biblical interpretation from false interpretation - which is really at the heart of Episcopal-Anglican debate.

Note that where applicable, I also present links, facts, and source material that are abundant on the world-wide web. I encourage Episcopalians to do as I have, which is to read everything that can be found on the matter before forming their opinion. And then share it openly with their fellow parishioners and friends.

My background, and up-bringing in connection with the Episcopal Church

Let me begin by stating that my family has been associated with the Episcopal Church dating as far back as it's origin in 1789 (my family attended St. Peter's Episcopal Church in Perth Amboy, New Jersey, and my descendants are buried there - they probably attended as Anglicans prior to conversion). I write this reference, not to make myself out to be some authority on the Church (I most certainly am not), but add to the enormous dimension of personal connection I have to the Church which makes the observation of turmoil in the Church and the spiraling movement toward separation from communion with the Anglican Church - all the more disappointing, and disheartening.

At present, I attend St. John's (Episcopal) Church in West Hartford, Connecticut. St. John's is a wonderful church of which I am happy to be a member (although this is probably not apparent by my mediocre attendance record). Members of the church will tell you that the St. John's is blessed financially and its members tend to come from healthy, well-to-do families and means which reflects the economical status of residents in trendy, upscale West Hartford. Although, the state of the membership in most suburban Episcopal Churches in Connecticut is probably by default, similar.

The Church that I grew up in was far more Anglican and far more conservative than most Episcopal Churches - as a rule. I was confirmed by Father Edward Patrick at Trinity Episcopal Church in Portland, Connecticut. Father Patrick was from England, and was well-regarded as a spiritual leader and he was beloved by all. To underline his sense of humor, I can distinctly remember a confirmation class, where after correcting an exam - he slowly and methodically tore them up and tossed them into into the flames of the roaring fireplace. In disgust, he got up, turned, and left without uttering a word. We all sad in silence contemplating the trouble we would be in with our parents having angered Father Patrick so. This was meant to be a lesson in applying ourselves and - wasting his time. Years later, we learned that he would do this with every confirmation class in order to light a "spark" under the students so they would give the material the attention and respect that it so deserved. Notwithstanding, his tough shell, "Father Pat" was an incredible person and a wonderful rector. To this day, no one has come close to his manner, ability, and compassion as a "real Rector".

I can remember, as a youngster, that the Church was jam-packed each Sunday. During spring services, the large choir would go around to the outside, and procession from through the tall oak doors, up the long way to the altar of the Church. In those days, Services were conducted with the utmost reverence with particular focus on Biblical teaching and scripture. I can still clearly see and hear the images from those days. In those days, you looked forward to Sunday - to the Prayers, the Eucharist, the Sermon, the Hymns, Church school, and to the fellowship of the coffee hour.

Sadly, after many years of service, and after having signaled his retirement from his duties, Father Patrick passed away. In a lot ways, when he died, he took traditional Anglicanism with him. For Trinity Church or perhaps the Episcopal Church in Connecticut was never the same without him.

During the period when Father Patrick was Rector, the most controversy I can recall was the fact that the parishioners were very upset over the replacement of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer with the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. The Bishop had ordered the removal of the old Prayer Book in favor of the new. The newer book combined the baptismal rite from three rites into one, rearrangement of the Lord's Prayer, adding liberal or so-called "inclusive language" changes (for example, removing the use of the word "men"), adding Eucharistic Contemporary Prayer selections, etc. A few parishes left the Episcopal Church over the changes, but most stayed because Rite I was not all together removed from use. Today many Churches use Rite I in the 8 a.m. Service.

Introduction to Rev. James E. Curry

Portland Trinity Church went through a very rough period with the Diocese of Hartford; the Diocese sent in a variety of rectors who didn't seem to work out for one reason or another, until they settled on Rev. James E. Curry, who served as Rector for about ten years. During his tenure, the attendance of the Trinity Church spiraled dramatically, and the parish fell into a sad state. Rev. Curry, being very liberal in his politics and approach, divided the church membership by ousting the long time organist, Mrs. Greenwood, and battling with prominent church families over church administrative matters and warden leadership. Even my family - which was not prominent in a sense that they never "helped run the Church", but they did attend since the time when my Grandfather moved to Portland in the 1930s; and under Curry's tenure had left the Church feeling that the state of disharmony was too painful to endure.

