Monday, August 30, 2004

Contending – IN ANGLICANISM -- FOR THE Faith once for all delivered

“Beloved I found it necessary to write appealing to you TO CONTEND FOR THE FAITH THAT WAS ONCE FOR ALL DELIVERED TO THE SAINTS” (Jude 3)

I invite you to meditate with me upon the advice of St Jude given long ago.

When there is a falling away from the true worship, doctrine and discipline of Christianity because of false teaching and immoral behavior then the genuine Christian leader must act. So did Jude. He found it necessary as a slave of Jesus Christ to call upon fellow Christians to be true to the Lord Jesus Christ and to God the Father, and not merely to guard but to contend for “the Faith”.

The Faith, not “a Faith”

He asserts:

  1. That there is to commend not “a Faith” but “The Faith”. There are certain facts and with these facts certain meanings that are the content of “the Faith”, which is a set of truths about God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ. The central facts and meanings are (1) the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ and his death as an Atonement for the sins of the world, and (2) the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead and his Exaltation to heaven to the right hand of the Father, as the Lord of lords, and to make intercession for his disciples, so that they are reconciled to God as his adopted children. Surrounding these facts and their meanings are of course others such as those later put together in what we call the Apostles’ Creed.

  2. That “the Faith” was delivered “once and for all”. It was not given in bits and pieces or given once and modified later. No! It was delivered as a whole unit and that once only in the history of the world. “The Faith” is the basic message and teaching of the first Apostles, which arose directly from the facts of the death, resurrection and exaltation of Jesus, the Messiah and his sending to them the Holy Spirit as the Paraclete.

  3. That the apostles proclaimed “the Faith”, and handed it over as “the living Faith” to the churches which they planted – that is, to the fellowships of consecrated believers, the saints, the baptized called to be holy and righteous as a people indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

  4. That the saints, the consecrated people of God under their elders, are to contend for “the Faith” that has been handed over to them. They are entrusted with the living Tradition, the dynamic Faith, and this they are not merely to propagate but also to defend it with all their powers. They are actively to look for opportunities presented by divine providence to engage in the struggle to defend and commend “the Faith”.

Of course, there is no separation in Jude’s mind between, on the one hand, the personal union of the believer and the whole body of Christ with the Lord Jesus Christ in faith, hope and love, and, on the other, the commitment to holding those truths that together make up “the Faith”. In calling the doctrinal truths “the Faith”, Jude is not in any way forgetting “faith” as the act of believing in and trusting the Lord Jesus Christ as the Lord, the Christ and the Saviour.

The New Testament

Over time, as we see actually happening in this Letter of Jude, “the Faith” came to be written down by other Apostles and Evangelists, in a variety of forms and contexts in what we now call the “Books of the New Testament” (of course many more letters and exhortations and treatises were written than are in the N T and there was a sifting and discerning process in the churches before the final content [canon] of the N T was agreed and fixed). So, whereas the “saints” of the congregations to whom Jude wrote had only the living Tradition, passed on and handed over by the apostles to them, we today have the written Canon of the New Testament.

Contending today in Anglicanism for “the Faith” that was once delivered means defending, explaining and propagating the basic message and content of the books that make up the New Testament (against of course the background of the Old Testament). In general western Anglicans are ignorant of the content of the Scriptures and so this contending may require, in fact does require, first of all an encouragement to Anglicans really and truly to get to know what is inside the covers of the N T.

Further, the Early Church, which did the sifting of the variety of documents to come up with the final List, the Canon of the N T, had by this time produced its own summary of the central core of “the Faith” in what we call “Creeds”. Of these the two that have stood the test of time and are still much used are The Apostles’ Creed (once the baptismal Creed in the church of Rome) and The Nicene Creed (approved by the Council of Constantinople in 381).

Therefore, today, the Christian who reads the Bible to learn “the Faith” is greatly helped by knowing already “the Creed” and this knowledge serves as a kind of basic skeleton on which to hang the further details learned from the content of the N T. In fact to begin with the Creed in the mind helps the reader and student of the N T to keep to the facts and to avoid majoring on minors (e.g., getting caught up in speculation as to the details of the Second Coming or of the destiny of the nation of Israel).

Enter dogma

However, in using the Nicene Creed in approaching the reading and the study of the New Testament, the Christian becomes aware of a new reality in this Creed, which is not in the Apostles’ Creed and which is hardly there, if at all, in the N T. This is the use of the Greek [philosophical] technique of answering questions through the use of what is usually called “ontology”, the getting behind and below the common sense use of language and thought. In the description of Jesus Christ in the Nicene Creed there occurs a phrase, which is one of the most important theological statements ever made by the Church. It is in Greek - homoousion to patri, and in Latin - omousion patri. The traditional English translation is “of the same [identical] substance as the Father” or “consubstantial with the Father” [consubstantialem Patri]. That is, Jesus Christ in his divine nature possesses the very same, the identical, Being, Deity, Godhead or Divinity as does the Father himself. Therefore, he is really and truly “God” as is the Father; thus Jesus Christ is “very God of very God”.

Once the Church, at the Ecumenical Council of Nicea (325) and confirmed in later Councils, had introduced dogma (as we now call it) into its Creed, it had taken a step which could not be reversed. In order to contend for the Faith, and especially to contend for the truth concerning the real identity of Jesus as the Christ, the Church had to use – not Greek philosophy as such – but the well established and tried Greek technique of stating truth and answering questions using ontology. Thus what is called “the homoousion” became part of “the Faith” and the Church mastered the art of speaking and writing not only in the common sense mode but also, when required, in the specialist mode, and it required all God’s children to try appreciate this from the fourth century onwards, for it was in the Creed.

Contending today

Thus today in contending for the Faith in the secularist West and in a religious situation where “dumbing down” and attempts to be “relevant” are the order of the day, church leaders and committed members have to seek to know thoroughly not only the common sense kind of language and thought-forms of the N T but also the added reality of the nature of dogma (concerning especially [a] the Identity of Christ Jesus as the Incarnate Son and [b] the One God being The Trinity of Persons – for which for illuminating clarity see the Third Creed, the Western Quicunque Vult or Athanasian Creed).

Regrettably, and something not fully grasped by some of those who heartily desire to contend for “the Faith” once handed over, is that today the task is made the more difficult because of the abundance of versions of the Bible, versions based upon the post 1960s theory of “dynamic equivalency”. By this theory the supposed needs of the modern situation can so easily dictate to a large extent what the original text is held to state! To be safe, we need the Greek text and also we need to stay with the traditional versions which use the older way of translation, the essentially literal approach, so that we get at what was actually written for our instruction.

Further, for Anglicans in the West, the situation in which to content for “the Faith” is even worse because much of the material in their post 1960s Prayer Books is also taken from sources which have also employed the theory of dynamic equivalency as well as the theory of inclusive language, together with aspects of modern liberal theology. Thus everything in these Books and Booklets has to be tested before it can be used in defense of “the Faith” since to use it – as it is in its raw state – is to risk commending “a Faith”.

So, tragically, we have to record a situation all over the West where modern Anglicans, who call themselves “orthodox”, and who think that they are doing what St Jude called us to do; are, in fact, doing nearly the opposite. Why? Because in using inadequate versions of the Bible and of Liturgy they are sincerely defending “a Faith” rather than “the Faith” Let it be crystal clear, I do not say that they do not have a living belief and trust in God the Father through our Lord Jesus Christ. By grace they do so and often an exemplary one. I speak only of their relation to “the Faith” as a body of living truth that is handed on from generation to generation within the One Body of Christ.

Perhaps, in this context, the value of knowledge and use of the classic Anglican Formularies, and the writings of the standard Anglican divines (wherein “the Faith” is presented in traditional style and language) can be appreciated in the struggle for true worship, doctrine and discipline for today – and appreciated even by those who believe that the use of modern language is necessary in order rightly to content for “the Faith” once delivered to the saints.

August 30, 2004 The Rev’d Dr Peter Toon

Sunday, August 29, 2004

A Return to the Female Biblical Role

Mary Ellen Bork on God's Call to Modern Women

McLEAN, Virginia, AUG. 22, 2004 ( A recent Vatican document criticized the "distortions" and "lethal effects" of feminism, calling for "active collaboration between the sexes" and the "authentic advancement of women."

Mary Ellen Bork couldn't agree more.

The writer, lecturer and wife of retired federal judge Robert Bork shared with ZENIT the need for modern women to reclaim their God-given role in society, and to reject the defective anthropology and misguided ideas of feminism.

Q: Why do you encourage women to embrace a more traditional, biblical role in the secular age?

Bork: Radical feminists and others have denigrated the traditional roles of women as partner, wife and mother in their effort to promote women as individuals whose fulfillment is to be found almost exclusively in the workplace.

Most women are trying to find a balance between responsibilities to family and children and using their gifts in the workplace. They will be happier if they have a conscious appreciation of their irreplaceable role as feminine persons with a special gift for affirming the life of other persons. Women need encouragement from other Christian women and the support of a Church that needs to be better versed in theology of the body.

As Pope John Paul II has taught, women have a key role in returning dignity to the sacrament of marriage and in preserving a culture that is worthy of the human person. These enormously important cultural tasks can be better served by women who are well formed in Christian values and well informed about the cultural battles in the policy arena.

It is as if women hold in their hands the threads that form the basic fabric of society and their efforts to weave these together in a unity will result in a stronger fabric that can resist the centrifugal pull of the culture.

