By David W. Virtue The Ohio confirmations mark a decisive escalation in the Anglican realignment—what one observer calls “the great unraveling” of the Episcopal Church (ECUSA). Held secretly at an Orthodox church to avoid injunction, the service drew ~800 attendees, with Bishop FitzSimons Allison preaching on defending the faith—and invoking 19th-century Ohio Bishop Charles P. McIlvaine’s warnings against rationalism and ecclesial idolatry. This act signals a new willingness among orthodox Anglicans to defy canonical boundaries when conscience and orthodoxy are at stake. While ECUSA leaders decry it as “defiant,” critics note parallels to the 1974 Philadelphia ordinations—also illegal, yet later normalized. The deeper crisis is demographic and spiritual: ECUSA membership fell 36% (1966–2001) while clergy numbers rose 63%, reducing members per priest from 343 to 133. Over 500 parishes have closed or departed since 1985. Dioceses led by revisionist bishops show steep decline: Ohio (40K→24K), El Camino Real under Schimpfky (30K→12K)—suggesting theological innovation correlates with attrition, not renewal. Meanwhile, Archbishop Rowan Williams’ endorsement of atheist Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials for religious education reveals a broader strategy: engaging doubt as a pedagogical tool. Yet many traditionalists see this as further evidence of doctrinal drift—a Church accommodating unbelief rather than proclaiming Christ. The path forward remains uncertain. Disciplinary action against retired bishops is unlikely—and may backfire. More probable: accelerating realignment, with orthodox networks (e.g., NACDP, AAC) forming proto-provinces under global Anglican primates. As one priest observed: “A monochrome network of geographical dioceses may be passing into history as rapidly as an all-male priesthood once did.”

By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org December 21, 2025 Bishop Stewart Ruch III and his supporters feel vindicated by a unanimous trial court decision finding the bishop not guilty on all safeguarding charges. Detractors, however, express concern that the verdict constitutes a deliberately reasoned and coverup, leaving ACNAtoo women—the most aggrieved group—unsatisfied by the outcome. The 71-page final order absolved Bishop Ruch of the Diocese of the Upper Midwest of allegations that he mishandled reports of sexual abuse by lay catechist Mark Rivera and neglected his episcopal duties. The verdict caps a tumultuous multi-year process marked by public scrutiny, multiple investigations, and procedural controversies, including the resignations of several provincial prosecutors. Opinion remains deeply divided across the denomination.   Supporters: A Vindication Anglican theologian Gerald McDermott described the outcome as "stunning" and highlighted the verdict's finding that the years of opposition were occasioned by "theological" differences--most likely, McDermott thought, between egalitarians and Ruch's traditional views of sexual difference. He said the trial court examined reams of testimony and accusations, including those of ACNAtoo, and found none of the accusations against Ruch had merit.  Ruch has been examined, scrutinized, and dissected, emerging as "a humble and obedient servant of God."   McDermott called the trial "a devastating indictment of the ACNA for relying more on hearsay than facts and letting social media drive judgments." He noted the verdict's criticism of several bishops who issued and permitted two presentments "without the bishops having first-hand knowledge of real facts." He warns that this might signal that the ACNA has not learned its lessons. "The present Title IV policy leaves in place committees to evaluate complaints against leaders rather than using biblical criteria repeated twice by Paul—1 Timothy 5:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:1—namely, not to entertain accusations against elders without two or three witnesses."  Without adopting biblical criteria, he says, the ACNA will subject its priests and leaders to a tsunami of accusations and trials, and these leaders will be afraid to speak or act in ways that offend people in the pews. These ACNAtoo critics say bishops get a free pass.  One can hardly say that of Bishop Ruch, however.  He and his family were put through hell during these years when he and his diocese were help up for censure, condemnation and ridicule.  Province leadership broke a fundamental legal rule by not showing him the evidence and rulings produced by major investigations.  One wonders if apologies will be forthcoming.   Ekklesia Bishop Bill Atwood likewise supported the decision, stating the process was fair and there was no arguable case against the bishop.   The Verdict's Key Findings   The final outcome can be summarized as follows:   All charges dismissed No canonical offense proven; burden of proof (clear and convincing evidence) not met on any count The Court emphasized that structural or systemic shortcomings do not equal personal misconduct The case serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of narrative-driven discipline, bypassing due process, and conflating institutional growing pains with episcopal failure   Critics: A Flawed Process   The Rev. David Roseberry, a significant voice in Anglican circles and an early ACNA signatory, expressed anger at the proceedings. "Why were people not ready for prime-time handling something this serious?" he asked. "Not because they were evil, but because the moment required steadiness, clarity, and discipline that our system and our people could not supply."   In his essay "Dear ACNA: We Must Do Better. Can We?" Roseberry described feelings of sadness, anger, embarrassment, and resolve.   He accused the court of doing more than simply issuing a verdict. "I expected a careful ruling. I did not expect the Court to address the matter so decisively. And I certainly did not expect it to turn, with such force and clarity, and address the province and the leadership that ran this process."   Roseberry emphasized that real victims needed justice, care, and truth. "To offer anything less would be pastoral malpractice. The process was mishandled. Plainly. The ball was fumbled. And fumbling mattered."   Citing biblical precedent from Acts 6, Roseberry noted: "The apostles did not scold the complainers. They did not spiritualize the problem. They fixed the system. They appointed capable people. They brought order so that ministry and mercy could actually reach the people who needed it. Bad administration hurts people."   He highlighted what he viewed as the Court's foundational diagnosis: "Too many investigations. No coordination. Confusion."   The Court found that episcopal signatories "lacked firsthand knowledge of the factual basis for the charges, did not fully appreciate the canonical gravity or consequences of endorsing a Presentment, and relied almost entirely on summaries or representations provided to them rather than on any independent examination of underlying evidence."   The Court concluded that "the narrative foundation of both Presentments rested on misinterpretation, impression, assumption, and procedural error—not on facts that could satisfy the canonical burden of proof."   Roseberry questioned how the situation deteriorated so badly. "Three separate investigative reports. Public resignations. Years of delay. None of that inspires confidence. Time matters in cases like this. Delay does not bring clarity. It brings fatigue, suspicion, and mistrust. Whatever else one concludes, the drawn-out nature of this process was inexcusable."   He also raised concerns about ACNA's leadership selection process. "A conclave process designed to remove politics can also remove discernment. When bishops disappear into a room and emerge with a nominee, there is little opportunity for honest conversation about gifts, limits, experience, or track record."   Roseberry concluded: "The Final Order makes two things unmistakably clear. Bishop Ruch was not found guilty of canonical violations. The process that brought him to that moment was deeply flawed. This is not a moment for celebration."   One orthodox Canadian Anglican publication ran the headline "The Decline and Fall of the ACNA"—premature perhaps, but the denomination faces two further trials that could prove decisive.   