Now will Bp. Spong stop repeating his error?

Spong loves to speak in a denigrating fashion about the ancients and their three-tiered universe. Fortunately we have a real Anglican scholar and intellectual to look to as Spong continues to promote his personal pseudo-intellectualism. From The Kibitzer via TitusOneNine:

N.T. Wright on the Ascension and Second Coming of Jesus.

In chapter seven of Surprised by Hope, “Jesus, Heaven, and New Creation,” N.T. Wright emphasizes that the ascension of Jesus, which he describes as a (until recently) relatively ignored doctrine, must be understood before we can properly understand the second coming.

The ascension thus speaks of the Jesus who remains truly human and hence in an important sense absent from us while in another equally important sense present to us in a new way. At this point the Holy Spirit and the sacraments become enormously important since they are precisely the means by which Jesus is present.

Additionally, early Christians were not, as is commonly assumed, bound to a three-tier vision of the universe, i.e., heaven, hell, and earth.

[W]hen the Bible speaks of heaven and earth it is not talking about two localities related to each other within the same space-time continuum or about a nonphysical world contrasted with a physical one but about two different kinds of what we call space, two different kinds of what we call matter, and also quite possibly (though this does not necessarily follow from the other two) two different kinds of what we call time.

So heaven and earth, understood in this way, are two dimensions of the same reality. They “interlock and intersect in a whole variety of ways even while they retain, for the moment at least, their separate identities and roles.” Combine this with the doctrine of the ascension and we do not have a Jesus who floats up into a heaven “up there” but disappears into a reality we cannot yet see. Because heaven and earth are not yet joined Jesus is physically absent from us. At the same time he is present with us through the Holy Spirit and the sacraments, linkages where the two realities meet in the present age.

Now that this is established he moves on to the question of the second coming in chapter eight, “When He Appears.” First, he says, Jesus never himself talked about his second coming. Here he appears to be advocating a form of partial preterism, though I’m not familiar enough with preterism to say this with certainty. The second coming was a doctrine worked out among the earliest Christians (before the time of Paul) as a conclusion drawn from the doctrines of the resurrection and ascension of Jesus. Wright defines parousia, the word used by Paul to describe the second coming, not as “coming,” but as “presence.” The word was in common use as meaning either the “mysterious presence of a god” or the visit of a person of high rank – like the emperor – to a subject state; it is obvious why Paul would have used the word to describe the second coming.

This “presence” then does not mean that Jesus is going to literally descend from the heaven “up there” at his coming. Since heaven and earth are both two dimensions of the same reality what the second coming means is that those two dimensions will be joined – think of the New Jerusalem of Rev. 21 - and Jesus will be truly present with us. And this appearance will make all things new.

There will come a time, which might indeed come at any time, when, in the great renewal of the world that Easter itself foreshadowed, Jesus himself will be personally present and will be the agent and model of the transformation that will happen both to the whole world and also to believers.

Planned Parenthood condemned for 'lethal gift certificates'

Ken Kusmer - Associated Press Writer
11/29/2008 4:45:00

INDIANAPOLIS - The nation's leading abortion provider is under fire for handing out gift certificates for its services.

Pro-life supporters say the scheme by Planned Parenthood of Indiana denigrates the holiday season.

The network of 35 clinics across the state announced it is offering holiday vouchers for basic health care services "or the recipient's choice of birth control method."

The organization decided to offer the vouchers because so many people are uninsured or are putting off health care because of prohibitive costs, said Betty Cockrum, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Indiana. Nearly 800,000 Indiana residents don't have health insurance, she said.

Planned Parenthood's annual exams for women, which include Pap tests and breast exams, typically cost $58. The vouchers can be used for the exams, but also for insurance copays and for medication.

Opponents of abortion said Planned Parenthood was making a "mockery" of the holiday season.

"The tragedy is that almost 6,000 fewer children will be celebrating a first Christmas this year because they were aborted in Planned Parenthood's Indiana clinics," said Mike Fichter, president and CEO of Indiana Right to Life.

Planned Parenthood of Indiana operates abortion clinics in Indianapolis, Merrillville and Bloomington.

"They deserve coal in their stocking, not money for lethal gift certificates," said Sister Diane Carollo, director of the Office for Pro-Life Ministry for the Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis.

But Indiana Health Commissioner Dr. Judy Monroe applauded the Planned Parenthood offer, calling it a "really a meaningful gift."

Spokeswoman Diane Quest of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America said the Indiana branch is among a handful of its 99 affiliates that currently offer gift certificates or have done so in the past.

Is SCHISM THE WORST OF ALL HERESIES?

by the Rev. Dr. Peter Toon

Schism & Heresy - of the Anglican Vintage

In 1990 I arrived in the U.S.A. as an immigrant to live in Wisconsin.

Previously I had visited the country many times as a visiting speaker,
mostly at evangelical and interdenominational colleges and institutions.
At these varied places, most of which were growing, there was not any sense
that the Christian group in charge was in any kind of schism. In fact, the basic idea was and remains that the unity of the true believers is invisible and spiritual and that visible unity, though desirable perhaps, is not necessary for each of the competitive local groups, each to be the "genuine" church of God.

SCHISM VERY BAD

In contrast, what I heard from various anglo-catholic bishops, priests and
laymen, on the large governing body of Nashotah House Episcopal Seminary in
Wisconsin, was this sentence which I have never forgotten: SCHISM IS THE
WORST OF ALL HERESIES. And it was said in such a way as to make you aware
that you MUST avoid it at all costs. You were not to argue or be unreceptive: you were to take it to heart!

All strong positions have a background and history, and I guess that this
assertion comes out of the Anglo-Catholic doctrine that the Anglican Church
(therefore PECUSA/ECUSA as part of it) is a branch of the one, holy,
catholic and apostolic Church of God, and a jurisdiction in the same.
Further, I think it looks back to the 1970s when not a few of the leading
Anglo-Catholic priest and congregations departed from PECUSA/ECUSA (over
Ordination and BCP issues) to form "The Continuing Anglican Church."
Regrettably this "Church" itself soon split into various parts and so the initial schism from PECUSA was compounded by division within the ranks of the seceders and this division remains to the present day.

In 1990-91 enthusiasts=94 like me were warned against schism, and the warning was so
grave as to tell us/me that there is no heresy worse than deliberately dividing or splitting or forcing apart the people of God.

Let us now jump from 1990-91 to 2008-9 but remain in the orbit of the
PECUSA/ECUSA/TEC.

There remain within TEC in 2008 those who claim to be fully orthodox, who
acknowledge that TEC has introduced many (bad) doctrinal, moral and liturgical innovations, and yet intend to stay. To them schism is a very bad thing and to be avoided. (This grouping is intellectually energized by The Anglican Communion Institute and includes some of the largest congregations in TEC.)

SCHISM CAN BE A GOOD THING

In contrast, there have seceded recently from TEC four dioceses that have
joined the Province of the Southern Cone.=A0 They see this as a kind of
temporary provincial home, for dioceses to make sense must belong to a
province. In the U.S.A. itself, the same dioceses are united with Anglicans
of like-mind within what is known as =93Common Cause.

This is composed of various groups from Canada and the U.S.A., all of which
have the common aim of protesting against the revisionism of TEC and Anglican Church of Canada and together forming a new Anglican Province in North America to replace the two old ones-- a province that they hope will be accepted by at least the African Provinces of Nigeria, Rwanda and others. (This province is due to be created Dec 3rd or 4th 2008 in Wheaton, Illinois.)

This mixed grouping of Anglicans sees schism as a necessity and, in fact, as
a kind of virtue, for to them it is the only way to escape the apostasy of
TEC and be united to orthodox, Anglican Provinces.

Regrettably, some may feel, the seceders of the 1970s, the ones whose exit
did much to cause the use of the slogan, "schism is the worst kind of
heresy," in TEC are not included in the Common Cause and will not be in
this proposed, new province when it is created in December 08.

CONCLUSION

It is impossible to imagine the present, massive supermarket of religions in
the U.S.A. without recognizing that, at least in America, schism is the
means by which many of the groups in the supermarket came into being, and
also the means whereby their name and principles are perpetuated, even if
under different management!

According to the Christian Hope, after the resurrection of the dead and the
judgment of the peoples at the end of the age, the elect, who are taken with
Jesus the Lord, King and Priest into the great mansions of heaven, will go
there as One People, wholly united by grace in the fellowship of the Holy
Ghost, in order to enjoy the beatific vision from glory unto glory as one
sanctified society!

The End

Advent Sunday 2008 The Revd Dr Peter Toon
drpetertoon@yahoo.com


The Revd Dr Peter Toon
petertoon@msn.com
drpetertoon@yahoo.com

Michael Nazir-Ali: "Are we passing on the Apostolic faith or something else..."

Via VirtueOnline:


The following address is a summary of a presentation made by Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali at the National Evangelical Anglican Consultation (NEAC) in London recently

www.anglican-mainstream.net
November 27th, 2008

Over the last twenty years I have been able to get to know a large part of the Anglican Communion. As study secretary and co-ordinator for the 1988 Lambeth Conference I visited many provinces of the Communion. I continued this process as General Secretary of CMS and I still continue such visits as a diocesan bishop.

As I have visited I have continually asked myself: "why are these people, as diverse as they are, in fellowship together?" It is not because of Anglophilia. They are Anglican because the Anglican tradition has made it possible for them to respond to what God has revealed of himself in Jesus Christ.; to respond to the work of Jesus; to how he has stood in our place; to how he has done what we could not and were not willing to do; and to how he has turned away God's wrath from our sinfulness. That is the heart of the Gospel.

Anglicanism, in different ways has made this possible: for them to find themselves friends again with God. Our fellowship is based on this friendship with God. That fellowship is shared among us. That is the miracle of being Christian.

God longs for our redemption and the renewal of creation. In the rising again of Jesus, he has given us the guarantee of our own destiny and the redemption and the renewal of all creation. This is why we need a full blooded doctrine of the resurrection - God showing us what he has for us and for his world.

When we talk about moral issues we need to talk about how things are. God's eternal law is deeply impressed on creation even if we have brutalised it. We need to talk about how things are. Because we believe in the resurrection we need to talk about how God wants things to be, what his purpose is for them.

How are we to be in fellowship with one another? The answer is as simple as it was for the first disciples. Their fellowship was characterised by the apostles' teaching, fellowship, breaking the bread and prayers. What constitutes the church? Each and all together make the church.

