By Jacinthia Jones February 22, 2004 Episcopalians back unity vow. Vote angers W. Tenn. conservatives Promoting the themes of unity and reconciliation, Episcopalians from across West Tennessee refused Saturday to back efforts that would have distanced the local diocese from actions taken by the national church. On the final day of the diocese's annual convention meeting here, clergy and lay delegates passed a resolution supporting Bishop Don Johnson "in his leadership and commitment to unity." The church vote calls for Johnson to formulate a pastoral response for church members who disagree with gay ordinations and same-sex unions both of which were approved during last year's General Convention and to work with a commission to study the issues of marriage, human sexuality and the blessing of same-sex unions. The single resolution was crafted as a substitute for several others, angering church conservatives. They had pushed measures that would have repudiated the confirmation of Bishop V. Gene Robinson, a gay man who lives with a male partner, and would have proclaimed Christian marriage as being between one man and one woman. Episcopal dioceses in Pennsylvania, Texas and elsewhere had passed similar measures expressing their displeasure with the national church. "We didn't ask for this conflict, but we don't flee from it either," said Rev. Joe Davis, pastor of St. Philip Church in Lakeland. Davis co-authored another resolution that would have allowed dissident church members to join with conservative groups and still remain in the Episcopal Church. A majority of church members, however, objected to the plan calling it schismatic and an attempt to subvert the local bishop's authority. During the 1 1/2-hour debate, other conservative church members expressed frustration that their views were being ignored. "We've already embraced the voice of the liberal view," said Rev. Colenzo Hubbard, executive director of Emmanuel Episcopal Center in Memphis. "We cannot get to a place of unity unless all of our voices are heard." Others objected to the consolidated "watered-down" version of their resolutions. "This is a let's go study thing and people are going to depart (from the church) one at a time," said Joe Davenport of St. Luke's Episcopal Church in Jackson. Several priests who supported the substitute measure said the church needed more time to explore scripture as it pertains to human sexuality. "I consider myself a traditionalist and Orthodox, but what I've learned over the years is that Scripture is not clear at all," said Rev. Don White, pastor at St. George's Episcopal Church in Germantown. Others supporting the resolution said it gives both sides more time to sit down and talk out their differences. "Democracy may be a great way to run a country, but it's a terrible way to run a church," said Rev. C. B. Baker, Dean of St. Mary's Episcopal Church in Memphis. "To try to discern the Holy Spirit through a vote seems to be ludicrous." In a separate matter, the convention passed its 2004 budget, which cuts financial support to the national church by almost $60,000 over last year when the West Tennessee diocese gave more than $158,000. In approving the $1.2 million budget, church members said the decrease in funding to the national body was due to economic reasons and not intended to send a message of discontent. The West Tennessee diocese includes more than 11,300 baptized members.

After the meeting, the statement released by the Commission said that it was saddened that tensions within the Communion, "exacerbated by the use of strident language", have continued to rise in recent months. "The Commission requests all members of the Anglican Communion to refrain from any precipitate action, or legal proceedings which would further harm 'the bonds of communion' in the period while it completes its work. Mission and ministry, including prayer for unity, remain the priorities." Earlier this month, 14 Primates of the global South offered their support to a new network of conservative Anglicans in ECUSA. They included the Most Revd Drexel Gomez, Archbishop of the West Indies, who is a member of the Commission. The Commission set up small working groups to study five key topics: issues of process in the Anglican Communion; the nature and purposes of communion; the obligations of communion; authority; and the role of the instruments of unity in preserving fellowship. It also considered the work of previous commissions, including that chaired by Dr Eames on women bishops. The Commission is to report back by the end of September after two further meetings.

By Rachel Harden CHURCH TIMES ANGLICAN leaders across the world were warned this week to stop taking "precipitate action or legal proceedings" because of conflicting views over homosexuality. The warning came from the Eames Commission, also known as the Lambeth Commission, which met for the first time last week, under the chairmanship of the Archbishop of Armagh, Dr Robin Eames. It is considering how divisions over this and other issues will affect the Anglican Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury set up the Commission in October at the emergency Primates' meeting after the Episcopal Church of the United States (ECUSA) elected an openly homosexual bishop, the Rt Revd Gene Robinson. The Commission issued a strongly worded statement on Monday, addressed to the warring factions within the Communion. It condemned the use of "strident language" by both conservatives and liberals. Its 19 members gathered in Windsor for a short rite of commissioning by Dr Williams on the eve of the first session. He said: "The Primates of the Communion have repeatedly asserted that they wish to remain a Communion rather than becoming a federation of Churches; and the task of this Commission is to help make this more of a reality, at a time when many pressures seem to be pushing in another direction." Dr Williams said that the Commission was "not dealing with a problem that is simply about biblical faithfulness versus fashionable relativism".

By Staff ReporterBelfast Telegraph20 February 2004 THE major Anglican Commission chaired by Archbishop Robin Eames in the aftermath of the controversy involving homosexual bishops has called for a period of calm. The Commission on Anglican Structures, which met for the first time at St George's, Windsor, for three full days last week, has issued a statement requesting all members of the worldwide Anglican Communion "to refrain from any precipitate action, or legal proceedings, which would further harm the bonds of communion in the period while it completes its work". Members of the 17-strong Commission said that that they were saddened, however, that "tensions within the Communion, exacerbated by the use of strident language, have continued to rise in recent months". The Commission was set up last October by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, in the midst of the controversy over the appointment of Dr Gene Robinson, a practising homosexual as a Bishop in New Hampshire in the USA. From the outset Archbishop Eames outlined the Commission's role. He said: "Our job is not to discuss sexuality as such but to find guidelines which will allow us to live together in communion while facing disagreement." An Anglican Church spokesman told the Belfast Telegraph last night that the Commission had been encouraged by its first formal session. He said: "Everyone worked flat out to try find a way forward." He confirmed that the Commission was still on schedule to present its report to Dr Williams in September but that the worldwide Anglican Primates would not have a chance to discuss it together until at least the New Year.

