Holy Saturday: descendit ad inferna

Peter Toon

After he had borne in his own soul and body the sins of the world (reflected in his Cry of Dereliction from the Cross), expressed his desire for full restored Communion with the Father (“I thirst” – for thee my Father), and announced the victory over evil, sin and darkness (“It is finished”), Jesus died (“Into thy hands, I commit my spirit”). And he died as the sacrificial Lamb of God to take away the sins of the world. He voluntarily handed over his human spirit to the Father, remaining in death the Lord of life. On Good Friday his body and soul separated, the body to be given burial in Jerusalem and the soul/mind/spirit/human nature to remain in perfect union with the divine nature in the one Person of the Incarnate Son.

Thus the Son of God incarnate lives without his body for the period from between 3 – 4 p.m. on Friday until say 1.a.m. on Sunday. He remains in full communion with his Father continuing to do the work that the Father gave him to do. For this period of time his work is proclaiming his Victory wrought on the Cross, that is preaching the Gospel of the New Covenant, sealed by his shed blood. He proclaimed this Gospel to those of the old covenant who had died in faith looking for the Messiah to come, so that they could embrace him as their Messiah and Lord and go with him to the heaven at his exaltation to the right hand of the Majesty of the Father. He also proclaimed to others, the disobedient, this same Victory.

The Apostles’ Creed confesses that Jesus the Son and Lord was crucified, dead and buried. Then, before moving on to the Resurrection, it declares: “descendit ad inferna” (“he descended into hell”). This is a reference to where Jesus spent the time from his expiry on the Cross to his resurrection from the dead and exaltation into heaven. He entered the underworld, Hades, and according to 1 Peter 3:18f., he “preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey.” Or as St Peter put it, “the gospel was preached even to the dead” (1 Peter 4:6; cf., Ephesians 4:6; Revelation 1:18). The saving work of Jesus extends not only to those alive when he was on earth, but also to those who had died before the Incarnation.

His Atonement has an infinite and eternal value covering all space and all time and all humanity.

On Easter morning, the Incarnate Son was raised from the dead – that is, the Father restored to him his body so that soul and body became one again. But while it was in essence the same body which was crucified it was also a changed body, for now it was an immortal body, a resurrection body, a body of glory and a supernatural body – a body for the new heaven and the life of the age to come, and a body to be the model for the resurrection bodies of his people.

He rose victorious from the grave. By his resurrection the Father proclaims to the world that the victory of the Son over sin, evil, death, darkness and satanic forces is accomplished. Now – the now of grace - there is salvation in him and him alone and this salvation is for all, Jew and Gentile, who believe this Gospel.

The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)

A Meditation for Palm Sunday Morning

On the Sunday that begins Holy Week the Church looks steadfastly & adoringly at Jesus who enters Jerusalem to begin the last part of His saving mission -- within the city that symbolizes the old covenant, the covenant to be fulfilled and replaced by the new covenant, inaugurated by His Blood shed at Calvary.

To assist us in a right looking at Jesus, let us consider the animal on which he rode on the Sunday.

It was an animal upon which no one had previously sat. It had not been broken in. Yet Jesus sat upon it and rode on it as if it were a well broken in, seasoned donkey used to such a thing. In this "miracle" we see that the One who rides is not only Messiah, but also the Lord of creation.

Jesus, whose entry on this animal rather than on the war horse proclaims he is the King of peace, is the King whose kingdom is not of this world but of the world to come.

Further, this Entry tells us that He who will suffer, die,rise from the dead and be exalted to heaven in Jerusalem, does this for us and for our salvation. He is One who is truly able to represent us and to stand in our place for He is the Lord of Creation. In the words of the church's dogma, He is One Person made known in two natures, divine and human, and thus what He does has an eternal and infinite effect, and thus covers all creation.

Ride on, Ride on in Majesty, Ride on to die.... for us and for our salvation.

----------------
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)

SOUTHEAST ASIA PRIMATE SAYS ECUSA AND CANADIANS SUSPENDED

Pastoral Letter cites "severe impairment and fractured relationship in Anglican Communion"

To all Clergy/Pastors/Standing Committee Members

A Pastoral Letter - Primates' Meeting, Belfast [21-25 February 2005]

18th March, 2005

Dear Brothers & Sisters in Christ

I greet you all in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. I praise and thank God for your partnership in prayers and fasting that had sustained the recent Primates' Meeting in Belfast from 21st to 25th February 2005. In the midst of a very intense, exhausting and draining week, I deeply sensed and gratefully appreciated the great spiritual support and uplifting because you have all faithfully and earnestly surrounded me and our fellow primates with prayers and fasting. God has honoured and heard your prayers. May I take this opportunity to thank you and join you all in praise and thanksgiving to the Almighty God!

The Communiqué of the Primates' Meeting was crafted by a Committee. As usual, very polite, kind and gracious language have been used to express the common mind and collective wisdom reached by the top spiritual leaders of the Anglican Communion. However, all these polite and gracious words could not hide the plain reality that there is severe impairment and fractured relationship in our Anglican Communion.

Throughout the week, the Primates prayed and worshiped together in Morning and Evening Prayers. The Chaplain of the Archbishop of Armagh celebrated the Eucharist for those who needed it. But this Eucharist was not regarded as part of the official and corporate worship of this Primates' Meeting because many Primates needed to honour the decision of their own Provinces which have broken/fractured Communion with ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada. These Primates could not share the Eucharist with the Primates of ECUSA and Anglican Church of Canada.

Despite the enormous pain and deep hurt felt by many Primates, I praise and thank God for the spiritual quality and leadership of our Primates. Under the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury, they rose above the occasion and clearly re-affirmed and re-endorsed:-

(a) "The central place Anglican accord to the Authority of Scripture", and of "autonomy in Communion" as the balanced exercise of inter-dependence between the 38 Primates and their legitimate Provincial autonomy" .

(b) The 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1:10 as expressing "the standard of Christian teaching on matter of human sexuality" which should command respect as the position overwhelmingly adopted by the Bishops of the Anglican Communion."

Since the Lambeth Conference 1998 and in each of the succeeding Primates' Meetings, the Primates with the Archbishop of Canterbury had again and again warned against any innovation departing from the above position of the Anglican Communion. The most clear and serious warning was given in October 2003. But ECUSA and Canada had blatantly refused to comply with the request of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates' Meetings. Having given ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada more than sufficient warnings, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates' Meeting, the two instruments of unity in the Anglican Communion, drawing from the clear voice of the Lambeth Conference 1998, another instrument of Unity in the Anglican Communion, have indeed come down with a clear decision in Belfast 2005.

This decision is a loving, wise and firm one. Basically, ECUSA and Canada are both suspended immediately to give them time and space to go through their Canonical and Constitutional procedures to express their desire and will to stay in the Anglican Communion by repentances and reversing what they have unilaterally endorsed and put in place. They have until the Lambeth Conference 2008 to do this. The invitations for their Bishops to attend the next Lambeth Conference depend upon their response to the terms and conditions set by the Windsor Report. The Anglican Consultative Council, the fourth instrument of Unity of the Anglican Communion which has a "legal status' has been requested to make sure this happened.

This is a Godly and wise decision because the Primates in the spirit of loving and the desire to preserve the Anglican Communion in spirit and in truth has called ECUSA and Canada to repentance but at the same time kept the way back to the Anglican Communion opened for ECUSA and Canada. Needless to say, with this decision the Primates also eagerly and earnestly pray that the Holy Spirit will convict the hearts, minds and spirits of the Leaders of these 2 churches and lead them back to the faith that is grounded in Scriptures as a whole and in particular willingly "accept the same teaching on matter of sexual morality as is generally accepted elsewhere in the Communion."

The Primates has also made sure that "Groups in serious theological disputes with their Diocesan Bishops, or Dioceses in dispute with their Province" will be protected through a panel of reference appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The Communiqué also made clear that, we are not-homophobic. We continue to love and care for those who are homosexuals and who have the inclination to be one in our society. We are committed not only to listen to them but also to bring them to a living encounter with the Risen Lord Jesus Christ who is our Saviour, Deliverer and Life Giver. Every human being, homosexual included, deserves the best for their life from God to them. They should be challenged to invite the Lord Jesus Christ to enter their life to free them from the power of Sin and the domination of Satan.

The above decisions are very much in line with the recommendations of our Provincial Fellowship of Bishops' Meeting (1 February 2005) and the Provincial Standing Committee Meeting held in early February 2005. I thank God for the clear and strong mandate given to me to work with all Primates who are committed to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Please continue to pray for me, the Archbishop of Canterbury, all the Primates and our Anglican Communion.

This comes with my love, prayers and blessings for all of you during this solemn season of Lent. May I also wish you all a very glorious and blessed Easter!

God bless!

Yours in Christ

The Most Rev Datuk Yong Ping Chung
BISHOP OF SABAH
PRIMATE - PROVINCE OF S E ASIA

Critique of the Bishop's Covenant from ACI

The link below is to a piece from the Anglican Communion Institute, the intellectual center and powerhouse of the evangelical movement within the ECUSA and it is a devastating critique! --P.T.

http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.org/articles/bishopscovenantaci.htm

Conservative reaction to the Bishops' Covenant

March 17

For Immediate Release

A Statement by Bishop Robert Duncan on the ECUSA House of Bishops Meeting

I write with sincere gratitude for all those who prayed for the recent House of Bishops meeting and for those who have taken the trouble to write me notes of appreciation and support in this time of immense stress and challenge.

I am grateful that the bishops in Texas did finally begin to engage the real concerns of the wider Anglican Communion, although the statement issued falls short of what the primates were looking for.

