A Protestant Reappraisal and Rebuttal of Purgatory’s Modern Revival   By J Neil Daniels Oct 24, 2025   I. The Strange Return of an Old Fire Not many doctrines have traveled such a curious path as purgatory. Once the bedrock of late medieval Catholic piety — an invisible realm crowded with suffering souls, masses, indulgences, and anxious relatives — it became, almost overnight, one of the great heresies of the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther’s first hammer blows against the Castle Church door at Wittenberg in 1517 were aimed precisely at this system: the economy of indulgences feeding off the idea of temporal punishment after death.¹ For centuries since, Protestants have treated purgatory as something more than just an error. It was a theological emblem of everything wrong with medieval religion — superstition, sacerdotal control, the captivity of consciences.   Yet in a turn that would have bewildered the Reformers, the idea has flickered again within certain Protestant circles. This renewed curiosity has less to do with medieval fire and more with the question of moral transformation. Can a believer, still imperfect at death, enter the presence of the holy God unpurified? The modern revival has been spearheaded by Jerry L. Walls, a philosopher best known for his trilogy on the afterlife.² Through careful argument, Walls proposes a “Protestant version” of purgatory — one scrubbed of indulgences and papal machinery, but still affirming a postmortem process of sanctification.   It is a surprising proposal, and not without charm. Walls writes with clarity and charity, and his desire to retrieve a sense of the moral seriousness of salvation is admirable. But his case, as we shall see, cannot survive sustained theological and biblical scrutiny. Purgatory, even dressed in Protestant clothing, remains what Calvin once called “a deadly fiction of Satan, which nullifies the cross of Christ.”³   II. The Roots of the Fire To appreciate the modern revival, we must remember how the doctrine began — not as a system, but as a set of intuitions and prayers. In the catacombs of Rome, early Christians occasionally inscribed requests for the peace of the departed: Anima dulcissima, requiescas in pace. These epitaphs suggest affection more than doctrine. But by the third and fourth centuries, the custom of praying for the dead had become established enough to provoke discussion.   Tertullian, never one to pass up a chance for speculation, speaks of annual commemorations for the dead.⁴ Origen, with his grand cosmic imagination, envisioned a purifying fire through which all creation would eventually pass.⁵ Augustine, more cautious, allowed that some sins “may be forgiven in this life and others in the life to come,” yet he stopped short of defining the process.⁶ There was, however, no system — no fixed geography of the afterlife. The early Fathers tended to imagine the dead resting in Abraham’s bosom or Hades, awaiting resurrection, with the righteous experiencing a measure of peace and the wicked of torment.   By the time of Gregory the Great (d. 604), however, the scattered embers had begun to coalesce into a doctrine. Gregory’s Dialogues contain the first clear statements of an intermediate fire purging lesser sins.⁷ His influence, coupled with the growing practice of offering masses for the dead, created the framework medieval theology would codify. Over the next centuries, the notion of temporal punishment — the residue of sin’s debt remaining after forgiveness — became the linchpin. The doctrine’s logic was juridical: divine justice demanded full satisfaction. If it was not completed in life, it must be in the afterlife.   The theological edifice reached its maturity with Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologicae .⁸ For Aquinas, purgatory was a mercy. God, being just, required the satisfaction of temporal punishment, but being loving, provided a means of purgation short of hell. Yet by the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, this merciful vision had metastasized into an elaborate spiritual economy — indulgences, confraternities, chantry chapels, the trafficking of grace through parchment. The Council of Florence (1439) affirmed the doctrine formally, and the Council of Trent (1563) later defended it explicitly against Protestant denials.⁹   One could say that purgatory, like a medieval cathedral, was built stone by stone across centuries: Augustine’s uncertain fire, Gregory’s narratives of postmortem purification, Aquinas’s legal system, and finally Trent’s confident dogma.   This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.   III. The Reformers and the Breaking of the Chain The Protestant Reformation did not merely tweak the doctrine — it burned it to the ground. Luther’s early lectures on the Psalms and Romans reveal that he once entertained the existence of purgatory, largely because it seemed universally held. But by 1520 he had turned fiercely against it, declaring that “purgatory cannot be proved from Scripture, and it is dangerous to teach it.”¹⁰ The danger, in his eyes, was twofold: first, it distracted sinners from trusting wholly in Christ; second, it provided an endless pretext for ecclesiastical exploitation.   When Johann Tetzel announced that as soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs, Luther recognized the peril of theology turned marketplace. His Ninety-Five Theses struck directly at indulgences but implicitly at purgatory itself.¹¹ Over the next decade, Luther’s language hardened. In his 1530 preface to the Apocalypse, he called purgatory an “invention of the devil.”¹²   Calvin, ever more systematic, devoted a famous passage in Book III of the Institutes to demolishing it. “It is a deadly fiction,” he wrote, “which nullifies the cross of Christ, inflicts unbearable contempt upon God’s mercy, and overturns our faith.”¹³ For Calvin, the logic was simple: either Christ’s sacrifice fully satisfied divine justice, or it did not. If it did, there can be no further satisfaction; if it did not, the gospel collapses.   The English Reformers, more concise and perhaps more caustic, enshrined their rejection in the Thirty-Nine Articles: “The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory…is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture.”¹⁴ The phrase “fond thing” in sixteenth-century English did not mean affectionate, but foolish — a vanity, a delusion.   Behind all these condemnations lay a coherent system of thought. The Reformers’ rejection of purgatory rested on four pillars: sola scriptura, demanding biblical warrant; sola fide, asserting justification by faith alone; the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement, leaving no debt unpaid; and the priesthood of all believers, erasing the need for clerical mediation. Taken together, these made purgatory not just unnecessary but impossible.   The Reformation’s rejection was not a tantrum against superstition. It was a carefully reasoned defense of the gospel’s logic. Luther and Calvin were not innovators so much as restorers — reclaiming the early Christian simplicity lost beneath centuries of scholastic accumulation.   IV. Walls and the Return of the Middle Realm Enter Jerry L. Walls. Born in the mid-twentieth century and trained as a philosopher of religion, Walls earned his Ph.D. at Notre Dame under Alvin Plantinga, which perhaps explains his analytic precision. His trilogy — Hell: The Logic of Damnation (1992), Heaven: The Logic of Eternal Joy (2002), and Purgatory: The Logic of Total Transformation (2012) — represents the most sophisticated modern defense of the afterlife within a broadly Protestant framework.¹⁵   Walls is not reviving medieval purgatory. He rejects indulgences, denies temporal punishment, and explicitly disavows the notion that purgatory satisfies divine justice. Instead, he proposes what he calls the sanctification model. According to this model, purgatory is simply the final stage of sanctification — the completion of moral transformation for those who die in Christ but not yet perfected in holiness. It is, in his words, “the natural and organic final stage of sanctification for those who die imperfectly sanctified but who are truly justified by grace through faith.”¹⁶   The appeal of this model lies in its coherence with certain Protestant instincts. Evangelicals, after all, agree that sanctification is rarely complete in this life and that without holiness “no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14). Walls argues that this unfinished sanctification cannot be completed instantaneously at death without violating the logic of moral development. Character, he insists, is formed through free cooperation with divine grace; thus, genuine transformation requires a temporal process. Purgatory, then, is not punishment but pedagogy.   Walls frames his argument in three strands — biblical, philosophical, and moral. Biblically, he concedes the case is not explicit but claims it is implicit in texts like 1 Corinthians 3:11–15 (the testing of works by fire), 1 John 3:2–3 (“we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is”), and Hebrews 12:14. Philosophically, he draws on libertarian freedom: if sanctification involves free cooperation, then perfection must involve a continuing process of voluntary surrender. Morally, he appeals to intuition — as C. S. Lewis once put it, “Our souls demand purgatory, don’t they?”¹⁷   Walls’s proposal is, in many ways, a product of modern sensibilities. It is therapeutic rather than juridical, existential rather than institutional. It appeals to those uneasy with forensic language — justification, imputation, acquittal — and who long for a vision of salvation as moral transformation. In that sense, Walls’s purgatory is not medieval fire but modern refinement.   Still, the question must be asked: does Scripture, or Protestant theology, allow such a thing? Can the logic of sanctification, however plausible, bear the weight of this postmortem world?   V. Scripture’s Silence and Resistance The difficulty for Walls begins precisely where Protestantism begins — with the Bible. Even granting his philosophical case, the absence of clear scriptural support remains fatal. The key texts long used by Catholic apologists fare no better under Protestant scrutiny today than they did in the sixteenth century.   Take 1 Corinthians 3:11–15, where Paul speaks of a day when “each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire.” The believer whose work survives will receive a reward, while the one whose work burns up “will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” Walls takes this as the best biblical image for purgatory. But the passage, read in context, speaks of ministries being tested, not souls being purified. The fire tests what each has built on the foundation of Christ — it is metaphorical, not metaphysical.¹⁸ Moreover, the event occurs “on the Day,” that is, at the final judgment, not in an intermediate state. There is no suggestion of duration or process.   Hebrews 12:14 likewise requires holiness to see the Lord, but it says nothing about how that holiness is achieved after death. The verse functions as moral exhortation, not metaphysical speculation. The same may be said for 1 John 3:2–3: the purification occurs because we see him, not in order to see him.   When we turn to texts that actually describe the believer’s postmortem state, the evidence cuts sharply the other way. Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 5:8 — “away from the body and at home with the Lord” — and Philippians 1:23 — “to depart and be with Christ, which is far better” — both imply immediate communion with Christ upon death. The thief on the cross hears, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43), not “after a season of purification.” Even the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31) depicts two fixed destinies, separated by a chasm no one can cross.   Most decisive are the passages emphasizing the finished nature of Christ’s work: Hebrews 9:12, “he entered once for all into the holy places, having obtained eternal redemption”; 10:14, “by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” Romans 8:1 rings like a trumpet: “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” It is hard to square such declarations with any notion of postmortem purgation, however gentle.   The New Testament speaks often of fire, but always as judgment or testing at the final consummation, never as therapeutic cleansing between death and resurrection. The biblical landscape knows of heaven, hell, and the resurrection — but no middle realm of the saved-yet-unsanctified.   Walls, to his credit, acknowledges the thinness of the biblical case. He suggests that Protestant theology allows for theological conclusions that are biblically consistent even if not explicitly taught. That may be true for inferences tightly drawn from Scripture, but purgatory is not a modest inference. It adds an entire stage to the ordo salutis, a new chapter in the drama of redemption. For a movement founded on sola scriptura, the absence of clear revelation on such a point is not a silence to fill but a boundary to respect.   