August 5, 2025   (RNS) — Three weeks after proceedings began in the Anglican Church in North America trial of Bishop Stewart Ruch, another prosecutor has been appointed — the third named to the role after the previous prosecutors resigned.   Thomas Crapps, a Florida-based lawyer with over 30 years of legal experience, will serve as provincial prosecutor, with Frank Shaw III as co-counsel, according to a Friday (Aug. 1) announcement from the denomination.   “Bringing justice to victims is my sole interest in this case,” Crapps said in the announcement. “I want to be crystal clear: if they have been sidelined in any proceedings to date, I am committed to faithfully representing their interests going forward.”   Ruch has been accused of failing to prioritize the needs of alleged survivors of abuse and of knowingly welcoming individuals with predatory behavior into churches in his diocese without alerting church members. The church trial, which has been rocked by controversy since it began, will determine whether Ruch neglected his duties as bishop and violated church bylaws.   On July 18, five days into the trial, church prosecutor C. Alan Runyan resigned, causing the court to pause the proceedings until Aug. 11. He said a member of the court for Ruch’s trial had “irreparably tainted” the proceedings by engaging in a line of questioning based on evidence the court had previously decided was inadmissible.   Runyan’s assistant counsel, Rachel Thebeau, also resigned. She echoed Runyan’s concerns and accused members of the archbishop’s staff of giving the court member access to the inadmissible evidence. The court itself issued a rare public statement contradicting Thebeau and Runyan, saying all questions posed by court members were “appropriate.”    On July 22, ACNA Archbishop Steve Wood appointed a new prosecutor to represent the denomination, the Rev. Job Serebrov. However, advocates for abuse survivors in the denomination raised concerns about Serebrov’s suitability for the role. They noted he had received a certificate from, and endorsed, St. Paul’s House of Formation, an institution designed by the Greenhouse Movement. The Greenhouse Movement is a church-planting program that, until 2023, was under the jurisdiction of the Upper Midwest Diocese, which Ruch oversaw. At least seven cases of alleged abuse or misconduct that reportedly took place under Ruch’s purview involved Greenhouse Movement leaders. St. Paul’s House of Formation is also led by the Rev. Stephen Gauthier, who, in his capacity as canon theologian, advises Ruch on theological issues.   The chief legal officer of the denomination, Bill Nelson, examined the concerns and concluded there was no conflict of interest. On July 31, however, Serebrov resigned, noting in his resignation letter he had never “met nor spoken with” Ruch and had not spoken with those he studied with at St. Paul’s “for several years.”   “However, because of the importance of this trial, and after carefully praying about what is best to preserve the integrity of the province, I ask that you permit me to withdraw as Provincial Prosecutor so as to remove even the appearance of impropriety,” Serebrov wrote.   Crapps, a partner at the Meenan P.A. law firm in Tallahassee and an ACNA parishioner, had previously been appointed to serve as co-counsel alongside Serebrov. His newly appointed co-counsel, Shaw, is a founding partner at Smith Thompson Shaw Colón & Power, P.A., in Tallahassee.   Last week, in the wake of concerns raised by Thebeau, two of the denomination’s governing bodies issued a joint statement voicing confidence in the court’s ability to carry out the trial. Since then, at least two bishops have noted the statement was not unanimous; bishops who sit on the court for the trial and on the appeals court did not contribute.   END

PRESS RELEASE   From Archbishop Laurent Mbanda August 1, 2025   Dear Brothers and Sisters in the Gafcon family, Grace and peace to you from Jesus Christ, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the earth. It is with a heavy heart that I write to you of grievous events in our beloved Anglican Communion. The decision by the Church in Wales to elect the Rt Revd Cherry Vann as Archbishop and Primate is another painful nail in the coffin of Anglican orthodoxy. By celebrating this election and her immoral same-sex relationship,  the Canterbury Communion has again bowed to worldly pressure that subverts God’s good word. For the Bible is clear about those who “exchange the truth about God for a lie” (Romans 1:25). For it says that “God gave them over to shameful lusts” as “their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones”, their “men also abandoned natural relations with women” and “committed shameful acts with other men”, and that even though “they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.” (Romans 1:26-27, 32) The Bible predicted there would be “false teachers among you” and that those who follow their depraved conduct “will bring the way of truth into disrepute” (2 Peter 2:1-2).  In fact, Jesus himself judged the church in Thyatira and their tolerance of a woman who “misleads my servants into sexual immorality” (Revelation 2:20).  We must confront serious error that compromises God’s glorious and authoritative word on human sexuality. We must speak up and take a stand. As we met to reform and renew the Anglican Communion in 2008, Gafcon delivered the Jerusalem Statement which outlined the true heart of Anglican orthodoxy.  