Bishop Ray Sutton of the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC) is now the Dean of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) and the interim Archbishop for all purposes. Who is he? I certainly don’t have a complete answer to that question, but can provide a bit of background that I have learned over the years. I spoke to former associates of his and read through many sources to piece together a partial picture of his background. The man who emerged led two movement-oriented institutions in the Eighties and Nineties, both of which were something of a failure; he spent time at a third (Reformed Episcopal Seminary) that he maintained at the same level it was, and he seems to be a good pastor, one whose people appreciated him. He changed theologically over time to arrive where he is today. His overwhelming drive is for Church unity at the expense of theological differences from the past, which he believes no longer apply in the current situation.

While there is probably much more to know about him, and I in no way claim to be exhaustive, I hope this post pulls together some threads that will help the reader understand where the Dean is coming from.

Dispensational Background

Ray Sutton began his theological career as a dispensationalist¹ at Dallas Theological Seminary.² Sutton was a youth group leader at a church called Believers Chapel. It was pastored by Dr. S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., who was also the Professor of Systematic Theology from 1972 to 1977 at Dallas Theological Seminary. Johnson apparently got Sutton reading Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theology, which was influential in Sutton embracing Reformed Theology, as were the works of Cornelius Van Til. Sutton says:

Remember, I was trained at a Dispensational seminary (Dallas Theological Seminary). From the first day of the first class of my first year, I was taught that covenant theology is wrong. Moreover, I was taught that covenant theology is a system foisted on the Bible. But I had read Cornelius Van Til on my own, as an undergraduate student. My thinking had been shaped, but out of ignorance I went to a seminary that is diametrically opposed to everything Van Til stands for. Through my own studies, I have discovered that covenant is so endemic to the Bible itself that I can categorically say, “There is no other system faithful to Scripture.”³

As far back as 1977 he was teaching a former youth group member of his about theonomy.

Young Calvinist Pastor

Sutton had a short stint at his first church, which he refers to in a newsletter he wrote:

I’ve pastored two churches. I’ve been at my present charge for twelve years. But I only lasted six months at my first church. I’ll never forget the experience. I met with the search committee and when asked what my theology was I answered, “Calvinism.” They said, “Great, we’re Calvinists too, come be our pastor.” I naively said, “Great, I’ll come.” So, I packed my pregnant wife and child into my brother-in-law’s old pick-up and took off to my first pastorate.⁴

After this first church, he pastored Westminster Presbyterian Church starting in 1977. Westminster became Good Shepherd Reformed Episcopal Church in 1987. A former congregant spoke highly to me of Sutton as a pastor and counsellor. For several years in the 1980’s, Westminster was the epicenter of the small but vocal Christian Reconstructionist (also known as “theonomy”) movement. For the sake of space I will not delve into the theological ins and out of Christian Reconstructionism, but Richard John Neuhaus provided a cursory summary of its beliefs in 1990:

Bible law requires a radical decentralization of government under the rule of the righteous. Private property rights, especially for the sake of the family, must be rigorously protected, with very limited interference by the state and the institutional church. Restitution, including voluntary slavery, should be an important element of the criminal justice system. A strong national defense should be maintained until the whole world is “reconstructed” (which may be a very long time). Capital punishment will be employed for almost all the capital crimes listed in the Old Testament, including adultery, homosexual acts, apostasy, incorrigibility of children (meaning late teenagers), and blasphemy, along with murder and kidnapping. There will be a cash, gold- based economy with limited or no debt. These are among the specifics broadly shared by people who associate themselves with the theonomic viewpoint.⁵

In the course of time, several figures who were or would become leading lights of the movement ended up in Tyler at Westminster Presbyterian, including Gary North, James B. Jordan, David Chilton, and Ray Sutton himself. I have not turned up just how and when Sutton gravitated to theonomy, but as previously stated, he mentioned reading Cornelius Van Til as an undergraduate, and Van Til is a patron saint for theonomists. Sutton’s unique contribution to Reconstructionist thought was something called “The Five Point Covenant Model.”

The Five Point Covenant Model

Gary North described how Sutton came across the Five Point Covenant Model in his introduction to a book by David Chilton:

There was a missing piece in the puzzle, however, and this kept the book in Chilton’s computer for an extra year, at least. That missing piece was identified in the fall of 1985 by Pastor Ray Sutton. Sutton had been seriously burned in a kitchen accident, and his mobility had been drastically reduced. He was working on a manuscript on the symbolism of the sacraments, when a crucial connection occurred to him. The connection was supplied by Westminster Theological Seminary Professor Meredith G. Kline. Years earlier, he had read Professor Kline’s studies on the ancient suzerainty (kingly) treaties of the ancient Near East. Pagan kings would establish covenants with their vassals. Kline had pointed out that these treaties paralleled the structure of the Book of Deuteronomy. They had five points: (1) an identification of the king; (2) the historical events that led to the establishment of the covenant; (3) stipulations (terms) of the covenant; (4) a warning of judgment against anyone who disobeyed, but a promise of blessing to those who did obey; and (5) a system of reconfirming the treaty at the death of the king or the vassal.

Kline developed some of the implications of this covenant scheme. Sutton developed a great many more. These remarkable, path-breaking discoveries can be found in his book, That You May Prosper (1987). But more importantly, he noticed that this five-point covenantal structure governs the books of Psalms, Hosea, Matthew, Hebrews 8, and several of Paul’s epistles. Sutton’s thoroughgoing development of the covenant structure has to be regarded as the most important single theological breakthrough in the Christian Reconstruction movement since the publication of R. J. Rushdoony’s Institutes of Biblical Law, in 1973. After Sutton pointed out this five-point covenantal structure, I recognized it in the Ten Commandments, just before I had finished my economic commentary on the Ten Commandments. Sutton presented his discovery in a series of Wednesday night Bible studies. The first night that Chilton heard it, he was stunned. He came up to Sutton after the message and told him that this was clearly the key to Revelation’s structure. He had been trying to work with a four-point model, and he had become thoroughly stuck. Chilton went back to work, and within a few weeks he had restructured the manuscript. Within a few months, he had finished it, after three and a half years. (Time, times, and half a time.)⁶