During my college years, I recall one meeting I had with Rev. Curry, he had made a sly comment that the Church rolls had been diminishing, and he said, "It seems I've lost most of your family too." In a lot of ways, I felt for Rev. Curry; it was not the point that he had really inherited the decline, but rather seemed to have either caused it, or perhaps - oversaw its decline. I distinctly remember him creating a hymn service where we would all sing hymns as requested by parishioners. There must have been no more than 20 people scattered about the church, he begged them to all come together to fill up the front rows. Sadly, I think that was the last time I had heard the hymn "Onward, Christian Soldiers" in an Episcopal Church. One of the greatest hymns of all time has been now deemed "too offensive to sing due to its militaristic overtones" by ECUSA officials. What a shame.

Rev. Curry and I met in 1991 while I was attending UConn to discuss an article that I read in the National Review Magazine entitled, "Are there Episcopalians in foxholes? What in Heaven's name is happening to the Episcopal Church?” Rev. Curry was quite willing to discuss my concerns about the Episcopal Church's move to the left, in particular - I wanted to take issue with the disturbing notion of the blessing of same sex marriages and gay activism in the Church. I think the basis for my discussion was to determine if the Church was "too liberal" for my own politics and concern for its present theological direction; was the Episcopal Church becoming involved in gay-activism? Curry didn't necessarily defend Rev. Spong, but he didn't take issue with his positions either. But he did affirm that I had nothing to be concerned about since then Bishop-Arthur Edward Walmsley had said that the Bishop has upheld the current Biblical position - which was that homosexuality was a sin, and the Bishop wasn't about to condone same-sex unions, etc.

Now I'm not sure why Rev. Curry said this. Either he believed it to be true at the time, or he was covering up for Bishop Walmsley. In deference to the fact that Curry has always been considered honest, I would have to believe that he chose his answer to simply avoid a theological debate on the matter. The fact is that Rt. Rev. Arthur Edward Walmsley is knee deep in supporting homosexual activism in the Episcopal Church; note this link that reports that Rt. Rev Walmsley is headed to Ottawa to lead a meeting on "Same Sex Blessings" on April 13-14 of 2007. So for whatever positions that Rev. Curry tried to imply, years later we find our old Bishop is off leading activism for the same sex crowd as Canada moves toward a vote on same sex blessings.

But, for me, to understand the politics and left-leaning agenda of now Bishop James Curry is to understand the politics of the Presiding Bishop of Connecticut, and the leadership of the Episcopal Church. This is not to say Bishop Curry isn't a pleasant man, he is. While he is remembered as "drab" at the church lectern, he is considered very good with administrative functions. And he is apparently very good at traveling around and supporting the Diocese Leadership's liberal agenda in keeping with the revised Episcopal Church's vision of moving toward a non-Bible based church, and drawing the Church into Schism.

Part of my concern with our own Connecticut Church leaders lies with the evidence of strong-arming by Bishop Andrew D. Smith, who threatened to remove six Episcopal rectors (now down to five) from their posts for opposing the election of V. Gene Robinson in New Hampshire. It's fairly remarkable that the Bishop would resort to such strong-armed tactics when it comes to dissent within the Church. In light of the fact, that supporting homosexuality is certainly not in keeping with Biblical teachings, its seems that Bishop Smith has chosen liberal politics and liberal activism over established Christian teaching; an odd position for any man of the cloth to take.

A sample incident written by William Witt where one of the "Connecticut Six" was assaulted by Bishop Smith illustrates the extent to which Bishop Smith is willing to push traditional Christian's out of the Church. It's a dismal crime perpetrated by the Bishop on one of his own churches in support of immorality. This activity by Bishop Smith has not gone uncontested and formal charges were filed against Bishop Smith in 2005. Churches from all over the world protested Bishop Smith gestapo-style tactics, including Rector Chuck Collins of San Antonio, Texas.

