by Matthew Davies (ACNS)--Several reports in the British press over the past two weeks have suggested the possibility of a third non-geographical province being introduced to the structure of the Church of England in response to the possible ordination of women bishops in the province. The Rt Revd Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester, England, has chaired the working party on the Theology of Women in the Episcopate since it was created in July 2000, and the culmination of its work has resulted in a report being drafted for consideration. The House of Bishops of the Church of England met this week in the lead up to the annual February gathering of the General Synod in London, and one of the items on their agenda was the discussion of this draft report. Head of Media Relations for the Church of England, Mr Steve Jenkins, said that the House of Bishops had been asked by the General Synod to produce a report on the theological issues, considering all possibilities, as a background document to any future debate. "At the end of the report there is a table that represents all possible pastoral arrangements," he said. "At one extreme there is the option of no episcopal oversight, and at the other extreme there is the possibility of a third non-geographical province." The likelihood of one of these extremes being adopted is improbable. Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali last reported to General Synod in 2002 saying that, in considering the place of women in the Church, the working party has had to reflect on women in society generally. "Here we have tried to come to an understanding of women and men in creation which respects both their difference and their common creation in the image of God, as well as their common mission in God's World (Gen: 26-28)," he said. "Our views are likely to be rooted in whether we see the common mission of men and women as more fundamental or the distinction in role which comes from difference in gender." The primary task of the working party has been to identify and examine the theological issues involved in the ordination of women to the episcopate. "It may be...that arising out of this, the working party will also be able to make practical recommendations," said Bishop Michael. "It is, of course, for General Synod to consider the findings of the working party and to make appropriate decisions in the light of such findings." Christina Rees, a member of General Synod and Chair of WATCH (Women and the Church) - an organisation which works for an inclusive Church and wants to see women taking their place alongside men at every level in the Church - met with some of the bishops of the Church of England after the House met. "The report of the working party will most likely be discussed at General Synod in November 2004 or February 2005," she said. "In the meantime, the draft needs to be amended and then returned to the House of Bishops for their meeting in July this year." The working party, which includes people with vastly differing views, has taken four years to complete its work; a great deal longer than originally anticipated. "When people ask me - 'is the Church of England ready to move forward?' - my answer is unequivocally: absolutely!" she said. "When we look at the figures we find that at least 4 out of 5 laity and 3 out of 4 clergy are ready to accept women as bishops." She added that there are only a small number of bishops who would be averse to this. "The Church is more than ready!" The first female priest in the Anglican Communion, the Revd Florence Lei Tim Oi, was ordained in Hong Kong in 1944. During the 1960s and 70s there was a movement in many countries across the world towards the ordination of women as priests. In 1974 there was an irregular ordination of 11 women in the United States, and the Episcopal Church in the United States authorised women's priestly ordination two years later. On 11 November 1992, the General Synod of the Church of England voted to open the priesthood to women, five years after women were first ordained to the diaconate. This vote came after 70 years of formal discussion and debate in the Anglican Communion, which began in 1920 when the Lambeth Conference first considered the issue. Currently, one in five Church of England priests is female. At present, only the Anglican/Episcopal Churches of the USA, Canada, New Zealand, Ireland and Southern Africa have approved legislation for the ordination of women as bishops. However, the General Synod of the Scottish Episcopal Church (SEC) ended centuries of tradition when they met in Edinburgh last year and made an historic decision by voting to accept women in the episcopate. In March 2003, Church leaders in the Diocese of Ripon and Leeds voted by a large majority to allow women to become bishops. This is just one of many diocesan synods that have put pressure on the Church of England to speed up the process. The Revd Dr Sr Teresa, Editor of Distinctive News of Women in Ministry and member of the Church of England General Synod 1995-2000, said, "Having women, as well as men as bishops, would enrich the church, especially in its pastoral work for both lay and ordained women." END

The Church of England Newspaper A dramatic, late-night intervention by Michael Green saved the proposed alliance of traditionalist Anglicans in America from collapse. Canon Green, who was Archbishop George Carey's Evangelism Advisor, rallied 14 bishops and over 100 lay and clerical delegates and observers behind a charter that will keep the group within Anglicanism. The result meant the formal establishment of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes (NACDP) at its organising convocation in Texas on Jan 19-20. The NACDP "will operate within the constitution of the Episcopal Church and in full fellowship with the vast majority of the Anglican Communion," stated its Moderator, the Rt Rev Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh. "There is now no reason for orthodox Episcopalians to leave Anglicanism," he told the media at the close of the gathering held at Christ Church, Plano, Texas. The NACDP is not "a church within a church" stated the Rt Rev Peter Beckwith of Springfield, and is "in, but not of" the Episcopal Church of the United States noted South Carolina delegate, the Rev Canon Kendall Harmon. The 10-point charter adopted by the NACDP commits its members to the "propagation of the unchanging Gospel of Jesus Christ" and to the aid of traditionalists seeking alternate or "Adequate Episcopal Oversight" who are opposed to the innovations of doctrine and discipline represented by the consecration as Bishop of New Hampshire of a divorced man living in a homosexual relationship. The convocation offered an olive branch to participants from Forward in Faith, adopting a statement of latitude on the question of the ordination of women that pledges to "honour the positions and practices on this issue of others in the Network." "The most significant" aspect, however, of the convocation noted Dr Harmon "was that we passed [the charter] unanimously." The genesis of the NACDP arose from a meeting between the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, and four American bishops on Oct 17 at Lambeth Palace. The Rev Jonathan Jennings, Lambeth Palace Press Officer, told The Church of England Newspaper, "Dr Williams encouraged [the bishops] to pursue any questions of oversight firmly within the context of their relationship with ECUSA, along the lines envisaged by the Primates' meeting." Thirteen American diocesan bishops responded to the Primates' challenge and released a theological statement in December justifying their dissatisfaction with the course taken by Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold and the American General Convention. The convocation that followed, however, opened under a cloud of uncertainty and fear following a series of attacks that labeled the proposed Network "schismatic" and "fundamentalist". Though the public face of the meeting was polite and calm, disagreement arose over how and when to act. Several bishops were unwilling to back calls for alternative Episcopal oversight unless and until they had the full backing of their dioceses. Others raised concerns over the canonical implications of crossing diocesan boundaries to provide alternative Episcopal oversight. The convocation had reached its nadir over canonical wrangling when Bishop Duncan invited Canon Green to address the stalled gathering. Canon Green reminded the convocation why they were there and what they had been called to do. The eyes of the Anglican Communion were on the convocation, Canon Green said, pleading for "boldness" and "courage", asking if now was not the time to act, when would it be, and if they were not the ones to act, who would be? "You can talk until the cows come home, but there has got to be some action," Canon Green told The Church of England Newspaper the next day. "It was as if a dam burst," Canon Harmon told us. Various participants later described Canon Green's words as "electric", "Churchillian", and as an "outpouring of the Holy Spirit" upon the group. Canon Green also urged the NACDP to put aside differences with the Anglican Mission in America making a "heartfelt plea for reconciliation," one participant noted. The AMiA, Canon Green later told us, "is fully Anglican". As the Network reconvened on the second day, the delegates united behind Canon Green's call for action confidently resolving differences over alternative Episcopal oversight and the ordination of women and unanimously endorsed the final document. A copy of the charter and minutes from the meeting, a spokesman for the NACDP said, were being sent to Dr Williams and Bishop Griswold.