By the Venerable Canon Dr. Kenneth D. Gillespie, OSC www.virtueonline.org November 12, 2025   On October 16, 2025, the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) issued a bold statement declaring "the future has arrived." In this declaration, GAFCON announced it had single handedly reordered the Anglican Communion, rejecting the traditional Instruments of Communion and establishing itself as the authentic expression of global Anglicanism. The statement claims to represent up to eighty-five percent of practicing Anglicans worldwide and positions GAFCON as the guardian of biblical orthodoxy against the revisionist agenda of Canterbury and the Western provinces.   GAFCON may indeed represent the future of Anglicanism in terms of numerical strength and global reach. The demographic reality is undeniable: the vast majority of Anglicans now live in the Global South, particularly in Africa, where conservative theological convictions remain strong. Yet as we consider this future, we must ask a more fundamental question: Is this future sufficient to preserve the integrity of Anglican tradition and protect against theological drift into heresy?   This article contends, with genuine concern rather than condemnation, that GAFCON has already accepted a gateway heresy that will inevitably compromise its ability to maintain orthodox Christian teaching over time. The issue is women's ordination, and the implications extend far beyond questions of ministerial order into the very foundations of biblical authority, theological method, and ecclesial identity.   The Borrowed Tools of Revolution To understand how women's ordination functions as a gateway to broader theological compromise, we must first examine its intellectual genealogy. The modern push for women's ordination did not emerge from careful biblical exegesis or development of doctrine within the Christian Tradition. Rather, it emerged from second-wave feminism, which itself borrowed heavily from Marxist ideology.   In classical Marxism, the proletariat's victimization by the bourgeoisie isn't merely about suffering, it is about identifying an exploitative relationship embedded in the economic system. The crucial epistemological move is that Marx argued the oppressed class has privileged insight into the system's contradictions. They see what the privileged cannot or will not see. This creates moral and analytical authority from the position of victimhood.   Second-wave feminism, particularly through figures like Simone de Beauvoir, Kate Millett, and Shulamith Firestone, adapted this framework to gender relations. Women were positioned as a class whose unpaid domestic labor and restricted access to resources constituted systematic victimization by patriarchy. The personal became political, individual experiences of oppression revealed structural patterns of male dominance that pervaded every institution, including and especially the Church.   This framework introduced several key principles that would prove corrosive to Christian orthodoxy: First, standpoint epistemology : The idea that women, as an oppressed class, have privileged access to truth about gender and power. Their lived experience cannot be legitimately questioned by those in positions of privilege (men), because such questioning is itself an exercise of patriarchal power. Second, structural suspicion : All traditional arrangements between men and women, including those established by Scripture and Tradition, are presumed to reflect patriarchal oppression rather than divine design. The burden of proof falls on those defending traditional practice. Third, liberation as telos : The goal of theology becomes not conformity to revealed truth but liberation from oppressive structures. Doctrines and practices that restrict women's access to any role or office are automatically suspect, regardless of their biblical or traditional warrant. When these principles entered the Church's consideration of women's ordination, they fundamentally altered the nature of the debate. The question was no longer "What do Scripture and tradition teach about the ministerial priesthood?" but "How do we liberate women from patriarchal exclusion?" The answer was determined before the theological work began.   Women's Ordination as Gateway Heresy The concept of "gateway" or "catalytic" heresy refers to theological errors that, while not immediately denying core doctrines, establish principles and trajectories that inevitably lead to explicit heresy. Women's ordination functions as precisely this kind of error.   Consider the hermeneutical moves required to justify women's ordination in Anglican tradition: First , one must set aside or reinterpret the consistent testimony of Scripture regarding male headship and the male priesthood. This requires adopting a hermeneutic that distinguishes between the "liberating core" of the gospel and the "culturally conditioned" restrictions of Scripture. But once this distinction is made, who determines what else is merely cultural? The principle, once established, can be applied to any biblical teaching that conflicts with contemporary sensibilities. Second , one must dismiss or diminish two thousand years of universal Christian practice. Every church, East and West, Orthodox, Protestant and Catholic, practiced male-only ordination until the twentieth century. To overturn this requires either claiming that the Church was wrong for two millennia or that contemporary insights supersede traditional wisdom. Either position radically destabilizes the authority of Christian Tradition. Third , one must accept an anthropology that minimizes or eliminates the theological significance of gender complementarity. If maleness and femaleness bear no essential meaning for representation of Christ (the Bridegroom) to His Church (the Bride), then what theological significance do they bear for marriage? The same anthropological moves that enable women's ordination necessarily undermine the Christian sexual ethic. Fourth , one must embrace a trajectory hermeneutic that privileges where we believe the Spirit is leading over what Scripture and Tradition have actually said. This opens the door to ongoing revision of doctrine based on claimed movements of the Spirit that align, remarkably, with the prevailing winds of secular culture. These are not merely pragmatic accommodations. They represent fundamental shifts in how Scripture is read, how tradition is weighted, how anthropology is understood, and how doctrine develops. And they are identical to the shifts required to justify same-sex blessings, transgender affirmation, and ultimately the full LGBTQ+ agenda that GAFCON claims to oppose.   The Trojan Horse Women's ordination functions as a Trojan horse within conservative Christianity. It appears to be a discrete issue about gender roles in ministry, a "secondary matter" that need not divide the faithful. GAFCON itself has declared that women's ordination is "not a salvation issue" and should not disrupt their mission to proclaim Christ faithfully.   But like the Trojan horse of legend, women's ordination contains within it the seeds of comprehensive theological capitulation. The horse looks innocent enough; indeed, it arrives bearing the language of justice, equality, and the full use of women's gifts in ministry. What could be wrong with wanting women to flourish in service to Christ?   The danger lies not in the stated intentions but in the theological principles smuggled inside. Once women's ordination is accepted as legitimate, the Church has implicitly accepted: That Scripture's plain teaching can be set aside when it conflicts with contemporary notions of justice. That the universal practice of the Church can be overturned without rupturing continuity with Tradition. That complementarity between the sexes has no theological significance. That experience and cultural context can override biblical revelation. That doctrinal development means progressive alignment with secular values. These principles, once established, provide the framework for justifying any revision of Christian teaching. They are not isolated theological moves but comprehensive hermeneutical revolutions. And every church body that has accepted women's ordination has, within a generation or two, proceeded to embrace the full progressive agenda on sexuality and beyond.   