Mr. Hey,

You are absolutely correct that the root of the problem in the EC is the loss of biblical authority in the last 200 years. There are specific decision points along the way that trace the route. You are also correct that there is enormous biblical illiteracy among Episcopalians, particularly where the clergy has been revisionist. In those two areas, your assessment is sound, and your interlocutors have no valid response.

You are incorrect, however, to assume that the reaction to such problems is to embrace an ecclesiological position of independent local church and ministry. The first three centuries had no organization or administration of the Church and it did not function locally and independently only, but internationally, in unity, and with a specific order.

You are also incorrect to assume that biblical Anglicanism does not exist because you have not heard it here. John Stott, J.I. Packer, Leon Morris, Gerald Bray, Fitzsimmons Allison, J.C. Ryle, and many others, are examples of solidly biblical Anglican teachers and clergy that are rooted in Scripture and in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. You may think you have a ministry here correcting these errant Episcopalians, but what you are doing is substituting your own doctrinal perspectives as if they are the Scripture. It is not that simple, and you should know that. If you do not, you should not be in the role you are in.

For instance, for many affirmations you make about doctrine, there is an evangelical church that sees it differently yet holds to an inerrant Bible the same as you do. That is, if the Episcopal Church's problem is the loss of Biblical authority (and it is), the solution for them is to accept that authority, and reorient their lives under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Your suggesting that the Lordship of Christ is only expressed by your understanding of biblical teaching is disingenuous. Why not simply point them to the Anglican writers mentioned above?

For instance, your exhortation to leave ECUSA to separate oneself according to the biblical command is one that many of us have already obeyed. That it must result in independent congregationalism is a non sequitur. We are part of a branch of the Church that is close to 100 million strong, and all over the world, the vast majority of whom are solidly biblical. Why would we abandon that because of the liberal revisionism that has taken control of a small, fallen organization in one part of the world? Denominationalism has to do with organization and control. The Church itself is rooted in the living reality of Christ, and its offices and functions arise organically from Him through the Spirit. That is not without order, however, and the Church that is now Anglicanism follows that ancient order. You do not.

Your differing perspective on Benedict XVI is case in point to all of the above. Anglicanism has historically rejected the claims of the bishop of Rome, and is right to do so. Even Firmilian and Cyprian, other bishops in the early Church rejected such a claim. However, to reject that the bishop of Rome is a bishop in the Church, is a different story. During the 16th century, is was necessary to break from the system of the medieval Roman Church, not because or moral corruption, but because the system itself had become corrupt. The gospel was being preached even in areas that were not in the Reform, e.g. by Juan Valdez in Italy. Yet the Reformation only took root in the ancient non-Roman lands, as Latourette pointed out a long time ago. The reason is purely political, and it is certain that politics underlay the Reformation struggles. You mention the martyrs of England. Hooper and Ridley did not die for the gospel per se. They died for renouncing transubstantiation. That was viewed as treason, because, as Calvin pointed out, it was the lynchpin of corrupt Roman power, which power validated the authority of the emporer, kings, and princes. During the Reformation era, rejecting transubstantiation and affirming justification by faith went hand in hand, so that the administration of the Church by the Roman See had to be rejected.

Your comments on Benedict, however, suggest that because the Roman doctrine has not yet officially rejected Trent, that 1) it never will, and 2) all Romans therefore accept the official doctrine. The first you cannot say, unless you claim powers you do not have, and the second is a complete misunderstanding of Roman Catholicism. It is not monolithic in belief. Many RCs consider themselves evangelicals. Whether they are correct to do so is another matter, but they do. In any case, considering all Roman Catholics as abominable heretics and enemies of the gospel is an ignorant, i.e. unlearned, denying what actually is the case, position. I would warrant that people in your little congregation do not believe everything you do. It's far more diverse within an organization of 1.17 billion people, to the good and bad. Our not recognizing men and women who are genuinely believers in Jesus Christ within that organization is a serious offense against the Lord, as we fail to recognize Him.

The point is this: your biblical affirmations are fine, but your applying them to the world we live in is simplistic and misleading. For instance, in 1971 Roman Catholic theologians agreed with Anglican theologians on the doctrine of the Eucharist, in which they placed transubstantiation in a footnote, because it is not uniformly held by Romans anymore. The reason, of course, is that no one believes in Aristotelian philosophy anymore, but the point is that the system the Reformers rejected in Rome doesn't exist in actuality anymore. Even on the "sacrifice of the Mass," the thought of many Roman theologians is entirely different. Read Kilmartin on the history of the eucharist in the West. He clearly repudiates the concept of resacrifice, and says the majority of Roman thought in the 20th century does also. Your perception of Rome as unchanged in 500 years is out of touch. Does its still officially teach Trent? Yes. Will it in the future? That depends. If ranting from a position that rejects them as Christians is the only thing they hear, no, they won't. However, if they are convinced through the careful work of respectful churchmen, they may yet do so. You may choose the former thinking that no one in there is a Christian, we choose the latter believing that we hear real faith expressed amid a good bit of error. If you would like me to back this approach up with Scripture, I can easily do so. Phillipians 2 would be a good place to start, then John 17, Ephesians 4, and the letters of John. However, the letters of Paul themselves would be the best. They correct horrific abuses and heresies, yet Paul accepts his readers as fellow believers. Despite the problems they got into, he understood something about their faith to be true. We do the same with Rome today.

Again, you may feel as if you have a ministry here to save Episcopalians because you sense naive biblical illiteracy, as these people struggle with the wreckage of their church. That does not mean they are not believers. Even so, if you are honest towards other professing Christians where you have reason to doubt their faith, you ought to hold forth merely the gospel, and not the implicational system that you perceive to be attached to it, such as no women in ministry, something your own evangelical world will not go along with you on, which you are certainly well aware. I would strongly question whether engaging Episcopalians who are attempting to fight heresy in their church in the way that you have is encouraging to these brethren, or is seeking to take advantage of their weakness to lead them in the way of your own flock. On the basis of their response to you thus far, I would suggest that you have been less than encouraging. If you mean not to encourage but to save, believing any Episcopalian not to be saved as you do Roman Catholics, you have not presented an attractive picture of a Christian in your rhetoric. I suspect you will gain only the wounded, but it is altogether a dismal form of evangelism to prey on such a group.