By Frederica Mathewes-Green As usual, I made a big impression at the premiere of "Big Fish." The director, Tim Burton, had been pestering me to come, and at last I agreed to pop in. What was tricky, of course, is that my husband is losing patience with the film's star, Ewan MacGregor, because he won't give up. "Give up, Ewan," I keep telling him. "I've been married thirty years." But still the roses arrive almost daily. It's a good thing I went, however, because I was needed to re-orchestrate the score, rescue a technician from the burning projection booth, translate all the dialogue for the Ambassador from Mongolia, and prevent lovesick Ewan from once again throwing himself out a window. Does it matter that not a word of that is true? According to this film, no; made-up stories are better than dumb old real life, and anyone who objects to such vigorous self-embroidery is a sourpuss. Even Christian reviewers have been swept up in this enthusiasm, leaping from a sturdy point--that works of imagination can prepare folks for the Gospel-to a shakier one, that any tall tale is a blessing. Imagination sprung free induces wonder, and that's always good, isn't it? That would have been an interesting question to explore, if "Big Fish" had taken it seriously. The story looks promising at first: Edward Bloom (Albert Finney) has charmed people all his life with his preposterous self-flattering tales, which may hide a kernel of truth. They charmed his son, Will (Billy Crudup), for too long, until he realized he was being strung along and recoiled at the betrayal. He has good cause to be bitter. Edward's stories aren't just entertaining yarns, but self-promotion, grabbing for attention even on days that should be Will's. Now Edward is dying, and Will has come home for a final encounter. Will there be a breakthrough, where father and son connect at last in honesty? Nope. Instead, Will acquiesces in his dad's impenetrable narcissism and offers him a final blaze of self-glorifying fantasy. This could have been an exquisitely poignant moment, as Will accepted that his dad would never be able to see his son as a valuable, interesting human being on his own. We would have admired Will's sacrifice as he said goodbye in the only terms his dad allowed. But we don't get that-instead we're supposed to believe that the old man's truth-stretching was the right thing to do all along. Will was just being a stick-in-the-mud. The closing line (which, at the screening, was muffled by sniffly sobs throughout the audience) is, "A man tells stories so many times that they live on after him, and in that way he becomes immortal." You know, actually, there is another aspect to immortality. Imagination can provide a springboard to faith or into an empty pond. "Big Fish" recommends tale-spinning as a satisfying end in itself, precluding the need for spirituality or any further dimension to life. You're not even required to have honest, humble relations with those you supposedly love. But no matter how useful and enjoyable imagination is, you wouldn't want to live there. Reality is God's home address. Having vented that, I have to say that this is a terrific piece of filmmaking. Albert Finney is extraordinary, and produces a Southern accent that is as natural as a bayou breeze-good work, especially in a Brit. He's a joy to watch; less so is Jessica Lange, who is not given enough to do as his wife, Sandra. Edward's life-long motivation is supposedly his devotion to Sandra, but her character is too immobile and sketchy for us to get what he sees in her. Maybe she's just a screen he's projecting his imaginary perfect wife on. The film's style switches deftly between the scenes involving worried Will and those depicting Edward's absurd stories (in which his youthful character is portrayed by Ewan MacGregor, who is just going to have to leave me alone). Burton shows MacGregor marching through scenes with plucky, exaggerated insouciance, and all the colors are from a bag of Skittles. Then we switch to Will and his pregnant wife talking in bed, and it's plain as a documentary, their dialogue so natural it sounds improvised. The alternation of the styles continues subtly, leading the viewer along without calling attention to itself. At the end it's exhilarating when a character crosses over; as Will tells a story he breaks visibly out of one format into the other, and all the light and color in the room shift before our eyes. There is some excellent work in "Big Fish," and for a good while you hope that a thoughtful message will match it. Put this down as the one that got away. Frederica Mathewes-Green www.frederica.com

Historic Episcopal church losing members in large numbers 02/02/2004 Associated Press A 157-year-old Episcopal church is becoming a ghost town on Sundays, as its conservative members have broken off to form their own congregation. Historic St. John's Episcopal Church in downtown Versailles, Kentucky, drew only 60 people to its three Sunday services. Most of its former members left after diocesan leaders fired the entire governing board at St. John's. The conservative board had clashed repeatedly with the diocese bishop, Stacy Sauls, because of Sauls' support for the ordination of openly gay bishop V. Gene Robinson, a Lexington native. Church leaders were removed by the diocese's executive council on Jan. 7, after they allegedly failed to follow proper procedures for hiring a new minister. Days after the firings, peeved St. John's members voted to form a new church, called St. Andrew's, and contributed $40,000 in seed money. The group, which met informally in a supporter's living room for three weeks, had its first formal worship service on Sunday and welcomed its new pastor, the Rev. David Brannen, to Versailles. About 180 people attended St. Andrew's on Sunday, gathering at the Falling Springs Arts and Recreation Center in Versailles. A former St. John's senior warden, Tom Thornbury, now St. Andrew's top lay leader, asked God to "instill in us the resolve to carry on, I give us the courage to continue, and never be satisfied with what we have accomplished." "Friends," Thornbury said, "we have undertaken a monumental task. We have stepped away from the comforts of our beloved church-home, and we are walking together toward an uncertain, frightening, yet exciting future." The church building they left has stunning stained glass, shiny brass lectionaries, marble, artwork and polished wood. Former President George Bush and Britain's Queen Elizabeth II have worshipped there. Back at St. John's, there's hardly any choir left. Only two of its members were there Sunday. The rebuilding has begun, though, according to the Rev. Phillip Haug, who is temporarily serving as minister-in-charge. A new treasurer has been picked, and a committee has been formed to work with Sauls. "It's a sign of wholeness that many have stepped forward," Haug said.

BreakPoint with Charles Colson January 27, 04 On August 24, 410 A.D., the Visigoths, led by Alaric, sacked Rome. For the people of late antiquity, August 24 was even more traumatic than September 11 was for us. Rome, the capital of the greatest empire the world had ever known, was plundered by barbarians, people Rome regarded as uncouth and inferior. In North Africa, these events prompted a Christian bishop to start writing about the lessons Christians should take away from the destruction of Rome. The result was a book that is every bit as relevant for our day as it was for his: The City of God by St. Augustine of Hippo. In response to critics who blamed Rome's demise on the fact that she abandoned the pagan gods and turned to Christ, Augustine introduced readers to two cities: the "City of God" and the "City of Man." The City of Man is shaped by the love of self, even to the contempt of God, and the City of God is shaped by the love of God, even to the contempt of self. In describing the two cities, Augustine reiterated Jesus' teaching that while Christians live in the City of Man, they do not belong to the City of Man. Their presence in the earthly city is like that of strangers sojourning in a foreign country. We are to enjoy the blessings the City of Man has to offer, including its rights, its protection, and its preservation of order, but we are always ready to move on. The City of Man is not our true home. No, our true home is in the City of God. And it is to that city that we owe our affections and our ultimate loyalty. While this sounds like a recipe for withdrawal, it is anything but that. Augustine taught that, just as we are to enjoy the blessings of the City of Man, we must assume the obligations of citizenship. As he put it, "Caesar looks for his own likeness, give it to him." Only, instead of fulfilling these obligations out of compulsion and fear, the Christian does so out of obedience to God and love of neighbor. Being a good citizen means doing our civic duty and, of course, voting. As we enter this election year, the struggle for our culture's soul has simultaneously produced passivity and defeatism in some evangelical quarters and a shrill triumphalism in others. Neither response, as Augustine teaches, is the proper Christian response. We can never retreat into our sanctuaries and neglect our civic responsibility to help set the moral tone of our culture. Leaving your neighbor in ignorance of his folly is inconsistent with the command to love him, and so political and cultural engagement are required for faithful believers. We are, I like to put it, to bring the influence of the City of God into the City of Man, working for justice and righteousness. At the same time, if we controlled every legislative, executive, and judiciary branch, we still could not transform the City of Man into the City of God. That's why talk about making this a "Christian nation" is wrong-headed and needlessly scares our neighbors. Over the next few days, I'll be discussing what it means to be a Christian and a citizen in contemporary America: the temptations, pitfalls, and opportunities. Getting this right starts with the paradox Augustine taught: The best citizens of the City of Man are those who remember that their true citizen ship is in the City of God.