We took a stand about the truth of God’s word, and we continue to stand in fellowship with the majority of the world’s Anglicans who grieve this rejection of God’s voice. We must stand again against the relentless pressure of Anglican revisionists who blatantly impose their immorality upon Christ’s precious church. And we stand with our Anglican brothers and sisters in Wales who are dismayed and disheartened by this act of apostasy. We established The Anglican Network in Europe (ANiE) as a home for those who wish to remain authentically Anglican, but whose conscience demands they leave Canterbury. And Gafcon again opens our arms as a safe refuge for the faithful in the Church in Wales who in good conscience must now leave. You are not alone. Gafcon stands with you. We long to see the Bible at the heart of the Anglican Communion. So, we call upon every Anglican to embrace our Reformation heritage by willingly submitting to the glorious word of Christ in every part of life. We cannot sit by and let this failure in leadership remain. We cannot sit on our hands and let this apostasy continue. We must take a stand. We stand with authentic Anglicans.  The Most Reverend Dr. Laurent Mbanda Chairman, Gafcon Primates Council Friday, 1st August, 2025

Global South Anglican leader berates decision saying it ‘tears fabric of the communion at highest level’   By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org July 31, 2025   THE small progressive Anglican province of Wales has elected a lesbian archbishop to lead the province following the resignation of the pro-gay, divorced and remarried Welsh Archbishop Andy John.   John stepped down in August after two troubling reports published concerns about Bangor Cathedral. One detailed report of inappropriate behavior, lack of boundaries and excessive alcohol consumption. There was no suggestion that Andrew John behaved inappropriately.   The new archbishop is Cherry Vann. Her partner is Wendy Diamond. She is the Bishop of Monmouth and she will become the Church in Wales' first female and gay Archbishop. She was also a member of The Church of England's Archbishops’ Pastoral Advisory Group, charged with creating resources to help churches welcome LGBTQI+ people.   The election was promptly condemned by the leader of the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches (GSFA), the Most Rev. Dr. Justin Badi Arama who said; “faithful Anglicans of the Global South will grieve that the tear in the fabric of our beloved Communion is now established at the highest level, but this will also strengthen our resolved to restore the Scriptures to their central place in our life together and build covenanted relationships through which we are able to gladly recognize one another as partners in mission and members of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.”   This election stands in defiance of the 1998 Lambeth Resolution which upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union. It also believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage. No exceptions.   Her consecration came just days after the Church of England’s House of Bishops released a new document, reaffirming its opposition to same-sex marriage and declaring that sex should only be for married, heterosexual couples.   The document stated: “The Church’s teaching on sexual ethics remains unchanged. “For Christians, marriage – that is the lifelong union between a man and a woman, contracted with the making of vows – remains the proper context for sexual activity.”   Andrea Williams, Chief Executive of Christian Concern, said this appointment directly contradicts the Church’s historic and biblical doctrine that marriage is the lifelong union of one man and one woman, and that sexual relationships are reserved for marriage. “This is in open defiance of Christian teaching.”   “As an ordained minister, and now Archbishop, Cherry Vann has sworn to uphold the teaching of the Church. Instead, she is publicly living in deliberate rejection of those very doctrines.   “That she was elected with a two-thirds majority of the Electoral College demonstrates that the Church in Wales has now institutionally turned away from biblical teaching on sexual morality. It is a clear sign of apostasy.”   “No Bible-believing Christian can remain under the spiritual leadership of someone who so publicly rejects the clear teaching of Scripture. God will judge His Church for abandoning the gospel. As James reminds us, those who teach will be judged more strictly (James 3:1).”   In 2003 The Episcopal Church ordained an avowed practicing homosexual to the episcopate in the person of V. Gene Robinson. That decision brought about a split in the Episcopal Church with the formation of the Anglican Church in North America.   VOL reached out to GAFCON leaders but did not hear back from them at the time of publication.   END