The correlation is not accidental. The same authorities, arguments, and anthropology that justify women's ordination provide the foundation for every subsequent compromise. This is why Canterbury's appointment of a female Archbishop who is also "a self-described pro-choice feminist and the chief architect of the divisive same-sex blessing liturgies" is not surprising but inevitable. Once the gateway is opened, traffic flows predictably through it.   GAFCON's Compromised Position Here we arrive at the heart of the concern: GAFCON, despite its bold claims to represent orthodox global Anglicanism and to reject the revisionist agenda, has already accepted the gateway heresy. Among GAFCON member churches, the diversity of practice on women's ordination is striking: Nigeria has had a decades-long struggle with permitting and restricting women ordained to the diaconate while almost all GAFCON churches now do so. Kenya, Rwanda, South Sudan, Brazil, and Uganda ordain women as priests. The ACNA has the protection of women’s ordination guaranteed in its constitution. Kenya and South Sudan have consecrated women as bishops. Most tellingly, when the Anglican Church of Kenya consecrated female bishops in 2021, directly violating GAFCON's own 2017 moratorium, the GAFCON Primates chose accommodation over discipline. Rather than enforcing their stated position, they issued a statement declaring that "while there is disagreement and ongoing discussion on the issues of the ordination of women as deacons or priests, and the consecration of women as Bishops, we are agreed that these are not salvation issues and are not issues that will disrupt our mission." Since then, Kenya consecrated a second female bishop. This response reveals the fundamental weakness in GAFCON's position. When forced to choose between maintaining theological consistency on women's ordination and preserving organizational unity, they chose the latter. They redefined the issue as "secondary" rather than confronting the reality that it involves the same hermeneutical and anthropological compromises they claim to oppose in other contexts. The trajectory is already clear. In 2017, GAFCON recommended that provinces "retain the historic practice of the consecration only of men as bishops until and unless a strong consensus to change emerges." By 2021, when that consensus had not emerged but violations had occurred, the recommendation was quietly abandoned. The language shifted from calling for continued practice to accepting disagreement. The direction of movement is unmistakable.   Trajectory Matters GAFCON claims to have established a "fellowship of autonomous provinces bound together by the Formularies of the Reformation." But what happens when those provinces, in their autonomy, continue to expand women's ordination? What happens when the pressure to ordain women bishops, present in virtually every GAFCON province that ordains women priests, becomes irresistible? What happens when provinces begin to consecrate women as primates? GAFCON has already demonstrated it will not discipline member provinces for violating stated positions on women's ordination. It has classified the issue as "secondary" and "not a salvation issue." But this classification is itself a capitulation to the logic that will eventually justify every other compromise. Consider the parallel situation with Canterbury. When Canterbury approved same-sex blessings, GAFCON rightly recognized this as an abandonment of biblical authority requiring separation. But Canterbury did not arrive at this position overnight. It arrived there through decades of precisely the kind of theological compromise GAFCON has already accepted on women's ordination. Canterbury too claimed that certain innovations were "pastoral" responses that need not divide the church. Canterbury too emphasized unity and mission over doctrinal consistency. Canterbury too redefined controversial issues as "secondary matters" requiring latitude rather than discipline. The difference between GAFCON and Canterbury is not one of principle but of position on a trajectory. GAFCON is earlier in the journey, but they are traveling the same road. They have accepted the anthropological, hermeneutical, and methodological moves that make further compromise inevitable. They simply haven't yet arrived at the destinations those moves logically entail. The True Spiritual Battle From a pastoral and spiritual warfare perspective, there is a pattern worth discerning. The enemy's strategy is rarely frontal assault. It is infiltration, misdirection, and the slow erosion of foundations. Women's ordination functions as precisely such a strategy. It arrives clothed in the language of justice and dignity. It appeals to our best instincts, our desire to honor women's gifts, to oppose genuine oppression, to be on the right side of history. It seems so reasonable, so compassionate, so obviously aligned with the full flourishing of God's image-bearers. And because it arrives this way, it bypasses our defenses. We do not recognize it as the introduction of a theological virus that will, over time, corrupt the entire system. We debate it as a practical question about roles and gifts rather than recognizing it as a fundamental question about authority, revelation, and the nature of the Church. This is the genius of the deception. By framing women's ordination as a secondary, practical issue rather than a primary, theological one, the enemy ensures that churches will accept it without recognizing the magnitude of what they are accepting. Only later, when the full implications become clear, do they realize they have admitted principles that make orthodox Christianity impossible to maintain. The Marxist-feminist ideology underlying the push for women's ordination is not simply a set of political ideas. It is a spiritual assault on the Church's understanding of Scripture, tradition, authority, and anthropology. It promises liberation but delivers bondage. It promises justice but produces confusion. It promises the full flourishing of women but ultimately empties the faith of content that could sustain anyone, male or female.   A Call to Vigilance GAFCON deserves gratitude for its courage in confronting Canterbury's abandonment of biblical authority on sexuality. The demographic and spiritual reality they represent, millions of African, Asian, and South American Anglicans committed to orthodox Christianity, is a source of hope in a time of widespread apostasy in Western Christianity. But hope requires vigilance. GAFCON cannot protect Anglican orthodoxy while accepting the very principles that have destroyed orthodoxy everywhere they have been accepted. The future GAFCON represents will be insufficient to preserve the faith unless it confronts the gateway heresy already present within its own membership. This will require several difficult steps: First, GAFCON must recognize that women's ordination is not a secondary issue but a primary one, touching the integrity of Scripture, tradition, and doctrine. The classification of this issue as "adiaphora" is itself a capitulation to progressive methodology. Second, GAFCON must articulate clearly why the same hermeneutical moves that justify women's ordination also justify same-sex blessings and transgender affirmation. Making these connections explicit will help member provinces see the trajectory they are on. Third, GAFCON must be willing to discipline member provinces that continue to expand women's ordination, particularly to the episcopate. Without such discipline, the organization's commitment to biblical authority becomes merely rhetorical. Fourth, GAFCON must provide a positive vision for women's full participation in the Church's mission that does not require abandoning the male priesthood and diaconate. Women are not honored by being given access to an office for which they were not created; they are honored by having their actual callings and gifting recognized and celebrated. Fifth, GAFCON must recognize that achieving consensus among member provinces may be impossible, and that maintaining theological integrity may require accepting a smaller communion. Better a faithful remnant than a broad coalition compromised at the foundations.   