CHARGE by the Most Rev. Henry Luke Orombi 7th Archbishop of The Church of the Province of Uganda January 25, 2004 St. Paul's Cathedral, Namirembe Greetings of Dignitaries Dear brothers and sisters in Christ, all God's people here present, ladies and gentlemen: This day is of special significance to the Church of Uganda Christians as well as people of Uganda. The significance extends to the worldwide body of the Church. Today the 7th Archbishop of this Church is installed. It seems like yesterday when the outgoing Archbishop Livingstone was installed. His leadership was clear-headed, productive, people-oriented and sound. I have many things to copy from him. I am coming to build on the same foundation. I do thank my fellow bishops who trusted me to lead this Church together with them for the next ten years. I salute all Archbishops who have gone ahead of me with blazing examples. PROVINCIAL MISSION STATEMENT The Church of Uganda is an independent Province of the Anglican Communion worldwide, which subscribes to the Holy Scriptures. It is part of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church worshipping the one true God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Church is commissioned to carry out Christ's mission of preaching, teaching, healing and nurturing her people so that they may have abundant life and build an evangelistic, living, caring, worshipping, peaceful and just community. CHALLENGES I will mention only five challenges among many others: Towards a Sustainable Church The Church has some physical resources such as land. This land is spread all over. I urge that every Diocese have Title Deeds for every property available. Do we know how much land there is? How can we use these properties to generate the much-needed funds? Can we develop a very deliberate plan for these properties? When we do so, we will be good stewards of God's property entrusted to us. Human Resources. The Church of Uganda has between 8-9 million members. This number is strong when properly utilized. Many of these are capable intellectuals. We have resourceful people in other areas as well. I urge our leadership to use these people where they should be so that maximum benefits can be derived from their expertise. Social Goodwill For a long time the people of Uganda have held Church leadership in high esteem. Can we provide consistent leadership to meet the people's expectations? In the coming years, let us guide and shepherd people accepting changes with open minds. The Holy Spirit is in business in His Church. Church House I thank Archbishop Livingstone for reviving the Church House vision. It is a noble and practical vision. We have not yet raised enough money to get started. We have under one billion [$500,000] of the five billion [$2,500,000] needed for phase one. I am taking over this gigantic challenge. You and I can move it forward. I am willing. Meanwhile, I thank the people who worked hard to bring us this far. May the God of Creation help us to move forward. Together we shall get there and do not ask me how as yet. HIV/AIDS The Church has a responsibility to the people of Uganda to warn them beforehand to avoid burying many of them. We also need to care for the suffering with compassion. The orphans and widows need our practical assistance as a demonstration of our Christian commitment. I commend those who are involved in the particular ministry of feeding, clothing, treating and paying school fees of these orphans. Thanks you for caring for the widows as well. Uganda Christian University (UCU) Mukono I thank Archbishop Livingstone for initiating this higher institution of learning. This University has a role in building an intellectually, morally sound and forward-looking citizenship for Uganda and Africa. The demand for space for students is big. One word of caution: please do not take more than you can manage; otherwise the high standard of excellence can diminish due to overflow. I shall work with the University Council and management in order to offer credible opportunities for our people. I thank Professor Stephen Noll and his team for work well done so far. I do seek the President's support when we shall bring to your attention issues that need your intervention. Loss of Spiritual Direction Many of our Christians have gone away from practical Christianity. There are cases of Corruption, Witchcraft including human sacrifices, Overwork to make money without taking rest, Commercializing Christianity, the attempt to come to faith for what you can get out of it. It is like a "give me" club. Church attendance by convenience, i.e., Christmas, Easter, Funerals, Weddings only. These are some of the symptoms of Loss of Spiritual Direction. I call upon such Christians to revive their commitments. MY PASSION I desire to create room for the younger generation of our church. They need: Acceptance and understanding from the Church. Involvement in decision-making Guidance in their choice of career, marriage partners and mentoring. Need for assurance that there is safety and stability within the Church. The Church must practice honesty and integrity. I am pledging my service to this end. I desire to see the Church rise and shine: Isaiah 60:1 "Arise, shine for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord rises upon you." I believe that the Church has a message of wisdom to guide the people of this nation. We can live wisely and so make a difference. We can strengthen our networking effort from Diocesan-Congregational levels by sharing information, using technology, i.e., radios, newspapers, television, e-mails, etc., to mobilize our people. We need to further strengthen our positive contribution in health, education, counselling and other voluntary services. We need to recapture our missionary calling championed by Apollo Kivebulaya, the great missionary to the Congo, a vision later shared by the late Bishop Festo Kivengere. He was one many I greatly admired and I try to emulate. I desire to see prayer becoming central in the life of our Church. The more we pray, the humbler we become. When we humble ourselves, God will exalt us and heal our land. I desire to see the Church promote Christian values: By appreciating our local music and intensify our worship as Africans dedicated to Jesus. Our Africanness must be valued. By instilling gospel-transformed cultural values refined by the fire of revival in our current generation who are facing cultural crisis today. By teaching true Christian family values, biblically based and traditionally proven. Families governed by love. Co-habitation and other lesser marriage ties erode the beauty of marriage. PARTNERSHIP With other Churches: The Christian Church has rainbow colours. No one Church contains it all. Our riches depend on recognizing each other. Let us share each other gifts and contribution. Let us learn from each other out of humility. Let us participate together in the Great Commission of our Lord to proclaim the Good News. Churches together should bring unity to the nation. The future of this Nation depends on us for better or for worse. With the Global Church: We need the world-wide body of the Church. We need teachers and technology from the outside Church. We also can teach the Global Church passionate proclamation of the Gospel and Practical Faith. This Church pledges to stand firm on the Apostolic Faith where many Churches today lack confidence in the power of Jesus which we take for granted here. Please humbly learn from us. At this time in the Anglican Communion, we are willing to take the leadership role to demonstrate that JESUS IS ALIVE. With Government: Church and government have co-existed in complementary roles in our society. This has brought harmony, development and peace in many places. The Church is called to work for reconciliation especially in conflict areas. To this end, I call upon the Government and the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) to seek the way of peace and reconciliation in order to weed out deep mistrust in the North and North-East. This war must come to an end so that as a country we can realise national political health. I commend Government efforts and that of the Acholi Leaders Peace Forum seeking to bring peace. We need this peace and God must give us this peace. APPRECIATION I want to thank the Government of Uganda for the freedom of worship we have in this country. I commend the leadership of President Yoweri Museveni for this. The Gospel has been proclaimed widely through mass media as never before. Thank you for the degree of freedom for the press in this nation. I thank the people of Uganda and the international community for changing the face of Uganda. I thank the retired Archbishop for his focused, exemplary and enthusiastic leadership. I am grateful and shall continue to following his footsteps and build on the same foundation. I thank the Kabaka of Buganda for being the symbol of unity in the Central Region. Sir, your wise leadership has brought peace to this region and prosperity. May God continue to bless you in your leadership. I thank the Central Organizing Committee members who worked so hard to prepare for this occasion. Bishop Samuel Ssekkadde has been an able leader. Thank you. I have appreciated the overseas partners who have joined us today. Many wanted to come but space and time would not allow it. Among them are people who trained me: Dr. Christina Baxter, Bishop Colin Buchanan, Bishop Harold Millar. Others have encouraged our ministry. There are those who gave materially to the work of God we have been involved in. I thank you all. I thank Bishop Wilson Turumanya and Sayuni his wife for leading our Retreat. They did the same when I was being made Bishop in 1993. I also thank Rev. Sandy Millar and his wife Annette for preaching at this occasion. His love for Christ has always attracted me. Thank you for coming to Uganda. I also thank my wife Phoebe for always being by my side. I also thank our children who because of studies cannot be here today. They patently bore the burden with us as we moved into more responsibility each time. Members of our extended family have also made our home beautiful to live in. Thank you. Finally, thank you for your physical presence today. This function is special because you have come. I commend each one of you into the hands of the God of grace and the God of surprise who is personally here with us today to grace this day. To Him alone be Glory, now and for ever. AMEN.

