Below is a piece by John Spong, who long ago left the Christian faith, although he continues dishonestly to hold a position as a bishop in the Episcopal Diocese of Newark. His name is passing out of memory for many, and his contributions will probably soon be forgotten.
The Rev. John Rodgers makes a clear and accurate and compelling response at the end.
The Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan makes a strong response, holding back to keep in touch with the 50 other bishops who may not be so bold.
And 50 bishops respond with a "Declaration". Strongly, but not strongly enough. There is no clear indication of being out of communion with Spong or declaration that Spong is no longer to be considered a bishop in the Church of God.
We must make a clear distinction between
(1) content: what the Christian faith is, and
(2) truth: whether that Christian faith describes reality or falsehood.
One can have honest disagreements with John Spong over whether the Christian faith is true. But Mr. Spong cannot try to tell the rest of us Christians what the Christian faith is. We already know what it is. The Christian faith has been defined for us for several centuries by Scriptures and the Creeds. That is a given. If he does not believe that Christianity is true, let him say so and renounce his membership in the Church and his ordination, rather than pretend that the rest of us ought to feel obligated to be confused because he is confused. His confusion or disbelief does nothing at all to obligate the Church, or anyone in it, to follow him.
So, as the Rev. John Rodgers indicates below, we can "dialogue" with Mr. Spong on whether the Christian faith is true or not, but we will have to do so with him as with a non-believer. Spong cannot honestly or logically conflate the issues of content and truth in such a way as to bring his secular/pagan viewpoint into the Christian Church. If he wants to be a non-believer, that is his choice. It is not his option to be a non-believer, still less a non-believing leader, in the Church of God. In short, John Spong will be judged a fool or a knave by honest observers.
Mr. Spong's call for a "new reformation" is nothing of the sort. He is calling for a return to ancient paganism, a baal worship which has been around for some time. Any honest Christian will renounce communion with such people. We can, and ought to love them, but love requires speaking truth, not participating in their self-deception.
I will insert comments in [italic brackets].
Earle Fox, E. Fox
by John S. Spong
From Diocese of Newark WebSite
In the 16th century the Christian Church, which had been the source of much of the stability of the western world, entered a period of internal and violent upheaval. In time this upheaval came to be called the Protestant Reformation, but during the violence itself, it was referred to by many less attractive adjectives. The institution that called itself the body of Christ broke first into debate, then acrimony, then violence and counter-violence and finally into open warfare between Protestant Christians and Catholic Christians. It produced the Hundred Years War and the conflict between England and Spain that came to a climax in the destruction of the Spanish Armada in 1588. That destruction was widely interpreted as a defeat for the Catholic God of Spain at the hands of the Protestant God of England. Yet, when looking at that ecclesiastical conflict from the vantage point of more than four hundred years, there is surprise at how insignificant were the theological issues dividing the two sides.
Neither side was debating such core teachings of Christianity as the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, Jesus as the incarnate son of God, the reality of heaven and hell, the place of the cross in the plan of salvation or the role of such sacraments as Baptism and Communion. These rather were faith assertions held in common. Of course this conflict was not without theological issues, though they seem quite trivial in retrospect. Protestant Christians and Catholic Christians disagreed, for example, about whether salvation was achieved by faith alone, as Luther contended, or whether faith without works was dead as the Vatican, quoting the Epistle of James, argued. There was also debate over the proper use of scripture and the role of ordination. Despite the hostile appellations of "heretic" hurled at Protestants and "anti-Christ" hurled at Catholics, anyone viewing this debate from the vantage point of this century would see that, while an acrimonious and unpleasant fight, it was nonetheless a fight that pitted Christian believers against Christian believers. The Reformation was not an attempt to reformulate the Christian faith for a new era. It was rather a battle over issues of Church order. The time had not arrived in which Christians would be required to rethink the basic and identifying marks of Christianity itself.
[An honest reaction would be to conclude that if the basic and identifying marks of Christianity were wrong, that one ought to leave that community for another, not try to take all the trappings, wealth, authority, and prestige of that community with one into one's newfound disbelief.]
