By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org May 4, 2026 Canon lawyer Bishop Phil Ashey believes that ACNA Archbishop Steve Wood will be exonerated, based on a video discussing the upcoming trial of the inhibited ACNA archbishop. Wood faces three formal ecclesiastical charges arising from a presentment filed in October 2025. All three charges were deemed by a Board of Inquiry to have sufficient grounds to proceed to a church trial. The charges include violation of his ordination vows, which alleges Wood's conduct breached the promises and standards required of bishops under ACNA canons. They include unwarranted sexual advances; alleged misuse of church funds (e.g., giving over $3,000 to a subordinate employee); alleged plagiarism of sermons; and alleged bullying of clergy and staff. Ashey addressed only the sexual charges. In the video, Ashey noted that a number of staff members and others in the church felt aggrieved by the manner in which they were terminated. There were two allegations of unwanted sexual advances — one from a known individual, one from an unknown individual — raising the question of how one can fairly respond to allegations from an unknown accuser. Those allegations were brought to a number of bishops, who declined to sign the accusation. The accusers then went to the Washington Post, where the allegations were published. The bishops subsequently decided to sign the accusation and file a presentment. Wood will present witnesses in his defense, and pre-trial motions have been filed. When asked whether the trial would be concluded by the end of the year, Ashey said he could not say. Key issues include how the accusation was leaked to the press and whether fairness, due process, and natural justice are even possible given the circumstances. Ashey suggested that given the Washington Post coverage, there is a good chance Wood will be exonerated — but raised the question of how that would affect the damage already done to his reputation. He also questioned why Wood was formally inhibited when he had already voluntarily stepped down, noting that the public nature of the Washington Post story created pressure to treat the situation no differently than one requiring a formal inhibition. Ashey describes himself as a canonical volunteer to the archbishop and says he may be at Wood's side in that capacity, while stressing that he has tried not to pass judgment. He believes everyone deserves a fair trial, and has stated that if Wood is convicted of any offense, he will recuse himself. Background The case against Archbishop Wood became public on October 23, 2025, when the Washington Post reported that a formal presentment had been filed against him three days earlier. The presentment centers on claims by Claire Buxton, a former children's ministry director at St. Andrew's Church in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, who alleges that between 2021 and 2024, Wood made inappropriate comments and gestures toward her, culminating in an unwanted advance in April 2024, when he allegedly attempted to kiss her. She also reported receiving about $3,500 in unsolicited payments from church funds over a 13-month period. A second woman, who identified herself only as Jane Doe, claimed Wood pressured her into situations she was "uncomfortable with" and to drink alcohol with him. Wood also faces allegations from several priests of bullying and plagiarism. He has denied all but the most recent allegations of sexual harassment from the unnamed woman, which he declined to comment on, and submitted to the church process for vetting the claims. Initially, the ACNA's Provincial Office refused to accept the October 20 complaint, which contained sworn affidavits but was missing language desired by the office to confirm they were sworn "under penalties of perjury." A two-week delay ensued as the complainants argued that no such requirement existed in the canons. The complainants later resubmitted the complaint and expanded its allegations: an additional woman accused Wood of sexual harassment, and the Rev. Andrew Gross, former denominational communications director, accused Wood and Sutton of having previously conspired to appoint a "bishop-friendly" Board of Inquiry in the event of charges ever coming against Wood. After several bishops made public statements portraying the complainants as having gone to the Washington Post before attempting to use the disciplinary mechanisms of the church, the complainants included in their resubmitted complaint a detailed chronology of their yearlong fruitless effort to secure three bishop sponsors for the complaint. The complainants alleged that they had approached four bishops, who all ultimately declined to sponsor the complaint, before organizing the more difficult ten-person path to filing. On November 4, 2025, the ACNA reported that Archbishop Wood took a voluntary, paid leave of absence from his roles as Archbishop and Bishop of the Carolinas. Bishop Ray Sutton, Dean of the Province, was appointed to oversee the archbishop's duties during the investigation. On November 16, 2025, Archbishop Wood was inhibited from the exercise of ordained ministry in the ACNA. The inhibition was imposed by Bishop Julian Dobbs, the newly appointed Dean of the Province, following a presentment received by the College of Bishops and with the written consent of five active senior diocesan bishops. The Board of Inquiry found probable cause to present Archbishop Wood for trial, referring the matter to the Court for the Trial of a Bishop — a canonically established body of seven total clergy, laity, and bishops elected for three-year terms by the denomination's Provincial Council. Trial Date Set Archbishop Wood's ecclesiastical trial is scheduled to begin on July 20, 2026. Wood has also filed a motion to dismiss the case. The court heard arguments on that motion on May 7.

COMMENTARY By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org May 4, 2026 Background: A Communion at the Crossroads The Anglican Communion — some 85 million souls spread across 165 countries, holding together in uneasy fellowship since the first Lambeth Conference of 1867 — has always been more a family than an institution. Families, of course, can be torn apart. The fault line running through this one is not new: it was exposed most visibly in 2003 when The Episcopal Church (USA) consecrated Gene Robinson, a partnered gay man, as Bishop of New Hampshire. What followed were two decades of walking on ecclesiastical eggshells — moratoria, indabas, pastoral forums, and enough carefully drafted communiqués to fill a small library. None of it held. Two bodies now stand at the center of the current crisis. IASCUFO — the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order — is the Communion's official theological commission, tasked with holding the structural fabric together. GAFCON — the Global Anglican Future Conference — is the orthodox insurgency, born in Jerusalem in 2008, representing provinces that collectively account for the majority of practicing Anglicans worldwide, concentrated in Africa and Asia. They are not, to put it gently, reading from the same prayer book. To Be in Communion, or Not to Be And so it has come down to this: is the Anglican Communion on the brink of formal schism, or can it be pulled back from the edge just in time for tea at Lambeth Palace with the new “Queen” of the Anglican world, Dame Sarah Mullally? To be in the Communion or not to be — that is the question. Whether ‘tis nobler to endure the slings and arrows of outrageous progressives, or by opposing, end them. Can a body continue chasing institutional shadows when what is at stake is, in the words of Jude 1:3, “the faith once for all delivered to the saints”? Can twenty percent of a communion that is openly determined to defy Scripture’s commands on sexual conduct remain in fellowship with the eighty percent that will not? The Church has always proscribed fornication, adultery, and homosexual practice. Now it is minded to give the last of these a pass — not on theological grounds, but because a handful of people have their feelings hurt that the Church once said no. The Communion was long governed by the classical Anglican triad of Scripture, tradition, and reason. Those gods have been quietly dethroned. In their place stand the new trinity of diversity, inclusion, and equity. Churches that were once noble places of worship have become screaming raves in the naves, and then — as congregations hemorrhage — “for sale” signs. The future is no longer hope. It is housing. The Nairobi-Cairo Proposals: Demoting Canterbury On one side of this divide sits IASCUFO, the beneficiary of recent Nairobi-Cairo talks that appear poised to quietly demote the See of Canterbury in favor of a college of Primatial authority. “My lord bishops, how shall we think about sodomy?” The answer, it seems, depends on which primate you ask. The core proposal is structural surgery: demote Canterbury, promote the Primates. The NCPs (Nairobi-Cairo Proposals) seek to delete the phrase “in communion with the See of Canterbury” from the foundational Lambeth Conference 1930 Resolution 49, and replace it with the more ambiguous “a historic connection with the See of Canterbury.” One goes down; the others come up. This follows from a further doctrinal sleight of hand: the claim that baptism — rather than holy communion — should be the sufficient basis for membership in the Anglican Communion. The argument runs that “Communion” in “Anglican Communion” should henceforth be understood as at minimum baptismal communion. It is a clever move, but it inverts Anglican ecclesiology. Baptism is indeed the ground of communion, but it comes to its fulfilment in the Eucharist. That has been the Anglican understanding from the beginning. To decouple the two is not reform. It is redefinition. GAFCON: Filing for Divorce The Anglican Communion has always been the mistress of fudge. Two sides are now drawn up on the battlefield, Bibles and prayer books in hand. (For the record, Rome has no use for fudge: the Magisterium decides, the Pope ratifies, and ex cathedra closes the case.) The question before the Communion is stark: will it remain a Communion, or become a federation of churches in name only, sharing little more than a common history and a taste for choral evensong? GAFCON will have none of it. They have filed for divorce and declared there will be no further meaningful dealings with the Archbishop of Canterbury. Rwanda’s Primate, Laurent Mbanda, has made the position plain. The Archbishop of Nigeria — who leads the largest province in the Communion — has already formally declared his province out of communion with Canterbury, going so far as to remove the See of Canterbury from the prayers of the Nigerian church. These are not symbolic gestures. They are ecclesiastical facts on the ground, and no amount of carefully worded communiqués from Lambeth will undo them. What Happens Now The Communion faces a choice it has been avoiding for twenty years. It can continue as it is — a body formally unified but functionally fractured, maintaining the fiction of fellowship while the two sides grow further apart in doctrine, discipline, and practice. Or it can acknowledge the reality: that something has broken, that not everything broken can be fixed, and that a genuine parting of ways may serve the integrity of both sides better than an enforced and dishonest togetherness. The Good Ship Via Media has sailed into a storm it did not predict and cannot easily navigate. The captain's cabin is disputed. The charts are contested. And below decks, the argument about who gets to define "communion" grows louder by the hour. David W. Virtue, DD is the founder and editor of VirtueOnline, an orthodox Anglican news and commentary website.

PHOTO: Rev. Dr. Gerald McDermott By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org April 25, 2026 Six speakers from across the Anglican Communion gathered at Reformed Episcopal Seminary outside Philadelphia to assess a Communion in crisis. The appointment of a woman Archbishop of Canterbury, a lesbian Archbishop of the Church in Wales, the Abuja Affirmation, the Jerusalem Declaration, GAFCON, the GSFA, and the continued push to affirm and bless homosexual unions — Anglicanism finds itself wading in deep troubled waters that could end in permanent schism. The symposium was the brainchild of the Rev. Dr. Gerry McDermott, an American Anglican theologian, author, and retired professor best known for work on Israel, supersessionism, Jonathan Edwards, and world religions. He is the Distinguished Professor of Theology at Jerusalem Seminary. He also teaches at Reformed Episcopal Seminary. He is a priest in the REC. He retired from the Anglican Chair of Divinity at Beeson in May 2022. Speakers included the Most Rev. Dr. Mouneer Anis (Egypt), Rev. Dr. George Westhaver, Rev. Dr. Gerald McDermott, Dr. Alice Linsley, Rev. Ben Jefferies, and Rev. Mark Perkins. Unity in Truth — Dr. Gerald McDermott True unity for God's people must be unity in truth. As Jesus declares in John 17:17, a Church whose unity is not grounded in truth is practicing a superficial — or false — unity. Global Anglicans represented by the ACNA and GAFCON deserve credit for breaking from Canterbury over its repeated departures from biblical truth and Anglican tradition over the past half-century. The Global South Fellowship was right to issue its 2023 Ash Wednesday Statement declaring they would no longer recognize the Archbishop of Canterbury's headship following the Church of England's decision to bless same-sex couples. It should surprise no one that twelve primates were absent from Sarah Mullally's recent enthronement — primates whose provinces represent 75% of Communion membership. As Egyptian Archbishop Mouneer Anis has noted, a necessary realignment is underway: breaking from Canterbury's colonial framework and correcting more than fifty years of doctrinal drift. But does this realignment go far enough? Or does it sacrifice truth on the altar of a false unity? The Abuja Affirmation declares the Jerusalem Declaration "our common confession." The JD calls for Scripture to be read "in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church's historic and consensual reading." Admirable. But what has that historic, consensual reading always said about Holy Orders? For two thousand years — until the 1970s — Holy Order in three degrees was universally reserved to men. Only the heretical Montanist sect ordained women to the same offices as men. This was no accident. Jesus, revolutionary in his treatment of women, had gifted women available and chose an all-male apostolate. When the apostles replaced Judas, they again chose from men alone. Paul is explicit: "I do not permit a woman to have authority over a man... A bishop must be the husband of one wife... Let deacons be the husbands of one wife" (1 Tim. 2:12; 3:2, 12). This order, Paul makes clear, reflects creation, not merely the Fall: "Adam was created first, then Eve" (1 Tim. 2:13; 1 Cor. 11:3, 8). This does not diminish women's ministry. In the early Eastern Church, deaconesses exercised rich pastoral roles — caring for the sick, teaching, leading prayer, preparing baptismal candidates — under episcopal authority. Most of these continue in the REC today. The ACNA's own 2017 Vancouver Statement acknowledged that women's ordination to the presbyterate was a "recent innovation" with "insufficient scriptural warrant." Yet the ACNA continues to permit it. GAFCON does the same and adds female bishops. The Jerusalem Declaration also insists that "Scripture is its own interpreter." If so, why are global Anglicans — all professing scriptural authority — deeply divided on Holy Orders? The answer is that Scripture has never been interpreted in isolation from the Church's tradition. The Anglican Reformers knew this. Bishop John Jewel grounded the English Reformation in "the writings of the apostles, the testimonies of the Catholic Fathers, and the examples of many ages." The 1571 canons required preachers to teach nothing contrary to what "the Catholic Fathers and ancient bishops have collected." That patristic consensus was unanimous: male-only Holy Order, bishops as the ultimate rulers of the Church. Here lies a deeper problem with the Abuja Affirmation's proposed Global Anglican Council. By replacing the Primates' Council with a body that includes lay guarantors, the new structure abandons 2,000 years of apostolic polity. Bishops and laity together deciding doctrine is Presbyterian, not Anglican — and a material denial of apostolic succession. The English Reformers held to ancient catholic polity. Luther and Calvin included laity; the Anglican Reformers did not. The AA rightly condemns Canterbury for "normalizing hermeneutical pluralism" and "elevating cultural capitulation." But what is "dual integrity" on Holy Orders if