VI. Atonement, Assurance, and the Shadow of Sanctification Walls’s “sanctification model” may sidestep medieval penitential logic, but it opens other, arguably deeper, wounds. Protestant theology has always distinguished justification and sanctification without separating them — the first forensic and complete, the second transformative and progressive. Justification is God’s declarative act: the sinner is acquitted and counted righteous on the basis of Christ’s obedience, received by faith alone. Sanctification, by contrast, is the Spirit’s work of inward renewal, incomplete in this life yet assured of completion at glorification.   Walls’s model threatens to collapse that distinction. If believers cannot enter heaven until they are actually perfect, then justification — being declared righteous — is not enough. One must become righteous through a process of postmortem sanctification. The danger is subtle but real: the ground of final acceptance shifts from Christ’s imputed righteousness to our perfected character. However grace-filled the process, the logic makes human moral progress (even if posthumous) a necessary condition of final salvation.   The Formula of Concord foresaw such confusion. “Sanctification must not be mingled with the article of justification,” it warned, “as though our renewal were a part of our righteousness before God.”¹⁹ Yet Walls’s purgatory does precisely that, making moral transformation a gateway to heaven rather than a fruit of justification.   The problem bleeds into the doctrine of assurance. Reformation theology gave believers confidence that they could die at peace, resting on Christ’s finished work. The believer’s hope was not in his own holiness — which remained partial — but in Christ’s perfect obedience. Introduce purgatory, and the solid ground shifts to sand. How long will the soul’s purification take? What remains to be purged? The medieval church provided masses, indulgences, and intercession — mechanisms of comfort, though ill-founded. Protestant purgatory offers none, only uncertainty.   Walls insists this model need not undermine assurance, since all who enter purgatory are saved. But assurance in Scripture is not merely the guarantee of eventual salvation; it is confidence of immediate acceptance — “today you will be with me in paradise.” Any theology that transforms death into the entrance of further travail undermines that assurance.   The Christological stakes are even higher. If Christ’s atonement fully satisfied divine justice and reconciled believers completely, then any residual purification implies insufficiency in his work. Hebrews 10:14’s claim that Christ “has perfected forever those who are being sanctified” leaves little room for a supplementary fire. To say, as Walls does, that atonement covers guilt but not transformation creates an artificial division. The cross accomplished both: pardon and power, forgiveness and renewal. Romans 6 declares that believers have died to sin and been raised with Christ. Sanctification flows from that definitive event, not from a future probationary realm.   Even the Holy Spirit’s role suffers diminishment. Scripture presents the Spirit as the agent of sanctification, conforming believers to Christ’s image. If postmortem purgation is required to complete what the Spirit began, we must ask whether the Spirit’s power is inadequate. “He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6). Not after that day, not through suffering beyond the grave, but at Christ’s return.   The Protestant instinct here is not impatience but confidence. The God who justifies the ungodly will also glorify them (Rom. 8:30). The chain is unbreakable — no link called purgatory is needed.   VII. Between Death and Glory One of the less discussed difficulties of Walls’s model is its relation to Christian eschatology. If purgatory exists, where and when does it occur? The traditional Catholic view situates it in the intermediate state, between death and resurrection. But Protestant theology, emphasizing resurrection as the believer’s ultimate hope, leaves little room for disembodied sanctification.   The human person, biblically speaking, is a unity of body and soul. Moral habits, temptations, and even sins are embodied realities. How then could a disembodied soul be “purified” of bodily vices? The very grammar of sanctification — resisting temptation, practicing virtue, mortifying flesh — presupposes bodily existence. A disembodied process of moral formation seems metaphysically incoherent.   Some have proposed a post-resurrection purgatory — a kind of remedial sanctification before entry into the new creation. But this runs afoul of the New Testament’s eschatological sequence. Resurrection, judgment, and new creation occur together, not in stages. “In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet,” Paul writes, “the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed” (1 Cor. 15:52). The transformation described is instantaneous and complete. To insert a prolonged purgation after resurrection is to extend salvation history beyond its scriptural terminus.   Walls’s purgatory thus hangs awkwardly between two worlds — too late for earthly sanctification, too early for resurrection glory. The Reformed confessions, by contrast, speak with serene simplicity: “The souls of the righteous, being made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens.”²⁰ No intermediate workshop of purification, no cosmic therapy. Death itself — that final enemy conquered by Christ — marks the believer’s deliverance from sin’s presence.   Here, too, the pastoral resonance matters. To tell the dying believer that death ushers him immediately into Christ’s presence is to proclaim victory. To tell him he faces further purification, however benign, is to turn death from triumph into travail. The gospel’s power lies in its finality: “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.” Anything less feels like retreat into the shadowlands.   VIII. Pastoral Reverberations Theology, inevitably, finds its way into practice. The medieval church’s system of masses, prayers for the dead, and indulgences grew organically from purgatory’s logic. One can hardly fault the reasoning: if souls suffer in a purifying state, why not assist them through prayer or offering? Even Walls’s sanitized version cannot fully escape that gravitational pull. Once one affirms an intermediate process of purification, intercession for the dead seems not only permissible but charitable.   Walls disavows such implications, yet history teaches that doctrines generate their own devotions. The Reformation’s abolition of purgatory freed Christians from a commerce of fear. It replaced anxious calculation with grateful assurance. “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Phil. 1:21). To reintroduce purgatory — even a Protestant one — risks reviving the very anxieties the gospel dispelled.   There is also a subtler pastoral danger: complacency. If sanctification continues beyond death, why labor so strenuously for holiness now? Walls argues that his view actually intensifies moral urgency, since sanctification extends seamlessly into eternity. But human psychology rarely works that way. Deferred holiness invites delay. The New Testament’s ethical urgency depends on the finality of this life as the arena of moral growth. “Make every effort to be found without spot or blemish” (2 Pet. 3:14) has force precisely because there is no second act.   The Reformation’s pastoral genius lay in its simplicity. The dying Christian, assured of Christ’s finished work, could die in peace. The pastor’s task was to lift weary eyes from self to Savior. Purgatory, by contrast, turns the gaze inward again, toward an unfinished process. The comfort of the gospel is replaced by a lingering uncertainty about what remains to be done.   IX. A Better Way to Speak of Holiness Walls’s instincts are not wrong. He perceives, as many do, that modern Protestantism sometimes treats salvation as a legal fiction, neglecting the transformative goal of holiness. He wants a theology that takes sanctification seriously. That concern is legitimate — even necessary. But the solution lies not in resurrecting purgatory; it lies in recovering a richer doctrine of glorification.   Traditional Protestant theology already affirms what purgatory seeks to express: that believers must be made truly holy to see God. It simply locates that perfection in God’s act, not in a process. At death, the soul is freed from sin’s presence; at resurrection, the body is raised incorruptible. “The souls of believers,” says the Westminster Larger Catechism, “are at their death made perfect in holiness, and do immediately pass into glory.”²¹ That is purgation enough — not by fire, but by grace.   Alternatively, some theologians emphasize that the transformation to holiness occurs at the resurrection itself, when believers see Christ and are instantly conformed to his image (1 John 3:2). Either way, the emphasis remains on divine action, not human cooperation. The Spirit who sanctifies in life completes that work in death or resurrection. No postmortem moral therapy is needed.   This vision preserves the moral seriousness Walls desires while avoiding the pitfalls he introduces. It keeps salvation God-centered, not process-centered. It safeguards assurance without cheapening holiness. And it preserves the pastoral tenderness of the gospel: “Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord…that they may rest from their labors” (Rev. 14:13). Rest, not refinement, is the believer’s hope.   X. Conclusion: The Finished Work and the Final Word The attempt to rehabilitate purgatory within Protestant theology is, in the end, an exercise in theological nostalgia — a longing for moral wholeness misplaced in metaphysical speculation. Jerry Walls’s project deserves respect for its philosophical rigor and sincerity. Yet his “Protestant purgatory” cannot be reconciled with Scripture’s silence, the Reformation’s core principles, or the gospel’s assurance.   Purgatory fails the biblical test: it lacks explicit warrant and contradicts the New Testament’s presentation of immediate communion with Christ after death. It fails the theological test: it blurs justification and sanctification, weakens assurance, and diminishes the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement. It fails the pastoral test: it clouds the believer’s hope and threatens to reintroduce the very anxieties the Reformers banished.   Five centuries after Wittenberg, the Reformers’ verdict still stands. Purgatory — whether medieval or modern, penal or pedagogical — undermines the gospel’s finished work. “It is finished” remains Christ’s final word, and it requires no postscript.   For those who die in Christ, there is no middle fire, no lingering debt, no unfinished purification — only the open arms of the Savior and the rest that remains for the people of God. The gospel offers something far better than purgatory’s promise of eventual perfection: it offers perfection already secured, waiting to be revealed.   “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” And, to borrow Luther’s bold simplicity, that means no purgatory either.   Endnotes Martin Luther, Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences (1517).   Jerry L. Walls, Heaven: The Logic of Eternal Joy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002); Purgatory: The Logic of Total Transformation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).   John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. F. L. Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), III.v.6.   Tertullian, De Corona Militis 3.   Origen, De Principiis 1.6.3.   Augustine, City of God 21.13.   Gregory the Great, Dialogues 4.39.   Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica Suppl., Q. 71.   Council of Trent, Session 25 (1563).   Martin Luther, “The Freedom of a Christian” (1520).   Ninety-Five Theses, Theses 27–32.   Luther, “Preface to the Revelation of St. John,” in Luther’s Works, vol. 35 (1960), 395–411.   Calvin, Institutes, III.v.6.   Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (1563), Art. 22.   Jerry L. Walls, Hell: The Logic of Damnation (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992).   Walls, Heaven, 48.   C. S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1964), 108.   For discussion, see Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 150–53.   Formula of Concord, Art. III, in The Book of Concord, ed. T. G. Tappert (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959).   Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), Ch. 32.   Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. 86.