Smith has worked toward widening the schism by authorizing priests in October 2006 to bless same sex unions in the Church where he is quoted as saying that "...it's time for the church, this diocese, to acknowledge and support our sisters and brothers who are gay and lesbian." The reaction to this created staunch opposition by the American Anglican Council, in a similar article on the same story, the AAC's Rev Canon David C. Anderson, stated, "[this action] is proof of his [Smith's] disregard for the larger Anglican Communion and further evidences his militancy with the homosexual gay agenda."

About V. Gene Robinson (alleged Bishop of New Hampshire)

The entire situation revolving around V. Gene Robinson seems to have created a firestorm that even the most liberal activists in the Church couldn't have foreseen. The response has created major divisions in the Episcopal Church - echoing anger within individual parishes, and dioceses, which is resonating nationally and internationally across the Anglican Church and its international communion.

On its own merit, Robinson's nomination seems to be a bizarre choice. Robinson seems to have had a long history of troubles and issues including alcoholism, divorce from a woman to seek a gay partner after fathering two children with his wife, "living in sin" with another man as well as other matters of concern. It seems that he was selected by those like him who are hell-bent on advocating open homosexuality to take a high position in the Church for the sole purpose of changing the Church's doctrine and accepted teachings.

It's clear that Robinson was quite keen on what he was trying to do from an activist standpoint. While he watched with glee as Episcopal parishes battled internally, and with each other over his controversial lifestyle as an openly gay man living "in sin" with his partner seeking to change the "culture" of the Church. A better man - a good man- one with a true Christian conscience would not have wished to see such negative harm come to an institution so important to so many. It's clear the Robinson's ambition (and his small hoard of activist supporters) firmly believe that their social agenda is profoundly more important than the very survival and harmony of the Church itself.

Robinson's assent and election to the role of Bishop was under very controversial circumstances. You can read the detail here but in short, allegedly the Bishop's website was linked to 5,000 pornographic images, and there was also an accusation that Robinson improperly touched a male parishioner on two occasions at a New England Conference. One way or another, after the parishioner "recused himself" from the matter (which I suppose neither serves to acquit Robinson nor condemn him), the Convention dismissed the charges and Robinson was elected by a narrow margin of 62 to 45.

Since his election, Robinson has continued to seek "assistance" for his personal issues and problems. Recently, he took at brief leave to address his alcohol problems as was reported in this February 14, 2006 Boston Globe piece. But this article is not about making judgments regarding Mr. Robinson's behavior or choices, as it is about larger question regarding the Episcopal Church and its teachings.

Biblical View of Homosexuals

My own view on whether or not homosexual behavior is by choice (sexual perversion) or by orientation is very much undetermined. I happen to interact with homosexuals on a daily basis (probably as many as 15 on average) - and generally speaking, they are friendly and courteous. And clearly, from my own observations, they are different. For the reader's edification, I want to be clear that I am not against gay people.

The scientific community has many arguments for and against orientation. The statistics regarding suicide, mental anxiety, and depression, "partner" break-ups (lack of monogamous relationships), are higher among homosexuals than of most social groups. There are also unfortunate parallel circumstances where many self-proclaimed homosexuals, as young persons, endured a period of abuse, rape, and other sexual mistreatment that may have led them to develop or "choose" this alternative lifestyle. There is plenty of documentation on the web and in medical journals to support these statements. Again, this is not the basis for my essay, but the reader should understand that I do not hate gay people, nor do I have dislike for them. The evidence presented in the links above indicate that there are social issues surrounding this phenomenon have not been adquately vetted.

The Holy Scripture clearly states that Homosexuality is a Sin, either directly or through parables. This fact is plain and simple and not subject to interpretation. No rational person would dispute this fact. They may refute the Bible as the "Word of God", or they may attempt to dismiss teachings in the Bible by drawing parallel or circular arguments to outdated cultural positions (such as the often misinterpreted "woman shall keep quiet in the Churches" (1 Corinthians 14:34, and a similar reference in 1 Timothy 2:11-13), etc.) but when it comes to human nature - the concept of man and woman go to the very nature of our existence beginning with the Garden of Eden.

Thus, if you believe that Scripture is the basis for church teaching, and therefore - the basis for the Church then you understand that homosexuality is incompatible with Scripture. Surely you can draw the reasonable conclusion that the consecration of Bishop Robinson (or any minister of God) is incompatible with Scripture.