It is my conviction that such a moment is facing the Christian world today. [It is clearly facing John Spong, but it is simply not true that it is "facing the Christian community. The Biblical worldview has not been proven wrong. Spong, in all his writings, has not once detailed those charges with a single bit of reliable evidence.] The very heart and soul of Christianity will be the content of this reformation. The debate which has been building for centuries has now erupted into public view. [That is silly. The conflict has been in public view for several centuries.] All the past ecclesiastical efforts to keep it at bay or deny its reality have surely failed and will continue to do so. The need for a new theological reformation began when Copernicus and Galileo removed this planet from its previous supposed location at the center of the universe, where human life was thought to bask under the constant attention of a humanly defined parental deity. That revolution in thought produced an angle of vision radically different from the one in which the Bible was written and through which the primary theological tenets of the Christian faith were formed. [Mr. Spong is quite wrong. The change of physical perspective did nothing at all to threaten the Biblical worldview. Mr. Spong is showing his lack of understanding both of the Bible and of cosmology. The Biblical worldview is quite capable of adjusting to the world not being the center of the cosmos.] Before that opening salvo of revolution had been absorbed, Sir Isaac Newton, who charted the mathematically fixed physical laws of the universe, weighed into the debate. After Newton the Church found itself in a world in which the concepts of magic, miracle, and divine intervention as explanations of anything, could no longer be offered with intellectual integrity. [Spong is wrong. He is painting a picture of a straw horse which he wishes to demolish. The fact of God being Creator of the cosmos is not even a teeny bit threatened by the arrival of scientific method. The fact is that scientific method is a product of the Biblical worldview, not of secularism nor of Greek philosophy. And as for Sir Isaac Newton, he averred that he would renounce any one of his beliefs that was shown to be contrary to Scripture. Whether he was consistent with that is another story. The worldview of hard, massey atoms which is named after Newton (the "Newtonian" worldview) did become indeed the centerpiece of modern secular materialism, which captured the imagination of western civilization during the 1800's. But it remains that the Biblical world (no thanks to most Christians of the last century who did a very poor job of defending the faith) is quite capable of standing its own intellectual ground against all comers.] Once more people were forced to enter into and to embrace a reality vastly different from the one employed in the traditional language of their faith tradition. Next came Charles Darwin who related human life to the world of biology more significantly than anyone had heretofore imagined. He also confronted the human consciousness with concepts diametrically opposed to the traditional Christian world-view. The Bible began with the assumption that God had created a finished and perfect world from which human beings had fallen away in an act of cosmic rebellion. Original sin was the reality in which all life was presumed to live. Darwin postulated instead an unfinished and thus imperfect creation out of which human life was still evolving. Human beings did not fall from perfection into sin as the Church had taught for centuries; we were evolving, and indeed are still evolving, into higher levels of consciousness. Thus the basic myth of Christianity that interpreted Jesus as a divine emissary who came to rescue the victims of the fall from the results of their original sin became inoperative. So did the interpretation of the cross of Calvary as the moment of divine sacrifice when the ransom for sin was paid. Established Christianity clearly wobbled under the impact of Darwin's insights, but Christian leaders pretended that if Darwin could not be defeated, he could at least be ignored. It was a vain hope.
[If Spong were to read some of the current literature, such as Darwin on Trial by Phillip Johnson, or Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe, he could perhaps present a more uptodate assessment. We know now (and should have known long ago) that Darwon, Freud, Marx, and other secularizers, were wrong on every major point. The Christian faith has nothing to fear from these gentlemen.]
Darwin was followed by Sigmund Freud who analyzed the symbols of Christianity and found in them manifestations of a deep-seated infantile neurosis. [Well, yes, indeed Freud did. That does not tell us whether he was right. In fact he was provably wrong.] The God understood as a father figure who guided ultimate personal decisions, answered our prayers, and promised rewards and punishment based upon our behavior was not designed to call anyone into maturity. This view of God issued rather into either a religious mentality of passive dependency or an aggressive secular rejection of all things religious. After Freud, it was not surprising to see Christianity degenerate into an increasingly shrill biblical fundamentalism where thinking was not encouraged and preconceived pious answers were readily given, but where neither genuine questions nor maturity were allowed or encouraged. As Christianity moved more and more in this direction, contemporary people, who think with modern minds, began to be repelled and to drop out of their faith commitments into the Church Alumni Association.
[Spong is right that Christians did neither God nor themselves no favors in many instances, and did indeed behave that way. But that was because they were deserting the Christian faith, not because they were faithful to it. Intellectual integrity is at the heart of Biblical religion.]
