Willl the Real Ray Please Stand Up? "Bishop Ray Sutton on the Filioque and the ACNA" from Stand Firm

Will the "real REC Ray Sutton" please stand up? Who is he? From Kentucky Baptist fundamentalist boy to premillenial dispensationalist from Dallas Seminary to rigorist Presbyterian-Reconstructionistic-Theonomist (do some research on James Jordan, Westminster Presbyterian, Tyler, TX...very sad and sick) to Anglo-Catholic Reformed Episcopalian in 25 years? He has changed ALOT.

Who is he? Put your finger to the air.

Lads, "flip a coin and we'll see."

We used to read, in the 1990's, of the horror show from Tyler, TX.

Sutton wrote much on the then-emerging internet. Ray, the hot-Presbyterian, was numbered among the giants--James Jordan, Gary North and Rousas Rushdoony--although he himself was hot off the ana-Baptist circuit.

Sutton shifted out of the radical theonomist hothouse as the Pastor of Westminster Presbyterian Church. There are some good stories there, like the "White Walls" and the elders' directions thereon.

"Big Ray" moved to the dying Reformed Episcopal Church.

He was a prime mover in shaping a marriage contract between the REC and the APA.

But, the ever-shifting Ray, having moved to high Anglo-Catholicism and a "new opportunity," has cleaned his reconstructionistic writings from the internet. Who is against "opportunism?" Ray is not.

Ray now works for the ACNA as an ecumenical officer.

Note bene his use of the term "late medieval period" to diss the great Reformation Confessions (what he will say relativistically were controverted points in "that day"...wink, wink, but are not essential today). Note bene his claim that the Church of England had "no" confession, as if three hundred years of subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles never occurred. As if no English Reformation occurred. Note bene his dismissal of Calvinism and Arminianism without as much as a footnote. Note bene Ray's failure to address Metropolitan Jonah's (OCA) laughable comments at the ACNA hugfest a few years back. What makes these worse? Boy Ray understands these things.

Will the real Ray Sutton stand up? What will be Ray's next foray in doctrinal development? What is the nature of the sands upon which Ray now stands?

Ray is the "big bubba" who, at Oxford, went out for a few beers with some staunch Anglo-Catholics and one Reformed doctoral student. The Anglo-Catholic bubbas, true to form, were taking the Reformation out to the trash heap...standard fare for ACs. That is standard AC-stuff: anti-Reformationism.

Don't ask me who the Oxford don was? Please, I, as retired United States Marine will take the hit. It's credible and I will put my life on it. Ain't gonna happen! I will cover my source, although it is quite credible. Again, I am a retired United States Marine, but I trust my source.

"Boy Ray," the Kentucky Baptist boy-turned-rigorist theonomist-turned-Anglican said nothing. Yet, Ray could not and did not resist the obloquy of the these AC-Puritans, these AC-fundamentalists, these AC-tub thumpers, while "bubba Ray" sat there like a mute statue.

Why might that be?

Because boy-Roy flitted here and there through life--shifting while sifting and never sure where he stood. The Reformed student stood his ground. He took due note of Ray, unflatteringly. Boy Ray still has not matured in the English Reformed fathers.

Not far from where this gaggle met... over beers...stands the Oxford Memorial--a tribute to the English Reformers.

At least the English Reformers took stands, unlike Ray the mute Anglican statue, the representative of Reformed Episcopalianism.

Hey, Ray was just coming off his Anabaptististic, dispensationalistic, Presbyterian-Reconstructionistic "sea changes," many coloured as they were.

He was an American at Oxford, a child.

Commendably, the ACs took their stand. I have nothing but respect for them. Commendably, so did the Reformed Churchman who shall remain unidentified, but who is very credible. I have respect for the student at Oxford.

What shall Ray say to all this? It depends on the direction of the prevailing winds.

We have watched the waffling and waltzes of Ray for 20 years now. What's the next number? Tango? Or, the Foxtrot? Or, the "dissing" of the Reformed Confessions?

It has been painful and instructive to watch Ray "bob and weave" over the last few decades.

We will be watching for Ray's next few trade-offs and trade-ins. Trust is gone.