The key to helping women of faith today is to help them to deepen their appreciation of their feminine gifts and their impact on society. Without their gifts the world will be a cold and uncivilized place. Without their specific gifts society will lose its balance because it will lack the cultural environment in which persons thrive best.

The Holy Father has often said the deepest cultural crisis today is the human person, understanding how to live and what life means. Many have settled for a superficial answer to the meaning of life through ignorance and confusion about their sexuality and the spiritual dimension of life.

Women of faith can find support in many new movements in the Church, especially the theology of the body. I want to encourage them to understand their unique dignity and to not be swayed by the cultural pressures that would rob them of a deeply feminine experience of life.

Q: How does the U.S. culture in particular challenge women who want to pursue holiness?

Bork: Our culture is super-affluent, highly technical, wired, secular, over-sexed and in a hurry. It is also generous, tolerant, religious and open.

We have to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves to find the path to holiness in this "slough of despond." One basic challenge is the fallacy that we can go it alone, either in our personal or spiritual lives.

Women need a sense of community with others. Spiritual discussion groups and Bible study groups help to overcome a sense of isolation and alienation from the culture. They can also learn how other women balance the pressures of work and family.

A few people gathered in his name to pray and discuss spiritual classics gives breathing space for reflection and prayer with like-minded people. This experience creates a cultural support for a serious pursuit of holiness.

Q: At a time when women have moved into the mainstream of public life, are there any special pressures on them to conform to the wider society?

Bork: There is a lot of cultural pressure to be politically correct and therefore to hold popular positions on moral and social issues, such as abortion as a woman's choice and gay marriage as a fundamental right.

Myrna Blythe, former editor of the Ladies' Home Journal, has written a book explaining the pressure she experienced in the New York publishing world to conform to the liberal ideas of her "spin sisters." She, a successful businesswoman, was ostracized from social gatherings and made to feel an outcast for not agreeing with the accepted liberal creed.

Catholic women of faith will find the same social pressures as they advance in professional circles. They to be single-minded in their conviction that they are bringing their values into the workplace with a feminine presence that can make a real difference. In this environment it is possible to grow in virtue on a daily basis, virtues such as courage, prudence and patience as we face often well-nuanced social pressures. Getting together with a group of like-minded women with whom they can reflect on their cultural experience can be a balm to the soul.

Q: What do you think of the pro-abortion march in Washington, D.C., last spring? How do such publicized displays affect women's perceptions of their role?

Bork: Marches, conventions and dinners promoting and honoring the politically correct views are a way of life in Washington. These displays are intended to bolster the egos and the positions of secular feminists and the cultural left. The presence of Hollywood stars adds glamour and buzz to these events.

The national media cover these events widely to the point that many women could think that everyone accepts these ideas. The dominant culture is very liberal and puts in the shadows, so to speak, those who hold more biblical views.

Women of faith are in a defensive position. Using the sports analogy, we need to live offensively in the sense of understanding cultural pressures, and choosing to actively live our faith and seek ways to use our feminine gifts. We must be prepared, have a good strategy, and go forward fearlessly.

It is an art to speak the truth both to those who do not agree with us as well as to our sisters and friends who are in need of encouragement and support. We know there is no one path for all women and that women who affirm life in all forms present a very attractive face to those who are seeking the truth.

Q: It seems many women are encouraged to support abortion and are told that you can't be pro-life and "pro-woman." Do you see many resisting this mentality?

Bork: Yes. Polls show that many younger women are rejecting abortion and want to see more restrictions on this death-dealing practice. Science is on the side of pro-lifers in such things as the refinements of ultrasound and the detailed pictures of children in the womb. Many women are affirming their own instinctive love of children and are remaining true to this most basic feminine gift.

But science and facts will not stop those cultural leaders with an agenda to promote abortion and sexual license. They have accepted a lie and made it the center of their movement which is now protected by the mantle of the Constitution. But people with any degree of open-mindedness can be led by the visual argument of these pictures to see that life begins at conception. They can be persuaded by women confident of their own femininity.

They need to then make the connection that the woman is the first home of the child and that there is nothing more womanly than having children as the fruit of the marriage relationship.

Q: What steps can women take to reclaim and fortify their special role?

Bork: C.S. Lewis said in his book "Mere Christianity": "If you read history, you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were just those who thought most of the next." Women need to be spiritually alive and develop their capacity for friendship with a wide variety of people. This will enable them to be people who affirm others who may have a different life experience than theirs.

And they must be intellectually well grounded in their faith and able to "give reasons for the faith that is in them." The ability to affirm people in what is good and lead them to the truth is an essential culture-forming role that women can handle very well.

Q: What is the significance of the Vatican recently releasing "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World"? Why is the document necessary in order to correctly understand the authentic advancement of women?

Bork: This concise statement addressed to the bishops reaffirms with precision the vision of human life given in sacred Scripture that is under attack by secular liberalism in advanced Western societies. The letter is not responding to our cultural situation but is setting out a clear statement of the anthropology that must be vigorously affirmed and explained now that it is under attack.

The letter argues that the truth that man and woman are co-equal and that sex differences are part of God's original design for the human person. Cultural trends seeking to wipe out sexual difference in the name of radical equality and experiments in polymorphous sexuality deny God's revelation and can only lead to great personal unhappiness.

The very language of the story of salvation in both the Old and New Testament uses the language of a covenant between bride and bridegroom. Far from being a poetic touch, this language reflects god's plan for human beings and the ordering of society.

The letter envisions femininity, renewed by spiritual life, as a dynamic active gift essential to family, society and the Church. What the Pope calls "the feminine genius" is a gift of openness to another person, the opposite of a self-centered focus on "my rights."

The Church does not hold up "an outdated conception of femininity" but promotes a dynamic and active presence to human persons and encourages women to use these gifts to preserve the family and bring about a more humane society.

Some commentators think talking about feminine presence is not a serious discussion of women's gifts. They do not adequately understand the role of Mary, the epitome of feminine reality and presence in the church. She is a self-sacrificing person, capable of discerning the face of Christ, capable of living the spiritual inheritance of the Church. The Church in America, still suffering from the damage done by the sex scandals, especially diminishing trust, could use a strong feminine presence of some kind to restore trust and a sense of harmony in the community that has been deeply disturbed.

The advancement of women, a legitimate modern priority, is proceeding in some circles with a defective anthropology, one that sees human nature as malleable and sex differences as unimportant. Women and men are seeking the same power and the same functions and are less attuned to real sexual differences, denying the need for feminine gifts and redefining human sexuality by claiming that homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality. This path leads to destruction.

True advancement of women must be based on the truth about the human person and human sexuality. We need more expositions like this letter to clarify the nature of feminine gifts so that we never take them for granted.

Saturday, August 28, 2004

ADOPTION – ecclesial, Anglican style

Fatherly Bonds between Africa and America

There is a growing trend amongst conservative evangelical and charismatic (and even anglo-catholic) ECUSA and ACC (Anglican Church of Canada) congregations. It is to declare themselves “fatherless” and looking for an adoptive father in Africa who has a black face – looking for an African bishop or archbishop as a “father in God” who is in a province that is part of the Anglican Communion.

Several African bishops seem happy to take on this role as father of mostly white children and in doing so they have caused distress in the House of Bishops of the ECUSA and of the ACC. Emphasizing the Anglican Primates' agreement that "bishops are to respect the boundaries of one another's dioceses and provinces," the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA, Frank T Griswold, recently sent a letter of concern to the Archbishop of the Church of the Province of Uganda, Henry L Orombi, after a third Southern California congregation recently aligned with the Ugandan Diocese of Luweero. Presiding Bishop Griswold also issued the following statement to the media:

"I am saddened by the action of clergy and members of three congregations in
the Diocese of Los Angeles and their desire to separate themselves from the
life of the Episcopal Church. I know how assiduously Bishop Bruno has sought
to be a minister of reconciliation and a pastor to those of all views within
the life of the Diocese of Los Angeles and its 147 diverse congregations.

"I have written to the Archbishop of the Church of the Province of Uganda
expressing my concern that he claims jurisdiction within the boundaries of the
Episcopal Church. The bishops of the Anglican Communion and the Primates in
their statement of last October have made it clear that bishops are to respect
the boundaries of one another'sdioceses and provinces. Living in communion with
one another involves not only the sharing of a common faith in the Risen Lord
but how we treat and respect one another in the Body of Christ."

Technically, Griswold is right. The African bishops of Uganda and elsewhere are breaking the rules and this is especially poignant since the Archbishop’s Commission looking into the sexuality crisis has not yet reported (due October 04). Why could they not wait until November?, it is being asked.

The African bishops justify their action, apparently, on the basis that the ECUSA in general, and specific bishops in the USA and Canada in particular, are encouraging the blessing of gay partners and ordaining persons in gay commitments. And this itself is against the Bible and against agreements at the Lambeth Conference and in the Primates’ Meetings. The promotion of the Gay agenda locally in the USA or Canada leads to a conservative parish in Los Angeles or Vancouver breaking with its local bishop and becoming “fatherless”; and then it looks for “a father in God” from those who are the most outspoken against the LesBiGay agenda of the ECUSA and the ACC, the African bishops of Africa but north of South Africa.


1. This looking for an adoptive Father in God from Africa will probably continue and if the Archbishop’s Commission (as is expected) says little that is truly practically realistic and helpful, then it will cease to be a few and will become many parishes.