What is the GAFCON Future?   The future has arrived, GAFCON declares. But which future? If it is a future that accepts the anthropological, hermeneutical, and methodological compromises embedded in women's ordination, then it is a future that will inevitably lead to the same destination Canterbury has reached, just a generation or two later.   The pattern is clear from history: every Christian body that has embraced women's ordination has, within decades, proceeded to abandon biblical teaching on sexuality, the uniqueness of Christ, the authority of Scripture, and core doctrines of sin and salvation. Not some. Not most. All. The correlation is perfect because the causation is real.   GAFCON stands at a crossroads. It can continue down the path of treating women's ordination as a secondary issue, maintaining organizational unity at the cost of theological consistency. If it chooses this path, it will become in time exactly what it now opposes, a communion that has sacrificed biblical authority for cultural accommodation.   Or it can recognize that the gateway heresy has already been accepted, repent of this acceptance, and begin the difficult work of recovering a theological foundation that can actually sustain orthodox Christianity over generations. This will require courage, humility, and a willingness to be smaller and more marginal. But it is the only path that offers hope of genuine faithfulness.   The question is not whether GAFCON represents the future of Anglicanism in numerical or organizational terms. It clearly does. The question is whether that future will preserve anything worth preserving. Whether it will, in the end, still be Christian in any orthodox sense, or whether it will have followed Canterbury's trajectory while simply taking longer to get there.   The answer to that question depends on whether GAFCON has the wisdom and courage to recognize the gateway heresy it has already accepted, and the theological clarity to understand that some issues, despite current classifications, are indeed salvation issues because they determine whether the Church will continue to preach the Gospel or transform it into something unrecognizable.   This is written not in condemnation but in concern, the concern of one who sees beloved brothers and sisters in Christ walking toward a cliff while confident they are on solid ground. GAFCON's vision is inspiring in many ways. But unless it addresses the foundational compromise already present within its own ranks, that vision will prove insufficient to preserve the faith once for all delivered to the saints.   May God grant GAFCON, and all of us, the discernment to recognize deception clothed in the language of justice, the courage to confront comfortable compromises, and the wisdom to understand that not everything presented as progress actually moves us forward in faithfulness to Christ.   The future has indeed arrived. The question is whether it is the future of faithful Christianity or the future of comfortable apostasy wearing the garments of orthodoxy. May GAFCON choose wisely, while there is still time to choose.   The Venerable Canon Dr. Kenneth D. Gillespie, OSC is a licensed marriage and family therapist and an ordained Anglican priest. He currently serves as Archdeacon and Chair of the Commission for Safeguarding and Episcopal Services Panel for the Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy, where he has held multiple leadership roles over seven years, including Canon to the Ordinary, Governmental Chaplains Coordinator, and member of the Education, Training, and Formation team since 2017. He is a founding member and Abbot of the Order of Saint Cuthbert, a religious community within the Anglican tradition.

COMMENTARY   By David W. Virtue www.virtueonline.org November 10, 2025   In the world of fantasy ecclesiastical politics, calling for unity in a global church that is bitterly divided over homosexuality, is a bit like asking Bibi Netanyahu to surrender his IDF forces to Hamas in the hope that peace would come to Gaza.   Elected in July, Cherry Vann, who is also the Bishop of Monmouth, became the first female leader of the Church in Wales, as well as its first lesbian in a same-sex relationship, attracting criticism from orthodox voices, most notably in the Global South.   The lesbian archbishop believes that her appointment was "the right role for me at this time, for the church and for Wales". No mention of whether God approves of the anointing; it’s just good for the folk in Wales who don’t know any better.   The first female Archbishop of Wales called for "unity" and said that the global Anglican Church should not "be divided" by her selection to the role. Addressing those who had been "less supportive", she said she had taken on the role "because this is what God has called me to do".   So where on God’s green earth or Holy Writ does she get that from? If God had called her, He would be denying his own written word that expressly forbids those kinds of sexual relationships. Paul writing in Romans (1:25) “They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.   Has God reversed himself?  Has he now said unnatural relationships have now been made acceptable because a 21 st century cleric says so? No such hint is given in creation, scripture or tradition.   Secondly, the Global South is not “less supportive” they have down right rejected her appointment; they don’t recognize her election or office and never will. Yes, this is a game changer and when you throw the Church of England election of Archbishop Sarah Mullally into the mix you have a recipe for schism.   Global South leaders have called for a “reset” of the communion without the Church of England or its archbishop as the titular head of the church.   It is ironic that Vann says this about her appointment while the Church of England is grappling with same-sex blessings in a deeply divided church that might well see it split if the revisionists get their way. For the moment ‘local option’ a favorite tactic of The Episcopal Church, is being exercised by liberals in the Church of England.   Church of England bishops have commended Prayers of Love and Faith for use in existing church services for stable, committed same-sex couples to receive prayers of blessing. But opponents say gay relationships are un-Biblical and their vigorous opposition has seen calls for a parallel organization with their own bishops, clergy training and money.   The truth is the Anglican Communion has been wrestling with homosexuality since 1998 when Lambeth Resolution 1:10 was forged and passed. That resolution has been the accepted gold standard on sexuality, later reinforced by the Jerusalem Declaration.   There will be no unity on the issue with more than 70 percent of the communion’s provinces having disengaged themselves from the Church of England over the election of a woman archbishop in the person of Sarah Mullally.   The Most Rev. Vann said Saturday's enthronement ceremony would be a "momentous occasion for me and for the country of Wales, the Church in Wales, and the wider Anglican Communion".   "Clearly, there are people who are rejoicing that we have a woman archbishop in Wales and an archbishop who is a member of the LGBT+ community and living in a civil partnership. And I think the reason that I was elected to this role is because people in the wider church in Wales feel the same."   Her appointment follows the retirement of former Archbishop Andrew John which came after the publication of two reports highlighting safeguarding concerns and misbehavior at Bangor Cathedral in Gwynedd.   One can dream about peace on earth, but reality always imposes and turns everything inside out.   Archbishop Vann will sooner or later discover this, as her church slowly disappears and she is left standing with her crook and miter in the narthex looking at an empty cathedral. God is never mocked. Never.   END

By The Rev. Charles H. Nalls Special to The Christian Challenge (Washington, DC) January 23, 2004 THERE WAS a decidedly young face to the tens of thousands of pro-life demonstrators filling the streets of downtown Washington yesterday... [Article continues with full text...]