I believe the real news from this meeting of the House of Bishops is that we have finally begun to be honest about what we did at General Convention 2003 and what the consequences are. Moreover, we began openly to engage the thought that our differences within the House of Bishops, within the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA), and within the Anglican Communion may be irreconcilable. In particular, we examined the complete breakdown of trust among some groups within the House and perceptions of abuses of power on the one hand and unhelpful tactics on the other, which have brought us to the breaking point.

The Anglican Communion Network (ACN) remains resolute in its commitment to full compliance with the Primates expectations as outlined in their communiqué as well as to the historic Christian faith and order as concerns human identity and holy matrimony under the word of God written as the ultimate rule and standard. We are also seeking to work as closely and collaboratively as possible with other Episcopal Church leaders to find a way forward that will fully address the depth of the crisis we face while seeking to honor the consciences and concerns of all in the body of Christ.

March 17, 2005

---

March 17, 2005

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


A Statement from the President of the American Anglican Council on Communications Issued by the Episcopal Church House of Bishops

The Covenant Statement and the Word to the Church issued by the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops is insulting to the Primates of the Anglican Communion. While it aims at specific requests of the 2004 Windsor Report and the 2005 Primates Communiqué, it fails to fulfill clear expectations outlined therein. The House claimed to affirm the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral 1888, and yet they failed to repent of their decisions and subsequent actions contrary to Scripture as well as Anglican faith and order. Note there is no affirmation of the authority of Scripture or Lambeth 1.10, which were upheld by the primates. Are there not two mutually exclusive views presented in this covenant?

Bishops also declared a moratorium on blessings of same-sex unions, but J. Jon Bruno, Bishop of Los Angeles, violated the spirit of this pledge before the sun set on the covenant's passage. In an interview with the Los Angeles Times Tuesday evening, he said he would 'not impose his 'conscience' on priests in the six-county Los Angeles diocese. They are free to bless same sex unions if they wish,' he said. The Episcopal News Service clearly underscored the loophole in their report as well: 'the bishops said they themselves would refrain from performing such blessings for the time being. Clergy in dioceses that already practice same sex blessings will be allowed to choose whether to continue the practice.'

How can faithful Episcopalians view such doublespeak from Episcopal leaders as anything but duplicitous?

With regard to the so-called moratorium on consecrations, I am outraged that the House of Bishops drew equivalence between single or married individuals with those living in homosexual partnerships. To place a moratorium on all consecrations not only takes the episcopacy hostage to the homosexual agenda but also places several dioceses in crisis. Canon law requires that bishops must retire at age 72 -- what happens in those dioceses where their bishop faces mandatory retirement? William Persell, Bishop of Chicago, has said that he and others are more than willing to pitch in and help run those dioceses. In other words, revisionist bishops will be placed in dioceses rather than individuals duly elected by diocesan convention. This is an appalling idea that represents a great threat to biblically faithful dioceses and congregations. Although orthodox bishops in attendance generally supported the covenant statement believing it had useful components in it, I disagree and believe they made a clear error.

Finally, I am struck by the conciliatory nature and carefully nuanced phraseology of the Word to the Church that belies the attack of the Presiding Bishop on an orthodox bishop as well as several faithful clergy and lay people. His actions are deplorable and inexcusable. I call upon him to issue a public apology.

In summation, the House of Bishops claims a desire to remain part of the world-wide communion but seems not to understand what that entails. The Covenant fails to offer long-term, sustainable solutions and at best simply postpones inevitable conversation about the clear and ultimate choice before us -- walking together or walking apart. I am thankful for the bishops who upheld orthodoxy and worked in good faith to voice the irreconcilable differences that mark the House of Bishops. I urge all bishops to make their choice and to be honest in articulating those choices. The mandate of the primates is before us all: Choose this day whom you shall serve.

---

http://www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=887

Bishops' Support of Covenant Statement Not Unanimous
03/17/2005

While only a handful of the approximately 140 bishops attending the House of Bishops spring meeting voted against the covenant statement on March 15, neither traditional-minded nor progressive bishops were united behind the document, and a significant portion of conservative bishops missed the vote.

The total number of 'nays' is uncertain. One bishop present told THE LIVING CHURCH that 'there were four or five no's', while Bishop Paul V. Marshall, Bishop of Bethlehem, wrote after the vote, 'my own conscience did not permit me or eight other bishops to vote for it.'

Bishop James Kelsey of Northern Michigan voted against the covenant saying he opposed the moratorium as a 'misuse of power'. 'I feel it is a legislative restriction of the authentic discernment of diocesan communities,' he wrote in a letter to his diocese. 'I further feel this is an inappropriate use of the consent process. Bishops are asked to give consent as a kind of a check and balance, but not as a prime mover in the process. This feels to me like a unilateral action of the bishops, thereby excluding any options by the rest of the Church.'

Two diocesan bishops told the House on Saturday that no matter what was decided, nothing would deter the blessing of same-sex unions in their dioceses.

Bishop Jon Bruno of Los Angeles told the Los Angeles Times that though he would observe the moratorium against the blessing of same-sex unions, he would not impose the moratorium on his clergy nor discipline those who performed the rites -- a stance at odds with one conservative bishop's understanding of the moratorium, which he told THE LIVING CHURCH he believed extended to all clergy, not merely bishops.

Within the ranks of traditionalist bishops, interpretations over the meaning and effectiveness of the document differ widely. Immediately after the vote, Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh told THE LIVING CHURCH that on 'one level we are buying time, and I guess that's good as it acknowledges all of the things the primates have been saying to us'.

In a formal statement released on March 17, Bishop Duncan wrote, 'I am grateful that the bishops in Texas did finally begin to engage the real concerns of the wider Anglican Communion, although the statement issued falls short of what the primates were looking for.'

'I voted against [the covenant],' Suffragan Bishop David Bena of Albany wrote to his diocese, 'because I believe it is too weak and possibly duplicitous. Most of those present, however, did vote for it as the best we could do under the circumstances.'

Bishop Bena was 'cautiously optimistic' however, 'because I saw how hard both the left and the right worked together to tailor something that actually answered the demands of Windsor and the [primates'] communiqué.'

One of the principals of the working group that created the covenant, Bishop John Lipscomb of Southwest Florida, stated, 'It was an excellent meeting of the House. Bishops on all sides of the current questions in the life of our church worked diligently to find a creative response to the primates' communiqué.'

Also present for the meeting were Anglican Communion Network Bishops James Adams of Western Kansas, John W. Howe of Central Florida, Edward Salmon of South Carolina, and William Skilton of South Carolina (suffragan), and newly consecrated Bishop Jeffrey Steenson of the Rio Grande.

A number of bishops affiliated with the Anglican Communion Network were not present at the vote. Bishop Daniel Herzog of Albany was abroad, a guest of the diocese of Down and Dromore in Northern Ireland, preaching on St Patrick's Day at Downpatrick --the sight of St. Patrick's grave.

Suffragan Bishop Henry Scriven of Pittsburgh had left Camp Allen by Tuesday's vote, as had Bishop James M. Stanton of Dallas. Bishop Stanton attended the first two days of the meeting, but returned to Dallas to be present at the birth of his granddaughter.

American Anglican Council chairman and Springfield Bishop Peter Beckwith took ill in Atlanta while on his way to the meeting and did not attend. Others who did not attend: Bishop Terry Kelshaw of the Rio Grande, Bishop Keith Ackerman of Quincy, Bishop Jack Iker of Fort Worth, and Bishop John-David Schofield of San Joaquin.

That Communique & press conference in Ireland: A Letter

Dear Dick Kim,

Never have I had such negative thoughts and feelings about the international Anglican Family of Churches as I do now, and never have I thought and felt that the task of uniting faithful American Anglicans is and will be such a difficult -- maybe virtually impossible -- task.

Looking back to the Press Conference in Northern Ireland at the end of the Primates' Meeting, and recalling the claims made for the Communiqué, especially by Dr Carnley of Australia (its primary author), I see more and more that the 'conservative' Primates made a very major mistake in agreeing to it -- for its content falls so far below what they have since been saying in public as to what really they believed they were agreeing to in their Meeting! There are times when trying to be 'nice' and 'accommodating' and 'gentle' means that one is actually being unkind and helping to spread falsehood.

The recent response to the Communiqué by the ECUSA House of Bishops has the outward dress of reasonableness, decency and patience. It was possible to compose it in this way because the Communiqué says more about affirming homosexual persons than condemning homosexual sex and it merely identifies the innovations of North America as being a different approach to that in place in the rest of the Anglican Churches. From neither the Communiqué nor the Response from ECUSA Bishops would one ever get the impression that there were at least 16 Primates who were/are not in eucharistic communion with the North American Houses of Bishops and were/are also not in communion with Bishops who say they are in communion with the bishops of the North American Churches. (This situation calls in question the very idea and name of 'Communion of Churches'!)

It would have been helpful and honest for the Archbishops of the West Indies and of Uganda, who also spoke at the Press Conference, to have explained that the Communiqué was written to convey the very minimum sense of horror and outrage felt by the majority of the Primates at the innovations being pursued in North America. But they said nothing -- that I can remember (I was there) -- like this at all. And so the impression has gone out into the world that Dr. Carnley's view of what (should have) happened is the correct one, and to this 'incorrect' one, the ECUSA bishops have responded. Meanwhile conservatives, who want the Communiqué to say what the African Primates are now actually telling their flocks and friends, are locked into a document that is as supportive of the innovators in the long term as it is of the traditionalists!

What a mess Anglicans have got themselves into because of lack of open and clear honesty.

