The Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes     A statement from Bishop James M. Stanton DIOCESE OF DALLAS     My Brothers and Sisters in Christ,     The Charter conference held in Plano is now concluded and the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes has been established.     It was unanimously agreed to by the bishops and representatives of the  dioceses noted, and by representatives of parishes in other dioceses concerned to preserve the unity of the Church within the Anglican Communion. There are two points of paramount importance to me and, I trust, to us all.     1. The Charter makes very clear that the Network shall operate in good  faith within the Constitution of The Episcopal Church (Article I). At no time was the suggestion made or considered that the Network would work outside the Constitution of the Episcopal Church.     2. The purpose of the Network is to constitute a true and legitimate expression of the world-wide Anglican Communion and to maintain the widest possible connection to that Communion (Articles II, III, IV).     The Network Charter provides a simple structure which will permit its affiliates to explore and pursue ministry together. I hope and pray that by this means we can begin to look to the future and, confident of our relationships with all others in the Anglican Communion, carry on our God-given mission.     Those representing the Diocese of Dallas besides myself were: Dr. Bill Power, President of the Standing Committee Canon Paul Lambert, dean of our General Convention Deputies Neil Anderson and Laura Allen, both deputies of long experience particularly in the area of Constitution and Canons (Laura has served as Secretary of the relevant Convention Committee for two General Conventions, and is also a member of the Standing Committee).     Alternate representatives included: Dean Michael Mills of the Cathedral Fr. Henry Pendergrass, member of the Standing Committee Lana Valenta, chair of our Diocesan Convention Committee Canon Neal Michell of our Staff and Fr. David Roseberry, rector of Christ Church and host of the  Conference and Fr. Larry Smith, rector of Incarnation.     A Network is only as good as the purposes it is designed to serve. My hope is that the Network will become a resource to all of us as we seek to move forward as the Church we are and which our Constitution proclaims us to be.     Much discussion among the representatives focused on matters that, in fact, are consistent with our own Strategic Plan: planting new congregations, discipling new members of the Body of Christ, educating our people for leadership in the years ahead. It will take time to reflect on and deepen our understanding of the Network.     I leave today (Wednesday) for the enthronement of the Rt. Rev. Henry Orombi as the new Archbishop of the Church of Uganda. (That event will take place on January 25. Please pray for him and all of us.) On my return, I will call a meeting of the Clergy to discuss the Network and will plan to present it to the Diocese in local meetings in the weeks ahead.     How would I describe our participation in this Network? For the time being, we will be provisional participants. As I said to the Executive Council and the Standing Committee, I expect that if the Network meets a need and serves the purposes for which it has been established it will be presented to the Diocesan Convention in October for formal action.     Let me add a comment concerning an article that appeared in the Washington Post concerning a document that was circulated by a sub-committee of a sub-committee of the American Anglican Council. It concerned adequate episcopal oversight.     As I understand it, that document was a draft. It was never circulated to any bishops, and in fact had never been approved by the AAC. I certainly knew nothing about it until the matter appeared in the press, and would never have supported any such approach.     I raise this matter because the Post article and the document itself  seemed to link it to the Network - which had not yet been formed!     I trust that the Network will be judged on its own merits and by what it does, and not by the acts or interpretations of others.     For my own part, as I have said consistently throughout the weeks preceding and all the time following our General Convention, we stand on the Constitution and Canons of the Church and will not depart from them.     I want to be clear that the matter of adequate episcopal oversight was first raised by the Primates (including our own) at the Lambeth Meeting on October 15-16 and was set out in their letter issued at the conclusion of that meeting.     The Network is committed to work for the provision of adequate episcopal oversight (Article VII) as envisioned by and in cooperation with the Primates. Nothing more, nothing less. Please look at the Charter.     END

Ethics & Religion     By Michael J. McManus     Three different groups competed behind the scenes to persuade President Bush to take different stands on marriage in his State of the Union. Ironically, none ca me away satisfied but all were pleased to some degree. Appetites were whetted by a page one Jan. 14 New York Times story that began: Administration officials say they are planning an extensive election-year initiative to promote marriage, especially among low-income couples, and they are weighing whether President Bush should promote the plan next week in his State of the Union address.     For months, administration officials have worked with conservative groups on the proposal, which would provide at least $1.5 billion for training to help couples develop interpersonal skills that sustain `healthy marriages.     A network of marriage educators, scholars, activists and leaders at the Department of Health and Human Services knew instantly that what was described was their favorite Bush proposal, a Healthy Marriage Initiative.     It is a $300 million a year plan tucked into Welfare Reform that would pay for public advertising campaigns on the value of marriage education in high schools on relationship skills marriage education  and skill training as conflict resolution and financial management for non-married pregnant women and non-married expectant fathers pre-marital education and marriage skills training for engaged couples marriage enrichment for already married couples divorce reduction programs and marriage mentoring programs which used married couples as role models.     However, contrary to what the Times believed, this is old news.  The President first proposed this law two years ago.  The House and the Senate Finance Committee passed the bill. However, it is stalled. Senate Democrats are resisting giving Bush another victory in an election year. Activists hoped Bush would argue for its passage.     Another cluster of conservative Christians such as Concerned Women for America and Family Research Council (FRC), hoped the President would clearly support a proposed Constitutional Amendment that would limit marriage to the union of a man an d a woman, prohibiting same-sex marriage such as that ordered in November by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court of the states Legislature within  180 days.     FRC President Tony Perkins argues that if Massachusetts begins issuing same sex marriage licenses in May, they will rapidly spread around the country, as homosexuals travel to Massachusetts to marry and then return to their  home states and challenge state laws against gay marriage. Recent U.S.   Supreme Court cases suggest it would overturn those laws. Just before he delivered the State of the Union, leaders of 100 million evangelicals and Catholics wrote the President in support of a third idea. We call on you to join us in setting an important national goal - to slash Americas divorce rate in half over the next decade, wrote Ted   Haggard, President of the National Association of Evangelicals and Richard L and, President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.     They applauded his Healthy Marriage Initiative, and argued, We believe that the disintegration of marriage is the central domestic problem of our time. Half of new marriages are failing and marriage rates have plunged.     They noted Catholics and Protestants in 183 cities created Community Marriage Policies with the conscious goal of pushing down divorce rates with such initiatives as thorough marriage preparation of 4-6 months that includes taking a premarital inventory and discussing issues it raises with trained mentor couples, enriching existing marriages with an annual retreat and training couples whose own marriages had once nearly failed to come alongside those in current crisis.       Haggard and Land cited an independent study providing evidence that divorce rates are declining in many cities. (Disclosure: I am president of Marriage Savers that helped create this initiative.)     Cardinal William Keeler of Baltimore, past president of Catholic bishops, sent a separate letter to Bush supporting the divorce reduction goal.     In his State of the Union, Bush did back a 1996 federal law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, noting that activist judges have begun redefining marriage by court order....If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative...would be the constitutional process.     Perkins was disappointed Bush did not explicitly endorse the amendment and is awaiting the Massachusetts outcome. Nor did the President mention the Healthy Marriage Initiative or slashing divorce rates. But all three groups were pleased that a President declared, Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.     And for the first time, Catholic and evangelical leaders set a goal to slash divorce rates in half by 2014.     END