2. We are surely to believe that this Adoption is not permanent but is more like Fostering. Let us think of the African bishops as foster fathers to these congregations, and being so until they find a way in the not too far distant future to integrate into some genuine Anglican diocese in North America with its own local bishop.

3. We have to view this development with some concerns and I list several of them below.

First, the Anglican scene in the USA and Canada is being controlled more and
more by centrifugal forces as it is becomes more divided. There are few
genuinely centripetal forces at work to bring reconciliation, cooperation and
commonality. We can all agree that individual congregations with bishops far
away is not an ideal situation.

Secondly – and here I hope not to be misunderstood – the African bishops are terrific on such themes as biblical authority, evangelization, church extension, joyful service and opposition to active homosexuality. In fact, they tend to see homosexuality as so wrong that anyone who like them opposes it is a friend, whatever his actual views on the Trinity, the Incarnation, Grace and Salvation.
In general, the bishops so point to the Bible that they take for granted that the Prayer Book being used in any Anglican dioceses is fine (the reason for this is that their background is the use of the classic BCP 1662 in English or in a local African language). Thus they see the title “BCP” on the ECUSA Prayer Book and they assume it is doctrinally in accord with the classic BCP of 1662. How wrong they are! They do not realize that this American book has all kinds of deficiencies in terms of
what may be called historic Anglican standards of doctrine of God, Christ and
Salvation (see further Tarsitano & Toon, Neither Orthodoxy nor Formulary.
The 1979 Liturgy , from 1-800-727-1928 or ). The African bishops do not seem to be aware just how much the ECUSA was infected with heresy and error before the homosexual agenda prevailed in 2003.

Thirdly – and here I hope once again not be misunderstood – the African
bishops do not realize (and I suspect do not really want to know) just how
deeply the divorce culture has affected even the “conservative congregations” in
North America and also that the clergy serving them are in the same boat. If
they did they would surely call for some obvious moves to turn this around and
to set the churches on a more wholesome view and practice of sexual relations.
Further, they do not seem to see the connection between the presence of the
divorce culture as a preparing of the way for the entrance of the LesBiGay

Fourthly, there is an over-use of the word “orthodox” used by
the conservatives of their own position in opposition to the local ECUSA or ACC
bishop. They would be better using the word “conservative” for, as I have sought
to demonstrate elsewhere, neither the ECUSA 1979 Prayer Book nor the Canadian
BAS of 1985 are by classical standards “orthodox” and in general the
conservative congregations use these books for their worship and as their
standards of doctrine. Opposing the LesBiGay agenda makes one a conservative not
necessarily an orthodox churchman!

Let us all pray that in God’s providence there will come out of the present huge mess of Anglicanism in North America a unified witness. Happily there are sanctified souls in all of the fragmented parts praying for the revelation of the glory of the Lord and unity in his Name and for his sake.

Let us pray specifically that the Archbishop’s Commission will at this late hour be given heavenly wisdom to offer practical solutions based upon sound principles and which honor the Lord our God.

The Rev’d Dr Peter Toon August 28 2004

Irish Prayer Book and the Church Times Poll August 20th

right reason prevailed! Let us hope the Irish take note.

Click on "Question of the Week", then "See previous weeks' Questions and Answers". The following is displayed:

On 20 August 2004 we asked you

"Were the Irish right to name their new prayer book the BCP?"
The results were:
Yes: 200(35%)
No: 366(65%)
Total: 566

thank you

The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.),
Christ Church, Biddulph Moor & St Anne's, Brown Edge

Friday, August 27, 2004

On the Hierarchy of Truth

Majoring on Minors?
Are all Christian truths equal?
Are all the parts of the whole counsel of God relevant?

Because of the imperfection of man, and specifically because of the presence of inbred sin, one tendency of Christian man -- that is man in the divine process of being sanctified by the Holy Ghost in the church on earth -- is to major on minors, to get things out of perspective in terms of what is Christian truth.

Of this the most glaring examples at present in the North American Anglican scene, are, (a) those evangelicals and charismatics who identify the approval of homosexual partnerships as the major ecclesial sin and the ideal of one man and one woman in matrimony as the major Christian truth in terms of identifying “orthodoxy”; and (b) those anglo-catholics who identify the ordination of women as the major ecclesial sin and an all-male Ministry as the major Christian truth in identifying “orthodoxy”.

Now the truth of Holy Matrimony (see the excellent Preface to the service in the BCP 1662, Canada 1962, but regrettably missing from the BCP 1928 of PECUSA) and the truth of Holy Order (see the Ordinal in the BCP of 1662, 1962 & 1928) are important truths. However, in the hierarchy of truths they are surely not at the top, that is not first. They are subordinate truths (using subordinate in its classic meaning).

To know what is at the top we look at the Three Creeds, identified in The Thirty-Nine Articles (Article VIII), as the Apostles’, The Nicene & The Athanasian (regrettably the latter is not in the 1928 BCP). There we learn that the truth of God as The Holy Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, Three Persons one God, a Unity in Trinity and a Trinity in Unity, is primary. And with this primary doctrine goes the truth of the Incarnation, the only-begotten Son of the Father made known in two natures, divine and human. And from these flow the doctrines of Revelation, Creation, Redemption and Judgement, God in action towards his universe and his people.

Out of these truths concerning what is called the Economic Trinity (God-as-he-is-towards us in Revelation, Creation…etc.) come the further truths of Holy Matrimony and Holy Order. In fact, there cannot be the truth of Matrimony until the Truth of the Holy Trinity is known and received, and the same Trinity as the Creator of man in his own image and as male and female is known. And, there cannot be the truth of Order until the Incarnation is known and received, and further the relation of the Incarnate One, the Lord Jesus Christ, to his Bride, the Church, is understood and experienced.

To say that there is an hierarchy of Truth, that is truths in divine order, is not to say that some are less important than others for all truth is inter-related and is of God, who is absolute, eternal and infinite Truth. It is rather to say that there is a first and a second, that is, there is an order, and the second and the third in order cannot be understood without the knowledge of the first, and so on.

So, as the Creeds, and particularly The Athanasian Creed (Quicunque Vult) make clear, what the Church must believe, teach and confess as of first priority is the glorious Reality of the One God who is Three Persons and the further glorious Incarnation of the Second Person of the Blessed, Holy and Undivided Trinity. From these two Truths all other truths follow, and all are important and necessary for the mature Christian to receive, believe and obey.

Therefore, errors, especially deliberate ones, in stating the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation that are regrettably found in modern creeds, liturgies, hymns, choruses prayers and even statements of official Anglican commissions and bodies (as these are composed to be simple or politically correct or even out of ignorance) are a most serious matter, for they undermine the whole hierarchy of truth and affect what is seen as truth lower down the hierarchy. The whole spectrum of Christian truth is affected when there is error in the cardinal statement of the doctrines of the Trinity & The Incarnation (with the related truths of creation, revelation, salvation and judgement). This assertion can be verified by a study of the writings of the leading thinkers in the feminist and lesbigay movements for example for apparently none of them are classically orthodox in their doctrine of God and of Christ Jesus.

In one sentence, Jesus Christ is the TRUTH and he is so because he is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, made known in his divine and human natures, for us and for our salvation.

In order to confess God’s truths in the lower part of the hierarchy it is necessary to confess rightly the truths that come first in order!

I strongly recommend a prayerful study of The Athanasian Creed along with a biblical study of the word “truth” as it occurs in the Gospels and Epistles of John.

[for The Athanasian Creed see the articles in The Mandate for September 04 available on line at and by phone from 1 800 727 1928.]

P.S. I have pointed out the errors concerning the doctrine of the Trinity and the use made of it in recent, oft-quoted official Anglican documents in chapter 4 of my Reforming Forwards, recently published in London and available from

The Rev’d Dr Peter Toon August 26 2004

From Los Angeles to Uganda!

Slowly but surely congregations leave the Episcopal Church in search of overseas bishops whom they believe to be "sound" in doctrine and morality. The ECUSA is in a centrifugal disarray. --P.T.
A statement from the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno,
Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles
August 24, 2004

This morning, the rector and senior warden of St. David’s Episcopal Church, North Hollywood, hand-delivered to me a letter similar to those issued to me on August 17 by St. James’ Church, Newport Beach, and All Saints’ Church, Long Beach. The text of that letter follows:

This is to inform you that the Rector, Wardens and Vestrymen of St. David’s
Parish in North Hollywood, California by vote of its vestry and members has
disassociated itself from the Episcopal Church in the United States of America,
and the Diocese of Los Angeles, and has aligned itself with the Diocese of
Luweero, Anglican Province of Uganda. The Rt. Rev. Evans M. Kisekka of the
Diocese of Luweero had also accepted The Rev. Jose A. Poch under his
ecclesiastical authority.

We have delivered this letter to you personally in order to honor you by
having you learn of these actions from us instead of from any other
[Signed by] The Rev. Jose Poch, Rector, St. David’s Church
[Signed by] Primi Esparza, Senior Warden, St. David’s Church

As with the Long Beach and Newport Beach congregations, I have worked hard in the past for reconciliation with this parish. It was one of four to which I offered pastoral oversight by an Episcopal bishop with whom they are in agreement. The Rev. William Thompson, rector of All Saints’, Long Beach, declined that offer two weeks ago on behalf of all four parishes, and assured me of their continued loyalty to me and to this diocese.