The foundational problem was a lust for acceptance and respectability with the evident drifting here and there, like Samson. We are reminded of a quote from Robert Arthur Faussett on Samson, p.255, http://books.google.com/books?printsec=frontcover&dq=judges%20commentary&ei=K76UTM7UHcL58Abcq7mQDA&ct=result&id=YlMHAAAAQAAJ&output=text&pg=PA257

"Dallying with temptation a perilous venture.—Fleshly lusts war against the soul . Yet men flatter themselves they can toy with the temptress, and not be entrapped. Wine and licentiousness take away the understanding (Hos. iv. 11). When we, like Samson, lay down our head to sleep in the lap of temptation, our spiritual enemies are never more wide awake. The sounder we sleep, the greater our danger. It was truly said, " Samson, when strong and brave, strangled a lion; but he could not strangle his own lust. He burst the fetters of his foes, but not the cords of his own passions. He burnt up the crops of others, and lost the fruit of his own virtues, when burning with the flame enkindled by a single woman" (Ambros., Apol. ii. David, c. iii.: quoted by Keil). Like a moth fluttering about a candle flame, though already scorched by it, Samson unwarned by his narrow escape from one danger which he incurred by lust, rushes into another. Herein may be seen the tempter's assiduity, Samson's security, and Jehovah's superabounding grace (Eph. ii . 7; Rom. v. 20; 1 Tim. i. 14). He who as a Nazarite, ought to have been "purer than snow and whiter than milk," blackens himself with harlotry (Lam. iv. 7)." Newmanian Anglo-Catholicism was and is that for Ray--but he will not confess that, openly. He couldn't and did stand, but fell.

The photo above is the Oxford Memorial commemorating manly men from the English Reformation--men who took stands and did not capitulate.

Stand Firm Bishop Ray Sutton on the Filioque and the ACNA

Bishop Ray Sutton on the Filioque and the ACNA
Friday, September 17, 2010 • 9:25 pm
Bishop Ray Sutton, chair of the ACNA's Ecumenical Relations Task Force responds to my objections.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Matthew:

I recently was made aware of your articles and blog postings about the conversations between the Ecumenical Relations Task Force of ACNA, which I chair, and the Russian Orthodox Church (OCA). Much of the summer I was in Germany on a short-mission trip with the Reformed Episcopal Church; I’m just now catching up with what I missed, which is your whole discussion.

I’m not a subscriber to Stand Firm, although as I’ve become familiar with the reporting, publications and so forth, I am quite impressed with its ministry. From a distance, I’m grateful for your valiant work for the Faith once delivered, your pro-life commitments, your generally balanced approach to ecumenical matters and so much of what we share in common as colleagues in ministry together. I even appreciate many aspects of your initial article. At the same time, I thought your June 15 piece did not accurately state the real issues at stake and ended up misrepresenting the Anglican Communion, the ERTF, and Orthodox views on the Filioque and relational theology. Having said this, I shoulder some of the responsibility. I realize you were/are operating on limited information, partially due to my own fault. Our ecumenical committee is barely a year old. We’re short in time and money; I like so many of our bishops wear many other hats. I’m simply unable to devote all the time necessary to the wonderful ecumenical and evangelical opportunity before us. To say the least, we’re scrambling to keep up with open doors and at the same time gain a sense of what ACNA clergy and laity do and do not understand about the various groups with whom we are having conversation. Out of respect for Stand Firm and your ministry, I offer my own humble thoughts for whatever they are worth for you (all) to consider.

First, you comment in your June 15 article, “to decide over the course of one week to simply drop a phrase that has been used for over 1500 years in the west seems to me a bit hasty and premature.” I know you now realize differently. The ERTF recommendation to remove the Filioque is just that, a recommendation not a final decision. The full recommendations approved involve a process for how to bring the matter before our entire body. If you read carefully my recommendations, they included an appeal to the GAFCON Primates for guidance on how to proceed. We are newly formed and we are trying to work within the framework of the Anglican Communion in submission to our Primates, and not simply make decisions apart from the mind of the whole as it has bowed to the authority of Christ and His revealed word the Holy Scriptures. As you know, this was the great error of TEC. Be assured that once we receive further direction from our Primates, we will have to deal with the matter as a College of Bishops and Provincial delegation. This will allow for our committee to present a full case (materials are already being prepared) for why the AC via two Lambeths has proposed removal of the Filioque in all future liturgical revision. Even so, we are at the beginning of our own local deliberations and no final decision has been made.