Let us consider the apostles' teaching. None of us would be here without the apostles teaching getting to us. The whole Christian story has to do with the giving, the receiving and passing on of the teaching of the apostles. I hope that we are all faithful to this. It is true of course that as this teaching is passed on and received - something that has been neglected or obscured that has not been noted by others will be noted in a new context.

But we have to ask a more difficult question - how is this teaching related to new knowledge? There is an exponential increase in human knowledge. My own experience in the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority was of a huge expansion of knowledge in this field. Relating this new knowledge to what is received from the apostles' teaching has to be principled. We have to take what is offered to us in a principled way.

We must make sure that the good news of Jesus Christ is conserved in our relating to this new knowledge. Bishops need to make sure the gospel is not entirely lost. That is a minimal requirement. To make sure there is a conservative action with relation to the past, present and future; that there is a continuity of principles. What the Bible teaches about sacredness of human person relates to this new knowledge now as much as before.

And then how does the apostles' teaching relate to our vision for the future? What is the apostles' teaching for the future so that the vigour of the good news may be maintained?

In all these matters the question arises whether we are passing on the apostolic teaching at all, or are we passing on something else? The Bible is the way in which we determine apostolic teaching - it is the norm by which we judge disputed questions. Of any issue we must ask: Is this within the apostolic teaching? The question is its relation to scripture.

What is it that is important about the questions we are facing today? There is great value in the critical study of the Bible - to study what lies behind the text. This is a major difference in approach between Christians and Muslims. We are interested in how the Bible came to be.

We are also interested in what lies in the text - grappling with the language and nuancing of the text. And then there are the in front of the text questions. These are the difficult ones.

The foundation documents of Anglicanism encourage us to relate to culture and context. How is the church to embed itself in culture and context? We affirm this process of engagement. There are limits in the Bible itself and these are necessary if we are going to flourish as a church. Nothing we do in relation to culture should obscure Gods love for us. None of this should be set aside.

Further, nothing can be done in relating in one context that damages our fellowship with Christians in another place. Christians cannot engage with Muslims in Iran in such a way that makes it difficult for you here. This is why the Bishops of Sudan have been scandalized by the Episcopal Church, because their own people are being rejected by Muslims because of association with Anglicans who consecrate people in same-sex relations as bishops, ordain them as priests and purport to bless same-sex unions.

The Church is made by the recognition that God has given people gifts - and by the recognition of all the gifts that have been given: particularly the responsibility of those who have been called to teaching in Christ's name. No church will grow or be successful in mission which is not a well taught church. But many are not fulfilling their calling and have not been equipped to teach.

There can be no church that is effective without discipline in the church. There are two reasons why fellowship might be disrupted. The first is systematic false teaching. Again and again we are warned about those who teach falsely and deny the faith far their own ends. Secondly fellowship is disrupted by persistent immorality.

Christians maintain fellowship but not indiscriminately. Letters of communion were constantly being exchanged in the early church to establish who was maintaining the orthodox faith.

The Reformers wanted to discover the liberty of the gospel - but this can only be achieved in a well disciplined church. Article 26 said that the unworthiness of ministers does not hinder the effect of the sacraments but this should not be used as an excuse not to discipline ministers.

Any discipline should be for the sake of restoration of fellowship. But about the necessity of disruption of fellowship there can be no question. Discipline should be exercised in a way that is merciful and firm. This ministry is not some thing we have sought for ourselves.

Engagement with culture has to take place under the authority of scripture. There is no adequate view of the authority of scripture without the view of its nature as God's revelation.

As Anglicans we are committed to engagement with a culture. But in this situation we will need to be more and more counter-cultural. And this will be hard as we are used to working with the grain of culture. But we will increasingly have to face indifference, hostility and counter-ideology.

In this situation it is very necessary for the church to be a strong spiritual and moral community - as every Christian community should be. We need clear frameworks. "Wishy-washy" Anglicanism will not do, people will want to know what we are about. If we are not clear what we are about, they know what they are about and then we have not got a hope.

I saw the GAFCON event as the beginning of a movement - there were saints there and you could see how God was moving mightily among them. GAFCON could be a movement God gives us - another movement to keep the church faithful to what the church should be. We should not get too obsessed with institutional questions - God will move among his people. There will be groups working for the gospel in many different parts of the world and here also. We pray that may be so.


---The Rt. Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali is The Bishop of Rochester, England

PHILADELPHIA: Conservative Anglicans Plan New Province

Via VirtueOnline:

Commentary

By John P. Connolly,
The Philadelphia Bulletin
11/26/2008

A group of conservative Anglicans are making preparations to launch a new Anglican province for North America, a plan that reflects the deepening rift between theological perspectives in the Anglican Communion.

The Common Cause Partnership will publicly release the draft constitution of an emerging Anglican Church in North America Dec. 3, and formally subscribe to the Jerusalem Declaration of the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) and affirm the GAFCON Statement on the Global Anglican Future at an evening worship celebration in suburban Chicago. The Common Cause Partnership is a federation of Anglican networking and pastoral organizations encompassing more than 100,000 Christians in North America.

"One conclusion of the Global Anglican Future Conference held in Jerusalem last June was that the time for the recognition of a new Anglican body in North America had arrived," said Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, moderator of Common Cause Partnership in a press release. "The public release of our draft constitution is an important concrete step toward the goal of a Biblical, missionary and united Anglican Church in North America."

Many conservative Anglicans have been concerned over departures from biblical precepts and traditional teachings in some parts of the Communion. Conservative frustrations reached a high water mark this summer, when a group of Anglican bishops spurned the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference, opting to hold their own conference in Jerusalem instead.

GAFCON decried the acceptance of openly gay bishops and priests, and acknowledged that "God's creation of humankind as male and female and the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman as the proper place for sexual intimacy and the basis of the family.

"We repent of our failures to maintain this standard and call for a renewed commitment to lifelong fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those who are not married," continued the statement.

One of the other things the GAFCON statement called for was a new province for North America.

"We believe this is a critical moment when the Primates' Council will need to put in place structures to lead and support the church," said GAFCON's final statement. "In particular, we believe the time is now ripe for the formation of a province in North America for the federation currently known as Common Cause Partnership to be recognized by the Primates' Council."

In a way, the new province raises some problematic questions for the structure of the church in North America. To truly be a province, the group would need recognition from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams.

"Those who are gathering next week to essentially declare a new province can only call it a 'province' in quotes," said Rev. Edward Rix, rector at All Saint's Parish in Wynnewood. "What will be controversial will be how they move forward on such issues that divide them."

Rev. Rix said there are many examples of overlapping jurisdiction that could provide a precedent, but those instances may be considered different than this one.

"It is the case that dioceses spring up from groups of parishes," said Rev. Rix.

He said some parishes incorporate as a diocese and than apply for membership as a diocese, essentially the same procedure that is being used for the new province.

Bishop David Moyer, rector of the Church of the Good Shepherd, knows many of the leaders of the movement. He said their intentions are good, but that their road will be difficult.

"I think these leaders are driven by Gospel imperatives," said Bishop Moyer.

But he also said he doesn't really expect Archbishop Williams to recognize the new province. "I don't see him in any way giving them the credibility they request," he said. "Because that will discredit the Episcopal Church. And there are still many traditional, orthodox Anglican people there."

The Common Cause Partnership is a federation of Anglican Christians that links together eight Anglican jurisdictions and organizations in North America. It includes the American Anglican Council; the Anglican Coalition in Canada; the Anglican Communion Network; the Anglican Mission in the Americas; the Anglican Network in Canada; the Convocation of Anglicans in North America; Forward in Faith North America; the Reformed Episcopal Church; and the bishops and congregations linked with Kenya, Uganda and South America's Southern Cone.

END

Analysis: Recognition of Third Province Likely to Take Years

Posted at George Conger's blog and via TitusOneNine:

The Living Church, November 26, 2008
An abbreviated version of this article has been published by The Living Church magazine.

The members of the Joint Standing Committee (JSC) of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) and the college of primates are meeting at St Andrew’s House and Lambeth Palace in London this week in preparation for ACC-14, the triennial meeting of the ACC’s delegates scheduled for early May 2009 in Jamaica.

Organizers of the Nov. 25-27 gathering tell The Living Church the “agenda is largely preparing for ACC-14 next year, and trying to build on the lessons learned from the [2008] Lambeth [Conference].” The JSC will review the ACC’s finances, communications and staffing needs as well as receive an update on the work of the Faith and Order Commission proposed by the Windsor Continuation Group at the 2008 Lambeth Conference, as well details of the Singapore meeting of the Anglican Covenant Design Group in September.

The JSC meeting occurs shortly after Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh announced that leaders of the Common Cause Partnership (CCP) will meet Dec. 3 in Wheaton, Ill. to endorse a draft constitution to govern the loose coalition of breakaway dioceses, congregations and Anglican jurisdictions in the United States.

While it is technically possible for a vote on a third province to come before the primates’ meeting Jan. 31 thru Feb. 5 in Alexandria, Egypt, and then be forwarded to ACC-14 in May for action this year, it is unlikely as the necessary constitutional work in forming a CCP-based North American province is not likely to be completed.

The time line for final approval could take up to two years as the diocesan conventions of the four breakaway Episcopal dioceses: San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, Quincy and Fort Worth will have to endorse the constitution over two meetings of their convention, while the Reformed Episcopal Church, the Anglican Mission in the Americas, the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, and the Kenyan and Uganda overseen churches in North America and other CCP members must ratify the constitution and amend their own governing documents so as to bring its terms into force.

International approval of the CCP document will likely be quicker, as the Gafcon (Global Anglican Future Conference) primates’ council comprising the primates of Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, West Africa and the Archbishop of Sydney are scheduled to meet after the Dec. 3 gathering in Wheaton to vote to receive the constitution. Meetings have been tentatively scheduled between the Gafcon primates and Archbishop Williams before the primates meeting in Alexandria, to seek his counsel and input into the process. However, Archbishop Williams’ approval is not a prerequisite for creating a new province for the Anglican Communion.

Membership in the ACC determines membership in the Anglican Communion. Article 3 of the Constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council vests this authority with the primates: “With the assent of two-thirds of the Primates of the Anglican Communion, the council may alter or add to the schedule” of members.

Press reports that this week’s meeting of the JSC would censure two existing provinces: America and Canada for incomplete compliance with the Windsor and Lambeth moratoria, or the Southern Cone for its support for the four breakaway dioceses, is unlikely as the JSC has no authority to take such actions. The membership schedule of the ACC is controlled by the primates, and while the JSC is free to recommend, it has no power to act in this area.

The May meeting of the ACC will likely see all of the provinces of the Anglican Communion fully represented, as the voluntary withdrawal of the US and Canadian delegations from the ACC ended with Lambeth 2008, and it is not possible to sanction the Southern Cone.