ACNAtoo: "Devastatingly Clear"   The group most incensed by the trial's outcome are ACNAtoo survivors—women abused by Rivera, who is currently incarcerated for his crimes. They believe the verdict overlooks Bishop Ruch's failure to exercise due diligence.   "[We] feel denied and crushed by the verdict that found the bishop not guilty of multiple charges," their statement read. "It is devastatingly clear that if an abuse victim wants to report abuse in the ACNA, they must now bear the additional burden of ensuring they are not perceived as being 'captured' by narratives the ACNA deems illegitimate."   They argue the verdict is "rife with easily refutable claims."   "This verdict comes 6.5 years after Rivera's nine-year-old victim initially disclosed her sexual abuse. This girl, now 16, has waited more than a third of her life for closure from a church system and leaders that repeatedly failed her. She could not even participate in the Husch Blackwell investigation because the ACNA refused to commission an investigation that did not jeopardize her criminal case against Rivera."   They assert that ACNA has relegated survivors' stories to the category of propaganda, demonstrating how the province views those it claims to protect.   "The drawn-out process only benefits the ACNA as an institution, not Bishop Ruch or the survivors," they stated. "An acquittal based on incomplete evidence, lies, and secrecy does not benefit Bishop Ruch. It merely confirms what many people already know: the process was irreparably flawed from the start."   The verdict sends a clear message that bishops receive special treatment, survivors charge, and that the denomination remains unwilling to address abuse effectively at the institutional level.   "The ACNA's disciplinary bodies are riddled with conflicts of interest," survivors stated. "Insular relationships between clergy and bishops have repeatedly served to protect clergy instead of abuse survivors. Laity and clergy are kept uninformed yet told to trust a process that is never clearly laid out or followed. The concerns they raised have been repeatedly ignored."   "This verdict confirms survivors' fears that the ACNA will give bishops a free pass. It tells countless survivors across all 28 dioceses that the ACNA is not a safe place for them."   "This verdict is captured by the narrative Bishop Ruch and his supporters have woven since 2021, one which has worked tirelessly to undermine the voices of the powerless and divide survivors."   They concluded that survivors fear the College of Bishops has doomed the ACNA to a speedy demise by structuring itself as "a black box of self-protecting authoritarianism." You can read their full statement here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/bishop-ruch-s-survivors-blast-acna-s-not-guilty-decision   Reform theologian and historian Dean Chuck Collins recounts the abuse of his oldest daughter who was emotionally groomed and manipulated starting at age 17, and then sexually abused when she was “of age.”   “If you have been sexually abused, do not bother reporting it to your Anglican priest or bishop. It won’t work and it won’t help. It bothers me to my core that a nine-year old girl was all but forgotten in the process of reporting her abuse to her bishop, what seems to be an epidemic of bishops and clergy who target subordinates and assistants in spiritually abusive ways, and why more than 20% of our provincial leaders have been embroiled in situations of abuse or serious mismanagement in the fifteen years the ACNA has been a province.”   Despite this personal family abuse, Collins later wrote; “I believe this, and other challenges we face, will eventually make the ACNA a place of safety and hope for victims of abuse. I want us to so care for those hurting that this becomes our first impulse, not institutional protection. Talk of these matters sinking the ACNA are just alarmist internet speak, as the Anglican Church in North America is still the only Anglican Church with a hope and heart to preserve our rich Anglican heritage, our Reformation heritage that upholds the Bible as primary, and the central message of Scripture: justification by grace through faith in Christ alone. I still wholeheartedly believe in "church" as God's idea and his appointed place to meet his people, where the Word of God (Jesus) is preached and consumed every Sunday.”   END

By Julia Duin THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published January 22, 04 ORLANDO, Fla. — Famed film actor and producer Mel Gibson told 5,000 pastors yesterday that "there will always be opposition" to films on the Gospel, "but you have to stand your ground and slug it out." Mr. Gibson also told the gathering of evangelical and charismatic Christian clergy at Calvary Assembly of God Church that he was grateful for their "spiritual support." The pastors had assembled for a showing of his soon-to-be-released film The Passion of the Christ. "I think this work can change things," Mr. Gibson said. The film officially opens in 2,000 movie theaters nationwide on Feb. 25, Ash Wednesday. "To atone for the sins of everybody, it boggles the mind," said Mr. Gibson, who spent close to $25 million from his personal funds to make the film. "[Christ] could have done it by pricking His finger and shedding His blood. He didn't choose to do that. He went all the way." The 47-year-old producer paid tribute to the co-founder of the conference, Bill Bright, the leader of Campus Crusade, who before his death in July released remarks praising the film, saying it captures Christ's agonies "with explosive poignancy." The movie, Mr. Bright added, "will forever change your view of God Himself and what He did for us all on that dark day in history as He endured an ignominious trial and hung on the cross." Mr. Gibson, a Roman Catholic, personally has been showing the movie to various groups to garner support. The showing last night was aimed at evangelical Protestant pastors in the hope of building anticipation for the film, which is R-rated and shot in Aramaic and Latin, with English subtitles. Speaking for about 15 minutes, he asked the assembly to pray and promised that the film "will change your heart." Mr. Gibson said he showed it to one agnostic friend, "and the next day, he read all four of the Gospels." The crowd gasped. "Like he saw the movie, and that made him want to read the book," Mr. Gibson said. The showing, which began at 9 p.m., was a big gamble by the director of such celebrated movies as Braveheart and The Man Without a Face. Mr. Gibson hopes that pastors nationwide will promote The Passion so their congregations will flood theaters during the opening week. Evangelical and Catholic leaders ranging from National Association of Evangelicals President Ted Haggard to Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput have seen and praised the cinematic endeavor. But several Jewish groups have condemned The Passion, saying it may provoke anti-Semitism. The criticism has spurred Mr. Gibson to show the movie only to audiences that are favorably disposed. The showing last night, from which reporters were banned, was heavily guarded. Participants had to sign confidentiality statements to enter, with an exception for pastors wishing to speak in support of the movie. Mr. Gibson also showed the film to Pope John Paul II, who, upon viewing the film last month at the Vatican, is reported to have said, "It is as it was." Although that quote has been disputed by the Catholic News Service, the apparent papal thumbs up counteracted a far more negative reaction in April from a nine-member team of Catholic and Jewish scholars appointed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). The committee said the version of the screenplay they received was full of "objectionable elements that would promote anti-Semitism" because it depicts Jews as responsible for Jesus' crucifixion and death. The USCCB eventually disavowed any connection to the scholars and apologized for the remarks. Because of the criticism, all major Hollywood studios decided to pass on The Passion. The film was without a distributor for months until Newmarket Films agreed to distribute it for Mr. Gibson's company, Icon Productions. Church groups nationwide have put in large ticket orders to see the movie, despite the graphic violence surrounding the crucifixion. Copyright News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.