By Cheryl H. White, Ph.D. There has been much talk of late about a "second Reformation" in the church – this one, involving the Episcopal branch of the church catholic and apostolic. In theory, such an undertaking will involve purging the modern revisionist elements from within the Episcopal Church to stay the course for the historic and orthodox faith. Reformation and renewal were sixteenth century buzzwords too, among learned men who sought a return to the authority of Holy Scripture in a church catholic that had drifted far from its Biblical basis. Sound familiar? Yes, we must have a return to the recognition that Holy Scripture is the final and ultimate authority for the whole Body of Christ. However, the first Reformation did not happen in a vacuum devoid of education, and neither can this one. Education of the laity (and in some cases, apparently, the clergy) is absolutely necessary to prevent future crises like the ones facing the Episcopal Church today. This point is a salient one, for the current condition of the Episcopal Church did not happen suddenly and without warning. Somewhere along the way, there has been a slow and gradual corruption of our identity, and the blame lies with all of us. Now we find ourselves in a struggle to let the world know who we (the orthodox) really are, amidst the influence of a post-modern element that has been cultivated within this church for many years. The Elizabethan notion of the Anglican Church as the via media – a brilliant sixteenth century settlement of religion for England – was intended to provide a broad and ecumenical path for the faithful. There is no question that the via media (middle way) of fully developed post-Reformation Anglicanism provided a uniform means of worship that appealed to a broad and diverse group of Christians. However, the history of early Anglicanism shows us that the authority of Holy Scripture and the Creeds were the fixed signposts for the via media. Diversity was permitted, with the understanding that there were limits to what the Anglican Church would sanction, based on those boundaries just described. Today, a movement within the Episcopal Church has invoked the name and historic recognition of the via media, yet with seemingly little understanding of its bases, origins or tenets. To make a bold and sweeping claim that Anglicanism was conceived in diversity, therefore, we must allow all diversity, is representative of a dangerous deterioration of our Anglican identity. It is a deterioration that must be addressed through education. Are we truly ready to meet that challenge? Episcopal parishes across the country should be examining their curricula for Confirmation classes – not just for young people, but adults as well. Are we teaching our historic origins? Do people entering the Episcopal Church understand our beautiful and historic liturgy? Are we stressing the orthodoxy of the Church Fathers and the faith delivered to the saints? Most importantly, are we offering Bible-based education for all of our members? While it is true that the Episcopal Church can provide a spiritual home for a great variety of people, perhaps it is time to recognize we can no longer afford an attitude that accepts all diversity for its own sake. Our anchors must be Holy Scripture and the Creeds – in keeping with the rich and orthodox tradition of the via media. Do we understand what it truly means to be Anglican? Ours is a rich inheritance, full of meaning for today. Understanding our origins and embracing our history must be an essential element of a Second Reformation, if there is to be one. If we cannot define ourselves fully in terms of the historic catholic faith, we have little hope of avoiding future schism-producing issues, and the inspired via media will potentially be lost forever. -Cheryl H. White, Ph.D., is a professor of history at Louisiana State University in Shreveport and on the Vestry of St. Paul's Episcopal Church. Her primary field of study is Church History and Reformation Studies, and her doctoral dissertation, "The Struggle for Catholicity in the Tudor Church of England" explores the unique historical aspects of early Anglicanism.

By the Rev. Dr. Orley Swartzentruber The Response of Bishop FitzSimons Alison to the argument of Ephraim Radner's lecture in Charleston raises a very central point, and deserves to receive all the attention he and Radner give it. I am grateful that this debate arises between the two men, who have great respect for each other, and whom I personally admire. With the background of a former Mennonite minister, nourished on a heavy diet of Anabaptist history, in which divisions upon divisions are an outstanding feature, I come with a strong conviction hammered out among some of us younger ones who took it upon ourselves to discuss at some length the issue of the "legitimate break." We came then to the conclusion that a break in church fellowship is only legitimate when it is forced upon you: one must not choose to split one's church. The Anabaptists chose otherwise, with disastrous consequences. To take but one clear example from the Reformation, Luther never asked to create a Protestant church. He asked for reforms in the Catholic church (the issue was Indulgences) and he was excommunicated for it. He proceeded from there, in a word, to do the next best thing available to him. Not to dwell on other people's history, however, I note that bishop Alison raises the same central question when he says, "Philip Turner, one of [Radner's] colleagues, makes it clear what is his hope: If the Primates and Rowan Williams are prepared to exercise some discipline on the American Episcopal Church and the Diocese of New Westminster in Canada, then we will continue to have an Anglican Communion" But Bishop Alison asks, "And if not?" I submit that on this question hinges a great difference – a moral difference – as to how we ought to act. "If we are given a choice, then Bishop Allison's vision is probably correct..." If we are given no choice, then Ephraim Radner's vision is probably correct. If we have other choices, as for example the choice Turner contemplates, then I believe our duty is to remain within, and continue to work for reform as we are doing. In any case, I submit that as there is no case for a just "pre-emptive war," so there is none, in matters ecclesiastical, for pre-emptive schism. The Rev. Dr. A, Orley Swartzentruber Rector, All Saints', Princeton, NJ. (Retired)

By Jason Lesley, Managing Editor GEORGETOWN TIMES January 28, 2004 South Carolina Bishop Edward L. Salmon told about 60 parishioners who voted against leaving the Episcopal church earlier this month they are the true congregation of All Saints, Waccamaw. Salmon gathered the remnants of his flock at the Carriage House Club at Litchfield Plantation Tuesday after being denied access to the All Saints property by representatives of the 450 members who voted to leave the church Jan. 8. "Any kind of public controversy is not a good thing," Salmon said. "The church is in turmoil on a number of matters, and that turmoil has expressed itself at Pawleys Island. We need to be sure we do not say anything about the other people involved and focus on what the Lord wants." The All Saints congregation voted to change the church's corporate charter, deleting references to the Episcopal Church USA and the Episcopal Diocese of S.C., in response to the consecration of Gene Robinson, the church's first openly homosexual bishop. But All Saints leaders have been fighting the diocese in court for three years over ownership of the church property on Kings River Road, valued at about $50 million. Salmon said the diocese had tried to leave the All Saints situation alone. "We thought that if we didn't do anything destructive, we could work it out," he said. "The issues at hand are the property and the bishop's authority in the church. I could no longer look the other way." Salmon said there must be an Episcopal congregation in existence to hold title to the All Saints property when the lawsuit is settled. A more immediate question came from the audience. "Can we meet in the Old Church?" Salmon said he could not answer that question last night but promised to pursue the matter this week. He said a retired minister could easily be found to preach at a church service. The majority of those at last night's meeting wanted to have 8 and 10 a.m. services in the historic old church. "Why do we have to ask them to go to our church?" another member of the audience asked Salmon. "They have taken it over," Salmon answered. "While I don't agree with what they've done, let's treat them as Christian people and pray for them." All Saints spokesman Russ Campbell said the request to use the Old Church will be sent to the church council and then to chancellor Ross Lindsay III for a legal opinion. "It's a legal matter," Campbell said last night. Another member of the audience last night asked about going to the All Saints Access service. Church officials have said the dissidents could attend any service, but technically they will be visitors. "Worship won't taint your soul," Salmon assured the questioner. Another asked about giving money to the Episcopal Church. "Make your contributions to this congregation," Salmon said, pointing to the people seated around him and adding the wardens would organize a means of collecting money and depositing it in a new bank account. Another asked Salmon if he had ex-communicated warden Doc Lachicotte and the other vestry members at All Saints, as they have claimed. "I've not ex-communicated anybody," he said. "They are no longer communicants in good standing by leaving the church. They can't have it both ways, leave the church and remain in good standing." Salmon said he has no earthly idea how the situation at All Saints will play out. "The diocese's strength is in jeopardy when a group can take over its property. The strength would be gone. We've got to find a way to allow All Saints to function as it always has."

