Wow, what a sensible fellow. He hits the nail on the head with everything he says there. I thought the same when I saw Akinola's line on "the teaching of the Bible"; I think passing judgement and calling for "discipline" on others, especially in the public view as an archbishop is, is out of order; and in addition to his comments on how one can tell the righteous, I would add two favourite quotes - "true religions is...care for widows" (James), and "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another" (John).

I wonder if Akinola has Titus 1:5-9 printed on his mirror?

"Our style of governance — in which laity, clergy and bishops share decision-making power — is unique in the Anglican Communion."

Not so. The Church of England has a General Synod and so do other provinces.

"why does this Archbishop spend so much time on human sexuality issues while so many of his countrymen and women are oppressed by poverty, illiteracy and violence?"

Why does ECUSA spend so much time on human sexuality issues while its own cities, as we have recently seen in New Orleans, are evidently suffering catastrophic levels of poverty, neglect and racial discrimination?

Why are the poor of Nigeria flocking into Anglican churches there, while attendance even in the wealthier parts of ECUSA is in steady decline?

"We are all under Judgment, but that judgment ultimately belongs only to God as we know him through Jesus Christ."

No one disputes this, but what of a bishop who is unable to name sin for what it is, or to follow the example set by Jesus Christ of calling sinners to repentance?

Chane, chane, chane.....Chane of foooooooloolools.
Just as Akinola might find something better to do, Chane might also consider that Christianity is not merely social justice. As a matter of fact, most secular NGO's do a far better job at this than ECUSA has ever done. Christianity is about our state of sin, repentence, redemption, and salvation. This engages us in worship, adoration, giving thanks, and prayer for the state of Christ's church. Maybe, that's even the core. The attributes Chane claims as the center...are about good works. Christ may inspire these....but he is not necessary to this service, nor do these works deliver men and women in a way that lifts our hearts, as good and fine as these works may be. But this is not the core of our faith.

Somehow this seems off the radar screen for both these men. Akinola's church to its credit has grown enormously while Chane's has in fact splintered. Chane seems to miss the point that the charge in the Gospel is to spread the good news....and that maybe this is the first order of business? Hard to deliver social justice when the workers in your vinyard are half what they used to be.

Plainly put....I am not a fan. Chane was brought in to be a builder. The Diocese has been very patient....but we're still waiting for a focus on growth rather than a focus on politics. The sad thing is that this whole mess is as much a distraction here as it is in Nigeria. Might one venture to suggest that of the two...Chane is more distracted?

Bishop Chane spoke with grace and dignity. Compare his statements with those of Dr. Peter Akinola on occasion of the latter's acceptance of the KAIROS Award in New York City a few weeks ago. Last week's Church Times quoted a portion of Dr. Akinola's speech as follows:

"THE online Kairos Journal ( www.kairosjournal.org) seeks to "embolden, educate, equip and support pastors and church leaders, writes Pat Ashworth. Its annual Kairos Awards go to those it considers to have made "a bold and consistent stand for historic orthodoxy in the light of theological decline".

It judged Archbishop Akinola, and Bishop Venables, as well as the Archbishop of Uganda, the Most Revd Henry Orombi, and the Archbishop of South East Asia, the Most Revd Datuk Yong Ping Chung, to have shown "exemplary fidelity to the authority of scripture and pastoral courage in their efforts to restore the prophetic voice of the Church".

"The website quotes a response by Archbishop Akinola to "the practice of appointing homosexual bishops in the Anglican Church". His nine points include:

‘ Homosexuality and lesbianism, like divorce, breed a society of single parents which gives rise to a generation of bastards. And in the context of much poverty and lack of education, this further produces an ill-bred generation of hooligans, portending much terror to the peace and stability of the society. ’

‘ In a society where many women are finding it difficult to have husbands of their own due to depletion of men by many factors, homosexuality will exacerbate the disequilibrium, leading to much social unrest. ’"

Out of the Primate and Metropolitan of All Nigeria's own mouth... blaming gays and lesbians for out-of-wedlock births and juvenile delinquency... but using hateful language, even if one considers that the English language may not be his native tongue... The cleric has no credibility.