The JSC consist of the members of the primates standing committee—elected by regional blocks at the 2007 Primates’ Meeting in Dar es Salaam: Asia: Archbishop Philip Aspinall of Australia; Europe: Archbishop Barry Morgan of Wales; and the Americas: Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori of the Episcopal Church.

Africa’s delegate, Archbishop Henry Orombi of Uganda will not be attending the meeting due to a prior pastoral commitment and the continent will be represented by Archbishop Justice Akrofi of West Africa, the Church of Uganda told The Living Church. The delegate from West Asia, Presiding Bishop Mouneer Anis has also been prevented from attending the meeting due to a prior commitment.

The JSC also consists of members of the ACC’s standing committee including its chairman and vice chairman: Bishop John C. Paterson of Auckland, New Zealand, and Dr. George Khoshy of South India. Elected at ACC-12 in Hong Kong to a six year term, Bishop Paterson and Dr. Khoshy will step down from office at ACC-14.

Elected at past meetings of the ACC to staggered terms of office are the regular members of the standing committee: Mrs. Philippa Amable of West Africa, Mrs. Jolly Babirukamu of Uganda, Mr. Robert Fordham of Australia, Bishop Kumara Illangasinghe of Ceylon, Canon Elizabeth Paver of the Church of England, Bishop James Tengatenga of Central Africa, and Ms. Nomfundo Walaza of Southern Africa.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams will address the JSC gathering, offering his reflections on the state of affairs within the Anglican Communion. Joining Archbishop Williams at the JSC meeting will be staff from the ACC including: the Rev. Canon Kenneth Kearon, secretary general and the Rev. Canon Gregory Cameron, deputy secretary general

It is unlikely that either the Joint Standing Committee meeting or the May meeting of the ACC will take direct action to address the question of a third province in North America or complaints of border crossings by overseas primates in the U.S. and Canada.

Should the primates agree to the creation of a Third Province at their 2011 meeting, the matter would be brought before ACC-15 in 2012. While special meetings of the ACC and the primates meeting can be called on the initiative of their standing committees, no such meeting has ever been called, and the current political climate within the Anglican Communion does not favor expedited action.

"Know the Enemy": As the Church Formed, So It May Dissolve

More good sense from the Anglican Curmudgeon:

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

[Introductory Note: This is the third in an ongoing series of posts covering the institutions that now make up The Episcopal Church. In the spirit of Sun-Tzu's maxim to "know the enemy", the series explores why and how the Church has evolved from an early branch of Anglicanism, concerned exclusively with ministering the Word and having but one bishop, into a lumbering, litigious and topheavy bureaucratic nightmare that allocates millions and millions to lawsuits and "peace and justice" causes. The first post in the series gave an historical overview of the Church's beginnings, and the second post focused on the transformation that has lately occurred in the office of the Presiding Bishop. Because of all the recent discussion about dioceses leaving the Church, I have decided in this next post to demonstrate once and for all the entirely voluntary manner in which the Church was originally formed, and in which it has (until the recent usurpations of power at the national level) been maintained over the years. This post in turn will lay the foundation for my next in-depth study of General Convention itself.]

"I. That the Episcopal Church in these States is and ought to be independent of all foreign Authority, ecclesiastical or civil.

"II. That it hath and ought to have, in common with all other religious Societies, full and exclusive Powers to regulate the Concerns of its own Communion.

"III. That the Doctrines of the Gospel be maintained as now professed by the Church of England; and Uniformity of Worship be continued, as near as may be, to the Liturgy of the said Church.

"IV. That the Succession of the Ministry be agreeably to the Usage which requireth the three Orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons ; that the Rights and Powers of the same respectively be ascertained, and that they be exercised according to reasonable Laws, to be duly made.

"V. That to make Canons or Laws, there be no other Authority than that of a Representative Body of the Clergy and Laity conjointly.

"VI. That no Powers be delegated to a general ecclesiastical Government, except such as cannot conveniently be exercised by the Clergy and Vestries in their respective Congregations."


With these simple declarations of principle, adopted at a meeting of clergy and laity from various congregations in the State of Pennsylvania held in Philadelphia at the end of May 1784, the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America had its beginnings. The hostilities of the Revolutionary War had ended a year earlier, and the new country had come together under the loose bonds of the Articles of Confederation just two years before that. The status of entities created under the former regime was uncertain. A number of clergy in the States of New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey were in particular concerned about the status of a charitable corporation that had been established many years before to provide pensions for the widows and orphans of Anglican clergy in the Colonies. The corporation had received a charter in those three Colonies, and the most pressing question was under whose auspices it should now carry on. After exchanging some correspondence, the clergy concerned agreed to meet in New Brunswick in early May, 1784 to discuss the matter. The Rev. Dr. William White (discussed in [an] earlier post), who attended the meeting, describes what decisions those present took, and why:

. . . there assembled some of the Clergy of New York, of New Jersey, and of Pennsylvania, in the city of New Brunswick, New Jersey, in May, 1784; and there being a few respectable lay members of the Church attending on public business in the same city, their presence was desired. The immediate object of the meeting, was the revival of a charitable corporation which had existed before the Revolution, clothed with corporate powers, under the government of each of the said three provinces. The opportunity was improved by the Clergy from Pennsylvania, of communicating certain measures recently adopted in that State, tending to the organizing of the Church throughout the Union. The result was, the inviting of a more general meeting in the ensuing October . . .

In his account just quoted, Dr. White refers to "certain measures recently adopted in [the] State [of Pennsylvania], tending to the organizing of the Church throughout the Union" (emphasis added). These are the six principles quoted at the outset above. They had not, however, been adopted before the meeting in New Brunswick on May 11 which he describes; instead, they were adopted at a meeting of clergy and laity in Pennsylvania held in Philadelphia two weeks afterward. (Writing some thirty-three years later, Dr. White doubtless telescoped his memory of the two separate meetings, and reversed their order.) The meetings in 1784 had exposed the weaknesses in the individual organization of each State church, now that they no longer enjoyed the status of being established. Before the several State churches could meet together to organize a national one, they had to put their own houses in order. Pennsylvania saw that need most clearly, and was thus the first to do so, as we shall see.

From this initial account, several important observations may be drawn:

1. The first organizational meeting of Anglicans held after the War was concerned not with the formation of a national Church, but with the revival of a charitable corporation for the clergy's widows and orphans. However, the meeting led immediately to the realization that no national church could be formed until the churches had first organized, and were themselves legally recognized, in each of the several States.

2. The meeting in May 1784 was organized initially by the clergy in three States, but they recognized that under the new democratic principles established by the Revolution, only the full participation of the laity could confer legitimacy on their deliberations. Thus, "a few respectable lay members of the Church", who happened also to be in New Brunswick "on business" at the time, were also invited to attend and take part.

3. The meeting led to the early declaration of certain basic objects and principles, as points of agreement for going forward in the move to create a national Church. Among them was that while the Episcopal Church in the United States had the right to be self-governing, it was not to be subject, as was its parent Church in England, to any outside civil or ecclesiastical authority.

4. The envisioned national Church would be made up of the several churches in the individual States, and organized according to the fundamental principle that no powers be delegated to it for exercise other than those which could not "conveniently be exercised by the Clergy and Vestries in their respective Congregations."

The six "fundamental principles" agreed upon in Philadelphia in May 1784 were duly presented to the larger assembly which gathered in New York that October. It became immediately apparent that not all of the delegates attending were authorized to speak for the whole Church in their respective States. Let Dr. White again take up the account of what followed:

. . . And there appeared [at that more general meeting in October 1784] Deputies, not only from the said three States, but also from others, with the view of consulting on the exigency of the Church. The greater number of these Deputies were not vested with powers for the binding of their constituents; and therefore, although they called themselves a Convention . . . yet they were not an organized body. They did not consider themselves as such; and their only act was, the issuing of a recommendation to the churches in the several States, to unite under a few articles to be considered as fundamental. These are the articles [that I quote below:]. . .

"I. That there shall be a General Convention of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America.

"II. That the Episcopal Church in each State send Deputies to the Convention, consisting of Clergy and Laity.

. . .

"V. That in every State where there shall be a Bishop duly consecrated and settled, he shall be considered as a member of the Convention ex officio.

"VI. That the Clergy and the Laity assembled in Convention shall deliberate in one body, but shall vote separately. And the concurrence of both shall be necessary to give validity to every measure. . . ."


It is fashionable today, among those at 815 and their supporters, to state the proposition that "dioceses are created by General Convention, and not the other way around." This is, if I may say so, a very superficial description of the process by which dioceses come into being. And with regard to the original Colonies, as anyone can see from the foregoing account, such a contention stands history on its head. The fact is that each of the branches of the Anglican Church in the various Colonies before the War was a separate State church, and remained so after the War. They were not organized as an administrative entity before the War, even though they were each nominally supervised by the Bishop of London. Instead, each Colony adopted local legislation that imposed a tax on all citizens to support the established church in that colony, and in no other. After the War was over, a number of Colonies moved quickly to repeal the taxes, and the churches in those Colonies were thrown for support back on their own holdings (glebe lands, frequently rented out to farmers and others), as well as on voluntary contributions from the ones who actually went to church.

The first problem for the post-war Church in each new State, therefore, was to see whether or not it would be allowed to continue as the established Church in that State, and if not, how it could survive on its own. In either case, it was required that each State pass legislation to give the Church a proper legal existence, with the power to receive gifts and to hold title to land. Because a State could create a corporation only within its own territory, there were limits to which any such corporation could combine with those in other States. Thus it was not possible for the Churches in the several States to come together into one national entity other than as an unincorporated association, which was a form already recognized at common law, and which needed no kind of official charter. But such an association was made up of individual persons in the eyes of the law, and the Churches in each State could not legally be recognized as persons until they received appropriate charters from their legislatures and their governing assemblies. In this simple reality---that to be able to form a larger organization, the individual churches first had to acquire their own independent status under the laws of the State in which they met---lies the essence of what General Convention is all about, and how it first came into existence.

The entire process of going from local organization to statewide organization, and then to national organization, can be seen in the case of the Church in Pennsylvania, whose founding documents are readily available online. Follow the link just given to download the Constitution and canons of the Diocese of Pennsylvania (in their latest [2005] revision). Before the text of the Constitution begins, however, there is given the text of an "Act of Association" first adopted in May 1785, along with a supplement to it adopted the following year. It is to this Act that I wish to draw your attention.