Missionaries will be certified for orthodoxy The Most Reverend Frank Tracy Griswold Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the USA 815 Second Avenue New York NY 10017 USA 8th January 2004 Dear +Frank, This comes with a prayerful greeting from the Southern Cone in Jesus’s name. As you can see from the attached statement, the decision of ECUSA to consecrate Gene Robinson, a person sexually active outside marriage, and to declare by resolution that same-sex blessings are "in bounds," has left us no choice but to recognize the situation which you have created. That is one of a profound impairment of communion. Our deep sadness comes on two fronts. First of all, you have done what you had no right to do. You have represented as God's blessing your promotion of an unbiblical agenda. You must know that the overwhelming majority of the people in this province view that as absolutely scandalous. Our concern is very great for those who embrace the deception you foster. Spiritually, it is a terrible place to be. In addition, you should know that many of us in the provinces you obviously consider to be of little consequence are also deeply offended at the arrogant, strident and unilateral action ECUSA has taken. This is doubly problematic because you personally have been so critical of your own government's failure to be collaborative in international affairs. Is stridence only a problem when you happen to disagree with the action? Could you not at least have discussed your convictions and underlying principles with your fellow primates before the final steps were taken? With deep regret, I must also inform you that the Province of the Southern Cone is designing a process for certification of missionaries. Candidates will have to demonstrate their commitment to orthodoxy in order to be acceptable for ministry here. Surely by now, you must see the folly of what you have done. The implications are staggering. Hardly a day goes by without international mention of more consequences. It is my fervent hope that you will repent. The mercy of Jesus knows no limit. I continue to pray that you will turn away from the course you have taken and turn to the "faith once delivered to the saints." With great sorrow, The Most Reverend Gregory James Venables Primate of the Southern Cone +++

By Elizabeth Day January 25, 2004 One of British medicine's most senior advisers on medical ethics has provoked outrage by claiming that infanticide is "justifiable." Professor John Harris, a member of the British Medical Association's ethics committee, said that it was not "plausible to think that there is any moral change that occurs during the journey down the birth canal"—suggesting that there was no moral difference between aborting a fetus and killing a baby. The professor's comments were made during an unreported debate last week on sex selection, which was held as part of the Commons Science and Technology Committee's consultation on human reproductive technologies. Professor Harris, who is also a professor of bioethics at the University of Manchester, was asked what moral status he accorded an embryo and he endorsed infanticide in cases of a child carrying a genetic disorder that remained undetected during pregnancy. He replied: "I don't think infanticide is always unjustifiable. I don't think it is plausible to think that there is any moral change that occurs during the journey down the birth canal." He declined to say up to what age he believed infanticide should be permissible. Professor Harris, who is one of the founders of the International Association of Bioethics and the author of 15 books on the ethics of genetics, was condemned for his remarks. Julia Millington, the political director of the ProLife Party, who posed the original question to Professor Harris, called the admission "absolutely horrifying." "Infanticide is murder and is against the law. It is frightening to think that university students are being educated by somebody who endorses the killing of newborn babies and equally worrying to discover that such a person is also a member of the ethics committee of the British Medical Association." She continued: "Professor Harris is the Establishment's preferred bioethicist, a member of the Human Genetics Commission, and has acted as ethical consultant to the Department of Health and to numerous international bodies. In such a climate is it any wonder that a baby has been aborted in the UK at seven months for a cleft palate?" Professor Harris said that he stood by his remarks, which he claimed had been elicited "in response to goading" from pro-life campaigners. "People who think there is a difference between infanticide and late abortion have to ask the question: what has happened to the fetus in the time it takes to pass down the birth canal and into the world which changes its moral status? I don't think anything has happened in that time. "It is well-known that where a serious abnormality is not picked up—when you get a very seriously handicapped or indeed a very premature newborn which suffers brain damage—that what effectively happens is that steps are taken not to sustain it on life-support. "There is a very widespread and accepted practice of infanticide in most countries. We ought to be much more upfront about the ethics of all of this and ask ourselves the serious question: what do we really think is different between newborns and late fetuses? "There is no obvious reason why one should think differently, from an ethical point of view, about a fetus when it's outside the womb rather than when it's inside the womb." Professor Harris added that it was up to individual families to make a decision on the future of their child and that he was not concerned that such a course of action could lead to infanticide for cosmetic reasons. "I don't believe there is any such thing as a slippery slope," he said. "I think that we are always on one. It is our responsibility not to avoid the moral choice. "We shouldn't make a bad decision now because we fear it will lead us to make another bad decision in the future. We should make a good decision now and have the courage to believe we will make a good decision in the future too." The Rev. Joanna Jepson, the Church of England curate who is going to the High