Yes, ECUSA has had crises in the past and weathered them and despite theological and other innovations in the past there remained for the most part an orthodox presence in ECUSA. With the current crisis, however, such may not be the case when the crisis is over. Will there be in ECUSA a sufficient number of orthodox Episcopalians/Anglicans left to provide the increasing liberal and revisionist American denomination with an authentic identification as a Christian community of faith, with the character to be known to be genuinely orthodox and Anglican?

Will there be in ECUSA enough persons of full Christian faith to be committed to such core activities and commitments of Christian faith communities as the Worship of God "in spirit and in truth," as belief in the actual revealed nature of Christianity as opposed to being merely human religion and religiosity, and as continuing to carry out the Great Commission and complete the work God in Jesus Christ is working to complete in the world through those called into discipleship with Jesus in the fellowship of the Christian community of faith, the church?

Episcopalians as a whole have never been a highly motivated group of people when it comes to the biblical commission given to the church to evangelize the world. Except for those of an Anglican Evangelical orientation and those of a certain type of Anglo-Catholic orientation, for the most part most Episcopalians have not been engaged in work of bringing others into relationship with Jesus Christ and into the fellowship of the church. For many it has to do with concerns over social propriety and dignity, for others is a result of their working theology which would question the uniqueness of the Christian revelation and the need to "proselytize" any one.

For a lot of Episcopalians in the last 100 years, talking about religion outside of church was treated in the same way as politics was often treated, per the old standard cliché, that in good company one did not discuss religion or politics. While increasing the leadership of ECUSA has been quite willing to discuss politics and speak out forcefully on political issues - and usually in orientation to the most liberal aspects of the American political agenda - the same leadership finds it increasingly hard to believe in, let alone articulate a case for what has been and is in fact the essence of the Christian faith.

And, if "religion" and "religious" subjects are talked about at all by much of the current ECUSA establishment leadership, the "God-talk," or religious/spiritual talk, is carefully crafted to not reveal to any who are not savvy when it comes to current "theological" formulation that fact that such "religious-speak" is actually dramatically redefining Christianity so as to cut it of any of its authentic character, identity, and meaning.

And, this is done under the guise of trying to speak the Christian faith to the contemporary culture. In fact what has happened is that much of the leadership and many Episcopalians have chosen to replace actual Christian faith, belief, and practice with a present culture generated "spirituality." In other words, many Episcopalians have returned to religion, the quest of human beings to reach up to God, rather than holding to Christianity which from its inception perceived that God had reached out to humankind: religion vs revelation. But they have done this with an important difference: many Episcopalians, and especially clergy [bishops, priests, and deacons], no longer actually believe in God [theism] having exchanged the biblical and revealed notion of God for a pure philosophical, human concept of some nebulous force or agency [as opposed to actual personal being] which is known in philosophical and theological circles as "non-theism."

It is hard to see how non-theism would give rise to much energy to go out and actually win people across the American culture to the embrace of non-theism. One, non-theism is highly intellectual and the academy is the place where recruiting to non-theism seems to be most effectively done.

Two, most exponents of non-theism, with some notable exceptions, in ECUSA seem unwilling to be fully disclosing to others of their non-theism. This is largely because non-theism just doesn't resonate with most people looking for a "spirituality" [whether an authentic spirituality such as the tradition Judaeo-Christian, or the plethora of new age, eastern, and Gnostic spiritualities currently on offer in the culture].

Three, non-theism does not give a solid and convincing rationale for participating in a community; i.e. a community which doesn't actually offer people any sense of real transformation. And, in the context of the present American culture where by and large the mainstream Protestant churches have failed to effectively bring home the transforming character of authentic Christianity - for reasons of social embarrassment, institutional maintenance, ecclesial infighting, insufficient theology, etc. - and where a large number of people have learned to live without membership in a church or regular Sunday worship participation [which curiously the greater number of Americans still claim to believe in God, i.e., the God of theism], non-theism doesn't seem to address the real issues of humanity when it comes to matters of the spirit or soul.