"Our style of governance—in which laity, clergy and bishops share decision-making power—is unique in the Anglican Communion."

I thought CofE had laity, clergy and bishops voting in General Synod, where I also thought that the decision making power was located. I'd assumed this was standard throughout the Anglican Communion.

Have I been very stupid again, or is he being ironic?

I wish he knew the difference between "sight" and "site" -- assuming you've cited him accurately.

I'm no fan of the line being taken by Peter Akinola. However, I think there is something interesting going on in the Washington statement here, in the way in which governance is both spoken of directly and implied.

Governance (outside of the business sector) is not simply about having a representative (and quasi-democratic) system of appointing bodies which then have unfettered power to determine the direction of the organisation. For example a UK Charity would be constrained by its constitition, and the trustees would have very limited power to alter its aims and objectives - even then they would need to obtain approval from the external regulator.

Conservatives are entirely right to argue that scripture (and church tradition) do not give a national church the authority to vary the content of the Christian faith as received, and no amount of either democratic pleading (be it about the good governance structures of ECUSA or the deficiencies of the ACC and Primates) or the argument from good works (as in the Washington letter) can override that.

The question for the Anglican Communion is not whether it is right in God's eyes for a gay person to be ordained bishop, but whether it is proper for an individual national church to take such a decision in the face of the international body it belongs to. This was the thrust of the Windsor document.

That international membership creates constraints which require one to limit ones actions, and to accept that negative consequences elsewhere may outweigh positive ones at home is a concept often found missing in North American culture, politics, business and military intervention.

"Why are the poor of Nigeria flocking into Anglican churches there, while attendance even in the wealthier parts of ECUSA is in steady decline?"

Because Nigeria is an economic and political basket case. All religions in Nigeria are experiencing growth, not simply "evangelical" Anglicanism.

I am old enough to remember that Nigeria in 1960 was thought of as one of England's colonial "success" stories. Big things were expected of the Nigerians. Didn't happen, they flopped--and flopped Big-time.

It is simply a reflection of the chaos of living in a failed country. Any institution which brings order out of the surrounding chaos, any institution which can be a social survival network, is eagerly embraced. Most people in the technologically advanced countries of West have long since ceased to view the Church in such a survivalist way. Therefore, attendance at religious observances is in general decline.

The growth of the Church of Nigeria is not a function of its "evangelical" theology, but rather of the disintegration of Nigerian society.

David, you raise a good point on the tensions in international church bodies. But what are we to say of the principle "The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England." Of course, the English Church at the time of their own split from the "international body it belong[ed] to," declared (and believed) it was remaining true to the pure Christian faith -- but that isn't what the "international body" thought! The Episcopal Church has made a similar claim today: the ordination of Bishop Robinson does not repudiate any core doctrine of the Christian Faith. It is a matter of "rites and ceremonies" and of pastoral theology, not dogma.
I would hate to see a division in the Anglican Communion over these issues; but it seems to me that the ones pressing for division are the Akinola party, who want repentance, uniformity and a closed book, rather than the continued dialogue that the Windsor Report calls for.

One difference between the Episcopal Church and the Church of England is that the U. S. elects its bishops. I can understand people being unaware of this, however. British press reports still sometimes refer to the "appointment" of Gene Robinson.

I continue to be amazed at the arrogance of purportedly-Anglican clerics, in no small measure from countries which are either totalitarian or highly corrupt, to impose their distorted views of Christianity on the rest of the world. I do not deny that there can be differences in interpretation by people of good will, and good faith, but nobody has the right to impose their interpretation on others, or act as if they, and they alone, know the Truth. We seem to be headed towards a division between the Christian Church of the Good Samaritan and the Good Shepherd, versus the Church of the Modern Day Pharisees, and I have no use for the contordedly legaliastic and unloving Pharisees, such as the Nigerian Archbishop, arising in the Anglican Communion. It may be time for each group to go its' separate ways, and instead dedicate our energy to solving problems that actually affect people, and diminish the Christian experience.