Court to try to block late abortions for "trivial reasons" such as a cleft palate, said: "It is frightening to hear anyone endorsing infanticide but it is shocking when the person is responsible for teaching others." "This affirms the need for an investigation into the practice of abortion. We have already seen, in the cleft palate case, how the law needs to provide more rigorous protection for such babies but, with medical practitioners such as John Harris at work, there is no question of our fundamental need to reaffirm the human value of every baby's life, no matter what its sex or disability." A spokeswoman for the British Medical Association said: "These views of Professor Harris are personal views and do not reflect the views of the committee or the BMA, which is utterly opposed to the idea of infanticide." RECTOR REFLECTS ON LEAKED DOCUMENT An exclusive interview with the Rev. Geoffrey Chapman, rector of St. Stephen's parish in Sewickley, PA. His parish has 2,000 members and is the largest in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. By David W. Virtue January 23, 2004 VIRTUOSITY: A document that you had a hand in writing was leaked to three media outlets this past week—the Washington Post, the Religious News Service and The Guardian. What happened? CHAPMAN: I was leading a Special Projects team to provide Alternative Episcopal Oversight to churches at risk, as recommended by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates late last year. I came alongside the AAC to pioneer this urgent project, though I am not an AAC board member. I had prepared a strategy paper in consultation with a group to guide churches who are seeking AEO, and in working with these churches at risk I tried to listen to two sets of voices—one was the orthodox leadership in the Anglican Communion and the other was the voice of churches who are being systematically repressed because they oppose the Robinson consecration. VIRTUOSITY: Was it a final copy or simply a draft? CHAPMAN: It was a seven-page draft. VIRTUOSITY: Why was the draft prepared? CHAPMAN: The draft was prepared for two reasons. The first was to provide encouragement and guidance to oversight churches (churches that applied for oversight) and secondly to bring that draft to the Network gathering at Plano for their consideration, adaptation and response. VIRTUOSITY: When was this completed? CHAPMAN: It was completed and released to oversight churches on December 28, 2003. VIRTUOSITY: How many was it released to? CHAPMAN: It was released to under 100. VIRTUOSITY: To whom did it go? CHAPMAN: It went to leaders we had been in contact with about oversight issues. Some went to rectors, others to members of the vestry. VIRTUOSITY: When did it hit the three media? CHAPMAN: I got a call on January 12th from Allen Cooperman of the Washington Post who would not say where he got it from. Within an hour I got a call from the Religious News Service (RNS) who also had a copy. I then got a call from the Guardian newspaper in England the next day and five other media in quick order like the Associated Press. I did not talk to the Guardian, but I did talk to the local Pittsburgh newspaper and Focus on the Family. I soon stopped responding to the calls and referred them to the AAC. VIRTUOSITY: Did it surprise you that the document had been leaked? CHAPMAN: Yes it was a surprise and discouraging to realize that people who had been entrusted with an important confidential strategy would put churches at risk by leaking the document. VIRTUOSITY: It is being floated across the Internet that there was nothing essentially new in the document. Is that true? CHAPMAN: Everything in the document had been floated at one time or another. But what was startling about the document was that it laid out a definite strategy for moving churches through the oversight/realignment process. What was also startling about the paper was that it set out a replacement jurisdiction as a possible preferred solution, if measures of international discipline failed, and a readiness, under certain extreme conditions, to engage "faithful disobedience" to canon law as a measure of last resort. Not all the orthodox agrees with these strategies. The national church takes great offense at them. VIRTUOSITY: Do you know who leaked it? CHAPMAN: I don't know. My guess is it went to a circle of churches who shared it with insiders who shared it with a friend who turned out not to be a friend. I do wonder about the timing of the release and to whom it was sent. It was clearly designed to disrupt the formation of the new Network in Plano, Texas. It failed. VIRTUOSITY: Do you think 815, the church's national headquarters might have gotten a copy and leaked it? CHAPMAN: Because of the timing, I have wondered. But I don't know. VIRTUOSITY: What of the memo itself? CHAPMAN: The memo was a work in progress under discussion and not yet seen or affirmed by any of our bishops, though it implied otherwise. That implication was a mistake, premature, and I regret it. It had only provisional status within the AAC, as it was the work of a sub-committee, and had not been seen by the board. It had no status within the Network, as the Network had not yet even been formed. VIRTUOSITY: What is your objective? CHAPMAN: We are working to protect hundreds of orthodox churches in revisionist dioceses whose witness is being extinguished by those charged to uphold and spread the faith. With surprising and troubling frequency bishops who ironically have championed tolerance and diversity in past decades are proving decidedly intolerant of those who hold to the historic faith and the values of the bible and the Anglican Communion. VIRTUOSITY: How serious is the problem? CHAPMAN: Clergy are being threatened, vows of allegiance to the Episcopal Church are being exacted (even while international excommunications are rising), and canons are being misused to take over dissenting biblically orthodox churches. It is religious persecution, widespread, and it must be opposed. I am heartened to see at the end of the week that the Network is determined to work for Adequate Episcopal Oversight, as is the American Anglican council, under the guidance of the Primates and the Archbishop of Canterbury. VIRTUOSITY: Thank you Rev. Chapman.