The advocates of the activist attack on the Episcopal Church want you to forget these facts. They can't compete on the intellectual level, so instead a dishonest approach - they make the "social justice argument" or play the discrimination card. They completely disregard the basis for why the Church exists - its doctrines and Scripture - instead they see Church as merely a social organization, akin to a rich man's golf club that won't accept African American members. So their arguments are reduced to indirect Biblical references ("women keep quiet in the Church") or vague and unrelated parallels to 1930s black discrimination. Remember that the next time you read or hear them speak. Warm and fuzzy instead of Biblical or fact-based.

So there you have it. For the purposes of Church leadership, and moral teaching, homosexual activity and behavior, whether by orientation or choices is contradictory to the teachings of the Holy Scripture as stated in the Bible. And since the Bible is the basis for Church teachings, then its clear that homosexual leaders have no place in the Church - not just the Episcopal Church, but any Church of God.

An International Response

Most people and admittedly, even myself - expected that the matter of Bishop Robinson would have blown over by now, very much in the similar fashion to the Prayer Book scandal of the late 70s. But clearly this issue seems to have ruffled the feathers of more than simply a few older, high-brow members of the Church. In fact, it’s turned the entire Communion on its axis.

While the Anglican Communion is comprised of some 38 or so provinces, there are a variety of different splinter organizations that have been created as a result of the Robinson crisis. Organizations such as the American Anglican Council (ACC) have been set up to attempt to find a reasonable settlement to the entire matter based on the premise that the Anglican Communion should find some way to stay together. Unfortunately, the issues are running deeper than expected, with lawsuits filed all over the country between parishes and dioceses over property rights and funding (and in Connecticut), new mandates regarding Bishops and Diocese oversight, and pressures are mounting in the Church of England over the choice between morality and Biblical teaching, and money (the Anglican Communion it is said receives 30% of its operating revenue from the Episcopal Church alone). Smaller churches in Asia and Africa, which tend to be poorer, are reportedly the benefactors of these funds - so in essence, some of these Episcopal Churches are making a moral stand to support Biblical teaching and possibly do without the funding at the risk of disappearing!

If you are not familiar with the timeline of events regarding the entire crisis please click here, and as much as folks would like to think this all started with Robinson's ordination in November 2003, it didn't. The seeds of this conflict were planted by those seeking to promote their pro same-sex agenda as far back as 1976 (although VirtueOnline.org goes back further with their timeline). But it is true that while that was mere kindling around a campfire, the real fire was not to really start until the envelope was pushed too far in 2003.

The response to the Robinson ordination was well thought out and planned by outraged Anglican leaders. Here is a basic timeline (with some modification by me I must give courtesy and credit to VirtueOnline.org) which may serve as a primer (I've taken the liberty of searching for and adding links with applicable text or stories so readers can dig further into the detail):

• In July 2003 - preceding the Robinson consecration - a group of 60 Anglican leaders from across the globe declared that there would be consequences if Robinson was consecrated.
  


• In October 2003 at the Lambeth Convention, the Primates of the Anglican Communion further warn that if the consecration precedes that the ramifications for the EPUSA could be serious, including the division of the Anglican Communion.
  


• November 2003, disregarding concerns of the faithful and Anglican Leadership, Gene Robinson is consecrated as Bishop in New Hampshire.
  


• In October 2004, a full year later after their warnings, and after much discussion, the Lambeth Commission distributes its "Windsor Report" reaffirming Lambeth Conference resolution 1.10 and the authority of Scripture as central to Anglican common life, and calls for moratoria on public rites of same-sex blessings as well as on the election and consent of any candidate to the episcopacy living in a same-sex union.
  


• In February 2005, the Primates meet in Dromantine, Ireland, to collectively examine the Windsor Report and produce a Communiqué calling on ECUSA and Canada to "voluntarily withdraw" their representatives from the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) until Lambeth 2008.
  