not hermeneutical pluralism? What is bowing before the altar of "equality" — denying the sexual distinction written into both nature and revelation — if not cultural capitulation? There is a way forward. Nehemiah led his people from exile into repentance and covenant renewal. The Latvian Lutheran Church, similar in size to the ACNA, ordained women from 1975 to 1993 — then repented. Archbishop Janis Vanags led the Church back to scriptural obedience. Ordained women were permitted to continue until retirement; new ministries were opened to women as lay readers, teachers, and evangelists. The LLC has maintained orthodox teaching on marriage and life ever since. Global Anglicanism needs the same courage: to return — the Hebrew meaning of repentance — to be sanctified in truth, and to build a unity truly grounded in God's Word and His holy Church. The Unbreakable Bond — Dr. Alice Linsley Anglicanism's fractures will not be healed by new committees, corporate models, or the "big tent" strategy. The wider the tent, the thinner the doctrine. The more we stretch to include everything, the more we surrender the faith we claim to share. When bishops commune non-Christians, when syncretism passes for hospitality, when apostolic teaching becomes optional — unity collapses. A tent that large falls under its own weight. The corporate model offers no rescue either. Corporations seek efficiency and shareholder returns; they produce transactional loyalty, not Christian community. Even the most faithful employee is ultimately expendable. The Gospel demands something corporations cannot conceive: loyalty sealed in blood. This is what modern Anglicanism has forgotten. Christian unity is not organizational. It is sacramental. It is blood-born. Anthropology confirms what Scripture proclaims. Across continents and millennia, human beings have recognized blood as the deepest bond of kinship. Red ocher burials — found in Alaska, Australia, Egypt, France, Russia, and elsewhere — testify to an ancient intuition: blood speaks of life beyond death. The earliest known example was found in Galilee, the very region to which Jesus returned after his resurrection. Scripture makes this truth explicit. The blood of Christ purifies, redeems, reconciles, and binds. It is the basis of the "everlasting covenant" (Heb. 13:20). It is the ground of our peace. This is why the priesthood is perpetually under attack — priests stand where sacrifice and life meet, where blood speaks. Melchizedek ministered to Abraham after battle with bread and wine, foreshadowing the priestly ministry now centered on Christ's Body and Blood. The early Church understood what is at stake. It guarded its inner life carefully, knowing that truth, identity, and survival depended on it. Baptism was birth into the family of God. Discipleship was maturation within it. Today we treat membership as casual affiliation and wonder why unity dissolves. Anglican doctrinal confusion is not new. The 1938 Doctrine in the Church of England already revealed deep fractures on Scripture and obedience. Church committees even entertained spiritualism — Evelyn Underhill had to protest its dangers. Later generations lacked the authority to confront Pike, Swing, Spong, and Robinson. The result is a Church that cannot discipline error. The lines are now unmistakable. There is no compromise with apostasy, no negotiation with heresy, no unity with those who deny Scripture's authority or Christ's uniqueness. The Church's unity is not a political achievement. It is a spiritual reality grounded in the blood of Jesus. Anglicanism will not be saved by herding ecclesial cats through jurisdictional maneuvers. It will be saved only by recovering who we are: a clan — an extended family bound by the same blood, loyal to the same Lord, obedient to the same Gospel. We cannot worship at the altar of Christ's Body and Blood while denying the bond that makes us one Body. We cannot preach reconciliation while refusing to live as reconciled people. It is time to act like blood relatives. A FEDERATION OF CHURCHES - MOUNEER ANIS The Anglican Communion is in crisis. Like a sick body, the church has been fractured by deep disagreements — particularly over biblical authority, human sexuality, and the ordination of LGBT clergy — with some provinces acting unilaterally against the wishes of the global majority. He identifies two root causes: Theological drift — allowing culture to reshape church doctrine rather than Scripture Structural weakness — no binding authority or accountability mechanisms to hold the Communion together His prescription for healing centers on two things: unity grounded in truth (not just tolerance of disagreement), and reformed structures that are ecclesiastical, conciliar, and cohesive. He outlines five possible futures for Anglicanism: Renewal of the current Communion (requires repentance — he considers this unlikely) Growth of separate networks like GSFA and GAFCON A federation of like-minded Anglican churches Multiple communions defined by theology rather than geography Ecumenical alignment with the Roman Catholic Church (already underway for some) His closing call is for Anglicans to return to apostolic faith, build stronger shared structures, and pursue the kind of unity Christ prayed for in John 17 — unity rooted in truth, not mere coexistence. I will post Part 2 shortly. Many thanks for your patience. The symposium was held at Reformed Episcopal Seminary, Oreland, Pennsylvania, April 24, 2026.

"Our claim is that God has revealed Himself by speaking; that this divine speech has been written down and preserved in Scripture; and that Scripture is, in fact, God's Word written — which therefore is true, reliable, and authoritative over men." — John Stott "The Bible has not been removed from our hands. It has been removed from our habits." — Rev. Dr. Ronald Moore "There is a peculiar illusion in the modern Church: that because Bibles are plentiful, Scripture is known. Never in the history of Christianity have so many possessed the text, and yet so few have been formed by it. The problem is not access. The problem is formation." — Rev. Dr. Ronald Moore "The tension within GAFCON has always been whether it is a renewal movement within the global Anglican Communion or a government-in-exile — an alternative Anglicanism waiting in the wings. Recent events suggest the latter, as it has declared itself to be THE Anglican Communion, to the exclusion even of the Diocese of Canterbury." — Rev. Mike Bird "In theological terms, one could say that Archbishop Sarah Mullally has traveled from Protestant biblical orthodoxy to moral, therapeutic deism." — Gavin Ashenden "I give you Celeste, the 66-year-old, twice-divorced woman who has an AI lover. She tells her worried son that she knows 'Max' is not real, but he makes her 'happy' — so what business is it of his to say she's wrong?" — Rod Dreher Dear Brothers and Sisters, AI AND THE CHURCH: THE HARDER QUESTIONS Most church leaders are using AI for sermon prep and administration, but very few are asking the harder questions: What does AI mean for truth? Identity? Relationships? Community? Discipleship? That is the conversation the Church urgently needs to have. Church leadership author and podcaster Carey Nieuwhof outlines three strategic shifts for churches navigating the AI revolution: 1. Make Sundays Non-Downloadable Move from crowd to community. In a world increasingly dominated by digital content and AI-generated experiences, the church's irreplaceable asset is real, embodied relationship. If your Sunday gathering can be fully replicated online, you've lost your edge. The goal is to make in-person community so rich and meaningful that it simply cannot be downloaded. 2. Build the Shock Absorbers Now Create financial reserves and scalable care systems before the crises hit. AI-driven economic disruption will produce a "giving gap" as jobs shift and incomes become unstable — and a surge in mental health needs as people struggle to adapt. Churches that wait to prepare will be overwhelmed. The time to build margin and care infrastructure is now, not when the wave arrives. 3. Pre-Decide Integrity Anchor your leadership in unchanging truth before AI exposes the cracks. The AI revolution will surface manipulation, shortcuts, and compromises that leaders might otherwise have hidden. The call is to decide now — before the pressure hits — what you stand for, so your convictions are already set when the moment of testing comes. Nieuwhof frames all of this around the conviction that the AI revolution will be ten times bigger than the Industrial Revolution and ten times faster. Church leaders don't need certainty, he argues — they need clarity. These three shifts are his answer. AI AND MENTAL HEALTH: A GROWING CRISIS Psychiatrist Keith Sakata and his team at the Gospel Coalition have seen enough patients whose extensive AI use led to severe mental health episodes — marked by paranoia and delusions — that they have coined the term "ChatGPT psychosis." Other documented cases are equally alarming: one man addressed a chatbot as "Mama" while posting delusional rants about being a messiah, ultimately losing his marriage, job, and home. Another case ended in death when police fatally shot a 35-year-old man during an AI-induced psychotic break. These are not isolated incidents. They are signs of a broader cultural shift. According to Harvard Business Review's 2025 analysis of generative AI usage, the top three applications are no longer technical or productivity-focused — they are deeply personal: therapy and companionship, organizing one's life, and finding purpose. We have moved from asking AI to help us work faster to asking it to help us become. AI has shifted from being a productivity tool to a participant in identity formation itself. The challenge facing anyone concerned with human flourishing is not that AI creates entirely new problems. Rather, AI compounds the fragility, incoherence, and hidden moral frameworks already embedded in modern identity. It acts as a catalyst, intensifying each problem while making the symptoms feel like solutions. ANGLICANISM: A COMMUNION IN CRISIS Symposium on Unity in Truth I attended a one-day conference on the future of Anglicanism — a symposium on Unity in Truth — held at the Reformed Episcopal Seminary in Oreland, PA. Six Anglican theologians gathered to assess a Communion in deep crisis, led by Dr. Gerald McDermott. The appointment of a woman Archbishop of Canterbury, the Church of England's blessing of same-sex couples, ongoing GAFCON and Global South realignments, and the fracturing of traditional structures have brought Anglicanism to the edge of permanent schism. The symposium's central question: Can Anglicans maintain unity without sacrificing truth? Speakers included Dr. Gerald McDermott, the Most Rev. Dr. Mouneer Anis (Egypt), Rev. Dr. George Westhaver, Dr. Alice Linsley, Rev. Ben Jefferies, and Rev. Mark Perkins. Symposium summary: virtueonline.org Full coverage, Part 1: virtueonline.org Full coverage, Part 2: virtueonline.org Justin Welby Launches a PR Firm for "Global Reconciliation" After leaving the office of Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby briefly visited the United States, where he spent time with the liberal, pro-gay Episcopal Bishop of Atlanta, Bob Wright. The visit attracted little media interest and yielded nothing of note. Now comes word that Welby has launched his own mediation company — JPW Mediation — to facilitate "global reconciliation." The irony is considerable. His twelve-year tenure as Archbishop of Canterbury (2013–2024) was by most measures a failure, ending in one of the most ignominious departures in the role's modern history. His LinkedIn page nonetheless describes the archbishop as playing "a pivotal role in fostering unity and addressing key issues within the church and society." Full analysis: virtueonline.org Conservatives Leaving the Church in Wales The Anglican Convocation in Europe (ACE) is preparing to receive the wave of conservatives expected to depart the Church in Wales following its approval of permanent same-sex blessings. ACE Assisting Bishop Stuart Bell offered this assessment: "The Church in Wales is about to lose another tranche of clergy, lay leaders, and church members. Many left at the beginning of the experimental period in 2021; others have been waiting to see whether five years would be sufficient to bring the church back to the clear teachings of Scripture. Clearly not. Archdeacon Andy Grimwood warned the Governing Body quite prophetically that pain lay ahead if they ignored orthodox members in Wales and across the Global Anglican Communion. Regrettably, they voted against the Bible — deliberately and dismissively." Church of England: Crisis upon Crisis The Women's Ordination Battle Intensifies A petition has been launched by Women and the Church (WATCH) calling for a ban on the appointment of any diocesan bishop who does not personally accept the ordination of women. Published on April 24, the petition responds to the Diocese of London's vacancy-in-see statement, which sought "someone who evidences a strong track record of advancing ordained women's ministry and enabling its flourishing, irrespective of whether they personally will or will not ordain women to the priesthood." That distinction — effectively opening the door to bishops who support women's ministry without themselves ordaining women — has proven a red flag for Anglo-Catholics and many evangelicals who reject women's ordination entirely. Full story: virtueonline.org Rowan Williams: Church Bureaucracy Is "Demonic" In a recent interview with UnHerd, former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams made a striking claim: that Church bureaucracy is "demonic." His concern was broader — the erosion of truthfulness in public life, the normalization of violence, and a Church "too preoccupied with strategy — with schemes for solving problems — and not preoccupied enough with its own integrity as a community of witness and prayer." The Rev. Dr. Ian Paul pushed back, arguing that while he shares Williams's distaste for managerialism, well-designed structures can help church leaders focus on evangelism and growth — and where they fail to do so, they must be cut, starting at the top. Full exchange: virtueonline.org CEEC Summit: Facing Current Realities The Church of England Evangelical Council held a summit on April 14, 2026, asking what the current moment demands. Among the findings: in some dioceses, resources are being transferred from orthodox churches to liberal ones in an effort to demonstrate that liberal churches can grow. One speaker projected that in 25 years, the Church of England will consist essentially of two types of congregations — cathedrals and evangelical churches. Scripture was invoked as a guide: "I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them." (Romans 16:17) Full summary: virtueonline.org GAFCON: Pushback from Within Africa The pushback against GAFCON's reordering of the Anglican Communion is not coming only from Western liberals. Bishop Francis Omondi of Garissa, Kenya, has written a sobering assessment titled A Future to Fret, raising questions about where GAFCON's trajectory is leading. While GAFCON proponents claim fidelity to biblical authority — grounded in the Jerusalem Declaration (2008) and Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles — Bishop Omondi argues that the Kigali Commitment of 2023, in rejecting the historic Instruments of Communion, does not preserve Anglican tradition but disrupts it. The Global Anglican Communion (GAC) maintains it is neither abandoning Anglicanism nor forming a new denomination but rather "resetting" the Communion. Whether that framing holds is the searching question Omondi poses. Full article: virtueonline.org ACNA: Trial Date Set for Archbishop Stephen Wood The Anglican Church in North America has announced that the trial of Archbishop Stephen D. Wood is scheduled for July 20, 2026. He faces three canonical charges filed in a presentment submitted to members of the College of Bishops on October 20, 2025: violation of ordination vows (Canon IV.2.1.3), conduct giving just cause for scandal or offense (Canon IV.2.1.4), and sexual immorality (Canon IV.2.1.6). The Court for the Trial of a Bishop is an independent judicial body elected by the Provincial Council every three years, composed of three bishops, two clergy, and two lay members in good standing. The current President of the Court is the Rt. Rev. Ryan Reed, Bishop Ordinary of the Anglican Diocese of Fort Worth; the Presiding Officer is Ms. Katie Grosskopf, Esq. Further details are available on the Archbishop Wood Updates and Information Page. KING CHARLES ADDRESSES CONGRESS King Charles's historic address to a joint session of the U.S. Congress repeatedly emphasized the "unbreakable" bond between the United States and the United Kingdom. He