Yours truly,

Peter Toon

March 16th 2005

ECUSA Bishops' Covenant - critique

Comment by Peter Toon on 'the Covenant Statement' of the ECUSA House of Bishops in response to the Windsor Report and the Communiqué of the Primates' Meeting of Feb 05. The Comment is inserted in italic.

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_60016_ENG_HTM.htm?menu=undefined

House of Bishops adopts 'Covenant Statement'

House of Bishops' Spring Meeting
Camp Allen, Texas
March 15, 2005

A Covenant Statement of the House of Bishops

We have received the Windsor Report as a helpful contribution to our relationships with Anglican brothers and sisters across the world. We recognize its recommendations as coming from a broadly representative commission inclusive of bishops, clergy, and laity and as an attempt to speak as equals to equals. We experience it as being in the best tradition of autonomy within communion and as helpful in our efforts to live into communion. Likewise, we appreciate receiving the communiqué from the February meeting of the Primates and take seriously the perspectives and convictions stated therein.

It is our heartfelt desire to be responsive and attentive to the conversation we have already begun and to which we are being called and as a body offer the following points.

We reaffirm our commitment to the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1888 and each of its individual points. We reaffirm our earnest desire to serve Christ in communion with the other provinces of the Anglican family. We reaffirm our continuing commitment to remain in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury and to participate fully in the Anglican Consultative Council, the Lambeth Conference, and the Primates' Meeting, and we earnestly reaffirm our desire to participate in the individual relationships, partnerships, and ministries that we share with other Anglicans, which provide substance to our experience of what it is to be in communion.

Commitment to the Quadrilateral is merely a commitment to what the American House of Bishops many years ago saw as the minimum basis for union with other Churches by Churches of the Anglican Way. The Primates' Communique/Meeting made a major mistake by allowing the possibility that this Quadrilateral can be the basis for unity amongst Anglican Provinces, rather than the historic unity based upon the received, classical Formularies of the Anglican Way.

We express our own deep regret for the pain that others have experienced with respect to our actions at the General Convention of 2003 and we offer our sincerest apology and repentance for having breached our bonds of affection by any failure to consult adequately with our Anglican partners before taking those actions.

There is sorrow and repentance for lack of consultation and causing trouble BUT no repentance before God for breaking His Holy Law. There is no sense that consulting would have caused the House to go in a different direction that it actually did.

The Windsor Report has invited the Episcopal Church "to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges" (Windsor Report, para. 134). Our polity, as affirmed both in the Windsor Report and the Primates' Communiqué, does not give us the authority to impose on the dioceses of our church moratoria common life offers the opportunity for extraordinary action. In order to make the fullest possible response to the larger communion and to re-claim and strengthen our common bonds of affection, this House of Bishops takes the following provisional measure to contribute to a time for healing and for the educational process called for in the Windsor Report. Those of us having jurisdiction pledge to withhold consent to the consecration of any person elected to the episcopate after the date hereof until the General Convention of 2006, and we encourage the dioceses of our church to delay episcopal elections accordingly. We believe that Christian community requires us to share the burdens of such forbearance; thus it must pertain to all elections of bishops in the Episcopal Church. We recognize that this will cause hardship in some dioceses, and we commit to making ourselves available to those dioceses needing episcopal ministry.

There is no commitment not to ordain deacons and priests who are homosexually active and there is no commitment not to consecrate bishops after the 2006 Convention who are likewise active.

In response to the invitation in the Windsor Report that we effect a moratorium on public rites of blessing for same sex unions, it is important that we clarify that the Episcopal Church has not authorized any such liturgies, nor has General Convention requested the development of such rites. The Primates, in their communiqué "assure homosexual people that they are children of God, loved and valued by him, and deserving of the best we can give of pastoral care and friendship" (Primates' Communiqué, para. 6). Some in our church hold such "pastoral care" to include the blessing of same sex relationships. Others hold that it does not. Nevertheless, we pledge not to authorize any public rites for the blessing of same sex unions, and we will not bless any such unions, at least until the General Convention of 2006.

It is true that the General Convention has not authorized any Rites but there are many such rites available and being used in dioceses. Priests can bless homosexual partnerships, bishops as such are not needed. There is no sense here of forbidding what already is common place and the way is open for there to be an approved liturgy in 2006.

We pledge ourselves not to cross diocesan boundaries to provide episcopal ministry in violation of our own canons and we will hold ourselves accordingly accountable. We will also hold bishops and clergy canonically resident in other provinces likewise accountable. We request that our Anglican partners "effect a moratorium on any further interventions" (Windsor Report, para. 155; see also 1988 Lambeth Conference Resolution 72 and 1998 Lambeth Conference Resolution III.2) and work with us to find more creative solutions, such as the initiation of companion diocese relationships, to help us meet the legitimate needs of our own people and still maintain our integrity.

This seems reasonable but in effect does not provide immediately for the pastoral care of parishes which do not desire the ministry of the local bishop, due to his having embraced innovations and the LesBiGay agenda. African, Asian and S American Primates will hardly give up on their adopted parishes in the light of this vague kind of promise.

As a body, we recognize the intentionality and seriousness of the Primates' invitation to the Episcopal Church to refrain voluntarily from having its delegates participate in the Anglican Consultative Council meetings until the Lambeth Conference of 2008. Although we lack the authority in our polity to make such a decision, we defer to the Anglican Consultative Council and the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church to deliberate seriously on that issue. The bonds of affection are not ends in themselves but foundations for mission.

What are really and truly these bonds of affection? The Windsor Report made a lot of this phrase but is there really affection, and has there been in recent years, between ECUSA bishops and bishops of Africa? In some personal cases, yes, but in general no. The fact of the matter is that around 16 provinces are not in eucharistic communion with the ECUSA because they believe it is apostate!

Therefore, we re-commit ourselves to work together throughout the communion to eradicate HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other diseases, to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, and to address the other efforts mentioned by the Primates' Communiqué (para. 20). We dedicate ourselves to full and open dialogue in every available venue through invitations for mutual visitation, intentional exploration of the theological perspectives and spiritual gifts that our diverse cultures offer, and collaborative partnerships for the purpose of shared mission in Christ.

The House knows that it is in an extremely difficult position and expresses its desire to be kept in the Family, not to be cast out, and does so again in what seems a spirit of reasonableness. Regrettably nothing has yet come from the House of Bishops to indicate that it has changed its religion, that it is really and truly seeking to embrace the Faith held by the same House of Bishops, fifty years ago, 100 years ago, back to 1789! Or the Bishops who composed the Quadrilateral over a century ago!

This Covenant will keep the Anglican Churches of the West/North in communion with the ECUSA (because they are on the same route as the ECUSA has taken) but it will make most of the African & Asian Churches realize that there is no real change of mind and heart in the ECUSA, merely window-dressing, politics and deception. The House of Bishops it seems has lost the art of speaking the truth on major matters, indeed of speaking the truth in love at all! The ability to claim to be truth-telling when in fact it was lying began in earnest with the calling of the 1979 prayer book 'The Book of Common Prayer' when it was, and is merely and only, a Book of Varied Services! Falsehood before God leads to falsehood in all areas of religion.

House of Bishops adopts 'Covenant Statement'

(here is the statement of the House of Bishops in response to the Windsor Report and the Communique of the Primates Meeting. It has not yielded on anything of substance but merely referred any final statements/decisions to the next triennial Synod in 2006. There is no sign that the House as a House sees the ordination of active homosexual persons as wrong, or the blessing of homosexual couples as grave error. So it can repent of upsetting people but not of "upsetting" God's law or Church tradition!)

ENS 031505-1
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
[Episcopal News Service] The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church adopted, by nearly unanimous vote late this afternoon, "A Covenant Statement" that includes "a provisional measure to contribute to a time for healing and for the educational process called for in the Windsor Report" (full text of Covenant Statement follows below).
Preparation of an additional "Word to the Church" document to accompany the Statement is a priority for the bishops' agenda tomorrow, March 16, the final day of their six-day meeting of retreat and private reflection at Camp Allen, an Episcopal conference center in Navasota, Texas.

The bishops have widely praised the spirit of collaboration and collegiality that marked their framing of the Statement.

The Episcopal News Service will post March 17 wrap-up interviews about the bishops' meeting.

The House of Deputies, to which clergy and laity are elected, and the House of Bishops together comprise the General Convention, the chief legislative body of the 2.3 million-member Episcopal Church. The General Convention, which meets every three years, will next convene in June 2006 in Columbus, Ohio. General Convention's work is carried out between triennial meetings by the Episcopal Church's Executive Council, to which representatives are elected from both the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops.

---

House of Bishops' Spring Meeting
Camp Allen, Texas
March 15, 2005

A Covenant Statement of the House of Bishops

We have received the Windsor Report as a helpful contribution to our relationships with Anglican brothers and sisters across the world. We recognize its recommendations as coming from a broadly representative commission inclusive of bishops, clergy, and laity and as an attempt to speak as equals to equals. We experience it as being in the best tradition of autonomy within communion and as helpful in our efforts to live into communion. Likewise, we appreciate receiving the communiqué from the February meeting of the Primates and take seriously the perspectives and convictions stated therein.

It is our heartfelt desire to be responsive and attentive to the conversation we have already begun and to which we are being called and as a body offer the following points.