Between these two poles of mindless fundamentalism and empty secularism are found the mainline churches of Christendom, both Catholic and Protestant. They are declining numerically, seem lost theologically, are concerned more about unity than truth, and are wondering why boredom is what people experience inside church walls. [What does Mr. Spong make of his own declining diocese?] The renewal of Christianity will not come from fundamentalism, secularism or the irrelevant mainline tradition. If there is nothing more than this on the horizon then I see no future for the enterprise we call the Christian faith. My sense is that history has come to a point where only one thing will save this venerable faith tradition at this critical time in Christian history, and that is a new Reformation far more radical than Christianity has ever before known and that this Reformation must deal with the very substance of that faith. This Reformation will recognize that the pre-modern concepts in which Christianity has traditionally been carried will never again speak to the post-modern world we now inhabit. This Reformation will be about the very life and death of Christianity. Because it goes to the heart of how Christianity is to be understood, it will dwarf in intensity the Reformation of the 16th century. It will not be concerned about authority, ecclesiastical polity, valid ordinations and valid sacraments. It will be rather a Reformation that will examine the very nature of the Christian faith itself. It will ask whether or not this ancient religious system can be refocused and re-articulated so as to continue living in this increasingly non-religious world.
[What Spong is proposing is not a reformation, but an abandonment. He has already done that. But he shows no good reasons, only philosophical platitudes, for anyone following him.]
Martin Luther ignited the Reformation of the 16th century by nailing to the door of the church in Wittenberg in 1517 the 95 Theses that he wished to debate. I will publish this challenge to Christianity in The Voice. I will post my theses on the Internet and send copies with invitations to debate them to the recognized Christian leaders of the world. My theses are far smaller in number than were those of Martin Luther, but they are far more threatening theologically. The issues to which I now call the Christians of the world to debate are these:
[Spong's 12 theses are very general and arbitrary, so it is not possible to reply with anything, in most cases, but a query about what he means. The only appropriate way to do this is to take one point at a time -- with Spong himself - and to concentrate on that. But one can give it a shot in the present context...]
1. Theism, as a way of defining God is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
[Spong offers no evidence to support his contention. Theism is not dead at all. Spong will find himself unable to make any coherent definition of the word 'God' other than the Biblical one - 'the creator of the totality of the cosmos'. There is no other definition both logically consistent and relevant.
One must relentlessly pursue Spong to make him be responsible for his own language. Pursue his definition of 'God'. What does he mean by the terms he uses? As long as he keeps on the attack, putting his opponent off balance, he can carry on the illusion of intellectual strength. But when pushed to explain his own views, he will shortly collapse.
A first step would be for each side to define what it means by the word 'Christian'. We cannot reasonably debate the meaning of Christianity until we are agreed what it is that we are debating.]
2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
[If his premise is true, that God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, then, of course, his conclusion follows. But his premise has no support, other than his own adamant assertion.]
3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
[Again, he does not specify the grounds for his rejection of the Biblical notion of creation -- i.e. by an omnipotent, omniscient, free, and purposive Being. So it is difficult to respond to his assertions. He appears to want us to assume with him the "obviousness" of his premise, that the God of the Bible is dead.]
4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
[Well, maybe so, but what is the demonstration for this notion? What does he mean by the "traditional" notion of Christ's divinity? And precisely why is that contradictory to the virgin birth of Christ?]
5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
[What does Spong mean by a post-Newtonian world? Does he mean the world of relativity, post-modernism? If so, then we can believe anything we want with impunity - because truth is relative and we can each have our own belief.
6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
[It can be granted that Christians have often made a mess of the atonement. But that hardly means that there is no coherent, helpful, and understandable explanation of the atonement of the fallen human race with God.
7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
[What would "raised into the meaning of God" mean? How would one know if it happened to one? What would be his definition of 'God', since he rejects the Biblical definition? And how would his definition be more coherent and understandable and helpful than the Biblical one? How would one get "raised", as he says? Can we all be raised that way? Are we all potential "avatars", as the Hindus would say, all godlike, who need only to become aware of our godhead?]
8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.
[Spong makes the Biblical world look silly with his "3 tiers". Few Christians today think of a literal 3 tiers, if he means a physical arrangement. Again, since it is hard to see what he means, it is hard to respond adequately.]
9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
[How on earth could he know such a statement? How can one "know" that something does not exist? Has he examined all possibilities? It is nearly impossible to prove a denial of the existence of a thing because one would have had to examine all the possible instances of it in the whole universe.