The Rev. Jose Poch, rector of St. David’s, has been temporarily inhibited from exercising the ministry of a priest. I have offered him and the people of St. David’s Church the opportunity to rescind this decision and be reconciled to me, to the Diocese, and to the Episcopal Church.
J. Jon Bruno
Bishop of Los Angeles

Tuesday, August 24, 2004

Centrifugal forces in America and the Archbishop of Uganda

Here is a significant Message from the Archbishop of Uganda. Please read and then move on to read my comments at the end.

ACNS 3873
Statement from the Archbishop of the Church of the Province of Uganda

The Rt Revd Evans Kisekka, the Bishop of Luweero Diocese, has my full blessing and support in receiving the clergy from St James Church, Newport Beach, and All Saints' Church, Long Beach, California, USA. These clergy are canonically resident in the Luweero Diocese and are priests and deacons in good standing of the Church of Uganda. On 20 November 2003, the House of Bishops of the Church of the Province of Uganda (Anglican) made the following resolutions:

"The Church of the Province of Uganda (Anglican) cuts her relationship and Communion with the Episcopal Church of the United States of America(ECUSA) on their resolution and consequent action of consecrating and enthroning an openly confessed homosexual Gene Robinson as the Bishop of New Hampshire Diocese in the Anglican Communion; and with any other Province that shall follow suit."

"Mindful of the fact that there are a number of dioceses, parishes and congregations in the ECUSA, which are opposed to the resolution and action taken by their convention and are determined to remain faithful to the teaching of scripture on human sexuality, to those dear brothers and sisters, we extend our solidarity with them and assure them of our continued prayers.

"We have recently concluded the 17th Provincial Assembly of the Province of the Church of Uganda. During that meeting, the assembly affirmed the House of Bishops' stance of broken communion with the ECUSA, and at the same time declared its commitment to, support for, and communion with clergy and parishes of the Anglican Communion Network who seek to uphold biblical orthodoxy and the faith once delivered to the saints. We condemn any attempt on the part of the ECUSA Bishop of Los Angeles to depose our clergy serving at St James Church, Newport Beach, and All Saints' Church, Long Beach. He has no jurisdiction over them, and we will not recognise his actions. Furthermore, we appeal to other provinces within the Anglican Communion to recognise our clergy as priests
and deacons in good standing.

We are grieved by the continued unbiblical actions of the leadership of ECUSA that has led to its separation from the majority of the Anglican Communion. We especially note that the Bishop of Los Angeles recently presided at the blessing of a same-sex union of one of his priests.

We pray for his repentance - and the repentance of all the ECUSA leadershipwho
voted for the consecration of a man in an active homosexual relationship as bishop of New Hampshire - and their return to the historic faith and communion of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

The Most Revd Henry Luke Orombi

Archbishop of the Church of the Province of Uganda

More information on the Church of the Province of Uganda click here:


The reception by a diocese in Uganda of clergy from two parishes of the Diocese of Los Angeles in the ECUSA is the continuation of a growing involvement over the recent past of Bishops from Africa, Asia and South America in the American & Canadian Anglican scene.

What we now see is both the Anglican Mission in America, sponsored by the Archbishops of S E Asia and Rwanda, and the adoption of clergy and parishes in various parts of the USA and British Columbia by overseas Bishops.
Some would say that the ECUSA is beginning to disintegrate, not through the work of The Network, but by the gradual intervention of more and more overseas Primates. Parishes formerly of ECUSA and Anglican Church of Canada are now under the oversight of at least 6 Primates, Rwanda, S E Asia, Southern Cone, Nigeria, Uganda, Central Africa, and Kenya .

AND, if the forthcoming Report from the Archbishop’s Commission chaired by Archbishop Eames and due in October 04 has little or no effect and impact in terms of creating hope, it is probable that the number of American & Canadian parishes flying to overseas Primates for succour will increase rapidly. This will mark the real movement of change, rather than the formation and work of The Network, which is designed to preserve the ECUSA basically as is but without the homosexual agenda. Likewise in Canada, Essentials may also be left on the side-line if and when parishes also look for salvation from abroad.

If The Network and The Essentials are able to draw all genuine Anglicans together and provide pastoral support for those in distress then we could believe that centripetal spiritual forces are dominant in North American Anglicanism. However, it is apparent that right now the dominant movement is not to unite but to disperse, since centrifugal forces of various kinds are pulling Anglicanism apart. The radical liberals seem to be going in much the same way together; the indifferent seem to be wanting to stand still; but, those who see themselves as sound [orthodox] Anglicans are being pulled apart from each other and the center in many different ways – note the presence of AMiA, REC, the various Continuing Anglican Jurisdictions, the moves to foreign Primates and so on.

Perhaps too many well-intentioned people are thinking too much about their own little patch and of their own small jurisdiction or group and thinking (and praying) too little for the whole and for its being united in truth and love!

The Revd Dr Peter Toon August 24, 2004

Queen Elizabeth II and the Church of Ireland in Ulster.

When is a Book of Common Prayer not the Book of Common Prayer?
Will the Synod of the Church of Ireland undo the wrong it has done?

From Friday August 20 to Thursday August 26 the Church Times of London conducted an opinion poll on its website – -- as to whether a Prayer Book called “The Book of Common Prayer” by the Synod of the Church of Ireland should actually be called by the ancient and hallowed title, The Book of Common Prayer. I urged people to vote “no”!

The reason for this poll, and more-so the story behind it, has been, I think, a series of articles I have written and which have come into the hands of senior Irish clergy as well as certain journalists. These articles appeared originally in the Journal of the English Prayer Book Society and in the Mandate of the Prayer Book Society of the USA in 2004, and one was circulated in Ireland in June/July by the Evangelical Fellowship of the Church of Ireland. Also the articles have been on web-sites and in e-mail circuits.

The point of the articles was to state clearly that the Church of Ireland had committed a serious error in calling its latest Prayer Book by the title, The Book of Common Prayer.

Following the example of The Episcopal Church of the United States in 1979, The Church in Wales in 1984, and The Church in the West Indies in 1995, The Church of Ireland decided to call its new Prayer Book, which is most certainly not in the style or structure of historic editions of The Book of Common Prayer, by this ancient, hallowed and historic title. In England in 2000 a bigger but similar book was entitled Common Worship in order clearly to distinguish it from The Book of Common Prayer. So the Irish Synod knew what it was doing and did what it did very deliberately – which of course increases the depth and scope of its error.

The claimed right in recent times of an Anglican Synod in its autonomy to do its own thing, without regard to any sense of respect for history, custom, truthfulness and relation to other Provinces, is an indication of the breaking-up of the Anglican Communion and its moral demise in the West. Let it not be forgotten that the assertion of the right to do what it will by a Synod has also occurred in other significant areas of church life in recent times -- from the ordaining of women as priests and bishops to the ordaining of active homosexual persons to the sacred Ministry and to the introduction of Lay Celebration at the Eucharist. In fact, though the Anglican Family of 38 Churches is called The Anglican Communion of Churches, individual provinces have been showing little respect for inter-dependency and mutual accountability in recent times.

And, to make matters worse for Ireland, it is their Primate who has been given TWICE the task of chairing a commission of the Archbishop of Canterbury to bring order and peace to the Communion – over women priests/bishops in the 1980s and in 2004/4 over “gay” ordinations. Surely Archbishop Eames knew that his Synod was in error in what it did with this Prayer Book for in the Reports name for him there are exhortations to synods to act in Christian truth and charity!

In the case of The Book of Common Prayer (first edition 1549) it has always had a special character, style and content, even though it has been through various editions in England, then in other countries in the British Isles and then in places like Canada and the U.S.A. In its English-language editions, it has always only been in traditional language, only had one service for each sacrament or occasion, always printed in full the Collect with the Eucharistic Lectionary for Sundays and Feasts, and always borne the character of its origins in 1549-1552. Certainly the Canadian edition is not exactly the same as the American or the first Irish edition in the 19th century, but it is obvious that the various editions all belong to one family and are in fact editions of One book.

If we were dealing with products for sale in the supermarket, then most certainly there would have been lawsuits on behalf of the classic editions of The Book of Common Prayer claiming that what was being sold by the same name is a different even though related product, which is better called “A Book of Alternative Services” or the like. It would have been argued that the taking of the title was not merely co-opting but was an act of piracy!

In the case of Ireland, it may be suggested that, had the whole of the Church of Ireland been in Ulster (where most of its membership actually is), then the Synod would not even have contemplated using such an ancient and hallowed a title for its latest Prayer Book. Why? Because of Queen Elizabeth II, and because Ulster Protestants have always claimed to be her most loyal subjects. In the United Kingdom the Monarch has a unique relation to The Book of Common Prayer because of the Establishment of the Church of England, and this Book is part of the Establishment. Further, the Monarch and the heir to the throne love to use it in their Royal Chapels.

The Synod of the Church of Ireland ought to repent! It ought to begin the necessary and tedious business of undoing what it has done and of re-establishing an authentic edition of The Book of Common Prayer, as its true Formulary, and calling the present so-called BCP by another name. An example of the right use of autonomy by a provincial synod needs to be set for the whole Communion to see!

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

Canadian Anglicans do not need to insist they are orthodox!