To take matters a little further back in history, the "style of governance" of the PECUSA derives from the much older Scottish Episcopal Church, which provided its first bishop - and continues to elect its own bishops.

Not that election guarantees the quality of the outcome....

Another difference between ECUSA and the Church of England (can't speak for other churches) is that each diocese of ECUSA has great autonomy. Unlike England, where the Archbishops of York and Canterbury have real power over clerical appointments, the Presiding Bishop of EUCSA is at best (and at most) "first among equals." Thus, the kind of action taken by the ABC to "persuade" Jeffrey John to decline his appointment as bishop could not happen over here. I understand that in England this centralizing of power is a holdover from the canonical structures of medieval Catholicism.

"Our style of governance—in which laity, clergy and bishops share decision-making power—is unique in the Anglican Communion."

I would have thought that the structure of the Anglican Church of Australia was similar in style. Bishops are elected here too, in Sydney from the floor of synod.

"I understand that in England this centralizing of power [over appointments] is a holdover from the canonical structures of medieval Catholicism."

Actually the power of appointment (seized by Henry VIII) was gradually transferred away from the King to the Prime Minister, along with all the rest of the monarchy's powers. Since 1986 the nomination of diocesan bishops has effectively been made by a commission consisting of the two archbishops, six synod members (clergy and laity) and clergy and laity from the diocese concerned.

It is impossible to say whether it produces better or worse results than elections. Some still wish the prime minister made the appointments - they tended to be more imaginative.

Just a couple of points from earlier comments:

Kurt wrote, "It is simply a reflection of the chaos of living in a failed country. Any institution which brings order out of the surrounding chaos, any institution which can be a social survival network, is eagerly embraced. Most people in the technologically advanced countries of West have long since ceased to view the Church in such a survivalist way. Therefore, attendance at religious observances is in general decline." I think he may well have a point, but would be interested to see how he developed this argument in relation to the extreme religiosity of the USA as compared with Europe.

Jim Naughton wrote, "One difference between the Episcopal Church and the Church of England is that the U. S. elects its bishops." So does the Church of England! Every bishop is elected by the Dean and Chapter of his cathedral after the Queen issues the instruction to do so. (Yes, my tonguer is ever so slightly in my cheek.)

I wouldn't mind being educated here.

Here is what the Episcopal Church does: Our parishes elect lay delegates to a diocesan convention. At the diocesan convention lay delegates and diocesan clergy vote on lay and clerical reps to our General Convention. At General Convention, we have a bicameral arrangement: House of Bishops including all bishops, not just those with diocesan jurisdiction and a House of Deputies that includes the lay and clerical reps.

In electing bishops, the diocesan convention does the balloting, and then consents must come from sitting diocesan bishops and Standing Committees, unless the election was 90 days (not certian abouthtat number, actually) of a General Convention, in which case the House of Deputies takes the role of the Standing Committee in doing the consenting.

I think I have this right.

I appreciate that this method of doing business may have been influenced by the Scottish Church, as a previous poster said, but I think it also has something to do with the fact that some of the people who drafted our Church constitution drafted our national constitution, and there are some obvious similiarities.

How does this compare to some of the other churches that have elections of some sort?

"Kurt wrote, 'It is simply a reflection of the chaos of living in a failed country. Any institution which brings order out of the surrounding chaos, any institution which can be a social survival network, is eagerly embraced. Most people in the technologically advanced countries of the West have long since ceased to view the Church in such a survivalist way. Therefore, attendance at religious observances is in general decline.' I think he may well have a point, but would be interested to see how he developed this argument in relation to the extreme religiosity of the USA as compared with Europe."--Alan Harrison

Americans are joiners, Alan. Even some atheists go to church in America, e.g., Ethical Culture. The evango-fundie sects have a high turnover of membership, much like the British SWP. Because the United States is a nation of nearly 300 million people, there are always new, primarily young, recruits in the pipeline. Most generally drift away as they grow older, either toward Mainline religious denominations like Episcopalians or Presbyterians, or into passive memberships which pad the rolls of groups such as the Southern Baptists.

With regard to church government, I think its fair to say that Bishop Chane overstated slightly.