The following letter was obtained by VOL, and we pass it along without comment to our readers.   November 6, 2025    Rev. Fathers in God of the College of Bishops, Provincial Executive Committee, Chancellor Nelson, Dr. Butler, and Ms. Deborah Tepley,   Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.   We are writing to you to confirm that we have reviewed, signed, and returned our signatories page as per your request and in accordance with the guidance of Chancellor Nelson, who is also Chancellor to the Diocese of the Carolinas, who has been advising the College of Bishops on these matters and communicating to the signatories through Dr. Butler.   We object to the necessity of the accusers to swear to the truth of accusations, accusations of which they are neither witnesses nor trained investigators, and maintain that a good faith reading of the Canons clearly indicates that such accusers must only be required to declare the credibility of such charges as are made in the Presentment with reasonable certainty of time, place and circumstance. Any accused bishop who argues otherwise is clearly acting in bad faith, seeking to delay or obstruct the discovery of truth. However, we nevertheless revised our signatory page according to the recommendations given to us by the Archbishop’s staff and Chancellor, in the hopes that the College will finally act on the serious allegations of misconduct against Archbishop Wood. We further write:   * To correct a public misunderstanding. * To raise concerns about conflicts of interest. * To raise concerns about the lack of any inhibition of and Godly Admonition to the Archbishop * To share the process thus far, as we have experienced it. *And to submit new evidence and charges against the Archbishop. We ask for your patience and attention to what follows. A Public Misunderstanding Talking points distributed by the Provincial communications office read as follows: “The complainants shared this document with an investigative reporter at The Washington Post, Ian Shapira, prior to its being circulated to the ACNA or any bishops.”   This is untrue. On June 26th, 2024, only four days after Archbishop Wood was unanimously elected, Claire Buxton shared her complaints against the archbishop with a clergyman in South Carolina, who advised her of her options to (1) sue for sexual harassment in court, (2) file a formal presentment against Archbishop Wood, (3) try to move forward with pastoral care and mental-healthcare support.   Ms. Buxton expressed that she would like to consider these options. On July 19th, 2024, in a meeting with Rev. David Cumbie, Ms. Buxton shared her experience with Archbishop Wood. Rev. Cumbie called Bishop Edgar and explained Ms. Buxton’s allegations of sexual harassment, grooming, and non-consensual sexual touching.   On July 24th, 2024, Ms. Buxton received a letter from Rev. Cumbie, which is a summary of information he received from the offices of the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina. In this letter, all parties promise to support Ms. Buxton in the eventuality she decides to move forward with a formal complaint.   On Sept 19th, 2024, in a meeting with Bishop Edgar, Rev. Robert Sturdy conveys that Ms. Buxton would like to file a formal presentment and asks what it would take for Bishop Edgar to support such an action. Bishop Edgar states that it is not canonically possible for him to support such an action. He instead proposed that all parties, including Ms. Buxton. seek personal reconciliation with the archbishop.   On Nov 4th, 2024, in a meeting with Rev. Todd Simonis, Rev. Drew Miller, and Rev. Robert Sturdy, Bishop Edgar still refused to sign a formal presentment but proposed instead that he pressure the archbishop to initiate an investigation into himself, according to Title IV., Canon iv., sect. 2. (which allows for a provincial investigation into rumors about a bishop to be initiated).1 Bishop Edgar believed that in investigating these “rumors,” the investigators would discover that the rumors were true, and the process could move to trial.   It was pointed out to him that rather than helping us report an 1“Section 2 - Concerning Response to Rumors Whenever a Bishop shall have reason to believe that there are in circulation rumors, reports, or allegations affecting his personal or official character, he may, with the consent of two other members of the College of Bishops, demand in writing of the Archbishop, the Archbishop’s delegate, or the College of Bishops, that investigation of such rumors, reports and allegations be made.” 3 allegation of sexual misconduct according to the canons, he would effectively be framing us as rumormongers. He conceded the point, but believed this was the only canonically feasible way that these accusations could proceed.   Having come to believe that Bishop Edgar would not assist with a formal presentment, the witnesses and victims began crafting legal affidavits (swearing to their testimonies with the exact language that would be unreasonably requested from the signatories by the province many months later). From these, a presentment was drafted according to Title IV., Canon iv., sec. i. Upon its completion, some members of the group desired to give Bishop Edgar another chance to sign the presentment.   The presentment with the formal charges and sworn affidavits was given to Bishop Edgar on Mar 26th, 2025. Bishop Edgar agreed to sign the presentment and to recruit signatures from other members of the College of Bishops.   On Tuesday, April 15, Bishop Edgar texted Rev. Drew Miller that the two Bishops first approached declined even to read the document, proposing personal reconciliation or the submission of our information to Dr. Butler, the Archbishop’s employee, for initial investigation. A third bishop did read the presentment and affidavits, but again proposed that this be handled privately, for a reconciliation to be facilitated (even for Ms. Claire Buxton, who is an alleged victim of sexual misconduct).   On May 27th--29th over several texts and at least one phone call, Rev. Miller understood from Bishop Edgar that neither he nor the ‘third’ bishop (above) would be willing to sign a presentment at this time. Instead, they proposed that our information be given to the archbishop’s employee, Dr. Butler, for initial investigation.   They offered to sign a “cover letter” to send with our documents to Dr. Butler, demanding it be taken seriously. Two bishops suggested to Rev. Miller that requiring all accusations be initially investigated by Dr. Butler is new provincial policy, and the only way forward that bishops will accept. Rev. Miller asks to see the policy in writing, but it cannot be produced.   