The first thing to note is the document's full title: "An Act of Association of the Clergy and Congregations of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of Pennsylvania." In the legal terminology of the time, an "Act of Association" such as this one fulfilled the function of what would today be called the "Articles of Association," or in other words, the constitution of the organization being formed. This is a wholly voluntary document, joined in only by those who choose to subscribe it. It binds no one other than those who sign, as well as any who have authorized those signing to do so on their behalf. If you look for a moment at the end of the Act (on pp. 5-6), you will see the names and the capacities of the individuals who subscribed: first there appear the names of five clergy, including the Rev. Dr. White himself, and who sign in their capacity as clergy of the Church. Then follow the names of eleven lay individuals who sign as deputies of their respective parishes. (Note the statement just before the names begin: "The Signing of those Deputies who were sent to the Convention without written powers, was deferred until such Powers can be procured."

What is being brought into existence by the signing of this document is an unincorporated association of persons at common law. There is no involvement (as yet) by the State of Pennsylvania. At common law, two or more persons could voluntarily come together at any time for a common purpose, and although the law did not recognize their association as a separate entity (with the capability of holding title to property, or of suing, in its own name), it nevertheless recognized what was formed thereby as a "creature of contract." This meant that the relationship between the members of the association was defined by the contract by which they had agreed to join together. The terms of the contract are what are set out in the "articles of association." The introduction is a series of recitals that set out the events leading up to the signing of the articles, and they quote in full the two sets of "fundamental principles" agreed upon in the first two meetings.

Now take a look at some of the contract's provisions. First, the signers contract with each other to be guided and bound always by the fundamental principles already agreed upon:

And it is hereby further determined and declared by the said Clergy and Congregations, That there shall be a Convention of the said Church; which Convention shall consist of all the Clergy of the same, and of Lay Deputies; and that all the Acts and Proceedings of said Convention shall be considered as the Acts and Proceedings of the Protestant Episcopal Church in this State; provided always, That the same shall be consistent with the fundamental Principles agreed on at the two aforesaid Meetings in Philadelphia and New-York.

After making provision for voting in their Convention by orders, the clergy and congregations of Pennsylvania state their willingness to unite with the clergy and congregations of neighboring States, subject to the same "fundamental principles":

And it is hereby further determined and declared by the said Clergy and Congregations, That if the Clergy and Congregations of any adjoining State or States shall desire to unite with the Church in this State, agreeably to the fundamental Principles established at the aforesaid Meeting in New-York, then the Convention shall have Power to admit the said Clergy and Deputies from the Congregations of such adjoining State or States, to have the same Privileges, and to be subject to the same Regulations, as the Clergy and Congregations in this State.

The deputies appointed in these articles went to the first true "convention" of the nascent national church that was held in Christ Church, Philadelphia, from September 27 to October 7, 1785. The Journal of that Convention is available online, and may be downloaded and viewed in a number of different formats. In addition to their number, there were deputies from the States of New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and South Carolina. Their first order of business was to examine and approve the deputies' credentials, and then they began to deliberate, amend, and eventually adopt, each of the seven "fundamental principles" that had been stated by the delegates who came to the October 1784 meeting in New York. A separate committee was constituted to make recommendations for appropriate changes in the Book of Common Prayer and in the liturgy. At the close of the Convention, they had settled on a form of "General Ecclesiastical Constitution", in eleven articles, which they proposed for ratification by the Churches in each State. (It is reproduced on pages 21-24 of the volume linked earlier.) It began as follows:

Whereas, in the course of Divine Providence, the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America is become independent of all foreign authority, civil and ecclesiastical:

And whereas, at a meeting of Clerical and Lay Deputies of the said Church, in sundry of the said States, viz., in the States of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland, held in the city of New York on the 6th and 7th days of October, in the year of our Lord, 1784, it was recommended to this Church in the said States represented as aforesaid, and proposed to this Church in the States not represented, that they should send Deputies to a Convention to be held in the city of Philadelphia, on the Tuesday before the Feast of St. Michael in this present year, in order to unite in a Constitution of ecclesiastical government, agreeably to certain fundamental principles, expressed in the said recommendation and proposal:

And whereas, in consequence of the said recommendation and proposal, Clerical and Lay Deputies have been duly appointed from the said Church in the States of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina:

The said Deputies being now assembled, and taking into consideration the importance of maintaining uniformity in doctrine, discipline and worship in the said Church, do hereby determine, and declare,

I. That there shall be a General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, which shall be held in the city of Philadelphia on the third Tuesday in June, in the year of our Lord 1786, and for ever after once in three years, on the third Tuesday of June, in such place as shall be determined by the Convention; and special meetings may be held at such other times and in such place as shall be hereafter provided for; and this Church, in a majority of the States aforesaid, shall be represented before they proceed to business; except that the representation of this Church from two States shall be sufficient to adjourn; and in all business of the Convention freedom of debate shall be allowed.

II. There shall be a representation of both Clergy and Laity of the Church in each State, which shall consist of one or more Deputies, not exceeding four.of each Order; and in all questions, the said Church in each State shall have one vote; and a majority of suffrages shall be conclusive.

III. In the said Church in every State represented in this Convention, there shall be a Convention consisting of the Clergy and Lay Deputies of the congregation. . . .

The careful reader will note how the format used is the same as that used for the "Act of Association" adopted by the clergy and laity of Pennsylvania earlier that year. First come the recitals of the events and reasons leading up to the need for the association; then come the words of association themselves: "The said Deputies being now assembled . . . do hereby determine, and declare . . .".

The wording just quoted also makes it clear that the members of this voluntary association are the several branches of the Church organized in each separate State. Those Churches, in turn, act through designated deputies, both lay and clerical, who gather in general convention, once every three years, and who vote separately by orders. This being an episcopal church, provision is made for the expected future role of bishops (as soon as some can be ordained), and for the manner of their election, which is left to the individual Churches which they will head:

V. In every State where there shall be a Bishop duly consecrated and settled, and who shall have acceded to the articles of this General Ecclesiastical Constitution, he shall be considered as a member of the Convention ex officio.

VI. The Bishop or Bishops in every State shall be chosen agreeably to such rules as shall be fixed by the respective Conventions ; and every Bishop of this Church shall confine the exercise of his Episcopal office to his proper jurisdiction, unless requested to ordain or confirm by any church destitute of a Bishop.

The document spells out how additional Churches, not now represented at the Convention, may become members upon "acceding to the articles of this union" (emphasis added), and provides that clergy are to be subject to the authority of their respective State conventions:

VII. A Protestant Episcopal Church in any of the United States not now represented, may at any time hereafter be admitted, on acceding to the articles of this union.

VIII. Every clergyman, whether bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, shall be amenable to the authority of the Convention in the State to which he belongs, so far as relates to suspension or removal from office; and the Convention in each State shall institute rules for their conduct, and an equitable mode of trial.

It closes with provisions for ratifying a Book of Common Prayer, for a uniform oath to be taken by all clergy before ordination, and for its adoption by the Churches in each State. Its last clause is a restatement of the contract principle on which it is based, namely, that no party to a contract may alter it unilaterally, without the consent of the other parties: "This General Ecclesiastical Constitution, when ratified by the Church in the different States, shall be considered as fundamental, and shall be unalterable by the Convention of the Church in any State."

At the same Convention in 1785, a committee was appointed to draft a request to the bishops of England that they might allow suitable candidates for the office of bishop, once presented, to be consecrated there, in order to preserve the apostolic succession. The text of the resolution approving the formal request shows further how the new Church then regarded itself as a confederation of independent State churches (modeled, indeed, on the country itself as it was then organized), each of which had the ability to nominate and propose a bishop of its own, and how they were aware of the delicate political considerations which would attend their separate requests, coming from different sovereign States of the Confederation. The deputies resolved:

I. That this Convention address the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England, requesting them to confer the Episcopal character on such persons as shall be chosen and recommended to them for that purpose from the Conventions of this Church in the respective States.

II. That it be recommended to the said Conventions that they elect persons for this purpose.

. . .

IV. That it be further recommended to the different Conventions, that they pay especial attention to the making it appear to their Lordships, that the persons who shall be sent to them for consecration are desired in the character of Bishops, as well by the Laity as by the Clergy of this Church in the said States, respectively; and that they will be received by them in that character on their return.

V. And in order to assure their Lordships of the legality of the present proposed application, that 'the Deputies now assembled be desired to make a respectful address to the civil rulers of the States in which they respectively reside, to certify that the said application is not contrary to the Constitutions and laws of the same.

VI. And whereas the Bishops of this Church will not be entitled to any of such temporal honors as are due to the Archbishops and Bishops of the parent Church, in quality of Lords of Parliament; and whereas the reputation and usefulness of our Bishops will considerably depend on their taking no higher titles or stile than will be due to their spiritual employments; that it be recommended to this Church, in the States here represented, to provide that their respective Bishops may be called " The Right Rev. A. B., Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in C. D.," and, as Bishop, may have no other title, and may not use any such stile as is usually descriptive of temporal power and precedency.


Most significant and revealing of all, perhaps, is not how the nascent Church explained and justified itself in its own resolutions, but how it described and portrayed itself to its ecclesiological parent, the Church of England. As you read the following petition to the Lords Spiritual, I would ask that you silently contrast its manner and tone with that shown to the same authorities by the General Convention of The Episcopal Church in 2003:

TO THE MOST REVEREND AND RIGHT REVEREND THE ARCHBISHOPS OF CANTERBURY AND YORK, AND THE BISHOPS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

We, the Clerical and Lay Deputies of the Protestant Episcopal Church in sundry of the United States of America, think it our duty to address your Lordships on a subject deeply interesting, not only to ourselves and those whom we represent, but, as we conceive, to the common cause of Christianity.

Our forefathers, when they left the land of their nativity, did not leave the bosom of that Church over which your Lordships now preside ; but, as well from a veneration for Episcopal government, as from an attachment to the admirable services of our Liturgy, continued in willing connection with their ecclesiastical superiors in England, and were subjected to many local inconveniences, rather than break the unity of the Church to which they belonged.

When it pleased the Supreme Ruler of the universe, that this part of the British empire should be free, sovereign, and independent, it became the most important concern of the members of our Communion to provide for its continuance. And while, in accomplishing of this, they kept in view that wise and liberal part of the system of the Church of England which excludes as well the claiming as the acknowledging of such spiritual subjection as may be inconsistent with the civil duties of her children; it was nevertheless their earnest desire and resolution to retain the venerable form of Episcopal government handed down to them, as they conceive, from the time of the Apostles, and endeared to them by the remembrance of the holy Bishops of the primitive Church, of the blessed Martyrs who reformed the doctrine and worship of the Church of England, and of the many great and pious Prelates who have adorned that Church in every succeeding age. But however general the desire of compleating the Orders of our Ministry, so diffused and unconnected were the members of our Communion over this extensive country, that much time and negociation were necessary for the forming a representative body of the greater number of Episcopalians in these States ; and owing to the same causes, it was not until this Convention that sufficient powers could be procured for the addressing your Lordships on this subject.