In a Statement issued today (August 23rd) the Essentials Council of Canadian Anglicanism speaks clearly and wisely of the forthcoming Conference (August 30). Let us pray fervently and often to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ for the Council in its leadership role.

In referring of those attending the Conference the Statement uses the word “orthodox” or “orthodoxy” many times. The impression is perhaps given that there is an obsession with “orthodoxy”.

I would suggest to the Council and participants that they cease forthwith to use the word “orthodox” and “orthodoxy” except on rare occasions. Leave the word for the “Orthodox Churches” of the East for the time being!

Certainly, I am fully aware, that objectively speaking the constitutional position of the Anglican Church of Canada is that of orthodox, of right doctrine. The commitment to the Scriptures, the Three Creeds, the classic Book of Common Prayer and Ordinal, as well as to The Thirty-Nine Articles is -- in terms of objective statement -- a statement of orthodoxy, that is of right doctrine which is expressed both doxologically and also in a propositionally correct way. (It is great that the Council has stated its commitment to the Solemn Declaration, a most important landmark in Canadian history.)

The word “orthodoxy” is not used in the classic Formularies of the Anglican Way, and in modern times it has lost its original corporate meaning in terms of the commitment by a church to a true and right standard of worship and doctrine. Further, and regrettably, it has been used recently and extensively by members of The Network in the USA and by the Anglican Mainstream in Britain – as well as by folk in Essentials - in a way that suggests that anyone who opposes the homosexual agenda and is allied with the evangelical or charismatic cause is “orthodox”. In other words, “orthodoxy” has come to mean in popular usage, “against the gay agenda” and generally for the Gospel.

The best thing that the Essentials Way Forward Conference can do in showing it is committed to the truth of the Holy Scriptures, Creeds and Formularies of the Anglican Way is to conduct its worship in such a way as to show that it is really and truly committed to these standards. After all, this is an Anglican Meeting and not an Inter-denominational or a Charismatic or an Evangelical Meeting. And what unites Canadian Anglicans, who desire to be faithful to God, is The Book of Common Prayer (edition of 1962). The world needs to see faithful, committed Anglicans united in worship and then in mission.

Since there are grave doubts as to whether the doctrine within the services of The Book of Alternative Services is sound, and in line with the doctrine in the Formularies, any use of the BAS should be carefully vetted and controlled. In fact it will be best for truth’s sake to avoid using it. Let it not be forgotten that the primary advocate of the BAS when it appeared (See, Rites for a New Age, 1986 by Michael Ingham) is the very same Bishop who pioneered the blessing of gay partnerships in British Columbia. There is a clear connection from what Ingham wrote in 1986 to what he has done in 2003/4.

May Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, be truly worshipped, adored, praised and served by this Conference and its aftermath.

The Rev’d Dr Peter Toon August 23rd 2004

The Way Forward Conference, Ottawa, September 30th

[Friends, This provides a clear statement of the aims and objectives of the Way Forward Conference due in Canada on August 30th. Happily, it clearly states an intention to abide by the classic Anglican Formularies, something which The Network in ECUSA is yet to do! Perhaps the word "orthodox[y]" is over-used. Let us hope that the public worship of the Meeting is not below the level required by the Formularies but rather dynamically and reverently uses the services of the classic BCP! It will be a great loss to orthodox intentions if the "BAS" is the primary means of worship! Peter Toon ]

The Way Forward Conference, Ottawa, September 30th
Dear Friends
August 30 – September 1, 2004: Orthodox Canadian
Anglicans from across the country, bishops, clergy and laity, have gathered here
in Ottawa for an historic conference boldly called THE WAY FORWARD. At this
conference, we are hoping that all traditional Anglican constituencies from
across our country will unite to affirm, before the world, three things.
First, a renewed Canadian Anglican orthodoxy that aims to recover the
principles of our heritage.
Second, a mutual determination to support and
expand orthodox Anglican ministry in this country through faithful witness to
the truth of the Gospel.
Third, our unity with faithful, orthodox believers
within the worldwide Anglican Communion.
It is our hope that as we now come
together, we will be bound in common cause by our allegiance to the principles
that have traditionally bound all Anglicans together: The complete canon of Holy
Scriptures as the foundational principle of our faith, the Solemn Declaration of
1893, the Book of Common Prayer as the Standard of doctrine and worship, and the
39 Articles of Religion.
At this conference, speakers and forums will deal
with questions regarding the way in which Christians are required to remain
faithful within a church struggling with excessive diversity, fundamental error
and, in the opinion of most “conservatives”, an apostasy which has infiltrated
its very core. They will here and now consider how Anglicans may repudiate
institutional decisions that contradict the clear teaching of Scripture while
remaining faithful members of the Body of Christ, His Holy Church, against
which, as He assured us, the gates of hell shall not prevail (Matt 16:18).
are excited to announce that the Conference’s keynote speakers will include
Archbishop Greg Venables (Primate of the Southern Cone), Bishop Bob Duncan
(Moderator, Anglican Communion Network), Bishop Wallace Benn (Steering
Committee, Anglican Mainstream UK), Dr. Bill Atwood (General Secretary,
Ekklesia), Reverend George Sinclair (Chairman, Essentials Council), Reverend
Charlie Masters (National Director, Essentials Council) and others.
As the
official sponsors and organizers of THE WAY FORWARD, the Essentials Council has
as its goal, the objective of providing a forum for the establishment of a new
national federation of orthodox Anglican constituencies. Such a Federation will
be a partnership of all Canadian Anglicans committed to the recovery and renewal
of the orthodox heritage of our tradition, a partnership that will enable us to
plan, act, respond and speak in national unity through genuine
Proposals for formal structures of representation on “The
Federation” will be considered and acted upon at this Conference. As a critical
first step, we anticipate that this Conference will establish an interim
steering/executive committee comprising representatives of bishops, clergy, and
laity from across the country, assisted by the Essentials Council executive, to
enact whatever formal elective and/or representational structure the Conference
endorses for the new Federation.
Many delegates will be anxious to see the
commissioning of a second body, currently being referred to by our planning
group as “The Network”. This body would be charged specifically with the task of
formulating and creating new provisions of adequate oversight for traditional
Anglicans who find themselves, either now, or in the future, caught in
situations of impaired or broken communion.
In order to gather the widest
possible representation, we have invited every Canadian Anglican, who shares a
deep concern for the recovery of those principles that the founders of our
Canadian church so clearly expressed in their Solemn Declaration, to come to
this conference. We have especially urged the leaders of every traditional
Anglican organization, network, constituency or group to be present, here in
Ottawa, with us today. We want your views to be represented in this historic
discussion. We want your voices to be heard and honoured by all those attending
this conference.
While we recognize that the representative body formed
during this conference will be an interim solution pending an elective process,
we are committed to “putting a stake in the ground” by September 1st and thus
taking the first step toward a long-term orthodox solution in Canada. In the
next few days there will arise many vital questions surrounding the future of
traditional Anglicanism. We can all benefit from the shared thinking of
like-minded Anglicans and from the faithful teaching of our orthodox Bishops as
we gather here in Ottawa and begin the work of instituting a new orthodox
Anglican Federation in this country.

Homosexuality is only the presenting problem!

The Essentials Conference in Ottawa & the Seven Churches of Asia Minor

Is there a word in season from Revelation 1 – 3 [from the exalted Christ] to the assembling brethren at Ottawa for 30 August? Yes…do read on.

The exalted Lord Jesus Christ, who had been crucified and raised from the dead, sent messages through his servant, John, to seven churches in Asia Minor – Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia & Laodicea.

While each message is unique for it is specifically related to the particular church and to its members within their own situation, there are certain common themes in the Letters. Of these perhaps the most important is that Jesus Christ is truly the Lord, that he shares the Father’s throne, that he loves his people with an everlasting love, and that he will do what it takes in mercy and judgment to cause and to assist them to love and serve His Father faithfully, whatever their circumstances.

Each Letter calls for a response from the church and each of its members and these responses again are specifically related to the spiritual and moral condition of the church. However, in what Christ commands and asks for, there are several common themes. And it is surely reasonable for us to reckon that these common themes, being of divine origin, have an application to churches everywhere, whatever be their situation, and especially when they are troubled or in difficulties.

Let us notice very briefly what is required of each church:

Ephesus (2:1-7): Remember, Repent & Do ( verse 5) and Hear the Spirit.

Smyrna (2:8-11): Do not fear & Be faithful ( verse 10) and Hear the Spirit.

Pergamum (2:12-17): Repent ( verse 16) and Hear the Spirit.

Thyatira (2:18-29: Repent (verse 21) & Hold fast (verse 25) and Hear the Spirit.

Sardis (3:1-6): Wake up & Strengthen (verse 2) & Remember, Keep & Repent (verse 3) and Hear the Spirit.

Philadelphia (3: 7-13): Hold fast (verse 11) and Hear the Spirit.

Laodicea (3: 14-22): Buy from Christ (verse 18) & Be zealous and Repent (verse 19) & Hear Christ’s voice and open the door (verse 20) and Hear the Spirit.

At the end of each Letter is the call to hear the Spirit – “He who has an ear, let him what the Spirit says to the churches” – and this command is surely intimately related to hearing what Christ says to each of the churches, for the Holy Spirit is the Paracletos (representative, advocate etc.) of the Exalted Lord Jesus Christ.

If we collate the commandments of the Lord of the Church to the churches, we notice the repetition of certain ones.

