Of special relevance is Mt. 18:15f. This passage outlines the process whereby conflicts are decided in the church. The passage requires that the errant party listen to the church. When the Episcopal Church approved Bishop V. Gene Robinson in the General Convention of 2003, it refused to listen to Scripture as interpreted by the church for nearly two thousand years; it ignored its own canons, it went against the pleas of a number of bodies within ECUSA, it did not listen to the urgings of the Archbishop of Canterbury, nor to the Anglican primates, nor to the bishops of the Anglican Communion gathered at Lambeth in 1998, nor to ECUSA's significant ecumenical partners.

In the General Convention of 2006, the Episcopal Church refused to comply with the full requirements of the Windsor Report, a fact recently acknowledged by the Archbishop of Canterbury. It refused to listen to those who asked that the 2006 Convention affirm the Lordship of Jesus Christ, an essential requirement because Episcopal Bishops have denied him. It refused to listen to those seeking a strong statement on biblical authority. Instead it passed resolutions weakening Scripture. For years, it has not listened to the pleas of those who ask that bishops and other public teachers who deny Jesus Christ be disciplined.

As a result, the Episcopal Church has been sliding deeper and deeper into apostasy. This has been going on for decades amidst an endless stream of pleas, resolutions, pronouncements, Scriptural exegesis, and scholarly theological analysis showing their rampart heresies. At no point has the juggernaut slowed one whit. What does Jesus require of us at this point? -- that such persons and the organization they embody be treated as a "Gentile or a tax collector." By this, Jesus meant have nothing to do with them. Why? Because to continue to debate with them, to make "space" for them, to negotiate with them, to belong in the same organization with them, to take their name as part of your church name, to give them money by contributing as one of their parishioners, is to give them legitimacy and further their work.

What is their work? At present their aim is to subvert the entire Anglican Communion to their doctrine. What is their doctrine? -- that diversity and inclusiveness is always a good thing and that we in the Anglican Communion can tolerate and even celebrate all sorts of behaviors and beliefs. That is false teaching, a violation of the First Commandment and the Lordship of Jesus Christ. It destroys souls. That is the terrible thing about it all. I have seen it, souls destroyed, corrupted, and led astray. That is the horrible and terrible result of this apostasy.

Secondly, the early church, the church of the first few centuries excluded public false teachers and unrepentant immoral persons. If one consults the canons of the early councils, one sees at once that a major portion of their deliberations was to define faith and morals and discipline by exclusion those who violated those norms.

For example, the Creed adopted at Nicea in 325 ended with these words, "But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and, before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, or is subject to alteration or change--these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes." What did anathema mean? It meant to have nothing to do with those who, like Episcopal bishop Jack Spong and others like him, do not believe that Jesus Christ is fully God, the only Son of the living God.

Further, at the time of the Reformation, the Anglican Reformers broke fellowship with the Roman Church. The issues separating our Anglican forebears from Rome were minor compared to the apostasies now proclaimed in the Episcopal Church. The Episcopal doctrines of diversity and radical inclusion are utterly at odds with fundamental Christian doctrine: the Lordship of Jesus Christ, Trinity, sin, revelation, all these fundamental doctrinal matters have been relegated to the dust heap with the new Episcopal ideology.

Further, in the process of breaking with Rome, our Anglican forebears had to define the difference between a true church and an apostate church. The characteristics that separate true from false churches were called the "marks" of the church. Hooker considered the Lordship of Jesus Christ, orthodox doctrine, and baptism to be the marks of the true church. He also believed that the church must, must, exclude those who violated its doctrinal and moral norms. The Homily for Whitsunday, attributed to Bishop Jewel and published early in Elizabeth's reign, defined the marks of the church as pure and sound doctrine, the Sacraments ministered according to Christ's holy institution, and the right use of Ecclesiastical discipline. The Catechism of Edward VI, 1553, gives the marks of the church as pure preaching of the gospel, brotherly love, right use of the Lord's sacraments, and excommunication (discipline). Noel's Catechism defined the marks of the church as sound doctrine, right use of the Sacraments, and discipline. Bishop Ridley, martyred, 1555, gave the marks as sincere preaching of God's Word; the due administration of the Sacrament; charity; and faithful observance of ecclesiastical discipline according to the Word of God.

"Of the Church," Article XIX of The Articles of Religion, reads as follows:

The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

When the article speaks of the "pure word of God," it includes the notion of doctrine for the Reformers could not imagine pure preaching apart from doctrine publicly upheld. When the article speaks of sacraments being "duly ministered," this entails ecclesiastical discipline because from the New Testament onward it was universally understood that the church had the duty to exclude from communion those who led immoral lives or denied orthodox doctrine. The Episcopal Book of Common Prayer, p. 409, affirms as much, and this in line with previous Anglican Prayer Books which in turn reflect the tradition of Scripture and the ancient church that the church must discipline its errant members. That is why a number of the primates would not share Holy Communion with Bishop Griswold in Dromantine last year.