By Terry Mattingly   Jesuits rarely receive frantic calls from Hollywood megastars rushing to finish movies that are causing media firestorms.     But Father William Fulco is getting used to it, as Mel Gibson completes his cathartic epic The Passion of the Christ. While mixing dialogue the other day, Gibson hit a scene in which a man standing at a door lacked something to say. The director needed a line -- right now. Fulcos first question was unique to this project: Was this character supposed to speak Latin or first-century Aramaic?     Mel said the camera was not on the speakers face, so we did not need  to synchronize what he said with his the movements of his mouth, said  Fulco, who translated the screenplay into the two ancient languages, with English subtitles.     The character needed to say something in Aramaic in the ballpark of, What do you want? So I had him say in rather colloquial early Aramaic, MAH? MAH BAEH? That is literally, What? What wanting?     That worked.     It has been nearly two years since Fulco answered the telephone and heard a strange voice blurt out: Hey Padre! Its Mel!   Gibsons proposal was unusual, but fit the Jesuits skills as a professor of ancient Mediterranean studies at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. Fulco began digging into Hebrew texts seeking the roots of the now-dead Aramaic language, while simultaneously exploring dialects such as Syriac spoken today in tiny Christian enclaves in Iran, Syria and Turkey. He also stepped into heated academic debates between those who favor a more Italian-friendly Latin and those who reject this approach. I’m getting hate mail about Latin pronunciations, said Fulco. On guy  wrote who was angry about what he called these ecclesiastical bastardizations of the Latin. Not only was he going to boycott the movie, he said he was going to call his high school Latin teacher and tell her to boycott the movie as well.     I have to keep reminding people: This is not a documentary. We had to make artistic choices.     Legions of critics, of course, oppose the film for other reasons. Liberal Catholics and some Jewish leaders claim the script is tainted by anti-Semitism. Meanwhile, Gibson -- who has invested $25 million in the project -- has previewed early versions to rapt audiences of traditional Catholics, evangelicals and others. The film opens on 2,000 U.S. screens on Feb. 25, which is Ash Wednesday.     It is crucial to realize that the images and language at the heart of The Passion of the Christ flow directly out of Gibsons personal dedication to Catholicism in one of its most traditional and mysterious forms -- the 16th century Latin Mass.     I don’t go to any other services, the director told the Eternal Word Television Network. I go to the old Tridentine Rite. Thats the way that I first saw it when I was a kid. So I think that that informs ones understanding of how to transcend language. Now, initially, I didn’t  understand the Latin. 85 But I understood the meaning and the message and what they were doing. I understood it very fully and it was very moving and emotional and efficacious, if I may say so.     The goal of the movie is to shake modern audiences by brashly juxtaposing the sacrifice of the cross with the sacrifice of the altar -- which is the same thing, said Gibson. This ancient union of symbols and sounds has never lost its hold on him. There is, he stressed, a lot of power in these dead languages.     Thus, the seemingly bizarre choice of Latin and Aramaic was actually part of the message. The goal of Gibsons multicultural, multilingual team was to make a statement that transcended any one time, culture and tongue.   We didn’t want another movie with Jesus as some kind of Aryan superman or Jesus as a surfer, said Fulco. We saw one movie in which Jesus was almost this Michael Jackson kind of character. Try to imagine that.     We didn’t want an American Jesus, or a Japanese Jesus or a French Jesus. What we wanted was a language that allowed Jesus to be none of these nationalities, so that he can be all of them at the same time.  This is a universal story.     Terry Mattingly ( www.tmatt.net ) teaches at Palm Beach Atlantic University and is senior fellow for journalism at the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities. He writes this weekly column for the Scripps Howard News Service.   END

By Julia Duin THE WASHINGTON TIMES January 22, 2004     ORLANDO, Fla. -- Famed film actor and producer Mel Gibson told 5,000  pastors yesterday that there will always be opposition to films on the Gospel, but you have to stand your ground and slug it out.     Mr. Gibson also told the gathering of evangelical and charismatic Christian clergy at Calvary Assembly of God Church that he was grateful for their spiritual support. The pastors had assembled for a showing of his soon-to-be-released film. The Passion of the Christ. I think this work can change things, Mr. Gibson said. The film officially opens in 2,000 movie theaters nationwide on Feb. 25, Ash Wednesday.     To atone for the sins of everybody, it boggles the mind, said Mr. Gibson, who spent close to $25 million from his personal funds to make the film. [Christ] could have done it by pricking His finger and shedding His blood. He didn’t choose to do that. He went all the way.     The 47-year-old producer paid tribute to the co-founder of the conference, Bill Bright, the leader of Campus Crusade, who before his death in July released remarks praising the film, saying it captures Christ’s agonies with explosive poignancy.     The movie, Mr. Bright added, will forever change your view of God Himself and what He did for us all on that dark day in history as He endured an ignominious trial and hung on the cross. Mr. Gibson, a Roman Catholic, personally has been showing the movie to various groups to garner support. The showing last night was aimed at evangelical Protestant pastors in the hope of building anticipation for the film, which is R-rated and shot in Aramaic and Latin, with English subtitles.     Speaking for about 15 minutes, he asked the assembly to pray and promised that the film will change your heart.     Mr. Gibson said he showed it to one agnostic friend, and the next day,  he read all four of the Gospels.     The crowd gasped.     Like he saw the movie, and that made him want to read the book, Mr. Gibson said.     The showing, which began at 9 p.m., was a big gamble by the director of such celebrated movies as Braveheart and The Man Without a Face. Mr. Gibson hopes that pastors nationwide will promote The Passion so their congregations will flood theaters during the opening week.     Evangelical and Catholic leaders ranging from National Association of Evangelicals President Ted Haggard to Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput have seen and praised the cinematic endeavor. But several Jewish groups have condemned The Passion, saying it may provoke anti-Semitism. The criticism has spurred Mr. Gibson to show the movie only to audiences that are favorably disposed.       The showing last night, from which reporters were banned, was heavily guarded. Participants had to sign confidentiality statements to enter, with an exception for pastors wishing to speak in support of the movie.       Mr. Gibson also showed the film to Pope John Paul II, who, upon viewing the film last month at the Vatican, is reported to have said, It is as it was.     Although that quote has been disputed by the Catholic News Service, the apparent papal thumbs up counteracted a far more negative reaction in April from a nine-member team of Catholic and Jewish scholars appointed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).     The committee said the version of the screenplay they received was full of objectionable elements that would promote anti-Semitism because it depicts Jews as responsible for Jesus crucifixion and death.     The USCCB eventually disavowed any connection to the scholars and apologized for the remarks.     Because of the criticism, all major Hollywood studios decided to p ass on The Passion. The film was without a distributor for months until Newmarket Films agreed to distribute it for Mr. Gibsons company, Icon Productions.     Church groups nationwide have put in large ticket orders to see the movie, despite the graphic violence surrounding the crucifixion.       Copyright News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.     END

In this final segment of the series I will seek to drive home the truth of my thesis: the clear and consistent teaching of Scripture and Tradition must not be set aside and overturned on the basis of dubious and conflicting evidence from reason and experience.  In the previous installment I attempted to substantiate the first part of this thesis: namely, that the teaching about homosexual behavior in Scripture and Tradition is clear and consistent.  I also insisted that it is overwhelmingly negative and, more importantly, that it is by no means irrelevant today. What then of the second part of my main thesis?  In what ways are the liberal grounds for setting aside and overturning this clear and consistent biblical and ecclesiastical tradition completely unjustified because they are based on dubious and conflicting evidence from reason and experience?       First, as I argued in parts 1-3, the liberal arguments are undermined by the fact that they depend on a highly selective and biased interpretation of modern experience, namely the experience of unrepentant gay men and lesbians, while ignoring the contrary experience of the growing number of ex-gays whom God has miraculously healed.  There is no logical reason why we should pay more attention to the experience of Louie Crew and Gene Robinson than to that of ex-gays like Alan Medinger and Mario Bergner.  That is, at the very least, the argument from experience is based on conflicting evidence.       Secondly, as noted especially in part 1, the purported scientific evidence that is commonly thought to indicate that a homosexual orientation is innate and immutable is actually quite weak.  In fact, the scientific tide seems to be turning.  A few early studies that seemed to point toward a biological origin for a homosexual orientation have not been replicated.  The search for the hypothetical gay gene has failed, as is increasingly admitted by geneticists.  Instead, scientists with differing biases are acknowledging the bewildering complexity of this matter.  It is likely that multiple influences, not all benign, shape our sexual identity and behavior.  That is, the supposed scientific evidence for an innate homosexual orientation is dubious at best.  It is certainly unproven.   Third, there is now irrefutable evidence that, at least for some homosexuals, perhaps most, there is real hope for such profound healing that first their gender identity and then even their orientation itself can be divinely transformed.  I've seen this miracle in the lives of my brother-in-law, Joe Hallett, the founder of Outpost, an ex-gay ministry in Minneapolis, and several friends I know.  Ministries like Desert Stream in Anaheim, California (and the popular Living Waters Course designed by its founder Andy Comiskey) and Redeemed Lives in Wheaton, Illinois (led by Episcopal priest Mario Bergner) have helped hundreds of Christians struggling with unwanted same-sex attractions and behaviors to overcome them.  Of course, not all are healed, any more than all the people we pray for to be healed of cancer are healed.  But that doesn't mean we should stop praying fervently for their healing.  After all, we don’t conclude that since many cancer patients aren't healed, therefore cancer can't be so bad.       Fourth, there are several undeniable facts that stubbornly stand in the way of the liberal attempt to justify homosexual behavior as simply the natural thing for a certain minority of people.  One is the fact that several identical twin studies have shown that it is rare for both twins to be gay.  Since identical twins share exactly the same genes, if a homosexual orientation were primarily genetic, then we would expect both twins to be the same, either both gay or both straight.  Yet the most recent and most reliable studies show that only 10-15% of the time are both identical twins gay.  This strongly suggests that whatever biological influence there may be, other factors are even more important.        Another such stubborn fact that liberals overlook is the indisputable fact that the actual incidence of homosexual behavior varies enormously among cultures.  In some cultures, ancient and modern, it is virtually unknown (as for example among the ancient Jews).  In other cultures, ancient and modern, it is much more widespread (as among the ancient Greeks).  Greenberg’s massive cross-cultural study of this matter, The Construction of Homosexuality, provides ample evidence of this highly significant fact.  