North went on to describe Sutton’s insight as another pillar in “the Tyler theology”:

Two things make the Tyler theology unique in the Christian Reconstruction camp: (1) its heavy accent on the church, with weekly Communion; and (2) its heavy use of the five-point covenant model. Covenant theology, especially the church covenant, has not been a major focus in the writings of some of the non-Tyler leaders of the Christian Reconstruction movement. Theologically speaking the original “four points of Christian Reconstructionism” that Chilton and I have summarized – providence (sovereignty of God), Biblical presuppositionalism (Van Til’s apologetics: the Bible is the starting point and final court of appeal), eschatological optimism (postmillennialism), and Biblical law (theonomy) – were insufficient. The fifth point, covenantalism, and specifically Sutton’s five point model, was added in late 1985 to complete the theological outline.⁷

I am told that even in later years after leaving Tyler, Sutton continued to teach or allude to the Five Point Covenant Model both at Reformed Episcopal Seminary and Cranmer Theological House. A source told me that his justification for doing so “was that it was a Biblical pattern, not necessarily a “theonomic” one, which Meredith Kline had picked up on earlier in his examination of the book of Deuteronomy in light of ancient suzerainty treaties.”

The Reconstructionist movement in Tyler fizzled, with David Chilton leaving the church and making harsh accusations against it. Throughout this time, there was a war of words between dispensationalists and Tyler, Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia and Tyler, and other Reconstructionists and Tyler—Greg Bahnsen and R.J. Rushdoony for example.

Move to Anglicanism

Reading through Sutton’s Reconstructionist-era writings, you can detect an affinity for Anglicanism shining through. For example, this footnote:

Granted, the Puritans and Anglicans differed on their views of worship. Although the Puritans made some helpful contributions to American society, they were inconsistent with their view of covenant when it came to worship. They argued, “Do what the Old Testament teaches, unless the New Testament changes it.” So they defended the right of magistrates to use the Old Testament civil laws as a guide. But their worship was “New Testament plain.” The Anglicans used the same kind of argument regarding worship.

They, too, held to the great reformational idea of the covenant. They, too, believed that the Old Testament should inform one’s interpretations of the New Testament. They looked at the Book of Revelation and saw that the form of worship was remarkably similar to the worship of the Old Testament. God had not done away with a basic “routine” around the throne of God. Thus, their worship was not plain and stark like the Puritans’ worship…⁸

Speaking in 2002, Sutton recalled a conversation he had with Philip Edgcumbe Hughes that must have had him thinking about Anglicanism in the salad days of Reconstruction:

In conclusion, I sense today as I did when Bishop Bob spoke at our General Convention the fulfilling of what appears to me to be almost a prophetic conversation I had with the late, wonderfully orthodox Anglican theologian, professor and mentor of me, the Rev. Dr. Philip Edgcumbe Hughes; I rather suspect he’s smiling down on us right now! Dr. Hughes is one of the reasons I am a Reformed Episcopalian. In the early 1980s, he suggested that I would fit best in the REC given my background. But he offered a vision of a restored orthodox and biblical Anglicanism in the west. He told me that some day we would all converge somehow in some form some way. He didn’t know how and I don’t think any of here does either . . . yet. But Dr. Hughes did instruct me to work from within the REC and he would work his side and some day we’d be able to join common cause.⁹

Elsewhere, Sutton describes his research into the Episcopalian system of church government:

By way of personal background, I must confess that I was one of those people who thought that the Episcopal structure was unsupported by Scripture. I was a defender of the so-called elder rule approach, meaning no one presbyter (elder) was governmentally above another elder. And then, in the mid 1980s, I began doing research on the Biblical covenant, what would later become a book and many other studies. Little did I know at the outset of my work that it would force me to change church affiliation.

For, I discovered in the course of study that there are not only courts in the Church but that there are also what I call captains, one of the Biblical concepts behind the office of bishop. The following study is a summary of what I agonizingly had to face as I engaged Holy Scripture.¹⁰

A friend of Sutton’s from the time in Tyler told me that he was ‘an institutional guy’ who was always impressed with the visible glory of an established church—perhaps in reaction to growing up in an independent Bible church. Reportedly, he also liked the idea that if he were in an Episcopalian setting and he died, the next pastor would not change the liturgy completely. In 1987, this Episcopalian affinity along with the collapse of the Reformed micro-denomination that Westminster was a part of¹¹ led Sutton to move Westminster Presbyterian to the now defunct American Episcopal Church for a year, and then to the Reformed Episcopal Church. Westminster Presbyterian was re-named Good Shepherd Episcopal Church. 

By some accounts, Sutton was tired of the infighting between Reformed folks and when his micro-denomination collapsed there was not another Presbyterian denomination around that would accept Westminster’s practice of paedo-communion. James B. Jordan commented on this:

The church left because the Texas Presbytery was not a good home for the elders wanted, primarily paedocommunion.¹²

Jordan was not impressed by some of what he found in Episcopalian circles:

When the church I formerly co-pastored, Westminster Presbyterian Church of Tyler, Texas, finally left the orbit of “Reconstructionism,” the only places we found that would allow paedocommunion were in Episcopal circles. For a year, the church sustained an unofficial relationship with the American Episcopal Church, which proved to be very problematic, before finding a good home in the Reformed Episcopal Church. During that AEC year we would sometimes have visitors from other Episcopal churches. They would sometimes come rather late, and after they had gone forward for communion, would just go to the back door, bow, and leave. Sometimes they missed the confession of sins and absolution, and also the dismissal and benediction.