There being no objective standards necessarily follows from his rejection of a personal God who can have a determinate intention for the existence of the world. All values are reduced to what we ourselves can make of the world. Unfortunately for his case, that reduces all moral values to power struggle, so any attempt by Spong to arrive at a moral order will collapse on itself. He is perhaps operating under the illusion that one can have a "relative" moral order. That is a self-contradiction. A moral order is that which obligates persons under it, so it must be objective with respect to those persons. There can be no such principle in his cosmos.]
10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
[Again, that presupposes that there is no personal deity, a point which he has yet to give any evidence for believing. It is irrational to listen to God if He does not exist. But if He does exist, then it is irrational not to listen to Him.]
11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
[The law and grace of God do not function as a behaviorist, Pavlovian stimulus and response control mechanism. That is pretty much what we are left with when God disappears from the scene. Christians have often done a poor job of relating law and grace, but in Scripture they are not opposed to one another, and function cooperatively and complementarily to lead us into a graceful law relation with God and each other. Grace is built on law, i.e., is built on God's purpose for existence. There is nothing irrational about rewarding good behavior and punishing bad behavior. It can, of course, be done either gracefully or destructively. Spong will certainly seek to punish those in his diocese who stand against his program, and one can fairly ask whether he will do it gracefully.]
12. All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination. So I set these theses today before the Christian world and I stand ready to debate each of them as we prepare to enter the third millennium.
[All human beings bear the image of God, but that makes sense if and only if God is a Someone in whose image we can be made.
The alternative to that is the Hindu notion of the avatar, the holy man who plumbs his own depths to find that he is indeed a god, or one with the divine. But that divine is the total polar opposite of a personal God, and in the end is indistinguishable from nothingness (as the Buddhists at least recognise). Spong will probably reveal himself to be a Hindu or Buddhist, since that scheme of things is the only real alternative to the Biblical worldview when all is said and done. (Just as Carl Sagan became a Hindu because his barren secularism could not sustain his poetic soul.)
His notion of the image of God is set up to justify the homosexual lifestyle by making human nature infinitely malleable, with no determinate form. So I can be anything that "makes me feel good". The character of human nature is that of the chaos of Genesis 1 -- which God is pictured as having conquered by the act of creation. God brings concrete and personal life out of mere potential.
Spong cannot say that we are "made in the image of God", but only that we "bear the image of God", which leaves open the possibility of an impersonal divine substance or essence from which we all emerge -- i.e. the Hindu model. There can be no moral content to Spong's model of human nature, because of the ultimate impersonality of his cosmos. So the spiritual life is in the end devoid of morality, and becomes either a power struggle, or a research after good feelings.
When there is no personal creator God, then the world itself always becomes the divine, enduring, eternal entity. And since we ourselves are of the world substance, we ourselves are therefore divine, and therefore define ourselves. But it always leads to nihilism, monism, and death. There is no life, no meaning, no righteousness, no forgiveness, no resurrection, no personal relationship. All persons are swallowed by the impersonal substance into oblivion.
If Spong thinks that is the way things are, then he will choose that route. But there is no rationality or intellectual sophistication to it. It is intellectually bankrupt, and has neither empirial fact nor logical consistency on its side. So one need not feel inadequate for not following after him.
The Bible is the only logically consistent worldview. And the only empirically verifiable Good News is that of Jesus Christ. The practical and the logical evidence are all over the map.
One might have fun teasing Spong for his 12 absolute statements. One might ask whether he thinks those statements are infallible. And if they are not, does he consider himself obligated to provide evidence for them. Does he perhaps have a proof text? In science? In philosophy? Is he "inclusive" enough to allow honest discussion of the evidence pro and con on the issues he so boldly raises?]
Date: 30 Apr 1998
By the Rev. Dr. John H. Rodgers Jr.
Revised May14 1998, Ambridge PA
It is appropriate for Christians to debate with persons, particularly philosophers of religion, who are skeptical of Christian claims to truth. For truth is of fundamental importance. In the last analysis every person and every society lives in the light of what is affirmed to be true. It is not however appropriate for Christians to debate with such skeptics when they are publicly denying the Christian Faith while at the same time officially serving as a Bishop of the Church, contradicting its vows, creeds, catechisms and liturgies. If he is really serious in his call for debate, we recommend that Mr. Spong resign his orders as an ordained minister of the Gospel, charged with teaching, preaching and defending the Faith. That would permit the debate to go forward honestly between him and those Christians prepared and gifted in the area of apologetics and who sense a call to do so.