COMMENTARY   By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org October 23, 2025   Three simultaneous crises have engulfed the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), threatening the future of the breakaway orthodox denomination with an unprecedented convergence of scandals involving its highest-ranking leaders.   Archbishop Wood Faces Sexual Misconduct Allegations ACNA Archbishop Steve Wood has been credibly accused of sexual misconduct and abuse of power, according to a Washington Post investigation. The charges involve allegations of inappropriate conduct and questionable financial payments to a woman who is not his wife—Claire "Claire Bear" Buxton, 42. The accusations include an attempted kiss and financial irregularities that have sent shockwaves through the denomination.   A formal presentment accuses Wood of violating his ordination vows, committing sexual immorality, and bringing "scandal and offense" upon his office. Additionally, Wood faces separate complaints from priests alleging that he plagiarized sermons and bullied church staff members in the years preceding his election as archbishop.   According to the exclusive Washington Post report, Wood, 62, allegedly placed his hand on the back of Buxton's head and attempted to kiss her in his office in April 2024. The incident occurred just two months before his election to lead the denomination. Buxton, a former children's ministry director who spoke on the record to The Post, also claimed Wood gave her thousands of dollars in unexpected payments from church funds before the alleged advance.   Wood, a married father of four sons, continues to serve as rector of St. Andrew's Church in the Charleston, South Carolina area and as bishop overseeing a diocese of more than 40 churches across the South.   If the presentment triggers an ecclesiastical trial, Wood could face defrocking and removal from office. He would be the first ACNA archbishop to face such proceedings.   Wood declined to answer specific questions about the accusations but issued a statement saying he does not believe the allegations have merit. "I place my faith and trust in the process outlined in our canons to bring clarity and truth in these matters," he said.   Ironically, during his address at the church's annual governing meeting earlier this year, Wood emphasized growing attendance and new profitability while highlighting newly adopted safeguarding rules. "I take it seriously," he said. "It's why you're going to hear a lot about safeguarding from me this year."   In June 2024—two months after the alleged incident—the College of Bishops elected Wood as the denomination's third archbishop.   The Bishop Ruch Trial The Wood scandal represents the latest in a series of crises for ACNA. An ecclesiastical trial is currently underway against Bishop Stewart Ruch III, the founding bishop of the Anglican Diocese of the Upper Midwest, which oversees 18 churches across the region.   Parishioners and clergy have accused Ruch, 58, of allowing individuals with histories of violence or sexual misconduct to worship or hold staff and leadership positions within his diocese. Ruch was formally charged in 2022 with "habitual neglect of the duties of the bishop's office" and "conduct giving just cause for scandal or offense," both violations of ACNA canons.   Testimony concluded in mid-October and was conducted privately via Zoom. A verdict from the seven-member panel of judges—comprising bishops, priests, and lay parishioners—is expected later this year. Ruch has declined to comment.   JAFC Bishop Derek Jones Controversy The denomination's third crisis involves Bishop Derek Jones of the Jurisdiction of Armed Forces and Chaplaincy (JAFC). Archbishop Wood issued Jones a "godly admonition" following accusations of ecclesiastical power abuse.   In a video statement addressing the charges, Jones maintained he was wrongfully accused of violating Title IV of the church canons and misusing Title IV disciplinary proceedings to manipulate clergy.   Multiple individuals accused Jones of serious infractions, including:   Backdating official church documents Fabricating church documents Wrongful discipline or attempted discipline of clergy Interfering in employment opportunities Misusing ecclesiastical authority to inflict financial, emotional, and psychological harm One priest claimed Jones wrongfully released him from holy orders. Jones has vigorously denied all charges.   In response to the allegations, Jones withdrew the JAFC diocese from ACNA. However, the diocese disputes this action, arguing it is canonically impossible. The matter has escalated to secular courts.   There is considerable irony in the fact that both Wood and Jones now face accusations of abuse of power.   About ACNA The Anglican Church in North America reports 130,000 members across more than 1,000 congregations in 49 states, though only 96,000 attend services weekly. ACNA is a constituent province of GAFCON, a global network of orthodox Anglican churches that separated from the Episcopal Church following the consecration of an openly gay bishop.   ACNA maintains that same-sex relationships are sinful and refuses to bless same-sex marriages or ordain individuals "who engage in homosexual behavior," according to church canons. Women may serve as deacons and priests in some dioceses but are prohibited from becoming bishops or archbishops. The denomination also opposes abortion.   Related Coverage:   St. Andrew's Church Involved in Complaint Against ACNA Archbishop Steve Wood JAFC Bishop Refutes Charges of Ecclesiastical Power Abuse U.S. Anglican Church Archbishop Accused of Sexual Misconduct, Abuse of Power

An attempted kiss, cash payments and other allegations roil the Anglican Church in North America   WASHINGTON POST EXCLUSIVE   By Ian Shapira The Washington Post  October 23,2025     (Ian Shapira interviewed the priests and former employees who wrote affidavits in the presentment against the archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America. He and Reshma Kirpalani traveled to South Carolina, where Kirpalani took videos and photos for this story.)   The Anglican Church in North America — forged from the headline-grabbing conservative revolt against the Episcopal Church’s first openly gay bishop — is now confronting allegations by clergy and parishioners against two of its top leaders: One is accused of sexual misconduct, while the other allegedly abused his power by allowing men with troubling histories into the church.   The denomination’s senior-most official, Archbishop Stephen Wood, 62, has been accused by a former children’s ministry director of putting his hand against the back of her head and trying to kiss her in his office in April 2024. The incident allegedly occurred two months before he was elected to the helm, according to a new church presentment, which The Washington Post obtained in advance of its Monday submission.   The woman, who gave an interview to The Post, also accused Wood of giving her thousands of dollars in unexpected payments from church coffers before the alleged advance. Wood, a married father of four sons, remains the rector of St. Andrew’s Church in the Charleston, South Carolina, area, and a bishop overseeing a diocese of more than 40 churches across the South.     If the presentment triggers an ecclesiastical trial, Wood could be defrocked and forced to step down. He is the first archbishop in the Anglican Church in North America to face a presentment, a denomination spokeswoman said.   Wood declined to answer specific questions about the accusations in the presentment.   “I do not believe these allegations have any merit,” Wood said in a statement. “I place my faith and trust in the process outlined in our canons to bring clarity and truth in these matters and respectfully decline to comment further at this time.”   Wednesday morning, the senior warden of St. Andrew’s Church informed congregants of the complaint against Wood and alerted them to The Post’s reporting. “This is a painful and very personal process for all involved,” wrote Mike Hughes, the church’s senior warden, in an email.   The presentment — a report that chronicles formal allegations of canonical offenses — is unfolding amid a protracted ecclesiastical trial against another leader, Stewart Ruch III, an Anglican bishop who oversees a diocese of 18 churches in the Midwest. Parishioners and clergy have accused Ruch, 58, of allowing men with histories of violence or sexual misconduct to worship or hold staff or leadership roles in his diocese.   Testimony in Ruch’s trial, which was conducted privately on Zoom, wrapped up in mid-October. A verdict from the court’s seven-member panel of judges — a group of bishops, priests and parishioners — is expected to arrive later this year. Ruch declined to comment through a diocese spokeswoman, who cited a court directive prohibiting him from media interviews during the trial.   “Unfortunately, the problems at the highest levels of the ACNA are deeper, wider and more entrenched than many of its own parishioners realize,” said Andrew Gross, an Anglican priest who was the Anglican Church’s communications director from 2013 until early this year. “The ACNA has never before had to deal with serious allegations of misconduct by the archbishop. This is a crisis without precedent, and how these concerns are handled will determine the future trajectory of the denomination and its credibility.”   A denomination spokeswoman, Kate Harris, said the church could not comment on the accusations against Wood, but she noted that the alleged misconduct predates his tenure as archbishop. She added that once the complaint is “validated as a presentment,” a Board of Inquiry will determine whether it warrants an ecclesiastical trial.   Claire Buxton, 42, the former children’s ministry director at St. Andrew’s who accused Wood of trying to kiss her, said that the alleged advance came after numerous church employees remarked upon Wood’s “excessive praise and fondness” for her.   “I was in shock,” said Buxton, a divorced mother of three sons. Her issues with Wood, she added, are symptomatic of the denomination’s wider problems. “It’s just bizarre to me how far we — the Anglican Church in North America and its leadership — have gotten away from basic morals and principles.”   Founded in 2009, the denomination has churches that span 49 states, plus several regions in Canada and Mexico. It counts 128,000 members across more than 1,000 congregations. In the suburbs of D.C., the Falls Church Anglican in Virginia — with about 1,400 Sunday worshipers — is one of its largest and includes among its members the former chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence, a federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump, and a former chief executive of a massive Republican super PAC.   The denomination, which identifies as a “province” of a global network of orthodox Anglican churches, anchors itself in the Old and New testaments and the Book of Common Prayer, while supporting causes embraced by political conservatives.   The Anglican Church in North America labels same-sex relationships as a sin and refuses to bless same-sex marriages or ordain “persons who engage in homosexual behavior,” according to the church’s canons. Women may serve as deacons and priests in some dioceses but are barred from becoming bishops or archbishops. The denomination also opposes abortion.   A CASCADE OF CONTROVERSIES Beyond confronting the allegation of making an unwanted advance on his employee, Wood also faces complaints from priests that he plagiarized sermons and bullied and disparaged church staffers in the years before he became archbishop. The presentment accuses Wood of violating his ordination vows, committing sexual immorality and bringing “scandal and offense” upon his office.   In recent years, the denomination has been confronted by other controversies involving top leaders.   