A Response to Journalist Jeff Walton

By Concerned Anglican

www.virtueonline.org

October 3, 2025

In his recent article published in "Juicy Ecumenicism," https://juicyecumenism.com/2025/09/29/anglican-chaplains/ Jeff Walton shared his perspective and opinion on the recent events that have transpired between the JAFC and the ACNA. It is unfortunate that Mr. Walton's opinions were not better informed, which, had they been, may have more accurately reflected the reality and complexity of the situation. His choice of publication, however, must be commended, as there surely could have been no better venue to distribute such opinions than one with the term "Juicy" in its title—clearly betraying the true intent to simply contribute to the sensationalism of hinted scandal designed to distract from the real story, which is far more nefarious and ungodly.

On one side of this unfolding story is an aggressor: the office of the Archbishop of the ACNA, who through the use of a "godly" admonition attempted to usurp the canons of the church, which codify his rightly limited authority, in order to usurp the rightful authority of the Bishop of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy, dismantle the organizational structure of the JAFC, appropriate its hard-won reputation through unlawful use of its trademarks, and squelch the single greatest threat to his continued agenda of moving the ACNA toward acceptance of the same progressive ideology he has expounded for years. Notice the attention of this accusation is levied at the office of the archbishop rather than simply the archbishop himself, and that is not without intentional consideration. This is not simply the work of one man but the culmination of his work in carefully curating a team of professional corporate staff in the office of the archbishop, all of whom reject a complementarian understanding of gender roles at the minimum, and some of whom clearly advocate the woke ideology Bishop Jones has a reputation for calling out.

Any reasonable person would ask why—to explore not just one facet of this story, but many. Why would the archbishop want to target Bishop Jones? What events precipitated this attack? Why would a supposed man of God behave this way? Why would Bishop Jones not simply submit to the investigation to see his good name cleared? These are all good questions, and they will each be answered, but one essential question remains: Why would the archbishop need to rely on the playbook of the woke progressives rather than the carefully cultivated canons of the ACNA?

You Cannot Serve Both God and Money

The reasons why Bishop Jones would be targeted are many, but all stem from his consistent track record of not only holding faithfully to orthodox and classical Anglican views but courageously defending them, often requiring him to stand against the ungodly behavior of his fellow bishops in the ACNA college. He is certainly not the only ACNA bishop to hold correct views on the classical Anglican faith, but he is the only one who has consistently spoken out against heresy, heterodoxy, and at times even felonious criminal behavior within the college of bishops—often as only a former fighter pilot could.

In the most recent conclave to determine the next Archbishop of the ACNA, Bishop Jones prevented a bishop known to have embezzled over forty thousand dollars from likely being elected Archbishop of the ACNA, a situation that he and five other bishop had discovered years ago and dealt with quietly under the direction of Archbishop Beach to avoid damaging church scandal while simultaneously ensuring proper restitution was made. This bishop was one of the named bishops as supporting the unlawful inhibition of Bishop Jones.

Dual "Integrity?"

Another ungodly situation that unfolded just this past year hits a bit closer to Mr. Walton's home diocese, and perhaps explains the obvious bias in his opining. Many of us are familiar with the unfolding story in the Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic, where Bishop Chris Warner violated the oxymoronic dual-integrity arrangement that has kept the untenable federation of ACNA dioceses weakly connected these past fifteen years. It is common knowledge by this point that Bishop Warner assigned a female presenting herself as a priest to celebrate sacramentally in a parish that rejected the unorthodox and unbiblical practice of supposed female priests. Bishop Warner doubled down on his position in the aftermath of this debacle by asserting he would only approve a chosen rector who would submit to receiving Holy Communion consecrated by a supposed female priest. This resulted in immediate fallout within the parish and ensuing conflict between Bishop Warner and the vestry and rector search committee of Church of the Incarnation (CoI).

This conflict eventually resulted in the entire vestry and rector search committee resigning from their positions and withdrawing from the diocese. What some may not know is that the previous priest-in-charge/interim rector of the parish was a JAFC chaplain who had brought stability and growth to the parish for two years, and that it was a new JAFC church plant planned nearly 8 months previously that welcomed in the disaffiliated parishioners from Incarnation when it launched last month. As this current situation between the ACNA and the JAFC surely demonstrates, church drama is often messy, but when it comes to contentious issues like the ordination of women, it is more than just messy—it threatens the total deterioration of the already strained relationship between ACNA dioceses and the respective parishes within those dioceses who hold opposing views on this divisive issue. Bishop Jones's central role in protecting the orthodox faith and providing emergency episcopal cover to those who chose to stand for truth rather than capitulate to episcopal abuse of authority has made him a target.