• In March 2005, ECUSA House of Bishops meeting at Camp Allen, Texas, and pledges to uphold all consecrations (including that of Gene Robinson).
  In June 2005, at the Anglican Consultative Council meeting in Nottingham, England, ECUSA makes a presentation, "To Set Our Hope on Christ," defending what amounts to a new gospel that is wholly incompatible with Scripture, thereby justifying, rather than repenting of, their actions. (Canada also makes a similar presentation.) The ACC meeting also upholds Lambeth 1.10 teaching on human sexuality and endorses the Primates' request for ECUSA and Canada to withdraw their representatives from the ACC until the next Lambeth Conference.
  


• In June 2006, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church meets in Columbus, Ohio. The GC response to the Windsor Report amounts to rejection and repudiation; elects heterodox Presiding Bishop that is fully committed to the revisionist path chosen by the Episcopal Church on issues of sex and morality. Eight dioceses request some form of alternative primatial relationship.
  


• September 2006: The Global South Primates meeting at Kilgali, Rwanda, issue a communiqué that laments, "We deeply regret that, at its most recent General Convention, "... We are convinced that the time has now come to take initial steps towards the formation of what will be recognized as a separate ecclesiastical structure of the Anglican Communion in the USA."
  


• October 2006: The Presiding Bishop's chancellor, David Beers, writes letters threatening legal action against the dioceses of Fort Worth and Quincy.
  


• November 2006: In an escalating environment of threats and persecution, Bishop Schofield of San Juoquin, pulls no punches in his response to the new Presiding Bishop, saying, in part, "The Episcopal Church, as an institution, is walking a path of apostasy and those faithful to God's Word are forced to make painful choices."
  


• December 2006: Nine Virginia congregations, including Truro and the Falls Church, vote to leave the Episcopal Church. Eight join CANA, the ninth accepting oversight from a global south primate. This brings the total number of congregations that have left the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia to 13, with another two having congregational votes coming up in January.
  


• December 2006: In a letter to the Primates, the Archbishop of Canterbury explains his rationale for not withholding an invitation for the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church to the Primates Meeting scheduled for February 14-19 in Tanzania, saying "I am also proposing to invite two or three other contributors from that Province for a session to take place before the rest of our formal business, in which the situation may be reviewed, and I am currently consulting as to how this is best organized."
  


• January 2007: Diocese of Virginia press release announces lawsuits against 11 of the 15 departing congregations, continuing the scorched earth policy against dissidents apparently being orchestrated by the national church's New York headquarters. Read guest editorial by Falls Church Sr. Warden, additional news stories here,
  


• March 2007: Bishops Reject Primates' Ultimatum. The House of Bishops has declined to participate in a pastoral initiative designed by the primates to care for congregations and dioceses which for reasons of conscience cannot accept the Episcopal ministry of their bishop or primate. They also rejected a request to set up an alternative structure with separate Bishop oversight for the Churches with traditional Anglican theology. Also see the Archbishop of Canterbury's letter to the Southern Primates and the ACC dated March 5, 2007.


• September 30, 2007 is the mandated deadline for Episcopal Church to reform itself or face possible separation from the Anglican Communion.

The question that everyone is asking is who has led this revolt in the Church and taken up gay activism? And why is it as critical as to be far more important than keeping a landmark American (since 1789) institution together as a unified group in confederation with the Anglican Communion?

The answer is simple. Liberal activism at this level has no shame. And it has no boundaries. In fact, the more damage you can inflict on a conservative, mainstream, or traditional organization such as a Church, then the larger the personal reward, and the greater the victory for the "cause".

You have a minority group of individuals who are subverting the Episcopal Church and changing it from that of a Bible-based Church with an emphasis on God and Scripture to that of a good works social club with an emphasis on liberal politics, and social engineering - and they have succeeded in creating another platform for themselves to spout their liberalism from - and moreover, they've done so with a new found authority - pretending the Lord as their mouthpiece!

So the truth is that little of this has to do with God's teaching, this is an opportunity for liberal activist groups to take over another institution and mangle its doctrines for their political agenda.