Once again, this is very difficult to account for if homosexuality were mostly genetic, but much easier to explain if environmental influences outweigh whatever genetic predispositions there may be.       Finally, while the genetic studies may seem forbiddingly complex to scientific amateurs (like myself), the facts of human anatomy are obvious to all.  The plain fact is that the great majority of homosexuals are men, and the primary way they engage in intercourse is by penetrating the anal canal.  Unfortunately for them, anal intercourse is extremely unhealthy, because, unlike the vagina, the anal passageway is thinly lined.  Thus frequent penetration of the anus leads to the extremely high rate of serious infections that afflict gay men.  This is an indisputable medical fact that any doctor who treats a significant number of gay patients can confirm.  The truth is that the medical risks of homosexual behavior are not by any means limited to AIDS and STDs.       If you will pardon a graphic reminder of some crude biological facts, the reality is that the frequent bruises and tears in the anal passage caused by their sexual behavior make gay men highly vulnerable to any germs that invade their bodies through that route.  Of course, given that the purpose of the anal canal is the elimination of waste products from the body, this means constant exposure to toxic elements.  Condoms do little to prevent this bruising and tearing.  This helps explain the disturbingly high mortality rate among gay men, even when AIDS is completely discounted.  The average lifespan for gay men is only 49, a shocking fact that is one of the best-kept secrets of the gay community.   To condone such an extremely unhealthy practice as anal intercourse is not the way to show love to our gay neighbors!  Indeed, it is quite the opposite. All this clearly shows that Paul was right all along.  Homosexual behavior is indeed contrary to nature (para physin, Romans 1:26-27).  Thus, even apart from the clear and consistent condemnation of it in Holy Scripture, the practice of such an unnatural and unhealthy lifestyle is extremely imprudent.  It violates the way our human nature is constituted as male and female, and it puts gay people at great risk.  It is not simply that, to put it crudely, the vagina was designed for sex and the anus wasn’t.  Rather, the politically incorrect reality is that men and women were designed to complement each other in many ways, including emotionally as well as physically.  It is no accident that so many relationships among gay people are very short-lived.  This is not primarily because social taboos and laws make it impossible for gay men or lesbians to be married.  Rather, it is what any reasonable person who is well-informed on these matters would expect.  Gay relationships are inherently defective because of their imbalance between the masculine and the feminine dimensions of our common humanity     The fundamental theological problem with same-sex intimacy from a natural law perspective is that it involves the futile attempt to find sexual completion in someone who is sexually the same, rather than a sexual opposite.  In a real sense, psychologically speaking, it is pursuing the fantasy of sexual narcissism (or conversely, an unreasonable fear of ones gender opposite, or aversion to it).  The profound and moving creation stories in Genesis 1-3 emphasize this male-female complementarity very strongly.   It is not good for the Man to be alone.  Therefore, the Creator forms Eve to match Adam, and the well-known conclusion of the story in Genesis 2 establishes an implicit norm for sexual relations:  Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. Both Jesus and Paul affirmed this without the slightest reservation or qualification.       All this shows that the attempt by liberal revisionists to overthrow the clear and consistent teaching of Holy Scripture and the consensus of the universal Church for 2,000 years is totally unwarranted.  The approval that the Episcopal Church has recently given to the revolutionary notion that homosexual behavior is not sinful after all may be politically correct, but it will never be theologically or morally correct.  It’s not even pastorally correct.  It is not only wrong, it is provably and catastrophically wrong.       Theoretically, of course, both Scripture and Tradition could be wrong.  But before the Church could validly overturn its traditional unconditional reprobation of homosexual behavior, both Scripture and Tradition would have to be proven wrong.  This is such a momentous change, they would have to be proven wrong beyond a reasonable doubt.  And that is far from being the case   Not only is there reasonable doubt about the correctness of the revisionist position; there is very substantial doubt.  Indeed, the revisionists can’t even claim a preponderance of the evidence.  The liberal case is actually much weaker than most people suppose.       The evidence from reason and experience that the revisionists have so far put forth to overturn Scripture and Tradition is both dubious and conflicting.  The clear and consistent teaching of Scripture and Tradition must not be set aside in such a cavalier manner. Therefore, the dramatic realignment of Anglicanism is, alas, a tragic necessity.     The Rev. Dr. David A. Handy is in the Diocese of Southern Virginia as a non-parochial priest. His license has not been renewed by Bishop David C. Bane because his theological views are considered too narrow.     END

By Dr. Joseph P. Murphy     Some of the last shall be first and some of the first shall be last, easily grips us as poetically just, one of the many ironies of the spiritual life as the human approaches the divine.     Recently the Episcopal theologian Ephraim Radner has written a Parable of the AMiA, in which he refers to the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA) as a movement in the Church seeking autonomy without accountability, even as it seeks to be obedient in the face of the spurning of God;s Word carried out by the Episcopal Church the USA (ECUSA) in their General Convention of 2003 approval, and the subsequent consecration of the active homosexual Gene Robinson as a bishop in the Church. However, Dr. Radner views as simply prosaic what I see as greatly ironic. Surrounding the creation and establishment of the {AMiA} has been charge and countercharge, innuendo, deceit, treachery, gossip, backbiting, lawsuits, and more.  Substitute just about any initiative of value that you;d like in between the braces { } in the sentence above, and chances are it will still be true.  To prove this point, and for fun, gather a roomful of Roman Catholics and Orthodox folks, and say out loud, ;Henry VIII is the beloved founder of our Church.       Not only are the origins of the movements of God’s Spirit surrounded by controversy evident in the life of Jesus, Athanasius, Luther, Cranmer, Wesley and Whitfield, and many more; it is trivial to stoke their embers back to life. The motivations and promptings of the Spirit revealed to us in the Book of Acts weren’t clear in the marketplaces of the early Roman Empire. Don’t you know what kind of criminal Jesus was? Don’t you know what criminal activities His followers practice, their preachers drawing away disciples after themselves?     Today, we believe that the truth of the matter was very different. Yet why do the epistles correct, rebuke, and warn those early churches so vigorously? Human activities are ugly, fraught with sin, because we all are. The Church is called to be different, because Jesus clearly was and is different. But that call does not purify us immediately, not back then, not now.       For more than thirty years John Spong has been unrebuked in the ECUSA. Yet the AMiA in its short life of 3 years has been rebuked over and over by members of the ECUSA, though AMiA is not part of it. Remaining in organizational communion with Spong for decades was acceptable, but affirming our fellowship in the Spirit with AMiA is not?       What’s wrong here? I asked myself that question in course of the 2000-2001 school year as an Anglican Studies student on the campus of Virginia Theological Seminary. I saw ECUSA seminarians who could not passionately give a personal testimony of Christ, passionately respond against the founding of AMiA. I saw students who openly and unabashedly admitted that they did not understand what all the bloody sacrifice in the Book of Hebrews was about, denounce the founding of the AMiA with great conviction.       This has convinced me of one thing: such conviction and antipathy has nothing to do with knowledge of the truth. Should a Christian hesitate to join the AMiA because of the furor surrounding it, whipped up beyond previous such examples to a far greater degree by the internet age in which we live? As in every case of innovation and change, it is difficult, if not impossible, to lay blame appropriately without incurring it ourselves. If one needs to know the truth underlying the internet noise, it may be a lifetime before a winner declares the truth of it. Personally, on the grounds of the Scripture’s teaching about human nature,       I assume the worst of all parties, and proceed from there. Jesus; teaching on forgiveness, seventy times seven times, strongly suggests that you and I, no matter who we are, do err and stray in many ways, in thought, word, and deed. A sound ecclesial body formed during this time of human redemption in Christ, is not formed on the righteousness of actions which it has achieved and maintains, but partially on its members response of forgiveness to the failings of their brothers and sisters to achieve such actions.       The Church cannot survive, it does not even exist without forgiveness. After all, the Rock upon which the Church is founded is both our example and our source for forgiveness. A sound ecclesial body is also partially founded on its vision and mission, that to which we are called, again, Christ Himself. The Church, comprised of the very same sinful men and women we encounter in this troubled world, has this one distinctive: we are responding to a call beyond ourselves.       The tension of that upward call in Christ to us who are bound by selfish desire to this world, allows the light of His glory, however small, to shine through us to our colleagues lost in darkness, but only as we obey that call. The force of those bonds are always present in this life, even when we choose to obey the voice of God instead of self. Lapsing back is a constant potential, but God’s grace is sufficient for us all. His grace is not as some would suppose, merely forgiveness, although it overflows with that. His grace trains us to renounce ungodliness and the passions of the world within ourselves (Titus 2:11-12), even as forgiveness is lavished upon us. The path of obedience to that upward call, then, is critical for the Christian life.       To whom do I submit as unto the Lord? This is the question that we face in the most ultimate way if we seek to obey the upward call of God in Christ. For me, the answer rests not in any ecclesial organizational genesis, but in the body of its faith, the clarity of its vision and mission, and its current practice, all of which connect it, or not, to the only true Genesis of the Church. Current practice can never be an absolute determiner, because of the great need for forgiveness.       