It is of particular interest that in this case, the resigned vestry of CoI presented the standing committee of the DOMA and the Archbishop with a signed complaint outlining specific canonical violations and presenting specific details about the events surrounding these violations, requesting an inquiry into Bishop Warner. This request was completely ignored by the Archbishop while he simultaneously chose to launch an unlawful investigation into Bishop Jones. Why the incongruence? Perhaps because Bishop Warner is aligned with the Archbishop in moving the ACNA toward his progressive goals, while Bishop Jones stands as a faithful defender of orthodoxy.

Did Someone Say Mistrial?

Need we even mention the disaster that is the ecclesiastical court case and mistrial of Bishop Stewart Ruch? Could this have possibly been managed more badly? Bishop Jones has been outspoken about not only the irregularities of how this case has been mismanaged and the multiple resignations from the office of the Archbishop, but also the Archbishop's presumptuous choice to issue a letter on behalf of the entire college of bishops that many of the bishops had not seen or participated in—including Bishop Jones.

Do You Think You Have What It Takes to Be a Chaplain?

Just a few months ago, the JAFC's Director of Accessions sent a letter of concern to the Archbishop outlining several disturbing trends observed as clergy from across the ACNA's varied dioceses made application to be considered for discernment to serve as chaplains. In his letter, he outlines several trends of unorthodox beliefs and practices that seem commonplace in many of the ACNA's dioceses. This letter revealed the JAFC's unique position to observe and analyze these trends. Although this letter was never responded to by the Archbishop or anyone from his office, it seems perhaps he chose to respond in less appropriate ways through a "godly" admonition.

Why the Woke Tactics?

Why silence your enemy, launch unlawful investigations based on vague allegations, and destroy your enemy's credibility through defamation? Why would the archbishop, a supposed man of God, need to rely on the playbook of the woke progressives rather than the carefully cultivated canons of the ACNA? The answer to this question is in fact incredibly simple: Following the Title IV canonical process would simply not produce the results the Archbishop wants, so he chose to ignore it.

In the Anglican tradition, the office of the Archbishop is largely a figurehead role with very limited authority, constrained to only that which member dioceses concede in the canons of the church. If the Archbishop had credible complaints, he would have given a Presentment to Bishop Jones with charges of specific canonical violations related to those complaints (indicating who, when and where), which would have included the most basic information regarding the context of these alleged events, which could then be investigated. Instead, he chose to admonish Bishop Jones to participate in an unlawful, unrestricted investigation, by an outside agency which is not allowed in the canons, with the intent of determining if anything could be uncovered.

Imagine if this were the standard of legal process that applied in civil court. Someone could, based on only vague allegations by any anonymous complainant who had been offended by you at any point in the past, launch an unrestricted investigation into every part of your life to determine if there is any evidence of wrongdoing related to the allegations or not. Who among us could possibly tolerate such a flagrant abuse of power? The irony is that such abuse would be willfully ignored by a publication representing the Institute for Religion and Democracy. There is great wisdom in the rule of law, and the archbishop is not above it, even when he finds it inconvenient.

Fortunately, standing up against this degree of abusive totalitarianism is not so difficult, especially for the men and women of courage who lead the JAFC. But this woke playbook is not played out yet. We may have navigated the first two stages of attack, but now find ourselves squarely in the midst of the third, destined to play out in the court of public opinion, manipulated by biased "reporters" determined to defame the credibility of a recognized American hero, Godly bishop, and defender of the faith once delivered.

Bishop Jones Does Not Stand Alone

This is not a story about Bishop Jones leaving the ACNA and trying to take the Anglican Chaplains™ with him. The Executive Committee of the JAFC voted unanimously to disaffiliate from the ACNA. Three of the four suffragan bishops resident in the JAFC continue to stand with Bishop Jones and the JAFC in defense against ACNA abuse, while the only one to leave the JAFC for the ACNA did so for direct personal gain. Further, more than two hundred chaplains remain faithful to Bishop Jones, many of whom have expressed profound dissatisfaction with the ACNA.

In regard to the Archbishop, why would a supposedly Godly man choose this path? You will have to decide that for yourself.

END