By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org December 18, 2025 The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) now faces a sobering reality: ten of its bishops—past and present—have been inhibited, deposed, placed on leave, or departed the College of Bishops under contentious or controversial circumstances. In a relatively small communion with just 49 active bishops (out of 86 living bishops total), that number represents over 20% of its current episcopal leadership—a deeply troubling proportion for any ecclesial body, let alone one still in its formative decades. A Growing List of Departures Currently Under Discipline or Suspension: Archbishop Steve Wood (III, ACNA Primate) — Inhibited in 2025 Bishop Stewart Ruch (I, Upper Midwest) — On leave since 2021; awaiting final verdict in his canonical Trial of a Bishop Deposed for Canonical Offenses: Bishop Ronald Jackson (II, Great Lakes) — Deposed in 2020 Bishop Todd Atkinson (I, Via Apostolica) — Deposed in 2024 Voluntary Withdrawals or Transfers: Bishop Chuck Murphy (AMiA) — Withdrew from ACNA in 2010 (d. 2018) Bishop Amos Fagbamiye (CANA suffragan) — Resigned ACNA College of Bishops membership in 2019 to serve exclusively under the Church of Nigeria Bishop Derek Jones (I, Armed Forces) — Withdrew from ACNA in 2025 Departures to Other Jurisdictions: Bishop David Blane (IX, Southern Virginia, retired) — Returned to The Episcopal Church (TEC) in 2015 Bishop Sam Seamans (REC Mid-America suffragan) — Entered the Antiochian Orthodox Church in 2015 Bishop George Fincke (REC Mid-America assistant) — Joined the Anglican Province of America in 2015 (d. 2016) A Systemic Failure in Selection These departures are not isolated incidents. Nor do they reflect a single type of failing—moral, canonical, theological, or administrative. Rather, they point to a deeper, systemic issue: how ACNA identifies, vets, and elevates its episcopal leaders. According to ACNA’s own governance documents, bishops are elected by diocesan conventions and must receive consent from the College of Bishops. Yet in practice, the process has too often resembled an insular, collegial endorsement—more a matter of relationships and reputation within narrow circles than rigorous discernment. Consider this: Why did it take investigative reporting by the Washington Post to bring Archbishop Wood’s alleged misconduct to light—when troubling reports reportedly circulated long before his consecration? Where was the due diligence? Where was the lay voice? This is not ecclesial accountability—it is the Anglican “old boys’ network” in full operation. Overlooked Excellence: Qualified Candidates Ignored The troubling reality is that many deeply qualified, orthodox, and faithful leaders have never been seriously considered for the episcopate—even as the church struggles with leadership crises. A few exemplary candidates, in my judgment, who merit serious consideration: Dean Chuck Collins — A Reformed theologian with over 40 years in pastoral ministry, author, and respected biblical expositor—well-equipped to lead with theological clarity and pastoral wisdom. The Rev. Dr. Stephen Noll — Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at Trinity School for Ministry; former Vice Chancellor of Uganda Christian University; convener of GAFCON’s Task Force on Women in the Episcopate (2015–2017); chair of ACNA’s Task Force on Marriage, Family, and the Single Life (2015–2020). His global Anglican experience—especially in the Global South—positions him uniquely for cross-cultural leadership. The Rev. Alan R. Crippen II — Former Executive Director of the Faith and Liberty Initiative (American Bible Society), founding president of the John Jay Institute, and policy leader at the Family Research Council. His blend of theological training (Westminster Seminary, Cairn University), military service (U.S. Army), and executive leadership offers a rare profile of civic and ecclesial competence. The Rev. Dr. Kendall S. Harmon — Oxford-trained theologian, Canon Theologian for the Diocese of the South since 2002, and former leader of the American Anglican Council. A prolific writer and trusted voice during the Anglican realignment, he combines intellectual rigor with deep loyalty to orthodox Anglicanism. These men are not merely “available”—they embody the theological fidelity, moral integrity, and administrative acumen the ACNA so urgently needs. Their exclusion from episcopal consideration should itself provoke hard questions. A Moment of Reckoning—and Opportunity If ACNA is to survive—let alone thrive—it must confront this crisis with honesty and resolve. Encouragingly, the Province is currently reviewing its canons, aiming to strengthen accountability, streamline disciplinary processes, and protect the vulnerable. These reforms cannot come soon enough. But structural change must be matched by cultural change: Lay voices must be meaningfully included in episcopal discernment—not as formality, but as essential witnesses to character and competence. Background checks, psychological assessments, and independent vetting should become standard—just as they are in many secular and other ecclesial institutions. The College of Bishops must prioritize integrity over influence, wisdom over winsomeness, and faithfulness over faction. The next decade will define ACNA’s future. It can either repeat the mistakes of the past—or rise, humbled and reformed, to fulfill its original calling: to be a faithful, missionary, and trustworthy Anglican witness in North America. The choice is before them.