At this point, I want to reiterate that its not just the Africans who are taking issue with the Episcopal Churches current direction. Local Churches with Anglican ties such as The Church of the Holy Trinity in Marlbourough Massachussetts led by the Rev. Michael J. McKinnon have taken issue with the direction of the Episcopal Church as witnessed by his piece in in response to the Boston Globe's poorly written editorial "No change in Episcopalian teaching" dated February 8, 2007. Other Massachusetts' Churches have also voiced opposition and threatened to leave the Mass Diocese.

This underlines that the issue is not reverse-colonialism as suggested by some trying to direct blame toward the African Continent, but rather tangible and local outrage within the ECUSA - right here in the United States.

So why do I stay in the Episcopal Church? Why not just go to another Church and be done with it?

By any reasonable standard, I've laid the ground-work for leaving The Episcopal Church. I've made the case that for a traditional Christian like myself, which falling under Bishops' Smith and Curry and the Diocese of Connecticut doesn't make a lot of sense on its merit; they believe and seek one thing, and I uphold the truth - not my truth - but His truth. And moreover, the national direction of the ECUSA is shameful, outrageous, and disappointing. And actual Schism from the Anglican Communion is my biggest concern above all else.

I want to address this question from several angles. Hopefully, this will clarify a lot of things.

First of all, at a local level, my church - St. John's Episcopal Church in West Hartford is a good church. There is no outward agenda one way or another being preached from the lectern on Sundays. Having been a member since 1997, I know that the focus has been on Scripture and the music, readings, prayers and sermons are reverent and sometimes Bible-centered (generally not the strong stuff, but rather the soft take on Christ; (we know the rector's left of center politics by the bumper sticker on his vehicle - and he tends to keep those thoughts on his bumper where they belong). The rector and assistant rector are not activists and are happy to leave things as they are - nonconfrontational and noncontroversial. You come, you Worship, you drink coffee with the "Huffingtons" and chat politely about stocks with "Buffy", and you go home.

So, in short I am not upset with my own parish, nor does anything that happens there motivate me to a point of concern. The only thing is that I clearly understand that I am probably one of a handful of individuals that falls under the category of "traditionalist"; so it’s tough looking around and knowing that I'm pretty much alone. You can get a feel for the liberalism in the congregation by simply listening in at the Adult Forum. But all in all, the church is not likely to change because there is no legitimate reason for it to change.

Second, there are groups within the Anglican Communion that are fighting for conservatives and traditionalists to have a place in the Episcopal Church. These groups include The Primates, the American Anglican Council, Lambeth, and others who are devoted to God and trying to protect the ECUSA from itself. It's hard to abandon those working so hard to correct the church's broken moral compass. And I suppose there's always the hope that the Church might right itself before forcing its own separation from the Anglican Communion.

I know the signs on the roadway imply that schism is unavoidable - the recent arrogant decrees by the House of Bishops pretty much gave the finger to Canterbury and the Anglican Communion; whether this is "real" or just a temper tantrum by the ECUSA liberals will not be known until September 30th. But I think we owe it to the groups trying to keep the Communion together to talk and work together on the issue.

Third, as mentioned in earlier paragraphs, I have a long family history with the Episcopal Church. This in itself is a more personal issue with regard to maintaining my own family traditions in a similar fashion such as why I enjoy celebrating Christmas Eve with my family (while other celebrate solely on Christmas Day). So my feelings or thoughts on this cannot be expressed logically - it just is.

This leaves me with the quandary of internal debate over "family traditions" and "Anglican/Episcopal loyalties". I've always viewed that one of the pillars of the Episcopal Church is that it’s connected (not just remotely rooted) to the Anglican Church in England, the land of my ancestors. In fact, if you open the current version of the Book of Common Prayer, you will see written in the second to last paragraph in the Preface:

"...They will appear, and it is to be hoped, the reasons of them also, upon a comparison of this with the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England. In which it will also appear that this [Episcopal] Church is far from intending to depart from the Church of England in any essential point of doctrine, discipline, or worship; or further than local circumstances require."

Well, today it appears very much intending to depart on essential points of doctrine and discipline with The Church of England. The move by the activists in the Church as outlined in their most recent communication in March 2007, “...The meaning of the Preamble to the Constitution of The Episcopal Church is determined solely by the General Convention of The Episcopal Church.” This implies a clear shift from seeking accordance and agreement with the Anglican Communion, vis a vis The Church of England to a new independent authority, based solely on the whims and wishes of a few high ranking Episcopal Bishops. This seems a huge departure from the concept of a Communion. The connection to the Church of England no longer sought, and would no longer be legitimate, if schism occurs.