What was in these people’s minds? Clearly they thought of communion as some kind of religious drug, a “Jesus fix” that they could come and get at the communion rail, and then go on their way. They did not consider the worship service a corporate event, or they would have been with the community from start to finish. They did not view communion as part of the covenant renewal, or they would have participated in the entire service. Instead, they viewed the bread and wine magically: Jesus had been charmed down into the bread and wine by the “consecration,” and they had received some kind of spiritual dope by eating communion.¹³

Jordan says that the new Anglican liturgy did not go over well with some of the more Bucerian members of the renamed Good Shepherd Episcopal Church:

When the church switched to using an Anglican style of worship, sitting for prayer (since we did not have kneelers) and coming forward for communion (making it a rushed event), the people were very unhappy. It felt as if the church had made a hard right turn. There was no logical progression from what we had been doing to what we now were doing. The service went from being joyous to being more solemn, and the enthusiasm went out of it. This is not to say that Anglicanism is evil, or any such thing, but just to say that the “Tyler liturgics” were not Anglican, and did not tend in an Anglican direction.¹⁴

As a result of these changes, Presbyterian Reconstructionists like North and Jordan moved on to PCA churches. The move to Anglicanism gradually distanced Sutton from the Reconstructionist movement, although he continued writing for Gary North for six more years and North took pride in his moves within REC.

Sutton became friends with Bishops Grote and Riches, and the three of them would guide REC for most of the next two decades. Sutton wrote:

I express special appreciation to my Bishop, Rt. Rev. Royal U. Grote, who has taught me more about the episcopacy through his pastoral oversight to me than any book could ever hope to accomplish. He has been the best pastor I’ve ever had as well as a teacher and friend to me. I also thank Bishop Leonard Riches of the New York & Philadelphia Synod for his reading of the manuscript and insightful comments.¹⁵

Philadelphia Theological Seminary and Doctoral Studies

In 1992, Sutton was hired as the President of Reformed Episcopal Seminary (RES) in Philadelphia. In 1993 RES moved from its downtown campus to Grace Chapel (Roxborough), and Sutton became rector of Emmanuel REC Four Brooks in Bucks County as well as President of RES. Sutton wrote of this time:

In the last year, my whole world has changed. One minute I was living in the deep south, pastor of a congregation that I had served for nearly sixteen years, and the next moment, I was living in the northeast, the president of a one- hundred-year-old seminary. I must admit that our whole family went through culture shock at several levels, although, as usual my wife handled the changes better than I did. As I look back over the past year, I continue to be amazed.

In late 1991, I moved to Philadelphia by myself to establish some kind of appropriate housing and schooling for our children. My wife and family remained behind to pack up some of our 3,000 square foot home and prepare for the journey. At Christmas time, I returned home, loaded a truck, and headed northward with the entire family. Buckets of tears were shed by young and old along the way.

To complicate matters a bit further, I was invited by an Oxford scholar to pursue a doctorate at Wycliffe Hall in Oxford, England, the opportunity of a lifetime. But, if my dear wife had not been so supportive and encouraging (as she always is), I could have never ventured so far away for so long. In fact, I was reluctant to go, but she insisted. Moreover, the Board of Trustees for the seminary, my new ministry, were equally as encouraging. They unanimously approved sabbatic time. So, in early spring of 1992, I left for a term of residence study, only to be joined the last two weeks by my wife. This meant that the children (all six of them) had to stay with friends. If we had not been in an area where there are so many of our denominational churches with pastors and their families so sympathetic to my ministry (and my wife), we probably couldn’t have done this; in fact, I know we couldn’t have done it; there is no doubt at all in my mind. Again, we saw God meet our needs, as this became a positive time for all of us, especially my wife who got a much deserved and needed two week vacation in England; she didn’t once complain!¹⁶

In the early 90’s , Sutton was still seen as a Reconstructionist. Sutton contributed to a book on theonomy and refuted a critique that a young Tim Keller had made against him. In this book, Gary North took pride in Sutton’s move to the Reformed Episcopal Seminary, writing:

I will say one more thing regarding Westminster’s strategy. The faculty did not in their wildest dreams imagine, when they began working on their book, that Ray Sutton, the victim of an astoundingly misleading and intellectually incompetent attack by Timothy Keller, would become president of Philadelphia Theological Seminary exactly one year after Theonomy: A Reformed Critique appeared in print. I argued in Westminster’s Confession that the Westminster faculty for over a quarter of a century treated theonomists as if we were so far out on the theological fringe that we were hardly worth considering. Some chapters in their book almost casually dismiss theonomy. Such an unprovoked attack looks idiotic when one of the victims then assumes the presidency of a Reformed seminary that is more than a century old – half a century older than Westminster.¹⁷

However, Sutton’s work on a Ph.D (supervised by Alister McGrath) led him to wind up his North-sponsored writing gig:

Dear Friends at I.C.E.:

My responsibilities at Philadelphia Theological Seminary¹⁸ and my doctoral studies at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, bring me to the point where I simply cannot continue Covenant Renewal. As you may know, I became Dean and President of the Theological Seminary of the Reformed Episcopal Church in fall of 1991. Shortly thereafter I began work toward a Ph.D. at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, in Theology, which actually took me to England for over two months.

At Philadelphia Theological Seminary, I am involved in relocating the campus to a suburban area in Philadelphia. On top of my other teaching and administrative responsibilities, I will be quite busy with the move. We hope to complete it some time in the middle of the summer. But like all moves, it will take us the following year to settle. After the move, however, I hope to begin a publication from the seminary where I will regularly publish articles. Also, there are other developments that will take up much time over the next couple of years. I will probably be helping to establish seminaries for the Reformed Episcopal Church in Germany and in St. Petersburg, Russia. This will involve travel and some initial oversight. I will continue, Lord willing, my dissertation at Oxford. I am writing on my first love, the sacraments. The rough draft of the dissertation is due in 1994, which means that I have much to do to meet the deadline. After I complete the Ph. D., I will continue writing on the covenant.

A source familiar with Sutton’s time in Philadelphia told me: “He left the seminary in Philly in reasonable shape. It’s always existed on the edge of a precipice, looking precariously close to closing its doors for good. Ray didn’t leave it any worse than he found it. He may have done it some temporary good. He had his fans (like John Campbell). He had his enemies (like Allen Guelzo).”