The Rev. Dr. Ronald Moore https://southernanglican.substack.com/ Oct 23, 2025   In the wake of recent allegations against Archbishop Stephen Wood, the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) finds itself standing before a mirror. This is not a moment for triumphalism or defensiveness, nor for speculation about guilt or innocence. It is, rather, a moment for introspection—a proving ground for the very principles that gave the ACNA its existence. Every reforming movement eventually reaches the point when it must judge itself by the same standard it once used to judge others. That time has come for the ACNA. A Church at a Crossroads When the ACNA was founded in 2009, it was more than a protest against theological innovation. It was a reformation—a declaration that truth still mattered, that holiness was not negotiable, and that the Church must be accountable to Scripture rather than to the spirit of the age. It presented itself as a new beginning for orthodox Anglicanism in North America, a communion grounded in the creeds, the formularies, and the moral clarity that had once defined English Christianity. Now, only sixteen years later, the movement born from that righteous rupture stands on uncertain ground. The presentment of formal charges against the Archbishop is not merely a scandal to be endured; it is a test of whether the ACNA’s canonical structures can uphold both justice and mercy without succumbing to clerical self-protection. In short:  will this Church handle its own judgment better than the institutions it left behind? The Issue Is Not the Person, but the Process The moral and spiritual gravity of this moment does not rest on the details of any one case, nor upon the reputations of those involved. It rests upon the integrity of the process by which truth is sought and justice rendered. If the Church is to call itself holy, then its governance must be transparent, its procedures impartial, and its discipline measured by righteousness, not expedience. Fairness and openness are not merely administrative virtues—they are theological ones. Justice is not a human invention but a divine attribute. A Church that conceals or manipulates truth for the sake of institutional stability forfeits the very credibility it claims to preserve. When Scripture declares,  “He has shown you, O man, what is good… to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God”  (Micah 6:8, NKJV), it leaves no exemption for bishops, archbishops, or boards of inquiry. If the ACNA wishes to remain a credible alternative to the decayed ecclesial order it left behind, it must prove that its canons are not mechanisms for protection, but instruments for holiness. The question is not whether the Archbishop is innocent or guilty—that will be for lawful process to determine—but whether the process itself will be just, transparent, and accountable to the light of day. The Lessons of History The Episcopal Church once faced a similar test. Its failure was not immediate; it was cumulative. It began not with heresy, but with  partiality . The willingness to bend the rules for certain leaders, to shield institutions from embarrassment, to treat accountability as a public-relations problem rather than a moral necessity—these compromises slowly hollowed out the soul of the denomination. The Church of England followed much the same trajectory, replacing prophetic witness with bureaucratic preservation. When the hierarchy fears scandal more than sin, it inevitably becomes an institution devoted to self-maintenance rather than sanctity. The Church ceases to be apostolic and becomes merely administrative. The ACNA must avoid this pattern at all costs. A movement founded on moral conviction cannot afford to tolerate clerical privilege or opacity. If those who govern the Church treat justice as a threat rather than a grace, then the ACNA will indeed become “TEC 2.0”—a body orthodox in confession but compromised in conduct. The Measure of True Reformation True reform is not achieved by separating from corruption but by refusing to replicate it. The English Reformation was not simply a break from Rome; it was a call to repentance within England. Likewise, the continuing Anglican movement cannot content itself with having escaped theological liberalism—it must continually cleanse itself from hypocrisy and pride. The Apostle Peter reminds us:  “For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God”  (1 Peter 4:17). This is not a threat but a mercy. Divine judgment purifies the Church so that it may again bear the image of Christ to the world. A Church that refuses to be judged by God will inevitably be judged by the world—and that judgment will not be gentle. This moment, therefore, is not a crisis to be survived but an opportunity to demonstrate integrity. The credibility of orthodoxy does not lie in its creeds alone but in its character. The ACNA has long declared that it stands for truth. Now it must prove that it will  submit  to truth, even when that truth is painful. Principles for a Righteous Process If the ACNA is to emerge from this moment with integrity intact, certain principles must guide its path: 1.     Transparency  – The Church must speak openly to its people. The faithful cannot pray intelligently for justice if they are kept in ignorance of what justice entails. Silence in the name of prudence easily becomes complicity. 2.     Independence  – Those charged with investigating or adjudicating must be beyond the reach of influence or favoritism. Boards of Inquiry must be composed of those whose first loyalty is to God, not to hierarchy. 3.     Pastoral Justice  – Justice without compassion becomes cruelty. The Church must care for the accuser and the accused alike, recognizing that both stand in need of grace and healing. 4.     Public Repentance  – If failures of oversight are uncovered, the Church must confess them publicly. A willingness to say, “We were wrong,” is not weakness but strength. A Church that hides its sins cannot heal them. 5.     Hopeful Discipline  – The purpose of discipline is not destruction but restoration. Even when judgment falls, it must always aim toward redemption and renewal. In all of this, the Church must remember that justice is not the enemy of mercy; it is the means by which mercy becomes credible. Only when the truth is told can forgiveness be offered without deceit. The Judgment That Saves No human institution can avoid scandal forever. Sin will always find its way into even the most orthodox body, for the Church is made up of sinners redeemed by grace. What distinguishes the true Church from the false is not sinlessness, but repentance. The Church that kneels in humility before God can rise in holiness before men. This, then, is the test before the ACNA. Will it face its own judgment with humility, or will it shield itself with the same clericalism that once corrupted its parent body? Will it let the light of Christ expose its failings, or retreat into the shadows of institutional self-interest? The answer will determine whether the ACNA remains a living movement of renewal or becomes another monument to lost conviction. If the ACNA’s bishops, clergy, and laity choose the hard path of transparency and truth, this crisis could become its finest hour—a moment of purification that deepens its witness and restores confidence in the Church’s moral authority. But if it circles the wagons, silences its prophets, and hides its wounds, it will confirm every cynic who ever said that reformations always rot into replicas. The Anglican Church in North America was born from conviction. It will endure only by confession. If this present trial leads it to humble repentance and renewed holiness, then judgment will have done its saving work. For the Church that judges itself rightly will not need to be judged by God. And the light that exposes its sin will also reveal its hope.   END