1. We reaffirm our commitment to the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1888 and each of its individual points. We reaffirm our earnest desire to serve Christ in communion with the other provinces of the Anglican family. We reaffirm our continuing commitment to remain in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury and to participate fully in the Anglican Consultative Council, the Lambeth Conference, and the Primates' Meeting, and we earnestly reaffirm our desire to participate in the individual relationships, partnerships, and ministries that we share with other Anglicans, which provide substance to our experience of what it is to be in communion.
2. We express our own deep regret for the pain that others have experienced with respect to our actions at the General Convention of 2003 and we offer our sincerest apology and repentance for having breached our bonds of affection by any failure to consult adequately with our Anglican partners before taking those actions.
3. The Windsor Report has invited the Episcopal Church "to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges" (Windsor Report, para. 134). Our polity, as affirmed both in the Windsor Report and the Primates' Communiqué, does not give us the authority to impose on the dioceses of our church moratoria based on matters of suitability beyond the well-articulated criteria of our canons and ordinal. Nevertheless, this extraordinary moment in our common life offers the opportunity for extraordinary action. In order to make the fullest possible response to the larger communion and to re-claim and strengthen our common bonds of affection, this House of Bishops takes the following provisional measure to contribute to a time for healing and for the educational process called for in the Windsor Report. Those of us having jurisdiction pledge to withhold consent to the consecration of any person elected to the episcopate after the date hereof until the General Convention of 2006, and we encourage the dioceses of our church to delay episcopal elections accordingly. We believe that Christian community requires us to share the burdens of such forbearance; thus it must pertain to all elections of bishops in the Episcopal Church. We recognize that this will cause hardship in some dioceses, and we commit to making ourselves available to those dioceses needing episcopal ministry.
4. In response to the invitation in the Windsor Report that we effect a moratorium on public rites of blessing for same sex unions, it is important that we clarify that the Episcopal Church has not authorized any such liturgies, nor has General Convention requested the development of such rites. The Primates, in their communiqué "assure homosexual people that they are children of God, loved and valued by him, and deserving of the best we can give of pastoral care and friendship" (Primates' Communiqué, para. 6). Some in our church hold such "pastoral care" to include the blessing of same sex relationships. Others hold that it does not. Nevertheless, we pledge not to authorize any public rites for the blessing of same sex unions, and we will not bless any such unions, at least until the General Convention of 2006.
5. We pledge ourselves not to cross diocesan boundaries to provide episcopal ministry in violation of our own canons and we will hold ourselves accordingly accountable. We will also hold bishops and clergy canonically resident in other provinces likewise accountable. We request that our Anglican partners "effect a moratorium on any further interventions" (Windsor Report, para. 155; see also 1988 Lambeth Conference Resolution 72 and 1998 Lambeth Conference Resolution III.2) and work with us to find more creative solutions, such as the initiation of companion diocese relationships, to help us meet the legitimate needs of our own people and still maintain our integrity.
6. As a body, we recognize the intentionality and seriousness of the Primates' invitation to the Episcopal Church to refrain voluntarily from having its delegates participate in the Anglican Consultative Council meetings until the Lambeth Conference of 2008. Although we lack the authority in our polity to make such a decision, we defer to the Anglican Consultative Council and the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church to deliberate seriously on that issue.

The bonds of affection are not ends in themselves but foundations for mission. Therefore, we re-commit ourselves to work together throughout the communion to eradicate HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other diseases, to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, and to address the other efforts mentioned by the Primates' Communiqué (para. 20). We dedicate ourselves to full and open dialogue in every available venue through invitations for mutual visitation, intentional exploration of the theological perspectives and spiritual gifts that our diverse cultures offer, and collaborative partnerships for the purpose of shared mission in Christ.

Patrick of Ireland

As the eyes of the world focus upon the IRA, the Republican Party of Ireland, and the St Patrick's Day Parades in NYC,Boston and elsewhere.... let us remember Patrick himself (died c.460). The Anglican Primates prayed in his cathedral at Armagh not long ago. Let us pray:

Almighty God, who in thy providence chose thy servant Patrick to be the apostle of the people of Ireland: Keep alive in us the fire of faith which he kindled, and, in this our earthly pilgrimage strengthen us to gain the light of everlasting light; through Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God now and for ever. Amen

The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)

Primates and the Politics of "being in communion"

a discussion starter from Peter Toon

The time has surely come for the Anglican Provinces (autonomous churches) of the world to describe their relation one to another in terms of 'federation' or 'denomination' (cf. World Lutheran Federation).

To describe themselves as corporately a 'Communion of Churches' is to state what is untrue or it is to state an ideal that in the immediate future at least is not realizable.

When you have a meeting of Archbishops, Presiding Bishops and Moderators and they cannot on grounds of conscience meet together for one common Eucharist; when you have bishops from various provinces writing letters to the secular press stating with whom they are in communion [see Letter below], and when you have this and that pressure group making the sharing on the one loaf and the common cup a matter of politics, then you have a real mess! Better to be honest and to drop all claims of being a Communion of Churches and claim to be nothing more than a denomination or a federation.

The present situation -- post the Primates' Meeting in February 2005 -- has of course not happened overnight. It began with the ordination of women and was not healed by the introduction of the doctrine of reception (see my booklet on this at www.latimertrust.org), which is merely a kind of band-aid.

All that is now possible for the world-wide Anglican movement is specific communion between provinces and dioceses; for the totality there can be no genuine claim of Communion, if honesty means anything.

Perhaps those American Episcopalians, who see themselves as 'the righteous remnant' of the apostate ECUSA, and who call themselves 'the Anglican Communion Network', need to think again about their title, their commitment, and their future within the world-wide denomination or federation of Anglican churches, which are divided amongst themselves over biblical authority, women's ordination and sexual morality and practice.

Since the USA is pre-eminently the country of denominations (due to the nature of its founding, its polity, its separation of church and state, and the multitudes of immigrants welcomed to its shores with their brands of religion), perhaps the best way forward for Episcopalians inside and outside the ECUSA who want to be traditional, biblically-based Anglicans is this -- to look to each other kindly and wisely under Jesus Christ the Lord and find a way to create an American Anglican denomination, loosely organized, which can then be in communion with Anglican dioceses abroad, that are similar in faith and practice.

The Anglican Communion is now only a Name for it is not truly a communion of churches. The American Anglican scene is truly one big headache and mess, in which are signs of great apostasy and of great potential/hope. Prophetic action, based on a realistic assessment under God of what is possible in the U.S.A. with its supermarket of religions, is needed by American Anglican/Episcopalians leaders to bring the faithful together in a common commitment and cause.

To expect the ECUSA to do a U-turn is to be wholly unrealistic -- in the USA liberal denominations merely tend to get more liberal. To expect real and continued protection and help from overseas Primates for the remnant of ECUSA is also to be unrealistic for they do not have the time or the means. Under God, American Anglicans have to help themselves and they have it in their grasp to do so -- with God's mercy and guidance -- and further they ought to do so now, not next year. Centrifugal moves -- of which there are far too many amongst this and that American group or jurisdiction -- defeat the true cause. Centripetal forces, generated by the Holy Spirit, are needed to bring all faithful American Anglicans together in a unity that is generous and comprehensive and is honoring of God.

---

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/news05031101.asp

Mainstream - Letter to London Times
11th March 2005

Dear Sir

We have read the letter of the Bishop of Salisbury and his 5 colleagues carefully ( Letters, Monday March 7). We are intrigued by their presumably carefully chosen phrases about their relationship to other parts of the Anglican Communion: could they please explain the difference between 'full sacramental fellowship', 'seek to remain in full communion' and 'continuing solidarity'? As it takes two to remain in communion, it would be helpful to know whether the Salisbury six have consulted their fellow bishops in the other provinces about these descriptions of their relationship to them.

It is reliably reported that 16 archbishops did not take holy communion with Bishop Frank Griswold of ECUSA at Newry, which represented their own provinces' state of broken sacramental communion with him and ECUSA. The Salisbury six have declared that they are in full sacramental fellowship with churches in Canada and the US whose actions pose 'a very real question about whether they are willing to accept the same teaching on matters of sexual morality as is generally accepted elsewhere in the Communion' (Newry Communiqué). Will the 16 archbishops recognize these six bishops as being now in Communion with them? And will these six bishops also be in Communion with the faithful Anglicans in the USA who find themselves in impaired communion with Bishop Griswold and his colleagues who consecrated Gene Robinson?

These questions need clear answers.

Yours sincerely

Dr Philip Giddings
Canon Dr Chris Sugden

Anglican Mainstream
21 High Street
Eynsham
Oxford
OX29 4HE

Primates & ECUSA Apostasy

If the Primates of the Global South are fully aware of the gradual but inexorable move to apostasy in the Episcopal Church, U.S.A., which occurred from the 1970s to 2000, why do they focus only and solely on the most recent innovations in sexuality, doctrine and practice?

A discussion Starter from Peter Toon March 8, 2005

I have put this question to several people with close links to African and Asian Archbishops. In essence they all agree with the following concise statement given to me by one of these kind persons:

The logic is simple. The decisions about homosexuality are open, admitted, and incontrovertible. They didn't want to raise other things that would have to be proven (while being denied) and dilute the process of dealing with the unorthodox position on sexuality. It became clear some time ago that the Communion was going to split. To attach everything that could justify a separation would only delay the inevitable.

Let us take this step by step and part by part.

First of all, in the matter of homosexuality (the blessing and ordaining of persons in “committed” homosexual, same sex/gender relations) the matter is very clear. There are those who advocate and do certain things, knowing that they are innovations; and there are those who oppose them on the ground of Scriptural morality, God’s law, and biological facts.

If the focus is kept on this issue, and this alone, then it is difficult for anyone to sit on the fence; one either approves or rejects the new doctrines and practices. Therefore, “the logic is simple” and easily grasped by anyone. To accept the innovations, encourage and support them is to cease to be a biblically-based Christian of an orthodox and traditional kind.