The petition which we offer to your Venerable Body is, that from a tender regard to the religious interests of thousands in this rising empire, professing the same religious principles with the Church of England, you will be pleased to confer the Episcopal character on such persons as shall be recommended by this Church in the several States here represented, full satisfaction being given of the sufficiency of the persons recommended, and of its being the intention of the general body of the Episcopalians in the said States respectively, to receive them in the quality of Bishops.

Whether this our request will meet with insurmountable impediments, from the political regulations of the kingdom in which your Lordships fill such distinguished stations, it is not for us to foresee. We have not been ascertained that any such will exist; and are humbly of opinion, that as citizens of these States, interested in their prosperity, and religiously regarding the allegiance which we owe them, it is to an ecclesiastical source only we can apply in the present exigency.

It may be of consequence to observe, that in these States there is a separation between the concerns of policy and those of religion; that, accordingly, our civil rulers cannot officially join in the present application; that, however, we are far from apprehending the opposition or even displeasure of any of those honorable personages; and finally, that in this business we are justified by the Constitutions of the States, which are the foundations and controul of all our laws. On this point we beg leave to refer to the enclosed extracts from the Constitutions of the respective States of which we are citizens, and we flatter ourselves that they must be satisfactory.

Thus, we have stated to your Lordships the nature and the grounds of our application; which we have thought it most respectful and most suitable to the magnitude of the object, to address to your Lordships for your deliberation before any person is sent over to carry them into effect.

Whatever may be the event, no time will efface the remembrance of the past services of your Lordships and your predecessors. The Archbishops of Canterbury were not prevented, even by the weighty concerns of their high stations, from attending to the interests of this distant branch of the Church under their care. The Bishops of London were our Diocesans; and the uninterrupted although voluntary submission of our congregations, will remain a perpetual proof of their mild and paternal government. All the Bishops of England, with other distinguished characters, as well ecclesiastical as civil, have concurred in forming and carrying on the benevolent views of the Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts : a Society to whom, under God, the prosperity of our Church is in an eminent degree to be ascribed. It is our earnest wish to be permitted to make, through your Lordships, this just acknowledgment to that venerable Society; a tribute of gratitude which we the rather take this opportunity of paying, as while they thought it necessary to withdraw their pecuniary assistance from our Ministers, they have endeared their past favors by a benevolent declaration, that it is far from their thoughts to alienate their affection from their brethren now under another government with the pious wish, that their former exertions may still continue to bring forth the fruits they aimed at of pure religion and virtue. Our hearts are penetrated with the most lively gratitude by these generous sentiments; the long succession of former benefits passes in review before us; we pray that our Church may be a lasting monument of the usefulness of so worthy a body; and that her sons may never cease to be kindly affectioned to the members of that Church, the Fathers of which have so tenderly watched over her infancy.

For your Lordships in particular, we most sincerely wish and pray, that you may long continue the ornaments of the Church of England, and at last receive the reward of the righteous from the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls.

We are, with all the respect which is due to your exalted and venerable characters and stations,

Your Lordships Most obedient and Most humble Servants,

SIGNED BY THE CLERICAL AND LAY DEPUTIES
OF THE CONVENTION.


IN CONVENTION:
Christ Church, Philadelphia.
October 5th, 1785.


The contrast between then and now is striking, is it not? In 1785, we were the upstart, the nouveau arrivèe, who had no claim to any kind of deference or authority. But by 2003, we were supremely confident of our ability to dictate to our parent Church the terms on which the Anglican Communion would continue to have meaning for us. (As with cabbages, so with churches: "Excess water taken up . . . causes head to burst. . . Plant recommended variety.")

The Lords Spiritual sent in February 1786 a gracious response to the humble petition of the new church, in which they expressed their Christian desire to comply "with the prayer of your address." (See pp. 36-37 of the previous link.) However, they first asked for assurances lest, "in the proceedings of your Convention [as had been reported to them "through private and less certain channels"], some alterations may have been adopted or intended, which those difficulties [in the situation as previously described to them] do not seem to justify."

This was an oblique reference to a number of changes which the 1785 Convention had countenanced in the Book of Common Prayer and in the Anglican liturgy: out of an excess of piety, perhaps, the Convention had dropped the phrase "He descended into Hell" from the Apostle's Creed; it had dropped the Nicene Creed altogether from the liturgy; and made several other changes. But the Bishops were even more concerned about something else: the consecration, in Scotland in November 1784, of the Rt. Rev. Samuel Seabury of Connecticut, and to his subsequent welcome and investiture as a bishop in the Episcopal Church of Connecticut. Since his consecrators were all non-juring bishops who did not swear any oath of allegiance to the current King of England (continuing a practice begun following their predecessors' refusal to acknowledge William of Orange as King after the deposition of King James II in the Glorious Revolution of 1688), the bishops of the Church of England felt they could have nothing to do with a Church that recognized the validity of orders conferred through so questionable a source. In their undeniably eloquent circumlocution:

For while we are anxious to give every proof, not only of our brotherly affection, but of our facility in forwarding your wishes, we cannot but be extremely cautious, lest we should be the instruments of establishing an Ecclesiastical system which will be called a branch of the Church of England, but afterwards may possibly appear to have departed from it essentially, either in doctrine or in discipline.

The deputies to the General Convention would not deal with this reply until their meeting the following summer, in June 1786. Meanwhile, the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of Pennsylvania held a subsequent convention in Philadelphia in May 1786, at which the following supplement to the earlier Act of Association was adopted:

WHEREAS, Doubts have arisen whether under the Act of Association any alterations can be made in the Book of Common Prayer and the Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies, of the Church, except such as become necessary in consequence of the late Revolution:

It is, therefore, hereby determined and declared, That further alterations may be made by the Convention, constituted by the said Act, provided only that “the main body and essentials” be preserved, and alterations made in such forms only as the Church of England hath herself acknowledged to be indifferent and alterable.

And it is hereby further determined and declared, That the power given by this supplement to the Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in this State, may, by the said Convention, be conveyed to a Convention of the said Church in the United States, or in such States as are willing to unite in a constitution of ecclesiastical government, if the same shall be judged most conducive to charity and uniformity of worship.

Note the condition placed on the deputies' authority to agree to a national church constitution: "if the same shall be judged most conducive to charity and uniformity of worship."

The draft Constitution approved in 1785 had called for the convening of a General Convention "on the third Tuesday in June, in the year of our Lord 1786, and forever after once in three years . . . ." The appointed deputies duly met in Christ Church, Philadelphia on that date. However, the request by the English bishops to receive further proofs of the Americans' good faith, and the ensuing doubts about the consequences of Bishop Seabury's ordination at the hands of nonjuring bishops, prevented the latter from going forward with their plans to ratify the draft Constitution and to organize the Church. There was a particular concern expressed by the deputies over the validity of the orders of any clergy whom Bishop Seabury might ordain in the Church in Connecticut. The Journal of June 1786 (which begins on p. 35 in the link previously given) tells the story:

Resolved, That this Convention entertain a grateful sense of the Christian affection and condescension manifested in this [response from the English bishops]. And whereas it appears that the venerable Prelates have heard, through private channels, that the Church here represented have adopted, or intended, such alterations as would be an essential deviation from the Church of England, this Convention trust that they shall be able to give such information to those venerable Prelates, as will satisfy them that no such alterations have been adopted or intended. . . .

A motion made by the Rev. Mr. Provost, and seconded by the Rev. Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, viz., That this Convention will resolve to do no act that shall imply the validity of ordinations made by Dr. Seabury.

The previous question was moved by Dr. Smith, seconded by Dr. White, viz., Shall this question be now put? and carried in the affirmative. The main question was then proposed and determined in the negative, as follows:

New York, Aye; New Jersey, Aye; Pennsylvania, No; Delaware, No; Maryland, No; Virginia, No; South Carolina, Aye.

On motion made by Dr. White, and seconded by Mr. Smith, of South Carolina,
Resolved unanimously, That it be recommended to this Church in the States here represented, not to receive to the pastoral charge, within their respective limits, Clergymen professing canonical subjection to any Bishop, in any State or country, other than those Bishops who may be duly settled in the States represented in this Convention.

Again we see from the actions thus taken how the nascent American Church was behaving like a confederation of dioceses, and not like a hierarchical body. The deputies were greatly troubled by the actions of the clergy in Connecticut, who on their own had elected a Bishop and sent him first to England, and then to Scotland, to be ordained in the apostolic succession. That action now threatened their ability to receive ordinations for their own candidates from the Church of England. Yet they could not simply enact a measure that presumed to pronounce his orders invalid, or that would restrain Connecticut's right to do as it chose. The most they saw themselves able to do was to "recommend to the Church in the States here represented" that they not allow any clergy ordained by Bishop Seabury to function within their borders.

The deputies in June 1786 took up the draft Constitution on second reading, and made further changes to it. In particular, they clarified the last article (Art. XI, quoted earlier), so that it now was a more accurate statement of the contract principle which underlay the entire document:

This Constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, when ratified by the Church in a majority of the States, assembled in General Convention, with sufficient power for the purpose of such ratification, shall be unalterable by the Convention of any particular State, which hath been represented at the time of said ratification.

In response to the request from the English Bishops for more assurances, the deputies each subscribed a letter with which they enclosed a copy of the full Book of Common Prayer as they had theretofore app0roved it, and a copy of the newly revised Ecclesiastical Constitution. The letter is once again important as showing beyond doubt the deputies' understanding of the capacity in which they each acted:

TO THE MOST REVEREND AND RIGHT REVEREND FATHERS IN GOD, THE ARCHBISHOPS AND BISHOPS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

Most Worthy and Venerable Prelates :

We, the Clerical and Lay Deputies of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the States of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina, have received the friendly and affectionate letter which your Lordships did us the honour to write on the 24th day of February, and for which we request you to accept our sincere and grateful acknowledgments.

It gives us pleasure to be assured, that the success of our application will probably meet with no greater obstacles than what have arisen from doubts respecting the extent of the alterations we have made and proposed; and we are happy to learn, that as no political impediments oppose us here, those which at present exist in England may be removed.