As for the notion we’re calling for something in “haste,” please bear in mind we are entering an ecumenical conversation in process for centuries, and specifically formal ecumenical dialogue and previously agreed statements reached over four decades, between our larger, Anglican family and the Orthodox. Yes, all of this may be new to us in our recently formed province, but the recommendation of removing the Filioque has been part of Anglican/Orthodox dialogue for quite some time. To begin with, whether we recognize it or not, we are in communion with the vast majority of an Anglican Communion we formally want to join, and to the point, a body of Christians who have already reached agreement on some matters with the Orthodox. Since this is true, we are strongly urged to the conclusions they have reached. Among these points is the call for the Filioque to be removed from future liturgies, which directly impacts us as we are working on our first prayer book in ACNA. Hence, we have done nothing more than put forward what our larger ecclesial family and two Lambeths have commended to the AC provinces, especially where there is strong Orthodox presence. Given the growth of the Orthodox around American catholic and evangelical communities, I believe we should acknowledge they now have significant presence among us. Lambeth was wise, and we should allow its wisdom to come to us.

The Lambeth 1988 Resolution 6, #5, offers a good summary of the mind of Anglican Bishops at a time when the AC was considerably more conservative than present. This Lambeth, “Asks that further thought be given to the Filioque clause, recognising it to be a major point of disagreement, (a) recalling Resolution 35.3 of the Lambeth Conference 1978 and the varied, and on the whole positive, response from those provinces which responded to ACC-4's request to consider the removal of this clause from liturgical texts, (b) noting that the Report of the Faith and Order Commission of the WCC ‘Ecumenical Explication of the Apostolic Faith as expressed in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan (381) Creed’ bases itself on the original text, (c) believing that it may be possible to achieve unity of action on the part of all the 'Western Churches' to adopt the original form of the Creed without any betrayal of their theological heritage, (d) recommending to the provinces of the Anglican Communion that in future liturgical revisions the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed be printed without the Filioque clause.”

I quote the statement in full. This is as substantial a recommendation to remove the Filioque as our present polity in the AC will allow. Nevertheless, in a historical-theological sense it is epochal. The bishops are expressing an overwhelming consensus to return to the original Nicene Creed in our future worship. Point (d) above says no less by calling for removal of the Filioque in “all future liturgical revisions.” Given our belief in lex orandi lex credendi, literally “the law of praying is the law of believing,” or, what we pray is what we believe, a “recommendation” to remove the Filioque in all future “liturgical revisions” not only captures the essence of the mind of the Lambeth Bishops of our communion, namely, it expresses their theological convictions to restore the original, non-amended Nicene Creed.

To you and your readers, our statements may seem to be out of nowhere and precipitous; I’ll assure you they are not. I do understand, however, why you/we have been somewhat out of the ecumenical loop. Most of us are coming out of the shell shock of leaving TEC, or having lived in exile for a long time (i.e. the REC etc.), and we’re just now able to catch up on the good Biblical/theological/ecclesial work of the AC. Please realize though that the Lambeth decisions stand on a protracted history of interaction and growing acceptance of one another (Anglican/Orthodox) extending all the way back to our Celtic history (remember Christians in Briton were under the Eastern liturgical calendar until the Synod of Whitby in A.D. 663). The theological interaction with the writings of Eastern Fathers resurfaces in the Reformation and specifically for us with Richard Hooker, Bishop Lancelot Andrewes, and the Caroline Divines. The Non Jurors of the late 17th century, who profoundly impacted John Wesley, actually appealed to come under the patrimony of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Then more recently in America, a remarkable relationship developed among the Russian Orthodox in the person of Saint Tikhon, a 19th century Russian Orthodox Bishop/Saint, Bishop Charles Grafton of the Protestant Episcopal Church during the same time period, and Nashotah House (A stained glass window is devoted to St. Tikhon). In part as a result of this precious fellowship brought about by the Holy Spirit, many positive developments occurred including affirmation of our prayer book and orders in some parts of Orthodoxy. Perhaps you can see why I am compelled to help your readers comprehend how deeply and longstanding is the recommendation to remove the Filioque. In my opinion after a thousand years of division, and our Anglican Bishops finally coming to some concurrence on the matter in 1988, we are not moving too fast but too slow!