Clergy and members become so, not because of their church’s purity of practice, but in spite of it. When I was ordained in the ECUSA, though, with but minor irritations, I embraced the faith, vision and mission of the Church as it was expressed in its Prayer Book and Historical Documents, which point so clearly to the Scriptures and to our Lord. The practice of the ECUSA, embodied in canon and resolution, at places struck discordant notes for me. One pertinent example has to do with its internal policy regarding discipline and Church property in relation to its external policy in regard to ecumenicity. Any casual observer can see that Anglican Continuing Churches in the US, for example, are far closer to Episcopal faith and order than are Lutheran and Moravian churches.       Yet, the ECUSA has entered into formal relations with the latter, not the former. Sharing clergy and sacraments with Lutherans and Moravians, we demonstrate unity with them, praying for them in our services. We wish their success. Yet, if a congregation wishes to leave ECUSA to join those of far more kindred faith and order than the Lutherans, such as an offshoot of the ECUSA among the Continuing Churches, the Dennis canon seeks their property back, as practically seeking their demise as housing the poor is practically seeking their welfare.       Looked at in terms of its rational consistency, the Dennis canon is bad enough. But it becomes monstrous when one recalls that we are called to keep the unity of the Spirit which has been given to us (Eph.4). Twenty-first century Christians know that such unity is not merely organizational. Formally, the ECUSA;s relationship with the ELCA and the Moravian Church acknowledge that it is not.       Brokenness is the profoundly sinful context of the Church in our time, as Ephraim Radner and Rusty Reno have described so well. Encouraging and perpetuating that brokenness cannot be healthy and good. So, Ephraim counsels us to stay where we are ecclesially, suffering the destruction, maintaining our witness, humiliated under the mighty hand of God as that which must be destroyed is destroyed around us and in us.       Yet, we find ourselves one in the Spirit with our brothers and sisters in other churches, and faced with some of the most egregious instances of Gnosticism in the history of the Church within the ECUSA that remain unrebuked by the Church, while its Prayer Book, enshrining the Creedal rebuke of Gnosticism by the early Church, remains contradicted in daily practice and pulpit teaching.       Is this not the irony Jesus describes in Matthew 23:29-32, that the fathers are esteemed for all but the truth they died for? What did our fathers practice in regard to false ecclesial leadership? Athanasius tells us that,...while the ministers of the Church are under persecution, the people who condemn the impiety of the Arian heretics choose rather thus to be sick and to run the risk, than that a hand of the Arians should come upon their heads.(Epistola Encyclica, 5). The numbers in Athanasius day were wholly stacked against him. By force of truth, he fought until victory.       That inspires us today, but we easily forget that the Church had deeply intertwined connections with State and Society that we no longer have. There will be no State executions as a result of the AMiA. Society will not be in chaos, if it even notices. The Church has only to answer to its Lord, none other.       If Athanasius faced down the Arians so boldly, why must we obey the Church canonical order when we know it is wielded by heresy worse than Arianism, which accepted the Scripture as it is(!), and nothing in Society or State rests on it? We are the Church, as the heretics say.       Why does the Church not act like it, having nothing to do with those who do not submit to Jesus as Lord, submitting only to those who do? Again, irony: the Church fails to be the Church when it plays Church. If I as a presbyter in the Church proclaim the gospel of Christ, calling all who hear to partake of the grace of God in Christ through faith and repentance of worldly passions in obedience to the Scriptures, but my ecclesial colleague on the next corner dismisses such repentance for his or her hearers, what unity do we share? Is the Spirit Who authored the Word of God through men that we preach an idiot?     Or should that be Idiot a new vision of irrationality in the Godhead? Does God know what He wants, or did we make the Scriptures up? Theology from above, and theology from below have met in the Episcopal Church. Only one is of God. For those who practice theology from below, any and all contradictory theologies can be held within the Church, never violating its unity, because its god is merely the image of humanity.       For orthodox Christians, maintaining ecclesial unity in the ECUSA as it now stands in 2004 is tantamount to affirming such idiocy in God. It is a denial of the revelation of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ...with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change...;(James 1:17 ESV) that we find in the Scriptures, as we are guided in our reading of it by the Creedal tradition of the Church. Now by its formal practice the ECUSA denies what the God of the Scriptures is like, in Whose image we are made.       The Church’s need for apologetics has always been to explain to the world why the wisdom of God in Christ appears foolish to it. Today strenuous apologetics are needed to explain to those who come to Christ why the ECUSA does not believe the gospel they have believed.       Babes in Christ can see that there are two spirits present in ECUSA’s leadership and membership, speaking two divergent visions and missions, two gospels. Can one hand over a new Christian to be discipled by the neighboring ECUSA priest? The biblical injunction to maintain the unity of the Spirit does not apply to the ECUSA per see it applies to the Church of Jesus Christ. Ironically, thinking outside the box is ordinary orthodox Christianity.        It is the box of denominational order that imprisons souls when that order no longer expresses the sole Order in the Church, that of its Lord. Human beings are amazingly inconsistent, doing the best things for the worst reasons, and the worst things for the best reasons. Not only must I consider the Parable of the AMiA as Ephraim Radner has told it a misreading of the phenomena, but I must refrain from dismissing brothers and sisters who are acting out of faithful obedience. That does not mean, however, that the best motives are matched by theologically and rationally coherent actions. All of our actions are open to critique, where our motives are known only to God. I remain convinced that Jesus alone is our Lord and Shepherd, and it is He Who works in and through all shepherds that He appoints, to which we are called to submit in ecclesial life.       As He is present wherever two or three are gathered in His name, and as He rules through His Word, all of us are united to Him through faith, and are able to obey and submit to Him. Seeking autonomy, as described by Ephraim, sounds like rebellion. But is it? The irony here is that rebellion to the authority of God through His word is now embraced by submission to an ecclesial order that has lost connection to the Head of the Church.       Dr. Radner, while denying the Reformers; concept of an invisible Church (see his The End of The Church), views the Episcopal Church as now having vacant sees where revisionists have voted for Robinson (expressed in his recent lecture at the Charleston 2004 ACI conference).       Instead of breaking visible ties with those who violate the invisible Church, he refuses to break visible ties, and maintains that violators of the visible Church in its leadership are themselves invisible! Such an ecclesiology is incoherent. If the visible Church is only that, it is only that, and the ECUSA has all its bishops intact, and is apostate.       If the Church is invisible, and is only approximately expressed in our sight, then the visible ECUSA has lost the marks of that Church. The Church can also be viewed as the future reality of the eternal kingdom of God here in the present. Internal contradictions of that future reality in terms of the  Church’s purity and witness to Christ temporize it, cutting it off from the eternal.      The ECUSA has affirmed that what we perceive ourselves to be, is what we were made to be. It has embraced an anthropology without a fall, a past that is one with its present. In so doing, it has embraced a future that is one with its present, a heaven without a hell. ;As I feel now without repentance, so must I ever be, only better. That lie is now the core of the ECUSA’ s mission statement of inoffensive welcome, in which no upward call exists to bring us out of that into which we have fallen, toward that which we shall become through repentance and faith.       In contrast, we must maintain the renunciation of sin, the devil, and the world common to all Christian witness. In so doing, we must submit to an ecclesial body where the gospel is maintained in its integrity as the word of Christ, our sole Authority, a word not divorced from the Scriptures or contradicting them but opening their given meaning and showing their fulfillment in Christ. Any spiritual authority under Christ’s Lordship in an ecclesial body must maintain the vision and mission of the Church that Christ has given it, to make disciples of all nations, teaching them to observe all that He has commanded us (Matt. 28:14).       The AMiA in its vision and mission preserves the integrity of the gospel. Its current practices, difficult to discern through internet ranting, appear to me certainly no worse than what I have known in the ECUSA, and quite possibly a good bit better. Certainly in respect to tolerance of heresy, it is an improvement demonstrating the repentance never seen in the ECUSA.       In personal interaction, I sense unity in the Spirit in a common gospel vision and mission, with all the variations of perspective, emphasis, and understanding common to people bound by a call to obedience to Jesus. Until the Lord returns, there will be need for forgiveness for the members and leaders of the AMiA. The same applies to the ECUSA and the American Anglican Council (AAC), no?       The AMiA is also convinced of how much we are in need of forgiveness, that our very desires are untrustworthy in the sight of God. In a contrary affirmation of the innate purity of desire, my ECUSA bishop voted for Gene Robinson. To submit fully to him, I would disobey the Lord. To obey the Lord by disobeying that bishop, I would violate Anglican order.       To submit to the AMiA I would violate Anglican order. Yet, there is no Anglican order that specifies how to violate Anglican order. Any action, therefore, that is disobedient to the ECUSA as it now stands, is a violation of Anglican order. Who decides which violation is best?       Any theologian, leader, other diocesan bishop, or group of them directing us to violate Anglican order, does so without the authority of Anglican order. That leaves each of us having one decision to make which is either to obey God, or man, and in that decisive action viewed in relation to the authoritative structure of the Church but without viewing it in relation to God(!) we are self-appointed.       