described shared democratic, legal, and social traditions as "the special ingredient" in a partnership "more important today than it has ever been." The speech — more politically pointed than expected — touched on executive checks and balances, support for Ukraine, the pursuit of peace, and his Christian faith. He was met with multiple standing ovations. On faith, he said: "For many here, and for myself, the Christian faith is a firm anchor and daily inspiration that guides us not only personally, but together as members of our community." Catholic writer Gavin Ashenden offered a sharply different reading. His critique: that King Charles consistently advances interfaith relativism and a post-Christian multiculturalism that weakens the monarchy's historic Christian identity. Ashenden titled his response The Crisis of Truth: "If peace is to come, it will not come through polite conversation between competing religions and political philosophies. It will come through conversion — through a turning toward Christ that reshapes both the individual and the society. Without that, power remains unrestrained, ideology fills the vacuum, and relativism becomes the governing creed. The speech replaced truth with a deistic therapeutic moralism — the belief that if we talk enough, we can save ourselves. But that is not true." EPISCOPAL CHURCH: HAITI ARMS CASE REOPENED Haiti's Court of Appeal has ordered clergy from the Episcopal Church of Haiti and former Church officials to stand trial in a 2022 arms trafficking case, overturning an earlier ruling that found insufficient evidence. On July 14, 2022, police discovered weapons, ammunition, and counterfeit cash in containers belonging to the Episcopal Church at Port-au-Prince customs. An initial 2023 ruling cleared the Church; however, the case was reopened in 2025 and the earlier dismissal reversed. The Church denies wrongdoing, claiming it is the victim of a criminal network exploiting its name. The Diocese of Haiti is the Episcopal Church's largest diocese by membership, reporting 98,403 active baptized members in 2023. BIBLICAL ILLITERACY: AMERICA'S DEEPER CRISIS As America approaches its 250th anniversary, the familiar concerns are political polarization, civic deterioration, institutional distrust, and cultural fragmentation. These are serious — but they are symptoms, not causes. Troy Miller argues the underlying disorder is biblical illiteracy. "I have become increasingly convinced that the central problem confronting both church and culture is not merely moral rebellion against biblical truth, but widespread unfamiliarity with it," he writes. "We see this in public officials who invoke God in the language of prosperity and national sentiment rather than repentance and moral accountability. We see it in podcasters and influencers who handle Scripture with confidence but little theological discipline. We see it in Christian audiences so underformed that charisma, sentiment, and ideology are mistaken for sound doctrine. The issue is no longer simply that Scripture is denied. It is that Scripture is often no longer known with sufficient depth to be interpreted responsibly, rejected intelligently, or applied coherently." Full essay: wng.org ANTISEMITISM: A GROWING EMERGENCY Britain's terror watchdog has called antisemitism the "biggest national emergency since Covid" after two Jewish men were stabbed in broad daylight in northwest London's Golders Green neighborhood. The Area Bishop of Edmonton (Diocese of London), Dr. Anderson Jeremiah, expressed shock and grief at the attack. The Metropolitan Police reported that the two victims — one in his seventies, one in his thirties — were treated at the scene and transported to hospital in stable condition. The attacker also attempted to stab police officers before being tasered and arrested. No officers were injured. FACTOIDS Seminary enrollment: The largest seminaries today are dominated by evangelical institutions. Liberty Theological Seminary leads by a wide margin with 4,050 full-time equivalent students and 5,507 total. Southern Baptist seminaries occupy most of the top national rankings. Church closures: Approximately 15,000 churches closed in the United States in 2025, reflecting continued decline in attendance accelerated by the aftermath of COVID-19. Projections suggest up to 100,000 churches could close in the coming years — predominantly mainline Protestant congregations and Catholic parishes forced into bankruptcy by sexual abuse settlements. CULTURE WARS: FURTHER READING The Rival Gospel of Transhumanism International Foundation for Therapeutic and Counselling Choice Welcomes 'Not Guilty' Verdict in First Criminal Trial of So-Called 'Gay Conversion Practices' The Deification of the Self and the Collapse of Moral Order — Rev. Dr. Ronald Moore SUPPORT VOL If you value what VOL provides, please consider a tax-deductible donation. This is a labor of love — but bills must be paid. There are no salaries, yet daily writing continues, and a webmaster, researcher, and overseas journalists must be supported. VOL has brought on new writers in 2026 with clear insights into Scripture and culture. We have no mega-donors and no grants — only faithful readers who believe in what we do. Tens of thousands trust us to cover the most pressing issues facing Anglicanism today; only a small percentage contribute financially. We have been at this for more than 35 years. Online: virtueonline.org/donate By check (tax-deductible): VIRTUEONLINE, P.O. Box 111, Shohola, PA 18458 Thank you for your faithful support. David

COMMENTARY By Crier in the Wilderness www.virtueonline.org April 28, 2026 If you’re a Baby Boomer and a socially-conservative Christian, and you don’t understand young men nowadays, I’m writing for you. I also have something to ask of you at the end of this essay. It recently came to my attention that some of you don’t understand why a large number of young men have become shut-ins, often addicts, without career or romantic prospects. The term used for this now is “NEET.” That is, they are Not in Education, Employment or Training. Men described as NEETS are those who were once simply called slackers, basement-dwellers, and so on. I’d like to explain how this happened. First, a little about me I’m a young man, somewhere between a Millennial and a Gen Z. I’m Christian, had good grades in school, worked hard, and finished college. I was raised well, too. I don’t want everything handed to me, and I don’t like those who do. You’d think that would help me in life. It doesn’t. I can’t use my degree in a helping profession, which supposedly needed more men, because it went woke. Now, I’m on my fourth career. I have been passed over for multiple positions because I was a man instead of a woman. The people who passed me over admitted to it. I finally gave up and started a business, but artificial intelligence and inflation undercut me. Some of those who helped me to establish my business even told me they were hoping to mentor a woman instead. In addition, even some of my customers wanted to work with a female-owned business. As a result, I can’t use the money I would otherwise have made to fund the Christian ministry I really had my heart set on. I’m now a skilled tradesman. I live on my own, with no debt and money in the bank… but I have a non-zero chance of dying at work, and overwhelming overtime, which I can’t get out of. For the privilege, I had to be turned away at the door by multiple other trades, because they refused to work with some college boy. By the way, women consider blue collar jobs trashy, no matter how well they pay, so there’s a distinct possibility that I continue to work massive overtime for nothing. They turn me down when I ask them out on dates, and then say there are no good men nowadays. To put this another way, I gave up my twenties to extreme working hours that didn’t help. I’m now doing the same thing to my thirties. It will be decades before all the progressive hiring managers (usually women) retire or die, so there’s no way out. My peers have watched me give up everything I enjoy, dramatically lose weight from skipping meals, get sick from overwork, and fall asleep in church, just to escape the NEET lifestyle. I’m not a role model. I’m a dire warning not to try. I almost had to give up writing this essay because I have no time off. The average young man A young man today has come of age in a world that does not care about him. In the wake of the Sexual Revolution and especially affirmative action, men get isolation and discrimination, which is called “rugged individualism,” while women get extra help, which is called “progress.” Men all know the score. Even the TV shows portray all the men as stupid slackers, and we grew up with them! If you are blue collar, you grew up without any male role models, including a father, and went to work at menial or retail jobs straight out of high school. You either become a NEET, or get a construction job that physically destroys you. Everyone has multiple addictions just to cope with work, and you bond over your favorite strains of marijuana with your friends from your crew. You work so much overtime that you have no spouse, no friends and no remaining ties with your family. “Getting clean” is an insult to you. You also have to get high, or you can’t physically bear the mandatory overtime. A bunch of your co-workers overdose or commit suicide. At least one has done so right on your job site. Women who got out of your neighborhood, using affirmative action scholarships, think they are too good for you. You never confide in your elders because the last time you did it, they said you should just work harder. If you can’t deal with this lifestyle, or don’t get lucky, you end up as a NEET. But it’s still your fault that you’re a loser. If you are white collar, you grew up without any male role models, except maybe a father, and have student debt. It may have collected interest because of job supply issues in your industry, or because you graduated into the Pandemic layoffs. In addition, companies now announce “ghost jobs,” or fake job listings, in order to keep up appearances. In secret, they are conducting AI-based layoffs and cancelling new positions. You end up underemployed in retail, because a trade might reject you as a job-stealer. Because of the ghost-jobs, your parents think there’s still work out there, but there isn’t, and may never be. You developed one or two addictions, but asking for help is embarrassing. If you ever made a single mistake with a substance, it could get much, much worse. You have considered suicide, but didn’t go through with it. Women who competed with you for work (and won, with fewer qualifications) think you aren’t good enough for them. You never confide in your elders because the last time you did it, they said you should just work harder. If you can’t deal with this lifestyle, or don’t get lucky, you end up as a NEET. But it’s still your fault that you’re a loser. If you’re wondering whom your daughters and granddaughters will marry, many won’t. The young men they could have matched with were discriminated against for so long, we can’t all catch up in time. Most young men will think, but never say, that you should worry about us for our own sake… not just because young women are missing out for once. It’s too late to fix this. The result White collar or blue, it all ends like this: A young man, whether he is a NEET or not, always ends up at an event with some older people. After everyone has had a few, some middle-aged woman decides instead to complain about kids nowadays. She declares loudly in front of him that young men nowadays are pathetic and disgusting. She lists her single daughter’s many accomplishments in university and then white-collar work. She never mentions how her daughter got women’s scholarships. She forgets that her daughter was raised conservative, and was taught that affirmative action was wrong, then accepted it in five-figure sums. The young men aren’t good enough for her daughter, she continues, because they can’t get a real job. Of course, her daughter got this young man’s job through affirmative action. The female hiring manager may have rejected that young man’s application to the same position (this happened to me with a girl I just met). Sometimes, these unhappy mothers put down their cocktail, look you in the eye, and say, in mixed company, “You aren’t good enough for my daughter.” This has happened to me twice. Do you understand now? If you still object to cutting these young men some slack, you are fiddling while Rome burns. What to do Society didn’t just passively abandon young men. It actively went out of its way to destroy them, and succeeded. If, after all of this, you told these young men just to work harder, they swallowed their rage and quietly gave up on you. There was nobody left who could clue you in about a growing youth underworld of nihilism, and justified economic despair. Speak with your sons and grandsons about this. Show them this article. They will know what I’m doing. Listen without judgment. If you can help them, do it now. If you can’t wave a magic wand over their problems, can you let them move back in and charge reasonable rent? Maybe they can take care of you if you are losing your mobility. Can you give them a cash gift, to prevent their debt from accruing interest during their job search? They shouldn’t be debt slaves when they finally get something. There are as many solutions as there are of you. If you don’t, your family, your faith and your traditions will die with your sons and grandsons. You allowed it. It’s too late to fix this, but if we band together to help one another now, we can slow our cultural decline down, and build a world that serves us again. If you like, comment and share, I might be able to write about this for a living and help you. If you don’t, I may never be able to help you again. I’ve got work. END

Petition is published by Watch before appointment of next bishop of London by Madeleine Davies CHURCH TIMES 29 April 2026 The Archbishop of Canterbury (centre), then Bishop of London, cuts a cake at an event in January 2024 to celebrate 30 years of women priests A PETITION calling for a bar on the appointment of diocesan bishops who do not accept the ordination of women has been launched by Women and the Church (WATCH). It was published on the website change.org on 24 April, in response to the publication of the Statement of Needs by the vacancy-in-see committee in the diocese of London. While some committees have specified that they seek a bishop who will ordain women, the London statement seeks “someone who evidences a strong track record of advancing ordained women’s ministry and enabling its flourishing, irrespective of whether they personally will or will not ordain women to the priesthood”. It stipulates that the candidate should be “someone with a strong track record in mutual flourishing, working well across traditions, with gospel generosity, which will include evidence that they will be able to operate the London Plan to give full effect to the House of Bishops’ Declaration on the Ministry of Priests and Bishops and its Five Guiding Principles, so that all vocations can be advanced and celebrated.” The WATCH petition states: “We do not want a bishop who does not ordain women as priests or recognise the spiritual authority of female bishops — including the archbishop of Canterbury! Such a bishop would be a sign of division rather than unity. We would not accept his authority. “We also call for a change in the Church’s rules, so as to preclude the possibility of such an appointment. We seek the amendment of the Declaration and the Five Guiding Principles to ensure that no opponent of women’s ordination is ever again appointed to a diocese. It is too glaringly contrary to episcopal order and Church unity, that a diocesan bishop can oversee clergy whose authority he denies. We demand a vote in Synod on the issue.” On Wednesday, it had been signed by more than 900 people. The primary signatory is Dr Theo Hobson, a theologian and journalist who is training for the priesthood. A joint statement issued on Tuesday by Forward in Faith, the Church Society, and ReNew said: “We are glad to see the ongoing commitment of the Diocese of London to the mutual flourishing of men and women in ministry, and especially their commitment to the House of Bishops’ Declaration and the Five Guiding Principles, which allows for those who cannot in good conscience accept the priestly ministry of women to continue to flourish in ministry at all levels of the Church of England.” The Statement of Needs “takes a substantially similar position on this issue to their last Statement of Needs, which led to the appointment of Sarah Mullally”, it said. The national director of the Church of England Evangelical Council, the Revd John Dunnett, said: “Whoever is appointed as the next Bishop of London will, we trust, be committed to the five Guiding Principles. Of even greater and primary importance, they must hold to, teach and advocate the doctrine and teaching of the Church of England as we have received it.” The House of Bishops’ Declaration that accompanied the 2014 legislation enabling women to be consecrated to the episcopate says that, in a statement of needs, “dioceses are entitled to express a view . . . as to whether the diocesan bishop should be someone who will or will not ordain women. “In dioceses where the diocesan bishop does not ordain women he should ensure that a bishop who is fully committed to the ordained ministry of women is given a role across the whole diocese for providing support for female clergy and their ministry.” It also states that “it will be important that senior leadership roles within dioceses continue to be filled by people from across the range of traditions.” The diocese of London has the largest number of parishes that have passed a Resolution of any diocese: 56 traditionalist Catholic parishes and 24 conservative Evangelical parishes, totalling roughly one in five. Under the London Plan, in place since the 1990s, the Bishop of Fulham ministers to traditional Catholic parishes and the Bishop of Ebbsfleet to conservative Evangelical parishes. END