In June 2020, one Anglican bishop was removed from ministry after pleading guilty to ecclesiastical charges of “sexual immorality” and “conduct giving just cause for scandal” for his use of pornography. Another bishop was defrocked in May 2024 after sending more than 11,000 text messages to a married woman, among other accusations. Later that year, the current and former rectors of the Falls Church Anglican were issued “Godly admonitions” for mishandling sex abuse allegations against a former youth minister.   This year, in June, the Rev. Austin Becton, rector of an Anglican church in Nashville, was admonished and said he was suspended because he posted on Facebook that the church should repent for excluding LGBTQ+ Christians. His bishop wrote Becton a letter saying his social media post “sound[s] to reasonable readers as affirming sexual practices outside of norms held by scripture and tradition.” Becton ultimately resigned.   “I have grown increasingly troubled by broader patterns within the Anglican Church in North America,” Becton wrote to parishioners, explaining his resignation. He noted the problems involving Ruch, the Upper Midwest bishop, and added: “These are not simply lapses in judgment or isolated failures in leadership. They are symptoms of a structure designed, often unknowingly, to protect itself at all costs.”   Meanwhile, the ecclesiastical trial against Ruch has deepened the church’s crisis. One prosecutor quit after accusing in a public letter a trial judge of using material “not properly in the trial record” to question the Ruch investigation in open court. In his own public defense, the chief judge said their inquiries were appropriate. The next prosecutor also quit after a potential conflict of interest was raised between him and Ruch.   When the controversies surfaced in August on the podcast “Anglican Unscripted,” whose weekly episodes attract thousands of listeners, the conversation ventured into the uncertainty engulfing the denomination.   “Can we now say that the ACNA has integrity at the very top anymore?” asked the show’s co-host, the Rev. George Conger, who presides over an Episcopal church in Florida.   Co-host Kevin Kallsen, an Anglican parishioner in Maryland, speaking as though he were talking directly with church officials, replied: “You have evolved from something glorious into something hideous.”   The episode’s title: “Is the ACNA Past Tense?”   ‘MY LORD’ WOOD The Anglican Church in North America was born after a moment of moral outrage. In August 2003, a majority of Episcopal Church bishops voted to confirm the Rev. V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire as its first openly gay bishop.   The decision — which led the front pages of major newspapers — compelled many of the Episcopal Church’s conservatives to break away. Eventually, those traditionalists formed the new Anglican denomination.   Wood — then a rector overseeing St. Andrew’s — guided his parishioners through the split and, by 2010, his church voted to join the Anglican Church in North America. Soon, he began climbing the denomination’s hierarchy. Two years later, he took on a second job as its first bishop of the Diocese of the Carolinas. During his consecration, Wood wore a cross around his neck and carried a large staff. He was introduced as “My Lord.”   “I have learned more from my boys and my wife about the nature of the Gospel than anybody other than Christ and his Spirit,” he told parishioners at the ceremony.   In his new role, Wood joined the Anglican Church’s College of Bishops, the body that appoints the archbishop and disciplines bishops who violate church canons. The church’s rules require that a bishop must “uphold and defend the faith and order of the Church willingly and as God wants him to — not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to his care, but being a wholesome example to the entire flock of Christ.”   For Wood, who grew up in Ohio, the path toward God was hardly preordained, he said last year during a church assembly. Initially, he wanted to go to law school, then become a prosecutor and land in Washington.   “I wanted to put bad guys in jail,” Wood said, “and then I wanted to go to Congress and write good laws so that bad guys don’t hurt people.”   A $60,000 TRUCK In September 2019, seven years into his tenure running both St. Andrew’s and the Diocese of the Carolinas, Wood confronted pushback. In a letter to Wood, which was private until now, the Rev. Hamilton Smith, the rector of St. Thomas’ Church in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, wrote: “I do not feel you have moral authority required to hold the office of Bishop.”   Wood preached sermons he did not write and tried to pass them off as his own work, Smith alleged. During staff meetings, Wood publicly shamed and cursed at colleagues, the letter said. Smith also questioned a $60,000 truck provided by the diocese for Wood’s church visits, noting that Wood mentioned the vehicle to him only in the context of Wood’s hunting trips.   “Is a $60,000 truck the most cost efficient vehicle to accomplish this task?” Smith asked in the letter. “There are clergy in the Diocese that do not have any or have poor health insurance or retirement plans. … You have told me numerous times that you are a sinner who had ‘a really bad year’/‘a horrible season’ in which you did things you now regret. While I rejoice in this self understanding, grace and forgiveness have limits.”   The next day, Wood offered a short reply, according to correspondence Smith shared with The Post.   “As you note at the end of your letter I do have a different perspective on the items you enumerate,” Wood wrote. “Please continue to pray for me/us.”   But Smith could not overcome his frustrations with Wood, and soon led his parishioners to leave Wood’s diocese.   “This was the most difficult decision of my ministry,” Smith told his church at the time.   THE NEW ARCHBISHOP In June 2024, two months after Buxton alleged that Wood tried to kiss her, the College of Bishops met in conclave and elected him as the Anglican Church in North America’s third archbishop.   The ascension to the church’s highest position endowed Wood with substantial authority.   He chairs many of the church’s top governing bodies, which set the annual budget and ratify key constitutional changes, among other tasks. When a bishop faces a presentment, Wood gets to appoint the members of a Board of Inquiry, which determines whether the accusations warrant ecclesiastical trials. On top of that, Wood also can select the prosecutors for those trials. In his own case, he would recuse himself from those appointments, a denomination spokeswoman said.   Wood also retained his job as rector of St. Andrew’s and kept his position as bishop of the Diocese of the Carolinas, which includes churches in Texas, Georgia and Tennessee. Because Wood is still a bishop, he holds on to yet another power — the ability to vote on punishments for any bishop found guilty at an ecclesiastical trial.   In South Carolina, Wood’s elevation rattled a group of his former colleagues, most of them now priests. For years, they said in interviews, they privately shared stories that Wood demeaned them or others when they worked at St. Andrew’s. But it was Claire Buxton’s fresh accusations that spurred them to action.   By early 2025, the group drafted formal church charges based on six affidavits that accuse Wood of abusive behavior. In September, the group quietly secured the support of at least 10 Anglican priests and parishioners to sign and swear to the presentment, a prerequisite for its submission.   But the day after the presentment was submitted, the denomination threw up what its authors regard as a roadblock: The denomination asked that all 11 endorsers re-sign the presentment under a statement attesting to the allegations’ truth “under penalties of perjury.” In an email to the lead signatory, a denomination official said this was “common practice” noting that prior presentments have been resubmitted for the same reason.   The Rev. Rob Sturdy, an Anglican priest who wrote one of the presentment’s affidavits, said in an interview that his group will not comply. He said they followed the denomination’s canons, which do not contain a “perjury” standard.   “This noncanonical requirement feels like an attempt to intimidate our signatories with potential legal action,” Sturdy, now an Anglican chaplain who serves students at The Citadel, said in an interview. “A church that can’t do right by victims of sexual abuse should not exist.”   His affidavit alleges, among other things, that Wood frequently bragged about a woman from another church whom he said “he could have … anytime he wanted.”   “We have out-of-control men with absolute power and leaders who refuse to hold them accountable,” Sturdy said.   SURPRISE PAYMENTS FOR ‘CLAIRE BEAR’ In her interview and affidavit, Buxton said Wood began to act inappropriately with her in October 2021, shortly after she was promoted as the children’s ministry director at St. Andrew’s. At a local park for a celebration of Wood’s tenure, he hugged her, she said, but then slowly slid his hand down her lower back, letting it linger.   “I called my parents afterward to tell them that it felt ‘sensual’ and I was concerned that he was attracted to me,” Buxton wrote in her affidavit, “but they both said it was probably nothing and I was mistaken, so I told myself it was nothing.”   A year later, in September 2022, during a visit to his office, Wood gossiped about sexual affairs of other people at his church and elsewhere, Buxton wrote. He said he fired one employee because, in his words, “she slept with everyone.”   Two months later, by the church’s front desk, Wood handed her a folded check for $1,500 made out to her, she said. The check, reviewed by The Post, came from a church account, labeled “St. Andrews Church Rector’s Mercy Fund.” She said in her affidavit that it was signed by him.   Wood told her it was from someone who thought she “was doing an amazing job,” she wrote in her affidavit. “I looked up shocked, and he was smiling back at me as he walked away.” The payment felt unusual, Buxton said — bonuses typically came with formal notices and were deposited into bank accounts. But she needed the money and accepted the check.   As the months went on, he called her “Claire Bear” in front of other people, she wrote. One female colleague told Buxton she’d pray that Wood would find her “repulsive.” Buxton reported her concerns to at least four employees named in the affidavit.   In July 2023, she said, a church official deposited $500 into Buxton’s bank account, telling her that Wood said she needed it. Buxton shared her online bank statement with The Post confirming the transaction.   That September, Wood summoned her to his office and said he was “prepared to send” her to a nearby luxury resort, The Sanctuary, because she seemed “off.” “You can get spa treatments, I’ll hire you a babysitter. You can get a fancy room, whatever you want,” she recalled him telling her. Buxton declined.   “With all his growing attention and affection, I was really terrified that if I went, he might come,” she wrote in the affidavit.   Three months later, Wood handed her an envelope in her office with cash inside, she wrote. She told him, “You can’t do this,” but he said the money wasn’t from him. She didn’t believe him but accepted it. Then, he told her to count the cash right there. So, she did. The amount was $1,500.   By now, she said she’d received a total of $3,500 in surprise payments over 13 months.   “We are taught to trust someone in his position, so it often felt wrong for me to question or say no to him, even when I felt uncomfortable,” Buxton said. “But I also knew it would come in handy for Christmas presents for my kids. Ultimately, it wasn’t worth saying no because it would have been a confrontation.”   In the spring of 2024, after Wood learned Buxton was going on a church mission to the Bahamas, it was announced that he and his wife would join, too. Buxton feared that even with his wife’s presence, Wood might “try and initiate a physical relationship” with her, she wrote. So, she decided to confront him.   