Mr. Spong, the philosopher of religion, denies biblical views of Holy Scripture, God, Creation, Anthropology, Sin, Incarnation, Atonement, and trivializes the doctrine of Justification, to name a few of his disclaimers. Unlike Tillich, in whose paths he distantly follows, the "Bishop"scorns the traditional expressions of the Faith. "Bishop Spong" is surely accurate in his claim to be more radical than the Reformers of the 16th Century. He intends not a correction of the Church's teaching and practice in the light of Scripture, but rather a replacement of the Prophetic and Apostolic teaching. Few, if any, in the history of the Christian Church have denied so much and still thought to claim the name of Christian. He calls for Christianity to change or perish. However it is hard to see how anyone could call the change which his theses envision to be an alteration of Christianity rather than its denial. Wherein lies the sufficient continuity to maintain the identity as Christian? To change, as Mr. Spong desires Christianity to do, would already be an act of perishing. A better slogan for the Spong proposal would be "Change thus and perish!" Nor would this change promote church-growth as the "Bishop" seems to suggest. In revisionist dioceses shrinking membership statistics seem to bear this out. Nor have we seen a great explosion in attendance in the rather tiny Unitarian-Universalist Church movement whose ideas seem rather close to those of the "Bishop".
What then is the proper response to "Bishop" Spong, the dogmatic philosopher and skeptic? Should we have another Righter Trial? That seems a waste of time, energy and money, for clergy in agreement with Spong would just pack the court, as we saw the last time. What then does seem right? In the light of Episcopal responsibility, it is right for the Bishops in the Episcopal Church and the wider Anglican Communion who are faithful to their calling to declare themselves out of communion with "Bishop" Spong. Rectors and Vestries should do the same since every congregation is answerable not only to its Bishop but also to its Lord. Where Bishops won't do this Clergy and Vestries should declare themselves out of communion with their diocesan Bishop as well. Let the witness begin!
One wonders what more needs to happen to have our Leaders take a stand. A diocese or a congregation that will not say "No!" publicly to "Bishop" Spong's revisionism, is failing to say "Yes!" to Jesus, whom the "Bishop" is openly denying. Such silence says the "Bishop's" denials are "no big deal". "No revealed truth here, only a wordless experience". One "opinion" is as good as another. If we can't or won't publicly confess Christ to be the Way, the Truth and the Life, to be everybody's rightful Savior and Lord, then in a real sense we have already made the change for which the "Bishop" is calling.
>From TRINITY, official newsletter of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh
The Bishops' Column: On the Sure Foundation
By Robert Wm. Duncan Bishop of Pittsburgh
Beloved in the Lord,
It was with the most profound sorrow that I received and read the twelve theses of John Spong, recently published. At point after point these few sentences contain an explicit denial of the Christian faith. The incarnation and atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ are denied; the efficacy of prayer and the work of the Holy Spirit are declared null; scripture and creeds are no longer trustworthy guides.
The man set aside as Bishop of Newark for the last twenty years has placed his theses before the Christian world and called for debate. The debate will be between those who profess the Christian faith and one who offers some other religion.
As I travel about our diocese, I see the pain and confusion which this shepherd-become-wolf is causing my people, not to mention that wider fellowship which is all the baptized in Christ Jesus. What this errant brother is doing must be named for what it is, not apostolate but apostasy.
What John Spong proposes as a reformed Christianity abandons every revealed essential. It is not Christianity. It is a counterfeit.
Everything I promised to do at my ordination requires that I speak clearly at this moment. Most especially pastoral compassion and gospel witness require a timely word both to the people of God and to the world at large.
We in the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh -- like Christians in every age -- have our disagreements about how the boundaries of Christian response to the cultures and peoples among which we minister are to be shaped. When we disagree here, it is because of our deep conviction for and experience of the One God -- both transcendent and immanent -- revealed in Scripture, Tradition and Reason as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is not the circumstance with which John Spong confronts us. We are confronted now by one who has become an outsider, one who by his philosophical, intellectual and credal shifts no longer reasons out of that bedrock of Christian faith that always shapes our local debates.