REMEMBER: this relates both to remembering the wonderful conversions from paganism and the amazing origins of these churches and to recalling the content of the Gospel and of the mighty works of God in salvation-history.

REPENT: This is a corporate turning as well as an individual turning away from that which is evil and contrary to Christ’ will to that which is pleasing to him and to his Father. It is a turning which is filled with godly sorrow for the wrong and a fervent desire to do the right.

HOLD FAST/KEEP/BE FAITHFUL: Having turned to Christ in order to be with him and follow him, there is then the daily commitment to him, the holding fast to him and to what he requires, the keeping of his commandments and the being faithful to him through thick and thin.

Ottawa - application: The assembled brethren can surely do not better than to remember the heritage of Christianity and of the Anglican Way and the Canadian experience of It (including the Solemn Declaration); to repent for the sins of this Anglican Church of Canada and their part in them; and to turn to the God of our fathers and to commit themselves to a new faithfulness to Christ and a new consecration to the Anglican Way, as received from him in his providence.

Finally, in the message to the seventh church, a message wherein there is no commendation of this church at all from the Lord of glory, there is heavenly counsel which surely applies to all churches that are under the active chastisement of the Lord – and surely the Canadian Anglican Church is in this position (unless the Lord has already “spit it out of his mouth” because it is indifferent to him, neither hot nor cold – 3:16).

“I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see” (3:18).

The city of Laodicea prided itself on its financial wealth as banking center and some of this pride had entered the church. But what the church needs is the gold refined by fire, that is genuine faith (see 1 Peter 1:7) through which is ready access to the riches of grace.

The city of Laodicea prided itself on its clothing trade but yet the church there basking in this reputation was spiritually naked. In the ancient world to be stripped naked was a terrible humiliation and shame. This naked church needs to be clothed in the pure white garments of righteousness, given by the Lord who has washed us clean by the shedding of his blood.

The city of Laodicea prided itself on its famous eye-salve which was exported all over the world. Yet the church there was blind and itself needed the anointing that only Christ can provide. Only he who is the light of the world can enable this church truly to see!


The homosexual agenda of the LesBiGay activists is merely and only the presenting problem in the Canadian Church. To see it as the problem is to major on minors.

Underneath it and giving this novel agenda credibility is an Anglican Church that is indifferent to the Gospel, that sets its aims and standards from the norms of Canadian society and which urgently, therefore, needs to remember its God and his salvation, to repent and then to consecrate itself afresh to its high calling and holy vocation of serving the Lord Jesus in Canada. In one word and through one picture --- Christ the Lord is knocking on the door of Canadian Anglicanism, but will he be invited in as the Lord of glory who desires to be in communion with his people? Or will his knocking not be heard for there is too much concern amongst the would-be orthodox with the evils of active homosexuality?

The Rev’d Dr Peter Toon August 23, 2004

Monday, August 23, 2004

The REAL Anglican Christian – a Word to the Essentials Conference of August 30, 2004 in Ottawa

The Essentials Conference begins on August 30th. May the Holy Ghost visit this assembly and prepare its participants in advance!

The Gospel for the week before the Conference in the ancient Eucharistic Lectionary of The Book of Common Prayer is Luke 18:9-14, containing the well-known parable of Jesus concerning the Pharisee & the Public at prayer.

This Gospel has a sure word to all those participating, and all those watching on with prayerful concern.

Here we have a story of a man generally recognized locally as a saint failing in prayer; and another man generally recognized locally as a sinner succeeding in prayer. WHY? Because the former comes to God in the spirit of pride and self-satisfaction while the latter comes before God in self-humiliation.

Verse 9. Let us note that the story is addressed to those who trusted in
themselves that they were righteous. They believed that their life, worship and
service were acceptable to God and approved by him.
Let us engage in some application to ourselves. We may not be like the Pharisees, who opposed Jesus, but do we display “a moral superiority” even a “moral triumphalism” and an “evangelical/charismatic elevation” in the way we speak about and relate to the people of the LesBiGay lobby and their liberal supporters?

Verses 11 & 12. Let us note that the Pharisee, the “righteous” man, went through the motions of prayer beginning by addressing God and then all that he did was to talk about himself. He cites his good works as instances of the ways he is superior to others and he claims to be superior not only in what he performs but also in what he

Let us engage in some application to ourselves. Is it true of ourselves that
while we glance at God in worship and prayer, most of what we say and sing is
about ourselves? Is our worship and prayer as much about ourselves – our
feelings and emotions – as it is about God as the LORD? Have we lost the
Transcendence of God and thus our sense of sin in much “modern

Verse 13. The tax-collector compares himself with no-one. For him the bright holiness of God makes him aware of his sin and all he can do is to acknowledge his true state before God, the Judge of all. As we know – or should know -- from Holy Scripture, the genuine confession of sin to God in humility is actually also the praise of God, of his holiness, his righteousness, his judgement and his mercy. Thus the
tax-collector praised the Lord!

Let us engage in some application to ourselves. Do we avoid self-humiliation,
penitence, repentance and confession of sins before God because we do not really
feel this way? Are we really conscious of the part we have played, as a
member of the body, in causing the growing sinfulness of the Anglican Churches
in the West? Does this knowledge of our sins of commission and omission cause us
to humble ourselves under the almighty (and yet merciful) hand of

Verse 14. God counts as righteous in his sight the person who comes before him in humility, penitence and with confession of his sin. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled (by the God of judgement) and everyone who humbles himself will be exalted (by the God of mercy).

Let us engage in some application to ourselves. Have we been participating in
recent controversies within Anglicanism in the wrong spirit – the spirit of “we
are right and you are wrong” – and ought we to consider that the right spirit is
this: that God’s judgement is upon the Anglican Way in North America, that we
are part of it and share in that judgement which we deserve, and thus the right
way forward is the biblical way of deep humility and repentance.

The Rev’d Dr Peter Toon August 22nd 2004

Saturday, August 21, 2004

An Anglican Innovation: Co-opting an ancient title for a modern creation

for distribution in order to create informed discussion and solid research

By the votes of its existing members a body [Board, Committee, Commission etc.] may co-opt another person to be in the body. When elected he is said to have been co-opted (Latin, optare, to choose + com, with).

In the Anglican Communion, its members are becoming familiar with the votes of synods, with their houses of bishops, clergy and laity, co-opting in a novel way. The practice of co-opting members for committees, commissions and boards is familiar; but, the new form of co-opting is of a title, rather than of a person. And it is the co-opting of one of the primary and basic titles from within the Anglican Way, as it has been known in its English form since the 1540s.

Titles such as The Church of England, The Archbishop of Canterbury and The Authorized Version of the Bible are known by all educated people. So also is The Book of Common Prayer, the title of the English prayer book created from the earlier Latin prayer books, which was first published in 1549 and then in a revised form in 1552. Its first title was The Book of the Common Prayer but this only lasted for one edition and from 1552 it was The Book of Common Prayer. This book with this specific title was reissued by Elizabeth I and James I and then reached its definitive edition in 1662.

It was translated into many languages as the British Empire expanded and as Anglican missionaries went into the whole world. Further, new editions of it were later produced by independent provinces (e.g., USA, Canada, South Africa, Scotland & Ireland) in order for this Prayer Book to fit into the system of government and public feasts and holidays of the countries and to allow for variations of churchmanship. But in all these translations the style, structure and character of The Book of Common Prayer remained the same - one service with no variations for each dominical Sacrament, one service with minor options for Morning and Evening Prayer, one service for confirmation, marriage and burial and one version of the Psalter, together with, in the attached Ordinal, one service for the consecration of a bishop, the ordination of a priest and the making of a deacon. And in the Order for Holy Communion there was one printed Eucharistic Lectionary of ancient vintage and together with collects, also of ancient lineage.

Common Prayer was understood by all everywhere as the use of one basic text by all in the public worship of God. Thus one could travel around the world and find basically the same service anywhere that an Anglican church was found, and this was true even with variety in ceremonial after the arrival of the advanced anglo-catholic movement. The Common Prayer was the glue that bound together Anglicans, wherever they lived and whatever language they spoke. And this state of affairs held good well into the 1960s when the beginnings of the “alternative service books” containing services of a different style and shape to those in The Book of Common Prayer began to appear (after encouragement from the Lambeth Conference of 1958 and 1968).

Then, gradually from the 1970s liturgists, as if to justify the new developments, began to use “Common Prayer” in a novel way – it was said to be the use of basic common elements within a common structure. Here there is a most definite move from basic common texts (which allow virtually no variation or options) and from simple uniformity to a loosely controlled variety and diversity. This is the first definite co-opting of the expression “Common Prayer” for a novelty which is in reality “forms of alternative, varied prayer.” Thus. in the last few decades, modern liturgy has been a loosely controlled variety in that certain basics have been required (e.g., the Lord’s Prayer and the Sursum Corda) while creators of liturgy have been asked to keep to a basic structure or shape for services into which to introduce and place their modern options and variety.

The second phase of the co-opting of the title of “Common Prayer” belongs to the provincial Synods to which the liturgical commissions report. When the liturgical commissions had produced their collections of new services, with new shape and a variety of content, these collections obviously needed titles. One possibility was “A Book of Alternative Services” or “An Alternative Service Book” as used in Canada and England. Another was “A Prayer Book for Australia” while yet another was “An Anglican Prayer Book [for South Africa]”. However, certain national synods, using their autonomy to the full and disregarding Anglican tradition and definition of over four centuries, decide to co-opt the ancient title of “The Book of Common Prayer” for their new books which by any reasonable account are decidedly not such in terms of their structure, content, style and doctrine.