ECUSA's particular brand of democracy may be unique, but they are not alone in involving the laity and clergy. The point Bishop Chane is making though is that if the Primates are added to ACC, there will be little or no real influence of clergy and laity in the Instruments of Unity.

Here, in Canada, we have some similar arrangements to ECUSA, but we have some of our quirks.

Our Primate is elected by the Clergy and Laity only, the Bishops only role is to nominate members of their own body, and wait for the Clergy and Lay to choose which one of the nominees they prefer.

Our National Church (and our Primate) have much less power than most other Provinces.

In fact, it is this degree of automony that has led to the situation in New Westminster, where the Diocesan Synod - consisting of clergy and elected laity from all parishes - repeatedly (3 times) asked the Bishop to allow the Blessing of Same-Sex Unions - to which he finally agreed in 2001.

The dioceses in Canada were formed first, and therefore had all the power - before a National body was set up. These dioceses didn't trust each other much, for theological and political reasons, so they ceded very little authority to the new National Church body (in the late 1800's).

Jim, thanks. I have heard it said, and on good authority, too, that the organizational structures of ECUSA are much more like the Articles of Confederation than like the current US Constitution. That is, there is far more autonomy granted the "States" (dioceses) than in the current US COnstitution.

Thanks, John. I wish we were even more like the Articles. Printing our own currency, for instance. Now that would be a big help.

We Anglicans have scarcely a leg to stand on, when it comes to being an authentic church with an immaculate pedigree. That belongs, apparently, to Rome. Against Roman criticism we cling to authenticity by a slender thread, no doubt. Now, with Peter Ankola thundering about our invalidity, we are once again on the deep slop to perdition. However, it's not a new experience for Anglicans to stand precariously on one leg (claiming the three-legged stability of Richard Hooker). We know that, since Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, inclusivity has always spawned separation. Peace and All Good.

Jim,
In the Australian church the bishop is elected by Synod, made up of local church delegates and clergy.
In Sydney the election is directly from the floor of synod.
Our general convention is similar to your GC except that it is tricameral (Bishops, clergy, laity). This national body does not vet diocesan bishops.
AFIAK in those societies rich enough to support a democratic synodical system that is the way Anglican churches tend to operate. Bishop Chane is simply wrong in describing power sharing as unique to ECUSA. It is worrying that he knows so little about the Anglican churches of other countries.

Plus (continuing to comment on ECUSA polity), I rather think our "representative democracy" is a little *too* "representative" (which is to say it's too *indirect*).

With our GC reps being chosen, in turn, by diocesan *reps*, it resembles U.S. federal governance before the XVII Amendment (to the Constitution, 1913): back when U.S. Senators were elected by state legislatures, not the people themselves.

I think that *too many layers* between the people/laity and their government, breeds contempt for that government (giving rise to the myth---True *or* False---that "the people in the pew wouldn't have approved +GR").

Don't get me wrong: I still think ECUSA's polity is superior to others I've heard of (though I'd like to learn more about AngChCanada's: thanks Charles!).

. . . but that doesn't mean there still isn't room for improvement!

[I agree, Alan Marsh, "Not that election guarantees the quality of the outcome...." It's just that listening for the Will of God via the vote of the many, is vastly preferable to leaving that task to the unelected, potentially-dictatorial few! :-D]

Whoops, I'm still off-topic, aren't I? Let me conclude by saying that I believe that +John Chane is a wise and wholesome example of ECUSA's democratic leadership, discerning the Will of God as best we can (through and with the *constant prayer for God's Help*).

"Bishop Chane is simply wrong in describing power sharing as unique to ECUSA. It is worrying that he knows so little about the Anglican churches of other countries." O'bad.

I'm not worried/worrying or worrisomeded. I think Bishop Chane covered our democratic American Episcopal Church system well without specifically pointing out the *differences* in other churches that are less fortunate and unable to operate more *evenhandedly*...besides, Bishop Chanes main point is a suggestion that +Akinola may need to spend more time at home doing the exhausting "pastoral" work in NIGERIA with all those ongoing problems such as childbirth death, critical/terminal rampant illness and incomprehensible murder by slaugter.