Duality on women's ordination is a compromise to Scripture      By Mary Ann Mueller  VOL Special Correspondent  www.virtueonline.org   July 31, 2025      THE Anglican Church in North America has been fatally flawed from its inception. Incorporating women's ordination into the fold though the diaconate, much less the sacerdotal priesthood; this is ACNA’s Achilles heel. Never mind that women are barred from ACNA’s episcopate.   The built-in flaw did not start in 2009 when ACNA was officially founded; the spiritually deadly flaw – Women's Ordination (WO) – initially began in 1974 when the Philadelphia 11 were irregularly ordained to the Episcopal priesthood. At that point the Anglican fabric started to fray when The Episcopal Church was infected and that contagion has spread not only throughout the Episcopal Church but now across the Anglican world.   Even the Anglican Church in North America was not immune. WO became a founding principle with the founding Diocese of Pittsburgh bringing its priestesses into the fold with it. This has led to a schizophrenic approach to the ACNA priesthood.   Other founding dioceses from The Episcopal Church (TEC) – Fort Worth, San Joaquin and Quincy – as well as the dioceses of the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC) – Mid-America, Northeast & Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, and Central States – still do not ordain women to the priesthood. Although the Reformed Episcopal Church does have a non-ordained women's deaconess order. Dedicated women trained and commissioned for mission and ministry.     However, the dioceses of Quincy and San Joaquin do ordain permanent female deacons while the dioceses of All Saints and Fort Worth commission deaconesses.   Other Continuing Anglican jurisdictions which commission deaconesses include: the Diocese of the Holy Cross which is a part of the Anglican Catholic Church; the Anglican Province of America (APA); and the Missionary Episcopal Church (MEC) which is the outgrowth of the Episcopal Synod of America (ESA) which morphed into Forward in Faith - North America (FiF/NA).   The Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC) is also a founding ACNA diocese which has women in ordained ministry. The females in the Anglican priesthood in Canada started in 1976, a scant two years after the Philadelphia 11 first kicked open the door. WO then crossed over international and provincial borders into Canada and on to the Anglican Church of Canada (ACoC),   Women's Ordination has been the elephant in the room and the Trojan horse since the beginning. The latest available stats on ACNA dioceses’ stance on WO dates back to 2018. Since then, the issue has been dealt with a hands-off approach to detailed record keeping.   In 2018, when ACNA did release information on diocesan women's orders, seven dioceses forbade women's ordination on any level including: All Saints, Central States (REC), Fort Worth, Mid-America (REC), Northeast & Mid-Atlantic (REC), and Southeast (REC) and the Diocese of the Living Word. All Saints was founded in 2011.   Eight dioceses ordained female deacons only including: Christ Our Hope, Living Word, Quincy, Rocky Mountains, San Joaquin, the South, Upper Midwest, and Western Gulf Coast.   Bishop Keith Ackerman (VIII Quincy) explains how the Diocese of Quincy ended up with women in the diaconate.   “I inherited two female ‘deacons’ ‘ordained’ by Bp. MacBurney,” he told VOL. “I obviously did not ordain any.”   In 2007 retired Bishop Edward MacBurney (VII Quincy) ran into trouble with then Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori. He was inhibited because of his decision to travel to the Diocese of San Diego for Confirmations without the permission of the then local ordinary James Mathes (IV San Diego). This caused conflict when his son Paige died of cancer. The aging bishop was barred from conducting his son's funeral rites. A furor quickly arose and the Presiding Bishop relented long enough to temporarily lift his suspension so he could participate in his son's funeral service.    Bishop MacBurney joined the ACNA College of Bishops in 2009; he went home to the Lord in 2022.   The Episcopal Diocese of San Diego now has a bishopette – Susan Brown Snook (V San Diego).    Eleven ACNA dioceses have priestesses including: New England, Canada (ANiC), Church for the Sake of Others (C4SO) the Carolinas, Great Lakes, Gulf Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, Pittsburgh, South Carolina, Southwest, and Western Anglicans.   The Carolinas also have a caveat that its priestesses cannot become rectors    The Anglican Diocese of the Carolinas   Policy for Women in Orders states: “The Diocese of the Carolinas has supported the ordination of women as deacons and priests in the church, with the provision that women may not serve in the office of rector. This provision grew out of our engagement with Scripture which is silent on who may preside at the Table and celebrate Holy Communion while it is not silent on who may assume the teaching/overseeing office of a congregation.”   In 2018 the Diocese of Cascadia, the International Diocese, and the Armed Forces Chaplaincy ordain women deacons only but “licensed female priests to serve.”   The International Diocese has been defunct since 2024.   Meanwhile Cascadia considers itself a founding ACNA diocese. In early 2009 it was being formed under the bishopric of Richard Boyce (I Diocese of the West in the Anglican Province of America). In 2008 Bishop Boyce led his APA diocese into the Reformed Episcopal Church. Then he undertook helping with the formation of the Diocese of Cascadia. For two years he served as the developing diocese’s vicar general until Kevin Allen was consecrated as the first Bishop of Cascadia in 2011 by Archbishop Robert Duncan (I ACNA). At that point Cascadia was considered a full-fledged ACNA diocese without the Reform Episcopal Church diocesan ties.   