Yet, non-theism along with other forms of radical theological liberalism, revisionism, and extremes of political correctness appear to be the dominating and controlling "working theology" [or, better, ideology?] of the ECUSA leadership and a great portion of the laity.

What does this forebode for a denomination like the Episcopal Church? What, if these things are true, do these things mean for ECUSA's sense of identity, mission and purpose, and future? And, what does it mean in an American denomination that has been in regular decline since its inception following the American Revolution for the better part of its history and which seems to be posed on not only a significant exodus of members as a result of the General Convention of 2003, but perhaps a real hemorrhaging beginning in the build up to and then after the General Convention of 2006? And, what does it mean for those who claim to still be orthodox, particularly for the more moderate bishops and dioceses that have not joined the Anglican Communion Network and/or affiliated with the American Anglican Council?

It is hard to know specifics as to the presence of genuinely orthodox Anglicans/Episcopalians in ECUSA, both clergy and laity, whether Anglican Evangelical, Anglo-Catholic, or moderate, traditional "prayer book," "creedal" Episcopalians prior to the General Convention 2003. It has been long thought, and it's hard to know whether this thinking was actually justified, that there was/is a large silent majority in ECUSA who are traditional and orthodox in their faith and practice.

At the same time prior to the General Convention 2003 there was a growing intuitive sense among a significant number of orthodox, traditional Episcopalians that perhaps there was no longer an orthodox majority in ECUSA. A look around the landscape of ECUSA suggested various signs and indicators that traditional, orthodox Christianity in whatever classic forms of Anglicanism that might take was no longer in the ascendancy.

The fact that from the 1960s, beginning with the crisis over the response of ECUSA to civil rights changes in the culture, through the 1970s with the advent of the ordination of women and the adoption of a new prayer book, the significant numbers that left ECUSA because of these were usually traditional, orthodox persons, the once orthodox core of ECUSA was to be effected and not without consequence. These were issues that tended not to unite but divide traditional, orthodox Episcopalians.

The nature of these issues was such that they could cut across biblical and theological orientations, such that many Anglican Evangelicals and traditional, orthodox, Anglo-Catholic and "prayer book, creedal" Episcopalians could embrace advances in civil rights, women's ordination, and prayer book revision. Today the theological innovations that have forced the current crisis in ECUSA - the ordination of non-celibate gay and lesbian persons to the ordained ministry, particularly the order of bishops, and the movement toward the blessing of same sex relationships - are not like the issues of the 1960s and 1970s as they touched on theology and scripture quite differently. The current innovations in ECUSA now underway are tending to unite the greater portion of what is left in ECUSA of the traditional, orthodox Episcopalians.

In many places the loss of such Episcopalians will not be significant as the presence of such is either non-existent or of such minority status to be of little effect on the identity or resources of a diocese. But what about those few places in ECUSA where the presence of orthodox Episcopalians has been maintained as a significant presence? There are well known pockets of such spread across the church. Many, if not most of these have aligned with the Anglican Communion Network and/or the American Anglican Council. At the same time there are some notable exceptions, the most significant of these arguably is the Episcopal Diocese of Florida with Jacksonville as the See City. What will be the impact of the current crisis in such a diocese as Florida?

It appears we are beginning to see what the significance and meaning of the crisis is having and is likely to have long term for the diocese under the leadership of Bishop Samuel Johnson Howard, in Episcopal office for not yet three years. Florida has been long considered a traditional, orthodox diocese and clearly was under Howard's predecessors, Jecko and Cerveny. Howard was elected as an orthodox replacement for Jecko in 2003. At the start of Howard's episcopate most would not have questioned that he had become bishop of an orthodox diocese. The question is now though what will be the character of the same diocese when his episcopate has run its course and comes to an end: will it be possible to still describe the Episcopal Diocese of Florida as orthodox?

A number of indicators in the diocese of Florida appear to count against being able to describe the diocese as being genuine orthodox in the foreseeable future. The timing is hard to know for sure as to when the description will definitively and definitely be changed, but it is clear it is at least changing and at present moving away from being able to be characterized as orthodox.

