As this process unfolded, we found other bishops in the Anglican Communion who accepted our ordinations and provided Episcopal oversight as we continued our priestly duties. These events raise several critical questions. First, what is meant by "communion?" Secondly, who decides when someone is in or out of communion and upon what grounds? Further, what happens if one bishop defrocks priests and other bishops, as is the case, affirm their priestly ministry? These are vital and pressing questions for it harms the body of Christ when the faithful see such conflicts played out in the press as is the present case.

To begin with, communion is communion with God the Father through Jesus Christ and by the Holy Spirit. The church exists as communion only in so far as she lives in vital relation to God through Christ. Jesus Christ is made known through Word and Sacrament. For a church to remain in communion with God, and for its members to be in communion with God and each other, she must faithfully preserve the integrity of the Word and Sacrament.

To do this requires discipline. Discipline is required because not all persons or churches faithfully preserve Word and Sacrament. Normally, discipline is exercised by bishops. In the case of Bishop Howard and those of us he has defrocked, this discipline has broken down because some bishops uphold our priestly authority whereas Bishop Howard has denied it. This is symptomatic of the conflict that now exists throughout the Anglican Communion.

Anglicanism is a reform movement within the wider stream of Western Christianity. As such, we hold to the faith and practice of the ancient church insofar as it is based on Scripture. In the church of the first few centuries, conflicts between bishops were decided by general counsels that resolved the conflicts and published written norms which preserved orthodox understanding. For example there were bishops on both sides of the Arian controversy on the deity of Christ. The council of Nicaea in 325 resolved the matter and published a Creed which defined the Arian position as a heresy. Something similar needs to happen today.

It is clear that the Episcopal Church no longer upholds the integrity of the Word and Sacrament. She has denied the Word because a number of her bishops do not believe that Jesus Christ the Word is the Way, the Truth, and the Light, the only way to the Father. She has also introduced heretical forms of biblical interpretation that undermine Scripture as the Word of God written. She has traduced the Sacrament in allowing heretics, immoral persons, and even persons of non-Christian faiths to come to Holy Eucharist. She has violated the church's norms on human sexuality.

In light of these heresies, the orthodox throughout the Anglican Communion need to come together and produce a document that defines the faith once and for all delivered to the saints. This document like the Nicene Creed, the Anglican Articles of Religion, or the Barmen Confession needs to specifically deny the heresies involved. Among other things, it needs to affirm Scripture as the final norm and deny experience as a norm alongside Scripture. Further, theological norms for correct biblical interpretation need to be affirmed as the North American Episcopal revisionists claim the authority of Scripture but interpret it from a heretical theological perspective.

There needs to be clear statements on sexuality, including homosexuality. Clear statements on Holy Communion are vital as well as how discipline is exercised in the Church. Fundamental theological doctrines need to be affirmed, such things as Trinity, Incarnation, and the nature of the Church. These can be affirmed by reclaiming the Thirty-Nine Articles as normative for Anglicans along with Anglican formularies and the theology of the 1662 Prayer. Once established, the Anglican Communion would be defined by those churches and persons who are willing to sign this document and enforce its norms. This would be a covenant which defines the boundaries of the Anglican Communion.

There are a number of people throughout the Anglican Communion who affirm the idea of a covenant and are working on its wording. It is certain that the revisionists will work to soften the language of this covenant, especially in relation to sexuality. If the Lambeth 1998 statement on sexuality is upheld, and it should be, efforts will be made to reduce its significance as a norm for membership within the Anglican Communion.

Originally, the Thirty-Nine Articles defined Anglican norms. Candidates to the priesthood were required to believe and uphold the Articles. The Episcopal Church has abandoned that practice, one symptom among many that this church has abandoned the Anglican Communion. Only those churches and persons willing to affirm the covenant should be members of the Anglican Communion. Only persons who believe and uphold the covenant should be priests that Communion. Without theological norms, upheld by constituted authority, we will not have communion in the Anglican Communion. There will be, as it is now, chaos.

Had there been a covenant, if priests and bishops in the Episcopal Church been required to sign a document affirming orthodox theological norms, if there had been discipline in this church upholding those norms, those of us who were stripped of our spiritual authority by Bishop Howard would never have asked for alternative Episcopal oversight.

As it was, we were unwilling to be in Eucharistic fellowship with heretical bishops and immoral persons through the ministry of our bishop. We had asked Bishop Howard, in person and in writing, not to be in communion with such persons and he refused. We felt that to continue in Eucharistic fellowship with a heretical and immoral church was to promote the heresy and immorality.

We were not making claims as to Bishop Howard's orthodoxy, we were however, claiming that he was in Eucharistic fellowship with heretics and immoral persons and we did not want to be in fellowship with such persons through his ministry. We did not abandon the Anglican Communion. We are still in that communion under the oversight of orthodox bishops from abroad. Bishop Howard and the other bishops in the Episcopal Church believe they are in that communion as well. They are not, however, defining that communion in terms of orthodoxy.

The church is defined by her faithfulness to Jesus Christ as revealed in Word and Sacrament. At the time of the Anglican Reformation, Anglicans broke with Rome who defined herself in terms of the bishop of Rome. Anglicans defined themselves in terms of orthodox norms, above all the Articles and the Homilies. The Anglican Communion cannot be defined in terms of a relation to the Archbishop of Canterbury, nor by a common historical origin, nor by a set of common liturgical practices, but by Jesus Christ as revealed in Scripture, affirmed in Creeds, worshipped in orthodox liturgies, and theologically defined by theological norms in a common covenant that is enforced. That is the way forward.

---The Rev. Robert J. Sanders, Ph.D. is pastor of Christ Church Anglican, in Jacksonville, Florida. He is VOL's online theologian. His website can be accessed here: www.rsanders.org, www.christchurchjax.com