VirtueOnline contacted ACNA asking for more information on the breakdown of the percentage of ordained women among its ranks including the separation between transitional and vocational deacons.   ACNA reports that it doesn't have that sort of detailed information and plans on developing those stats and releasing them in 2026.   “The numbers you are requesting are numbers that we are also interested in,” Dan Hassler responded. “We are hoping to begin reporting on this information with next year's Congregational Report.”   Hassler is the Director of Administration and Operations for the Anglican Church in North America.   For ACNA women's ordination is its hot button issue. The bishops are deeply divided on the scriptural, spiritual and theological pros and cons. And the issue is tearing at ACNA’s very heart and core. The practice of allowing two diabolically opposed understandings on the same divisive issue is called “dual integrities.”   A decade ago, the Church of England tried its own version of dual integrities called “Mutual Flourishing.”    In 2014 when bishopettes were about to join the CofE House of Bishops General Synod had to agree to the Bishops’ Declaration which was a scheme to make it possible for all to flourish within the Church of England – to prosper, thrive and grow through respecting the theological positions of those who are opposed to WO, this assuring them of a safe place in Anglicanism’s Mother Church.   Libby Lane (VIII Stockport) broke the stained glass ceiling in January 2015 when she became the bishopette in Stockport.   Two years later (January 2017) when Philip North – an Anglo-Catholic – was selected by the Archbishops of Canterbury (Justin Welby) and York (John Sentamu) to become the VIII Bishop of Sheffield he was hounded and bullied so badly by liberal activist clergy who were opposed to a conservative traditionally-minded male bishop that he “succumbed to the intensely personal attacks being leveled against him and stepped down.”   The CofE’s attempt at mutual flourishing failed in Philip North’s case. He is now the X Bishop of Blackburn.   In ACNA the practice of “dual integrities” purports to allow both those who support priestesses and those who categorically oppose the ordination of women to coexist within ACNA. Individuals, congregations, bishops and dioceses are expected to respect and honor each other's diverse perspectives, while maintaining Anglican unity through acknowledging their divergent beliefs.    “In an act of mutual submission at the foundation of the Anglican Church in North America, it was agreed that each Diocese and Jurisdiction has the freedom, responsibility, and authority to study Holy Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition of the Church, and to seek the mind of Christ in determining its own convictions and practices concerning the ordination of women to the diaconate and the priesthood,” Archbishop Foley Beach (II ACNA) wrote in 2017 stating the College of Bishops stance on WO within the Province.   “It was also unanimously agreed that women will not be consecrated as bishops in the Anglican Church in North America,” the archbishop continued. “These positions are established within our Constitution and Canons and, because we are a conciliar Church, would require the action of both Provincial Council and Provincial Assembly to be changed.”   For the late Bishop Jack Iker (III Fort Worth) women's ordination was a make or break issue – the straw that broke the camel's back. The spiritual life or death issue upon which he would stake his claim. He was emphatic about his position.   “We are in a state of impaired communion because of this issue,” he told his diocese in 2017 after the College of Bishops accepted its double-minded approach to WO.   “I informed the College of Bishops that I will no longer give consent to the election of any bishop who intends to ordain female priests, nor will I attend the consecration of any such bishop-elect in the future,” he continued. “I have notified the archbishop (Beach) of my resignation from all the committees to which I had been assigned to signify that it is no longer possible to have ‘business as usual’ in the College of Bishops due to the refusal of those who are in favor of women priests to at least adopt a moratorium on this divisive practice, for the sake of unity.”   Setting aside the scriptural and theological arguments over women's ordination, ACNA has ignored wisdom from Scripture and as a result the Anglican Church in North America is faltering.   The Anglican principle of "what affects all is decided by all" doesn't seem to hold when it comes to WO in ACNA.    With the practice of dual integrities ACNA is a house divided against itself.   Three times the Gospels warn about that in Matthew 12:25; Luke 11:17, and Mark 3:23-25.   MATTHEW 12:25: “Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, ‘Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.’” (Matthew 12:25)   LUKE 11:17: “Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them: ‘Any kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and a house divided against itself will fall.’”   