By Bryan Hollon Oct 24, 2025   What does a faithful church look like?   For those of us in the Anglican tradition, it means children and adult converts are being baptized and confirmed, faithful lay Christians are centered increasingly on Jesus Christ through Word and Sacrament – grounded in the biblically saturated liturgies of the Book of Common Prayer. It entails an appreciation for the apostolic faith guarded and transmitted over centuries and received through the English Reformation. It means leaders we can trust – bishops, priests, and deacons who serve under the authority of Scripture and take holiness seriously, bound by the doctrine set forth in the Thirty-Nine Articles and the canons of the Church. We expect to see all of this, but most importantly, we expect to meet Jesus in the breaking of bread, in the reading of Scripture, and in the prayers and fellowship of the faithful.   What, then, should we think when the church has to discipline its own leaders?   For many in the Anglican Church in North America, these aren’t theoretical questions. A recent series of Washington Post articles (here and here) have brought attention to multiple disciplinary proceedings underway in our province. For many of us who love the ACNA – especially young seminarians at Trinity and across our province – this news can create deep confusion and real anxiety. Indeed, the headlines might lead some Anglicans to feel a sense of betrayal.   The safe harbor some sought in Anglicanism now seems exposed to what Augustine called “the great torrent of human custom” - that flood of original sin that always threatens to sweep us into the currents of disorder, discord, and scandal, which have engulfed so many people and institutions.   But listen: the discipline taking place in our Province is not a sign of a broken church. Nor is it institutional self-protection or damage control. It is the fruit of a Christian community abiding in the Word of God. When we take Scripture seriously, believe that ordination vows genuinely bind us, and we refuse to treat moral integrity as optional – discipline becomes a necessary and ongoing process for christian communities seeking to be faithful to Jesus Christ. The very fact that we’re willing to scrutinize and correct our own leaders is evidence that we’re taking God’s Word seriously. It’s not necessarily evidence that the church is broken. It’s often evidence the church is functioning as it should.   Thanks for reading A Mere Christian On the Anglican Way! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and engage my work.   From the beginning, followers of Jesus have, of course, been deeply flawed. Judas betrayed his savior (Matthew 26:14-16). James and John argued about who would sit at his right hand in glory (Mark 10:35-45). Paul and Barnabas disagreed so sharply over John Mark that they split their missionary team (Acts 15:36-41). The New Testament epistles exist because churches were wrestling with serious problems – divisions (1 Corinthians 1:10-13), sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 5:1), and lawsuits between believers (1 Corinthians 6:1-8).   If we had only a newspaper account of the Corinthian church, we might have written it off entirely. Yet Paul loved that church enough to correct it, to call it back to holiness, and to remind its members who they were in Christ.   The church has always struggled with sin because it is led and populated by sinful people still “being transformed into the same image from glory to glory” (2 Corinthians 3:18) – a transformation that continues throughout our lives as the Spirit works in us (Romans 12:2). This is why the church bears responsibility for those within it: “Do you not judge those who are within the church?” (1 Corinthians 5:12). When the body functions rightly, it maintains both unity and holiness through mutual care and accountability.   Scripture itself commands discipline. Jesus establishes the process in Matthew 18:15-17 – beginning privately, moving toward restoration, involving the community when necessary. Paul echoes this throughout his letters. To the Corinthians he writes that sin, left unchecked, contaminates the whole body: “a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough” (1 Corinthians 5:6 ). He makes clear the church bears responsibility: “Do you not judge those who are within the church?” (1 Corinthians 5:12 ).   Paul also outlines qualifications leaders must maintain (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9), emphasizing that those in leadership are held to the same standard as any member. Indeed, they bear a greater responsibility for their example and influence – a truth he underscores when he writes that “not many of you should become teachers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness” (James 3:1).   Leaders must answer not only for their own holiness but for the souls entrusted to their care (Hebrews 13:17). The goal is always restorative: “if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness” (Galatians 6:1). Yet discipline also protects the community. When sin is tolerated among leaders, it signals that holiness doesn’t matter, vows can be broken and that the faith itself is negotiable.   The Church’s ancient ordination rites embody this same conviction. When a priest is ordained, the community is invited to speak – to name any impediment that would prevent ordination. The Bishop addresses the people: “Therefore if any of you know of any impediment or crime because of which we should not proceed, come forward now and make it known.”   When vows are taken, they are made “in the presence of Almighty God and of the Church,” binding not just before God but before witnesses. The language is unambiguous: “canonical obedience,” vows that “bind,” promises that cannot be casually broken. And when hands are laid on the ordained, the Church grants them authority to “bind and loose” and to forgive sins and to retain them. This ancient language echoes Paul’s conviction that the church must take responsibility for its own. It is not innovation; it is the recovery of what the Church has always known: that holiness matters, vows have weight, and leaders cannot be held to a different standard than the rest of the baptized. Indeed, they are held to a higher standard.   You may not know this, but the ACNA and GAFCON were created, to a significant extent, because The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion failed to adminster discipline consistently or in a balanced way. For years, heterodox bishops denied core Christian truths such as the uniqueness of Christ, the authority of Scripture, and the resurrection. And they remained in office. In 1974, eleven women deacons were ordained as priests in direct violation of church canons. The church’s disciplinary mechanisms simply didn’t function. When Gene Robinson, an openly gay priest in a same-sex relationship, was consecrated as Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003, it became clear the Episcopal Church had lost the will to maintain doctrinal boundaries as it failed to administer any discipline at all. Likewise, the Anglican Communion issued the Windsor Report expressing concern, but it carried no teeth. The church’s discipline had become selective – applied to faithful clergy upholding orthodox teaching, while those departing from the faith faced little consequence. This went on for many years.   This imbalance created the conditions for the ACNA’s formation. Faithful Anglicans needed a province where the faith would be guarded, where bishops would be accountable for affirmign and gaurding the “faith once and for all delivered to the saints,” and where discipline would be administered justly. Now we see what that looks like: discipline actually taking place. The cases under review are concerning, yes.   But the fact that discipline is being administered in orderly, canonical fashion is a sign of health. Although it is painful and personal for many… it is necessary and gives cause for hope in our young province.   The ACNA is fragile – not a centuries-old institution with massive endowments, but a new work still building the processes and structures that will sustain generations. Yet even in fragility, we’re assured: “the gates of hell will not prevail against” the church of Christ (Matthew 16:18 ). In our ACNA churches, the Word is rightly preached and the sacraments rightly administered. We are, by God’s grace, a province under the authority of God’s Word. Even as our leaders disagree about the disciplinary “processes” – as they have in the Bp. Ruch trial – no one is attempting to cover anything up. This is all playing out with total transparency among Christian clergy and laity striving to remain faithful.   Despite what some critics are suggesting on social media, our province is not guided by celebrity pastors with unlimited power. In the ACNA, even our archbishop will be held accountable if the canonical process determines wrongdoing occurred. Now, we must absolutely not rush to judgment. The allegations may very well be false or exaggerated – false accusations have destroyed good leaders, so our process must proceed justly… accounting for the needs of accusers and the accused. But we can trust that a just process is being established. This process deserves our prayers and patience. If the canonical process establishes that the allegations are substantiated, Abp. Wood will be removed and replaced by another who is equally accountable to God’s Word. The office is not permanent. No leader stands above accountability. This is as it should be. As my friend and colleague, Jack Gabig, suggested to me just this week – the office of bishop is itself meant to safeguard the faith once delivered, the church from abuse, and the church’s mission. Yet, the entire three-fold order of bishops, priests, and deacons is temporary, derivative, and provisional.   