On April 23, 2024, she arrived at his third-floor office, whose green walls were mounted with numerous taxidermied animal heads. She took a seat on a leather chair, while he settled into a rocking chair next to her.   “I’m so tired. I can’t do this,” she recalled saying to him, according to her affidavit.   But she was afraid of being too direct.   “You know how special you are to me. You’re my favorite person in the world,” he told her, Buxton’s affidavit said.   He encouraged her to think of the trip as a vacation and said he “didn’t want” his wife to go, she wrote. He mentioned a beach bar and a pool, recounting someone saying, “You can get knocked up just by swimming in that pool.”   As she got up to leave, Wood tried to give her an “intimate” hug. Then, she said, he escalated the situation.   “He put his hand on the back of my head and tried to turn it up towards him while he slowly brought his face towards my face to kiss me,” she wrote in her affidavit. “I dropped my face down towards his shoulder so he couldn’t. He held for a second and then let go, and I said, ‘Ok, bye,’ and ran out of his office.”   She immediately told a colleague about the incident, she said.   During the Bahamas mission, she said, nothing physical transpired between them. But she said in her affidavit that his behavior made her uncomfortable. At a lunch with other people, she said, he put a forkful of food in her face and insisted she eat it.   Two months later, in June 2024, Buxton resigned. But Wood’s election as archbishop later that month galvanized her.   “I was devastated when he became archbishop. It was the responsibility of the bishops to vet him and they failed at it, horribly,” Buxton said. “Now, I just want the truth to come out so other people don’t get hurt and that the church is held accountable.”     ****** Earlier this year, during his address at the Anglican Church’s annual governing meeting, Wood touted growing attendance and the church’s new profitability. New rules, he said, were adopted to protect congregants from abuse.   “I take it seriously,” said Wood, dressed in a blazer, a purple bishop’s shirt and white clerical collar. “It’s why you’re going to hear a lot about safeguarding from me this year.”   https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2025/10/23/anglican-church-archbishop-misconduct/     END

Unspinning ECUSA's Presiding Bishop News Analysis by David W. Virtue The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church recently bared his soul to an online news service called Beliefnet.net . In it he opines that the denomination's current path is the only way--because it's 'truthful.' He said, "secrecy is the devil's playground," suggesting that those who want to accommodate homosexuality behind the scenes while publicly condemning it are the ones encouraging "sexual aberrance." UPPER SOUTH CAROLINA: Bishop Sends Angry Letter to His Clergy New AMIA priest invades his diocese By David W. Virtue The Bishop of Upper South Carolina, the Rt. Rev. Dorsey Henderson, Jr. has sent an angry letter to all his clergy condemning the invasion into his diocese of a former ECUSA priest, now with the Anglican Mission of America. Congregations' Split is Like Painful Divorce Episcopalians: There are seemingly irreconcilable differences and disputes over who gets to keep the house By Frank Langfitt, Baltimore Sun Staff January 30, 2004 MELBOURNE, Fla. - When Pat Vander Poest says goodbye to St. John's Episcopal Church, the toughest part will be leaving her daughter, Julie, who died in a car crash two decades ago and whose ashes lie in the shade of a moss-draped oak in the parish's memorial garden. Ramifications of ECUSA's Actions January 30, 2004 These are some of the ramifications that have been reported as of the end of December 2003. The fallout is expected to continue in 2004. Ecumenical The following Churches have postponed or suspended dialogue with the Episcopal and/or Anglican Church: Roman Catholic Church Russian Orthodox Church Coptic Orthodox Church Syrian Orthodox Church Armenian Orthodox Church NORTH DAKOTA: Two Orthodox Priests Deprived of Voting Rights in Diocese Special Report by David W. Virtue Two orthodox priests in the Diocese of North Dakota have been stripped of their voting rights in an upcoming election for a new bishop by revisionists seeking to replace the Evangelical Andy Fairfield with a more theologically liberal bishop. RWANDA: The Anglican Communion Will Never be the Same Again An interview with the Primate of Rwanda, The Most Rev. Emmanuel Kolini By David W. Virtue DESTIN, FL--AMIA CONFERENCE VIRTUOSITY: Is the "fix" in? Did Frank Griswold ordain Robinson with a "wink and a nod" from the Archbishop of Canterbury? KOLINI: Here it is out of Griswold's own mouth. "One of the things the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams made very clear to me in our conversation is that he is not authorized to overrule the canons and constitutions of the various provinces of the Anglican Communion."

Response of Archbishops Emmanuel Kolini (Rwanda) and Yong Ping Chung (Southeast Asia) January 28, 2004 We issue this Response, as archbishops of the Anglican Communion, to the January 2004 document written by The Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner entitled "A call to accountability: the parable of the AMiA." The document demands a direct and clear response. It is incorrect in its facts and troubling in its spirit. The author's obvious and unwarranted hostility obscures his message, but it appears that he objects to three things: (i) some suggested refusal of accountability by the Anglican Mission in America, (ii) a perceived damage to the orthodox witness in the Diocese of Colorado and creation of obstacles faced by ECUSA's opposition by the clergy and laity who are now in the Anglican Mission in America, and (iii) an asserted autonomous "self-ordering" by the Anglican Mission and its leaders. We know that this error-filled document has recently been sent out all over the world on the Internet. It presents false allegations about the Anglican Mission in America and is full of distortions of the actual facts and gross misrepresentations of the events related to the founding and existence of the Anglican Mission in America. It is an attack by a parish priest in Colorado upon the actions and motives of three archbishops (++Tay and ourselves, ++ Kolini and ++Yong) of the Anglican Communion. We - as the sponsoring archbishops of the Anglican Mission in America - reply to this "parable" in the name of honesty. From the very beginning under the direct oversight of two Anglican Communion archbishops, the AMiA has concentrated and focused on the Gospel work we, as Christians, are called by God to do. We have sought not to get involved in criticizing and slandering the work and policy of other orthodox bodies. Though we have not been perfect in this regard, it is the desire of our heart.

By the Rt. Rev. David J. Bena January 28, 2004 Last week, as I was checking in at an airport, the airline staff person asked if I happened to be a Catholic or an Episcopal priest. When I said I was an Episcopalian, she responded, "Well, are you an inclusive Episcopalian or an exclusive Episcopalian?" Sensing that I was being baited, I replied, "What does the word 'inclusive' mean to you?" She hesitated, and then said, "Oh, I don't know...a place where everybody can go and feel welcome." "Good answer," I quickly shot back, "Then I am a part of the inclusive church...But tell me, when you say a place where everybody can go and feel welcome, do you mean that there should be no rules regarding ethical behavior for the members of the church? Is it OK for someone to come every week and steal a purse on the way out? Do we need to teach him some ethics about stealing being wrong, even though some would say that kleptomaniacs don't choose that lifestyle - it just seems to be with them from birth?" "Well, of course we have to have rules. I don't want someone stealing my purse. What I'm talking about is an inclusive church that welcomes everyone in spite of their sexual proclivities." "Oh," I responded slowly, "so actually, when you say inclusive church, you're really confining it to a SEXUALLY inclusive church?" "Right!" she said gleefully, seeing that she had made contact! "OK, now let's look at that. Do you mean there should be no rules regarding sexual behavior? Is it OK for another woman in the pew to hit on your husband? I've been told that some people find it impossible to sustain a life-long relationship with another person, and that they have within them an uncontrollable need to have multiple sexual relationships. If we find folks like that, should we say it is OK for them to commit adultery or go through a number of marriages and to feel really good about themselves in spite of that problem?" "You are being difficult!" she responded impatiently. "Of course it would be wrong for someone to think that they can have my husband sexually. You know what I'm talking about - same sex!" "So," I stated tentatively, "in your estimation, an inclusive church is simply a church where people can practice sex with people of the same gender and be told that it's perfectly normal." "Well, not exactly. Only as long as they're wired that way, and then it would be OK." "Three problems here," I said, as gently as I could. "One - there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that anyone is 'wired' that way. There is opinion, but no scientific evidence. While we do know about chromosomes and gender determination, we do NOT know about a gay gene - after extensive searching, no gay gene has been found. We really don't know why some people prefer same-sex relationships. It's possible that some were taught that way as children, that some were curious and got into the life style; that some craved a lost relationship with a parent; and that some do not remember a time when they were not drawn to same-sex relationships. That's the first problem - we don't know what causes it. The second problem is that, even if some may be 'wired' that way, that does not mean therefore that homosexual activity is an acceptable alternative lifestyle. It looks like some people are 'wired' to be lifelong pedophiles; some are 'wired' to have many sexual relationships at the same time; some are 'wired' to have an ongoing sexual relationship with both genders at the same time. Does being inclusive mean that there are no sexual standards beyond how one is 'wired?' The Church has always tried to be compassionate and inclusive. But it does have a teaching responsibility. It has to hold up standards in a compassionate way...or there will be no standards at all. And the third major problem is that our Scriptures and Tradition hold up only heterosexual relationships as honorable. The whole theme of the bible (not just a few proof texts) about sexual activity is that it a gift of God to be shared between a man and a woman in a covenanted relationship. What I'm saying is that we are inclusive, in that all are welcome to come worship, accept Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, and be a part of the family. But just as a nuclear family has a teaching responsible, so does the Church. We need to, in a loving but firm way, teach the ethics and morals of the Historic Church, and raise up leaders who will model that behavior. To use a trite phrase: we need to love and welcome the seeker after truth, but not honor lifestyles that do not honor Christ. If we REALLY love seekers as Jesus loves them, we need to be teaching them and assisting them to break free from lifestyles that enslave them. And teachings from the scriptures are really the authoritative way we can do that. THAT is what really makes us an inclusive, loving Church." "Thank you," she said, as she continued her work, pondering these things in her heart. The Rt. Rev. David Bena is Bishop Suffragan of the Diocese of Albany, New York.