So the two phases of co-opting have not surprisingly led to the appearance of four books (with more to come). The leader in this co-opting was the General Convention of the Episcopal Church of the U.S.A. which in 1976 and 1979 called its new prayer book, wherein are services of different kinds and in both traditional and contemporary English, by the title, “The Book of Common Prayer.” At the same time it set aside the received, traditional American edition [1928] of The Book of Common Prayer.

The Church in Wales followed the example of the ECUSA with its own new “Book of Common Prayer” in 1984. Here traditional language is retained but the content and style belongs to the new rather than the traditional.

The Church in Wales was followed by the Church in the West Indies (led by Archbishop Drexel Gomez who is now known as a conservative!) which had learned much from ECUSA and which took what ECUSA had done one further step! It removed all traditional language variations and options and made use only of contemporary texts in its own “Book of Common Prayer” in 1985.

Finally, the province of Archbishop Eames, the Church of Ireland, celebrated the publication and authorization of its own new “Book of Common Prayer” in early 2004. This has traditional and contemporary language options and is, as modern liturgy goes, generally conservative in doctrine and style ( as we would expect of a province that includes Northern Ireland).

Happily, thanks to the Queen and the Establishment, in England the Synod was unable to call its library of new prayer books by the ancient title of “The Book of Common Prayer”. However, it went as near as it dared to do – “Common Worship”.

In this essay I have used the verb “to co-opt” of the action of liturgists and synods but elsewhere I have a noun. The Prayer Book Society of the USA recently published my long essay as a booklet, An Act of Piracy. The Truth behind the Episcopal Liturgy of 1979, 2004 (available from or from 1 800 PBS[727] 1928). You may care to read this booklet to learn more of the difference between The BCP and Books of Alternative Services and the new type of “Book of Common Prayer”.

One great and disastrous effect of this co-opting by Synods and of this Piracy by legislators is that the provinces are losing not only the greatest ever liturgy in the English language as their primary liturgy, but also that which is basic formulary or doxological standard of doctrine of the Anglican Way. Regrettably, whether they intend it to be so or not they are introducing relativism, diversity and variety as the norms of the Anglican Way.

August 21, 2004 the Rev’d Dr Peter Toon

Claiming Rights & losing the Way? Anglicans in North America, 1950-2004.

Some suggestions for thought.

In western society everyone, it seems, is aware of their rights and is glad to hear of more rights to which they are entitled. It is not exaggerating to claim that human rights is the context in which morality now in the modern West is usually and often established. And there is a growing part of the administration of justice in the courts, which is also based on declarations and statements of human rights.

In society, activist groups keep on advancing new claims and claimants for such rights and even extend them to non-human animals. It seems there is no end in sight for this kind of advancement.

Likewise, in the churches, activist societies and organizations keep on advancing new claims and claimants for such rights and they usually do so in “God-language” or in “the language of Zion”, often suggesting some biblical verse or custom as a kind of basis of, or justification for, the innovation. It seems also that there is no end in sight for this kind of development and for the innovations it brings.

In fact since the 1950s, after the adoption of the Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations in 1948, “rights talk” in society and churches has multiplied exceedingly. If we are to be precise we have to distinguish natural rights (see the American Constitution), from civil rights (remember Dr Martin Luther King) and human rights (with which we in 2004 are most concerned). Human rights relate to what belongs to the human being as possessing a definite and clear dignity (given to the same by God or by nature or by both). And it all depends how you view that dignity as to what you believe are legitimate human rights.

The present Pope is a leading example of a Christian leader who has taken over the language of human rights but, importantly, married it to a view of human dignity, based upon the Scriptures and the Catholic tradition (and to a view of personhood based on philosophy). It is his Christian view of dignity which causes him both to defend the poor & homeless, the persecuted and the despised and, at the same time, oppose abortion, gay sex and partnerships, women’s ordination, euthanasia, artificial birth control and other things. (Of course many people strong disagree with the Pope when he does not grant the rights of women to control their own bodies, of homosexual persons to “gay sex” and of individual persons to choose the time of their death. Their view of human dignity is obviously very different from his.)

The traditional Christian, who is prepared to make use of the language and basic philosophy of human rights in his vocation to serve the Lord and love his neighbor in 2004, has to be ever watchful that he has (a) a biblically-based and orthodox view of the human person and human dignity; (b) a sure understanding of human duty and responsibility to the righteous, holy Lord, in terms of his commandments and laws – that is, a knowledge of the will of God for human beings as individuals and in relation to each other; and (c) a knowledge of God’s will for his Church, the Household of God & the Body of Christ. To hold to such principles he will probably need to be a member of a conservative, orthodox, church!

In his thinking, present talk of human rights will usually serve the possibility of opening his eyes to possibilities of the extension of human dignity and worth that have been neglected, hidden, and even refused by the church in the past. Human rights talk will serve to help him on occasion to see either that which is there already within the treasure of biblical wisdom to be developed, or is actually required by the principles within that treasure. However, in this exercise, which may seem like walking on a tight-rope, the danger that he faces is of being pulled into extreme conservativism or into losing hold of basic biblical principles and thereby compromising the law of the Lord. The application of rights based on human dignity and in accord with the will of God has to be done in the context of watchfulness, prayer and fasting.


Although there were other important factors [psychological, social, economic etc.] involved (as there must be within the complexity of modern western society) we can see clearly the power of the human rights movement in changing the doctrine and practice of the churches since World War II. It is, however, one thing to see the power of human rights talk and another to evaluate whether, from a conservative Christian standpoint, concessions were made to it by the churches in some of their decisions and this has meant, in practice, a negation of the will of God by the same churches.

Here are a few examples to consider:

1. Virtually all Christians, liberal and conservative, agree that the application of civil and human rights to ethnic minorities in American society was the right way to go, and was according to the will of God, who has created all people in his image and after his likeness, in order to live to his glory. (Of course, not all the applications of these rights commend universal approval, but the principle does.)

2. But when we get to the right to divorce and especially to no-fault divorce, followed by the right to re-marry and even to engage in serial monogamy, there is not the same basic consensus as there is for racial equality. Most churches, including the Roman Church (through the massive use of “annulments” in the USA) have come to terms with the divorce culture and made it possible for second marriages to take place in church and be blessed by the church. And this right has been extended to clergy, even bishops, in the Episcopal and Lutheran and Methodist Churches, where in 2004 a large percentage of clergy are divorced and remarried. However, it has not been so extended in the Orthodox Churches and in (virtually all of) the Southern Baptist Church, where biblical teaching and/or ancient canon law take precedence over human rights, so that divorced and remarried clergy are extremely rare. Further, the Roman Church and some Anglicans still hold to the indissolubility of a marriage properly contracted and blessed.

3. Moving on to the ordination of women, we find that the Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church insist that a right to equality with a man does not apply for the dignity of women does not require that they have the right to be priests; and, further, the will of God clearly states that they cannot and must not be priests. At the same time, the claimed human rights of women to be equal with men and to do what they do (where that is humanly possible) was a major factor (when tied to several biblical themes and to new ways of interpreting the Bible) in the liberal churches (Episcopal, Lutheran & Methodist) in causing majority votes to go in favor of this innovation. And once recognized as clergy, the rights of women not to use language, supposedly created by men for use by men, led to changes in ways of addressing, and speaking of, God in the churches (= inclusive language). This led on to new types of liturgies, versions of the Bible, rules for debate in synods and so on.

4. Turning to the blessing of those in “gay commitments” [partnerships, relationships] we find that human rights talk (skillfully employed by advocates of the LesBiGay lobby] has had a major influence in changing basic mindsets and thus bring majority approval in the liberal Churches. The sexual “orientation” of human being has been made an essential aspect of their dignity of human persons and thus the rights of “homosexual” persons have been placed on the same level as the rights of “heterosexual” persons. Thus calls for the blessing of “gay couples” and the right to ordination by a “gay” person in a “committed relationship” has been approved by church synods. [It needs to be added that the full pressure for rights for “gay” persons had to follow chronologically, for it to have succeeded, the gaining of rights by ethnic minorities to civil rights, of heterosexual persons to the rights of divorce and remarriage and by women of rights to equal access to all church offices.]

* * *

Where a Church such as the Episcopal, Lutheran or Methodist, has been clearly influenced over the last fifty years by the civil and human rights movement and where it has made innovations in worship, doctrine, ministry and discipline on the basis of the view of human dignity within that rights movement, it is perhaps impossible for it to go into reverse gear and to undo what it has done in any particular.

The human rights movement had to be kept in check from the very beginning (as it appears to have been by the Vatican [if not American Roman Catholicism] and to a lesser degree by the Orthodox Churches) in order for there to be any possibility of it being controlled in 2004 and on into the 21st century.

As things stand in 2004, both the liberals and the conservatives in the ECUSA or the Anglican Church of Canada appear to be so tied into the human rights agenda that to be set free from it, or for them to control it rather than it them, seems impossible.

For the evangelicals & charismatics in Anglicanism, for example, though few of them realize it, the human rights talk has actually entered into some of the content of the new versions of the Bible that they support and it has invaded their language of prayer and sacred song that they use. It is the air we breathe and it has become part of their way of thinking and their piety even as they seek to deny its applicability to the claims of “gay” persons.