Inciting hatecrimes in America with colorful yet hatefilled/bombastic/nonsense speeches in New York against Gay's and Lesbians and their "hooligan" offspring(s) is simply distracting and unhelpful to his REAL Christian ministry challenges at home...at least, I imagine it would be.

Bishop Chane is a fine leader. He is greatly respected and admired for his kindways and even handednes in most matters...he genuinely loves other human beings.

ALL other human beings.

Hasta la vista y tenga a feliz noche

I was amused by Kurt's comparison of turnover "evango-fundies" and the SWP. (I assume that he does mean the Socialist Workers' Party.) I think there is certainly evidence of "churn" in successful evangelical churches. Before Alpha, the last big evangelical thing in England was "Good News Down the Street", which originated in the parish next door to the one where I worshipped at the time. Figures I saw indicated that the high numbers did indeed represent a high turnover.

I would suggest that sociological factors in different levels of religious observance are quite complex. Why, for instance, the very different levels of churchgoing and attitudes towards church/state separation in the two great republics of the enlightenment, France and the USA?

Even more interesting is the huge difference between those close neighbours with very similar recent histories - Poland and the Czech Republic. Poland is notoriously religious, not always in a very pleasant way. (Try a web search for "Dorota Nieznalska". You might even find something which will dent my reputation as the hard-line conservative spike of TA!) Down south in the Czech Republic, by contrast, church attendance is sparse and there was widespread outrage when ecclesiastical assets taken into public ownership by Gottwald's government were restored to the Church a few years ago.

Where the 39 varieties of Anglicanism are concerned, I suppose there might also be a thesis or two in examining how it assimilates to or differentiates itself from the "competition"...

"It is worrying that he knows so little about the Anglican churches of other countries." ObadiahSlope

Perhaps so, Ob, but how many Sydney Anglicans know much about the American Episcopal Church and its history? Is everything before 1788 a blur to them? How many know that the American Church is the oldest Anglican body outside of the British Isles? In fact, in large measure, the Anglican Communion exists because of the American Church.

"the oldest Anglican body outside of the British Isles" - a remarkable claim!

There were Anglican chaplaincies and organisations in many places in Europe long before American independence, and indeed throughout the whole sphere of British influence, in Africa, India and the far East.

It seems rather more likely that the British Empire is responsible for the existence of the Anglican Communion than the American Anglican Church - and it seems strange that a former colony is so anxious to maintain its place in the spiritual Commonwealth which succeeded the Empire.

But many Americans I know are closet Monarchists... just as the British are becoming more republican!

Kurt,
most Sydney Anglicans are not as ignorant as I am but even so would have only a shaky knowledge of ECUSA, I agree. Some might blame Bishop Colenso for the Anglican Communion though.

But Bishop Chane is a bishop, and an experienced one. I would expect him to have a reasonable knowledge of the communion. He might even have gone to Lambeth and had the chance to meet a variety of bishops. Did he assume all the non-Americans were all appointed?

I think Bishop Chane is probably right about the uniqueness of the Episcopal Church in terms of its polity and degree of 'democracy'. The predominant model of church government throughout the Anglican Communion is that of the 'Bishop in Synod'. This contrasts with ECUSA which often sees the House of Deputies as being the senior house in General Convention. I can see how the move to make Primates permanent members of the ACC strikes a jarring note with ECUSAns. However, as far as I can gather the idea came from within the ACC structure itself, and is a natural outworking of the 'Bishop in Synod' model, for each province to be represented by its 'chief bishop' and a clergyman and layperson. The Anglican Communion has been developing its structures (usually in response to crisis) since the ACC was first formed. This strikes me as a legitimate and logical development.

One of the chief differences among ECUSA and many other Anglican Provinces lies I think in the role of the Bishop. Other provinces still afford the college of Bishops the primary role in doctrinal matters and in teaching. From my own observations of General Convention, the two houses have pretty much the same role and there is actually very little differentiation between them in terms of their perceived functions. The last US Bishop I can think of who took his role seriously in terms of theological formation was the former Bishop of Newark, New Jersey and you can see where he was on the theological spectrum.