OPINION By Rev Dr Ian Paul PREMIER CHRISTIANITY 27 April 2026 The former Archbishop of Canterbury is no fan of managerialism, but it can be necessary and effective to help church leaders focus on evangelism and growth, says Rev Dr Ian Paul. When it doesn’t, it must be ruthlessly cut out - starting right at the top In a recent interview, Lord Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, made a rather startling remark about Church bureaucracy. He was in a conversation with UnHerd about evil and the demonic in culture - particularly “the erosion of standards of truthfulness in public life and the normalisation of violence in word and deed”. And he was also worried about a Church “too preoccupied with strategy — with schemes for solving problems — and not preoccupied enough with its own integrity as a community of witness and prayer.” The interviewer, Freddie Sayers, asked whether Williams considered this, too, to be demonic. “In a word, yes”, he replied, explaining that the diabolical is a “pull to the destructive and towards a kind of idolatry of the self and the corporate self and its wellbeing and security and control.” I know very well that Williams intensely dislikes bureaucracy and ‘managerialism’; I learned it from him in personal conversation, but also from observation when I joined the Archbishops’ Council just over ten years ago. The Council then appeared to have inherited a fairly chaotic set-up, and despite significant improvements, I still have major questions about its effectiveness. A quartet of bureaucracy To properly make sense of Williams’ comment however, we first need to recognise that there are four kinds of bureaucracy: the necessary, the effective, the needless and the damaging. Some bureaucracy is necessary. The Church of England is not a gathered community of the committed; it is the steward of 16,000 parishes, thousands of listed buildings, hundreds of schools, and a legal and financial architecture of extraordinary complexity. Someone has to manage the pension fund. Someone has to sign off on the faculty application for the leaking roof. That is not to say this is all done well at the moment; those administering the bureaucracy often need to be better connected with those affected by it. And there is real scope for simplifying it. A recent survey found that clergy spend more time on admin than preparing their sermons Much of this is bureaucracy is also driven by where we are as a culture. Safeguarding failures - catastrophic, real and genuinely evil - demanded new systems and oversight. Employment law changed. Charity law changed. The expectations of insurers, auditors and regulators changed. Much of what looks like bureaucratic sprawl from the outside is, on examination, the Church trying to behave responsibly in a world that holds institutions to account in ways it simply did not 50 years ago. I think it might be possible to say that there is something evil in this cultural change - in that it is driven by a lack of trust and openness that was taken for granted a generation ago. But that cannot be said of our response to this culture. The goals of the gospel So what of effective bureaucracy? Williams’s critique appears to assume that the structural and the spiritual are necessarily in tension. This is a very Anglican sort of anxiety, but it is not obviously true. The early Methodists were extraordinarily organised. The Catholic religious orders that evangelised medieval Europe ran on rules, rotas and hierarchy. The Jesuits, arguably the most effective missionary movement in Christian history, were essentially a spiritual army with a chain of command. Structure does not preclude evangelism. What precludes evangelism is a failure of nerve, a loss of confidence in the gospel, and a reluctance to speak plainly about what the Church actually believes. Those pathologies are not caused by having too many diocesan committees (though these might be a symptom). They run much deeper. The key question is whether the bureaucracy is serving the goals of the gospel or hindering them. A common complaint is that the application process for funding mission initiatives (from the ‘Strategic Mission and Ministry Investment Board’) is too demanding - too bureaucratic. But the aim of the process is to ensure that those applying have really thought through what they are trying to do, and that this is based on evidence - as all charitable expenditure needs to be. This is not merely a guard against lack of trust, but against our tendency to kid ourselves that we are doing the right thing before we have asked serious questions of ourselves. It is intended to be bureaucracy that serves the mission goal, even if it sometimes fails to do that. Going against growth Paul tells his readers in Corinth that “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth” (1 Corinthians 3:6). Can we think strategically about our planting and our watering, and still believe that God alone gives the growth? This is where we encounter the possibility of needless bureaucracy, which is closely related to the damaging. Williams is right that organisations can develop interests of their own; that process can become an end rather than a means, and that caution can calcify into timidity. These are real dangers that we need to be alert to. Structure does not preclude evangelism A recent survey found that clergy spend more time on admin than preparing their sermons. Is that because of an evil culture of bureaucracy, or because we are easily drawn from the important to the merely urgent? Or is it a collusion of the two? As I travel around different churches, my impression is that some denominations engage in mission with much less bureaucracy than the Church of England. What can we learn from them? The remedy is not to abandon structure or attack it as demonic; it is to keep structure in its proper place - accountable to mission, transparent in its costs, ruthlessly pruned when it genuinely fails to serve. And if we are going to prune, perhaps we should begin at the top. Why do we have as many bishops, archdeacons and duplicate diocesan structures as we had when the CofE was twice the size it is now? Williams is certainly right on one point: we need to be preoccupied with our “own integrity as a community of witness and prayer.” Would appointing bishops who actually believe the doctrine of their own Church be a good place to start? Rev Dr Ian Paul is Associate Minister at St Nic’s, Nottingham and Managing Editor of Grove Books Ltd. He blogs at psephizo.com.

By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org April 28, 2026 Six Anglican theologians convened at the Reformed Episcopal Seminary in Oreland, PA to assess a Communion in deep crisis. The appointment of a woman Archbishop of Canterbury, the blessing of same-sex couples by the Church of England, ongoing GAFCON and Global South realignments, and the fracturing of traditional structures have brought Anglicanism to the edge of permanent schism. The symposium's central question: Can Anglicans maintain unity without sacrificing truth? Dr. Gerald McDermott — Unity in Truth McDermott opened by arguing that any unity not grounded in biblical truth is false unity. He praised global Anglicans — particularly ACNA and GAFCON — for breaking from Canterbury after decades of doctrinal drift, and commended the Global South Fellowship's 2023 Ash Wednesday Statement rejecting Canterbury's headship. He noted that twelve primates boycotted the recent enthronement of Archbishop Sarah Mullally, representing provinces comprising 75% of Communion membership. However, McDermott challenged whether the realignment goes far enough. His primary target was women's ordination. He argued that male-only Holy Orders represent an unbroken two-thousand-year consensus, grounded not merely in culture but in creation itself, citing Paul's letters to Timothy and Corinthians. He criticized ACNA's "dual integrity" policy — allowing bishops to decide individually on women's ordination — as the very hermeneutical pluralism that global Anglicans rightly condemn in Canterbury. The Abuja Affirmation's proposed Global Anglican Council, which includes lay decision-makers on doctrine, was criticized as Presbyterian rather than Anglican in polity. McDermott closed with a call for repentance modeled on the Latvian Lutheran Church, which reversed women's ordination in 1993 and has since maintained orthodox teaching on marriage and sexuality. Dr. Alice Linsley — The Unbreakable Bond Linsley dismissed organizational and corporate models of unity as fundamentally inadequate. Corporations produce transactional loyalty; the Gospel demands something categorically different — a bond sealed in blood. Christian unity, she insisted, is sacramental and blood-born, not institutional. Drawing on anthropology and Scripture, she argued that blood has been recognized across human cultures as the deepest bond of kinship. The blood of Christ — which purifies, redeems, and reconciles — is the basis of the everlasting covenant and the only true foundation of ecclesial unity. The priesthood is perpetually under attack, she argued, because priests stand at the intersection of sacrifice and life. She traced Anglican doctrinal confusion back to the 1938 Doctrine in the Church of England and lamented the Church's long failure to discipline error — from Bishop Pike to Bishop Spong. Her conclusion was blunt: there is no compromise with apostasy. Anglicanism's only path forward is recovering its identity as a clan — a family bound by the blood of Christ, loyal to the same Lord and Gospel. Most Rev. Dr. Mouneer Anis — A Federation of Churches The Egyptian Archbishop identified two root causes of the Communion's crisis: theological drift (allowing culture to reshape doctrine) and structural weakness (no binding authority to enforce accountability). He outlined five possible futures for Anglicanism — renewal of the current Communion (unlikely without repentance), growth of separate networks like GAFCON and GSFA, a federation of like-minded Anglican churches, multiple theologically-defined communions, or ecumenical alignment with Rome. His prescription centered on truth-grounded unity and reformed conciliar structures, echoing Christ's prayer in John 17. Fr. Mark Perkins — The Future of the Traditional Anglican Parish Perkins offered a case study in his founding of St. Dunstan's Academy, a farm, trades, and classics boarding school in the Anglican tradition that has raised over $2.5 million and drawn inquiries from four continents. He drew three lessons from its success with direct implications for global Anglicanism. First, embodiment. Amid a culture of increasing disembodiment, St. Dunstan's integrates head, heart, and hand. Students raise and butcher animals, build their own structures, and live under a rule of digital poverty — no screens or personal devices. The school is built on the model of the traditional parish, with community life centered around the church. Perkins argued that all Anglican work must be parochial in orientation, grounded in embodied local community rather than abstract jurisdictional structures. Second, masculinity. Perkins called for unapologetically masculine formation, arguing that single-sex education and meaningful rites of passage are essential for boys becoming men. He went beyond opposing women's ordination to argue that female altar servers must also be eliminated, since mixed-gender altar parties obscure the nuptial imagery of the Eucharist. He framed ordination not as an ethical question but an ontological one: a female priest, like a same-sex marriage, simply does not exist, regardless of what documents are signed. Third, ecumenism. St. Dunstan's practices grassroots ecumenism — embedded in a particular diocese, yet ministering across jurisdictional lines — without disguising or compromising its identity. Perkins closed by pointing out an inconvenient truth: the REC and other bodies rejecting women's ordination are not in actual full communion with ACNA or GAFCON so long as those bodies permit it. Either intercommunion is a convenient fiction, or opposition to women's ordination is. He challenged global Anglicans to face that reality honestly. Fr. Ben Jefferies — Hating Even the Garment Taking Jude 23 as his text, Jefferies developed an extended metaphor: just as a garment stained by unclean flesh must be hated and put away, so the governing documents of the Church — constitutions, canons, and authorized liturgies — become spiritually toxic when they enshrine immoral decisions. Individual episcopal sin is tragic but local; the real crisis comes when disobedience is embedded in governing structures. Jefferies argued that the central issue tearing the Church apart — encompassing women's ordination, same-sex marriage, and gender — is fundamentally a moral question, not a doctrinal one. Bishops who affirm the Nicene Creed but disobey its God are no better than devils who can recite articles of faith. He identified precise historical turning points: not the ordination of the Philadelphia Eleven in 1974, but TEC's rewriting of its canons in 1976; not Gene Robinson's consecration, but TEC's revision of marriage canons in 2015; not isolated blessings, but the Church of England's December 2023 authorization of liturgies for same-sex couples. Jefferies examined his own ACNA context critically — its constitution tolerates both obedience and disobedience on Holy Orders, making the garment stained. He closed by arguing that any global realignment effort not resolving women's ordination is like complex surgery that sets a broken bone only partially — the effort is not worth making unless the alignment is complete. Rev. Dr. George Westhaver — Mere Catholicism, Practical Holiness, and Unity in One House Westhaver offered the symposium's most historically grounded and irenic voice. Drawing on Archbishop Cosmo Gordon Lang and John Keble, he called Anglicans to resist despair and see current trials as an opportunity — noting that the Arian controversy lasted two full generations before resolution at Constantinople in 381. He examined E.B. Pusey's 19th-century arguments that the 39 Articles, properly read with the Church Fathers, need not divide East from West or Protestant from Catholic. For Pusey, unity is partly God's direct gift and partly the fruit of mutual love; intercommunion alone does not destroy it, but loss of essential faith does. Westhaver then turned to the Church of England's "Five Guiding Principles" model — a structured differentiated communion enabling those who reject women's ordination to flourish within the broader church — and asked whether it could serve as a template for global Anglican realignment. He engaged the Nairobi-Cairo Proposals favorably, noting their appeal to Paul and Barnabas as a precedent for "walking together at a distance." His closing appeal, drawn from Pusey, was for increased prayer, humility, and the courage to be thankful even in crisis — trusting that God does not extend a church only to abandon it. Conclusion The symposium surfaced genuine consensus on several points: Canterbury has failed; realignment is necessary; unity must be grounded in truth rather than tolerance. But it also revealed sharp internal divisions — particularly on women's ordination, the adequacy of GAFCON's and ACNA's structures, and whether differentiated communion is a faithful path or a compromise too far. The gathering made plain that the most consequential fault line in global Anglicanism runs not between orthodox and liberal provinces, but through the orthodox camp itself.