Yet Dr. Radner describes the establishment of the AMiA as a warning lesson because self-appointed priests led the way to autonomy, as if anything but self-appointment characterizes AAC leadership overriding ordinary diocesan order. Self-appointment in a time of crisis of order due to corruption of duly ordained order cannot be unquestioningly construed as an evil. One could ask, who appointed the Anglican Communion Institute (ACI, formerly SEAD) to counsel the Primates?       Who appointed the leadership of the AAC? Certainly not the Church in authoritative council. What is construed as service in one context, may be viewed as self-appointment in another. Motive lies hidden to us, but what of authority? Are all actions that do not arise in committee self-appointment? Can they not come with the authority of God the Holy Spirit? Or is the Church a closed system of canon and constitution such that not even God can break through?       If Jesus is present where two or three are gathered in His name, and they are Primates, must a constitutional quorum and majority consensus exist among Primates first before they can act in the name of Jesus in a manner consistent with His Word against glaring denials of His Word? Do human politics ultimately trump divine authority itself? John the Baptist anointed Jesus in baptism, but, the baptism of John, from where did it come? From heaven or from man? (Matthew 21:23-27)       The sovereign prompting of the Spirit of God, the Lord, is not self-appointment not at least, if we hear Jesus question. It may well be that the AAC is led by the Spirit. It may be that the Spirit has led the ACI to offer its counsel to the Primates in an effort to mend the net of the Anglican Communion.       That makes both efforts no less self-appointed in terms of existing ecclesial order than the AMiA, when they direct faithful Christians to faithful disobedience to the canons of the Episcopal Church, a phrase used by Geoffrey Chapman of the AAC. May it not be that the AMiA is led by the same Spirit? Or are we to believe that 12 dioceses out of 114 (10.5%) constitute an appropriate structure of accountability while 2 Primates out of 38 (5.3%) do not? Ephraim says of the AMiA consecrations that they were only tenuously tied to and approved by a tiny minority of leaders of the larger Anglican Communion and positively rejected by most orthodox Primates.       Are we to conclude that there is at the heart of this argument a Kabbalistic divine calculus? Since 5 Primates supported the 2004 AMiA conference, does that change the will of God? As Christians in the Anglican Communion in America, does our obedience to God exercised through ordered structures of accountability boil down to correctly playing the numbers, and then, only the very latest numbers? No, the validity of leadership in this time of crisis does not derive from Anglican order but from God Himself, from Whom alone all valid authority comes.       What is clear here is that any counsel of faithful disobedience does not stem from existing order, but from outside it, because the order itself is corrupted. No political culture bearing the appearance of accountability can hide that fact. The arguments against the self-appointment of the AMiA over against the self-appointment of the AAC reduce to the all too familiar, Not made here a form of spiritual immaturity admonished by the epistles to the first churches (I Cor. 1:10ff).       If one is to obey Christ in rejecting false teachers and prophets who are in ecclesial authority, seeking apparent autonomy in terms of visible Church authority is an ironic necessity in order to submit to God. I Peter 2-3 immediately comes to mind to counter this thought, urging us to suffer unjustly if need be in our submission to all human institutions.       But if the Church is merely a human institution, and Peter’s logic applies to it thoroughly as well, why did he not submit by ceasing to preach in the name of Jesus, unless such submission itself was wrong?(Acts 5:28-9) Further, a thoroughgoing application of this reasoning would have us first return to Rome since the Reformation was wrong, then return to the synagogue, since leaving it was wrong.     Then, as new members of the synagogue, we would presumably in obedience to the gospel mandate do all in our power to turn the synagogue into the Church. Such members would have all the integrity of John Spong, professing one thing by membership, and something very different in thought and intention. Unity is not a matter of some common beliefs, much less a common structure, but of the heart, with its faith, vision, and mission.       By the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit, through Christ, as citizens of another Kingdom, we are able under that Authority to act without rebellion, though we disobey any fallen ecclesial structures in this world. Ephraim;s vision of Christians acting in faithfulness to the Word of God but without the mutual accountability of existing structures is one of chaos.       But it is not a lack of accountability to those who fail to submit to God;s Word that brings chaos, but failure of submission to the One Who orders all things. On the other hand, accountability to those who do submit to God’s Word is accountability to that Word, not in the first instance to His human servants.       Shall we entrust ourselves to the uncertainties of Episcopal politics? We see where that has led. Shall we entrust ourselves to the uncertainties of Primatial politics, taking care not to upset the apparently delicate dynamics of Communion decision-making? Do higher echelons cleanse the presence of sin and error from the Church? We know it does not.       No, our trust can only be given to the One Whose right it is to rule. In the mystery of Christ, He exercises His authority through our fellow man, and when He speaks,  His sheep follow him, for they know his voice. A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers. (John 10:4-5 ESV) For the record, what we have heard by voice of authority from the gathered leadership of the Anglican Communion is a condemnation of homosexual practice, a voice consistent with the voice of God in the Scriptures.       What we have heard from many individual Primates and their Provinces is a breaking of communion with the ECUSA who have ignored that voice of authority. We have heard non-authoritative opinion about the genesis of AMiA from individuals, which may include sour grapes, and if so, it is murmuring against the Lords anointed which isn’t the AMiA, but the Primate they serve.       We have not heard any authoritative statement from the Primates or the Communion regarding AMiA. Consequently, as things now stand, a member in AMiA is under the godly authority of Primates in good standing in the Anglican Communion. A member of the ECUSA in a diocese without an orthodox bishop stands under authority rebellious to God, maintains communion with the ECUSA when orthodox Provinces do not, and so is spiritually at odds with the Communion, with the Scriptures, and therefore with God.   Members in the ECUSA who affirm the AAC and seek to follow it, but who are not under the ordinary authority of an AAC bishop, violate Anglican order by following the AAC over their ordinary bishop, seeking a yet-to-be-established Anglican order, but having no order to do so, humanly speaking, but only self-appointment. Members in the ECUSA who come under the authority of the AMiA violate Anglican order in similar self-appointed transition, but only to remain in Anglican order. All such talk of self-appointment, however, ignores the leading and sovereignty of the Lord, the Spirit, Who acts consistently with Himself, the Author of the Scriptures through the agency of men.       While Dr. Radner and others attempt to aid the Anglican Communion to mend nets, the AMiA is fishing. While the former is necessary, the latter is the Church’s mission. Indeed, one could ask whether it is a Church structure that catches lost souls, or the proclamation of the gospel. The Celts, from which our Communion derives, went about successfully with the gospel, blissfully unaware of their structural problem. It is the primacy of obedience to the direct authority of God in the life of the Christian expressed through Scripture that has been rejected by the ECUSA.     The restoration of that obedience will only come, in my estimation, from rebuilding the Church’s spiritual foundations that have been washed away, through uncompromising submission of our individual lives to Jesus Christ. Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it. I embrace the vision put forth by Bishop Duncan at the first Plano conference, of a uniting of all orthodox Anglicans in North America.     I pray that his vision is soon realized, and commit to seeing it come to pass, praying with those faithful in the ECUSA who are being led by the Spirit. For my own part, I consider Dr. Radner’s Parable of the AMiA inadequate in the very least, and his apologetic for remaining in the ECUSA unconvincing, incoherent with the biblical vision and mission of the Church of Jesus Christ. An ironic reading of the phenomena of the AMiA is surely far closer to the truth, offering a very different Parable. Most importantly, I consider entirely rejecting what appears to be autonomy, as spiritually dangerous on the side of failing to recognize the actions of God (Matt. 12:22-38), as is rebellion to Him on the other (Psalm 19:12-14). I understand how congregations united in protest against General Convention 2003 in the ECUSA wish to retain their Church property. Not being in that position, I can see no warrant whatsoever to remaining within its institutionalized disobedience. Consequently, in order to fulfill my own ordination vow, I have now followed the voice of our Lord to serve Him in the AMiA under the Anglican Province of Rwanda. Recognizing the authority and leading of one Lord, I understand this to be a faithful, Anglican response to the heresy of the ECUSA, as is rightfully violating its order to cross diocesan bounds to join with the emerging network.       No matter which path we choose, what aspects of Episcopal life and culture are safe to keep, and which will prove to be household idols smuggled into the new edifice, like those of Rachel when she left her father’s house with idols hidden under her saddle? In reflection upon the culture of the ECUSA of which I have been a part for 15 years, I consider the lack of a corporate culture of heart submission to the Word of God to be the critical issue demanding our repentance.       In a recent issue of the Anglican Digest an article purports to tell us what the Church expects of each of us as faithful Episcopalians. There is not a single mention of the Scriptures in the entire article. Why is it that such an omission goes unnoticed? They are no longer part of Episcopalian culture the Scriptures have become just a liturgical object. Without a Church culture formed by His Word, in which heart submission to Him through His Word is cultivated, we will only succeed in rebuilding what must be torn down. The sacrifice of all for the sake of the gospel, leaving everything behind, is a tried and true, divinely ordained method that can reestablish a culture of genuine discipleship because it partakes of it; many in the AMiA have followed this.       There is also divine warrant for leaving Egypt with its plunder, but not for refashioning it into its gods. My prayer for a safe journey goes with the AAC. My plea to the Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner in this time of crisis is to focus not on what constitutes orthodox faith and practice structurally, but spiritually, from which only, unshakeable structure can arise.   ©2004 The Rev. Joseph P. Murphy, Ph.D. Carol Stream, IL     END