Second, your statements on the Filioque itself, again in my humble opinion, fail to take into consideration what the Orthodox actually believe on Person and Relation. You are correct (via Alister McGrath my dissertation advisor at Oxford) that the Filioque supports a relational view of theology. To suggest that this theological emphasis will be lost without the Filioque, however, needs to be rethought. The East concurs that economically the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son according to John 16. Both East and West essentially, also agree that what the West means by the Filioque is the Spirit proceeds from Father through the Son, not actually “and” the Son. You, yourself, adopt this meaning in your June 15 article. The East would not disagree with you on this interpretation.

Even more to the point, Eastern theologians also develop theology of Person and Relation in some sense better than we do. There is a fascinating section, “Personhood and Being,” by the Orthodox Metropolitan, John Zizioulos, Being as Communion, (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 1985), pp. 27-66. Then there is his chapter, “The Relational Character of Ministry” (pp. 214-224) in the same work, which builds on the thesis of the entire book. I don’t know how many Eastern Orthodox theologians you’ve read, but many of them remind the West that we are the ones who have succumbed to theology of ontology (being) apart from person due to the long history of using Greek philosophy via Aristotle and Plato to do theology. The Filioque has not prevented these problems in the West. The East objects to the Filioque not because they reject a theology of Person or Relation, although they would not necessarily state it the same way as the West. Rather, the East opposes expanding a catholic creed without the consent of the whole Catholic Church, and would point to many later-developing, Western theological aberrations as a result. The East thusly would be an example that relational theology is not lost without the Filioque. The Truth of the Nicene is unchanged by dropping the Filioque.

Third, I do not agree that theological disagreement over the extent of human depravity and Calvinism should dissuade us from some kind of “rapprochement” with the Orthodox. Anglicanism does not, like the other Reformed bodies require subscription to late Medieval (16th and 17th century) confessional documents for fellowship, or even communion. If we were attempting to merge our jurisdictions it might be a different matter, but this is not the goal of our ecumenical conversations. We are seeking Eucharistic inter-communion.

As for the matter of Calvinism, I don’t know for sure yet Metropolitan Jonah’s definition of Calvinism or exactly what he meant (So far, we haven’t gotten to that point in our ecumenical dialogues.). I would remind you though that the Church of England never embraced completely the Forty-Two Articles (More Calvinist in tone), nor did it adopt the Canons of Dort where the definitive statement for Calvinism emerged under an acronym (TULIP) by way of response to Jacob Hermann, Arminius. Of course, neither did the Church of England side with the Arminians. In this sense, the Anglican Way is neither Calvinist nor Arminian if we use the historic definitions formed at Dort as a basis for these terms. If we don’t use Dort to define Calvinsim, since that was its effect, I don’t know what we would use. Calvin wasn’t trying to create his own distinct theology. So in some sense I agree with my dissertation examiner, the renowned, now retired, Cambridge Reformation Scholar, Peter Newman Brooks, that the terms Calvinist and Arminian are passé, given the varied meanings over time that so obscure one’s ability to define them any more. Even Calvinists these days can’t agree on what Calvinism is, which is why these categories are essentially useless. Who’s the final authority to define them?

Historically, however, the original Synod of Dort debate was over fifty years after our own Thirty-Nine Articles were written. It is not intellectually honest to read history backwards, which many in the history of our church have attempted, some trying to say it is Calvinist, others that it is Arminian. Strictly speaking, it is neither. At the same time, no doubt John Calvin had a profound influence on the English Reformation, which is not the same as saying the Anglican Communion is Calvinist or Arminian in some Dortian sense. I so appreciate the writings and theology of Calvin; I have probably read his legendary Institutes well over ten times, and benefitted each time. But his influence on Cranmer doesn’t make Anglicanism Calvinist. Cranmer was influenced by many elements, mostly Scripture and the ancient Church. By the way, Metropolitan Jonah qualified his statements about Calvinism that he was not per se condemning Calvin. My own opinion after devoting so much study to Calvin’s thoughts, I don’t think the Swiss Reformer would have ever wanted a theological movement named after him; he was too much of a late Medieval catholic Christian. I’m furthermore certain that he would not have agreed with reducing his teachings under his name to the acronym TULIP.