MARK 3:23-25: “So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: ‘How can Satan drive out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.’”   Words of wisdom from Jesus Christ, Himself.   James also advises: “A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.” (James 1:8)   Now ACNA is seeing the turmoil of a double-minded and divided house play out with chaos and instability within the College of Bishops.   In 2020 Bishop Ronald Jackson (II Great Lakes) was stripped of his ordination for violating various sections of Canon IV.2 pertaining to sexual morality.   Then four years later Todd Atkinson (I Via Apostolica) faced a similar fate.   ACNA Canon IV.2.4 prohibits bishops from "conduct giving just cause for scandal or offense, including the abuse of ecclesiastical power."   When he was removed from Holy Orders it signaled the demise of his diocese which collapsed in 2023.    Currently Bishop Stewart Ruch (I Upper Midwest) is in the throes of a contentious Trial of a Bishop for also violating various parts of Canon IV.2. He is alleged to have mishandled a clerical sex abuse case. He has been on a leave of absence since 2021. His diocese is without a sitting bishop.   Bishop Ruch’s trial has become chaotic, generating headlines in the Anglican world.   Following the 2024 Mere Anglican Conference where firebrand Anglican priest Calvin Robinson tripped over the WO issue and was barred from further participation, 296 ACNA priests signed The Augustine Appeal, an eight-point public letter pleading with the Anglican Church of North America to call for a moratorium on women's ordination as a prelude to seeking a common mind on the issue.   “We call upon the college of bishops, under the leadership of the next archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America, to agree to a moratorium on the practice of the ordination of women in order to facilitate full communion throughout the province as we come to a common mind on this issue,” states the Public Appeal to the College of Bishops of the ACNA over Holy Orders in ACNA.    The 2024 appeal was signed on the Feast of St. Augustine of Canterbury (May 26) who became the first Archbishop of Canterbury in 597 AD. The Church of England has been seeking his next successor since January.   The “next archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America” is Steve Wood (III ACNA) who was elected on June 22, 2024 by the College of Bishops, revived the passing of the primatial crozier on June 28, 2024 but was not enthroned until October 30, 2024.   The disagreement within the Anglican Church in North America over WO coupled with the various Canon IV.2 violations within the bishopric may be the one-two punch which will hobble ACNA from achieving its full stature as envisioned by Archbishop Robert Duncan at his 2009 Provincial enthronement.     Mary Ann Mueller is a journalist living in Texas. She is a regular contributor to VirtueOnline

July, 2025 By Lisa Nolland  Justin Welby, former Archbishop of Canterbury, has become something of a cheerleader for ‘faithful and committed’ same-sex relationships, according to his recent speech to the Cambridge Union.    This follows Justin’s astonishing admission on the influential ‘The Rest is Politics’ podcast last year that he believed ‘commitment’ demonstrated by entering a civil partnership or being married was what mattered in relationships - gay or straight.    That increasing numbers of evangelicals now agree with Justin is of deep concern.  In plain sight   Various factors have contributed to this sexual, moral and theological revolution occurring in plain sight and observable by any who will attend. Depending on location and network, I have observed the following:      1. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell   This is very common now in evangelical circles and is often in conjunction with a tacit or overt refusal by orthodox leaders to engage with the powerful but specious claims made by those like Justin who now challenge orthodoxy.    For some it is a case of: Genesis, Jesus and Romans is enough, end of story, move on!    I and many others agree that it is enough but some people need a little more unpacking on this. What about them?   2. Conflict avoidance There is the pervasive ‘conflict averse’ nature of much British social, religious and cultural engagement - think ‘ostrich’ - in tandem with an overwhelming fear of being regarded by peers as ‘extreme’ or over the top.    Exhibiting such apparently unfortunate attributes would place one beyond the pale of the controlled, respectable, middle- to upper-middle class and mostly male, evangelical mainstream ‘herd’ of leaders and influencers: a form of reputational death. (In their defence, these men are aware and horrified by revisionism, but that is another topic.)    3. The influence of loved ones   The profound impact of having one’s children or grandchildren ‘come out’ as gay or transgender (‘my new name is … and my pronouns are … ’), especially if these youngsters had been devout evangelical Christians who never wanted to find themselves in this predicament, but for whom God/the Bible/Christian Union and Christian experience simply stopped ‘working’.      