Another former student from the days in Philadelphia was not as sanguine:

I was a student also at the REC seminary in Philadelphia. I attended classes there part time over the course of a couple of years. I was a member of and a candidate for the ministry in the REC for five years. There is indeed no question about the legitimacy of the REC. It is not a continuing Anglican Church, but it is a legitimate body. Though I left it about 1 year ago and do not know much of what is happening now, the denomination was characterized by a large rift between the older Reformed wing that wanted to remain faithful to their founding heritage, and the new wing that wanted to pursue the Anglo-catholic and Charismatic popularity of much of conservative Anglicanism. The seminary in Philadelphia was a great school, nearly made extinct by the same Dean who then went on to do the same thing at Cranmer.¹⁹

Allen Guelzo wrote a book called For the Union of Evangelical Christendom: The Irony of the Reformed Episcopalians, which I have not read. The book was published in 1994 and took a dim view of what was going on at RES in Philadelphia. Rising to the defense of the seminary and Ray Sutton, John M. Campbell reviewed the book and said:

Dr. Guelzo, as mentioned earlier, was formerly employed at Reformed Episcopal Seminary. One would never learn that from reading the book since it is never stated, though one is free to wonder why. He left when the seminary hired the REC’s Archdeacon of Texas, the Rev. Dr. Ray R. Sutton, as president, and forced out the neo-evangelical former president, David Schroder, last seen at the Christian and Missionary Alliance’s school in Nyack, New York, where we hope he doesn’t do as much damage as he did at Reformed Episcopal Seminary in his two years there. Guelzo dedicated the book to him, saying, “For David, who fled from Saul to the mountains…” We still wonder who played the role of Saul in Guelzo’s mind. The seminary in Philadelphia is now in the capable hands of the Rev. Dr. Wayne Headman, by the way. Guelzo was publicly fearful before he left that the seminary, let alone the denomination, was adopting Christian Reconstructionism despite many personal assurances that this was not the case.²⁰

Repudiating Reconstruction

John Campbell’s review of the Guelzo book also said that Sutton had moved on from Reconstructionism:

Bishop Sutton headed up our seminary in Shreveport, Louisiana until leaving to take a parish, and is firmly in place as a churchman and heir of the English Reformation by studied choice. He made that clear at the time of his acceptance into the REC’s clergy role. He continues his repudiation of Reconstructionism. He has done nothing in over a decade to promote Reconstructionism, and the provost of the seminary even sent supporters and friends a circular in which Bishop Sutton’s repudiation of Reconstructionism was stated.²¹

According to a source familiar with Sutton’s thinking, his critique of Reconstruction “was that those in the movement had ‘no doctrine of the church’ and thus they could not sustain their Reconstructionist agenda.”

Cranmer Theological House, Shreveport

After his time in Philadelphia, Sutton moved to Shreveport, Louisiana in 1996, where a wealthy patron was trying to make a mark on the Church. Sutton would become the second Dean of a new school called Cranmer Theological House (CTH), funded by a priest and CEO named Allen Dickson. A source familiar with events recounted:

The seminary was funded by Allen Dickson, the owner and retired CEO of Morris & Dickson, a pharmaceutical distribution company. M&D was a family-owned business and most of its operations had been handed over to his sons. But Mr. Dickson still kept an office in the warehouse and his fingers in the business.

Mr. Dickson was the financier of the seminary…The seminary was founded in large part because of his discontent with the direction of TEC.²² Dickson himself had attended seminary (Nashotah House), though never obtained an actual degree. He was ordained a deacon and somehow managed to convince the Diocese of Western LA to ordain him a priest (in his 70s!). […]

Mr. Dickson approached the REC, I believe Roy Grote, with the idea for the seminary because he could not convince anyone in TEC of his vision. The seminary was intended from the start to produce orthodox candidates for TEC. However, without TEC support, at least anyone of any influence, the direct approach would not work. That’s where the REC comes into the picture. With a willing ecclesiastical partner (the REC), Dickson could obtain scholars with decent credentials, a churchmanship much to his liking, and move to a “back-door” strategy to save TEC. In the meantime the REC could train clergy for its own ranks, especially for the growing Diocese of Mid-America.

Win-win.

Lou Tarsitano was the first dean of CTH, and was known as a good and decent man and a reputable scholar. Ray Sutton was his replacement, probably leaving Philadelphia for several reasons. My source said:

Ray…was looking for a fresh start, leaving the presidency of RE Seminary behind both for cultural reasons…and because his vision of Anglicanism and that of the “old-guard RE” in the Diocese of the NE and Mid-Atlantic were never quite in sync.

CTH was not in any sense a traditional seminary. A source described the seminary as follows:

CTH was a “unique” environment. Modular courses, taught in three-week sessions. Every student was expected (they never said “required” but they were) —expected— also to be employed in the distribution warehouse at M&D. Their hours were crazy. Morning Prayer around 7:00 am, class till noon, lunch, and then work until the late evening (often leaving after 11:00 PM). In addition, the students were expected to do free labor around the grounds and the campus/building of the church (Christ Children’s Chapel – one of Dickson’s pet projects, very “Disney-esque,” originally built for the kids of M&D, but also serving as the seminary chapel and “All Saints REC.”) These other duties were typically done on Saturdays, so little family time for students. The good part of all this is that each student was able to support their families and pay tuition. The bad part was that they were often treated as “slave labor” – not so much in the warehouse but in the extra responsibilities that kept them from time with their families and time away from the books. Sutton sold this vision, both in catalog and in campus tours, as the monastic “Ora et Labora” principle.

An anonymous online review of CTH written in 2001 is scathing but detailed:

I went down to Cranmer House from Philadelphia because as a candidate for the ministry of the REC I was told Cranmer Theological House is the future of the REC. I certainly hope not.

Cranmer House was a victim of a maverick bishop and a Diocese that was unwilling to do anything that might upset the seminary’s benefactor.

Cranmer’s colourful catalogue has little to do with reality. Their PhD program has no special connection with Lancaster University, and the one with Brighton no longer exists. Several of the students at Cranmer were severely disappointed to learn (I was one of them) that you have no better connection with Lancaster coming from Cranmer than if you came from any other institution. It was simply a marketing ploy to advertise in their catalogue. I moved to Shreveport from Philadelphia, believing all the hype in their catalogue and was also disappointed. The faculty could answer no questions about the doctoral program.