Finally on this topic, the Puritan Calvinism of 17th century England and New England eventually, almost over night on the pages of history, collapsed into Unitarianism and thereafter basically disappeared. By the end of the 1600s, the Presbyterian and Puritan party in England was astonishingly the polar opposite of a limited view of the atonement. For whatever reason, something became seriously defective with the Calvinist theology of this period. In this regard Metropolitan Jonah is justified in his concerns with at least what Calvinism became in the late 17th century, a Gnostic, anti-sacramental and anti-miracle kind of rationalism! Calvin was not any of these things, and many of those influenced by him today are not. Bishop Christopher Cocksworth in his, Evangelical Eucharistic Thought in the Church of England, refers to the phenomenon that many Calvinists have become in history catholic, liturgical and sacramental (i.e. the Non Jurors and the Oxford Movement having begun as Calvinists!). I would be quick to raise this insight as well with His Beatitude. The Anglican Way has benefitted from many theologians without succumbing to an “ism.” Besides, the wine skin of any “ism” is simply too small for the Biblical, catholic and evangelical depth and breadth of the Anglican Way.

I would also add that while I agree with and strongly support our own Anglican formularies, one is not saved by believing in a particular doctrine of salvation: he/she is saved by Jesus Christ. I remember hearing the remarkable Reformed theologian, Professor John Frame (formerly at Westminster West), discuss the massive theological disagreements between famous 18th century evangelists, John Wesley, the Arminian, and George Whitefield, the Calvinist. He called them, “ships crossing in the night.” Both were Anglican, both disagreed about so much of the doctrine of salvation, yet who would question the salvation of either man? On salvation by Christ they were agreed, which was Professor Frame’s point. He noted that it is Gnostic to argue that we are saved on the basis of how we understand salvation actually working. He argued, “One is saved by Christ, not our knowledge.” We’re not even saved by believing in the doctrine justification by faith only, as important and convinced of this doctrine as we may be. It is not faith in our faith that saves us; it is Jesus Christ! With the latter, neither our Roman Catholic, nor Orthodox brothers and sisters in Christ would disagree. Yes, I’m aware that we have our differences with our fellow Christians in the Orthodox Churches. Even our previously agreed upon, ecumenical statements (Moscow, Dublin, and Cypress) admit this. At the same time, these are dear brothers and sisters in Christ from whom we can learn so much and they from us, if we can fellowship in and witness for Christ together.

I should add by way of finalizing this point: Our/your ERTF is not on some kind of liberal ecumenical quest to create a brave, new, revisionist Church. We are attempting to express our oneness in Christ to the greatest extent possible that we may proclaim the glorious Gospel of Christ together in a Western world that desperately needs Him. This, my dear brother, is that for which our Lord prayed and by implication calls us to do (John 17). To get there from here, as the saying goes, is challenging. While attempting to live into John 17, we at the same time are trying to be faithful to our standards (Scripture, BCP, and Articles) as understood by the larger Anglican Communion, and particularly our own GAFCON Primates who called us into existence. On the point of the Filioque, we are taking the lead of this larger family in considering and doing what they have asked. By Lambeth Bishops concluding what they did, they are in essence saying our doctrine will not change by returning to the original Nicene Creed. Where this phrase is used in the Articles (V) it should be understood economically as you have excellently done in your article. I personally don’t think it would have to be removed from the Articles. After all, we don’t confess this document in the Divine Liturgy, as do our Reformed brothers and sisters in Christ with the Heidelberg Catechism. In general, therefore, like any relationship we must in ecumenical work with fellow Christians be willing to see each other’s strengths and weaknesses, where we agree/disagree, but we must also in the case of reconciling brothers and sisters be willing to admit where we have erred in our past. The Western Church changed the creed on them without involving them. This brings me finally to some specific reasons for removing the Filioque that brought Anglicans to recommending its removal in future liturgical revisions.

Fourth, as for the substance of the matter regarding the Filioque I believe the Orthodox are correct on this point. By way of summary, it is my view that the Filioque should be removed for the following reasons:

(a) The Western Church acted in a non-catholic manner by adding the Filioque to a Catholic Nicene Creed. The original without the Filioque was written in ecumenical council and ratified by representatives of the entire, Catholic Church. The addition, albeit for noble reasons, was two centuries later without the consent of the whole in ecumenical council. How can there be a Catholic Creed without the consent of the whole? If you think about it, any other such action would today be totally rejected by the whole church: Roman, Anglican, Orthodox, and creedal Protestants. For example, what if part of the Church decided on its own to expand the Nicene Creed’s statement, “I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth,” the additional words, “in six literal twenty-four hour days,” or, “in six day ages of non determined time,” to resolve the age of the earth question? Of course creationists would like the former, while theistic evolutionists would prefer the latter. The problem is that such an addition, well-intentioned though it might be, would no doubt fragment the church again on yet another issue by acting without the Biblical consensus of the whole. Yet this is precisely what the West did, when it added the Filioque to the Catholic Creed without the whole Catholic Church.