If the current trends and actions continue into the foreseeable future, as there is good reason to think they likely will, in five years, in ten years, to describe the diocese of Florida as orthodox will be only a description once used to characterize it in history. The diocese of Florida could well have, in five to ten years, gone the way of other once orthodox dioceses in ECUSA. Why is this likely in Florida?

As of this writing already ten congregations of the Episcopal Diocese of Florida have disassociated themselves from the diocese, from Bishop Howard, and from the Episcopal Church USA. The reasons that come out of the diocesan office, in an effort to minimize the impact and nature of the exodus of traditional, orthodox Episcopalians from the diocese, are given as the unwillingness of the congregations to fund the ministry of the national church and the unwillingness of the clergy and congregations to remain in fellowship with Bishop Howard because of his refusal to not break communion table fellowship with Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire [the first non-celibate, openly gay person living in a "committed" gay relationship to be ordained bishop in the Anglican Communion] and his consecrating/ordaining bishops in the House of Bishops. The reasons given are true, just not complete.

The reasons given are attached to further significant theological and ethical reasons and to biblical teaching that would make such continued participation and support tantamount to being complicit in not only supporting and/or condoning sin but also actually participating in sin. To minimize the issues by a reductio ad surdum which would suggest the reasons are without depth and are instead trivial is to do injustice to what has been and is continually being said with theological, ethical, and biblical depth by the traditional, orthodox Episcopalians in Florida and across ECUSA and the Anglican Communion.

It is a further insult or injustice in that the Bishop of Florida is sufficiently grounded in traditional, orthodox theology, ethics, and scriptural understanding to both know and appreciate the depth of the full reasons, yet the Bishop of Florida elects to give the official diocesan "analysis" and characterization of the reasons a public relations spin. Anyone in the know, and that means lots of folks in Florida and across ECUSA and the Anglican Communion know better and are bewildered by the response of a supposedly "orthodox" bishop in this regard.

To avoid being complicit with and/or participating in sin, knowingly, deliberately, with forethought, etc., many traditional, orthodox Episcopalians across the diocese of Florida have chosen to break with the diocese, with Bishop Howard, and ECUSA yet with the desire to remain Anglican. The latter has meant they have chosen to pursue some unusual and unconventional means to do so, including affiliating with Anglican jurisdictions and bishops in other parts of the Anglican Communion.

Whether such actions are deemed right or wrong, one can understand, when one looks at the larger picture and all the facts having to be dealt with currently by traditional, orthodox Episcopalians, why they might, could and would elect such unconventional, unprecedented means. Are we to actually believe that the orthodox bishops that yet remain in ECUSA and not affiliated with the network or the AAC do not understand this and thus have what appears to be little or no sympathy for this? These are extraordinary, unprecedented times for ECUSA and such times, to borrow jargon from the business world, can mean needing to "think outside the box."

If the parishes that have left the diocese of Florida are traditional and orthodox, how many actual traditional and orthodox congregations remain in the diocese? Again, it is hard to determine numbers exactly. But the situation seems able to be construed or characterized as follows.

It is well known, by people outside the diocesan office at least - some folks inside the diocesan office appear to feign a lack of knowledge if they are not really ignorant of the facts as some might have outsiders to believe - that there are still a significant number of congregations and clergy getting ready to leave the diocese sometime between now and the General Convention 2006 or shortly after.

Of these congregations, whatever their number, all who would or will leave are traditional, orthodox congregations and clergy of the same orientation and commitments. The result will be, of the congregations and clergy left in the diocese of Florida, only a very small number, if any, left will be able to be described as orthodox in the fullest and most complete Anglican sense and use of the term. If the present potential scenario works itself out as many anticipate, it could mean Bishop Howard will be the only remaining true orthodox clergy person in the diocese of Florida, or at least Howard could be said to be the most orthodox of the ones who remain. The bishop could end up feeling he is something of an outsider himself theologically, ethically, and biblically from the rest of his diocese.

