The understanding of apostolic faith is not monolithic.

The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches also consider themselves successors to the Apostles. The Roman Catholics insist that being free from mortal sin on ones deathbed is essential for personal salvation. The Episcopal catechism insists that it is faith in Jesus that is the criterion. Matthew’s gospel seems to suggest that how one cares for the poor and needy is Jesus’ only criterion. There is some Biblical support for all of these positions. One might note that Peter said: "Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him."(Acts 10:34-35)

The Episcopal Church composed of Protestant and Catholic elements is often called the “Bridge” Church. It is no surprise that understandings and varying emphases found in Scripture should be mirrored in our Communion.

The Forward in Faith and American Anglican Council Movements, arguably the most conservative in the Episcopal Church, cannot jointly agree on the validity of women priests. How can one objectively decide which movement is propagating the fullness of the faith once delivered to the Apostles?

Each time the Book of Common Prayer is revised to keep it in the language of the people a few Episcopal groups drop out - certain that some doctrine or another has been altered. The search for doctrinal purity is illusive for even in these “Continuing Anglican Churches” the bishops have taken turns excommunicating one another over the finer points of doctrine.

A typical Episcopalian might argue that pious yet possibly corrupt beliefs such as purgatory and indulgences have easily made their way into Christian practice. Such possible corruptions are hard to recognize and correct because the institutions propagating them surround themselves with the cloak of the sacrosanct.

It is hard to argue that you are geographically situated in just the right place where the complete faith as delivered to the Apostles is preached in its fullness and that those Episcopalians who live in other parts of the United States (and who happen to be in the majority concerning the current barrage of “hot button” issues) have it all wrong. Some Episcopalians whose beliefs do not completely overlap your faith package receive Holy Communion at the same alter rail as you. Which of these communicants would you kick out?

The commandment to love ones neighbor as oneself would seem to be sufficient reason to include all those who intend to be faithful to their Episcopal Baptismal Covenants.

Historically the church has rethought the applicability, and interpretations of Biblical passages. At one time or another, the earth as the center of the physical universe, slavery, prohibitions on lending money at any interest, and birth control were considered part of the Apostolic faith.

A "frozen" doctrinal system becomes somewhat embarrassing when items are overruled by science, new knowledge, or common sense.

The Episcopal Church's liturgical form makes worshippers more comfortable in the role of communicants taking a part in a drama, expressing awe and thanksgiving in the Divine Liturgy, rather than sinners struggling to get into heaven if only they could acknowledge the "true" set of dogmatic propositions - as if our heavenly parent, any particular item being out of place, were ready to pounce and say: "Got You!"

Is it not wise to allow the kind of religious toleration and diversity characteristic of Anglicanism from the time of the Elizabethan Compromise to flourish? Since we all see through a glass darkly, isn’t it appropriate to let God sort out the finer points of doctrine? It was Gamaliel who said in holy writ, "...If this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!" (Acts 5:38-40)