(b) The historic, local context and reasons for why the West added the Filioque no longer exist. The problem in the West at the time of the addition of the Filioque was the persisting Arianism of Spain. The Filioque was inserted to strengthen statements already present in the creed on the eternal Deity of Christ. For example, “begotten not made,” and “Very God of Very God,” specify Christ’s eternal Deity in the original creed. For this reason, the creed’s opposition to Arianism doesn’t change if the Filioque is removed and Arianism is no longer the looming crisis of the West or the East. Yes, it still is around in the West (Mormonism and so forth) but it’s not the great enemy pulling down the West. Our struggle is with neo-paganism, secular humanism, Gnosticism and so forth. And the East can be and is our great ally in all of these battles. We need them, as they do us, to regain the West for Christ.

(c) The Filioque has created problems for Western theology. Although not the intent, it has contributed to universalist/Unitarian developments in the West, i.e. the wrong view of multiple ways to come to the Father. How? The notion of the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son has encouraged belief in two ways to God. After all, if the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, it is not a far theological step to take that one could come to the Father by the Spirit without the Son? This view indeed has developed in the West. I know this was not the intent but it has clearly had this effect. We are the ones who have battled universalism in almost every century. Today we’ve all but lost. The average Western Christian no long believes that Jesus Christ is the only way to God (John 14:6). We do, I know, which proves that one can say the Filioque and resist universalism, but the question is, how long will we be faithful? Amending creeds based on local preference is precedent for the cycle, from which we have escaped to repeat, God forbid. We are at the threshold of reversing Western cycles of apostasy.

(d) The addition of the Filioque to the ancient catholic creed of Nicaea resulted in the worst division of the Church in the history of Christianity. The Eastern Church objected to amending the creed without ecumenical consent, heard the Filioque as subordinationism and so forth. Crisis and division erupted without the ability to re-group into another ecumenical council to confirm the West’s addition. The Church has remained divided even though both East and West have agreed to the later clarification of what the Filioque as, “through the Son.” Even so our creedal confessions remain different. As already noted, you even admit the Filioque means “through the Son” in your own, initial article. To me this means the point of the East has been conceded. Why not go all the way in the admission and return to the original. Unfortunately, the West has not yet been able to bring itself to this point. Consequently, the addition of “and the Son” has horribly divided Christendom. Such alteration forced change on the Eastern Church without its ecumenical consent in council. The East therefore believes the sad divisions of the Church, and the ongoing ones in the West I might add, began there. They do make a point worthy of our consideration, although I also believe the East has had its own struggles with unity over other issues. I don’t mean to imply that they or I would reduce all division to the Filioque. What happened over the Filioque, nevertheless, did divide East and West, and also did set some kind of precedent for later ongoing fragmentation in the West. The divisiveness, combined with the un-catholic manner of amending a Catholic creed, with the essential Truth of the Nicene Creed being unchanged with the absence of the Filioque, and there being no longer a historic context for this addition, should compel us to remove it.

In conclusion, I so appreciate your ministry and concerns. I hope you understand better my/our position on the Ecumenical Relations Task Force. We are not doing ecumenical work for liberal purposes. We are not altering Truth by suggesting the removal of the Filioque. An unedited Nicene Creed without the Filioque still opposes Arianism. East and West are agreed on the economic procession from the Father through the Son. The Truth stands. Indeed we are trying to stand together in the Truth of the original creed with other faithful, creedal Christians for the purpose of proclaiming Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior to our world. This goal is not without many challenges, not the least of which is the rapid collapse of Western Culture. I/we have a sense that if the historic, Biblical and Creedal Church does not enter evangelical witness and Eucharistic fellowship together, we cannot save the West. Neither Rome, Orthodoxy, the Anglican Church, nor the world of Protestantism can re-evangelize the West alone. We must all come together in some kind of massive Gospel sense to do it. It is to this end that I work and covet your support. Blessings to you my brother!

In Christ,
+Ray R. Sutton, Ph.D.
Chairman, ERTF