"There were Anglican chaplaincies and organisations in many places in Europe long before American independence, and indeed throughout the whole sphere of British influence, in Africa, India and the far East."

Oh, please! English Church chaplancies existed in some countries since the late middle ages. And other countries had chaplancies in England, too. Yes, yes, and of course there were Irish Anglican Bishops, and Scots, too. That's obvously not what I meant.

I'm talking about sizable, domestically generated, dioceses, Alan. But Americans were the first non-Brit nation to have Anglican bishops,outside of the British Isles. It's just history.

Or is it that some English can't get over the fact that it was the Scots, not them, who gave the gift of the episcopate to the Americans?

The history of the Scottish Episcopal Church is rather a troubled one. Its episcopate died out and a new succession had to be created for it by the Church of England, so what the status was of the first American bishop is anyone's guess, having been consecrated by Scottish bishops with an English "ancestry".

So far as I know most of the dioceses of Africa, India, Australia and SE Asia derived directly from the work of English missionaries, and their bishops were being appointed until relatively recently in some cases by the Archbishops of Canterbury. Even the parishes in the USA were regarded as an extension of the Diocese of London until independence and the arrival of an episcopate.

Perhaps, Kurt, you might list the dioceses outside PECUSA/ECUSA which were founded from the USA? That would be very helpful.

Re Alan Harrison's comment regarding Kurt's

'It is simply a reflection of the chaos of living in a failed country,' that he "would be interested to see how he developed this argument in relation to the extreme religiosity of the USA as compared with Europe."

I would like to add to Kurt's reply that the US is, to some extent almost by design, a society in a state of perpetual disentegration. It is thus hardly surprising that our conservative impulses should work themselves out in such ways as to seem virtually indistinguishable, to secular eyes, from the ways adopted by persons living in more obviously failed societies.

OSlope,

Just to clear a couple of things up. Bishop Chane is not a senior bishop. He's been a bishop for just over three years. He has never been to a Lambeth conference. He is aware that some other provinces elect their bishops.

Jim,
thank you for clarifying those points, and correcting my assumptions. I am left wondering what Bishop Chane meant about the power-sharing among laity,clergy and bishops being unique in the Anglican Communion. Does Andrew Carey, who made an insightful post above get close, or is there some other difference that the bishop was getting at?
While the ethos of the dioceses of Washington and Sydney are different both are democratic from what I can see.

I would agree with Howard that the policies of the American conservatives has lead to the disintegration of social services for the needy and the quality of life for all Americans, whatever their social class. But the United States is far from a failed state. In fact, both our Revolution and Civil War actually resolved certain issues. Unlike Nigeria. The two most recent Intel projections I have read do not have a good outcome for Nigeria, despite of--because of?--its oil.

I just returned last nite from the 150,000 person anti-war demonstration in DC. George Galloway was one of the speakers.

Cheers!

"But Bishop Chane is a bishop, and an experienced one. I would expect him to have a reasonable knowledge of the communion. He might even have gone to Lambeth and had the chance to meet a variety of bishops. Did he assume all the non-Americans were all appointed?"

You have a point, Ob. If I were a bishop, I'd certainly use the opportunity to get to know about other Provinces. Perhaps not everyone thinks as we do about such things.

"when it comes to being an authentic church with an immaculate pedigree. That belongs, apparently, to Rome."

Well, no ... I think that "distinction" (yes ... twinge of sarcasm) belongs to the Orthodox churches (if we're going to spilt hairs, here). It was Rome, after all, that gradually shifted from episcopal polity to a pontifical model. Modern Roman polity ... hardly "authentic" to the early church and its first Council at Jerusalem.

All that said, last I checked the only thing with an immaculate pedigree was my former chaplain's Siamese cat.

“Perhaps, Kurt, you might list the dioceses outside PECUSA/ECUSA which were founded from the USA? That would be very helpful.”-- Alan Marsh

Well, according to "Horizons of Mission" by Titus Presler (Cowley, Boston, MA ’01) our first external Missionary Bishop was elected in 1844 for Amoy and Other Parts of China, which was about 10 years after the first American Anglican missionaries arrived in China. In 1859 American Anglicans became the first non-Roman Christians to witness in Japan, and a Missionary Bishop was consecrated for Japan in 1866. To the American colonies in Liberia, West Africa, missionaries were sent in 1835, and their first Bishop was consecrated in 1885.