So far so good! And, let us be clear, to date this policy of focusing on a single issue has worked well for seemingly the whole world is aware of it, and understands the difference between the position of North American Churches and that of African and Asian Churches.

However, I fail to see why the Primates cannot run alongside their major campaign for biblical sexual morality, a minor campaign (as we may call it) that seeks to answer those who ask such questions as: If the North American Churches say they are sorry, do a U-turn on this matter and restore to their Churches traditional doctrine and practice in sexual relations, does this mean that these Churches are no longer apostate? Does the putting of the sexuality business right (in terms of synodical statements and canon law) mean that the crisis is over and these Churches are back into full communion with the Churches of Africa and Asia?

I for one would like to know how the majority of the Primates would answer these questions.

My reasons are various but one prominent one is this: I see a logic running through the innovations in worship, doctrine, discipline, polity and morality from the 1970s through to 2000. This logic is related to (a) a new attitude to Scripture, to the way it is read and interpreted (where, in essence its supposed cultural conditioning is taken into account and seen as corrupting the divine message) and (b) also to a widespread adoption of theories of human rights and of therapeutical (and feel good) interpretations of received doctrines and practices, from salvation though piety to public worship.

In this context, the reasoning from Scripture which has allowed the widespread acceptance of divorce and the remarriage of divorcees, together with the employment as pastors of divorced and remarried persons, is in essence the very same reasoning which allows the Scriptures to be read as affirming same-sex committed relationships (which are said to have nothing in common with the condemnation of fornication and sodomy in the Bible). Likewise, the reasoning from Scripture which sees God calling and ordaining women as pastors (priests and bishops) is virtually the same as that used for the justification of same-sex blessings and ordinations. In all these cases the obvious, straightforward meaning of the text is not accepted for it is claimed that the real meaning can only be found by pealing away, as it were, the cultural skins and conditioning and thereby seeking the true kernel, the real truth.

By the Biblical interpretation in place from the apostolic age to the mid twentieth century, it was/is impossible to sanction widespread remarriage of divorcees, the ordination of women as priests/presbyters and the blessing of same-sex couples.

The Primates often state Biblical authority is what the present crisis is really all about. I for one would like them -- now that the clarity of the dividing line in sexuality is as clear as clear can be -- to step into the larger arena and to tell us what are the other signs of apostasy that they see in the North American Churches, signs which will remain if the sexuality doctrine is reversed. The fact that they expect a split in the Anglican Family of Churches, with presumably the North American Churches leaving, suggests that they do think that, apart from the apostasy in sexuality there is (as I indicated above) a previous history of apostasy.

One final statement. I think that the basic causes of the beginning of the apostasy in the PECUSA (now ECUSA) can be reduced to two for discussion purposes: -- the adoption of the divorce culture of the post World War II era, and the massive lie told to God and man in the calling of the new prayer book of the 1970s “The Book of Common Prayer” when it was and remains in style and content a Book of Varied Services. These were two massive innovations and set ECUSA on a route that had to lead to apostasy, at least at the Synodical level. By the one innovation the authority of Scripture and the words of Jesus were set aside, and by the other the moral code, the Ten Commandments, was reduced to situation ethics!

I look for clarification from the Primates of the Global South or from their appointed spokesmen in the West/North.

peter@toon662.fsnet.co.uk

Experience, Experience and more Experience – a major & dangerous source of modern doctrine

A discussion starter from Peter Toon

True religion is in the affections! Genuine Christianity is expressed at the personal level in the desire to know God, to adore, love and service Him, to have fellowship with Him and with His covenant people, to look for the Second Advent of His Son, to rejoice in suffering, and to show love, compassion and mercy to the neighbor.

Truth enters the mind, is received and processed, drops into the heart and has an effect upon the affections and the will. The proof that divine truth has really entered is seen in the movement of the affections and will towards God, to be with Him and to do His will in freedom and joy.

Where believers are united in this pursuit of God in an ordered way there is the Body of Christ in reality.

Today in much of western Anglicanism to speak of experience is not usually to speak of the traditional, consecrated search for God, to see the Father in the face of Jesus Christ our Lord. Rather, it is to speak of the general experience of life in its relation to God and also to speak of the “results” of those sciences which study human life – the behavioral and the psychological sciences. This form of assured “religious experience” is a major constituent in the modern approach to the Bible, in the creating of new liturgies, of the setting of agendas for synods, of the creation of new doctrines and new ethics, and the authorizations of new practices, rituals and ceremonies. Further, it has a major effect upon the publication of new versions of the Bible and of a whole assortment of religious books, cassettes, tapes and so on.

The telling of their stories of pain and joy by people involved in divorce and in remarriage, by women seeking justice in terms of job opportunities & equal treatment with men, and by homosexual persons of their finding love in a committed same-sex relationship -- to cite three examples, has been highly influential in the changing mindset of the liberal Churches of the West (even as they have followed slightly behind the changing cultural norms and expectations of western countries). Together with these personal stories of pain and joy have come a multitude of studies from sociologists and psychologists, which claim to prove that received morality and forms of human relations inherited from the Christian past are not written in stone, Rather, they are changeable and adjustable, and must be so in order to ensure the true fulfillment and good of human beings. Here again the Churches have followed a little behind the secular world in adopting this “enlightened” approach.

In this new atmosphere (roughly post 1960s) Christian leaders have come to the reading of the Bible with a new mindset. No longer do they expect to find therein doctrines which are set forth in their Confessions of Faith, their Hymnody and their Liturgies. Rather, they want to believe that the Bible is truly a book of freedom, justice, human dignity and fulfillment, peace and toleration, and that it upholds the best insights that God has been revealing to his people (they believe) through their personal experiences and through the scientific study of human experience in modern times.

So they claim to see through the heavy cultural skins and conditioning of the biblical characters and message to the true message of God to his people through all space and time. And to make things easier they authorize new translations to incorporate some of these insights – inclusive Bibles, and they create new types of biblical exegesis and hermeneutics. So the Bible which clearly forbad this or that in 1960 is now the Bible which not only allows but commends this or that now!

Put another way, the use of modern experience as providing a light or even a mindset to look at the received Christian tradition in Bible and in church worship, doctrine and practices opens up (it is held) the received tradition, inherited from the past, to new interpretations, which are themselves more in line with the assured results of modern science with respect to the nature, dignity, freedom and self-worth of modern human beings. So the new system is more credible to modern people!

It is not unreasonable to suppose that, having been thus enlightened, a duty is felt by these leaders to propagate their insights, and to move on to change the worship, the doctrines, the morality, the canon law, the ceremonies and the ethos of the Church, and to do this legally through the appropriate channels (in synods) – which they have increasingly done in the Churches of the West [e.g. the ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada acted canonically in the introductions of innovations in sexual doctrine and practice.]

Without the importing of “Experience” into the Church agenda since the 1960s, we may claim that the changes in the doctrine and life of the Churches of the West would have been minimal (even as they were between 1800 & 1850 or between 1900 and 1930, or most other earlier periods).

It would be foolish to think that the importing of “Experience” has been done only by the liberals and “revisionists”!

Consider the changes in evangelicalism in America since the 1960s, which have been vast. The divorce and remarriage rate in their ranks is as high as that of society in general and most remarriages are in church. Women have been ordained as pastors and feminist language has made its way into hymnody, liturgies, Bible translations and the exposition of doctrine. Psychotherapeutical forms of the message of salvation and sanctification are common, even dominant, in much “worship” and presentations of Christian behavior. And, even if same-sex blessings have been resisted, much of the language created by the homosexual liberation movement has been adopted – e.g., from “gay” to “orientation”!

Evangelicals in general, like Liberals and Revisionists, cannot truly claim that they hold to the full authority of Scripture for they hold to the authority of the Bible as interpreted by minds saturated with the powerful reality of modern Experience. It is not the Bible on its own terms, or on the terms of those who made official the Canon of Scripture (the Church of the Fathers of the early centuries), or even on the terms of the Reformation of the 16th century. It is the Bible which is translated, read and interpreted through the powerful lens and spectacles of modern Experience – be this in large or small measure.

Therefore, the big effort to erect barriers to prevent the arrival of the LesBiGay agenda into the evangelical churches – and into evangelical Anglicanism – will probably not succeed because the very weapons being used to keep this enemy out are the very weapons that have allowed it to make such headway already in the old-line and main-line Churches. The LesBiGay virus cannot be cured without curing first a variety of other viruses and bugs!

The Revd Dr Peter Toon March 9 2005

Bishop Ackerman elected new leader of “Forward In Faith”

Las Vegas, NV, March 4, 2005: Last week the Episcopal Church was formally reprimanded by the leaders of its member Churches at a meeting in Ireland. This week Forward In Faith, an Anglican witness to historic faith and order in the United States, has elected a new president, Bishop Keith Ackerman, a well known supporter of traditional church teaching and practice. Forward In Faith is a missionary organization to promote, ensure historic faith and order and an integral constituent of the Anglican realignment in the USA known as the Anglican Communion Network.

“We are first and foremost an organization that proclaims what the church has always proclaimed along side Christians of all ages. We are to make Christ known,” said the new leader in an interview following his election. Ackerman shared his vision of Forward In Faith leading Anglicans in North America into truth by modeling the catholic faith, with positive teaching of the faith once delivered to the saints and lived out in the lives of holy people. It is a commitment with those who “dedicated themselves to the Apostles’ teaching and fellowship, the breaking of bread, and the prayers.” We have a commitment to provide “pastoral care for those who are discourage or are unhappy with the move away from the historical biblical belief and order of the undivided Church. We have a commitment to bring the message of Jesus Christ to those who have never heard the Word of New Life and embraced the love of the God who would send His own Son to heal the broken hearted. We embrace and holdfast the unchangeable truth of Jesus Christ and welcome all people. We do it that God will be glorified!”