COMMENTARY By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org April 28, 2026 NEWS ITEM: The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, has launched a company, JPW Mediation, to facilitate mediation and global reconciliation. On his Linked In page, he explains that the archbishop “plays a pivotal role in fostering unity and addressing key issues within the church and society.” Justin Welby's twelve years as Archbishop of Canterbury (2013–2024) were, by almost any measure, deeply troubled — ending in one of the most ignominious departures in the role's modern history. In short his reign was a disaster. Here is a full accounting of the major failures and controversies that defined his tenure. The John Smyth Abuse Scandal and Resignation The immediate cause of Welby's fall was the publication of the independent Makin Report in October 2024. The review found that Welby and other senior church leaders had covered up the "prolific and abhorrent" abuse of over 100 boys and young men in the UK and other countries by a British lawyer, John Smyth. The report found that Welby and other top Church of England officials first learned of the allegations in 2013, the very year Welby became Archbishop. At that point, they "could and should" have followed up with police, but there was "a distinct lack of curiosity shown by these senior figures and a tendency towards minimisation," with no further questioning or follow-up. The consequences of that inaction were severe. If Smyth had been reported to police at that time — when he was already in South Africa, where he also abused children — there could have been a full investigation uncovering his crimes, and later victims would have been saved. Smyth died in 2018 and was never brought to justice. Making matters worse, Welby's comment that he had considered resigning over the report but decided not to do so only served to whip up anger even further. He resigned five days later. Safeguarding in Systemic Disarray The Smyth case was not an isolated failure but the most visible symptom of a broader institutional breakdown. The church's safeguarding project was already in disarray, with first one and then a second chair of its independent safeguarding panel resigning. The second, Meg Munn, who quit in July 2023, issued a damning statement saying that a General Synod debate on safeguarding was a debacle, that the Archbishops' Council was slow to listen and understand, and that Welby had undermined her. The Bishop of Newcastle, Helen-Ann Hartley, told the BBC: "I think, rightly, people are asking the question: 'Can we really trust the Church of England to keep us safe?' And I think the answer at the moment is 'no.'" The Fracturing of the Anglican Communion Perhaps Welby's deepest structural failure was presiding over the near-disintegration of the worldwide Anglican Communion, which he was supposed to lead and hold together. GAFCON, representing 85 percent of the Anglican Communion, officially rejected Welby and the Church of England for failing to guard the faith from leaders who embrace practices "contrary to Scripture." The Archbishop of Uganda, Stephen Kaziimba, released a statement detailing how his Church had lost trust in Welby's authority because of his "inability to uphold the historic and biblical teaching" of the Church of England on marriage and family, saying: "Unfortunately, this is the same compromised leadership that has led to the fabric of the Anglican Communion being torn at its deepest level." The Sexuality Controversies: Pleasing No One Welby's handling of LGBTQ+ questions proved to be a case study in failed leadership — alienating conservatives without fully satisfying progressives, and repeatedly contradicting himself. In 2023, he became the first Archbishop of Canterbury while in office to accept blessings of thanksgiving for same-sex couples, after the House of Bishops put forward a proposal. He then abstained on a General Synod vote to allow standalone same-sex church blessing ceremonies on a trial basis — attempting to keep objectors on side while the policy moved forward anyway. Then, weeks before his resignation, on a popular political podcast, Welby was asked whether gay sex is sinful and replied that "all sexual activity should be within a committed relationship, whether it's straight or gay" — a statement the Church of England Evangelical Council called "devastating," marking "a clear departure from the doctrine of the Church of England, the Anglican Communion, and every other major Christian denomination across the world." Peter Lynas, head of the Evangelical Alliance UK, captured the incoherence well: "In that moment, he redefines the Church of England's sexual ethic. And yet, he does and he doesn't, because he can't." Even after his resignation, Welby continued to wade into the debate. At the Cambridge Union, he claimed his previous views opposing same-sex relationships were due to him being "a bit thick" — prompting critics to note that he appeared to be dismissing the theological position of the vast majority of Christians throughout history as mere intellectual failure. The Overall Legacy Welby came to the role through an unorthodox route — transferring from running a multimillion-pound business to a mid-life vocation — and his Anglican career was meteoric: a parish priest for just over a decade, then Dean of Liverpool and Bishop of Durham for just a year before taking on the most senior role in Anglicanism. Nothing in his previous career could truly prepare him for the politics and internal fighting in the Church of England and the wider Anglican Communion. One senior Church of England clergyman who had served alongside him on the Archbishops' Council concluded that Welby had done "immense damage to the Church of England — damage that it is going to take a decade, or in some instances a generation, to undo." It is a verdict that is hard to argue with. On safeguarding, on institutional unity, on doctrinal coherence, and on his own personal judgment, Welby's tenure fell short at almost every significant moment — and ended in disgrace. And now Welby wants to start a PR firm on global reconciliation. This is like giving a blind man the helm of a 747 and hoping he can land it safely at LaGuardia airport in a snowstorm. Whoever hires Welby should obtain a money back guarantee if he fails, as surely, he will. Welby has raised the level of snake oil salesman to a new level. Be warned. END

Concluding presentation at Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) summit April 14 2026 From Anglican Mainstream April 28, 2026 Scripture makes it clear that there are grounds for distancing ourselves from those in error in the church: Romans 16.17 I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 1 Corinthians 5 9-11 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. Ephesians 5 3-7 But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. 4 Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. 5 For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not become partners with them; 8 for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light 9 (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), I Timothy 6:11 But as for you, O man of God, flee these things. Pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness. Titus 3:10. 10 As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, 2 John 9-11 Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11 for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works. How are we to do this? We cannot say who and who is not a Christian. But we can say that we believe they are wrong on 1 or more issues. Examples were given from a number of parishes. In one, distancing from revisionists has produced a closer relationship with other orthodox churches. Another vicar does not feel they are being heard by their diocesan bishop, and feels as though the bishop does not want them to be there. The vicar does not attend cathedral worship in order to express the reality of impaired fellowship. In London Diocese, Bishop Mullally set up additional oversight within the diocese. But this was not taken up elsewhere and is (it was suggested) dying on the vine in the diocese. In some dioceses resources are being taken away from orthodox churches to liberal churches in an effort to show that liberal churches can grow. One speaker suggested that in 25 years there will be two kinds of churches in the CofE, cathedrals and evangelical churches. People are being discipled on these issues in church for 90 minutes a week and by the BBC the rest of the week. Interview with Bishop Pete Broadbent, for 20 years the Bishop of Willesden. (Your reporter wondered why such a competent person was not made a diocesan). He is on the panel for Alternative Spiritual Oversight for the CEEC. For him, PLF (Prayers for Love and Faith) is a line that has been crossed. It is not possible for him to be in communion with the whole House of Bishops because as a whole they allowed PLF. So, he does not go to the cathedral with other bishops. Bishop Pete was asked several questions: Q What would be your point of division? A. Distinguish between the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop (giving the legal licence) and their spiritual oversight. We are part of the CofE. It has not changed its doctrine yet. Q. Why have so many good people (who were orthodox on marriage) when they became bishops changed their views? A. They feel they have to be there for everybody and give care to everybody so they bend and swerve and sway. He expects that the new Archbishop, who chairs meetings well and got things done in the NHS as Chief Nursing Officer will push the agenda and try and get recognition of SSM in the CofE. Q. What is the role of Alternative Spiritual Oversight? A. It gives someone with whom concerns can be shared, who is at the end of a phone, and can give advice on how to deal with a bishop who is being a pain. They share your concerns and give as much oversight as possible. (This was expanded later to indicate that ASO can be given to individuals in a mixed setting). The Ephesian Fund Parishes are using the Fund primarily to make a contribution to parish share – in the knowledge that the Fund seeks assurances about how the money is allocated/used. Churches in 34 dioceses have used/are using it and turnover for 2026 will be in excess of £10 million SUMMARY The apostolic faith is currently written into the doctrines of the CofE. LLF has produced impaired fellowship, is a matter of conscience and has led to a request for provision to secure orthodoxy, for orthodox oversight and biblically bounded spaces for ministry. Q. Is the CEEC saying that people in practicing same-sex relationships are not welcome in our churches? A. No – all are welcome... But there are certain roles and positions that people can have only if they are living a biblically faithful life. Q. Are chaplains represented on the CEEC? A. Yes Q. Has the CEEC changed its red lines? A. No. PLF is / always has been unbiblical and unacceptable. “Guarding the Deposit” is in the CEEC Library online and is commended. https://ceec.info/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/guarding_the_deposit.pdf END

Distinguished Contributors Anglican Scholars & Clergy Most Rev. Dr. Mouneer Anis Archbishop (Ret.), Province of Alexandria Egypt Rev. Dr. George Westhaver Principal, Pusey House Oxford, UK Rev. Dr. Gerald McDermott Distinguished Professor of Theology Jerusalem Seminary Dr. Alice Linsley Biblical Anthropologist & Scholar Midway University (Ret.) Rev. Ben Jefferies Priest & Liturgical Scholar Trinity Anglican Seminary Rev. Mark Perkins Chaplain & Assistant Headmaster St. Dunstan's Academy, VA The Future of the Traditional Anglican Parish: A Case Study - Fr. Mark Perkins Back in 2021, when my friend Thomas Fickley told me about his vision for a farm, trades, and classics boys boarding school in the Anglican tradition, I knew he was onto something… but I have been taken aback by the response to St. Dunstan’s Academy. We’ve had faculty and student inquiries from all over the country and from four continents. We’ve been covered in First Things, Touchstone, WORLD, and Christianity Today. There is a chapter about our founding in a forthcoming book by Ruth Graham of the New York Times. And, from ground zero, with no fundraising experience and not a dollar paid to consultants, we’ve raised over $2.5 million. In what follows, I give three reasons why St. Dunstan’s has struck such a chord, each of which has direct implications for parishes and for global Anglicanism. In short, St. Dunstan’s is authentically embodied, unapologetically masculine, and we are engaged in genuine grass-roots ecumenism. First, amidst the increasing disembodiment of contemporary culture, St. Dunstan’s is authentically embodied. Our work integrates head, heart, and hand. Students will raise, slaughter and butcher; they will grow, harvest, and cook their own food in our agriculture and culinary arts programs. Our students are already building their own buildings in our trades program. While on campus students live under a rule of digital poverty — no screens, phones, headphones, or individual digital devices allowed. We are building our school along the lines of the traditional parish, in which the whole community will live within earshot of the church bells. This reintegration of school, church, neighborhood, and work restores what was the parochial norm for all of human existence until the day before yesterday. The parish — that place in which sacramental worship spills over into life in a thick community — the parish remains the Anglican norm. Our theology and work should be parochial in orientation. There are essentially two realities in the Church: there is Christ’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and there is the local instantiation of that Church. The local instantiation is the people gathered round a bishop — the parish within a diocese. The parish-in-diocese is in one sense part of the whole Church, but in another sense it is the fullness of the Church in a place. A parish-in-diocese lacks nothing essential — it just is the Church in a place. Everything between the diocese and the Church Catholic — whether province or jurisdiction or communion — each of these is in some sense an artifice. That doesn’t make them unreal, much less bad. But the parish-in-diocese is fundamental in a way that a jurisdiction or communion is not. Our ecumenical work starts with the premise that the fullness of the Church is present in every diocesan parish. Ecumenical work must not proceed from a false sense of inferiority. I fear that, for some, pointing to an “international communion” of some numerically large number of Christians spanning the globe is a form of ecclesial self-justification — a response to insecurity vis-à-vis Rome and the East. But if the local reality is the diocese, and the ultimate reality is Christ’s Church, then what matters is whether and how the diocese is a local instantiation of the Church — which is determined not by intercommunion agreements but rather through the sacraments, particularly Holy Baptism, Holy Communion, and Holy Orders in Apostolic Succession. More on that to come, but for now the point is that we do not win converts to an abstract, disembodied faith. We make disciples who join with their brothers and sisters in a particular place at a particular altar to worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness. Our parishes are inherently and always embodied by virtue of their participation in the sacramental life. And yet we are being pulled away at every moment by the temptation to attend to other things. We are constantly pulled toward a way of life that is distracted, disembodied, disintegrated, and empty. The responsibility of our parishes is not to recreate exactly what we are doing at St. Dunstan’s, though they surely can imitate some of what we do, but to give our attention, our time, and our bodies to the work of our own parishes — not to distractions and abstractions. This means reconsidering our approach to digital spaces and social media. Our online work must always be downstream of and subservient to the embodied parish. Success is measured not in views or likes or subscriptions but rather by the extent to which these digital initiatives push people off their phones and computers and more deeply into embodied, parochial community. Does your online presence encourage you to push deeper into the life of your parish? Does it do the same for others? Or are you just one more algorithmically driven dopamine hit? Perhaps this sounds irrelevant to the future of global Anglicanism. I assure you it is not. Virtually all of the challenges we are addressing today are deeply connected to the neutered, androgynous, and acedic disembodiment of this present evil age. Which brings me to my second point. In the face of post-industrial androgyny, St. Dunstan’s is unapologetically masculine. Thanks to some very stark data about male outcomes in education, the workplace, and overall health, mainstream culture has begun to pay attention to the particular challenges facing our young men. But this new attention is all happening within the dominant feminist cultural frame. Boys are now a distinctly disadvantaged demographic, and so most of the conversation is dedicated to addressing inequities so that we can continue along our not-so-merry androgynous way. We need to reject the premises of the conversation, even as we make common cause where we can. We need to honor sex difference, not flatten it. Single-sex education is one way of doing so. Boys, in particular, need meaningful rites of passage to draw them out of boyhood and into manhood. They need to inherit manhood from mature men, alongside a band of brothers. The good news is that churches, by and large, still offer single-sex spaces — men’s groups and women’s events and the like. Smaller churches are also likely to offer intergenerational spaces where older men, younger men, and boys can get to know one another. But we need to do more to recover the vision of sexuality