Some traditional, orthodox Episcopalians in the diocese of Florida and elsewhere have hopes that bishops like Bishop Howard are poised and will be posed to hold the line on orthodoxy in ECUSA from inside ECUSA and outside of affiliation with the network or AAC. There are some who would also pin on Howard and similar bishops in ECUSA the hope that they would actually take the lead in bringing a resurgence of orthodoxy in ECUSA post-General Convention 2006.

It appears that Howard may believe the former about himself, in that he in public statements suggests he is working to hold the line on orthodoxy in ECUSA and in the House of Bishops. He doesn't seem to suggest he sees himself as someone to lead a movement to increase orthodoxy, but as witness to traditional, orthodox Anglicanism he suggests is what he is doing and, it could, as he claims, that he is endeavoring to play that role. But is it a workable, doable, realistic, let alone effective role to be playing in the present situation? There are no visible, tangible indicators that such a role is being effective. For example, a bishop of a similar orientation to Howard, Wimberley of a diocese in Texas, served on the nominating committee for the next Presiding Bishop of ECUSA and yet the slate presented by the nominating committee does not contain one clearly orthodox bishop whom traditional, orthodox Episcopalians could genuinely support in complete and clear conscience. So much for the out of network "orthodox" bishops thinking they can be of influence.

No, the days for classical Christianity and orthodoxy in ECUSA could well be numbered. Should a diocese like Florida somehow happen to remain, more than just its bishop, as orthodox, it will likely be a real aberration in the larger context of ECUSA. Overtime all sorts of pressures are likely to be mounted by the radical, revisionist leadership of ECUSA to bring a diocese like Florida in line with the rest of the denomination. ECUSA has shown itself capable of this in the efforts of the national church and the majority of ECUSA to force into compliance with the rest of the church the few dioceses and bishops yet opposed to women's ordination. Will a bishop such as Howard be equipped to stand up to such pressure in a manner like Bishop Iker has had to do?

And, what of pressures from within his own diocese? Should Howard find himself the most orthodox and traditional of the clergy in his diocese, how long will he be able to hold out against those significant numbers of clergy and congregations in his diocese that would support the ordination of non-celibate gay and lesbian persons and the blessing of same sex relationships, particularly if such becomes normative across ECUSA by action of General Convention?

It is well known within the diocesan com-munity that there are clergy and congregations supportive of such. It is also well known that some of the leading clergy and congregations of the diocese that would remain after the exodus of nearly all, if not all, the actual traditional, orthodox congregations and clergy, are not able to be actually characterized as orthodox and would not willingly take that label on as describing themselves.

And, yes, not all of the clergy that would remain in the diocese would necessarily be as liberal, radical, and revisionist as most of the rest of ECUSA already is, but the theology, ethics, and biblical understand-ings of the remaining Florida clergy would fall across a wide and diverse continuum from moderate/centrist to left, liberal, radical and revisionist, and specific clergy would be plotted differently on that issue according to specific issue. In any case, sometime after the General Convention of 2006, it will be highly unlikely to be able to characterize the Episcopal Diocese of Florida, except maybe for its bishop and maybe a very few clergy and some isolated laity, as orthodox Anglican in the way it was possible to do so before the General Convention of 2003.

For well over a century and a half pressures from liberal, then radical, then revisionist and heterodox "theology" and ethics have been at work in ECUSA and other mainstream Protestant denominations in the United States. To date the most culturally traditional of these denominations, the Episcopal Church, has known the greatest impact in leading it away from Christian orthodox theology and practice of all the mainstream denominations. The leadership of ECUSA by and large see themselves as blazing a trail for the other mainstream denominations to follow and likely in time the others will follow ECUSA if other dynamics do not emerge.