MAIL: 4800 Dupont Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55409 USA (612) 824-3933 THE FAITH ONCE DELIVERED. The Fellowship of Concerned Churchmen has been working for the preservation of the historic Anglican Way since 1976 and is a unifying catalyst for Anglican traditionalists. The Fellowship continues to make available: AUDIO TAPES that are clear copies of the 1977 Congress of St Louis as recorded by the late Russell B Joseph - now in a two-tape set ($14.00 per set - postage included)! By 'em now. You won't be sorry. The Fellowship of Concerned Churchmen was founded over 25 years ago in response to the putative "ordination" of women clergy by a bishop in the Episcopal Church USA, the authorization by that jurisdictions's general convention of further such "ordinations", and the adoption of a prayer book, which was politically and feminist-correct, to displace the historic liturgy found in the Book of Common Prayer. As a response in 1977, the Fellowship of Concerned Churchmen sponsored a Congress in St Louis, Missouri. There, nearly 3000 people took steps toward providing a refuge for Christians who had been abandoned by the Episcopal Ch urch USA and the official Anglican Church of Canada. The Congress also adopted the Affirmation of St Louis as a statement of essentials of continuing Anglicanism. A year later faithful bishops consecrated four men as bishops as a means of continuing the Anglican branch of the Church - a light at the end of the tunnel. The Anglican Continuum today includes bishops consecrated in the succession of those pioneers as well as other faithful men originally consecrated in the Anglican Communion. The Fellowship continues to work as a support group for Anglicans who continue orthodox Anglican Christianity. In 1976 few could have imagined how far from Christianity the Episcopal Church USA would have wandered from guidance offered by the Holy Spirit. The evidence is clear at this writing in November of 2003 that the Fellowship is the confederacy of jurisdictions that offers Episcopalians (those of who value t he Word of God) a venue that is faithful to Christ and familiar in worship. The reader is encouraged to join with the Fellowship in prayer and find a continuing Anglican parish in which to worship our Lord. At the bottom of this web site and you will find a link to hundreds of traditional Anglican or Episcopal parishes that offer valid sacraments by re al priests, parishes that continue the worship of God and adhere to Scripture. If you would like to join the Fellowship: Annual dues are $35.00 US for individuals and $45.00 for married couples. A DEFINITE MEMBERSHIP ADVANTAGE ! Members receive a copy of the Directory of Traditional Anglican and Episcopal Parishes. To join, send a check or money order in the amount of the dues to the Fellowship's mailing address. It is: Fellowship of Concerned Churchmen 4800 Dupont Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55409-2326 Please include the declaration requested below: "I agree with the purposes and goals of the Fellowship of Concerned Churchme n and the Affirmation of St Louis. I will work and pray for unity and harmony among traditional Anglicans." ____________________________ Signature Membership application should include the following information: Your name________________________, Address_______________________________________________, Telephone number_________________________, e-mail address_________________________, Your parish name and location__________________________________________________, (Optional): name of jurisdiction to which you belong (ex: ACA, APCK, EMC, UAC, etc.)_________________________. Contact the Fellowship! Rev'd Scott Kingsbury [ACA], President 4510 Finley Avenue Los Angeles CA 90027 (626) 398-7935 Wallace Spaulding, Vice President [ECUSA,FiF/NA] 1206 Buchanan St, McLean VA 22101 (703) 356-7291 Donald de Kieffer [ACC], Secretary 729 Fifteenth Street, NW Washington DC 20005 (202) 783-6900 Mr D J Fulton CPA [APA], Treas 9489 Brown Rd Jonesboro GA 30238 (770) 961-4200 Other Members of the Board of Directors: Fr William E Bauer FODC PhD, Fernley, Nevada [EMC] Rev'd Dr Robert Bowman, Little Rock, Arkansas [REC,FiF/NA] The Rev'd Michael Cochran, Reynoldsburg, Ohio [EMC] The Rev'd David Kennedy, Lantana, Florida [ECUSA, FiF/NA] Mr Gary Pinhero, San Diego, California [APCK] The Rev'd Elijah White, Hamilton, Virginia [ECUSA, FiF/NA] Mrs. Jeanne Wooley, Colorado Springs, Colorado [ACA] The Fellowship assists faithful Anglicans and Episcopalians to find traditional worship, real priests and valid sacraments by publishing the Directory of Traditional Anglican and Episcopal Parishes. The directory lists 1,000+ parishes, missions, and congregations in the USA, Canada, and other countries, with current information available about addresses, telephone numbers, service times, and officiating clergy. The 2003 edition of the Directory has been purchased by 219+ individuals (this is in addition to the directories that went out to each dues-paying member). Order a Directory. Send $35.00 to: Fellowship of Concerned Churchmen MAIL: 4800 Dupont Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55409. Conferences of Traditional Anglicans If you are a member of a continuing parish and have news of a local or regional conference or other function, please contact the FCC webservant at the email address on the bottom of this site It's TIME to get serious about confederacy or jurisdictional UNITY. You can help by petitioning our Lord for such unity. Links Continuing Church Jurisdictions include: American Anglican Church Anglican Church in America Anglican Church Inc. Anglican Catholic Church Anglican Province of America and Reformed Episcopal Church Anglican Province of Christ the King Episcopal Missionary Church Holy Catholic Church, Anglican Rite Southern Episcopal Church United Anglican Church United Episcopal Church of North America More Resources: Forward in Faith, North America Click here for links to hundreds of Anglican parishes which offer a traditional Holy Eucharist, maintain a traditional male Priesthood and provide valid Sacraments. If you are a member of the Fellowship of Concerned Churchmen and do not see the jurisdiction to which you belong listed or mentioned on this site, please contact your webservant, Fr. Bauer, at the email address below. Please mention the FCC in your email. For information contact: bauerfam@oasisol.com ++++ 1928 BCP Congregations in the United States of America If you would like your parish to be included in this directory - and you are the rector, priest or deacon in charge - simply email us, including your URL, and say, "Please add my parish to the 1928 BCP list!" We will then verify your information and add you to the list. In order to be included in this list, your congregation must have a web page on the Internet. (If your parish does not have a posted web page, forministry.com offers free web sites for churches, and allows the parish to make its own design, etceteras.) NOTE: Being included in this list means only that a congregation uses the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. For more information on a particular congregation, be sure to closely examine their website, telephone or E-mail them with you r questions BEFORE attending. For a list of the various jurisdictions, denominations and affiliations, which are represented in this listing, scroll down to the bottom of the page. [Followed by extensive state-by-state listings of parishes and jurisdictions] END

CHARGE by the Most Rev. Henry Luke Orombi 7th Archbishop of The Church of the Province of Uganda Sunday, 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. END

Dear Friends, A complaint has been submitted to the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) relating to allegations made against Archbishop Steve Wood in his role as Bishop of the Diocese of the Carolinas. In accordance with Canonical Law, as soon as the complaint is validated as a presentment, Bishop Ray Sutton, Dean of the ACNA’s College of Bishops, will convene a Board of Enquiry to consider whether it warrants further action. Because this is an on-going process, the Wardens, Vestry, and Staff of St. Andrew’s cannot comment on these allegations. We will keep you informed as the process evolves. Steve said, “I do not believe these complaints have merit. I trust the process outlined in our canons to bring clarity and truth in these matters.” We know the Washington Post is developing a story and we expect them to publish within the next few days. Many of you will recognize the people mentioned in the story as most of them are beloved former staff members of St. Andrew’s. I commend all those involved—the complainants; Steve, Jacqui, and their family; our staff, and the Vestry—to your prayers. This is a painful and very personal process for all involved. Yours in Christ, Mike Hughes Senior Warden, St. Andrew’s Church Mount Pleasant, SC

No mention of Hamas in remarks to executive council COMMENTARY By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org October 22, 2025 Episcopal Presiding Bishop Sean Rowe sharply criticized Israel in remarks to his church's executive council, describing the situation in Gaza as a "moral travesty" and calling for an end to U.S. weapons sales to Israel. Rowe blamed Israeli forces for human rights abuses, violence, and the destruction of Gaza. Notably absent from his remarks was any mention of Hamas's role in starting the war in the first place. The terrorist organization's continued resistance to peace efforts and appeals from fellow Arab nations to cease hostilities has fallen on deaf ears. The Bishop's Statements "The situation in Gaza and the West Bank is dire," Rowe told the council. "We hear sometimes that we must issue more frequent and stronger statements about the Israeli war on Gaza and the catastrophic effect it has had on the Palestinian people—that if the church does not issue statements, then we believe that the church does not care about this moral travesty unfolding before us or the people in our own church most affected by it." Rowe outlined the church's priorities: strengthening relationships with the Episcopal Church of Jerusalem and the Middle East, advocating with the U.S. government for humanitarian aid and a permanent ceasefire, ending weapons sales to Israel, and continuous prayer. What the Bishop Didn't Mention Rowe's statement overlooked several critical realities on the ground: The Current Ceasefire: Rowe did not acknowledge that a pause in the war is now in place, nor did he address concerns that Hamas could use this pause to regroup its forces. Hamas's Role in the Humanitarian Crisis: Gaza has been receiving U.S. aid through the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), but Hamas has systematically stifled the flow of assistance to Palestinians, stealing aid and reselling some of it to Gazans at exorbitant prices. This is a distribution problem, not a lack of aid or willingness to provide it. With the ceasefire, Israel has been able to deliver food directly to the people. Hamas's Activities: Hamas is currently fighting and killing rival Palestinian tribes in Gaza City in an attempt to assert full control over Gaza—a development Rowe did not address. Hamas's Refusal to Disarm: Hamas appeared to renege on key demands of President Trump's ceasefire deal just hours after the world celebrated the end of the Gaza war, with a top official saying the terror group will not give up its arms or control over the Gaza Strip. There can be no permanent ceasefire unless and until Hamas lays down its weapons as part of Phase 2 of the agreement. Israel's Stated Position From the outset of the war, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made clear that Israel has no conflict with the Palestinian people. Netanyahu has consistently stated that Hamas must be destroyed, not the people of Gaza, and that a Palestinian state alongside Israel is untenable because it would allow a violence-prone state to threaten Israeli security. President Trump has threatened to "eradicate" Hamas if it doesn't uphold the ceasefire with Israel, and the U.S. will not stop selling arms to its democratic ally. Understanding Hamas No one should be surprised by Hamas's refusal to lay down its arms. The 1988 Hamas Covenant spells out the organization's position clearly: Israel must be destroyed, there will be no negotiation, and jihad is the only answer. Conclusion Bishop Rowe should examine the full complexity of the situation, not just accept a one-sided narrative. His call for ending weapons sales to a democratic nation surrounded by hostile forces, while ignoring the terrorist organization that sparked this conflict, demonstrates a troubling blind spot. If Islam is not confronted and overcome it will continue to wreak havoc around the globe with its cries of Sharia Law and Jihad. The Palestinian Anglican Archbishop, Hosam Naoum, whom Rowe seeks to support lives in the comfort and safety of Jerusalem, condemning the very nation that offers him peace and security. END