By The Rev. Charles H. Nalls Special to The Christian Challenge (Washington, DC) January 23, 2004 There was a decidedly young face to the tens of thousands of pro-life demonstrators filling the streets of downtown Washington yesterday. From a throng estimated at between 100,000-200,000 marchers, a deafening roar went up as a speaker asked all under the age of 25 to make themselves known. Americans and others from around the world including a visible and vocal delegation from France, attentively listened to speeches from Christian and Jewish leaders, secular and religious, demanding an end to abortion, assisted suicide, and abortion-based research. The weather, which had been threatening bitter cold and snow, lifted to warm those who had gathered to march, pray and sing on this 31st anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. Various legislative victories, a commitment to the pro-life cause by the current administration, and court challenges to Roe by the original plaintiffs, buoyed and encouraged the crowd. Again this year, both leaders of the March and the marchers themselves repeatedly remarked that the number of abortions is dropping, the numbers of people in opposition to abortion increasing, and the numbers of young people and women marching for life staggering. Indeed, the overwhelming number of demonstrators appeared to be female. With the White House as a backdrop, the speeches lasted for several hours--a clear favorite being President Bush, who spoke to the crowd by telephone from New Mexico. While acknowledging the progress at building a culture of life in America over the last three years, he noted that "there is still more to do." The President was emphatic that "all life is sacred and worthy of protection." He left no doubt that the administration would fight to uphold the ban on partial-birth abortion signed into law on Nov 5, and that it is determined to halt human cloning. A perennial favorite was an orthodox rabbi who offered a fiery sermon against those in politics who do not favor life. The rabbi remarked that orthodox Judaism respected life from the point of conception, and declared excommunicate those who do not do so. The orthodox contingent then stirred the crowd with the blowing of the shofar to call for justice for the pre-born. Sharing the dais were many notable religious and civic leaders, including a number of Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops, as well as Eastern Orthodox bishops and prelates. Politicians also were in abundance, unabashedly articulating the pro-life position. They were joined by a variety of other supporters, including representatives of the Family Research Council and Concerned Women of America. At 2 p.m., nearly an hour late, the marchers stepped off onto Constitution Avenue in the shadow of the Washington Monument and almost immediately came to a halt. The crowd had grown so large it took nearly half hour to get it moving along the route. Marchers had gathered under a variety of banners, and this reporter noticed a greater number of non-Roman Catholic groups such as large contingents of "Southern Baptists for Life" and "Methodists for Life", as well as greater numbers under Eastern Orthodox banners and those of independent Evangelical churches. These joined literally thousands of Roman Catholic groups and parishes. Continuing Anglicans also were present in the crowd, this commentator again marching with representatives of parishes of the Anglican Province of Christ the King. Along the route, the throng from virtually every denomination and state of the union sang hymns, prayed, recited the rosary and chanted various litanies. "Salve Regina" was chanted along with "He's Got the Whole World in His Hand." Tired toddlers were carried in the arms of parents who walked alongside hearty octogenarians. All were united in the common purpose of calling for a return to the sanctity of life. Again this year, a strong police presence was evident everywhere, although, unlike other demonstrations in this city, marchers stopped to thank the officers and hand them informational literature, and priests offered blessings to law enforcement personnel. From the windows of office buildings, workers waved in support. At the end of the route, pro-life demonstrators stopped before the nation's highest court. Some dropped to their knees and prayed, priests offered blessings and cast salt or holy water on the stairs of the Supreme Court, and some could do nothing but weep. Then there were the inevitable pictures, final farewells and the beginning of many long trips home. There was a resolve in the crowd as it dispersed--a resolve to engage in their communities in the hope that there will be no 32nd anniversary for the Roe v. Wade decision. It was a resolve best expressed on the shirt of a teen-aged marcher that said simply: "You will not silence me. You will not mock my God. You will stop killing my generation." END

The Nation (Nairobi) All Africa News January 15, 2004 OPINION By Francis Ayieko NAIROBI--Recently, the Uganda Anglican Church withdrew an invitation to the Episcopalian Church of the US to attend the ordination of the Right Rev Henry Orombi as the country's new archbishop. He will be enthroned on January 25. After this, there should be no doubt that there is now an open split between the liberals and the conservatives in the 450-year old Anglican Communion. The unprecedented move taken by the Church of Uganda to protest the installation of gay American bishop Gene Robinson, is the biggest jolt to hit the communion since Robinson became the head of the New Hampshire diocese. After his ordination on November 2 last year, several countries rushed to announce that they had either cut links or were contemplating doing so with the US Anglican liberals. But so far, only Uganda - which together with Kenya became the first African countries to declare themselves formally separated from the Episcopal Church - is the first nation to take a firm action that confirms an open split. The move might be seen as an isolated one but it mirrors the resolve by many Anglican leaders to openly tell American liberals that enough is enough. In Kenya, as late as January 4, Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi still condemned homosexuality with as much vigor as he did two months ago. His decision to sever links with the Episcopal Church, promptly supported by all the 29 dioceses under him, is a reflection of a widespread belief within the Anglican Church in Africa that it is not being listened to. Yet Africa is home to the highest number of Anglicans in the world. Whereas the US and Britain together have fewer than five million practicing Anglicans, East Africa alone boasts some 12.5 million worshippers. Between the conservatives and the liberals, there is not just a state of impaired relationship. It is an inevitable schism with little prospects of being reversed. The glee with which the liberals greeted Robinson's consecration just shows their resolve "that they must be openly heard" in the communion at any cost. That came out very well from the 4,000-member congregation which gave Robinson a three-minute standing ovation immediately after his consecration. Even though the tough stance taken by the conservatives on homosexuality is yet to yield meaningful fruits; they have been blunt enough in saying that they have no fellowship with their liberal counterparts. Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria, who has been one of the most vocal anti-gay campaign clergies, has made it clear that no communion exists any longer between the liberals and conservatives. This swirling controversy has placed more pressure on a special commission appointed last October by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. The commission, instituted after a two-day crisis meeting of the 38 heads of the Anglican Church worldwide at Lambeth Palace, was to seek a way of resolving the crisis, so that the communion could remain intact. But Robinson's ordination on the one hand, and the move by Uganda's Anglicans on the other, renders it irrelevant. Archbishop Rowan's decision to name a mix of conservative and liberal church leaders to the commission, headed by Irish Anglican leader Robin Eames, was indeed a bright idea meant to achieve consensus. However, that could only have worked had the Episcopalian Church paid heed to pleas, not only from Anglicans, but also from other denominations the world over, not to continue with the ordination. Although the financial consequences of an open split with the Episcopal Church - the wealthiest part of the Anglican Communion - could be severe, Anglican leaders from Africa and other Third World countries have openly indicated they are not ready to sacrifice their faith at the altar of financial support from American liberals. Already, Archbishop Akinola has warned of a financial backlash against the financially weak church in Africa "if its opposition was too loud". But he maintains that African churches must become self-reliant "so that our boldness in condemning the spiritual bankruptcy of the rich churches could be matched by a refusal to accept their money". In Kenya, Archbishop Nzimbi was emphatic that no further support, including missionaries, from the US - the largest contributor in the worldwide communion - would be accepted. Mr Ayieko is the editor of EndTime News, a monthly Christian newspaper.