At its high the seminary had 26 students (this is by my count). By the time I left (last year) there were only 11 remaining, and that was before their move. Several dropped out or transferred to other schools (one foreign student had to threaten legal action), and several more graduated early doing the MTS degree to avoid having to do the 3rd year at Cranmer. Out of 7 students in my class, only 3 remained past the second year. One opted to graduate early, two left and transferred to other schools (this includes me), one left to go back to parish ministry, and another remained on as a “distance” student, really leaving only two. In the class after me one student (who became a friend of mine later) had actually bought a home in Shreveport to go to school there. He sat through three days of classes, promptly sold his home and went to another school. I tell you this so you know I’m not just a bitter dropout. This seemed to be a consensus. You probably will find that graduates defend the school. One of them told me that he didn’t want to say anything bad about it because, after all, he had received a non-accredited degree and the only thing legitimate about it was its reputation.

There were numerous problems ethically, many of them related to the vast difference between what was advertised in the catalogue and what you found out when you got there. The 10,000-15,000 volume library advertised in the catalogue amounted to about 300 un-catalogued loosely arranged books on the upper floor of the classroom building (this is only last year). Though they did finally begin to build a library after I left, the books were purchased by the Dean, who (I have it on the authority of one of the professors who spoke candidly) did not know what he was doing. As a result of having no library, the teachers required almost nothing of their students, yet the administration intentionally misled prospective students and the accrediting body (who refused them accreditation) by stating false requirements for their courses. We rarely had to read a whole book for a class, and quite often 3-5 texts were listed as required reading in the catalogue and syllabus when only a small paperback would actually be read – this to give a false impression of the academic content. The content of the lectures followed suit.

The claims of open deception from this time are disturbing. The online review continues:

I was misled about the class requirements, accreditation (I was told by the Dean that Cranmer was fully accredited – a claim he made to several people, including at least one ECUSA bishop, other students, and including one student who lost $800.00 a month in G.I. aid because he thought Cranmer was accredited), the cost of health insurance for my family, the cost of living, the extra chores that seminarians were required to do without compensation (mowing the seminary’s lawn and cleaning the seminary buildings on our own time – though this was later remedied after students protested), and many other things too numerous to mention in this already too long e-mail. We were promised an “incredibly astute theological education ,” but as I stated previously, with no exaggeration the education was barely high school level.

According to this review, Sutton made some rather grandiose claims about CTH:

We were told each day by the Dean that the entire Anglican world had set its eyes upon Cranmer. It turns out, though, that the two students received into ECUSA were received in because they had a mutual friend there, and another was received because his father was a minister. I believe two did leave to go to the RC.²³

Consecration as Bishop and Ugandan Connections

While at CTH, Bishop Sutton began establishing relationships with Anglicans in Uganda, at the same time his counterparts were working with Rwanda and other African nations in what would become the pattern for the Anglican realignment. In March, 1999 Ugandans participated in the ordination of two deacons. David Virtue reported on the event:

In the chapel attached to the small seminary of the Reformed Episcopal Church in Shreveport, LA, a remarkable event took place on Wednesday, March 24 between 10.30 am and 12:15 p.m.

The Right Rev’d Terence Kelshaw of the Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande and the Bishop of the local Reformed Episcopal Church diocese, the Right Revd Royal Grote jointly ordained two young men as deacons…The two candidates were presented by the multi-millionaire owner of the factory to which the seminary and chapel are attached, Allen Dickson, and by the dean of the Seminary, Ray Sutton. They explained that these men were being ordained for the Bishop of Namirembe (Uganda) whose name is Samuel Balagadde Ssekaddee but that they would serve in the Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande under Kelshaw rather than in Uganda…At the ordination the ordination prayer was said by both bishops together for each man and both bishops laid their hands upon each one. The ordination certificate with Kelshaw’s seal on it also had on it the name of the Ugandan bishop.

The Communion Service was from the 1928 BCP and the celebrant was the Reformed Episcopal Bishop, Royal Grote. Not more than 40 or so were present, most of them from the seminary and factory.

By this device the seminary placed two of its students and St. Francis parish got two assistants and the Bishop of the Rio Grande circumvented the normal procedures for ordination of dioceses in the ECUSA. Further, the Ugandan bishop has two of his deacons as missionaries in a foreign land.²⁴

On August 3rd of that same year, in what a source called “the high water mark of the seminary,” Sutton was consecrated as Bishop, and a delegation of Ugandans was present at the consecration. The idea going in was the Ugandans would ordain Sutton—this was prior to the rupture that the AMiA consecrations produced—but things did not proceed according to plan. A source close to the events says:

Dickson, always looking for an opportunity, flew in six Ugandan bishops to take part in the consecration, and invited every “conservative” bishop in TEC as well. Of course, none of the TEC bishops showed up, save one, but not for the consecration itself. Bp. Stanton of Dallas appeared the day before the consecration to persuade his good friend, Bp. Sekkade, to NOT take part in the consecration, because this would essentially legitimize RE orders (if not confer valid Anglican orders)…After a five minute conversation, the Ugandan bishops agreed not to take an active role (lay hands) in the consecration itself, but would simply pray for the newly consecrated bishop. One Ugandan bishop confided…that he hadn’t realized until Bishop Stanton showed up that the Reformed Episcopal Church was actually different from The Episcopal Church.

Robert Harwell reported on the event and the news was distributed by David Virtue:

Anglicans in Africa and the United States moved closer together this week when a delegation from the House of Bishops of the Ugandan Anglican Church traveled to Shreveport, Louisiana. The six Ugandan bishops were visiting Cranmer Theological House, a seminary of the Reformed Episcopal Church.