We also did early mission work at the turn of the last century in our colonial territories of the Philippines, Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands, as well as evangelization in our protectorates of the period such as Cuba, Nicaragua, and Haiti.

Best regards from Brooklyn, USA

Most interesting, Kurt! I will go and look up the book on Amazon!

Excuse me for getting in the way of continuing arguments that are tantamount to counting the number of angels on the head of a pin, but does anybody care about the un-Christlike message of Archbishop Akinola, or are you instead going to argue endlessly about who did what first, and which Province is better than the other Province? We should be talking about the message of the Church, and whether uncharitable fundamentalists should be allowed to presume that they stand on the high ground of the Anglican Communion. People like the Nigerian Primate argue from a pharisaical perspective that, in my belief, ignores the essential message of Christ. What are we? And, what should we become? That is the issue I would like to see addressed by learned colleagues in the faith of Christ.

In addition to the provinces and dioceses listed by Kurt in answer to Alan Marsh's question regarding "dioceses outside PECUSA/ECUSA which were founded from the USA":

1. The Anglican Church of Mexico, prior to becoming its own province, sprang from missionary efforts by the then-PECUSA beginning in the late 1800's, with its missionary bishops named by the PECUSA. (And IIRC, one of the early missionary bishops of Mexico, prior to passing to oversight by an Irish Anglican bishop, originally had oversight of the Spanish Reformed Episcopal Church, so that would mean the PECUSA arguably was involved somewhat in the early formation of the Anglican church in Spain.) Mexico only recently became autonomous (1995).

2. Although there was a CoE presence in Brazil since the early 1800s, it was more for expatriate Brits than for missionary efforts among Brazilians. The Episcopal Anglican Church of Brazil is the direct result of missionary efforts from the PECUSA in the late 1880s (especially, IIRC, missionaries affiliated with VTS), and remained under the PECUSA until receiving autonomy in 1965.

3. All of the Province of Central America except Costa Rica was formerly within ECUSA.

4. Non-USA territories still within ECUSA are: Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Taiwan, and Micronesia (now independent).

So Alan, when you write that "[s]o far as I know most of the dioceses of Africa, India, Australia and SE Asia derived directly from the work of English missionaries, and their bishops were being appointed until relatively recently in some cases by the Archbishops of Canterbury," that's true, but most of Latin America (i.e., other than the Southern Cone) is a different story, as are some territories around the Pacific Rim, as Kurt's and my lists demonstrate.

But what's the point? The Anglican Communion, like most institutions, had no single origin; Chicago, the Bp. Colenso affair, Lambeth, and other affairs and occasions all played a part. It remains true that, ***outside*** the British Isles, the first (pre-Communion) Anglican church that the CoE recognized as being in communion with it was the (P)ECUSA, thereby setting up a template later used with other Anglican local national or regional churches that derived either from the CoE or from the (P)ECUSA.

It is disheartening that some equate “orthodox believers” with those in opposition to inclusion and full rights (and rites) for gay and lesbian persons. The living Gospel of Jesus Christ is not well served by those who would choose– as individuals or for the church–a watch-dog or judgemental role instead of following in our Lord’s footsteps. Jesus was in radical opposition to some of the cultural gender and marriage models of the time– women were property, marriages were arranged. If we walk in Christ’s footsteps– we orthodox believers–by the power of the Holy Spirit can come to new understandings of many things. Orthodox believers– are those who champion sin and grace theology, those who believe in God the creator, redeemer, and sustainer, those who believe in the power and hope of the cross, and in the resurrection and continued life of our Lord. We should not confuse orthodox belief with orthodox prejudice. Those who support discrimination in the name of God– and worse yet, those who support blatant denial of human rights such as we are seeing with Mr. Akinola in Nigeria are not servants of Christ, but are most surely in league with evil. It is time for casting out demons…