The other dynamics now will have to amount to what would be, or seem near to be, divine intervention for the recovery needed to bring ECUSA back to Christian orthodoxy. Such of course could happen. At the same time, it might not happen and in the lifetime of many Anglicans now living the break up of the Anglican Communion could well be possible. Scripture is quite clear that no church, and this can mean even a whole denomination or communion of churches, is guaranteed permanent existence in the Christian world. The first three chapters of the Revelation to John, the Apocalypse, in the Christian scriptures [the New Testament] make that clear. The candle stand that ECUSA has, or once had, could be taken away and permanently as well. Church history, should the second coming of Jesus not occur for another millennium or more, could see ECUSA studied as much as a part of the history that was the Christian church past in the same way Christian's today read about Laodicea [cf. Revelation 3:14-22].

Who wants to be answerable to Christ for the apostasy of a church? For a long period of time orthodox Episcopalians have tried to insure that ECUSA stay within orthodoxy, but other forces seem to be at work whose aim is to derail the continued and full proclamation of the Christian good news and to seek to have the church lose hold on its real mission and reason for being. For a variety of reasons ECUSA has been well poised to be the focus of a century and a half or longer effort to do just this. The forces at work have made it almost impossible to continue any effective resistance to such efforts, and all the more so when orthodox Episcopalians are essentially being forced out.

In some ways it goes back to the formation of the Church of England itself from which ECUSA and the Anglican Communion came to be derived. The reasons for bringing the Church of England into being in the first place were not all theological or a concern for reform of the Catholic Church as it then existed in the sixteenth century. In fact, the reasons of Henry Tudor, Henry VIII, can be said to not have been theological or spiritual, as having nothing to do per se with God at all [Cf. John Guy, Tudor England, Oxford: Oxford University Press, among many works on the Tudor and Reformation England.] Theological reformers sought to take advantage of the monarch's political agenda to try to advance their theological, ethical and spiritual agenda, but from the beginning, given the unusually close ties of the Church of England to the crown [in contrast to the Lutherans, the Calvinists, or the Catholics on the European continent], the reality was there had to be significant and unhelpful compromise. That is to say, the compromises undertaken have in the long run shown themselves to be unhelpful to the Church of England and the Anglican Communion being able to realize the charge Jesus Christ has given to the church to evangelize. Anglican evangelization, while undoubtedly effective in many parts of the world where the closeness to the culture did not exist [such as in Asia and Africa] under the passionate and committed activities of Anglican Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholic missionaries, in Anglican homelands such as England, the United States and Canada has proved to be marked by significant failure.

For a period of time in ECUSA, in the late eighteenth century and in the early to mid-nineteenth century, there was an exception to the usual Anglican pattern in evangelization. And, in England there was some of the same exception to be realized for a time. Again, it was the missionary and evangelical spirit and commitments of Anglican Evangelicals and certain old school high churchman and then certain Anglo-Catholic Episcopalians that actually saw the Episcopal Church USA to be the fastest growing church in the United States! But liberal theology was making its way across the Atlantic and by the mid-nineteenth century the Anglican Evangelical movement was almost entirely forced out of ECUSA or killed off within ECUSA. Anglican Evangelicalism would not know a resurgence or renaissance until the 1970s. And as the church became more settled, with the loss of the impetus of the Anglican Evangelicals, it was easy for the evangelicals that did remain, along with the Anglo-Catholics, old high church adherents, and the new liberalizing Episcopalians to settle into a kind of complacency and institutional maintenance. Such has largely been the case [with some notable exceptions] in ECUSA from the mid-nineteenth century until the present. Parallel to these realities, the slow decline of ECUSA in membership and cultural influence began and continues in the present. And, now, what Anglican Evangelical and other orthodox presence is left in ECUSA is slowly being driven out again, not least in places where one would not have expected it to be the case, in places such as the Episcopal Diocese of Florida. Can the future bode well for ECUSA and places like the Episcopal Diocese of Florida?

Copyright 2006, Bruce A. Flickinger

--The Revd Bruce A. Flickinger, BA, MDiv, is a presbyter of the Episcopal Church USA, canonically resident in the Episcopal Diocese of Florida. An Anglican Evangelical he is affiliated with the Evangelical Fellowship of the Anglican Communion. His theological studies include Seabury-Western Theological Seminary, Trinity College, Bristol, England and and post-graduate study at Luther Seminary, Saint Paul, MN, and the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.