The gay strategists, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, noted in their book After the Ball:  How America will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s (1989) that ‘coming out’ of loved ones to their families and communities is often a gamechanger. Justin is a prime example of this.    4. Ignoring the evidence   Finally, there is the blissful ignorance of the realities of being LGBTQ and their negative consequences, thanks to mainstream (and even much Christian) media censorship, as well as the woeful ignorance and/or denial of the narratives and experiences of people who are happily ex-LGBTQ. Why do the ex-LGBTQ continue to be sidelined, even by evangelicals?   Thank you, Justin   The former Archbishop of Canterbury is right to raise issues around gay couples and their lived experience. Formerly orthodox individuals who valiantly fought (and lost) their own battles with their sexuality are victims in key respects.      Many experienced being cursed, doomed and damned, by unwanted, unasked-for attractions and feelings which appeared to emerge from nowhere in their youth.   They tried to resist, denying, fearing, loathing themselves, their same-sex attraction and/or the belief that they were born ‘in the wrong body’, but in the end capitulated to the apparently inevitable.       Justin seems aware of these tragic situations, even though this cannot justify his dramatic about-turn on same-sex attraction.   If his ‘cheerleading’ for the LGBTQ cause can have any silver lining at all, then perhaps this is it: can we start having more honest conversations here?      Where to start from   I am assuming my readers are biblically orthodox or desirous of maintaining or re-affirming an orthodox position (i.e. no sex outside of heterosexual marriage). For those needing encouragement, reassurance or answers to those unsettling ‘But what about …’ questions, Professor Robert Gagnon lays out a superb challenge here to those who would seek to undo biblical orthodoxy.   Same words, different meanings   It is important to be aware of the sexual nature of these - as Dr Jeffrey John describes them - “permanent, faithful, stable” same-sex relationships.   In reality fidelity or being 'faithful' within much of the LGBT community is not inherently or automatically sexually monogamous or ‘exclusive’ (or ‘closed’). That the term ‘exclusive’ is not used is telling. ‘Faithful’ can mean emotionally committed and sexually ‘exclusive’ or ‘closed’. But it can also mean emotionally committed and sexually non-exclusive or ‘open’: it all depends. Does Justin realise this?     To be sure, some same-sex couples will appear to be the most exclusive of all marrieds, exemplary individuals in every way, from caring for their aged parents and other needy family members to running the food bank and volunteering at the night shelter. But other couples (even the marrieds) choose to be emotionally faithful but not sexually exclusive. Yet others call themselves ‘monogamish’ - where sex with other partners is acceptable.   However, unless they ‘come out’ to the world, who knows? Their friends would (falsely) assume their sexual lives were like those of the heterosexually married, who for the most part are still bound by the norms of sexual monogamy and exclusivity.         There is a striking observation from the 2010 gay-affirming Netherlands study on same-sex marriage, 'When Gay People Get Married':  “As Willem, who was married to a man, put it, ‘Fidelity is not between your legs, but between your ears’.”    Gay relationships, influencers and non-monogamy    In his 1996 book Virtually Normal, the supposedly ‘conservative’ Roman Catholic same-sex marriage advocate and influencer, Andrew Sullivan writes: “There is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman; and again, the lack of children gives gay couples greater freedom … "But something of the gay relationship’s necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds.”   The first gay man to marry in the UK, Peter McGraith back in March 2014, echoes Andrew’s views almost 20 years later. In his 2016 article for the BBC, ‘Viewpoint: How has marriage changed life for gay people?’, Peter notes: “This experience [of ‘coming out’] of asserting a positive identity, outside of mainstream sexual morality, makes us question what we've been taught about gender … the family and the impropriety of sex. And perhaps it encourages us to have mature, rational and honest relationships.   “Over 50% of gay men's relationships are sexually non-exclusive, while lesbian women are more typically wedded to serial monogamy, which, to the surprise of some, can lead to its own problems.”   A more negative view of non-exclusivity is presented by the premier LGBT London charity, LGBT HERO, in its undated report, ‘Infidelity and the gay community: Do gay men struggle to be faithful?’   It details a survey of almost 1,000 gay men in which over half admitted to straying, while an even larger number said their partner had cheated.        Oddly, though, the counsellor cited in the report, Tiago Brandao, who belongs to the Terrence Higgins Trust, a leading UK HIV and sexual health charity, saw societal pressure and the expectation to be exclusive in relationships as part of the problem.       Psychologist Michael Radkowsky asks ‘Why do so many gay couples open up their relationships?’. Though he has an ambivalent view of non-exclusivity like Tiago above, he describes the status quo of one his married gay clients who said this:“It is painful when my husband doesn’t come home till the next morning.” And another who said, “But isn’t this how gay men have relationships? It’s what everyone around me is doing.”   