Archbishop of Canterbury's Sermon at the Anglican Church of the Redeemer, Amman Monday 26 January 2004 [ACNS source: Lambeth Palace] 'If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching' Time and again the Christian life demands that we ask ourselves what it is that we really love. When Jesus meets Peter again beside the Sea of Galilee after his resurrection, he asks him three times, 'Do you love me?' And the challenge of the risen Jesus is always to ask us this: is it me that you love, he wants to know, or something else, perhaps something masquerading as me? St Augustine said that a community becomes a community when it is united in love of the same thing. But that love of the same thing can be lifegiving or deathdealing, depending on what it is that is loved. We can find ourselves agreeing in the love of something that eats away at the very roots of our humanity while we ignorantly suppose that it is good and godly. At times in the past, Christians have reinforced their sense of unity by cultivating a collective contempt or fear or hatred for others - Jews and Muslims in particular. They have reinforced the unity of their own brand of Christianity by agreeing to despise other Christians. And when this happens, whether for one Christian denomination or for the Christian world as a whole, we have to ask, 'Is it the love of Christ that unites us? Or do we really love something quite different?' Perhaps what we love is our security. We want to be utterly safe, safe from strangers, safe from surprise. So we organise ourselves in such a way that no-one can break through our boundaries and no-one ever is allowed to challenge what we do. What this usually means is also that we speak as if all that was corrupting and threatening came from outside, so that the stranger, the other, was always evil. Literally or metaphorically, we fight over territory. We are so interested in defending the boundaries that we forget how to live day by day on our own soil, the soil we are so eager to protect. And this relates to another great danger. Perhaps we are in love with our suffering. It sounds like a shocking idea, but we need to think hard about it. We have a history of oppression, displacement, cruelty from the hands of others, and our whole sense of who we are becomes bound up with this. We know who we are because we all join to tell the same story of how inhumanly we have been treated. It may be a true story, a terrible story: the world does indeed run with innocent blood and the history of any community will be shot through with the stuff of nightmares. Reading Christian history should tell us as clearly as we could wish that there is hardly any Church that has not been responsible at some point for another Church's suffering. It is so hard to come to the point where we are free to say, 'I must make something from my suffering that will build bridges into the suffering of another'. How much easier to say, 'My suffering is greater than yours; my needs must override yours.' And so we never come to a place where justice for everyone can be worked out because we want first of all to have the justice that is ours alone, whatever the expense to anyone else. And this means in turn that we can even be in love with our weakness. We are so used to being victims that we cannot get used to acting for ourselves. We react, we fail to plan and to create; and so we never have to take real responsibility for what happens, because someone else always has the initiative. We can take refuge in the dignity of not having to risk decision and change. And in all this, can we hear Christ saying, 'Do you love me?' Because all of these different kinds of love are ways of shutting him out. We believe that he and he alone is the one who can reconcile all things and people, precisely because he delivers us from the traps and prisons we have just been considering. He tells us that he is our security. When we know that he accepts us as we are and that he will never let go of us in the long work of transforming us into his likeness, we have a security that goes deeper than any external defence. We are able at last to recognise that evil is not somewhere out there in the stranger, the enemy, but in our own hearts, in their fear and narrowness. We learn for the first time that we must live on our soil, turning over what one of the Syrian saints called 'the earth of the heart' and not pour out our energy on keeping the stranger at bay. It isn't that this guarantees safety in itself. It is still the longest and most painful task imaginable to learn how to talk to the stranger, the enemy, and find very slowly and cautiously how it might be possible to share one world. And part of what makes that just a little more possible is that Christ frees us from imprisonment in the memory of our suffering. He doesn't take it away; but he helps us see how our suffering is like that of others - even our enemy's - and so gives us a language to speak with each other. And as he does this, he also frees us from the weakness we love; he gives us strength to take decisions, to think about the future. We readily forget that one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is intelligence, the capacity to see our situation truthfully and act out of that vision, the capacity also to see what God is asking and to do it, even if it is a tiny step of faithfulness or love. So we can indeed talk of a new creation in Christ. He confronts our confused and enslaving loves and asks us to look harder and deeper. Do we love him? Do we love the promise that we might be freed from the kind of love that corrupts and destroys us, and that keeps us at enmity with each other? In the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, all believers examine themselves to see how they are kept from each other by the love of security, the love of the sufferings of the past, the love of weakness. Christians have begun to learn in recent years how to celebrate the martyrs of each other's traditions, not only their own - a great testimony to the way that Christ makes us live both in the heart of our own territory, our own tradition, while taking away the fear of others. He gives us a ministry of reconciliation, says St Paul. And this surely means that Christians who have learned from Christ how to grow beyond the slavery of security and suffering and weakness have a unique role in the world. They can ask the communities in which they find themselves, 'What do you love? Are you held together by things that corrupt your life together and guarantee only that you will never grow out of fear?' What questions could be more needful for the churches to ask in this region? But if they are to ask them with effectiveness and integrity, they must first sit patiently and quietly themselves before God and ask about their own loves and their own failures in love. How do we bear this - because it shows us all that we hate and fear in ourselves? Only because he has promised that he and his Father will make their home with us as we strive to open our lives to him; in this knowledge is our peace, peace such as the world cannot give. © Rowan Williams 2004 UNEQUAL RIGHTS: Holding Homosexuals to a Different Standard by Chuck Colson Unequal Rights: Holding Homosexuals to a Different Standard BreakPoint with Charles Colson Commentary 01/07/2004 Most gay rights activists say they're simply working for "equal rights." But two recent court cases demonstrate that, whether they realize it or not, they're really working for something quite different. The first case concerns Cheryl Clark, a former lesbian, now a Christian. Clark's former partner, Elsey McLeod, sued for joint custody of Clark's adopted daughter after Clark left their relationship. The judge ruled in McLeod's favor on the grounds that she had been a "psychological parent." As Clark's lawyer, James Rouse, stated, McLeod "is being treated like a divorcing spouse even though they aren't and can't be married in the state of Colorado. The trial court has effectively skipped the 'gay marriage' issue and gone to 'gay divorce.'" And that's not all. At McLeod's request, the court also barred Clark from exposing her daughter to any Christian materials or teaching "that can be considered homophobic." So Clark could be found in contempt of court for studying the Bible with her daughter or taking her to church. Fortunately, Clark is appealing this outrageous decision. The second case is equally bizarre. After David Blanchflower divorced his wife, Sian, because of adultery, Sian appealed the case, arguing that her lesbian relationship wasn't adultery. The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled in her favor, finding that the state's laws didn't include same-sex relationships in the definition of adultery. Even gay activists are upset about this one, arguing that it portrays homosexual relationships as less "significant." One advocacy group wrote in a "friend of the court" brief, "New Hampshire courts should treat gay adultery the same no matter the gender of the person with whom the spouse engages in an extramarital relationship." Clearly, Sian was unfaithful to her marriage vows, but I think they're missing the larger point. It's not just that gay adultery is treated differently; it's that homosexuality in general is treated differently. It is given preferential treatment in both of these cases. Many in our culture have fallen for the argument that homosexuality is inborn, even though that argument is based on faulty evidence and wouldn't matter if it were true. But this leads to the conclusion that, by nature, homosexuals are cut off from enjoying the same rights that the rest of us enjoy. So we change the law accordingly. That's why even some conservatives who are against gay "marriage" are in favor of "civil unions." But as you have heard me say before, homosexual relationships are not the same as heterosexual relationships. A heterosexual relationship brings together the two sexes to complement and fulfill each other; a homosexual relationship cannot. And nearly all heterosexual relationships are able to produce children; homosexuals cannot without a third party. So, ironically, any effort to treat homosexuality equal with heterosexuality ends up treating homosexuality as a special case, forcing us to bend the rules that govern our society—and create spurious concepts like "psychological parents." We need to realize this before it's too late: Trying to create equivalency where none exists can only end in confusion and chaos. For printer-friendly version, simply visit www.breakpoint.org and click on Today's Commentary. The printer-friendly link is on the left-hand column. Copyright (c) 2004 Prison Fellowship