Because we were unwilling to entrust our accusations to a direct employee of the accused Archbishop, on June 4th the witnesses and victims decided to recruit the 10 signatures required to submit the formal presentment to the College.   On July 25th, 2025, Alan Runyan and Rachel Thebeau resigned from the prosecution of the trial of Bishop Stuart Ruch, alleging that Deborah Tepley, the Executive Director of the ACNA, breached proper protocols of handling evidence which ostensibly benefited the accused to the detriment of the victims’ complaints.   This action, combined with our year-long failed effort to report these allegations through proper channels and specifically through bishops, convinced us that there would be no fair hearing of our accusations 2In a prior phone call, Dr. Butler specifically told Rev. Miller that such a policy had not yet been published. 4 without maximum transparency, a transparency which we did not and do not currently believe the province would willingly provide.   It was at this point that our group decided to fully cooperate with a pre-existing investigation of the ACNA by the Washington Post.   On Monday, Oct. 20th, our presentment was sent to the College of Bishops. The same day, our victims and witnesses learned through our lead signatory that that presentment would not be validated. In an email sent on Tues, Oct 21, Dr. Butler stated: o “I affirm receipt; however, to clearly indicate to what the signatories are attesting, please add the following statement above the signatures: “Under penalties of perjury, I faithfully swear that the facts set forth above are true and correct."   This is common practice and previous presentments have been re-executed for the same reason.” In subsequent e-mails, Dr. Butler was challenged on how “common” this practice is. Referring to documents publicly available on the ACNA’s own website, attention was drawn to the fact that after the matter had been adjudicated by the Provincial Tribunal, the only language that was required was the following: “When I ‘docu-signed’ the Presentment, my intention was to swear to the charges of the Presentment, I hereby confirm my swearing to the Presentment.”   This led to a very subtle change in Provincial communications: from claiming that requiring this language was “common practice” to claiming that such requirements were “common under this administration.”   Since clergy and laity of the Province have not seen the first presentment, we think that it is important for them to know that it was initially submitted with the exact language of our existing canons: “Therefore, in accordance with the canons of this church, we submit these charges in writing, signed and sworn to by all the accusers, and present them to the College of Bishops.“     On Oct. 23rd, the Washington Post published the article concerning these allegations. And yet, the Province has consistently communicated that we failed to bring these canonically to bishops, or to report them canonically, prior to cooperating with the Washington Post’s investigation. Moreover, the Archbishop himself has gone further.   On Oct 24th, 2025, he wrote that the presentment was “subsequently submitted” after the Washington Post’s Oct 23rd report. And in his letter of “retirement” on November 3, the Archbishop stated that these accusations were made “first to The Washington Post and, subsequently, through the Church’s established channels for reporting misconduct.” 5 These statements are persistently incorrect.   They do not reflect our year-long failed attempts to report this according to our own canons, through our own bishops. And they make our disparagement by other parties more likely. We suspect that false understandings of our attempts, created through incorrect statements like those of the Province and of the Archbishop, are behind Bishop Worley’s (Diocese of Cascadia) characterization of our efforts to advocate for the victims of abuse as “unjust” and “unrighteous.”   Perhaps he would stand by these statements even with a corrected timeline, but we pray that his initial comments were made without the complete picture. We humbly request that the ACNA Provincial Communications Office correct these misunderstandings. We note that these misrepresentations were a public part of the communications strategy of the province, e-mailed to every diocese. Any good faith correction must therefore follow the same format, using the same channels. Conflicts of Interest Our signatories, witnesses, and victims raise three current and pressing concerns regarding conflicts of interest. These are so obvious that, frankly, we are surprised that we need to raise them. If these conflicts of interest are not resolved, we are afraid that this process will not only lose further credibility in our eyes, but also in the eyes of the province at large, and will unnecessarily subject Chancellor Nelson, Dr. Butler, and Ms. Tepley to attacks on their character.   Chancellor William Nelson: Chancellor Nelson is the Provincial Chancellor, the Chancellor to Archbishop Wood’s own Anglican Diocese of the Carolinas, and also by reputation a long time personal friend of the Archbishop. Our presentment has still not been received as valid under the advisement of this deeply conflicted person.   Dr. Tiffany Butler: Our only correspondence with the province has come through a direct reporter to Archbishop Steve Wood and a member of his staff. Executive Director Deborah Tepley: Ms. Tepley is another direct reporter and employee of the Archbishop. Further, she has been accused by Rachel Thebeau and Alan Runyan of breaching trial protocol at the direction of Chancellor Nelson (#3 above). According to Mr. Runyan, Ms. Tepley’s actions “irreparably tainted” the trial process in favor of the accused, Bishop Stuart Ruch.   We do not wish to impugn the character of any of the above. But we ask, with great humility, that, given our timeline, the members of the College of Bishops ask themselves whether or not these existing conflicts of interest could possibly convey a sense of credibility to our witnesses and victims. 6 If the College of Bishops wishes to make this a credible process, the Archbishop and his entire staff must be absolutely separated from this process. The Lack of Inhibition or Godly Admonition Further, the Archbishop himself must be inhibited pending investigation. The church inhibits, not to assign guilt, but to protect the honor of the body of Christ while protecting her most vulnerable members from harm. Inhibition protects the accused from the temptation to misuse their authority in a pressurized moment, protects the church from the appearance of manipulation, and protects alleged victims, advocates, and potential further victims from leadership that may be determined to be systematically dangerous and abusive.   