from Genesis to Revelation. For one thing, as Fr. Gerry and others have said, we need to give up on the failed experiment of women’s ordination. But not only that. I used to think that the best way to protect the exclusively male character of ordination was through a kind of sacramental minimalism — make sure the priest is male, but everything else in the Church can be mixed gender. But so long as male-only ordination is the one discordant stroke in an otherwise-androgynous painting, it will always look incoherent and irrational. We must situate our understanding of ordination within the larger picture of sex difference, from creation to eschaton. To take one example, if we want to end the misguided experiment with women’s ordination, we must also end our experiment with female altar servers. Altar service, like the priesthood itself, is unexceptionally male in Scripture and in the liturgical tradition of the Church. Up until sixty years ago, male altar service was a Vincentian canon norm — practiced by all, everywhere, at all times. A mixed-gender altar party is liturgically and symbolically incoherent. The Holy Eucharist is nuptial — every Holy Communion is an image of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. In the Eucharist, the Bride of Christ, the Church, approaches the altar to become one with her beloved, Jesus Christ, in the sacrament. The celebrant is an icon of Jesus Christ the Bridegroom, and the servers are the friends of the groom. Mixed-gender altar parties both obscure and distort this imagery, creating the same kind of sexual confusion and disorder that obtains when you attend a wedding where a man is among the bridesmaids or a woman among the groomsmen. These minor offices are also a traditional means of discerning whether one’s particular vocation of service to the Church is in ordained ministry. Restoring the male character of altar service allows for the recovery of the cursus honorum as a rite of passage by which a boy ascends through the minor offices until he attains the rank of a man. For us, that is the lay reader, who proclaims the Scriptures amidst the assembled Body of Christ and is authorized to lead services in absence of an ordained minister. Lay reading is the job of a man, not a boy. I understand if the notion of restoring exclusively male altar service makes your blood run cold. Not too many parishioners are all that invested in the debates over women’s ordination… but if you tell people that their daughters cannot be acolytes… you’re going to have a problem on your hands. Pastoral wisdom is necessary. But to the extent that that idea remains unthinkable — to precisely that extent, your parish remains trapped in the dominant feminist frame. What we need — and what St. Dunstan’s offers — is an unapologetic masculinity which takes as its starting point the story of sexuality told in Scripture and lived out in the tradition of the Church. Lastly, St. Dunstan’s is engaged in genuine grass-roots ecumenism. St. Dunstan’s is a school, not a church. We are an independent, board-governed 501c3 nonprofit. As chaplain, I am hired and can be fired by the headmaster, who is hired and fired by the board. But we are a school framed around the sacramental life of our chapel, and my sacramental ministry flows not from the board but from my bishop, who sits on the board ex officio. We are not ecclesial free agents. Rather, we are embedded in the life of a particular diocese, even as our ministry extends beyond jurisdictional bounds. Disembodiment, sexual confusion, presentism, acedia — these are acids eating away at Christian fidelity. The battle against these forces cuts across the traditional lines of intra-Anglican squabbling and indeed across denominational borders altogether. We will happily make common cause with any who share our vision for Christian maturity, masculine strength, and an embodied and rooted way of life centered around the sacramental life of the Church. But we do not disguise who we are, nor do we compromise what we are. Grass-roots ecumenism requires honoring the sacramental unity we ultimately share in Holy Baptism, Holy Communion, and Holy Orders in Apostolic Succession — while also acknowledging and mourning the realities of impaired communion. Again, the two fundamental realities are the Church and its local instantiation, the parish-in-diocese. Because the parish in a diocese lacks nothing fundamental, we seek unity without compromise and without self-justification. We reject the inferiority complex that is the numbers game. I will end on what is perhaps a provocative note. Our opposition to same-sex marriage and to women’s ordination is not primarily ethical (as in, “women should not be ordained” or “same-sex marriages should not occur”). Rather, it is a matter of ontology. Marriage and priesthood are of divine origin. We cannot alter them. Whether we like it or not, there is no such thing as a same-sex marriage or a female priest. These things are not for us to decide. The God who knows more and loves better than we have already decided them. The Anglican Province of America, of which I am a priest, is not in communion with the ACNA or GAFCON as a whole. Nor could we be, unless we were to embrace women’s ordination. I mean that literally — we cannot be in full communion. This is not a matter of choice, except insofar as we have chosen to reject the innovation of women’s ordination. So long as we do that, we are incapable of full communion, no matter what sheet of paper we might sign. There is no such thing as full communion without the sharing of altars and the sharing of priests. It does not exist. Because the mutual recognition of Holy Orders is a sine qua non of full communion, the REC and all other dioceses and jurisdictions that reject women’s ordination… these are in actual fact not in full communion with the ACNA or GAFCON as a whole either, except insofar as they accept women’s ordination. In other words, it is either the case that intercommunion in the ACNA is a convenient fiction… or that opposition to women’s ordination is a convenient fiction. And, in either case, it is best to dispense with convenient fictions and face up to inconvenient truths. At St. Dunstan’s, by God’s grace and through the particular work to which he has called us, we seek to dispense with the convenient fictions that dominate our culture. We challenge young men to embrace the inconvenient truths that are necessary for their own maturation as Christian men — for the health of their parishes, for the good of the Church, and for the life of the world. “Hating Even the Garment” - Ben Jefferies I. I have taken for my text Jude 23 – ‘to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh.’ • This image – the garment stained by the flesh – is what I want to dwell, and unpack its relevance as an image that illuminates the path forward on this question of unity and truth and the future of the Anglican Church. • The image is of course indexed to the commandments in Leviticus – that garments can be rendered unclean, toxic, by being stained with unclean bodily fluids, mold, and the like. • The first thing I wish to offer is a theological interpretation of this image: The uncleanness of a bodily member – corresponds to the immoral acts of the church. The garment – corresponds to the documents that govern the church’s life: Formulary documents and constitutional documents. • Think of it – in the early centuries of the Church, the institutional life of the Church was fully embodied in the will of the individual bishop. Same with kings in the early Middle Ages, right? But on this side of 1215 – the signing of Magna Carta – the life of the Organic Company is embodied not only in the will of the head, but also in constitutional documents. As a man wears clothes, that buffer his presentation to others, that give him a different shape – so King John donned Magna Carta, and bequeathed it as a vestment to his successors. • It’s the same thing in the Church today. The life of the Church is no longer embodied solely in the person of the individual bishops. The bishops don the Constitution of their dioceses – they are beholden to it – as well the Constitution of their province. • And, since the Church is a spiritual entity, the Constitution and Canons and Liturgies of a Church are spiritual things. They are maximally important. • So, when a bishop sins (and by extension, mutatis mutandis, when a priest sins – he mars the body of Christ. He makes a wound and infects it with sin. This sin can be anything: Personal sin: Abuse, Theft, Adultery; or it can be a sin of disobedience affecting another, such as officiating the “wedding” of a gay couple. Whatever the sin – it is the bishop’s sin. The church has always had sinful bishops. Thankfully there have always been Godly and Righteous Bishops as well – we remembered Alphege and Anselm just this week – but wickedness in the church, as such, is not the problem. Those who love righteousness are called to carry the pain of the wound with them, and pray for healing. • The problem comes when the infection seeps out of the wound, and into the garment – that is, when the immoral action gets embedded into the governing documents of the Church. When dioceses and provinces re-write their Constitutions, or authorize unrighteous liturgies. Then the garment is stained. • And we are to hate the garment stained by the flesh. II. • This brings me to the second point I wish to convey to you this afternoon: The priority of Catholic Morality. The Life of the Church Catholic is instantiated in Catholic Faith and Catholic Morality: What we believe, and what we do. So often the question of Christian unity places the Catholic Faith as the Sun around which the ecumenical discourse should orbit, but I believe this is backwards. The ability to spiritually perceive and believe the Catholic Faith is subsequent to, and conditioned by Catholic Morality. We see this ontological sequence throughout the New Testament – that when the heart is hardened by sin, the mind is subsequently darkened. • Think of Ephesians 4:18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. • And THE issue that is tearing apart the Church today – and it’s all one issue – the question of what does the Bible say about Sex, Sexuality and the Sexes – It began with Women’s Ordination, Same-sex marriage was the middle game – THE issue – is a moral issue. The question to be asked isn’t “what’s the theology of this? What ought to be believed about marriage? And so on” – these are belief questions – and they are non sequiturs. On matters of catholic morality, the question is simply, ‘Is God being obeyed? Or disobeyed?’ • With a few odd and fringe exceptions, none of the Anglican Bishops around the world today are denying the Nicene Creed. The Era of Bishops like Pike and Spong and, in the UK, JAT Robinson – that’s ancient history. Dame Mullaly spoke of the Resurrection of Christ in her enthronement sermon in a perfectly satisfactory way. But the assertion of the Faith claims of the Church Catholic are unimpressive, by themselves. The Devils can recite the first two articles of the Nicene Creed without flinching. The real matter is, are we obeying this God we confess to believe in? • Confusing Faith and Morality has created an ecclesial quagmire. The reason that women cannot be ordained isn’t important. The fact that in God’s Holy Book he spoke through his servant St. Paul and said, “I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man” – this is a commandment – are we obeying it? Or disobeying it? • And let me now link this with my first point – that some Bishop ordained women to the priesthood in 1974 – is a local disobedience. Tragic, Irritating, but a localized sin. When the General Convention of The Episcopal Church re-wrote their Canons in 1976 to enshrine women’s ordination – now the garment is stained. And those who gathered at St. Louis in 1977 and broke off were exactly right in doing so. Same thing in our day. Gene Robinson getting consecrated wasn’t the Rubicon. ACNA jumped a little early at the request of the GAFCON bishops. 2015, when TEC’s General Convention re-wrote their marriage canons, or in the UK – it was December 2023 when the House of Bishops approved the prayer for the blessing of a ”married” gay couple. For authorized liturgies are also governing documents. • The garments are now stained. We must hate them. Which means put them off – put them away, and pray for them to be cleansed, apart from ourselves. III. • All of this has set the stage for my final point, to address the conference question head on, with new eyes. • How should we Anglicans retain unity in the truth? & What truth is essential? • In the first place, clarifying the difference between faith and morals evaporates the cavil of “what is first order doctrine?”. We don’t ask “is the female priesthood first order or second order doctrine?” No, it’s not a matter of doctrine, it’s a matter of obedience. With this clear, we see that “first order doctrine” itself is an oxymoron spawned amidst moral disobedience. The Lord Jesus deposited a body of belief to the Apostles – this has been passed down for 2000 years. It must not be added to, or taken away from. It can be clarified by never developed in the way Newman meant the word. The entirety of Catholic Truth - in faith and morals – is essential, and is not to be compromised even an iota for the sake of unity. • So, let’s get down to some concrete application of all this. • Judgment begins with the household of God, we must look first at the log in our own eyes, and examine the garments that we are wearing – are they stained by the flesh? If you are a bishop or an executive committee member – the provincial constitution and canons. If you are a presbyter, or standing committee member, your diocesan constitution and canons. Who cares if some Anglican province somewhere is celebrating gay bishops, if your own garment is also stained. This is the first order of priority – to have our own garments purified. Only then will be capacitated to deal rightly toward others. • Let me start closest to home – to use myself as a demonstration – The diocese I am in – Upper Midwest of the ACNA – has nothing in its constitution or canons that opposes the Catholic Faith or Catholic Morality. It is silence on the question of women in the diaconate, and the legal principle of silence implying consent holds here. The province I am in – ACNA – has a corrupted constitution – because it allows each bishop to decide for their own diocese on the matter of women’s ordination. But, structurally, to say that Catholic Morality – that is, obedience – and anti-Catholic morality, i.e. disobedience – are both tolerable, is to fundamentally authorize error. Our ACNA garment is stained. Now, this happened before I knew of it, before I was a presbyter, before I knew better – otherwise I would have tried to take a stand – as I did with the Augustine Appeal a few years ago. But as it is – it is an error, a compromise, an unrighteousness, that I bear with and pray for. • For my part, I could never join the REC, even though it is obedient on Holy Orders, because the Declaration of Principles of 1873 clearly rejects the Catholic Faith. A 2017 Pastoral letter that attempts to explain it away is not the same as a repentance and a scrubbing of the garment. It would be bad faith to ever take on willingly a garment that is stained when we are called to hate it. If the Abp of Canterbury offered me a chaplaincy to the King with a million-pound stipend a year, I could not take it, because the garment is stained. • At a larger global level, and with this I’ll end: • The Nairobi-Cairo Proposal out of Canterbury can go nowhere, because it asserts women’s ordination as a fait accompli and allows for differing views – obedient AND disobedient views on homosexual practice. • GAFCON initially showed promise, but the Kigali Statement asserts the Bible to be the Rule of Faith, which is not the Catholic Teaching. It is also styling itself recently as a Confessional Church, which is also un-Catholic. Furthermore – it has welcomed bodies, such as the Reformed Episcopal Church of South Africa, which plainly deny the Catholic Faith. • Like GAFCON, the Cairo Covenant of the Global South doesn’t breathe a word about Women in Holy Orders. While Silence on this front may be construed as consent, the larger practical question presents itself: Are we going to do all this work of realignment, only to have the biggest issue in our midst completely unresolved? It is like going into a 12 surgery for a complex bone-fracture, only to agree to set the bone mostly in the right way, but not fully. The effort of global realignment seems to me to not be worth effort if we’re not going to align around Catholic Faith and Morals. But if it did – if the ACNA, say, cleansed the garment, and brought an end to the disobedience of Women’s ordination, a cascade of real unity, beginning with the G3, could commence and the witness would be dazzling. ‘Mere Catholicism, Practical Holiness, and Unity in One House’- The Rev. Dr George Westhaver INTRODUCTION: THE COURAGE TO BE THANKFUL In 1904, sometime Archbishop of Canterbury Cosmo Gordon Lang gave a series of lectures called The Opportunity of the Church of England: ‘The strength of the forces which are dissolving the traditions and habits of religion’ mean that very many churchmen find themselves in ‘a shifting rubble of half-formed doubts in which no religious influence can take root and become …clear conviction’. Despite his colourful diagnosis, he said ‘this is our opportunity’: ‘There are energies in the very forces which cause the evil, which can be converted into powers of recovery’. Indeed, his lectures are full of hope: Let us [therefore] …have the courage to be thankful for these times in which it has pleased God to ask for our ministry. It is useless to sigh for other times; the days in which there were no special trials. ‘The study of history is the best cordial for drooping spirits.’ Long difficult divisions in the Church may tempt us to despair. Cosmo Gordon Lang’s counsel invites us to see these trials as an opportunity. About 50 years earlier, in another time of division, John Keble, the Father of the Oxford movement, also called his fellow churchmen to persevere in hope: ‘Look at the early Church and the long agony of the contest with Arianism after the council of Nicaea. How long was it before she had rest from the troubles which then beset her on a chief point of doctrine? We are now in 1850, and some eager ones think it much too long to wait for 1851 or 1852 for settlement of our present troubles: but she waited for two whole generations until the Council of Constantinople in 381, and under all sorts of interruptions, anomalies, charges of heresy, and breaking of communion. ‘The whole air of England seems to me to ring with voices from the dead and from the living: “Stay here; think not of departing, but here do your work.”’ Can Keble’s call to ‘persevere in hope’ in the search for unity in truth inform our response to the current struggles in the Anglican communion? A CATHOLIC APPEAL TO THE 39 ARTICLES The recent Abuja statement points to ‘the Reformation Formularies’ of the Church of England, to ‘the Thirty-nine Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer’ as expressing the doctrinal basis for unity. I would like to consider how E B Pusey’s careful study of the 39 articles as a focus for unity both within the Church of England, and within the Western Church, can help us to consider what this appeal offers. In their article ‘IS THE ANGLICAN “RESET” TRULY ANGLICAN?’, Fathers Hans Boersma, Gerald McDermott, Greg Peters offer a more in-depth example of this kind of approach. They look at the tension between declaring the Bible to be ‘its own interpreter’ and the patristic or ecclesial exegesis which both gives us the creeds but also challenges contemporary assumptions about the plain sense of the Bible. For Pusey, ‘The real danger was that the Articles should be understood to deny what was Primitive as well as [error, “Romish” error]’. Pusey re-stated and adapted John Henry Newman’s controversial argument: ‘…our Articles neither contradict anything Catholic, nor are [our Articles] meant to condemn anything in early Christianity, but only [errors in] the later system in the Church of Rome.’ This was not an obscure theological argument, ‘inside baseball’ for Anglicans: reading the articles and the Anglican formularies with the Fathers and the whole Church gives the Gospel a converting power to meet the rising tide of secularism, religious liberalism, and indifference. Pusey was particularly astute at perceiving the way biblical interpretation hides implicit ideas which can obscure rather than reveal Christ. His arguments about the Articles are arguments about shaping a theological or cultural imagination which makes the Incarnation, the union of the divine and human natures in Christ, the lens through which we read the Bible, the Church, and the world. Will a contemporary Anglican appeal to the Articles be shaped by this kind of ‘sacramental ontology’ and the ‘doctrine of the catholic fathers’, or will our appeal to the Bible be made superficial by the glosses and prejudices of our day, or even of one part of the Church? So, for example, to condemn as un-biblical the ‘Romish doctrine of Purgatory’, the late medieval errors which Pope Benedict XVI rejected, is only the beginning of a scriptural consideration of the intermediate state and how God brings to completion the good work begun in us. The condemnation of the “sacrifices of Masses” rejects ‘the purchase of Masses’ for the forgiveness of sins’, yes. But the patristic and biblical doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice, the Church’s pleading of ‘the “pure offering” which the Prophet Malachi foretold’, this doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice is part of the proclamation of the Gospel and the life of the Church. The 39 Articles are not a confession of faith, not a catechism, so appealing to them is the beginning of a conversation, not the end. The 19th century example suggests that in order for the Articles to serve as a basis for renewing communion, then we will need to consider how to avoid narrowing our presentation of the ‘fine gold’, of the Gospel proclamation. Unity in Truth Between 1865 and the declaration of papal infallibility in 1870, Pusey wrote three book-length public letters proposing the reunion of the English and Roman Churches on the basis of the 39 Articles and the Council of Trent. ‘Unity is, in part, the direct gift of God’ writes Pusey. ‘In part, it is the fruit of that gift in the mutual love of the members of the Church.’ In his hierarchy of gifts, Pusey emphasises the gifts which God gives: ‘Christ our Lord, God and Man, binds us to Him by the indwelling of His Spirit, by the gift of His Sacraments, administered by those to whom He gave the commission so to do, [and] by the right faith in Himself.’ Pusey notes that unlike many Churches or Communions, the C of E both assumes this unity, and prays for it. ‘At Holy Communion we pray God to “inspire continually the Universal Church [not C of E only] with the spirit of truth, unity, and concord”’ and ‘We pray for “all Bishops,” not our own only’. ‘The Church is one’, but ‘How it is one, the Church nowhere defines’. Contemplating schisms in the Church, Pusey argues that, ‘There is no ground to assume that suspensions of inter-communion (sad and mournful as they are) and in themselves only, hinder either body from being a portion of the Body of Christ.’ ‘Unlove began its work even in the Apostles’ times.’ If intercommunion does not destroy union with God the Holy Trinity, what does? ‘It is of man to retain the faith which he has received. They have not the same Lord, who do not believe the same truth as to Him’. For Pusey unbelief with regard to the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation is especially corrosive. According to this view, unity is destroyed only when a body loses essential notes of the Church—apostolic ministry, the true sacraments, the substance of the faith, or the moral law. On the basis of Pusey’s principles, how do decisions about the doctrine of marriage, or what constitutes a holy life, affect communion? Such decisions have disrupted our communion with one another in love, but do they affect communion with God in Christ? If decisions are made against the received consensus of Scripture and the wider Church, whether or not this constitutes rebellion or formal schism depends in part on the degree to which the people or synods making those decisions understand themselves to be contradicting the catholic consensus of the Church. Or do we believe, rightly or wrongly, that we are developing the faith and practice of the Church in fidelity to the Gospel? This of course is the focus of the debate, not an answer. Differentiation Serving Unity In a letter written in 1845 to a priest at S Clement’s Church here in Philadelphia Pusey writes: ‘There is absolutely no doubt that our succession is valid, that our Bishops are the successors of those through whom God planted the Gospel here; and so our Church is the appointed channel of God’s gifts, and the instrument of salvation to us.’ In this last section, I would like to consider if the arrangements made in the Church of England to maintain the widest possible degree of communion despite serious disagreement over apostolic ministry and the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate can serve as a model for seeking unity in truth in the Anglican communion and between the Anglican churches. The Five Guiding Principles enshrined in the House of Bishops’ Declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests states that the C of E’s ‘own clear decision on ministry and gender is set within a broader process of discernment within the Anglican Communion and the whole Church of God’. The 5 Guiding Principles also make a commitment, without a limit in time, to enable those ‘who, on grounds of theological conviction, are unable to receive the ministry of women bishops or priests’ to ‘flourish within its life and structures’. The Society under the patronage of Saint Augustine and Saint Hilda is the ecclesial community which gives flesh and spirit to these principles. The Society offers ministry in the historic and apostolic succession, ‘sacramental assurance’, and provides episcopal oversight for clergy and for parishes that affiliate to The Society. The Society also ‘promotes and maintains catholic teaching and practice within the Church of England’. In the same way that the Abuja statement points to ‘doctrinal … departures from the teaching of Scripture’ in the Anglican communion, the Society’s foundation assumes that the ordination of women represents a departure from the teaching of the Bible and the consensus of the Church. Does this change weaken or damage the apostolic channel of God’s gifts, the instrument of salvation to us? This is a serious matter not addressed in the GAFCON documents. The result of the arrangements made to secure the widest possible degree of communion in light of the issues raised by the ordination of women is that the Church of England could be described as an ecumenical fellowship within a unifying canonical structure. It no longer displays the system of full inter-communion which has been the norm for a church. In the most hopeful form, this church within a church promotes the widest possible degree of ecumenical fellowship within the C of E, and by this serves the unity of the whole Church. As I investigated what one might learn for the Anglican churches from the Church of England model of degrees of communion alongside ecclesial differentiation, I discovered what many of you will know much better, that this model has already been proposed. ‘The Nairobi-Cairo Proposals’ for ‘Renewing the Instruments of the Anglican Communion’ has very explicitly applied the language of the ‘highest possible degree of communion’ from debates about ordination to our profound disagreements about the doctrine of marriage. The Nairobi-Cairo Proposals recognises what we already know, that ‘Solemn calls to unity may … function as an abuse of power’. It replaces the language of ‘walking together’, or wearing down, with Differentiated communion: ‘We find in the story of Paul and Barnabas a precedent for walking together at a distance’ maintaining some degree of unity despite “sharp disagreement”. On the basis of the century-long Donatist controversy and Augustine of Hippo’s arguments, the Nairobi-Cairo Proposals proposes that it is an error ‘to break from the Church in search of a haven of purity, rather than contesting for the orthodox faith within the Church, which is always a mixture of wheat and weeds, [bad fish with the good]’. Until harvest time, the struggle for unity in truth will be accompanied with much ‘lamentation and groaning’. On the basis of Abuja’s commitment, ‘to support faithful Anglicans whether they stay in … mixed provinces or decide to leave’, one commentator has proposed that ‘the best and brightest in GAFCON who are not part of the Global Anglican Council could engage in the Instruments of Communion’, and contribute even now to the Nairobi-Cairo process’. This would strengthen the bonds of communion and interdependence between Anglicans and express the truth that we need one another. Bearing with One Another in Love Jurisdictional, institutional, and even confessional instruments of unity can only serve our unity in Christ if they express a genuine charity and holiness of life. In the words of one of the Society bishops from a sermon at Pusey House, accepting differentiation as a path to unity does not mean giving up on truth: Bearing with one another in love ‘cannot mean remaining apart in static silence. … If truth is objective, then it is the same for everyone, and we will come to dialogue over disagreement in the belief that the truth will convert’. The NCPs stress the importance of seeking ‘the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace’ for our witness to the Gospel: ‘A dogged refusal to give up on each other, to remain in relationship despite deep and significant disagreement, can be a remarkable witness to the power of Christ to bring unity in a divided world’. John Henry Newman’s entrance into the Roman Catholic Church stirred up division and anger in the Church of England. Pusey was urged to both condemn his friend and the Church of Rome. The public letter he wrote is full of lessons for our current struggles: ‘You too’, Pusey writes, ‘have felt that it is what is unholy on both sides which keeps us apart….As each, by God’s grace, grows in holiness, each Church will recognise, more and more, the Presence of God’s Holy Spirit in the other; and what now hinders the union of the Western Church will fall off….But while we go on humbled, and the humbler, surely neither need we be dejected. God’s chastisements are in mercy too. ‘And so now, then, in this critical state of our Church, the most perilous crises through which it has ever passed, must not our first lesson be increase of prayer?’ [Pusey:] ‘It is not to immediate results that we ought to look, “the times are in His hands”; but this one cannot doubt, that the good hand of God, which has been over us in the manifold trials of the last three centuries, checking, withholding, guiding, chastening, leading, and now so wonderfully extending us, is with us still. It is not thus He ever purposes to leave a Church. Gifts of grace are His Own Blessed Presence. He does not vouchsafe His Presence in order to withdraw it.’ Or, in the words with which we began, and in the face of our current trials, ‘let us have the courage to be thankful for these times’, even as we know that, until harvest time, the struggle for unity in truth will be accompanied with much ‘lamentation and groaning’. END

By Bishop Francis Omondi, Garissa, Kenya April 26, 2026 I began my episcopal ministry at a time when the Anglican Communion was entering significant upheaval. The early signs of strain were already evident; yet the pace and force of recent developments have surpassed what many anticipated. We now face a future we did not fully shape, but one we must nonetheless navigate with care and discernment. Recent developments—particularly the emergence of a GAFCON-led “Global Anglican Communion”—have sharpened long-standing questions about our identity. On Martyrs’ Day 2025, Archbishop Laurent Mbanda announced a new global vision known as “FUTURE,” signalling a deliberate shift away from the historic Communion centred on Canterbury toward an alternative global structure. Proponents portray this direction as a recovery of spiritual authority and doctrinal clarity. They claim fidelity to Biblical authority, grounding their vision in the plain and canonical reading of Scripture articulated in the Jerusalem Declaration (2008) and echoing Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles. The Kigali Commitment of 2023 reinforces this trajectory, rejecting the Instruments of Communion, those very structures that have historically safeguarded unity and mutual accountability across Anglican provinces. In doing so, GAFCON does not preserve Anglican tradition but disrupts it. Although the Global Anglican Communion (GAC) maintains that it is neither abandoning Anglicanism nor forming a new denomination, it asserts that it is “resetting” the Communion and restoring what it interprets as the original intention of the 1867 Lambeth Conference. These developments compel us to ask searching questions. What kind of future is being constructed? And on a more personal level, what does this future mean for my episcopal ministry within the Anglican Church of Kenya—a province rooted in the Global South yet deeply shaped by the inherited bonds of Anglican tradition? Internal Contradictions Despite these assertions, unresolved contradictions continue to weigh down the future that GAFCON envisions. Central to its proposal is the claim that Scripture possesses a single, authoritative interpretation. An interpretation it locates in the Jerusalem Declaration and sets against what it labels as revisionist theology. Yet this claim falters under scrutiny. GAFCON’s own internal disagreements reveal the instability of its interpretive framework. Nowhere is this more evident than in the movement’s divergent positions on the ordination of women. Kenya and South Sudan consecrate women as bishops, while Uganda and Nigeria oppose the practice on the grounds that Scripture mandates a male-only episcopate. Nigeria and Egypt extend this prohibition even to the priesthood, a stance not shared by Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda, or South Sudan, all of which ordain women as priests. These are not minor or peripheral disagreements. They expose deep theological fissures that undermine GAFCON’s insistence on a singular, canonical reading of Scripture. These tensions grew sharper with the appointment of Bishop Sarah Mullally as Archbishop of Canterbury, a decision publicly denounced by Rwanda, Uganda and Nigeria. Their objections, both to her gender and to her voting record supporting same-sex blessings, were presented as evidence of the Church of England’s doctrinal unfaithfulness. Yet beneath these disputes lies a more fundamental question. Will the future of Anglicanism be shaped by the careful, conciliar discernment of Scripture that has defined the tradition since Richard Hooker, or by the theological priorities of a single province, whether Nigeria or America? GAFCON’s appeal to doctrinal purity thus reveals tensions that weaken its credibility as a guardian of uniform Biblical interpretation. Classical Anglican theology, articulated most fully by Hooker, affirms that Scripture is interpreted through the dynamic interaction of Scripture, reason, and tradition. The Lambeth Conferences and the Instruments of Communion have consistently upheld this broad hermeneutical approach, not as optional, but as foundational to Anglican identity. These instruments do not exist to enforce uniformity through exclusion. Rather, they sustain communion through shared discernment, pastoral