By Peter Moore At the close of the American Anglican Council's remarkable conference in Dallas on October 9, as 2,700 Episcopalians prepared to return to their churches and dioceses, I went back to my room and wept. I was not unhappy with the conference. It was an astounding show of support for a biblically orthodox witness within our Church. Coming when it did - shortly before the crucial meeting of Anglican Primates at Lambeth and the subsequent consecration of V. Gene Robinson in New Hampshire - it sent a message. Eight hundred clergy and more than twice that number of laity were prepared to stand firm and joyfully witness to our historic faith and values. So in some ways I was elated. But along with the elation there was something else. I struggled with the undeniable sense that, while we are strong and vital, we had lost. We lost a thirty-year struggle to prevent the Episcopal Church from going over the cliff. Now the deed is done. Same-sex blessings will become commonplace throughout the Church, supported by majority vote of General Convention. And a divorced man living in a homosexual relationship is now a consecrated bishop in the Church - by majority vote. No one can open a newspaper or turn on the TV without being confronted with the stark reality that a major Protestant denomination has done the unthinkable. Will other denominations, with our encouragement, follow? And so I wept, alone in my room, on my knees, with my bags packed. I am not given to outward displays of emotion, but in the privacy of my room, I realized that something precious had been lost and would never be regained. I have since discovered that I am not alone. A general grief has come over the Church. Even those who supported the election of V. Gene Robinson as bishop coadjutor in New Hampshire now realize that they have opened a Pandora's Box of problems. The script of our "play" follows the stages of grief outlined by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross in On Death and Dying (Macmillan, 1969). Kubler-Ross found that she could roughly group the responses of people presented with catastrophic news. First there is the "No, not me" stage (denial). Then there is the "Why me?" stage (anger). The third stage is "If you do this, I'll do that" (bargaining). This is followed by a fourth stage: "It's really happened" (depression). Finally, there is the "Okay, this is what has happened" stage (acceptance). Perhaps the stages do not always follow the order that Kubler-Ross outlined, but most health care professionals agree that these are the components of grief at the prospect of dying. More broadly, the stages of grief describe the experience of people who receive catastrophic news of any kind. General Convention 2003 was catastrophic news to many Episcopalians. "Their Church" had decided against everything they knew to be true about human sexuality. Moreover, it had gone against everything the Church itself had said - and has kept saying - about sexuality ever since the subject became contentious. And if that weren't enough, it went against everything the bishops of the entire Anglican Communion had said at Canterbury in 1998, when, by a vote of 526 to 70, the Church made a landmark statement that "homo-sexuality was incompatible with Scripture." In agreement with that statement were the Pope, the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, and the vast majority of Protestants worldwide, including the burgeoning churches of Africa, Asia and Latin America. The stunning decision to defy world Christian opinion by a tiny body of American Episcopalians at GC 2003 sent shock waves around the globe. So how do we relate this to the categories of grief? Denial "No, not us." We were used to hearing terrible news about a small minority of Roman Catholic priests who were abusing children and youth while the Roman hierarchy looked the other way. But suddenly, we were in the midst of our own sexual scandal. Why were we surprised? For years Episcopalians have been pressured by a small but favored lobby to change the Church's teaching on human sexuality. At one point, I visited the Episcopal Church Center's bookstore at 815 Second Avenue, New York. Of several shelves of books on sexuality, not one supported the historic, biblical view! As a communion, we were in denial. Many churches merely ignored the continued mandates to "study and dialogue" on this issue. Priests refused to talk about it from the pulpit, fearing that it might divide congregations. Adult education classes skirted around the issue. The pro-gay lobby Integrity had spent upwards of $300,000 to push for the affirmation of Robinson and to pass legislation supporting the blessing of non-marital unions, so there had been plenty of advance warning. But most of us chose not to see the obvious. No wonder people were surprised after General Convention. Anger "Why us?" There is anger throughout the Church. Priests are being accosted at airports by people who are stupefied at the Episcopal decision. All but 10 parishioners walked out of a New Hampshire church at Bishop Robinson's first confirmation. One bishop, who voted for Robinson, has reportedly received 1000 letters from laity who opposed his decision. Conversely, bishops who voted against Robinson are besieged at open meetings. Dioceses, parishes and individuals are withholding funds from the National Church at an unprecedented rate. One church treasurer laid the key to his church on his Rector's desk and walked out, never to return. Some priests were told by their bishops that if they went to the AAC conference, they should start looking for new jobs. One bishop disinvited the Presiding Bishop to the consecration of his successor. Another bishop resigned from every committee he was on and called for the resignation of the Presiding Bishop. Building campaigns have been put on hold. Clergy groups on both sides of the issue are gathering to strategize. Some clergy have gone so far as to remove the word "Episcopal" from their church's notice board. The stories could be multiplied. My own phone has been ringing off the hook with calls from distraught friends. Seminarians are wondering how they can pledge to obey the "doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church" when they are ordained. The catastrophe we dimly feared, and denied for a long time, is upon us; and we cannot ignore it any longer. And so we blame others. We blame them for poor theological training, poor preaching and teaching and poor leadership. We rant about the "cultural captivity of the Church." We fail to see that we all have a share in this problem. Perhaps it was our own inactivity, our own failure to read up on the subject of human sexuality, to be active in the political life of our Church or congregation and our own lack of courage to speak up. We suppose that, as long as things don't change too much over at St. Swithin's, we'll be okay. What happens way up there in New Hampshire needn't bother us all that much, as long as our children and grandchildren are still taught the Bible. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way, and we will all eventually be affected. A few years ago, when Canon Gene Robinson was right-hand man to the bishop of New Hampshire, he spoke to 500 co-ed teenagers at St. Paul's School in Concord. In his talk, he spoke about how sex is a gift of God, and that God wants us to use this gift whether with friends of the same sex or friends of the opposite sex, as long as we do it safely. He closed his address with the words: "Share your love with your friends. Use a condom." Was one of your children or grandchildren among those 500 impressionable teenagers? One church leader published a manual for "churches in conflict." It recognized the problem that congregations are divided on many issues, especially sexuality. Its solution is a series of parish discussion groups, carefully choreographed, whose basic premise is the assumption that the only thing we must all agree NOT to be is "right." Being right, says the manual, is the beginning of all our problems. Well, that's one way to ensure the outcome - and a highly manipulative one at that. Bargaining "If we do this, you'll do that." Perhaps if we withhold monies from the National Church, you'll provide "alternative Episcopal oversight" to our parish. Perhaps if we get the Archbishop of Canterbury on our side, you'll let us leave with our church property. Perhaps, if we have a series of open meetings, and hear all sides of the issue, we can just "agree to disagree agreeably" and life will go on as usual. This bargaining stage doesn't last. Things move inexorably to the next stage. Depression "Okay, this is what has happened." Eventually, people become depressed over the state of things and sink into a quiet, sullen or unhappy mood. Depression may lead to exploring other churches, regretting a donation to the most recent building fund, avoiding the subject or even serious doubt. One clergyman recently wrote me that he had abandoned "anachronistic Theism" and thought that anybody who believed the Bible to be the Word of God was worse than crazy. He said that if he still thought that theism and believing in the Bible as the Word of God were essential, he'd declare himself a non-Christian immediately. "The Church is under judgment" is a phrase I am hearing from an increasing number of thoughtful folk. Such a thought (whether right or wrong) emerges quite naturally when one is depressed. Grief can also include an inability to make decisions, listlessness and tiredness and a sense of ennui. The idea that what happened cannot be changed leads to a time of quiet withdrawal, and sadness. Acceptance "This has really happened." The blinders are off, reality has set in, things won't change. One might as well cut one's losses and move on. The liberal end of the Church is counting on this stage leading to a resumption of business as usual. Conservatives are less sanguine. With many looking for exit strategies, and many already gone, the prospects for the great surge in membership that Bishop Robinson's supporters guaranteed us would happen with his consecration seem dim. People will still go to church, no doubt, and still put their money in the plate. But deep down there will be a sense that something wonderful, something precious, something life-giving has been lost. We will have to move on. Here's an acronym I've seen for the work of grieving: TEAR T = To accept the reality of loss E = Experience the pain of loss A = Adjust to the new environment without the lost object R = Reinvest in the new reality Perhaps, as we comfort one another, we can help one another get through this difficult period. Change and hope are part of our faith. Resurrection follows death. We must remember that around the world the Church is growing as it has never grown before. Believers are faithful under persecution. As one young priest wrote me: "My faith is still intact." Grief can be good, if it forces us to reevaluate where we have come, and where we are going. I, for one, am grateful for the tears I shed in Dallas. I have a smile on my face today. The Rev. Dr. Peter Moore is Dean, Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry   END