by Giles Fraser Consider this sensitive editorial on the gay debate by the Revd Professor Gerald Bray in the journal, Churchman: "Although no one will be surprised to discover that many of the Episcopal churches [in the Southern United States] are horrified at the recent election of a practicing homosexual as bishop of New Hampshire, the nature of Southern traditionalism does not immediately suggest that they would turn to a place like Rwanda for assistance. But, faced with the choice between a white American homosexual bishop and a black-skinned African archbishop, there has been no hesitation — Rwanda has won hands down. "The celebrant may look more like the church janitor than like many of the worshippers in the pews, but that does not matter . . ." Readers might be divided between those who want to emphasize that Professor Bray concludes "but this does not matter", and those, like me, who found it disgraceful that he needed mention that the Archbishop looked like the church janitor in the first place. Professor Bray seems to be suggesting that, for these Americans, there is a hierarchy of acceptability: black and straight now coming in a nose ahead of white and gay. The assumption seems to be that the best sort of bishop is white and straight, and presumably the worst sort black and gay. Little wonder that some Christians question whether anti-gay theology is bigotry dressed up as biblical scholarship. One of the ways in which the crisis over homosexuality is being spun is that it is a debate between the arrogant white global North and the powerless black global South. Yet African-American Episcopalians seem to see things differently. Their attendance at the two huge "realignment" conferences in Plano, Texas, has been minuscule. "The African-American community is missing," complained the Revd Tom Logan, Rector of Calvary Church, Washington DC. It is significant that the center of gravity of those who oppose the existence of the Rt Revd Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire is the American South. Less than 150 years ago, Christians in the South were still arguing that there is solid biblical support for slavery on the basis of texts such as Ephesians 6. One of the leading lights of the American Anglican Council, Tom Tarrants, used to be a grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, and served time in jail for the attempted murder of a Jewish businessman. He now lectures Christians on the evils of racism. The disturbing thought is that he still has to. The Revd Dr Giles Fraser is Vicar of Putney, and lecturer in philosophy at Wadham College, Oxford.

Feast of St. Hilary To: The Rt. Rev. Robert O'Neill St. John's Cathedral Denver, Colorado January 14, 2004 Your Grace: Inasmuch as an Archbishop of an Anglican Province in Africa has publicly declared his belief that "the devil has entered into" the Episcopal Church, and given that as you say "we have more in common than what divides us," I should like to challenge you to a public debate, me on the Affirmative and yourself obtaining the Negative, on one of the following timeworthy propositions, of your own choice: {1} "Resolved: That it is deducible from the writings of the fathers and that Spirit of discernment granted as a gift to all believers in Christ [I John] that the Episcopal Church is invaded by the demonic power." {2} "Resolved: That given that 'we have more in common than whatever may divide us,' a consensus should be reached by faithful Anglicans as to whether or not recent actions of General Conventions supporting the election of certain and future Bishops contrary to what the Church and Scripture has ever deemed worthy criteria for the Ordination of same, and advocating marriages contrary to natural law, could ever be rationally construed a the work of the Holy Spirit." {3} "Resolved: That it is entirely appropriate for the faithful, for the sake of their own spiritual welfare and that of others, to resolve without external coercion within their own consciences, by the grace of God, whether the Episcopal Church has not fallen prey to that inauthenticity the fathers designate as 'prelest,' i.e., that form of spiritual delusion and self-deception engendered through the incensive power of the soul of the individual by demons." The Affirmative is willing to debate the Bishop of Colorado on any or all of the above resolutions at the public venue of his own choice, within a suitable framework of time for the sake of mutual preparation, utilizing the debating rules of the National Forensic Society with impartial judges selected from university faculty agreed upon by both parties, and including extra time allotted for rebuttals that both sides might agree upon. Throughout the history of the faith such debates and discussions have profited their hearers, remembering as we do the famous theological debates at European universities throughout the Middles Ages between e.g. Franciscans and Dominicans, the famous discussions during the continental Reformation, and those engendered in and out of council during the early centuries of Christianity, e.g. between St. Justin Martyr and Trypho, Tertullian and his interlocutors, St. Augustine and the Pelagians, etc. May God in His wisdom grant to as such of the faithful, as well as ourselves, that Spirit of discernment without which the Apostle enjoins us to understand we cannot "test the spirits, to see whether they are of God or the world." Respectfully submitted, Fr. James C. Barlow St. Francis of Assisi Anglican Church 3480 St. Francis Way Estes Park, Colorado 80517 "The difference between the spirit of truth and the spirit of deception becomes discernible in whether the proclaimed word is heard or not." --Rudolf Bultmann "We do not err because the truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable." --Alexander Solzhenitsyn "The true prophet disturbs consciences, and most people do not like to be disturbed. The false prophet is popular because he soothes the consciences of the wayward with his easygoing teaching." --Bruce Vawter, The Conscience of Israel

January 22, 2004 My dear brothers and sisters in Christ: It has been a little more than six years since my investiture as Presiding Bishop. Over these last days I have been asked frequently - both in gatherings of bishops, clergy and lay people, and by reporters - about my view of the "state of the church." As I mark the passage of this time, I have thought about our life as a community of faith in this season, and wanted to write now to share my reflections with you who are the Episcopal Church. Though, to be sure, we face difficulty and deeply challenging issues within our common life, yet my overall sense is that our church is focused on mission, understood as the restoration of all people to unity with God and one another in Christ, as our Prayer Book tells us. Our General Convention devoted much attention to the commitment to reach beyond ourselves. The budget developed for these next three years reflects that commitment. The needs are so great. Hungers of both body and soul are deeply present in our nation and our world. We are called to share the good news of Jesus Christ, which embraces all forms of human need and satisfies the hungers and desires of all hearts. Dioceses, congregations, individual Episcopalians, members of my staff at the Church Center, as well as numerous committees and commissions, are actively engaged in the fundamental tasks of proclamation, evangelization, witness and service. It is also part of the reality of the Episcopal Church that we live with divergent points of view regarding the interpretation of scripture and understandings of the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the church. Though we believe "the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation," as it is stated in the ordination liturgy, there is no neutral reading of scripture, and we interpret various passages differently while seeking to be faithful to the mind of Christ. It is therefore important to recognize that people of genuine faith