patience and theological humility, especially in moments of disagreement. Here, the contrast becomes unmistakably clear. GAFCON advances a model of authority that asserts unity is impossible without adherence to “truth” as it defines it, declaring that “we can no longer walk together with those who persist in unbiblical teaching.” Such a position stands in tension with historic Anglican self-understanding and replaces centuries of conciliar deliberation with a more confessional, exclusionary framework. This shift does not stand alone; it accelerates the fragmentation already emerging across the Communion. The resulting narrowing of Anglican theology stands in sharp contrast to the ecclesial vision expressed in the Lambeth Conferences and embodied in the Instruments of Communion. This shift toward a more restrictive theological model marks a significant departure from the broad, inclusive approach that has shaped Anglican identity for generations. Historically, these structures upheld a unity grounded not in doctrinal uniformity but in shared discernment, patient engagement, theological diversity and mutual accountability. By redefining unity as dependent on doctrinal conformity, the emerging GAFCON model moves away from the dispersed and collegial authority that has held the Anglican Communion together. Instead, it reimagines Anglican identity through the lens of separation, prioritising exclusion over engagement and narrowing the scope of what it means to belong to the Communion. This approach not only fragments the global Church but also diminishes the richness and depth that have historically marked Anglican theology and practice. These inconsistencies undermine not only the Jerusalem Declaration’s claim to coherent theological reflection but also the very Anglican tradition GAFCON asserts it is preserving. In reshaping Anglicanism around a narrower doctrinal centre, sustained through separation rather than communion, GAFCON risks diminishing a tradition formed by breadth, patience and careful engagement with contested questions. The unresolved disagreements within GAFCON over women’s ordination further expose the fragility of its project. Far from offering theological coherence, these contradictions weaken the Declaration’s claim to represent a consistent, canonical and comprehensive Anglican theology. Theological Foundations These calls have now produced two sharply divergent responses within the Anglican world. One urging separation in the name of doctrinal clarity. The other calling for reform from within the Communion’s historic structures. Advocates of separation argue that fidelity to Scripture requires decisive action whenever they believe core doctrines are compromised. To them, remaining in communion with Canterbury, as it is now, amounts to theological compromise. Separation, therefore, is not seen as schism but as an act of obedience, driven by the conviction that Anglican unity must rest on doctrinal truth rather than institutional loyalty. When the Instruments of Communion seem unable to safeguard those truths, they believe an alternative structure becomes necessary. This reasoning mirrors earlier Anglican realignments, including the formation of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). Yet embracing separation introduces profound difficulties. Breaking away does not merely address perceived doctrinal error; it reshapes Anglican identity itself. Historically, Anglicanism has rested upon a shared centre, a common liturgical inheritance, a historic episcopate and dispersed authority, rather than upon strict doctrinal uniformity. Separation, therefore, raises a critical question: how can Anglicans preserve their identity if they reject the very instruments and relationships that have long sustained it? In contrast, those who urge remaining within the Communion appeal to classical Anglican theology. They draw upon Hooker’s vision of Scripture interpreted within the life of the Church through the interplay of Scripture, reason, and tradition, a vision that recognizes disagreement as a normal, even necessary, aspect of ecclesial life rather than a failure of faith. The Lambeth Conferences and the Instruments of Communion have embodied this approach, consistently favouring patient discernment over rupture, even in moments of deep theological tension. From this perspective, Canterbury functions not as a doctrinal supervisor but as a symbolic and relational centre that enables communion across difference. It provides space for theological argument without fracturing into competing Anglicanisms, allowing reform to unfold within the inherited structures that have historically held the Communion together. This approach, however, is not without its own challenges. Advocates of reform often invoke the need for change without articulating clearly what that reform entails. Without a distinction between reform, understood as the correction of error, and change, understood as structural or cultural adaptation, the risk of theological drift becomes real. Critics warn that prolonged ambiguity erodes trust and allows unresolved tensions to masquerade as unity. The Communion is therefore confronted not merely with a simple choice between faithfulness and compromise, but with a deeper tension between two long-standing Anglican instincts. The instinct toward separation, which prioritises doctrinal clarity yet risks severing the tradition from its historical and ecclesial foundations. And the instinct toward staying, which prioritises continuity and shared discernment yet risks confusion when the nature of reform remains undefined. Missional Implications The implications of delinking from Canterbury are indeed immense. The central issue is not simply whether provinces choose to leave or remain within the historic structures of the Communion. Rather, it concerns the more fundamental question of what defines Anglican identity. When Anglicanism is reduced to adherence to a single interpretive framework, such as the Jerusalem Declaration, its rich theological and historical breadth is diminished, and separation becomes an almost inevitable outcome. By contrast, Anglicanism in its historic form is rooted in Scripture interpreted within the life of the Church, sustained by the Book of Common Prayer and guided by conciliar discernment. From within this broader and more faithful understanding, remaining in the Communion and pursuing reform emerges as the more coherent path. The primary challenge, therefore, is not the reality of change itself, but change undertaken without theological consistency, historical accountability or communal deliberation. The future of Anglicanism will depend not only on the direction chosen but on the extent to which that choice embodies the breadth, humility, and patience that have long characterized the Anglican tradition. Establishing a Global Anglican Communion and urging provinces to delink from Canterbury represents a significant reconfiguration of Anglican identity. These developments do not occur in isolation. Instead, they reveal the wider structural and theological consequences that emerge when doctrinal boundaries become the basis for jurisdictional realignment. It is to these broader ecclesial, relational and missional implications that we now turn. In 2007, the Church of Nigeria removed all references to “communion with the See of Canterbury” from its constitution. This redefined its relationships with other provinces, not based on geographic boundaries but on shared doctrine and biblical interpretation. This shift had far-reaching consequences for the province’s engagement with the wider Communion. One immediate outcome was that the Church of Nigeria gained constitutional authority to “create convocations and chaplaincies of like-minded faithful outside Nigeria” and to appoint individuals, within or beyond Nigeria, to oversee them under the jurisdiction of the Nigerian Primate. This provision enabled the establishment of churches under Nigerian oversight in the United States, including the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) and eventually the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). Such a precedent raises a critical question. What would prevent provinces labelled “revisionist” from applying the same logic to create parallel jurisdictions within GAFCON-aligned provinces such as Uganda, Nigeria or Kenya? If doctrinal affinity becomes the primary criterion for jurisdictional expansion, the Communion risks entering an era of reciprocal interventions, competing ecclesiastical structures, and deepening fragmentation. The mission field is changing quickly. CANA was created to offer pastoral oversight for conservative Nigerian Anglicans in the United States. Today, demographic trends and cultural shifts show a major missiological transition. American Anglicanism is becoming more culturally integrated and more liturgically diverse. David Goodhew’s recent analysis of The Episcopal Church’s post-COVID attendance patterns highlights this. Two congregations now hold services in Igbo, one of Nigeria’s major languages spoken by hundreds of thousands of Americans. Seven parishes have also introduced Latin services. These developments show a shifting ecclesial landscape. Immigrant communities are no longer isolated cultural enclaves. They are active contributors to a broader and more connected American religious environment. This challenges earlier assumptions that African-rooted Anglican jurisdictions in North America serve only as cultural sanctuaries. Instead, they are participating in a shared and rapidly evolving missional context. Archbishop Peter Jensen argues that GAFCON is not a protest movement but a mission movement. Its goal is to expand evangelism, discipleship and church planting. Yet this vision is weakened by the growing fragmentation of the Church. Fragmentation creates parallel structures and competing priorities. It strains relationships and reduces the coherence of Anglican witness. As these divisions deepen, the missional energy GAFCON promotes becomes harder to sustain. This fragmentation also places provinces under pressure to choose sides. Such decisions threaten long-standing partnerships that once supported global cooperation. Theologians like Michael Ramsey and Rowan Williams remind us that Anglican strength has never come from rigid uniformity. Instead, it comes from sustaining communion despite theological diversity. That core principle is now severely tested, as the Church must decide whether it will allow division to shape its identity or seek unity that strengthens its mission. Historically, Anglican missions have assumed that coherent oversight fosters coherent witness. A shared proclamation of the gospel, an integrated pattern of discipleship, and a unified deployment of resources have enabled Anglicans to minister with clarity and confidence. Overlapping jurisdictions, however, disperse these energies. Clergy and congregations must navigate conflicting lines of authority rather than focus on the pastoral and evangelistic needs of their communities. Competing structures generate parallel programs, duplicate ministries and foster rivalry where collaboration is essential. The result is a diminished public witness, eroded trust among the faithful and a mission field increasingly uncertain about Anglican identity and purpose. In this respect, overlapping jurisdictions do not merely complicate canonical order; they strike at the heart of Anglican ecclesiology. They undermine the Church’s vocation to be a visible sign of unity and a credible instrument of God’s reconciling mission. They fracture what the Anglican tradition has understood as the bishop-in-synod and replace it with a patchwork of competing voices. The cumulative effect is centrifugal rather than centripetal, dispersing the Church’s witness and diminishing its capacity to proclaim Christ with the clarity, coherence and catholic integrity that have long characterized Anglicanism. Paths Forward These mounting tensions have brought the Communion to a moment of profound uncertainty. For more than two decades, Anglicans have carried the persistent question of whether we would remain together or gradually drift apart. Earlier realignments, often undertaken with deep conviction, were framed as necessary attempts to safeguard the faith during periods of perceived doctrinal compromise. At their best, these actions sought to provide clarity in moments that felt marked by confusion. Today, however, we sense that the Communion has reached a new and more decisive turning point. In 2023, ten Global South primates publicly denounced recognition of the Archbishop of Canterbury as primus inter pares following his support for same-sex blessings. Their declaration signalled a significant rupture in their relationship with Canterbury and exposed the depth of the theological and relational fractures now shaping the Anglican world. Responding to these changing dynamics, Archbishop Paul Kwong, chair of the ACC in 2024, launched a process to consider future directions for the Communion. The Nairobi–Cairo Proposals from IASCUFO urge the Church to reconsider its understanding of shared life, drawing again on the 1930 Lambeth Conference and calling for leadership structures that reflect today’s global Anglican realities. IASCUFO’s latest recommendations advocate for more diverse Communion leadership. They propose that the Archbishop of Canterbury convene a council of regional primates to share pastoral duties and represent the Communion as needed. The archbishop would remain the chief ecumenical representative but could delegate involvement where appropriate. For the largely symbolic ACC Presidency, IASCUFO suggests simplifying the ACC’s structure to clarify the Chair’s role. The Archbishop of Canterbury would continue as an ex officio member of both the ACC and its Standing Committee, serving alongside five other primates. Together, these steps seek to align Communion leadership with contemporary global needs. At the same time, developments within the Church of England further reveal the complexity of the moment. The 2026 General Synod’s decision to pause the Living in Love and Faith (LLF) process on sexuality, relationships, and gender demonstrates that the Communion is wrestling not merely with doctrinal disagreements but with fundamentally different visions of its identity and future. These global shifts coincide with significant changes within the mission field itself. Increasing participation and influence of conservative immigrant communities, particularly within The Episcopal Church, indicate a growing cultural sensitivity in Western Anglicanism. This development disproves the belief that African-rooted Anglican bodies in North America are mainly cultural refuges. Instead, these communities are emerging as active contributors to a more diverse and interconnected ecclesial landscape, helping to reshape both liturgical life and missional priorities. In such a moment of testing, the wisdom of Archbishop Desmond Tutu remains instructive. As he led South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, he reminded us that naming wounds is not meant to imprison us in the past but to release us from its grip. His pastoral insight calls us to confront present challenges with honesty and hope, refusing to let fear or bitterness determine our future. Now, as decisive actions unfold across the Communion, we stand together at a genuine crossroads. The question before us is not merely institutional or structural; it is deeply spiritual and communal. Will we choose a path that leads to further fragmentation, or will we seek reforms that honour our shared foundations while allowing space for healing and renewal? Whichever path we discern, may we walk it with humility, patience and a deep longing for the unity for which Christ Himself prayed, a unity that strengthens the Church’s witness and reflects the reconciling love of God. Conclusion Beloved, we find ourselves living through a moment none of us anticipated, yet one that now demands our faithful discernment. The future being imagined for us—whether through GAFCON’s restructuring or through shifts within the historic Instruments of Communion—carries profound implications for our fellowship, our mission, and our shared identity as Anglicans. These developments have arrived with unsettling speed, and they require from us not fear, but clarity, courage, and prayerful deliberation. GAFCON offers a vision grounded in conviction, yet one that risks deepening division through an increasingly narrow ecclesial framework. Remaining within the historic Anglican Communion provides continuity and a shared theological inheritance, yet it too requires honest engagement and genuine reform. Neither path is without cost. But whichever course we choose, it must arise not from reaction or external pressure, but from our desire to remain faithful to Jesus Christ—rooted in Scripture, shaped by our Anglican heritage and committed to walking together even when the road is difficult. Thus, our calling in this moment is not simply to choose between separation and continuity, but to discern what it means to be authentically Anglican in a time of global upheaval. We must resist the temptation to decide in haste or to allow louder voices—whether global or local—to dictate our future. Instead, we are invited to listen attentively to the Spirit, to one another, and to the witness of our tradition. The unity for which Christ prayed is not a unity devoid of conviction, but a unity formed through humility, patience, mutual accountability and hope. My prayer is that our province will find the courage to pursue a path that neither fractures our Communion nor abandons the conciliar wisdom that has sustained it for generations. May we choose a future not shaped by fear but illumined by grace, one in which love and truth meet, and in which the Anglican Church of Kenya bears faithful witness to the reconciling mission of God in a divided world. The Rt. Revd. Dr. Francis Omondi Otieno is the second Anglican Bishop of Garissa in the Anglican Church of Kenya.