Dear Brothers and Sisters, www.virtueonline.org September 19, 2025   For nearly forty years, the Anglican communion has roiled over issues of human sexuality. It has been a remarkable period in the life of some 100 million Anglicans, most of whom were not interested in the topic, preferring to get on with the mission of the church, saving souls and discipling the nations.   Homosexuality came out of the West, and in all probability, it will die in the West, as the Global South faces more pressing issues of evangelism, persecution, and in some cases its very own survival.   While the Global South has yet to feel the full onslaught of modernity, there is every reason to believe that it will survive Western post-modernism as it focuses on the gospel above all else.   The number of Anglican Christians is growing by more than a million people every year, according to the respected scholar David Goodhew, visiting fellow of St John’s College, Durham University.   The online World Christian Database gives the best data on the current size of the Communion. Numbers last recorded in 2020 show that global Anglicanism has doubled in the past 50 years,” Goodhew reported in The Church Times. Anglican churches are those derived from the Church of England (C of E) through inherited doctrine and practises.   “As it continues to increase by about one million a year, there are about 100 million Anglicans, as of 2025. This is the result of massive growth in the global South, while Anglicanism in the global North has mostly shrunk. Talk of Anglicanism’s demise is the opposite of the truth.”   And that is why this “summoning” of GAFCON bishops next year to Nigeria is so important. The leaders could well ring down the changes on the state of the Anglican Communion, declare themselves fully out of communion with a shrinking Western church and the Church of England - the Mother Church – announce it fully apostate, and form a more perfect union with Anglican dioceses like the ACNA, AMiE and more.   It would be the final break which many believe has been coming on for a long time, and has now reached its apogee.  There will be no more talk of inclusion, diversity, indaba, Windsor Reports, Covenants and compromise. That day is done.   It would not come as a surprise that the election of a lesbian archbishop to the Church in Wales was the final straw for orthodox Anglicans who see this act as a departure from Scripture, tradition and history.   GAFCON chairman Dr. Laurent Mbanda’s “summons” cannot be taken lightly; it indicates a depth of concern and has an ominous ring to it that cannot be ignored. We shall see. I am posting this special report with just two stories on this  remarkable call to arms.   David W. Virtue DD, President VIRTUEONLINE   *****   GAFCON Chairman Summons Orthodox Bishops to Nigeria Next Year Communion is entering a “crucial period” in its history, he says   Sept 15, 2025   Dear Brothers and Sisters of Gafcon,   Greetings to you in the name of Jesus, our rock and our redeemer!   The next six months are crucial for our global Anglican church.   This is why the Gafcon Primates have summoned the world’s orthodox Anglican bishops to gather in Abuja, Nigeria, from 3 to 6 March, 2026.   This may be the most important assembly of authentic Anglicans since Gafcon reset the Communion at Jerusalem in 2008.   Revisionists deliberately divide the Communion with schismatic actions that celebrate sin, as they appoint false shepherds to lead their flock away from God’s good word.   But Jesus is building his church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail!   This is why we must gather godly overseers to prayerfully submit to the Holy Spirit as we seek God’s will at this historic assembly.   Bishops, please be in touch today with your Provincial Offices to inform them of your interest in attending G26, and encourage them to send a current list of orthodox bishops to secretariat@gafcon.org .   If you are in a province not represented by a Gafcon Primate or Advisor, please contact your Branch Chair or Regional Secretary.   For the rest of our fellowship, please bend your knees in prayer for this landmark event, seeking the mercy of God for our beloved Communion.   Pray that the Lord will ignite a generosity that will see us cover the expenses of international travel that is essential for this gathering.   The gospel is exploding in the Global South, and it is critical that every orthodox Anglican bishop is able to attend this assembly in person.   I'd like to help support orthodox Bishops to attend G26   Pray that we raise adequate funds for travel expenses so that every faithful bishop can contribute to this assembly as we unite before God.   Please consider giving to get every global bishop assembled for this momentous occasion by visiting www.gafcon.org/G26Bursary   Further details will soon be emailed to invited delegates as our General Secretary prepares invitations for our global bishops.   Join us in praying that the Lord will meet us in Abuja as the world's orthodox overseers gather... for such a time as this.    Yours in Christ,   The Most Rev’d Dr Laurent Mbanda Chairman, Gafcon Primates Council Saturday, 13th September 2025   *****   IS THE FINAL CHAPTER ABOUT TO BE WRITTEN IN THE COMING SCHISM?   COMMENTARY   By David W. Virtue, DD   IT was an ominous call to arms.   GAFCON chairman and Rwanda Archbishop Dr. Laurent Mbanda summoned Gafcon bishops to meet with him next march in Abuja, Nigeria, the largest and fastest growing province in the Anglican communion.   What he said was piercing, troubling and illuminating all at once. The very language of “summoning” has an almost legal tone to it. Certainly, a theological and ecclesiastical urgency is implied. He called it an “historic assembly”, a “crucial” period in the life of the Anglican Communion.   Then he took the gloves off and said this; “Revisionists deliberately divide the Communion with schismatic actions that celebrate sin, as they appoint false shepherds to lead their flock away from God’s good word.”   He could not have been clearer. Was he thinking of what the Church in Wales did electing an avowed lesbian to the episcopacy…the continuation of a process begun with Gene Robinson in 2003, even earlier with the Diocese of New Westminster approving rites for same-sex blessings.   Could the chairman’s push for a gathering of the orthodox be a prelude of what’s to come?   One wonders if this is the moment for the announcement of the Great Schism. The Methodist Church schism which involved primarily the United Methodist Church (UMC) splitting over issues related to LGBTQ+ rights led to the formation of a new denomination - the Global Methodist Church. What doth hinder the Anglican Communion? We have had, in fact, a de facto schism now it would be de jure.   Of course, it has been coming for some time now, so should we really be surprised? Global South archbishops and bishops have been endlessly patient with their apostate friends in the Global North and West. At least three Lambeth Conferences have wrestled with the issue.   From the 1998 Lambeth Conference resolution 1:10 rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture, to the Gene Robinson consecration in 2003, through the Windsor Report, a study in sin management, and on to a Covenant for the Anglican communion that never came to fruition; the communion has roiled from one crisis to the next, leading to the sudden departure of the Archbishop of Canterbury over a failed safeguarding issue.   The brilliant but Hegelian driven Rowan Willams became the eminence grise of sexual compromise. The master of language, he designed the Covenant to obfuscate and bully the Global South into acquiescing before the moloch god of sodomy.   This from the Covenant itself; “In living out this inheritance of faith together in varying contexts, each Church, reliant on the Holy Spirit, commits itself….” INTERPRETATION: Ya’ll do your own thing and charge it to the Holy Spirit. No reference to Holy Scripture. Not surprisingly the Covenant sank without trace.   But Global South leaders were not fooled for a moment. They patiently went along with it all convinced they could persuade their northern brethren that homosexuality had no support or approval from scripture or God, and that the West was capitulating to the culture, departing from ‘the faith once for all delivered to the saints.’   It all fell on deaf ears. The smooth-talking Robinson; the false cries of homophobia; the screams of outrage over the lack of inclusion and diversity from the increasing ranks of gay and lesbian clergy, won the day. The fabric of the communion was irrevocably torn. It would never be repaired.   Repeated warnings were given but not heeded. Western Anglicans in thrall to a shrill minority of pansexualists in their churches; the culture and to their governments bent over “and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”   It was time to gather up the remnants of the faithful in countries like New Zealand, Australia, the U.S., Canada, even England and begin again to rebuild the Anglican communion.   No easy task. The U.S. led the way with the birth of the AMIA and then the ACNA. Lawsuits, property disputes followed, but 100,000 faithful had had enough and made their way out the Episcopal red doors never to return.   And now it would seem we have reached the end of the road. Pleadings and cajoling’s have all failed. GAFCON leaders have had enough, perhaps the GSFA have seen the writing on the wall and perceive that they can no longer heed the cries of compromise and join their Gafcon brethren.   Archbishop Rowan Williams’ failed Hegelian-driven approach to theology, and Justin Welby’s betrayal of his evangelical heritage, doomed the Church of England.   When the GAFCON bishops meet early next year, there will be no more pleadings. A rudderless Church of England might just as well sail down the Thames River, hit Tower Bridge and sink under its own weight. Some 98 percent of the British public could care less about the CofE.   And now the final chapter is being written. We await the judgement of history.   END