While doubts remain of our continuing to hold the same essential articles of faith and discipline with the Church of England, we acknowledge the propriety of suspending a compliance with our request.

We are unanimous and explicit in assuring your Lordships, that we neither have departed, nor propose to depart from the doctrines of your Church. . . .

With the sending of this letter and its enclosures, the Convention adjourned until a reply was received. It reconvened in Wilmington, Delaware on October 10, 1786 (p. 51 of the previous link) to consider the Archbishops' response, which was full of detailed objections to the changes that had been made in the Prayer Book and the liturgy. The response also spent considerable detail on the kinds of testimonials that their Lordships would require of any candidate presented for ordination as a Bishop. They would require, they said, detailed proofs and witness of the candidate's "sufficiency in good learning . . . [and] purity of manners":

. . . the reputation of the Church, both in England and America, and the interest of our common Christianity is so deeply concerned in it, that we feel it our indispensible duty to provide, on this subject, the most effectual securities. . . . The testimonials signed by persons living in England admit of reference and examination, and the characters of those who give them are subject to scrutiny, and in cases of criminal deceit, to punishment. In proportion as these circumstances are less applicable to testimonials from America, those testimonials must be more explicit, and supported by a greater number of signatures. . . . More specific declarations must be made by the members of the Convention in each State from which the persons offered for consecration are respectively recommended ; their personal knowledge of them there can be no doubt of; we trust, therefore, they will have no objection to the adoption of the form of a testimonial which is annexed, and drawn upon the same principles, and containing the same attestations of personal knowledge with that above mentioned, as required previously to our Ordinations: we trust we shall receive these testimonials signed by such a majority in each Convention that recommend, as to leave no doubt of the fitness of the candidates upon the minds of those whose consciences are concerned in the consecration of them.

There could not be a plainer statement of the concern with which the English Bishops regarded the bestowing of episcopal orders upon one who would not be a part of their own Church, but who would help to found a new church, in a new world. Once again, the contrast between the Americans' respect for the Anglican orders in 1786, and their headlong and arrogant flouting of those orders in 2003, could hardly be more striking. Whatever happened to good old-fashioned humility?

The deputies in October 1786 made the restorations to the Apostle's Creed and the Prayer Book which the English bishops had asked of them, and acquiesced in other requested changes as well. (The one point on which they would not give in demonstrated the heart of the new American polity: they retained the right of the laity to participate in the trial of a Bishop, while providing that only a bishop could pronounce sentence on anothe2r bishop.) At the end of the Convention, they all signed the requested testimonials for William White, Samuel Provoost, and David Griffith, who had been elected by their respective churches in Pennsylvania, New York and Virginia to become bishops, and bade them Godspeed on their voyage to England to be ordained. (As explained in [the] previous post, David Griffith of Virginia was finally unable to raise the necessary funds for the trip, and having offered his resignation, would die during the next Convention without ever having been consecrated.)

When they next met in Convention in New York, from July 28 to August 8, 1789, the assembled deputies greeted two of their number who were now fully consecrated diocesans. But they were without any representation from Connecticut, or the other New England States beyond New York. The Rt. Rev. Samuel Seabury, ordained Bishop of Connecticut by Scottish nonjuring bishops, wrote the Convention that he could not attend, or allow a delegation from his Church to attend, because of the resolutions adopted in 1786 (quoted above) which appeared to call into question the validity of his orders. The Journal records (p. 71):

A letter was also read from the Right Rev. Dr. Seabury, Bishop of the Church in Connecticut, to the Right Rev. Dr. White, and one from the same gentleman to the Rev. Dr. Smith.

Upon reading the said letters, it appearing that Bishop Seabury lay under some misapprehensions concerning an entry in the Minutes of a former Convention, as intending some doubt of the validity of his consecration,

Resolved unanimously, That it is the opinion of this Convention, that the consecration of the Right Rev. Dr. Seabury to the Episcopal office is valid.


This issue was tested again by the delivery to the Convention of a petition from the clergy of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, addressed to Bishops Seabury, Provoost and White, and asking their cooperation in ordaining to the episcopacy the candidate whom they had elected, the Rev. Edward Bass, of St. Paul's in Newburyport. Three bishops were necessary for a consecration, but since the English bishops had now acted on the request to ordain the new American candidates, there was less concern over giving offense by allowing Dr. Seabury to participate in establishing the succession on the new continent. After several days of deliberation, the following pragmatic resolution of the situation was adopted (Journal, pp. 74-75):

1st. Resolved, That a complete Order of Bishops, derived as well under the English as the Scots line of Episcopacy, doth now subsist within the United States of America, in the persons of the Right Rev. William White, D.D., Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of Pennsylvania; the Right Rev. Samuel Provost, D.D., Bishop of the said Church in the State of New York, and the Right Rev. Samuel Seabury, D.D., Bishop of the said Church in the State of Connecticut.

2d. Resolved, That the said three Bishops are fully competent to every proper act and duty of the Episcopal office and character in these United States, as well in respect to the consecration of other Bishops, and the ordering of Priests and Deacons, as for the government of the Church, according to such rules, Canons, and institutions as now are, or hereafter may be duly made and ordained by the Church in that case.

3d. Resolved, That in Christian charity, as well as of duty, necessity, and expediency, the Churches represented in this Convention ought to contribute, in every manner in their power, towards supplying the wants, and granting every just and reasonable request of their sister Churches in these States; and, therefore,

4th, Resolved, Tha.t the Right Rev. Dr. White and the Right Rev. Dr. Provost be, and they hereby are requested to join with the Right Rev. Dr. Seabury, in complying with the prayer of the Clergy of the States of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, for the consecration of the Rev. Edward Bass, Bishop elect of the Churches in the said States; but that, before the said Bishops comply with the request aforesaid, it be proposed to the Churches in the New England States to meet the Churches of these States, with the said three Bishops, in an adjourned Convention, to settle certain articles of union and discipline among all the churches, previous to such consecration.

5th. Resolved, That if any difficulty or delicacy, in respect to the Archbishops and Bishops of England, shall remain with the Right Rev. Drs. White and Provost, or either of them, concerning their compliance with the above request, this Convention will address the Archbishops and Bishops, and hope thereby to remove the difficulty.


As I have related in this earlier post, that is what in fact subsequently occurred. Negotiations with Bishop Seabury to define and establish the powers of a second chamber, a House of Bishops, were successfully concluded, and the Convention resumed in New York in October with Bishop Seabury and deputies from Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Hampshire in attendance. The newly amended Constitution was approved and subscribed by all those present, and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America was born.

It is fascinating to read this entry on page 98 of the Journal, along with the separate journals that thereafter follow (I have added the emphasis):

HERE ends the Journal of the proceedings of the Convention, as consisting of a single House. The Journals of the two Houses will now follow, separately; to which will be prefixed the General Ecclesiastical Constitution, as subscribed and entered on the Book of Records, which will answer the intention, as well of exhibiting a List of the Members of both Houses in Convention, as of defining their separate rights and powers.



It is thus to the Constitution, and only to the Constitution, that one must look to discern the nature of the contractual and legal relationships among the several member Churches that were established by that document, and which continue to this day. The Church was begun as an unincorporated association of separate and independent Churches at common law. As new dioceses were created and added, they signified their joinder by adopting governing instruments in which they "acceded" to this Constitution. The result was the same as though they had authorized deputies to attend the Convention in 1789 and subscribe their names. As Mark McCall has demonstrated from contemporary legal sources, such an act of "accession" was the voluntary act of a sovereign and independent entity in its own right, and can as freely be undone as done.

Indeed, The Episcopal Church is still a creature of the common law. It has never formally registered itself as an unincorporated association "organized under the laws of State X." (Being a common-law association, it does not have to; most States do not have any registration requirement for unincorporated associations. The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society, which is the Church's corporate vehicle to hold title to property and to receive gifts and bequests, is organized as a New York religious corporation.)

But that common-law freedom of association carries with it a corresponding common-law duty to respect the right of individual members to leave should they choose to do so. It is of the essence of a common-law association that membership in it is voluntary.

To clinch the point, let us go back to the Constitution of the Diocese of Pennsylvania, which was first drafted in 1814 to supplant the Act of Association signed in 1785. Like the Act of Association, it has a series of recitals describing the events leading up to its execution. It thereby furnishes us with another contemporary witness to the intent of those who came together under the first Episcopal Constitution:

WHEREAS, By an Act of Association, agreed to and adopted in Convention, on the 24th day of May, 1785, sundry of the Protestant Episcopal Churches within this Commonwealth were united under the name of “The Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of Pennsylvania”—which Association embraced all those Clergy and congregations who did at that time, or subsequently, assent to the same:

AND WHEREAS, After that time, in General Conventions of the Protestant Episcopal Churches within the United States, a Constitution and Canons were formed for the government and discipline of the same, which recognized each State as constituting a District or Diocese, with a right to the Churches within the same to exercise a local government over themselves; which right has been accordingly exercised by the Protestant Episcopal Churches within the State of Pennsylvania, associated as aforesaid . . .


The "members" of the unincorporated Episcopal Church, as the foregoing account of its beginnings inescapably shows, are the individual dioceses that have always constituted it, from the very first meeting in 1785, and they are in law free to come and to go, as they in fact did during the Civil War.

Those who still want to contend that dioceses can never leave The Episcopal Church have neither law nor history on their side.

Getting the Whole Story Out on Christians and Homosexuality

Via VirtueOnline:

By Lillian Kwon
Christian Post Reporter
www.christianpost.com
11/22/2008

For many Americans, all they've heard is that Christians are "anti-gay." The recent passage of amendments in California, Florida and Arizona defining marriage between a man and a woman and the large support those measures drew from churches haven't changed that perception, and perhaps made it worse.

Fri, Nov. 21, 2008 Posted: 12:56 PM EST

For many Americans, all they've heard is that Christians are "anti-gay." The recent passage of amendments in California, Florida and Arizona defining marriage between a man and a woman and the large support those measures drew from churches haven't changed that perception, and perhaps made it worse.

But few, if any, especially in the media, have given the public the "whole story" about churches and their persistent efforts to protect what they believe is God's definition of marriage.

"I've not seen any attempt to understand or communicate the real concern of Christians concerning gay marriage," said Bob Stith, who heads the Ministry to Homosexuals Task Force in the Southern Baptist Convention - the largest Protestant denomination in the country.

And Christians haven't been much help either.

"Too many Christians have cooperated with this by emphasizing more of what we're against than what we're for," Stith commented, concerning the gay marriage debate.

But much of that "whole story" includes love.