Jesus Christ is our great High Priest, who has offered himself once for all (Hebrews 10:11-14), and in him the perfect ordering of priestly authority has already been established. Our bishops, priests, and deacons do not replace that reality; they participate in it, echo it, and point to it. We hold these offices as trustees of a governance that belongs ultimately to Christ and will be fully revealed when he subjects all rule and authority to himself and the kingdom is delivered to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:24-28).   Until that day, we do not wait passively. We tend carefully to what has been entrusted to us – tested ecclesial order, proven over centuries, built with checks and balances that recognize the reality of sin and the necessity of accountability. This is not a perfect system, because we are not yet perfect. But it is a faithful one, and it reflects the mind of Christ for his Church in this present age.   6 Reasons Why You Can Trust the Bible - Clear Creek Resources So what should we do in this moment? Attend to the Scriptures. The Bible speaks liberally about leadership, discipline, grace, judgment, the holiness God requires and the mercy he extends. As always, we should steep ourselves in God’s Word; let it shape our thinking and reactions. We should pray for all our leaders, laity, and the whole of christ’s church. We must pray for our accused bishops and those who have accused them and for the bishops and clergy overseeing these processes. Pray for congregations and seminarians watching. Pray for justice and mercy. Pray that truth will come to light and God be glorified in all things. Pray specifically for faithfulness – that we all, leaders and laity alike, would be faithful to our callings, our vows, and the gospel we have received. This is hard and uncomfortable, but faithfulness in difficult times is what the church has always demanded of her members.   One more thing: you will see critics on social media use these Washington Post stories and the ongoing disciplinary cases as occasion to attack the ACNA. They are and will continue to be… merciless. This is discouraging, especially for our young seminarians and those newly arrived in our province. But remember Jesus’s words to those ready to condemn: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” (John 8:7). We are all – every single one of us – accountable to Christ alone for our words and deeds. The judge we answer to is not the court of online opinion, but the Lord Jesus Christ, before whom “we will all stand” to give account (Romans 14:10). The critics who wield the ACNA’s struggles as a weapon have their own struggles and sins. They will have their own day before the Judge. Our task is not to defend ourselves against their attacks, but to remain faithful to our vows and to the gospel. Let them judge. We answer to Christ.   Discipline is not a sign the church is dying. It’s a sign the church is serious about holiness, that we believe our vows matter, and that Scripture’s standards apply to everyone. The ACNA was born because we needed a province where faith would be guarded and leaders held accountable. We are seeing what that looks like in practice. It’s messy and painful but necessary. And in the midst of it all, we trust not in human leaders but in the Lord Jesus Christ, who is building his church and against whom “the gates of hell will not prevail” (Matthew 16:18 ).   The Rev. Dr. Bryan Hollon is president of Trinity Anglican Seminary, Ambridge, PA END

By Canon Dr Jules Gomes MERE MATCHLIGHT Oct 24, 2025   Would you pretend something is authentic when you know it is counterfeit?   As a lad studying the violin under the virtuoso Melbourne Halloween, I was chastened for failing to distinguish between a fake and a real Stradivarius. Antonio Stradivari was an Italian luthier renowned for crafting the world’s finest violins. His most expensive violin sold for $20million in 2022.   I grew up thinking that my father owned a Stradivarius. He kept his expensive violin locked and bought me a cheaper violin to play. One day, through the F-holes in my father’s violin, I read the label stuck inside the chamber. It said Stradivarius. I was ecstatic. I proudly told Halloween that my father owned a Stradivarius. He smiled.   A week later, my dad allowed me to take his violin to the lesson. Halloween played it sublimely. I asked him how much it was worth. After all, it was a Stradivarius! Amused at my naïveté, he told me it wasn’t a real Stradivarius. He explained that it was not uncommon for violin makers to stick the Stradivarius label on their creations. It simply meant that the instruments they made were copies of a real Stradivarius. I never again told anyone that my dad owned a Stradivarius.   I couldn’t pretend something is authentic when I knew it to be an imitation.   Catholic Priests Are Stradivarii — Protestant Pastors Are Fakes For centuries, Catholics have been told that their priests are Stradivarius violins. Why? Because they have “apostolic succession” that goes back to Jesus and the apostles. The Council of Trent infallibly claims that “this priesthood was instituted by the same Lord our Saviour.” Except for Eastern Orthodox priests (who may be grudgingly classified as low-grade Stradivarii), Rome designates ministers of other churches as bootleg priests.   Most Protestant churches couldn’t give a hoot about Rome’s cock-a-doodle-do. Apostolic succession is vital for them, but they understand apostolic succession as the continuity of apostolic teaching and not as the tactile transmission of a bishop laying his white-gloved hands on the vaseline-manicured scalp of an ordinand (who is ontologically transformed by this episcopal alchemy).   Rome has a particular problem with Anglicans, who assert that their priests are also Stradivarii because they retained apostolic succession. But Pope Leo XIII’s bull Apostolicae Curae (1896) trashed Anglican orders as “absolutely null and utterly void.” He stipulated that his bull “shall be always valid and in force and shall be inviolably observed both juridically and otherwise….”   While Leo XIII ruled that Anglican bishops and priests are laypersons cosplaying as clergy with their cassocks, chasubles, and croziers, Leo XIV seems to believe that Anglican bishops and priests are the real thing. He took the extraordinary step of hosting King Charles III, the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and the Anglican Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, for a joint prayer service in the Sistine Chapel on October 23.   Leo Welcomes Archbishop of Canterbury on Equal Terms Leo didn’t treat Charles and Cottrell as fakes. He welcomed them with full honours according to their respective ecclesiastical roles. He didn’t address Cottrell as “Mister” but as the “Most Reverend.” Cottrell was decked out in full clerical investiture for the service. He stood alongside Leo on an equal footing. The Anglican-styled service was in Elizabethan English. Thomas Tallis’ anthem If ye love me was the high point of the service. I felt I was back leading Evensong in my Anglican cathedral. Leo and Cottrell led the service together antiphonally and gave the benediction together in unison.   Even more significantly, Leo bestowed on Charles the spiritual title of the Royal Confrater of the papal basilica of St. Paul’s Outside the Walls. Leo even ordered a special chair to be permanently installed in the basilica for Charles and his successors. The “throne” will bear King Charles’s coat of arms and the Latin inscription Ut unum sint, which, not insignificantly, is the title of Pope John Paul II’s encyclical on ecumenism. In turn, with the approval of King Charles, the [Anglican] Dean and Canons of the College of St George Windsor bestowed the title of Papal Confrater of St George’s Chapel, Windsor, on Leo. The pope accepted the honour. Bob and Charlie are now (confraternity) brothers.   Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, now excommunicated, tore his robes like Caiphas the high priest, asking how it was possible for the pope to commune with “lay heretics dressed up as prelates.” Traditionalist cardinals Raymond Burke and Robert Sarah, now domesticated, sat quietly like Peter warming himself by the fire. Popesplainers might argue that Leo, at best, is demonstrating politeness as one might expect from a good host. At worst, he is humouring the Anglican pretence/delusion that their orders are valid. But these arguments ring hollow. First, Leo doesn’t have to stage a prayer service for Charles. As a canonist, he knows that the 1917 Code of Canon Law (Canon 1258) forbade praying with non-Catholics. He can host Charles according to Vatican protocol for receiving heads of state. Second, if Leo is pandering to an Anglican delusion, he is being staggeringly dishonest. He’s signalling to the world that a rip-off Stradivarius is the equivalent of a genuine Stradivarius.   