COMMENTARY   By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org September 17, 2025   IT was an ominous call to arms.   GAFCON chairman and Rwanda Archbishop Dr. Laurent Mbanda summoned Gafcon bishops to meet with him next march in Abuja, Nigeria, the largest and fastest growing province in the Anglican communion.   What he said was piercing, troubling and illuminating all at once. The very language of “summoning” has an almost legal tone to it. Certainly, a theological and ecclesiastical urgency is implied. He called it an “historic assembly”, a “crucial” period in the life of the Anglican Communion.   Then he took the gloves off and said this; “Revisionists deliberately divide the Communion with schismatic actions that celebrate sin, as they appoint false shepherds to lead their flock away from God’s good word.”   He could not have been clearer. Was he thinking of what the Church in Wales did electing an avowed lesbian to the episcopacy…the continuation of a process begun with Gene Robinson in 2003, even earlier with the Diocese of New Westminster approving rites for same-sex blessings.   Could the chairman’s push for a gathering of the orthodox be a prelude of what’s to come?   One wonders if this is the moment for the announcement of the Great Schism. The Methodist Church schism which involved primarily the United Methodist Church (UMC) splitting over issues related to LGBTQ+ rights led to the formation of a new denomination - the Global Methodist Church. What doth hinder the Anglican Communion? We have had, in fact, a de facto schism now it would be de jure.   Of course, it has been coming for some time now, so should we really be surprised? Global South archbishops and bishops have been endlessly patient with their apostate friends in the Global North and West. At least three Lambeth Conferences have wrestled with the issue.   From the 1998 Lambeth Conference resolution 1:10 rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture, to the Gene Robinson consecration in 2003, through the Windsor Report, a study in sin management, and on to a Covenant for the Anglican communion that never came to fruition; the communion has roiled from one crisis to the next, leading to the sudden departure of the Archbishop of Canterbury over a failed safeguarding issue.   The brilliant but Hegelian driven Rowan Willams became the eminence grise of sexual compromise. The master of language, he designed the Covenant to obfuscate and bully the Global South into acquiescing before the moloch god of sodomy.   This from the Covenant itself; “In living out this inheritance of faith together in varying contexts, each Church, reliant on the Holy Spirit, commits itself….” INTERPRETATION: Ya’ll do your own thing and charge it to the Holy Spirit. No reference to Holy Scripture. Not surprisingly the Covenant sank without trace.   But Global South leaders were not fooled for a moment. They patiently went along with it all convinced they could persuade their northern brethren that homosexuality had no support or approval from scripture or God, and that the West was capitulating to the culture, departing from ‘the faith once for all delivered to the saints.’   It all fell on deaf ears. The smooth-talking Robinson; the false cries of homophobia; the screams of outrage over the lack of inclusion and diversity from the increasing ranks of gay and lesbian clergy, won the day. The fabric of the communion was irrevocably torn. It would never be repaired.   Repeated warnings were given but not heeded. Western Anglicans in thrall to a shrill minority of pansexualists in their churches; the culture and to their governments bent over “and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”   It was time to gather up the remnants of the faithful in countries like New Zealand, Australia, the U.S., Canada, even England and begin again to rebuild the Anglican communion.   No easy task. The U.S. led the way with the birth of the AMIA and then the ACNA. Lawsuits, property disputes followed, but 100,000 faithful had had enough and made their way out the Episcopal red doors never to return.   And now it would seem we have reached the end of the road. Pleadings and cajoling’s have all failed. GAFCON leaders have had enough, perhaps the GSFA have seen the writing on the wall and perceive that they can no longer heed the cries of compromise and join their Gafcon brethren.   Archbishop Rowan Williams’ failed Hegelian-driven approach to theology, and Justin Welby’s betrayal of his evangelical heritage, doomed the Church of England.   When the GAFCON bishops meet early next year, there will be no more pleadings. A rudderless Church of England might just as well sail down the Thames River, hit Tower Bridge and sink under its own weight. Some 98 percent of the British public could care less about the CofE.   And now the final chapter is being written. We await the judgement of history.   END

(Image: Matt Kirk/Unsplash) By Dave Doveton, Anglican Mainstream September 17, 2025 Thirty years ago, if you had told another person that men could marry one another and that young boys and girls were being encouraged to have their genitalia surgically removed, they would have thought you quite insane. If you were told that British citizens would be prohibited from flying the flag of St George or the Union Jack in their own country, it would have seemed an inversion of reality, just as boys attempted to become girls and girls, boys. One might also add another example – those law-abiding citizens who are being arrested for thinking ‘wrong’ thoughts outside abortion clinics. Not even the justice system is immune from what seems to be an infectious mind virus -If you are found to be in the UK illegally, you can avoid deportation by cross-dressing [i] .   Many are unaware of the serious nature of the current mental health situation in both the United States [ii]  and the UK. The National Institute for Mental Health [iii]  in the US reports that 23% (more than 1 in 5) of adults live with some form of mental illness (defined as mental, behavioural, or emotional disorder). That rises to 36% for young adults aged 18-24. In the UK [iv] , 1 in 4 people will experience a mental health problem in any given year (estimated at a staggering 10 million people [v] ), and the rate of mental health problems is increasing each year. Not only that, but people are also finding ever more bizarre ways of dealing with mental issues. In Chicago USA, a newly formed ‘scream club’ [vi]   has been formed, where people ritually gather just to scream into the open air. The scriptures do not have much to say on the issue of mental instability. Mark’s account [vii]  of the demon possessed man of Gadara certainly had such as part of his brokenness, but this could have been purely as a result of demonic activity. In the Old Testament there is an instance of mental breakdown in the book of Daniel. King Nebuchadnezzar “ was driven from among men and ate grass like an ox, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven til his hair grew as long as eagle feathers, and his nails were like birds’ claws.” [viii]  He lost his mind (4:16) and his reason (4:34) for a period. This incident was prophetically predicted by Daniel, apparently being a judgement against the King by God – this because of pride (4:37), sinfulness, and a lack of mercy (4:27). Spiritual Rebellion and Mental Health “Claiming to be wise, they became fools…” [ix] In this verse from Romans 1, Paul uses a word  mōraino , translated as ‘fools’, which is derived from  moros , or foolishness . It conveys the idea of senselessness, of inappropriate behaviour. The word is also used in classical Greek to denote a state of mental derangement, or being subject to powerful desires [x] . In the Gospels the same word is used in the sense of being the opposite of ‘wise’ (Matt 7:24-27; 25:1-13)  and thus aligning with the Old Testament Septuagint use of the word as meaning ‘rebellion against God and disobedience of his word’. Thus we have an association of meanings – spiritual rebellion and mental illness. This is entirely consistent with the scriptural teaching of the interrelatedness of the human spirit, soul and body. Inversion and Decadence Looking at the larger context of the passage in Romans, we can see that it corresponds to the points Paul makes about human rebellion, and the consequences for a culture. There is a progressive and worsening situation. As people become more disconnected from God, they become more disconnected from reality. The descent into idolatry parallels a descent into an increasing disconnect from sanity and soberness. A worship inversion parallels a mental inversion from order to disorder (it also parallels a sexual inversion from ordered sexuality to disordered). This inversion is highlighted in the text in the following verse describing the objects of worship:  “ Claiming to be wise they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.”   This references the creation sequence in Genesis Chapter 1:26, in which God gives dominion to man which is: birds and animals, then creeping things.  There is a worship exchange from creator to creation, then the degrading movement in worship of ever lower life forms. The Thomist theologian and highly respected Catholic exorcist and author Fr Chad Ripperger [xi] , who has many years of experience dealing with people who have mental and spiritual brokenness, describes how a disconnect from reality plays a part in this brokenness [xii]  . He makes the point that contemporary culture has adopted the postmodern idea that there is no absolute truth, and that truth is what we think or feel. In consequence, he says that people have become so disconnected from reality that when reality contradicts what they think or what they feel, they dissent from it.  They then either ignore reality in a state of denial or try to bring reality to conform to their desires. A cognitive dissonance ensues because God has designed our brains to apprehend reality, and when reality contradicts what we think or believe, we must bring ourselves into conformity with reality. The consequence of not doing so produces mental issues. The more that people become disconnected from reality, the more pain they experience because they come into conflict with reality more and more frequently. The more people focus on themselves, the more disconnected from the world around, the more their mental health declines. Also, many try to deal with this by using power – imposing my will on reality.  I believe we may be seeing this in the spate of violence by the transgender shooters in the United States recently, not least with the assassination of Charlie Kirk. The Christian writer Rod Dreher made this observation recently, “… the trans phenomenon has taken in untold numbers of mentally ill people who have found in it an identity that allows them to valorize their psychopathy and to weaponize it against normal people.” [xiii] Psychotic delusions are mental disorders, defined as fixed, false beliefs held with strong conviction despite clear evidence to the contrary, thus indicating a disconnect with reality. The NHS defines a psychosis as, “… when people lose some contact with reality. This might involve seeing or hearing things that other people cannot see or hear (hallucinations) and believing things that are not actually true (delusions). It may also involve confused (disordered) thinking and speaking.” [xiv]   While there is some truth in naming what we are seeing in the acceptance of the transgender phenomenon in the culture, an instance of mass delusion – the acceptance of things that are not real or not true in a wide body of people – this is not mass psychosis but a sociological phenomenon [xv] , a contagion of sorts. This contagion is focussed and amplified by modern social media platforms. However, we do need to acknowledge the spiritual realities that lie behind a culture that is sliding ever more rapidly into decadence. Perhaps one of the lessons we may glean from King Nebuchadnezzar is that only a real return to Godliness in the leadership of civil society and government will result in an effective and lasting revival of the nation. Specifically, that leaders will honour God by turning from support of these false, anti-natural and delusional ideologies, and respect the created order. __________________________________________________________________________________ [i]   https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/08/07/criminals-who-cross-dress-can-now-avoid-deportation/ [ii]   https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/mental-health-disorder-statistics [iii]   https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/mental-illness [iv]   https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/types-of-mental-health-problems/mental-health-facts-and-statistics [v]   https://www.ibisworld.com/united-kingdom/bed/population-aged-18-to-64-years/44240/#:~:text=Recent%20Trends%20%E2%80%93%20Population%20aged%2018,2021%2D22%20to%2040.5%20million . [vi]   https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/scream-club-chicago-north-avenue-beach-pier/ [vii]  Mark 5: 1-20. [viii]  See Daniel Chapter 4. [ix]  Romans 1:22. [x]  See: Sophocles,  Ajax  1150; Euripides,  Hippolytus  966; Sophocles,  Antigone  469f. [xi]   https://www.tumblarhouse.com/collections/fr-ripperger-books/products/introduction-science-mental-health-ripperger [xii]  See esp. this interview:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB2tFKKA2VQ [xiii]   https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/civil-war-approaches/ [xiv]   https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/conditions/psychosis/overview/ [xv]   https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/202201/no-the-problem-america-isnt-mass-psychosis