can and do differ in their understandings of what we agree is the "Word of God." As well, we each have different images of the church. These images often contain within themselves our own expectations of what the church should be and hopes of what it might become. When the church acts in a way that seems to threaten or overturn our expectations we feel a profound sense of loss. Something that had seemed dependable and unchanging in the midst of our ever-changing lives has been taken away. This sense of loss can lead to grief and to anger. Equally, when we see the church as slow or reluctant to change, and our hopes for what the church might become are not realized, we can become frustrated, disappointed and angry. There is a real tension within our community, which in some places is profound and severe, as some grieve because the church does not seem to meet their faithful expectation of what it should be, and others are equally saddened because the church does not seem to meet their faithful expectation of what we might become. All of these differences: in our interpretation of scripture, in our understandings of the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the church, and in our images of what the church should be and ought to become, were laid bare at the time of our General Convention last summer. For quite some time we had been living with the paradox of both/and. We had not been called to say either/or about some of the questions before us concerning homosexuality - which is undeniably a difficult issue for many. Nevertheless, at that Convention, our constitution called for diocesan bishops and the House of Deputies to give consent to the ordination as bishop of a man living in a committed relationship with a partner of the same sex. Since that time, we have been learning a great deal about what it means to live openly and honestly with differing points of view. It has not been easy, and yet we have not drawn back from this necessary, painful and often grace-filled work. I live in great hope that through the tension of this complex season in the life of our church God is leading us more deeply into who we are called to be as a community of faith. I have never felt more privileged to serve this church. I have heard from many of you that you are now participating in respectful conversations reaching a deeper level than seemed possible before. I continue to be grateful to our bishops, members of the clergy and all others who are doing such important work in helping the church to engage in the costly and demanding discipline of deep conversation about how our faith is shaped and formed in response to the gospel. As we go about this work we are blessed by our Anglican tradition. One of the distinctive characteristics of Anglicanism across the centuries has been its ability to make room for difference within a context of common prayer. In worship our various perspectives and understandings of the gospel are brought together. Our differences are reconciled not by our cleverness or ability to compromise but through our common adherence to the risen Christ who meets us in word and sacrament. It is for this reason that common prayer is particularly important in our Anglican tradition. As we gather week by week in our congregations we are being fed and nurtured in that tradition, and given the ability to live together in a love worked into us by the Holy Spirit which unites us beyond our differences. In virtue of our baptism into Christ, dimensions of "the truth as in Jesus" are reflected in each of our lives. The search for truth is a corporate undertaking. As the mind of Christ is formed in us by the Spirit, we are able to discern Christ in the lives and experiences of one another. In this way, the dimensions of truth we share are enlarged. We grow to maturity in Christ by encountering one another with our differences, rather than in spite of them. God's truth is ever unfolding and the Holy Spirit is still leading us on. According to Jesus' words in the Gospel of John it is the function of the Spirit of Truth to lead us ever more deeply into the fullness of truth. Jesus is speaking to his disciples not individually but collectively as a community. He tells them he has many more things to say which they are unable to bear at the present moment. He tells them the Spirit will draw from what is his and make it known to them. From this we know that the appropriation of "the truth as in Jesus" is a process of continuing prayer and discernment which involves us both personally and collectively as a community of faith. As I listen to various voices around our church I become ever more aware of what I call the diverse center: people, lay and ordained, who share a common commitment to one another as limbs and members of Christ's risen body, even as their prayer and reflection and life in Christ have led them to different points of view. The diverse center is able to accept the tension caused by these different points of view. They are able to see this tension as part of the reality of being baptized into a community in which difference can be reckoned as something potentially positive and creative rather than a threat. The diverse center can live with difference, knowing that not one of us has the fullness of truth, and that we each perceive different aspects of truth. This is so because, for the Christian, truth ultimately resides in the One who is the truth, namely the risen Christ. The Episcopal Church has been energized by a renewed commitment to mission. This is evident as we reach out to seekers and new generations, as diocese after diocese commit themselves to giving in support of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, and as new Jubilee Centers seek to address the needs of local communities. I do not think it is accidental that our sense of revitalization is coming at the same time as a difficult season of living with our differences. Both have to do with what it means faithfully to proclaim the Good News of God in Christ and therefore with mission. Prayer and discernment have led us to a graced confidence that we, shaped by our Anglican tradition, have much to share with the world in Christ's name. May this confidence ground and guide us in the days ahead. And, may we remember, as we engage this work - which is nothing less than God's work - that God's power "working in us can do infinitely more than we can ask or imagine." Please be assured of my prayers for you all as I ask you also to pray for me. Yours in Christ, Frank T. Griswold Presiding Bishop and Primate The Episcopal Church, USA

Press Association (UK) Up to 95% of lesbians and gays are not really homosexual but "sexual perverts," a Belgian cardinal claimed today. "I will sign here in my own blood that of all those who say they are lesbian or gay, at most five to 10 are effectively lesbian or gay," Cardinal Gustaaf Joos, 80, told a magazine. "All the rest are simply sexual perverts. Don't hesitate to write that down. I demand you write it down. If they come to protest on my doorstep, I don't care. I will not open the door." Joos, who studied with Pope John Paul, was appointed cardinal last year. He made his comments in an interview on the state of Roman Catholicism in overwhelmingly Catholic Belgium whose legislature legalized gay marriages last year and may soon allow same-sex couples to adopt children. "Real homosexuals don't walk the streets in colorful suits," P-Magazine quoted Joos as saying. "They are people with a serious problem and have to learn to live with it. And if they err, they will be forgiven. We must help those people, not condemn them." The Belgian cardinal said his church "rejects homosexuality, not homosexuals." He was equally strident in questioning democracy, saying in the same interview, "Politics, democracy. Don't make me laugh. The right to vote, what is that all about? I think it is curious a snot-nosed, 18-year-old has the same vote as a father of seven. One has no responsibilities whatsoever, the other provides tomorrow's citizens."