Pray for the Episcopal Church and for our Anglican Communion as the bishops prepare to gather at Lambeth. We are a worldwide fellowship of immense missionary faithfulness and of magnificent local diversity. Nevertheless, we must also be a communion that can recognize when an apostle is one no longer, or when a teaching must be declared utterly false
Faithfully your bishop,
+Robert VII Pittsburgh
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 23:12:43 -0500
From: "Douglas L. LeBlanc" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Within the next day or two I hope to post reporting about "A Declaration to the Church," which 50 bishops released on Monday. Meanwhile, here is the text of the Declaration.
Doug LeBlanc Editor, United Voice
June 15, 1998
John Shelby Spong, Episcopal bishop of Newark, has published and posted on the Internet a set of "Twelve Theses." He offers them as the basis for a "New Reformation" of the Christian Faith. We declare that they are, as a whole, a denial of that Faith.
We the undersigned bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America do hereby publicly disassociate ourselves from these "Twelve Theses" of Bishop Spong. In no way do they represent the doctrine, discipline, or worship of the Episcopal Church -- or any other branch of orthodox Christianity.
The "challenges" he proposes are not new. They have been argued -- and well refuted -- in nearly every age since the Resurrection of our Lord. Indeed, they are challenges with which most thinking believers have had to wrestle before making a mature commitment to the Christian Faith. We respect John Spong's right to his personal opinions, but we declare they are clearly outside the realm of Christian discourse, and we deplore his use of the office of bishop to propound them.
A bishop of the Episcopal Church vows to guard and defend exactly the truths John Spong now denies. As a bishop he requires those he confirms and those he ordains to confess beliefs he himself now repudiates. Such self-contradiction is morally fraudulent and spiritually bankrupt.
We invite the bishops of the Episcopal Church, USA and the
bishops of the worldwide Anglican Communion to join us in this
+Keith L. Ackerman, Quincy
+C. FitzSimons Allison, South Carolina, ret.
+John Ashby, Western Kansas, ret.
+David S. Ball, Albany
+Peter H. Beckwith, Springfield
+Maurice M. Benitez, Texas, ret.
+James B. Brown, Louisiana, ret.
+Anselmo Carral, Guatemala, ret.
+Gordon T. Charlton, Jr., Suff. Texas, ret.
+William J. Cox, Asst. Oklahoma, ret.
+Alex D. Dickson, West Tennessee, ret.
+Robert W. Duncan, Pittsburgh
+Charles F. Duvall, Central Gulf Coast
+Herbert Edmondson, Asst. Central Florida, ret.
+Andrew H. Fairfield, North Dakota
+Leopold Frade, Honduras
+William C. Frey, Colorado, ret.
+Robert J. Hargrove, Western Louisiana
+Alden M. Hathaway, Pittsburgh, ret.
+G. Edward Haynsworth, Asst. SC ret.
+Bertram N. Herlong, Tennessee
+Daniel W. Herzog, Coad. Albany
+John W. Howe, Central Florida
+Donald M. Hulstrand, Springfield, ret.
+Jack L. Iker, Fort Worth
+Russel Jacobus, Fond Du Lac
+Stephen H. Jecko, Florida
+Terence Kelshaw, Rio Grande
+John B. Lipscomb, Southwest Florida
+Mark L. MacDonald, Alaska
+John H. MacNaughton, West Texas, ret.
+Paul V. Marshall, Bethlehem
+Gerald N. McAllister, Okla., ret.
+Earl McArthur, Jr., Suff. West Texas, ret.
+Robert Mize, Asst. San Joaquin, ret.
+Donald J. Parsons, Quincy, ret.
+Donis D. Patterson, Dallas, ret.
+Hugo L. Pina-Lopez, Asst. Central Florida
+Victor M. Rivera, San Joaquin, ret.
+Edward Salmon, Jr., South Carolina
+Harry W. Shipps, Georgia, ret.
+John David M. Schofield, San Joaquin
+John H. Smith, West Virginia
+James M. Stanton, Dallas
+Alexander D. Stewart, Western Mass., ret.
+Vernon E. Strickland, Western Kansas
+Herbert Thompson, Jr., Southern Ohio
+Robert P. Varley, Asst. Minnesota, ret.
+William C. Wantland, Eau Claire
+Don A. Wimberly, Lexington
End of EUNITED Digest - 13 Jun 1998 to 16 Jun 1998
Back to Episcopal Library
Go to: => TOP Page; => Anglican Library; => ROAD MAP