The Episcopal Church USA is not in communion with the Reformed Episcopal Church, nor has it extended accreditation to Cranmer Theological House…

While in Shreveport the Ugandan bishops attended the Consecration of the Rt. Rev. Ray R. Sutton, dean of Cranmer. In the consecration ceremonies that took place at St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, the Ugandan visitors participation was restrained. They took no part in Sutton’s Consecration by Reformed Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop, the Rt. Rev. Leonard Wayne Riches and other bishops of the Reformed Episcopal Church.

In what would become a familiar story in the next century, the African connection was emphasized:

In conversation after the ceremonies, Dean Sutton revealed that, in addition to the two Ugandan students arriving in early August, two others would “soon” be enrolling in Cranmer. He stated that the six Ugandan bishops were on a “fact-finding” mission, gathering first-hand impressions of Cranmer Theological House and the Reformed Episcopal Church. The six will report on Cranmer and the Reformed Episcopal Church to the Ugandan House of Bishops which they represent.

The hope was that CTH would have a wide-ranging influence on the Episcopalian sphere inside the USA, something that never materialized:

Dean Sutton characterized happenings at Cranmer House as “revealing ourselves to a larger Christian audience and to the world.” Pleased with current developments, he obviously believes that situations of real significance lie ahead for Cranmer Theological House.²⁵

It seems that Bishop Sutton had the same general idea that future bishops Bob Duncan, Chuck Murphy and Martyn Minns would have: a new organization within America that might be the basis of a future Province. A source put it this way:

Essentially, the Dickson/Sutton plan was devised to give the REC legitimacy as an American Anglican province outside of TEC jurisdiction and CTH legitimacy as an Anglican seminary. Ray was more than just a willing player. Before all of this took place, he was quite candid…about what his consecration would mean for the “future of Anglicanism” as we know it.

The End of His Time in Shreveport

The former CTH student describes how CTH was relocated, and Bishop Sutton moved on:

Again, though, in all fairness, they cleaned house by telling the benefactor that he could no longer do anything he pleased. The dean was removed and the seminary is now located in Houston to give it a fresh start. After the Multi-millionaire was removed from the board of trustees, he told the school they would have to vacate the premises and he would no longer support it. Turns out this whole thing was a dream he was funding to get back at the Episcopal Church up the street with whom he had a long standing feud.

The student concludes:

I really loved the REC when I served there, and wish her well. May God preserve her from self serving people who destroy good institutions to make a name for themselves.²⁶

A source familiar with CTH put it this way:

In the final analysis, CTH imploded because Mr. Dickson and Bishop Grote came to cross-purposes. Grote wanted a quality seminary with quality faculty to train quality clergy. Dickson really had no use for the seminary except for cheap labor and a store-front to advance his agenda. Sutton was looking to make a name for himself and re-define what it meant to be Anglican…A student rebellion finally brought things to a head…Grote ended up moving the seminary to Houston, encouraged Ray to go off to Dallas to Holy Communion.²⁷

Efforts to Unite the Anglican Tribes

When Bishop Sutton moved back to Texas, his focus seems to have moved to fostering agreements between the many competing Anglican jurisdictions in the United States. A source told me:

He believed long before there was an ACNA or even foreign sponsored jurisdictions like CANA or AMiA that the REC would be a major player in Anglican realignment and in the formation of a new American province that would be recognized by the Anglican Communion or by whatever communion or traditional network of Anglican churches replaced the Communion. For a time he believed that CTH would pave the way and that his consecration as bishop only secured his place in history as the anointed instrument of God to bring this about. He even suggested this new province should have a real head, an Archbishop, rather than a mere Presiding Bishop.

One of his partners in these efforts at working across jurisdictions was Bishop Bob Duncan. Bishop Duncan told the U.S. Anglican Congress of 2002 about a 1999 meeting he had with Bishop Sutton that could be looked at as one of the first steps towards what is now the ACNA:

Ray has become a good friend and great ally. Ray actually initiated our relationship, coming to pay a courtesy call on me at my Pittsburgh office back in October of 1999. In some ways, that visit might be seen to be the genesis of the worldview change for me that has, at length, matured into this gathering, this congress. To come here my worldview had to change: from focus on a denomination to focus on a movement, from focus on the Episcopal Church in the United States of America to focus on North American Anglicanism, from seeing boundaries to seeing possibilities, from denomination-building to kingdom-building.²⁸

In December, 2000, Sutton participated in a summit held in Atlanta between the REC, Canada’s Anglican Essentials movement, AMiA and other groups. Bishop Sutton was quoted saying:

“Our common allegiance is to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and to the historic Catholic faith and morals,” the Kingdom Norms agreement begins, calling for commitment to “unity “We came to the summit with many hopes, but without a clear expectation of what might result,” said Bishop Ray Sutton of the Reformed Episcopal Church, dean of Cranmer Theological House in Shreveport, Louisiana. “It is now clear that we have a difficult road ahead as we seek to work through our many differences. But the Holy Spirit has challenged us to deal forthrightly about our disagreements and to begin to think differently about the future of American Anglicanism.²⁹

In 2001, on behalf of REC, Bishop Sutton signed a “Concordat of Intercommunion” between The Reformed Episcopal Church, the Anglican Province of America and the Anglican Mission in America. Chuck Murphy may have been the public face of “the new thing” but Bishop Sutton was very much involved in these efforts at cooperation:

At the time AMIA Bishop Charles Murphy said:

We see this as a first step towards the establishment of a new communion taking shape.

God is doing a new thing. A new reformation is upon us; the old divisions are going. Institutional loyalties are being replaced by relevance to the gospel.