Keith Ackerman has been the bishop of Quincy Illinois for 10 years. He is known for his abundant energy, positive outlook, and encouragement of “timeless Christian spirituality.” His diocese is one of 11 Episcopal Church USA dioceses which has joined the Anglican Communion Network to ensure a continuing Anglican Communion presence in the United States at a time when the Episcopal Church USA appears to be walking away from its historic partnership in the third largest Christian body in the world. The new position of President coincides with the national and international work that Ackerman has been doing the past ten years. It does provide “a visible face for our discussion and participation with the Primates of the Anglican Communion, the Anglican Communion Network, and the “Continuum”. Pastoral care is at the forefront of Bishop Ackerman’s leadership in the Diocese of Quincy (Illinois).

Bishop Ackerman said, “We are committed to remaining in the worldwide Anglican Communion” which holds the Bible as a relevant moral guide for Christians today. “We are continuing and building up our relationship to the historic Canterbury, England.” The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has suggested this be actualized in the Anglican Communion Network, with the cooperation and “blessing of our brothers and sisters of worldwide Anglicanism.” While saddened by many Episcopal Church leaders choosing to walk apart from Anglican unity, Ackerman sees an opportunity for many to hear the message of the “new life of hope” so strongly proclaimed by Anglicans around the world. “We have to not only hear the Windsor Report and feel the pain the decisions of the Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada has caused to Anglicans throughout the world, we need to embrace their words that we have gone astray, repent, and return to the Lord.” Forward In Faith holds dear, in word and action, our continued status, relationship, and future as part of the Anglican Communion.”

The Forward In Faith organization has an important role in this Anglican coalition, gathering many who left the Episcopal Church when the Episcopal Church ordained an openly practicing homosexual to its leadership in 2003, but also many who left during the past three decades when historic faith has been eroding. Ackerman said, “Jesus called us all to be one in Him, and we are working together in partnership to bring together Christians who have more in common belief and practice than those that separate us. Unlike many modern dialogs which water down our belief in the Gospel, we are working at open honest discussion of our belief in God and the saving work of Jesus Christ. We are working together to bring the Christian message of life and hope to people who find that materialism and a self-focused life leaves them unfulfilled.”

Forward In Faith has been gathering Anglicans of a like understanding of historic faith and order. Together these Anglican Christians have joined in common cause as a continuing presence of the Anglican Communion in the United States at a time when the Episcopal Church (with 2 million members) has distanced itself from the worldwide church body of 78 million Christians. Forward In Faith has endorsed, supported, and thanked the worldwide leaders for their statement on unity called the Windsor Report and their statement release from Ireland last week.

Ackerman succeeds David Moyer, who was consecrated a bishop for the Traditional Anglican Communion, a member Church of Forward In Faith. Bishop Moyer will remain a member of the Forward In Faith governing body and furthering the unity of the Church both within the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Communion, the wider Anglican fellowship, and all catholic Christians.

Primates, Anglicans and the Authority and Interpretation of Holy Scripture

A discussion starter by Peter Toon

How the Scriptures are read and interpreted in a Church determines, to a large degree, what that Church believes, teaches and confesses before God and to the world. Let us look at the two ends of the spectrum in the Anglican Way.

1. In one province of the Anglican Church the reading of the Bible can lead many in that province to believe, teach and confess that a baptized Christian, who is a divorcee, may be married in church a second time; that a woman may be ordained to all three Orders of Ministry; that homosexual persons in committed, faithful partnerships may be treated as a married couples, and that God may be addressed by Proper Names that are not only not found in the Bible but are apparently forbidden therein.

In such a situation the Scriptures are seen as being God's words originally addressed to people in different ancient cultures. Further, these cultures are seen as deeply affecting the way in which the divine message is recorded. Thus the duty of the modern reader is to remove, as it were, the heavy cultural packaging (e.g., of patriarchy, or sexism, out-of-date psychology, or whatever else) and to get to the real message, the core belief. When this packaging and presentation is seen for what it is ( as time and space conditioned) then the trained eye can see both what is truly being taught and also what can be set aside or ditched. So, for example, if the text in its common sense meaning teaches that women are not to be appointed as elders, bishops and apostles, then the removal of the cultural packaging and bias can cause the text to read, it is believed, that women and men should be give equal status and opportunities and thus that a qualified woman can be ordained as a church leader. And the same reasoning makes the marriage of divorcees possible and the blessing of same-sex couples desirable. And so on.

Of course, hidden within this approach are all kinds of modern assumptions and beliefs and these vary from interpreter to interpreter and thus not all interpreters agree all the time as to what is the packaging and presentation and as these differ from the core belief or message. Further, those who read the Bible in this manner usually have a mindset that is profoundly affected by such modern ideologies as human rights and the dignity of the self (self-worth, self-realisation etc.).

Let us be clear that people holding to this kind of approach to the Bible are usually utterly sincere in their convictions and find it hard to understand why others do not see things as clearly as they see them! They often have a sense of being 'prophetic' and of blazing a trail by following of which the Church can become relevant and meaningful in western society.

2. In contrast, there are those in Anglican provinces who read the Bible in much the same way as it has been read since the sixteenth century in the major Protestant Churches. That is, while they allow for some cultural conditioning in terms of style of language, forms of dress, types of food, household slavery, debt-slavery and so on, they actually believe that the basic common sense meaning of the sacred text is the correct one. Of course, they insist that the original language is to be consulted, and other proper methods of study are to be followed; but, in the end, they believe that the clear sense of Scripture as a whole, when one part is compared with another, is the Word of God. As such it has to be put into a modern language, but this does not mean in any way that it has to be radically interpreted to teach what is apparently a meaning that is in stark contrast to the common sense one! So what Jesus taught about marriage in its basic common-sense meaning is taken as the Word of God; what the O.T. Law and the Apostle Paul taught about homosexual practices is taken as the Word of God; and what Jesus did in terms of his choice of apostles and what the Apostles did in terms of appointing elders and bishops and providing teaching about Ministry is taken as the Word of God.

Reflections:

1. The radical method of reading and interpreting the Bible can be held as a general approach and this usually results in the severe pruning of received Christian doctrine and practice. Examples of the use of such a method can be seen in not a few dioceses of the Episcopal Church of the U.S.A. where traces of traditional Anglican Christianity are hard to find.
   
2. The radical method can be held not as a general approach but with regard to one theme or one cause -- or two causes. So there are those who justify the ordination of women from Scripture (and often also the remarriage of persons in church) as they focus on specific texts and passages of the Bible and seek to remove the 'patriarchal, sexist bias' or the cultural covering from them; but then they refuse to use the method generally and so they do not accept the reality of cultural conditioning changing the common sense reading of the texts relating to homosexuality, the Naming of God and other things. Examples of this partial use of the radical method are to be found in many provinces of the Anglican Communion and very obviously in 'evangelical' groupings and very clearly in the recent Primates' Meeting.
   
3. There are a few Anglican dioceses and provinces where (as in the Roman Church and the Orthodox Churches, and in many Baptist and Presbyterian Churches) the radical method has no place, and the reading of the Bible is in general harmony with the way it has been read for centuries in terms of ordination, the naming and addressing of God, and of sexual relations.
   
4. Those who courageously defend the received Biblical teaching on sexuality and therefore oppose recent innovatory doctrines and practices, may do well to bear in mind that the same type of exegesis and interpretation that justifies the ordination of women and the remarriage of divorcees is used to justify the blessing of gay couples. Also they may care to ponder Article XX of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of the Anglican Way. For if they are to defend the position they have adopted then they need to have thought through these matters in depth and detail.
   
   

Article XX

Of the Authority of the Church

The Church hath power to decree Rites and Ceremonies, and Authority in Controversies of Faith; And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation.

The Revd Dr Peter Toon March 8 2005

Where the African Primates may have got it wrong!

A discussion starter from Peter Toon

As far as I can tell, the majority of African Archbishops believes that, in comparison with other innovations introduced into Anglican Churches since the revolutionary 1960s, the introduction of the blessing of same-sex 'committed' partnerships stands alone as a clear sign of apostasy in the Church which sanctions it. This explains why there has been an international crisis for Anglicans over the last two years or so and why that crisis continues despite the recent Primates' Meeting and advice offered from there.

I want to suggest that, while the position taken against the sanctioning of same-sex partnerships (and the ordaining of persons within them) has all the clarity of being biblical and traditional, it is in danger of providing for the Churches a false understanding of the harmony of divine revelation and the unity of dogma and doctrine in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of God.

We are all aware of how interference in an organism (an animal body) or in a man-made item (e.g., a car engine) affects the life and performance of the whole and may cause it to shut down, unless remedial action is taken.

So with revealed truth and defined, received church doctrine. When a jurisdiction or a party within the Church decides not merely to adapt gently but to change radically & quickly the received doctrine and practice of the Church, then the whole life of the Church is affected, particularly within the group that makes the change. The study of Church history can show that when a change is made in a substantial dogma or set of dogmas then other doctrines are sooner or later changed -- and the same goes with practice, e.g., the liturgy. And the sixteenth century with the arrival of Protest, leading to Protestantism, illustrates this well.