Thus, merely denying the rights of “gay” persons without thoroughly recognizing the major part that rights talk has had and continues to have on molding “evangelical culture” in North America is not to be taking the present crisis in Anglicanism very seriously. Of course, it is human rights that comes in a package that also has other contents – aspects of psychotherapy, of management theory, of commitment to simplicity, accessibility and relevance in worship, teaching and evangelization, and so on.

Leaving the ECUSA or the Anglican Church of Canada to become a new entity will not change who concerned Anglicans are for they will take into their new organization that which they actually have become. They need to change their mindset and dress before moving anywhere!

Kyrie eleison.

The Rev’d Dr. Peter Toon August 21, 2004

Friday, August 20, 2004

Vote for honesty in Anglicanism


Please support the cause of honesty and truthfulness in Anglicanism.

Visit and make your vote count for the Anglican Way.

Click on the story on the right hand side of the main page "IRISH BCP"

at bottom of this story click on "FORUM"

vote NO.

Why vote no?

The question you are asked is: Was the Church of Ireland right to call its 2004 Prayer Book by the name of "The Book of Common Prayer"?

The answer is truly NO because in shape and in content it is A BOOK OF ALTERNATIVE SERVICES with traditional and modern language services and much variety.

The BCP has always been since 1549 a Prayer Book containing only traditional language as well as providing only one rite for each public service. No choice of services, one only for each sacrament and morning and evening prayer, marriage and burial.

Thank you,

See my letter below

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

Letter to the Church Times

From the Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon


I refer to the short piece on the Irish Church and its new Prayer Book on page 3 of the issue of 20 August.

The Church of Ireland has authorized from Trinity Sunday of 2004 a new Prayer Book which it calls "The Book of Common Prayer" of 2004. Its title is causing debate in Ireland.

While there is no doubt whatsoever that this Church has called its new Book by the ancient Anglican name of the BCP, there is extreme doubt as to whether this is the right title for it. Its content, though less in total, is very much like that of Common Worship or of other Books of Alternative Services in use in the Anglican Communion.

Until the General Convention of the Episcopal Church USA decided to call its new "Book of Alternative Services" by the title, The BCP, in 1979, the title of the BCP was reserved by Anglican leaders for Prayer Books directly related to the English editions of the BCP (1549-1662), in which there is one and one only form of all the services and no alternatives. Common Prayer had the meaning in English for centuries of the use of one form of public prayer by all in the place of public prayer. And further it had reference to the use for this end of one particular book, the BCP, which went through several editions abroad and was translated into many languages.

Since the ECUSA pirated the ancient title in 1979, other provinces have followed. The Church in Wales in part in 1984, the West Indies in whole in 1995 and now the Church of Ireland in 2004. Perhaps the Church of England Synod would have done the same in 2000 had it not been for the Establishment - God save the Queen.

I submit that this pirating of the hallowed title is a mis-use of the autonomy of individual provinces of the Anglican Communion and such mis-use of autonomy is a major cause of the problems facing the Anglican Way internationally now. The clear Anglican duty of a local Synod is to keep the classic BCP as its formulary and as available for use by those who desire to use it, and then, to make available forms of alternative services which are composed to the highest standards of English, liturgical shape and doctrinal content.

It is not too late for the Irish Church to change the title of its new Prayer Book, which as "A Book of Alternative Services" is a good example.

The Rev'd Dr. Peter Toon M.A., D.Phil. (Oxon.),
The Rectory,
Christ Church,
Hot Lane,Biddulph Moor, ST8 7HP

REPENTANCE: Who needs to repent in North American Episcopalianism/ Anglicanism?

A discussion and prayer starter

Not a few Episcopalians/Anglicans have said to me recently, in speech or in writing:
ECUSA will never repent whatever the Archbishop’s Commission states when it
reports in October 2004.

Apparently they mean that the majority in the General Convention will not be detracted by anyone or anything from its onward (or downward!) move into exploring more and more of the “treasures of worldliness & secularism” through calling wickedness and immorality and heresy “innovations”. Further, they distance themselves from this current journey of the ECUSA and see themselves as against it and not in any way responsible for it.

But are they (are we) right to distance themselves/ourselves from the increasing apostasy of the ECUSA and other provinces of the Anglican Communion – e.g. the Anglican Church of Canada? Are we right to stand over against the apostasy and see ourselves without any blame for it or any share in it?

What I think is singularly missing from the tremendous amount of things said and done by a minority within ECUSA in protest against the election and consecration of Gene Robinson, “the “gay” canon, as a bishop in ECUSA, is a deep sense of not only shame but also sorrow and guilt before God for this [and related events].


Anglicans/Episcopalians are one group or branch or jurisdiction or part of the world-wide Church of God. In North America they are not a major group but a mid-sized national group and however much they differ amongst themselves they are one basic family. Especially is this so within the ECUSA where each and every diocese and each and every parish therein, however much it protests against General Convention policy, is a part of the whole. In a family the joy of one affects all and likewise the sin and pain of one affects all. In fact, the family is responsible for each member and thus all are affected for good or ill by what any one member does. And any one member is both affected and influenced by others and also affects and influences others.

In an ecclesial unit, which uses the metaphor of household, family and body, to describe itself, there is likewise mutual responsibility and guilt. And this is so whether we like it or not. Each diocese within the ECUSA and each parish within each diocese is part of a unit where the general rules that govern a family also govern it. Thus each parish and each member therein bears some responsibility for the decisions and actions of the General Convention in 2003. To have voted against Gene Robinson’s elevation does not absolve one from the fact of its having happened. For, by common consent, the ECUSA family has been moving for several decades along the path towards this decision by loosening the ties of the Episcopal Church to the content of God’s Word written, to sacred Tradition and to the classic Anglican Formularies, and at the same time absorbing the secular and liberal spirit of American society. The so-called “orthodox” dioceses and parishes of today were in favor of, and often did not protest against, earlier decisions of the family to innovate in questionable areas. They did little or nothing to discourage the habit of rebellion against or neglect of God’s holy law. Thus instead of calling upon the ECUSA to repent, they need first to repent before God for their contribution to and participation in the present state of the ECUSA.

“Woe is me for I am a man of unclean lips and I live in the midst of a people of unclean lips!”

The prophets of Israel proclaimed God’s word against the apostasy of their times but they did not see themselves as apart from and not involved in the guilt and the judgment of the covenant people of God. Though they did not go a whoring after other gods themselves they suffered with their people the judgment of God. Likewise the Psalmists often feel the pain of the whole and confess it.

Take an example or two.

The so-called “orthodox” of today have encouraged the rejection of the Ten Commandments by telling one big lie every time they pick up the official ECUSA Prayer Book. The General Convention decided – against all the evidence of history and literature, Anglican tradition and canon law – to call a book of alternative services, THE Book of Common Prayer. It did so as an act of autonomy and defiance, seeing itself as freed from the constraints of Anglican history from 1549 - 1976. This assertion & title was a lie and it has been told a million times since. “Thou shalt not bear false witness…” Dishonesty is part of the ECUSA spirit shared by all.

The so-called “orthodox” of today have encouraged the entrance into and the overwhelming of the ECUSA by the divorce culture of America. They have allowed divorced and remarried persons to have pastoral positions, lay and ordained, as though this is a good thing and according to God’s holy law. They have encouraged talk of marriage as “a relationship” and have not generally been guided by the clear purposes of marriage as set forth in the Preface to the marriage service in the BCP of 1662 and in the Canadian edition of 1962. In general they have encouraged the idea that one major purpose of sex is for enjoyment, self-enhancement and for mutual experience, satisfaction and friendship. From here it is not far to “gay commitment”.

And so one could go on and talk about the acceptance of the human rights talk and agenda, the acceptance of women’s ordination and the making of it a compulsory doctrine, inclusive language for God, the adoption of “dynamic equivalency” principles of translation for Bible and for liturgical materials, and other things. All these innovations have served to loosen the ties of the Church to the holy and righteous Lord and to his moral law, and to the Word of God written, read and meditated thereon.

So, all the members of the ECUSA share in the guilt before God for the acceptance in 2003 of the radical sex agenda promoted by the LesBiGay lobby. To make the acceptance of Gene Robinson as a bishop to be a unique sin and to be unconnected with the previous innovations from World War II, and particularly from the 1960s, onwards is to avoid family membership and responsibility and it is to run away from the shared guilt and judgment. It is to adopt a very developed view of individualism and to destroy all notions of inter-dependency and inter-relatedness. It is also to adopt a kind of dangerous triumphalism.

What surely needs to be more evident in the mindset, attitude and behavior of the protestors within and without the ECUSA about the present state of ECUSA is Repentance. Tears need to be apparent than laughter. They need to study the way the Prophets of Israel and Judah saw themselves in relation to the covenant people of God and also how the apostle Paul saw himself in relation to the same people, the Jews (Romans 9-11 etc).

And those who have officially departed from ECUSA membership must also bear the pain of guilt as well. They have left this family and they have also left behind their participation in its life and its failings. Further, if they look carefully at their new form of Anglicanism they will probably see – if their eyes are open – that it too is marred by sin and unfaithfulness and so repentance is most appropriate as a way of being before the holy God.

Writing from England, I do not stand above or apart from this situation wherein God’s judgment and chastisement is upon the Anglican Way in the West.

The Revd Dr Peter Toon August 20 2004