Since the ECUSA at this moment remains a part the Anglican Communion, there is no reason to leverage this argument in favor of my leaving today. This may change by the Fall of this year. Obviously, there is much to contemplate as developments continue to unfold.

Fourth, if I leave the local Church, then I will lose grounds for engaging directly in the debate with local Church leaders and parishioners. It's more effective to be able to say "we are going down the wrong path", and then it is to argue from the outside that "they" or "you are going down the wrong path". Moreover, the Diocese of Connecticut would love for all the traditionalists to pack their bags and leave so they could be one unified voice through and through on all things political, liturgical, and theological. The perfect utopia - no opposition! They would love to sit in their meetings, unopposed, nodding unanimously in agreement - completely assured of their correctness - amplified by full solidarity on every vote and word.

Lastly, there is the vague hope that if schism is about to occur or does occur that the Episcopal Church may in time recognize that they've gone too far. Even though the rhetoric out of the House of Bishops is inflammatory and screaming for separation at this stage, this isn't to say that recently dismissed concept of alternative oversight (which by the way may be the cleanest way to solve the problems in the interim) could be resurrected at some point. Now, my church - St. John's wouldn't join the new Episcopal Church or fall under alternative oversight, but it might be enough for some parishioners to feel a connection to the Anglican Communion through the relationship that could bridge the Anglican Communion and the new and old Episcopal Churches. I'm sure somewhere a hardcore liberal is laughing at this notion, but not much of this is funny to those looking at the financial books of the ECUSA - where they are seeing themselves nearly 4-million dollars in debt.

Although as a point, I don't blame or condemn traditional Christians who have already decided upon leaving the Church. For many, Church is where they recharge for the week, and it's often a sanctuary for peaceful prayer and reflection, and Christian reassurance through fellowship with follow Christians. So, going to a place where there can be so much conflict and disharmony can probably be deflating and counter-productive for some.

And when you see the Episcopal Church attempt to put an 86-year old man on trial, retired Bishop or not, for ministering outside of a jurisdiction, you can see why people would become so angry at the lunatics running the TEC, and want to leave. It's a little more than unnverving.

So as the countdown to September 30th continues, true Anglicans should do the following:

1. Monitor all communications and transcripts published by their local Diocese, the American Anglican Council (ACC) (note the AAC has a free weekly email newsletter than can be subscribed to here), VirtueOnline.org, the Anglican Communion, ECUSA, Church of England, and the Church of Nigeria.

2. Find out where you Parish stands by attending church meetings, reading your Parish newsletter, and speaking with your Wardens. In a similiar fashion, determine where your Diocese stands.

3. If your Diocese or Parish are in league with the ECUSA positions and agenda, seek out information regarding alternative oversight in your Episcopal juridiction, if it exists. Please note that I'm not calling on you to abandon your Parish, but educate yourself about local and state organizations that are sympathetic to keeping the Anglican Communion whole and ending the ECUSA pro-gay, pro-gay positions. Whether you decide to stay in your Parish or go to another, or leave the Episcopal Church a decision that only you and your family can make.

4. If you feel strong enough about the matter, write your Rector a letter explaining your thoughts on the matter. Or write the Bishop and Diocese. Chances are that your complaints will fall on deaf ears, but you might feel better about it.

5. If you want to engage directly in the debate then write an editorial for your local newspaper to print. Of course, understand that if you do this, everyone in the Church will understand your position. So be prepared to take some heat about, including more than a few cross-eyed looks during Service.

6. Seek information on other Anglican Churches in your area. Over the years, there are several Anglican Churches that have split from the Episcopal Church for a number of reasons, including Episcopal Doctrine, or the crisis over the Prayer Book in the late 70s. Some alternative Anglican Churches can be found here. And there are a large number of these Anglican Churches can also be found on this page (I was actually surprised to see so many groups that want nothing to do with the Episcopal Church but still want to maintain "Anglicanism").