Back to monogamish   The most recent development to try squaring the circle of gay men, formal and informal relationships and exclusivity, appears to be the concept and practice of ‘monogamish’.   Back in 2016, the San Francisco-based psychotherapist, Tom Moon, reported on The Couples Study which found that while there was still an emphasis on monogamy, many younger gay men were “holding the concept more loosely”, such that they could be perceived as mostly monogamous and yet not completely so.   “Many are now describing themselves as ‘monogamish’,” he wrote.   “Monogamish couples … typically have an understanding that allows for some limited sexual contact outside the relationship.   “75% of our 45 ‘monogamish’ respondents reported mostly having three-ways and always playing together as a couple. A few couples mentioned sex parties and bathhouses, but were clear they always played together … ” He went on to say, “We need to create norms in the community, where both monogamy and non-monogamy can be rationally discussed and considered. If we can do that, both monogamous and non-monogamous couples will feel supported by the larger community.”   The popularity of non-monogamy does not appear to be waning, according to the September 2023 Advocate article, ‘While LGBTQ+ Community Embraces Open Marriages, Straight Society Is Scandalized: Poll’.   According to the poll cited in the article, when it came to the idea of open marriages, there were clear differences in acceptance rates between bisexual, lesbian and gay adults on the one hand who expressed “significantly greater acceptance, at 75 percent”; and heterosexual adults on the other hand at only 29 per cent.   “Even when accounting for age differences, this discrepancy persists,” the article noted.   Conclusion   In conclusion, same-sex relationships are of course varied. Those who consider themselves to be ‘faithful’ (i.e. emotionally committed) can be either sexually monogamous or exclusive (closed), or sexually non-monogamous or non-exclusive (open). Each couple decides and many change their minds over the course of time; for them, there is no one right way of ‘doing it’.   The reality is though that while many initially start off ‘closed’, this often does not last. As one gay man puts it, “because sex is so important to a lot of us, it is my experience that about half of our relationships - over time - are not 100% monogamous”.   “Whether married or not, many gay relationships begin to ‘open up’ after the first few years,” he says.   His observation tallies with the pathbreaking 1984 research of gay partners and mental health professionals, David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison - interestingly, their work 'The Male Couple', is still being cited decades later.   The purpose of their research was to demonstrate to the world that gay relationships can last. They studied almost 160 male couples who had been together for between one and 37 years. Two-thirds of them had initially expected their relationship to be exclusive. Yet sadly, only seven had managed this feat, and they had been together for five years or less.   These authors found that “all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships”.   Even when these relationships are exclusive, they are essentially counterfeit marriage, as those who are heterosexually married do not have this option; the notion of ‘adultery’ still carries significant legal, moral, psychological and cultural weight i.e. it matters.     The situation is aggravated by the fact that the same vocabulary is used but with, at times, different dictionary definitions. And sadly, Justin appears ignorant that such is the case. Sadly, gay stakeholders, support groups and influential public figures do not even seem interested in seeking to ameliorate the damage within their own community by calling for monogamy (I’m not saying this would make LGBTQ relationships okay). Instead, there seems to be a prevailing ‘need’ for partnered gays to ‘open’ up at some level and be ‘monogamish’, or simply finish the relationship.    Why are these realities concerning same-sex relationships being ignored? Justin Welby seems to want to be a cheerleader for the LGBT cause, but he clearly hasn’t done his homework first.   If you've enjoyed this analysis, in Part Two I explore the trend towards open marriage and how the Church is failing to stop it.   THE WOEFUL IGNORANCE OF JUSTIN WELBY - PART TWO   By Lisa Nolland   Part One of my analysis of Justin Welby, former Archbishop of Canterbury, focused on his recent comments expressing his support for LGBT.   Justin has become something of a cheerleader for ‘faithful and committed’ same-sex relationships, according to his recent speech to the Cambridge Union.   It follows Justin’s 2024 assertion that sex is to be within a ‘committed’ (partnership or marriage) relationship “whether straight or gay”.   Perils to traditional marriage    Trendy married heterosexuals are now exploring ‘monogamish’ or ‘open marriage’. They might do so because they believe the mainstream media propaganda about how it will save a tired, boring marriage or give a wonderful boost to a fairly good one - ‘the grass is always greener’ is an important component here.     