Former homosexual Melissa Fryrear educates thousands of Christians every year on how to respond to the issue of homosexuality in a "Christ-like" manner.

Director of the gender issues department at Focus on the Family, which hosts Love Won Out conferences, she says she has been accused of being anti-gay because of her beliefs.

"I'm not anti-gay because I'm a Christian and I'm a heterosexual evangelical Christian," said Fryrear, who became a Christian and came out of homosexuality over 15 years ago. "I'm pro-biblical sexual ethic. I'm pro-God's created intent for sexuality" - that being marriage between a man and a woman.

"That's what I'm for, so anything that falls outside of that falls out of God's intent," she highlighted.

"It's not what I'm against, it's what I'm for," she added, noting the nuance.

Still, it's a tough sell for many gay rights supporters, especially the thousands that marched last weekend in protest of the passage of gay marriage bans in three states. Hundreds stood in front of churches with protest signs.

According to UPI.com, some opponents of California's marriage amendment, or Proposition 8, went as far as releasing blacklists (antigayblacklist.com) of those who made monetary contributions to support Proposition 8. The list includes the names of individuals, businesses, Christian ministries and churches and how much each donated.

Proposition 8 opponents are now preparing to defend same-sex marriage in court after California's Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to hear multiple legal challenges against the amendment. The high court had ruled in May to legalize marriage for same-sex couples and an estimated 18,000 gay and lesbian marriages were sanctioned before the Nov. 4 vote.

Meanwhile, proponents of Proposition 8 are also readying their arguments as the state high court agreed to allow them to intervene as defendants in the case. Arguments will be weighed beginning next month.

But while the legal battle rages on, Christians have been given the opportunity to clear up misunderstandings and boldly share their faith, some say.

"If people misunderstand Christianity or misunderstand God's truth, here is an opportunity for us to try to articulate those correctly and to demonstrate those rightly," said Fryrear of Focus on the Family.

That means, defending God's design for sexuality and doing so in a spirit of grace, humility and compassion, she explained.

"People think that Christians are intolerant or bigots or hate-filled. This is an opportunity to say that's absolutely not true," she added. "The very essence of God is love. In ways unbelievers misunderstand Christianity and the messages of Christ, this is an opportunity to actually live it out by showing love. That doesn't mean condoning behaviors outside God's created intent for sexuality."

Fryrear celebrated this year the 10th anniversary of Love Won Out conferences and testified that many gay advocates who attended the event were surprised not to have heard messages of hate but only of love and grace.

The ministry's goal is to model after Christ, and balance "grace and truth," she said.

Also hoping to clear up misperceptions and get the "whole story" across, Stith of the SBC said it is imperative for Christians to at least seek to communicate that "it isn't just that we believe gay marriage is bad for Christians, the culture at large, etc. But it is ultimately bad for homosexuals if we really believe God has something different in mind for them. This is true for anyone who desires the fullness of joy and peace that God wants them to have."

"Whether someone is living with another person outside the marriage covenant, is a serial adulterer, or engaging in premarital sex, they cannot experience all that God wants them to have," he continued. "Our motive should not be simply to deny gay marriage but to hold out the hope, the promise and the fullness that God wants all people to know."

Homosexuality has emerged as a major issue confronting churches in the recent decade. And Stith has been part of a growing effort seen among churches to inform, educate and encourage Christians to reach out and show compassion in response to homosexuality while affirming biblical truth.

Responding to claims that the church views homosexual behavior as a bigger sin than anything else, Stith simply stated, "When the culture continually argues for the acceptance of homosexual acts, the church is called to respond to that ... to speak the truth of Scripture."

"If it seems that we devote an inordinate amount of time addressing that it is because an inordinate amount of time is given to promotion of homosexuality."

END



-----------

NT Wright: Why Do Good in a Hopeless World?

Via VirtueOnline:

by Lillian Kwon
Christian Post Reporter
www.Christianpost.com
Novemeber 25, 2008

"Why should we try to do good ... to create good things out there in the world when in fact all the hope that our society has lived on seems to be imploding all around us?" posed one top biblical scholar.

Why do good in what seems to be a hopeless world, posed one top biblical scholar and author to students at Harvard University.

In a post-September 11 world where the AIDS crisis and now the credit crisis are ailing millions, "why should we try to make a difference at all?" asked Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright. "Why should we try to do good ... to create good things out there in the world when in fact all the hope that our society has lived on seems to be imploding all around us?"

Ultimately, it's the belief and hope that the world will be good and ordered as it was in the beginning.

"The point of creation in the Bible is that the world as we have it is essentially a good place," Wright said. "One of the worrying things about some creationists is that having said the world was created in days, that's all they're really interested in, and then the name of the game is to leave the world behind ... and let it go to hell while we go off somewhere else called heaven. If you were a genuine creationist, you shouldn't be thinking like that. The point of the stories in Genesis is not the chronology of how it was done but the why that it was done."

Wright was speaking at a Nov. 18-20 evangelistic outreach at the Harvard campus in Cambridge, Mass. The event was sponsored by InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, a nationwide evangelical campus organization, which aimed to engage students and faculty in dialogue on questions regarding life's ultimate purposes and Christianity's claims regarding hope.

Contrary to popular belief, heaven is not the end of the world or the ultimate goal, Wright stated. It's just phase one. Further down, there's a "new heaven and new earth" - in other words, a renewal or recreation of the cosmos, he explained. He called it a "world put to rights."

And humans are a part of that remaking.

"Whether you think we're the product of blind chance, a random blip of evolutionary mutation, or whether you think we are the deliberate creation of a good and wise God, as Jews and Christians have always taught, you can't get away from the fact that most humans most of the time think of their life as having some kind of purpose," said Wright, author of Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church.

That purpose is not just to prepare for heaven and hope that on the day of Jesus' return everything will be made right again. Instead, it's making changes right now and taking steps until the entire cosmos is renewed and "rescued from slavery," as Wright put it, citing the Old Testament passage of the Israelites being rescued from slavery in Egypt and reaching the promised land.

"There is no reason to despair. The God who made the world still loves the world and He is calling us ... to share in the work of putting it straight at last," said Wright, who taught New Testament studies for 20 years at Cambridge, McGill and Oxford Universities. "And what we do in the present in this world matters because it can be part of the new world when God remakes the whole thing."

Speaking to current events, Wright highlighted the election of America's first black president and the change that many expect will come with a Barack Obama administration. "Change is the word on everybody's lips," Wright acknowledged. "What's it going to mean?"

"What change is going to come about through the election not only of the first black man to be your president but a man who embodies and articulates a very different view of the world and our role within it?"

Also, as the United States stands at the cusp of key issues, including the economy and global power, what happens in the coming years may set a course for America and the rest of the world, Wright noted.

He warned that in the midst of several crises, America and the world face the danger of making changes just for pragmatic and short-term reasons ... to cherish only a small-scale hope.

We shouldn't address these issues by trying to move just one or two steps, Wright said, but we should take steps toward something much more long-term - the hope of a world put to rights. And change isn't going to come, he indicated, without hope and without the Holy Spirit.

END

Not a cause for thanksgiving

Down They Go - Episcopal Dioceses, Cathedrals, Parishes Face Financial Losses

News Analysis

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org
11/26/2008

The Episcopal Church is imploding as dioceses, cathedrals and parishes face huge financial losses as the stock market reels and aging parishioners on fixed incomes rein in their giving. Large well-heeled cardinal parishes have taken tens of thousands of parishioners and their money with them to orthodox Anglican jurisdictions leaving liberal dioceses scrambling for money. At least two dioceses are living mainly on endowments.

It was recently revealed that the Episcopal Church's endowment funds have decreased by 30 percent this year. Treasurer Kurt Barnes told the Executive Council recently that every 5 percent decline in the value of the church's endowments equals $87,000 less revenue for the budget. Ironically, as the overall budget of TEC sinks, millions of dollars in legal fees are being spent to keep parish properties. To date, that figure is $2 million, but it is expected to rise to more than $5 million with coast- to- coast lawsuits in several dioceses.

National Episcopal documents show a large differences in all dioceses between total operating revenue verses total pledge revenue. Many are living off endowments, and many have been hurt by market declines because of heavy investments in the stock market.

Another official church document shows a decline in numbers of pledging units from 2006-2007. In a number of dioceses, they are going down quicker than attendance indicating that people are not committed. Furthermore, these dioceses will probably see a large Average Sunday Attendances (ASA) declines over the next few years. Also, the large declines in the dioceses that are leaving TEC indicate people are diverting their giving elsewhere, years ahead of those dioceses leaving.

Across the country, diocesan attendance figures show massive decline. Latest statistics for attendance in 2007 reveal that almost 100,000 fewer people are attending domestic dioceses than in 2003. Many dioceses are down 20%+ since 2003. In short, at least 1 in 5 Episcopalians has left The Episcopal Church.

The following is a sample of diocesan budgets around the country.

Recently, it was announced that the Diocese of Eau Claire was in "juncture" talks with the Diocese of Fond du Lac. One of the besetting issues is that Eau Claire doesn't have enough money to hire a bishop following the departure of the Rt. Rev. Keith Whitmore to Atlanta. One of the diocese's options includes fully dissolving the diocese. If the diocese were to dissolve, the 22 congregations and all other assets would be absorbed by the dioceses of Milwaukee and Fond du Lac, which would then revert to their 1927 boundaries.

The Diocese of Pennsylvania is in crisis mode. Giving has dropped so dramatically that more parishes are expected to close. An $11 million diocesan camp is a financial albatross around the dioceses' neck following the disastrous episcopacy of Charles E. Bennison. 2009 will see diocesan programs cut by as much as 50% with pledges to the national church declining by 43%, Millennium Development Goals payments dropping by 37%, and with investment income to the diocese dropping by 11%. The diocese passed a budget of $1,089,392, but recognized this was a "stretch goal" with no Unrestricted Net Assets (UNA's,). Leaders said the diocese must be prepared for a less than favorable cash flow by as much as $500,000 which would cause a "serious shortfall" and "discomfort."

Even as delegates boosted salaries and bonus compensation for clergy in 2009 by 5.1%, one delegate told VOL that the parish guidelines are still based on false assumptions that the money will be turned in. "I don't think this budget has a prayer."

Recently, Washington National Cathedral, the Episcopal Church's flagship cathedral, announced dramatic cuts to its budget, programs and staff. It will slash its budget by 40 percent next year, from $24 million to $14.4 million. More than 40 staffers will be laid off, retail operations at the cathedral's gift shop will be outsourced and the Cathedral College's residential course offerings will cease as of March 31, 2009, according to the cathedral. The cathedral's endowment was valued at $66 million last spring, but has since declined by about 25 percent, according to Michael Hill, executive director for external relations. In May, the cathedral cut $3.5 million from its budget by firing 33 employees and closing its greenhouse.