It further encourages all parties to seek proper resolution quickly. Notably, the six affidavits attached to the initial presentment were in fact signed and notarized, legally admissible as evidence in a court of law. No other Presentment, to our knowledge, has gone so far as to submit notarized affidavits outlining serious and repeated offenses. The fact that these affidavits have proven insufficient grounds for the inhibition of the Archbishop is nothing short of stunning.   The Archbishop himself inhibited Bishop Derek Jones (September 21, 2025) for far less, and he was right to do so- both by canon and by the law of Christ. Inhibiting the Archbishop is the single most important way for the College of Bishops to protect alleged and potential victims. In doing so, inhibition communicates that the College of Bishop is taking these accusations seriously.   Not inhibiting the Archbishop, for whatever reason, leaves potential victims at risk, and communicates that the College of Bishops does not see these allegations of abuse- presented in the form of legal affidavits- as serious and credible. A voluntary leave of absence approaches the purposes of an inhibition and Godly Admonition, but falls short in two ways. First, the Archbishop retains the authority to pick up his ministry at any point. He remains in charge.   This offers very little sense of safety to alleged victims, and gives the appearance of a College unwilling to act. Further, the lack of any Godly Admonition or formal, written direction to avoid tampering with witnesses/victims again leaves them at risk of further intimidation and manipulation. These are standard protocol in other, similar situations of abuse (see Bishop Jones). Why are they not present in this case?   The Process Thus Far   There are a variety of ways we could address this process, but what we would like to do is center the victims. We choose just one, Claire Buxton. In Claire Buxton’s sworn affidavit, we count that she reported concerns over the Archbishop’s behavior to over 20 parishioners and staff members at St. Andrew’s. If you consider the possibility that the other affidavits submitted are true, then 7 you will understand why people would believe Claire, but be too scared or confused to do anything. The only way Claire could escape her situation was by resigning, which she did. As can be seen in the timeline above, she told several of her local clergy. These local clergy reported to their bishop.   Eventually, it was conveyed she wished to formally report her complaints in the form of a presentment. In the timeline above, you can see how arduous this was. Since no bishop was willing to assist Claire in this way, she had to recruit ten total strangers. Only then, after sharing some of the most personal details of her whole life, was she able to formally submit a complaint. But what happened next? The ten strangers who signed the presentment were immediately burdened with the extra-canonical language “under penalty of perjury,” language experienced as deliberately intimidating. Then the ACNA officially communicated a false narrative about our efforts, stating repeatedly that we had not approached any bishops but went directly to the media. Bishops who knew we had approached them first then declined to correct the record, even when asked to do so in writing. We note in Ms. Tepley’s Oct. 28, 2025, “Message from the Executive Director,” she writes, “The province and all of our dioceses have clear channels for receiving complaints of misconduct against any bishop, priest, deacon, lay leader, or volunteer serving in the Church.”   We hope reasonable people could understand, given our timeline above, that we, the witnesses, victims, signatories would dispute this. Ms. Buxton reported to her clergy, to her diocesan bishop through advocates, to her diocesan Safeguarding person, never wavering from her request that a formal complaint be made in accordance with the canons.   Ms. Tepley also writes, “The ACNA Chancellor and staff remain in service of the province and are not working directly with Archbishop Wood on these matters. My staff and I seek to uphold the highest degree of integrity in this regard.”   Would any reasonable person, given our own experiences of the past year, given these current conflicts of interest, and the controversy surrounding Ms. Tepley’s handling of sensitive information, find fault with us if we said that this is simply not credible? Is this what a woman seeking to report sexual misconduct against a powerful man should expect in our church? We trust you would say, “absolutely not.”   But this is the experience Claire has had. And all this, not even to mention the proceedings against Bishop Ruch, or the stories now coming to light of the failed attempts to hold Bishop Jones accountable. We (the entire province) have been told to “trust the process.”   But this is the process that we are being asked to trust. Rev. Fathers, this is a bridge too far for us and no victim should be made to walk it.   New Evidences and Charges   To this presentment have been added new evidence and charges. We note the new accusations made by “Jane Doe 1,” who is willing to testify under oath to a complaint of sexual misconduct 8 against Archbishop Wood. We also submit to you evidence of the Archbishop’s ongoing attempts at manipulation and deception of our bishops, given by a former member of his Provincial staff. Like you, we believe a credible process for reporting sexual misconduct to be absolutely essential for the health of our province and the spiritual and physical safety of the most vulnerable members of our church.   With that in mind, we ask you to prayerfully consider the above and respond as the Lord leads you, just as we have done. It is with immense grief we submit these charges and ask that you take steps to make this process credible to victims, not just those who submitted evidence in this presentment, but to all who are currently being subjected to abusive behavior in Christ’s church.   The complaint of a vulnerable woman should not hinge upon whether or not a bishop can navigate the canons, or if they are given divine permission to read an affidavit, or if she signed her letter correctly.   She should not have had to recruit ten strangers to be taken seriously. And having her complaint submitted, it should not be in the hands of her abuser’s friends, or subordinate employees.   There is plenty of time to make this right, and we believe with God’s help you will. We remain committed to maximum transparency- not as a step against you, but for you, since transparency serves us all. We pray that Christ’s light shine now into darkness, in our own hearts, in the Province, in the world. It will not be overcome. END