After the Reformation the Anglican Way (I would argue) painfully but eventually settled into a form of Reformed Catholic Faith and Worship, and this acquired a rounded consistency as stated by her 'standard divines' in their exposition of her Formularies (BCP, Ordinal & Articles). It could be adapted in minor ways (as when it was received in other countries and cultures than the British) but its substantial harmony of dogmas and doctrines (focused in the historic Book of Common Prayer) remained intact until the revolutionary 1960s.

Powerful centrifugal forces came into play especially in the Western/Northern provinces of the Anglican Family of Churches after 1960 and this led to such things as the slackening of rules for the marriage of divorcees in church, the creation of a stream of new liturgies, the ordination of women, the changing of 'God-language' to accommodate cultural norms and pressures, the adjusting of canon law to be in line with human rights legislation by governments and so on. Further, it lead to new ways of reading and interpreting sacred Scripture and classic dogma, ways that sought to justify the innovations.

No-one seriously today questions the statement that without these 'preliminaries' the move by majority voting in synods to endorse the recent innovations in sexual doctrine and practice in North America would not have been possible, in fact would not even have been on the agenda.

My point is that the unity of dogma/doctrine which was in place in 1960 was shaken apart by the innovations in marriage law, women's ordination, changes in the way God is addressed and named, and the absorption of human rights talk and themes. The relation of the Blessed, Holy and Undivided Trinity and of the Incarnation of the Second Person thereof to the great themes of creation, sin and redemption, with the role of the Holy Spirit in the Ministry of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, was 'disturbed' and made (since God does not impose His will) difficult, even nearly impossible.

Putting it another way, you cannot begin to allow the marriage of divorcees (in contrast to the blessing of them after civil ceremony) in church, you cannot alter the nature of the historic Ministry, and you cannot change the way that you interpret Scripture and the way you address God, without causing a major dysfunctionality or a major incoherency or a failure to work well, for you are not merely doing things at the horizontal level, but you are interfering with the divine relations from heaven to earth, from the Holy Trinity to the Church & from God to man and his salvation.

Of course you can go the whole way of apostasy -- as say American Unitarians have done -- and you will have coherency but not of a classic Christian style and type. (Is it possible that the ECUSA has already gone most of the way to apostasy?)

I offer the following for serious thought and discussion.

It may be reasonably argued that the majority of Primates fail in their evaluation of the crisis in the Anglican Family of Churches because they single out the sexual innovations as unique and as the only thing needed to be put right immediately -- as also they tend to assume that putting these right will also put right the place of the authority of sacred Scripture in the Churches. They do not give sufficient weight to the fact of the disturbance of the harmony of Revelation and received Dogma & Doctrine in the last thirty years through the actions of the synods of western churches, and without this foundation being repaired or put right, that which is built upon it cannot be put right!

Added note.

It seems that women can be ordained in Pentecostalist and Interdenominational churches without disturbing the ethos and polity. In fact apparently women can & do prosper in ministry therein. The reason for this is probably that these churches have no received dogma/doctrines and traditions to disturb or to break and so for them women in ministry are not novelties but merely the outgrowth of their modern principles and their way of reading the Bible.

The Revd Dr Peter Toon, March 7, 2005.

Are genuine regret & repentance possible?

Are genuine regret & repentance possible for a liberal Church that is in a constant state of innovation? Or is there a permanent Bondage of the Will?

a discussion starter from Peter Toon

The Communiqué of the Primates of February 24 assumes that it is possible for the North American Anglican Churches to change their ways and to undo the innovations, especially in sexual morality and practice, introduced by them after due process in recent days in their synods.

Individual Primates have added to this assumption by stating that these Churches need also to repent, and should do so, for what they have approved and what they practice, are sinful before God and offensive to the Catholic Church of God.

The internal ECUSA “Communion Network” headed by the Bishop of Pittsburgh also appears to believe that the ECUSA can change and recent legislation can be rescinded and a new way ahead forged – and so does the Essentials Movement of the Anglican Church of Canada.

In all four cases, it is assumed that there is no (to quote the title of a famous book by Luther) powerful “Bondage of the Will,” which binds the leadership and major participants in the ECUSA to their present ways, objectives and aims. (See Romans 7.)

We need to be fully aware that the history of American main-line/old-line denominations shows that once they begin to walk in the path of liberalism and of rejecting inherited patterns of worship, doctrine and discipline, they continue in this direction and do not engage in U-turns. The movement may be slowed down, a moratorium may be called for a period, but the departure from orthodoxy and orthopraxis always continue. That is, there appears to be a collective bondage of the will whereby those engaged in this movement are only able to go in one direction and one direction only – away from historic orthodoxy. This movement has been given extra fuel in modern times by absorption of the basic tenets of the human rights movement.

Reforming groups within these old-line/main-line denominations have found it necessary to leave in order to continue to stand for the worship, doctrine and discipline that they believe belongs to their tradition, as that is based upon the Bible and Reformation Confessions of Faith. Thus in the U.S.A., there is a variety of denominations of Presbyterian, Lutheran, Congregationalist, Methodist and Baptist lineage who have left their parent Church to begin all over again.

Perhaps The Network within ECUSA has not considered the facts of American denominationalism and how things work out in the supermarket of religions. Perhaps the leaders believe, on the basis of encouraging statements from Primates, that the situation will be different in the Episcopalian tradition than others and that the ECUSA will be turned around, at least sufficiently to get rid of the sexual innovations.

If it be the case, through Holy Ghost intervention breaking bondage and giving spiritual and moral freedom, that the ECUSA begins to regret and to repent, it is highly likely that genuine repentance once begun will cover much more than setting aside the sexual innovations. For, since the 1960s the ECUSA has been on a path towards apostasy.

Thus real repentance will mean a major change of mind and heart and the willingness to undo much legislation and canon law, even as the historic Formularies and genuine worship of the Father through the Son with the Holy Spirit are restored. As The Network is set within this context it too will surely also need to engage in the same repentance and accept the true basis of the Anglican Way (a basis eroded by the ECUSA since the 1960s), for at the moment The Network is committed to much of the innovations since the 1960s. (And of course this repentance is also required of the extra-mural Anglican churches which have taken the faults of ECUSA with them!)

What must be distasteful and repulsive to the angels in heaven as they behold our ways, is the totally confused and disordered state of those who, either inside the ECUSA or outside it, claim to the faithful Anglicans. The movements in 2005 towards a unified witness and front are few and their power weak in comparison with the movements towards disintegration and the creation of little jurisdictions here and there! Centrifugal forces are far stronger than Centripetal ones! This is not a good witness to the Lord who prayed for unity for His Church and to His Father with whom all things are possible that are according to His will.

The Revd Dr Peter Toon March 4, 2005


See this response to my short essay above. It is from a devout & learned R C man who used to be an Anglican priest. I certainly agree that we need a rational critique of the cult of democracy as well as of the unending agenda of "rights" within forms of democracy.
==============
Peter,

There are, I think, two related factors that powerfully contribute to the present
'bondage of the will" : the double mindedness of most Christians, and the fact that one of their two loyalties is a form of irrational fundamentalism.

The vast majority of Christians nowadays are in a situation of dual loyalty: a loyalty to the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and a loyalty to the modern experiment in Liberal Democracy. Liberal Democracy shares a key characteristic with practically every other modern ideology (e.g., Nazism and other forms of national socialism such as Baathism, or the many forms of Marxism) in that it that places ultimate sovereignty---something that properly can belong to a supreme God alone---in the "will of the People": never mind that the people, being an abstraction and not a person, cannot properly be said to have a will. Democracy has become the secular orthodoxy, deviation from which is simply not tolerated: third-world dictators nowadays at least pay lip service to it, and the Communist Chinese, the Soviet Union, and even Hitler claim or claimed their system to be "true democracy". Democracy is no longer simply a form of government as Churchill assumed---if indeed it ever was---it is the religion of the modern world, the unrestrained cult of the Liberty and Equality of the People, its various versions differing depending of which of these false gods is given greater weight and how they are defined.

Furthermore its principles are a kind of fundamentalism: that is they are "fundamentals" which are beyond question and not open to rational analysis---hence the irrational tone of much political discourse, especially, though not exclusively, on the left. Not only are Christians double-minded, but like their secular neighbors most of them are also fundamentalists when it comes to Democracy. As for repentance, if someone is not open to rational argument, then there is a serious bondage of the will, and this is further complicated when those who are calling him to repentance suffer in part from the same disease.

I would note that even the present Holy Father has on occasion fallen into this trap with regard to Democracy, though it appears that the recent assaults on the Church and marriage by the Western democracies is causing him to rethink his former endorsement of Democracy.

In order to address this problem there needs to be a two-pronged approach:

(1) a rational critique of the cult of Democracy, including an elucidation of the principles of natural justice and of a rational political philosophy, something that Roman Catholics and the Holy See (note especially Leo XIII) have in the past really taken seriously in their social teaching, and

(2) a clear elucidation of what Christianity is, cf. the Nicene Creed, and what it is not, namely a Liberal social program or a Conservative moral program.

Veniat Christus Rex!
Michael

Ugandan Archbishop commended the Communiqué but apparently had not carefully read it!

The Archbishop of Uganda was one of the five Primates who met the Media and Press in Northern Ireland on Friday February 25, to commend the joint Communiqué (which he had signed) and to explain it. I was there.

What he said (see below) at his own Press Conference in Uganda is in conflict with the actual wording of the Communiqué which he supported at the Press Conference in Ireland.

The Communiqué merely & only requests the North Americans to call a moratorium on their innovations and to cease attending the meetings of the Anglican Consultative Council. Nowhere does is speak of these innovations as sinful or of needing repentance.