In 2002, the REC entered a “Concordat” with the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. Episcopal Canon Charles Hough said:

The REC is going through a Catholic revival. They consider themselves Prayer Book Catholics. They are moving away from the old low church wing. They have rediscovered the whole business of becoming Prayer Book Catholics.³⁰

In December, 2002 Bishop Sutton addressed The U. S. Anglican Congress at the Cathedral of St. Philip, in Atlanta, Georgia. He mentioned a meeting with future ACNA Archbishop Bob Duncan:

The day I made my way to Bob Duncan’s cathedral church reminds me of how radically God’s will often differs from ours. On behalf of my Presiding Bishop, Leonard Riches, I brought greetings in the name of Christ from the Reformed Episcopal Church. But in that meeting, something very important happened. We fellowshipped and related our convictions and passions for the Faith once delivered. Through this charitable exchange, we recognized that what we had in common was greater than where we differed. […]

As you might suspect, we commiserated about the challenges of a post- modern world and church. We dreamed together a bit about the possibilities for the kingdom of God. If the strength of biblically orthodox Anglican people spread over several jurisdictions could somehow work together, like pieces of string woven into one mighty cord, the Lord’s Church might more effectively spread Christ from one generation to another. Although we could not possibly envision how, we knew it was time to begin to think, “Why not?” and “What if?” We culminated the meeting in prayer. As we prayed, I believe God did something in our hearts. I know He did in mine. I could sense that my brother’s prayer came from a heart shaped by the Word and the Holy Spirit of God. I don’t know about you but I learn a great deal more about the heart of a person by how he prays. And as a result of that meeting, the Lord convinced me that Bishop Duncan is a Godly man, a man of immense integrity. I sensed that he would go as far as it took to stand for what he believed. Most importantly, we both realized that in spite of our differences, we had so much more in common than we had ever realized. Even so, when we parted that day, we had no preconceived plans or ideas.

Sutton went on to describe meetings with Bishop Duncan that he felt might have far wider implications:

I would describe this brief introductory overview of reconciliation between small parts of Christendom as a close up shot of what could and will happen one day for all of the people of God. We’re not certain as yet of all of the implications. Yet, I am humbled to have been able to witness even this very tiny piece of the outworking of Christ’s redemption among His followers. And I desire for our story to provide some hope of what God might do through these feeble attempts to gather segments of the same family branch of Christendom called the Anglican Way. We haven’t had big meetings or made significant strides, in this day of large movements and churches, but I can tell you that a century old tear in the body of Christ has begun to be sutured by the Grace of God. How important is this on the stage of Church history? With these baby steps toward reconciliation, it presents some very challenging problems.

Where do we go from here? My brother is not interested in leaving his jurisdiction, nor I am desirous of departure from mine. So what do we do? I guess in part that’s one aspect of the many challenges before us. It seems to me we have to be about working around and beyond our ecclesiastical structures without violating one another’s convictions. Is this possible? Yes I believe it is because our commitments are overwhelmingly represented within the larger Anglican Communion from which all of our jurisdictions find their ancestry. Thus, I offer three suggestions as a way to move forward in answering the question, “Why are we here?”³¹

David Virtue reports Sutton as placing enormous importance on what was going on in America:

We are living in one of those moments in church history at a ‘time between the times’ much like the period between the first and second ecumenical councils of the Church, where vacillation, division but eventual reunification took place around the faith once delivered. The vacillation can be frightening. During this time of vacillation a godly remnant emerged like Athanasius, but they were few in number. During these times bishops could only relate one bishop to another. The Catholic Faith was rebuilt one bishop at a time and over time orthodoxy itself was rebuilt.

Sutton’s central vision was for one Anglican movement despite what I would say are significant theological differences:

We are going to shape this movement. We don’t know where this is going to, all we know is that God the Holy Spirit has brought us to this place at this time.

How do we work around our ecclesiastical structures to build the Kingdom of God, asked the bishop? “We must be first ecumenical, then evangelical in our ability to clearly proclaim the gospel including apologetics, and then educational, teaching the Word to our people.³²

Speaking to the U.S. Anglican Congress in 2003, Sutton pointed out the differences between the various Anglican groups:

What are the standards? If it is Scripture, what do we mean by the authority of Scripture? On the 39 Articles of Religion, we go from Low Church to a Tract 90 interpretation of the Articles. On the Creeds: Are we going to embrace the Athanasian Creed? And in our worship, all three groups use different prayer books. The ordination of women still remains a stumbling block for some.³³

Despite these differences, Sutton consistently downplayed inter-Anglican theological squabbles in comparison to the apostasy and secularism that he felt needed to be confronted in a united fashion. Speaking to Forward in Faith, North America (FIFNA) in 2004, he said:

“God took a bride, the church. The groom did not take unto Himself another groom, which is the image portrayed by homosexual union. It is the inversion of the family of God and therefore Satanic,” said the Rt. Rev. Ray Sutton. “I agree with the Primate of Nigeria. It is Satanic.”

The bishop pled for orthodox Anglicans to come together. “It’s not other biblically orthodox Anglican Christians, not Anglo Catholics, the Evangelicals, not the Charismatics, nor any fellow Biblical Christian who is the problem.

You can’t move forward if you’re not unified and focused on the real enemy.” […]

“How can we fight to win in spiritual warfare if we’re divided?” […]

“Israel’s sin wasn’t that she rejected Yahweh, it was that she wanted to reintroduce the worship of other local pagan, Canaanite gods.” [But] false gods have false sacraments and false sacraments amount to sexual perversion. How dare we think our other theological concerns are more important than our common belief in the One, Triune Lord.”

In a plea for unity, Sutton argued that we do not have different spiritual parents. 

“This is particularly true of those of us in the Anglican branch of the family. Go back far enough and you’ll find that we have the same Anglican family lineage. We have differences and nuances but that’s all they are. We have oneness by any standard in the history of Anglicanism; call it the Anglican formularies or the Lambeth Quadrilateral. To keep the true apostolic unity we already have we must come in a greater way of aligning ourselves.”

Sutton said that the Network and the larger Anglican Communion offers a context in which this can be worked out. “Perhaps we have to start with a communion of communions. So let us join hands to keep the Biblical and Apostolic unity we already have.”³⁴

In a piece he wrote that traced the evolution from The Anglican Congress to Common Cause (which later became ACNA), Sutton again emphasized unity above all else:

…The Church has always believed that its unity is in its common confession. Anything that jeopardizes the confession therefore undermines the unity.

At the same time, the aforementioned prayer recognizes the need for those who believe the truth to “live in unity and godly love.” Just as there cannot be true unity without the truth so there cannot be complete expression of the truth without unity. Those united by the Truth are to live into it. They are to unite. They have no other option. Jesus Himself did not condone nor make provision for the Truthful to live in isolation from the Faithful. Truthful and Faithful are called upon to live as One.