Rev. David Short, rector of St. John’s, Shaughnessy, Vancouver—who led opposition to same-sex blessings in the Diocese of New Westminster—is to address Church of Ireland clergy in Portadown. His parish, with ten others, formed the Anglican Communion in New Westminster (ACiNW), recognized by successive Archbishops of Canterbury and representing ~25% of the diocese’s worshipers. Their chief concerns: departure from traditional Biblical Christian faith and morals, and threats to orthodox believers. Short stated: “I believe that we are in a Diocese that has unilaterally severed its connection with the global Anglican Communion by being the first to officially bless same-sex unions.” The ACiNW has drawn support from 358 Anglican clergy, bishops, and archbishops worldwide. The event—“Thinking for the Future”—was organized by the Evangelical Fellowship of Irish Clergy to help Irish clergy understand life in a “church structure hostile toward Biblical faith.” The Anglican Communion faces crisis: New Hampshire elected a practicing homosexual bishop; New Westminster pioneered same-sex blessings. Archbishop Robin Eames (Armagh) chairs a commission seeking ways to hold the Communion together. —Evangelical Fellowship of Irish Clergy (www.acinw.org ) END

Enemy-occupied territory—that is what the world is. —C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity A satirical “diabolical communiqué” from Tapeworm (Senior Tempter) to Dogwood (Junior Tempter), analyzing a flattering Vancouver Sun profile of an Anglican bishop (implied: Michael Ingham). The tone mimics The Screwtape Letters: witty, ironic, and theologically trenchant. Tapeworm scolds Dogwood for taking credit for the article’s fawning tone. He notes how skillfully the secular press portrays the bishop as strong, benevolent, golf-loving—while dismissing orthodox opponents as “pragmatists” and “architects of schism.” Key theological critiques: The bishop ranks togetherness before faithfulness. He describes golf as having “the spirituality, the Zen,” and teaches it as a course. He calls Jesus a “way-shower,” not Savior. Most damning: “A Christian is one who believes Jesus Christ to be the way, the truth and the life. This is not to say there are no others.” Tapeworm warns this universalism could alarm Rome, Constantinople, Geneva, and Canterbury—and urges strategies to keep them silent. Silence, he notes, is our best ally: “We like that river. It delivers many souls to our gates.” He instructs Dogwood to recommend: Encourage global Anglican silence, especially nationally. Let the “big river” of doctrinal erosion flow unchecked. Ensure the faithful remain confused, swimming until it’s too late. “If you can’t devise a plan,” Tapeworm concludes, “I—your adoring uncle—will fill in the gaps… and solidify an unbreakable hold over you through the rest of eternity.” END

VATICAN CITY — Pope John Paul II criticized the media, saying they often give a positive depiction of extramarital sex, contraception, abortion, and homosexuality that is harmful to society. His message for World Communications Day—“The Media and the Family: A Risk and a Richness”—stated: “All communication has a moral dimension. People grow or diminish in moral stature by the words they speak and the messages they choose to hear.” While some media portrayals of marriage celebrate love, fidelity, and self-giving, “infidelity, sexual activity outside marriage, and the absence of a moral and spiritual vision… are depicted uncritically. Positive support is at times given to divorce, contraception, abortion, and homosexuality. Such portrayals… are detrimental to the common good.” The Pope urged “responsible communicators” to resist commercial pressure and secular ideologies—without censorship. Parents, too, must guide children: “Even very young children can be taught… that media messages often urge behavior not in the child’s best interests or in accord with moral truth… children should not uncritically accept or imitate what they find.” Though critical, John Paul affirmed media’s potential—and has used it masterfully: launching the Vatican website (1995) and papal text alerts. END

Recently, I was asked to hold the funeral of a close friend and 83-year-old colleague, Glenn. As we sang “There is a Balm in Gilead,” his widow Marlys bent over his open casket, took his hands, and kissed him goodbye. Six hundred people wept—not just for the farewell, but for a marriage faithful over half a century. Such commitment is rare in a culture obsessed with romance and sex—where sex has displaced God. Encouragingly, students recently held a “Day of Purity,” wearing white T-shirts to promote saving sex for marriage. As 17-year-old Melissa said: “The way sex is talked about, it’s so casual… like going to McDonald’s.” Critics called them self-righteous—but communities like the Bruderhof applaud their courage. Sex, as God created it, is the foundation of human society—a physical, emotional, and spiritual union where “the two become one flesh.” It is sacred: the highest expression of love, capable of transforming a person wholly. But since Eden, we’ve turned away—replacing reverence with lust, pride, and greed. The serpent still whispers: “You can find happiness on your own terms.” Yet we never do. Today, sex is degraded daily: Paris Hilton’s video, Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl stunt, political scandals. Children see through the pretense: sex is treated as a joke. This trauma leads to broken relationships, crime, instability, even suicide. We must recover the truth: every person is made in God’s image. Sexual being is holy ground—like Moses before the burning bush, we should remove our sandals. We are all weak—but it’s never too late to turn. Restore sex to its proper place—marriage—and perhaps sanity to our culture. On Valentine’s Day, David and Alissa were married. David, 26, faces life-threatening heart surgery. Many would postpone—but they saw uncertainty as a call to greater love and faithfulness, committing “until death parts us.” I reminded them: It doesn’t matter if their marriage lasts a week or fifty years—what matters is their commitment before God, for eternity. In His eyes, a day is like a thousand years. We need to honor people like Glenn and Marlys, David and Alissa, and the purity students. Let us thank God for their witness—and join them in starting a revolution of faithfulness. —Johann Christoph Arnold, pastor, Woodcrest Bruderhof