Below the Archbishop states that the North American Churches were suspended as an action of the Primates. Although this is what some African Primates obviously thought they were doing, and may turn out to be what eventually happens, it was not in fact what they did in terms of law. Since the Primates’ Meeting has no authority it cannot legislate; it can only use moral suasion. And it did use moral suasion and in a very restrained manner – in Anglo-Saxon understatement perhaps!

If other African Archbishops say what this one has said publicly, then there will be growing confusion around the Anglican world and the Communiqué will be show to be what it is – an attempt by Dr Carnley of Australia and others to present what happened in the softest terms possible, Further, it will show, I fear, that the African Primates need to be much more vigilant in what is written on their behalf by scribes from the liberal western churches! Why did they not make it clear in the Communiqué what they really believed and that they are actually in broken communion with the North Americans.

3/3/2005
Statement from the Archbishop of Uganda on the Primates’ Communiqué
PRESS RELEASE

Primates Meeting In Dromantine, Northern Ireland 21–25 February 2005

This meeting of the primates was specifically called to receive the “Windsor Report”. This is a document that came as a result of the threatened breakage of the Anglican Communion following the consecration of Gene Robinson as the Bishop of New Hampshire in November 2003

Church of Uganda did not agree with the line of action taken by the Episcopal Church of America. We have disagreed with the consecration of a practicing homosexual as a leading Church leader in the Church of God. The scriptures require that anybody who takes to this office should be properly married - “A man married to one wife”.

Since September 2003, the House of Bishops took a strong stand to break our fellowship with the Episcopal Church and the Church of Canada. We refused any funding from these churches. The same decision was endorsed by the Provincial assembly in August 2004.

We see homosexual practices as unbiblical and against the teaching of the Church. Only Jesus who makes a difference to people can transform them not debates.

In our Ireland meeting the Primates suspended the Episcopal Church of America and the Canadian Church until they repent. We are committed to other members of the Episcopal Church who are orthodox in their interpretation of the scriptures and adore Jesus Christ as their savior and Lord. We continue to provide support for them because they share with us in the same mission.

I will state again our position in clear terms as follows;

· The Church of Uganda upholds the biblical position on sexuality, namely that sexual intimacy is reserved for a husband and wife in a lifelong, heterosexual, monogamous marriage. For us in Uganda we teach this without fear. For our own good the bible teaches abstinence before marriage and faithfulness in marriage. And marriage is defined as between one man and one woman.

· The Church of Uganda also supports the “1998 Lambeth Resolution” which states that, “Homosexual practice is incompatible with scripture”.

· We continue in a state of broken Communion with EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF AMERICA and CANADA because they have not repented of their actions and decisions in approving and consecrating as Bishop a man actively involved in a same-sex relationship.

· The Church of Uganda is committed to offering the gospel to those struggling with homosexuality. Jesus told the woman caught in adultery, “Go and sin no more”, not “go and sin some more”. For the North Americans Pastoral care means providing services for the blessing of same-sex unions. For us in Uganda pastoral care means leading people into the fully transformed life that Jesus promises to those who call upon his name.

· Contrary to reports coming out of North American that say, “we have more in common that we do than what divides us”, I am not convinced of that. We have a lot that divides us and we are praying that ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada will repent and rejoin Biblical Anglicanism.

We remain committed that Church of Uganda will continue to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ zealously. I am prepared to remain a preacher of this Gospel as the Archbishop of the Church of Uganda until we see Jesus changing the hearts of those who believe his word.

The Most Rev. Henry Luke Orombi

Archbishop of Church of Uganda

Jane Williams: 'The Changing Face of Women'

She must have sounded like an arch conservative in the Diocese of Los Angeles...

Go to text of speech

Needed: A Congress, but with all parties present

Often in the Psalter, as well as in the Prophets, the people of God are told not to put their trust for deliverance and help in princes, other human leaders, and human devices. They are to trust wholly in the LORD their God as his covenant people and to obey his commandments, statutes and laws, looking to him as the Deliverer.

Today Anglicans, who desire to be faithful and orthodox and are found in the ECUSA and at its perimeter, need to hear this word from above. The Primates as a body and as individuals are men, and only men, and they are not persons in whom the people of God should trust for deliverance and help. Of course, they may provide guidance and help on a small scale under God, but they are not saviors or deliverers. Further, even if they were truly saviors they have so little time and resources available to act as such and, further, they find (as they state) the many aspects and parts of the Anglican Way in the U.S.A. to be most confusing – who really speaks for Anglicans who desire to be faithful and orthodox and why are there so many bishops (100 plus on the fringes and outside ECUSA) & what is the relation of The Network to all the other Anglican groups and jurisdictions?

For the last five years and more, with Louis Tarsitano (now deceased) I called regularly in books, essays and talks/lectures for a genuine Anglican Congress for the whole of the Anglican movement in the U.S.A., which desired to form a united orthodox and dynamic witness to Anglican worship, doctrine and discipline. The point we often made was that under God and with his guidance and help, Americans should do what it takes to cleanse, reform and renew the Anglican Way in the U.S.A., create centripetal rather than centrifugal spiritual forces, work for reconciliation, unity and cooperation, so that a variety of jurisdictions becomes as one – unity without uniformity, unity in true comprehensiveness, unity based on the Scriptures and the Anglican Formularies, and unity in charity.

There have been several meetings called Congresses but these have not yet included all the claimants to the Anglican Way and thus they have not worked for the unity of all.

No Primates’ Meeting issuing a statement and no visits by Primates are truly necessary for American Anglicans to desire, to work for and to meet in Congress, and there to seek in a calm way to begin to heal their wounds, solve their problems, overcome their difficulties and resolve to work together for a united front and then move, if God wills, towards a new set of relations. A Unified Front would be a great achievement under God for in the USA supermarket of religions the different forms of Anglicanism on sale is embarrassing, to say the least.

In terms of the ECUSA, the lesson we learn from American religious history is that denominations which go down the liberal track rarely if ever do a U-turn. To expect ECUSA to reform itself and genuinely repent of its innovations since the 1960s is to expect a miracle which, while possible under God, is probably not on the list of approved miracles in the heavenly books. Perhaps The Network should look towards the Extra-Mural Anglicans for fellowship and for creating a common, united front! And vice versa!

March 3rd 2005

The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)

Primates Communiqué – further thoughts

A discussion starter only intended for serious minded people and not everywhere setting forth my personal opinions.

The Primate of the Southern Cone has described (to Canadians on the 27th Feb) the parts of the Communiqué dealing with North America as “Anglo-Saxon understatement”. He seems to have intended people to believe that the real message from Primates concerning the North American innovations is much stronger than that provided in paragraphs 12 to 19. Maybe he should have said “Australian Caucasian understatement” for the primary author of the text is Dr Carnley of Perth, Australia, who is of English descent and a noted liberal, and who places great store on the unity of the Anglican Churches.

I have shown elsewhere in a short essay that this Statement nowhere states in clear terms that active homosexual relations and the blessing of them by the church are wrong. It merely accepts that they are different from the norm and are innovatory. Certainly, in terms of what African Primates have declared over the last few months, the Communiqué does present an understatement. For they have stated that active homosexuality is sin and that the Churches of North America, encouraging this, should repent!

However, what if these paragraphs are not an understatement at all! What if, to use an expression, the bark of the Primates is worse than their bite? After all they did all approve it! There were no dissenting voices. What if it is the case that they have one message for their local synods and membership and that at the international level they have another, one that keeps in motion the flow of money and assistance from the West? What if they are trying to hang on to what help they get from the UK, Canada, USA, Australia and New Zealand by agreeing to a very mild statement in their Communiqué? What if their bark is much worse than their bite?

If this is so, then the plight of those in the USA and Canada who look to them as saviors is the more intense and pitiable! Further, those in the UK who want also to look to African Primates for relief and for the adoption of their parishes by them is also pitiable.

I cannot understand (as I reflect upon these things) why the majority of Primates did not insist that the Communiqué actually somewhere in clear terms expressed what they have been saying inside and outside their own synods over the last few months! One possibility is that they agreed to tone it down to get general agreement by all and, further, to ensure the continued flow of practical help from the West. Another is that they do not really want to get into the North American situation too deeply for they see there much division amongst the so-called orthodox and they recognize the centrifugal forces which force them further apart into new jurisdictions and groups with ever more bishops being ordained. In other words the Primates may not really want to get themselves caught up too deeply within the division of the small but strongly opinionated Anglican supermarket of groups and jurisdictions, with their differing polities and liturgies and statements of faith.

There is yet another dimension to consider. It is the usual case in North America history that denominations which go the route of liberalism and apostasy do not actually do a U-turn to return to their orthodox roots. Thus there is – on the face of it – little hope of the ECUSA doing a U-turn; further, those parts of it which claim to be orthodox and looking to the Primates for relief are themselves, at least in part, sharing in the liberalism and apostasy of the whole denomination (e.g., in their defense and use of its liberal Prayer Book of 1979 and related forms of liturgy and doctrine). The way of religion in the USA is to separate from the diseased parent and create a new denomination, but already there are a dozen or more of these bearing the Anglican name. Does the Network have a viable future within the ECUSA even if it is given special pastoral oversight privileges for its parishes?

So all in all the situation is bleak in the USA for the Anglican Way to be a united front and the possibility weak for there to be in existence in the near future a relatively united Province bearing the Anglican name and being orthodox in doctrine, discipline and worship, committed to the basic Anglican Formularies.

Maybe we shall have more light when we slow down, restrain our activism and noise, and wait patiently upon the Lord, and then come together to see whether the solution under God is actually in the USA rather than in the hands of foreign Primates!

====================
The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.)