The Diocese of Washington lives primarily off of the income from the Ruth Gregory Soper Memorial Trust, (valued in excess of $27 million) the Bishop's Appeal, and other interest and investment income. Parishes, which form the base of diocesan giving, are in decline. Parish giving has not risen as anticipated. The diocese has needed to use more than $1 million each year from the available income to balance its budget, an independent report revealed.

The Diocese of Michigan recently approved withdrawing as much as $600,000 in principal from the Extended Ministries Fund (EMF) to directly support its budget. Alarmed at what might come in 2009, the dean of St. Paul's Cathedral in Detroit, the Very Rev. Scott Hunter proposed a special convention before May 31 to evaluate their "sustainable budget".

The Diocese of West Virginia, at its recent convention, approved a $1.8 million 2009 budget, unchanged from 2008. However, there are rumors that Peterkin Camp and Conference center might go on the chopping block.

The Diocese of the Rio Grande approved a budget of $1.4 million, an increase of $40,300 over the previous year, However, contributions decreased by $135,000 from the previous year, primarily due to the departure of St. Clement's Church. The absence of a full time bishop in 2008 offset congregational defections.

This year the Diocese of Rhode Island has a projected deficit of $100,000. Robert L.G. Batchelor, treasurer for the diocese, said that in normal times the diocese derives "several hundred thousand dollars a year" - about 30 percent of its budget - from its diocesan investment trust. It also derives revenue from each parish equivalent to 17.5 percent of that parish's income from two years before.

But this year, he told a local newspaper, is "not a happy situation," with the portfolio down by at least 30 percent. He fears that some parishes among the diocese's 50-plus churches have been less conservative with their investments and have lost more.

"It's very likely we will have to pull our horns in," he said, suggesting there could be reductions in grants to college chaplains and to diocesan music programs, to name a few.

If there is one bright spot, says the Rev. Robert Brooks, rector of Providence's Grace Episcopal Church, it is that the price of oil has gone down, too. "Earlier this year I was worried about the ability of some of our smaller congregations to pay their fuel bills."

The budget of the faux Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin under Bishop Jerry Lamb in 2009 has set aside the sum of $360,000.00 for legal fees. This equates to approximately the total amount of assessments plus about $100,000.00. Don't look for any new parish development. There isn't any money.

In the Diocese of Minnesota where 90% of the budget for the diocese comes from just 10% of the parishes, the 2009 budget is down $193,000 from $2.636 million (2008) to $2.443 million attributed to the fact that 11 churches are three months or more behind in payments to the diocese.

The Diocese of Lexington showed a drop in income of $30,000.00 in 2007. 2008 figures were not available, but it is expected to be worse with the growing discontent in the diocese under the stewardship of Bishop Stacy Sauls.

In the Diocese of Eastern Oregon, a budget of $619,.500 in 2006 had dropped to a proposed budget of $563,800 in 2009.

In the Diocese of Newark, pledged income dropped by $200,000 in 2007. No figures were given for 2008 or projected for 2009. Giving to the National Church took the biggest hit going from $673,000 to $521,000 during that period.

In the Diocese of Oregon (where Bishop Itty hurriedly retired), the budget is down $75,000 from a high of $2,193,000 to less than $2,107,000 million. It is expected to drop further in 2009.

In the Diocese of New Hampshire where the budget is $1.7 million, salaries for the bishop and staff total $700,000. The 2008 budget experienced a net loss of almost $10,000. A proposed budget for 2009 is looking for an extra $116,000 to operate the diocese, but no one seems to know where the extra money is going to come from. The diocese also cut back on its assessment to the National Church.

The Diocese of Virginia had a budget of $4.8 million in 2008, but there was no line item for lawsuits and legal costs.

In the Diocese of Los Angeles which is expecting a slight increase of its budget from $6.493 million to $6.877 million the bishops salaries are pegged at $700,000 but no line item for lawsuits.

In the Diocese of El Camino Real, a budget in 2008 brought in $1.385 million, but the requested budget for 2009 is $1.514 million. To date, the budget shows a shortfall of $168,000.

In the Diocese of New York, delegates to their recent convention approved a budget of $13.3 million, an increase of more than $880,000 over 2008 only after the Rt. Rev. Mark Sisk, Bishop of New York, spoke in favor of it. The budget was written before the Wall Street financial meltdown. Some convention delegates wanted to go through the budget line-by-line, but Sisk urged against a floor fight. He promised that the trustees would carefully monitor expenses in light of the new financial situation facing most parishes. Bishop Sisk also promised that the diocese would not take excessively punitive measures against congregations which are unable to meet their assessment due to financial hardship.

In the Diocese of Western New York, the financial hemorrhaging has been significant. Bishop Gladstone "Skip" Adams has seen his diocesan income go from over $2.4 million (2007) to barely $1.841 million in 2009. In a note to the diocese , he blames a lack of population growth, a global financial crisis and changing employment opportunities, "impacting the financial lives of our congregations." He says diocesan revenue over previous years has resulted in reduced assessment and lower pledge and investment income. Diocesan layoffs included a Property and Benefits Administrator, Canon on for Youth and Family Ministries and the Director of Diocesan Formation.

A spokesman in the Diocese of Central Florida told VOL that the Diocese is anticipating a "flat" budget for 2009 -- no anticipated changes in income or expenses over 2008. This diocese has seen a number of large parishes leave TEC over the authority of Scripture and pansexuality.

The Diocese of Montana finances continue to decline as a result of the stock market's poor performance, with a current loss in investments at approximately $700,000.00. As a result, the Finance Department investigated the possibility of the Diocese obtaining a bank loan or line of credit to pay bills instead of continuing to draw down Diocesan investments and savings. The Finance Department said it was not comfortable making such a decision, and deferred the matter to Diocesan Council.

The Diocese of South Dakota projects a deficit budget in 2009. A block grant from the General Convention of the Episcopal Church will be reduced from $567,648 (2008) to $539,266 (2009). Meanwhile, the Diocese will ask its congregations to increase giving from $307,072 this year to $325,717 in '09. Endowment money placed in the operating budget will go from $308,675 up to $316,648. Total projected expenses are $1,653,913. Total projected income is $1,380,181 - revealing a budget deficit of nearly $240,000. On Nov. 30, the Rt. Rev. Creighton L. Robertson, announced he will close nine parishes on the Pine Ridge Reservation, causing anger and frustration among some Native Americans who argue that the National Church is spending millions on lawsuits while neglecting poor parishes. The churches in question will be closed and the property disposed of according to Diocesan Policy, said a Diocesan spokesman. Poor attendance has been blamed for the closures.

The Diocese of North Dakota is in a financial free fall. At its meeting in February, the Executive Council approved a revised 2008 Episcopal Church budget that included reductions to several programs, including a five-percent cut in block grant programs to the dioceses of South Dakota, the dioceses of Alaska, North Dakota, the Navajoland Area Mission and the Indigenous Theological Training Institute.

The Diocese of California experienced a modest decline in giving. Their 2008 budget was $4.229 million, but a proposed budget for 2009 is $4.,247 million, a drop of $18,000.

Some dioceses like Texas, Massachusetts and Connecticut are holding up with large parishes giving millions to the diocese, but they are the exception rather than the rule. The Diocese of Ct. shows revenue of $5,630,963 over expenses of $5,727,594 a shortfall of $96,000 in 2009, but this will not make much of a dent in their day- to- day operations. In the Diocese of Texas. there are reports of discontent among parishioners at St. John the Divine in Houston with many wanting the parish to pull out of The Episcopal Church over its departure from the faith. If this happens, it will be a loss running into the millions for the diocese.

Proposed vs Actual Budgets

It should be noted that a Proposed Budget is not an Actual Budget. Whatever a diocese proposes in December of 2008 or earlier in the year does not necessarily mean it will play out like that throughout the year. As more and more Episcopalians leave the Episcopal Church (now conservatively estimated at 1,000 a week, though that figure dramatically rose with 17,000 Episcopalians leaving TEC last week in the Diocese of Ft. Worth), diocesan budgets will decline. How dramatically, one cannot say. Some dioceses will re-assess the damage mid-year 2009.

Furthermore, endowments, many of which have declined because of Wall Street collapse, are being tapped to keep dioceses afloat.

A large number of Episcopal cathedrals across the country are in trouble because old time Episcopalians are dying off, endowment funds are drying up and no new generations of Episcopalians are following because they are not hearing anything that distinguishes the message of liberal deans from the local newspaper. Ultimately, pansexuality will not sell. Only time will tell how these dioceses will weather the recession.

Also, consider the aging population of many of the churches, many of whom are on a fixed incomes and who have been hit hard by recent stock market declines. Up until now, a smaller number of attendees have been paying more each month keeping the financial figures fairly healthy, but predictions are that they will start to turn down in the next 2-3 years. There will have to be mass church and diocesan mergers in order to balance the books.

A source in the Church Pension Fund told VOL that total investments are down about $2 billion, but are still well in excess of liabilities for pensions and health care. "Our investments are extremely well managed - of course, fixed income securities don't fall as much in recessions, but do much worse over time - our approach is a very good one," VOL was told.

OH CANADA!

In Canada things are considerably worse financially. The Anglican Journal revealed that, faced with declining revenue and recurring budget deficits in recent years, the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada recently announced the termination of seven positions at its national office in Toronto. The terminations are part of a plan to cut the 2009 budget by CAN$1.3 million (US$1.06 million) and reduce the deficit to CAN$800,000 (US$652.586).

"I want to emphasize that all these decisions were due to structural changes we are forced to make as a result of financial constraints we are facing. None were due to performance issues," said an internal memo sent to staff by Archdeacon Michael Pollesel, the national church's general secretary. "Each of these seven individuals contributed to the ongoing life of church house and we thank them for their time with us."

Perhaps Episcopal Church officials will reconsider their "mission" of pursuing Millennium Goals and suing churches. Throwing former members out on the street with nothing, is not really what Jesus would do, and it's time to re-evaluate their approach.

At a deeper level, the decline indicates that theological liberalism is a cancer that is eating away at the Episcopal body politic and that no amount of money will ultimately keep it together. The Episcopal Church's "respectable unbelief" - Jesus is "a way" not "the way" ...truth and the life, touted by the Presiding Bishop will only lead more people to leave. After all, if you don't know what you really stand for, why should anyway follow what you fall for?

END