The Episcopal organization is not a true church. It does not proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord, it teaches false doctrine, it does not discipline false teaching and public immorality, it does not "duly celebrate" the sacraments, and a major portion of its preaching is not the "pure Word of God" but experience dressed up in religious language. Of course, there are still members of this body who hold orthodox views, but the organization as a whole, its primary and official leaders, its decisions at conventions, represent a false church, not a true church. Finally, one may think that the process of Matthew 18 is still at work, that we do not as yet have any official pronouncement by the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Lambeth Conference of Bishops, or Primates Meetings, calling anyone to abandon the Episcopal organization.

First of all, the presenting issue, homosexuality, has been debated for decades. It came before the 1998 Lambeth Conference which proclaimed homosexual behavior as "incompatible with Scripture."

Secondly, and crucially, a significant number of primates and provinces have already broken fellowship with the Episcopal organization. A number of their primates are calling us to abandon the Episcopal organization. For them, the discipline of Matthew 18 is now in effect. They are now making plans to form an Anglican Communion which excludes apostate churches. This process will continue. It may or may not have the approval of the Archbishop of Canterbury. If the Archbishop of Canterbury joins this movement, that will be to the good. If he does not, he must be treated as the Anglican Reformers treated the bishop of Rome. He is not a mark of the true church.

This brings us to ourselves. We already have a schism. It is a fact. There may or may not be an official pronouncement from some Anglican body to that effect, and there may or may not be a pronouncement from a world-wide, widely attended, Anglican body, excluding the apostate Episcopate organization.

But a schism exists because a significant number of provinces refuse to have anything to do with the Episcopal organization. Whatever happens, a choice lies before us and a number of primates have repeatedly asked us to make that choice. We can continue to do business and thereby legitimate an apostate church or we can follow the New Testament, the church universal, the Reformers, Anglican formularies, and a significant portion of the world-wide Anglican Communion, and have nothing to do with the Episcopal organization.

What is stopping anyone from leaving the Episcopal organization? A number have already left. Such persons have given up property, secure jobs, fatter pensions or any pension at all, friends, family burial plots, beloved traditions, and more, for the sake of Jesus Christ. What could possibly stop someone from leaving? Is it property?

First of all, if a diocese, church, or person states they are no longer Episcopal, if they do not attend Episcopal services, if they take a name other than Episcopal, if they form a separate body, this does not necessarily mean they will lose the property. But if they do, that is all to the better. What we need now is strong witness, a witness that costs. Do we have that? At present, the laity can look around the Episcopal organization and notice that scarcely any of its sitting bishops have severed all ties with the Episcopal organization. Eight dioceses are seeking alternative primatial oversight as a way out of The Episcopal Church, but as yet they have neither been given it, nor have they severed their relationship with the Episcopal organization.

What do the laity conclude? They conclude the crisis is not that serious, that it is perhaps only a matter of an elected female presiding bishop or the problem of homosexuality. They do not know, nor will they be told, of the gravity of the problem. Revisionist bishops, even some claiming to be orthodox or moderate, are not telling their people that the Episcopal organization has refused to affirm that Jesus Christ is Lord. Hence only a few parishes and priests have fled The Episcopal organization.

Only when resolute action is taken will people get the message. Only when they see a bold move taken by the orthodox leadership, a sacrificial move, a move that costs -- jobs, position, property -- will they realize that something is wrong. As long as the orthodox sit at table with the apostate, or "share" the Episcopal name with the revisionists, or remain in their organization, the apostates know that their doctrine of diversity and inclusivity still reigns supreme. When the apostate see the orthodox taking decisive action, when they find themselves with no one to talk to but themselves, when they discover that the "space," the mutual respect, the honest sharing of differences, the ongoing dialogue is over, then and only then will their little god of diversity and inclusion be radically challenged. Until then, the apostate may listen to the protestations of the orthodox, but in their heart of hearts, they know that actions speak louder than words.

Why do Scripture, the church universal, the Anglican Reformers, and the Anglican Prayer Books insist on discipline, breaking fellowship with the unrepentant? -- for the sake of their souls, and not just theirs, all of us.

---The Rev. Robert J. Sanders, Ph.D. obtained his doctorate at Graduate Theological Union and the University of California Graduate School. His is VOL's resident cyber theologian. His website can be accessed here: www.rsanders.org. Dr. Sanders is a priest of Christ Church Anglican, Jacksonville. His church's website is: www.christchurchjax.com