To this end, the Reformed Episcopal Church began on a mission to maintain the catholicity of the Church. In the late 19th century, the concern was to forge an evangelical union based on the apostolic faith and order bequeathed to the old Episcopal Church. Today, the crises are very different. We no longer have the opportunity, which is good in some sense, to divide over intramural squabbling as to how the Articles of Religion will be interpreted: high, low, evangelical or catholic. No, the burning demand of the day is for orthodox Christians everywhere in the West to unite before secularism brings out the lions once again to eat us. Thus, we are in serious need of union among not only Evangelicals and Catholics but particularly between Evangelical and Catholics in the Anglican Way. In this regard, the Reformed Episcopal Church, true to its original spiritual DNA, is playing a vital role in the reformation of a new, Biblically faithful Anglican Province in this part of the world.

Several years ago, the Reformed Episcopal Church became involved with organizing something called the U.S. Anglican Congress…The need arose for the U.S. Anglican Congress to morph into a more structured organism, the Common Cause Partners. […]

Yet, what has happened is only the beginning of a new alignment of Anglican Christendom. This nascent moment is important. If we cannot unite among members of our own ecclesiastical family, how can we ever achieve that for which Christ prayed in Gethsemane and longs for in the present, to wit, the re- unification of Biblical Christendom? To this end, and perhaps only to this end can the North and West be re-Christianized. God give us the grace and strength to do it.³⁵

The eventual vision that Common Cause put forward was of a new Province in North America that housed all the Anglican factions under one roof. In September, 2008 David Virtue reported:

The vision of how the new province would be structured was also discussed. Anticipated is a province without geographical borders where provincial parishes could align under a bishop who best fits their liturgical and theological nuances (e.g. Anglo Catholic, evangelical, charismatic, women’s ordination, etc).

This vision culminated in the creation of ACNA, which was ratified on June 22, 2009.³⁶

1. Dispensationalism is described by Vern Poythress as “…primarily a particular view of the parallel-but-separate roles and destinies of Israel and the church. Along with this view goes a particular hermeneutical stance, in which careful separation is made between what is addressed to Israel and what is addressed to the church. What is addressed to Israel is “earthly” in character and is to be interpreted “literally.” ↩︎
2. He attended Southern Methodist University for his undergraduate degree. ↩︎
3. Covenant Renewal, Vol. 1, No. 1 January, 1987. ↩︎
4. Covenant Renewal, Vol III, No 10 October 1989. ↩︎
5. Richard John Neuhaus, “Why Wait for the Kingdom? The Theonomist Temptation,” First Things, 3 (May 1990), 13-21. ↩︎
6. David Chilton, Days of Vengeance. ↩︎
7. I am not giving credence to Chilton’s observations, but they are located here. ↩︎
8. Covenant Renewal, Vol. 1, No. 1 January, 1987. ↩︎
9. http://listserv.virtueonline.org/pipermail/virtueonline_listserv.virtueonline.org/2002-December/004476.html ↩︎
10. Sutton, Captains and Courts, introduction. ↩︎
11. The Association of Reformation Churches. ↩︎
12. https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2007/08/02/christians-in-society/ ↩︎
13. http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/rite-reasons/no-30-the-peril-of-weekly-communion/ ↩︎
14. http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/rite-reasons/no-29-anglicanism/ ↩︎
15. Sutton, Captains and Courts. ↩︎
16. Covenant Renewal, Vol VII, March 1993. ↩︎
17. Gary North, Theonomy: An Informed Response. ↩︎
18.  Philadelphia Theological Seminary was renamed Reformed Episcopal Seminary. ↩︎
19. http://www.degreeinfo.com/general-distance-learning-discussions/2324-cranmer-seminary-episcopal-orthodox-christian-archdiocese-america-2.html ↩︎
20.  John M. Campbell, Contra Mundum, No. 14. ↩︎
21. Contra Mundum, No. 14, Winter/Spring 1995, John M. Campbell. ↩︎
22. Technically ECUSA at that time. ↩︎
23. http://www.degreeinfo.com/general-distance-learning-discussions/2324-cranmer-seminary-episcopal-orthodox-christian-archdiocese-america-2.html ↩︎
24. http://listserv.virtueonline.org/pipermail/virtueonline_listserv.virtueonline.org/1999-March/000219.html ↩︎
25. http://listserv.virtueonline.org/pipermail/virtueonline_listserv.virtueonline.org/1999-August/000564.html ↩︎
26. http://www.degreeinfo.com/general-distance-learning-discussions/2324-cranmer-seminary-episcopal-orthodox-christian-archdiocese-america-2.html ↩︎
27. Apparently the student rebellion was instigated when the students forced to work for M&D found out that they were packaging IUD devices (M&D is a wholesale pharmaceutical distributor) and since all the students were anti-abortion, this was the final straw. ↩︎
28. http://listserv.virtueonline.org/pipermail/virtueonline_listserv.virtueonline.org/2002-December.txt ↩︎
29. http://arc.episcopalchurch.org/ens/archives/2000-222.html ↩︎
30. http://listserv.virtueonline.org/pipermail/virtueonline_listserv.virtueonline.org/2002-June/003776.html ↩︎
31. http://listserv.virtueonline.org/pipermail/virtueonline_listserv.virtueonline.org/2002- December/004476.html ↩︎
32. http://listserv.virtueonline.org/pipermail/virtueonline_listserv.virtueonline.org/2002-December.txt ↩︎
33. http://listserv.virtueonline.org/pipermail/virtueonline_listserv.virtueonline.org/2003-December.txt ↩︎
34. http://listserv.virtueonline.org/pipermail/virtueonline_listserv.virtueonline.org/2013-August/015046.html ↩︎
35. https://web.archive.org/web/20160709025833/http://www.andrewrec.org/200712r.html ↩︎
36. http://listserv.virtueonline.org/pipermail/virtueonline_listserv.virtueonline.org/2013- August/015046.html ↩︎