So why are Leo XIII and Leo XIV marching in opposite directions? Like all pontiffs, Leo is a pope of his times. For centuries, Rome had disparaged Anglicans as heretics, schismatics, and apostates—the illegitimate children of King Henry VIII. Then, at the Second Vatican Council, God changed his mind. Rome waved the magic wand of its magisterium, and Bob’s your uncle, Anglicans were no longer bastards!   In obedience to Rome’s decrees, God was compelled to adopt Anglicans (and other Protestants) as His foster children. Still, they were “separated brethren,” mongrels belonging to “ecclesial communities” (a rather torturous tautology, as if to say the “church,” which in Greek is ecclesia, i.e., community, isn’t an “ecclesial community”).   Pope Leo’s Bull: A Cannon Without Balls Suddenly, the popes began schmoozing with the archbishops of Canterbury like teenage boys who have just discovered girls. John XXIII was the first to pop open a prosecco for Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher in 1960. In 1966, Paul VI took Archbishop Michael Ramsey’s right hand and placed his diamond episcopal ring on the Anglican prelate’s finger. Since then, popes have been bestowing gifts freighted with symbolic weight on the archbishops of Canterbury. John Paul II gave a pectoral cross to Archbishop Rowan Williams on the occasion of his enthronement.   John Paul II gave Archbishop George Carey a copy of the Codex Vaticanus New Testament. Francis presented a crozier to Archbishop Justin Welby, which was a replica of St. Gregory the Great’s staff (the same Gregory who sent St Augustine to England as the first archbishop of Canterbury).   These gifts go beyond tokens of diplomacy; they are semiotically subversive and performative speech acts (J.L. Austin). First, their purpose is to publicly acknowledge the archbishops of Canterbury as valid bishops. Second, they are cleverly calibrated to defenestrate Apostolicae Curae. The “guerrilla theatre” (Amos Wilder) of the recent popes has been wildly successful. Leo XIII’s bull is now like a cannon without balls. Traditionalist Catholics who want to turn the clock back may fire it with gunpowder, but they can only make loud bangs without balls to demolish the target.   Leo IV and Leo XIII: Different Views on Priesthood Leo XIII treated Anglican clergy as bastards. Leo XIV treats Charles and Cottrell as brothers. What explains the seismic shift from bastard to brother?   Let me try and simplify a complex debate: Leo XIII’s primary rationale for rubbishing Anglican orders was his belief that Anglicans had jettisoned the theology of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice and had abandoned tactile apostolic succession. Form, matter, and intention were no longer present. Ergo, Anglicans were not ordaining cultic functionaries (sacerdos or hiereus) who would offer the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, but were ordaining elders or presbyters (presbyteros) following the model of the New Testament. The key question here is: Did Jesus intend to institute a cultic priesthood? The Council of Trent states (“infallibly”) that Jesus both intended and instituted a sacerdotal office. But there isn’t a word in the New Testament that suggests that Jesus or the apostles contemplated or created a cultic priesthood. The Greek word used in the New Testament for “priest” (as a cultic functionary) is hiereus. It is used for Jesus, pagan priests, Jewish priests, and for all Christians who are called to offer “sacrifices” of praise and thanksgiving (Hebrews 13:15). It is never used to designate Christian ministers.   “There is no evidence in the language of Jesus that he thought about a priesthood replacing the Jewish priesthood in the Temple,” concedes the great Catholic New Testament scholar Fr. Raymond E. Brown in his book Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine. “We know that nowhere in the New Testament is the Christian minister considered to be a priest (hiereus),” writes Catholic scholar Ray Robert Noll, in his magisterial Christian Ministerial Priesthood: A Search for its Beginnings in the Primary Documents of the Apostolic Fathers.   From Presbyter to Priest One might argue that the common practice of far-flung churches of apostolic origin from India to Ethiopia is proof of the antiquity of the sacerdotal priesthood. But antiquity does not equal apostolicity. And there is a virtual consensus among Catholic historians (including the eminent Prof Eamon Duffy) that the churches in Rome were governed for over a century and a half by a plurality of presbyters before the emergence of the mono-episcopate.   The question is how, when, where, and why the presbyteros evolved into a hiereus. Noll states the problem with precision: “How did the Old Testament and pagan nomenclature for the priestly class find its way into the Church, and along with it the sacral-cultic conception of priesthood and of Christianity.” Noll concludes that the office of the Catholic sacerdos is “the result of a gradual development over about 300 years, a slow and cumulative development, much like pieces of snow that begin to roll down a mountainside, combining and gathering mass and momentum as they go.”   “Prior to the beginning of the third century, no Christian text uses the title ‘priest’ (hiereus in Greek, sacerdos in Latin) directly to designate a particular individual or group of ministers within the Church,” Paul Bradshaw, professor emeritus at the Catholic University of Notre Dame, writes in The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship.   A Plea For Holy Humility Catholics and Protestants disagree on whether such a development was faithful to the apostolic intention. Two results, however, are assured: First, if the cultic priesthood is a later development, so is the idea of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, since one cannot offer a sacrifice without a sacerdos. Second, any idea of a development decimates the notion of tactile apostolic succession as holy humbug. Why? Because neither Jesus nor the apostles nor bishops (often presbyters) in the embryonic Church were ordaining presbyteroi with the intention of ordaining cultic priests.   Moreover, “the theory about passing on powers through ordination faces the serious obstacle that the NT does not show the Twelve laying hands on bishops either as successors or as auxiliaries in administering sacraments,” Fr. Raymond Brown observes in his book Priest and Bishop: Biblical Reflections.   Catholic scholars know this. Most Catholic seminarians are taught this. Leo XIV studied at the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago. It would be remarkable if his professors never taught him these historical and biblical facts about the “priesthood” in his modules on Liturgy, New Testament, Sacramentology, Ecclesiology, or Church History.   “Although a rethinking of ministerial priesthood has been and remains a sensitive issue in the Roman Catholic Communion, nonetheless, the Catholic Church today, at all its levels, must face the historical data on priestly ministry in its fullness and correctness and be willing to make all necessary theological adaptations,” concedes Fr. Kenan B. Osborne, O.F.M. of the Franciscan School of Theology in Berkeley, California.   Osborne, in effect, is calling for holy humility within the Church of Rome. Popes from John XXIII to Leo XIV have graciously demonstrated this humility by recognising Anglican archbishops as brothers, not bastards. The evidence is also a call for supremacist Catholics to repent of their hubris and stop insisting that Protestants have fake “sacraments” because their ministers are not real Stradivarii.   Because, when all is said and done, no sinful human is a real Stradivarius. Jesus, our High Priest, is the only true Stradivarius who made on the hard wood of the cross “by his one oblation of Himself once offered a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world” (Book of Common Prayer).   Canon Dr Jules Gomes (BA, BD, MTh, PhD) has a doctorate in biblical studies from the University of Cambridge. Currently a Vatican-accredited journalist based in Rome, he is the author of five books and several academic articles. Gomes lectured at Catholic and Protestant seminaries and universities and was canon theologian and artistic director at Liverpool Cathedral.