Episcopal Congregation in Ohio Joins ACNA September 15, 2025   Bishop Anne Jolly September 15, 2025 Following is a letter from the Episcopal Bishop of Ohio, Anne Jolly.   I write to share important news regarding the parish of St. Matthew’s, Toledo.   The Rev. Zeke Coughlin has requested release and removal from ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church. He has chosen to pursue ministry within the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). The majority of the congregants of St. Matthew’s have elected to join him, and they will begin worshiping this Sunday in a different location as an ACNA congregation.   The Episcopal Church, however, remains present and active at St. Matthew’s Episcopal Church in Toledo. Worship and ministry will continue there, as always, in the name of Christ and in communion with The Episcopal Church. I will be leading worship, praying, and talking with those who remain Episcopalian this Sunday, and together we will begin discernment about a way forward.   While I grieve the decision of so many to walk apart from The Episcopal Church, I pray that they will find the peace and Christian community they seek. The Diocese of Ohio and many among you have sought to be supportive of Zeke and the people of St. Matthew’s and worked hard to assure them that their theological views and understanding are a valuable part of the fabric of our diocese.   Though this separation is painful, it does not and will not diminish our commitment to care for and include all of God’s people in our congregations. We remain steadfast in our witness as Episcopalians to bear witness of the love of Christ for all people.   I ask for your prayers for all those affected by this change. Prayer is the foundation of our life of faith. It heals, brings hope, and reconciles God’s people. We give thanks for the ministries that have been shared, and we entrust to God’s care both those who remain in The Episcopal Church and those who have chosen a different path.   God’s Peace,   +Anne The Rt. Rev. Anne B. Jolly Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Ohio

Communion is entering a “crucial period” in its history, he says   Sept 15, 2025   Dear Brothers and Sisters of Gafcon,   Greetings to you in the name of Jesus, our rock and our redeemer!   The next six months are crucial for our global Anglican church.   This is why the Gafcon Primates have summoned the world’s orthodox Anglican bishops to gather in Abuja, Nigeria, from 3 to 6 March, 2026.   This may be the most important assembly of authentic Anglicans since Gafcon reset the Communion at Jerusalem in 2008.   Revisionists deliberately divide the Communion with schismatic actions that celebrate sin, as they appoint false shepherds to lead their flock away from God’s good word.   But Jesus is building his church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail!   This is why we must gather godly overseers to prayerfully submit to the Holy Spirit as we seek God’s will at this historic assembly.   Bishops, please be in touch today with your Provincial Offices to inform them of your interest in attending G26, and encourage them to send a current list of orthodox bishops to secretariat@gafcon.org .   If you are in a province not represented by a Gafcon Primate or Advisor, please contact your Branch Chair or Regional Secretary.   For the rest of our fellowship, please bend your knees in prayer for this landmark event, seeking the mercy of God for our beloved Communion.   Pray that the Lord will ignite a generosity that will see us cover the expenses of international travel that is essential for this gathering.   The gospel is exploding in the Global South, and it is critical that every orthodox Anglican bishop is able to attend this assembly in person.   I'd like to help support orthodox Bishops to attend G26 Pray that we raise adequate funds for travel expenses so that every faithful bishop can contribute to this assembly as we unite before God.   Please consider giving to get every global bishop assembled for this momentous occasion by visiting www.gafcon.org/G26Bursary   Further details will soon be emailed to invited delegates as our General Secretary prepares invitations for our global bishops.   Join us in praying that the Lord will meet us in Abuja as the world's orthodox overseers gather... for such a time as this.   Yours in Christ,   The Most Rev’d Dr Laurent Mbanda Chairman, Gafcon Primates Council Saturday, 13th September 2025

Missionaries will be certified for orthodoxy     The Most Reverend Frank Tracy Griswold Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the USA 815 Second Avenue New York NY 10017 USA 8th January 2004     Dear +Frank,     This comes with a prayerful greeting from the Southern Cone in Jesus name. As you can see from the attached statement, the decision of ECUSA to consecrate Gene Robinson, a person sexually active outside marriage, and to declare by resolution that same-sex blessings are in bounds, has left us no choice but to recognize the situation which you have created. That is one of a profound impairment of communion.       Our deep sadness comes on two fronts. First of all, you have done what you had no right to do. You have represented as God’s blessing your promotion of an unbiblical agenda. You must know that the overwhelming majority of the people in this province view that as absolutely scandalous. Our concern is very great for those who embrace the deception you foster. Spiritually, it is a terrible place to be.       In addition, you should know that many of us in the provinces you obviously consider to be of little consequence are also deeply offended at the arrogant, strident and unilateral action ECUSA has taken. This is doubly problematic because you personally have been so critical of your own government’s failure to be collaborative in international affairs. Is stridence only a problem when you happen to disagree with the action? Could you not at least have discussed your convictions and underlying principles with your fellow primates before the final steps were taken?       With deep regret, I must also inform you that the Province of the Southern Cone is designing a process for certification of missionaries. Candidates will have to demonstrate their commitment to orthodoxy in order to be acceptable for ministry here.   Surely by now, you must see the folly of what you have done. The implications are staggering. Hardly a day goes by without international mention of more consequences.  It is my fervent hope that you will repent. The mercy of Jesus knows no limit.     I continue to pray that you will turn away from the course you have taken and turn to the ;faith once delivered to the saints.;     With great sorrow,     The Most Reverend Gregory James Venables Primate of the Southern Cone     To ECUSA and the churches of the Anglican Communion from the House of Bishops of the Province of the Southern Cone of America.     In the Name of God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.     Dear brothers and sisters in Christ.     The recent unilateral actions of the Episcopal Church in the United States (ECUSA) in consecrating a bishop who is sexually active outside marriage, and the recognition of same-sex blessings have created a deeply painful and divisive situation and devastated our Christian witness. In the light of Tradition, it reveals a misinterpretation of the clear witness of God’s Word and a deaf ear to the heartfelt pleas of the entire Communion. When the economically powerful church in America acts, it attracts worldwide attention; and despite repeated warnings, ECUSA’s leaders have shown selfish indifference to the difficulties and confusion their actions have now brought this and other provinces.   Their action is a clear departure from the moral teaching, practice and common understanding of the Anglican Communion, clearly expressed by the Lambeth Conference of 1998. Following the example of Jesus we are open to all people, but we reject as sin those acts which separate us from God and from each other. ECUSA’s action has forced painful division in the Communion and is a schism of their own making. Because by its precipitous action it has fomented needless division and denied the Tradition of the Church catholic, we believe that ECUSA cannot represent the Anglican Communion in any legitimate or moral sense.     As a consequence, this Province now shares only a profoundly impaired communion with ECUSA and, in faithfulness to the Word of God, we cannot accept this consecration as a valid one. Impaired communion means that we cannot share fellowship, ministry, Eucharist or gifts with those who have affirmed or participated in the consecration of Gene Robinson, nor with those who perform or permit blessings of same-sex unions outside historic Christian marriage, nor with any clergy who are sexually active outside marriage.       We give thanks to God for the bishops, clergy and laity of ECUSA who have stood firm against these unacceptable acts. We remain in full fellowship, ministry and Eucharistic celebration with them. At the same time we are deeply concerned about increasing reports of pressure and persecution against those who hold fast to the Scriptures and the historic faith through retributive applications of canonical and secular legal procedures. Missionaries desiring to serve in our Province must reject the erroneous decisions of ECUSA and must affirm traditional scriptural norms.       It is our hope and earnest prayer that ECUSA will come to its senses, repent and turn back from its schismatic actions; but without renouncing their present position there is little hope of it. As a Province we believe institutional unity is meaningless unless it is based in the truth of the Holy Scriptures.     May God have compassion on His church.     END