7. Pray for the Episcopal Church. That its leadership sees the light and reverses its ongoing trend into darkness. These folks may be well meaning, but they are doing the Devil's work.

Thanks for reading. And have a Happy Easter!

Whilst I ponder... the Episcopal Church's unfortunate Saga

I've been quiet over the past week contemplating specifics around my upcoming piece on the Episcopal Church, and it's current state of bitter turmoil.

I find the ongoing saga in the Church almost intolerable, particularly as it relates to the instigators and perverse activists, who are pushing their ridiculous pro-gay agenda on the vast majority of the Anglican Communion. They clearly don't care about the incredible harm they are causing - not to just thousands, but millions of Anglican parishioners around the globe. They seem to deem success by the level of destruction they cause to the existing institution - that in itself is a revealing fact. It shows that their agenda takes precedence over the institution. After all, they've chosen this Church - an established Church - to attack to make their points. Certainly, they could have started their own Church with their own doctrine with its own set of principles and ideals, but instead they intentionally chose to infiltrate and dismantle OUR Church. In their eyes, to decimate a long standing institution, is a victory of immense proportion.

Somewhere someone with the best of intentions felt overcome with compassion and pity, and opened the door to these agenda-driven activists. And like the Trojan Horse they entered quietly at first... and now they and their friends are running your church committees, parishes, and voting at the Episcopal Church conventions to reverse centuries of accepted doctrine. They are working tirelessly to undermine the very organization that provided them comfort and kindness.

It's amazing that blatant liberalism has crept into our institutions with such astounding success. But then again, perhaps not, since traditionalists tend to be on the lazy side when it comes to defending things such as traditional values and institutions. They expect things to be as they always were, and would rather stay above the frey instead of engaging in the debate. And that is the weakness that is exploited every time by the foes of civilization.

I understand that most people simply don't want to be bothered. Most people steer clear of controversy and argument. Successful people, who are generally traditional and conservative by nature, are too busy making money, living in traditional families, and doing the things that everyone aught to being doing. Whereas, liberals, freethinkers, and the like have plenty of time on their hands to waste. They are often in turmoil and self-doubt, and there are usually questions about the soundness of their state of mind. They are truly focused on "self" - as in "jealousy" of others who have [insert whatever they are missing here: love, job, house, opportunity, money, etc], while they have not. These people are hell-bent on turning right into wrong, and wrong into right in the name of alleged "social justice" or "fairness" and whatever justifying feel- good cliche they can think of.

Of course, the underlying quest is to make others believe that what is bizarre and unnatural is somehow normal and natural. The very notion of getting them to accept that there may be something wrong within their own psyche and behavior would be to get them to admit to abnormality, or worse - even mental sickness. Herein you can see the internal driver that propels these people to push their agenda to the limits - it's their own internal rage, and their need to feel justified in what they choose to do or how they choose to act.

The battle in the Episcopal Church is a prime example of this kind of behavior. In the end, the liberal activists want to blur the lines of right and wrong, and reduce sin to mere error so they can legitimize their own perverse actions as acceptable and normal. If everything is subjective, then there can be no standards, no rules, and no moral highgrounds. They want to reduce the Bible to a book of suggestions, turn God into a man-made creation so they can declare that God's teachings are not universal laws but rather human ideas no better than their own. And in their eyes, since God is man-made, and man is prone to mistakes and imperfections, then God is imperfect, and all notions of right and wrong are replaced with relativism. The Bible is therefore reduced to nothing more than a book of interesting tales with no merit, and with nothing to teach, and with no binding covenant.

So it's full circle for these liberal terrorists: Infiltrate, dismantle, destroy, and redefine.

And this is what those advocating homosexual unions are doing to the Episcopal Church, and perhaps even the Anglican Communion. And once they have won this battle, they will continue down the path toward total separation from God, leaving behind the institution in total ruin.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: Yes, the Episcopal Shield above is intentionally being printed upside down. In days of old (and as is still taught in Nautical Safety courses) when a flag is flown upside down, it's is a symbol of distress. Our Episcopal Church is clearly in a state of distress, and the emblem is therefore being printed as a symbol to reflect as such.