Sadly, it all sounds reasonable and plausible. The emerging role of bisexuality (those who have partners of both sexes) is also apparent.   As some would realise, if married gays can ‘have their cake and eat it’ - i.e. ‘play’ (as they put it) with outside partners, sometimes alone, other times together, and they seem to flourish, why can’t everyone else?!   But as Part One noted, while in the main, gay couples feel the need to ‘open up’ over time - or simply finish the relationship - it tends to be different for heterosexual couples.   Open marriage, end of marriage   Nena O’Neill’s pathbreaking Open Marriage: A New Life Style for Couples (1972) was fabulously successful in the West and encouraged countless ‘progressives’ to ‘explore’ these new relationships for themselves. However, few ‘open’ couples were still married decades on, but that news was largely buried. It failed to fit the politically correct narrative and so few would have known the sad outcome. Though these couples might have divorced anyway, opening their marriage did not prove a boon as is so often claimed in the mainstream media - see the work of  Dr Judith Reisman for more on this.   As sociologist Stanley Kurtz once noted [my own notes are added in brackets],   “So the mere social statement that marriage does not mean monogamy [or exclusivity] is where the real danger of legalized gay-marriage [with its ‘monogamish’ norms and mores] and polyamory lie.   “And the collapse of consensus about shared social institutions really does affect us as individuals [emphasis added].   “Once we as a society no longer take it for granted that marriage means monogamy, you may not decide to leave your wife. But you may be more likely to give in to the temptation of an affair. And that could mean the end of your marriage, whether that’s what you wanted going into the affair or not.”   The next frontier after LGBTQ+   We find that there are Christian polyamorous couples now ‘coming out’. If a little love is good, surely more love is better! And if a little sex is good, lots of sex can be better (as long as certain conditions are met, so they argue). What’s not to like?   Take Jennifer Martin, one of the more articulate US poly (formerly evangelical) Christian advocates who is delighted her United Church of Christ denomination is so ‘enlightened’.   She writes:  “Polyamory has become the next frontier, and many of those same congregations now welcome non-monogamous families into their folds as well [as LGBTQ+ individuals] …   “As a Christian, it’s also important that we be Christ-like: meaning, that we put others’ needs above our own. Each relationship and each sexual encounter is sacred, and you should treat it as such.   “That doesn’t mean you have to deny yourself casual sex, but it does mean that you need to ask yourself if the encounter is healthy for you, healthy for the other person, and healthy for both of you together.”   Not what Jennifer has in mind   The mind boggles at what Jennifer (who says she is legally married with three other partners) is actually signing on to and publicly promoting. In fact, most of the poly promoters on the premier global poly site, polyinthemedia.blogspot.com , are smiling, happy, attractive younger people (i.e. under 40), most (unlike mother of two, Jennifer) without children.   It’s great publicity, but what about permanence?   Quora answers the question, ‘How long do poly relationships last? On average, about 5-8 years’ (accessed 5 July 2025), which is in the ballpark of another large Canadian study which found ‘the average relationship length was nine years for closest partners and 2.5 years for second-closest partners’.   In fact, polyamory has various downsides as noted by the Coalition for Marriage which quotes research from ‘The Problem With Polyamory: A Social Scientific View’.   “Thus, the evidence from the anthropological and historical record, as well as evidence of problems associated with polyamory such as jealousy and relationship disruption, suggests that polyamory is unlikely to be viable in the long term, and will go the way of the swinging relationships of the 1960s.   “This evidence further suggests that polyamory is likely to leave a huge amount of personal chaos, misery, and family ruin in its wake.”   I lack the space to go into the physical aspects of why Jennifer’s advice is flawed but see my article, ‘The dangerous drive to sanitise and normalise polyamory’, which describes how multiple sex partnerships appear to hinder one’s ability to be exclusive: behaviours alter brains, hormones and the process of sexual ‘gluing’.   In conclusion   In Part One we explored the mostly unknown downsides of ‘committed’ gay partnerships and marriage, and in Part Two here, we have taken stock of the propaganda around ‘open marriage’ and polyamory, noting the roadkill - also mostly unknown.   Many are to blame, from the ideologically-driven mainstream media to an ignorant, compromised Church. However, naïve, sanitised versions of both same-sex partnerships and ‘open marriage’ and polyamory, are duping the gullible while leaders such as Justin publicly promote the former and appear ignorant of the latter.   Truly caring, informed, pastoral and biblical leadership has never been more in demand, yet where is it to be found?   God wants our best - life in all its fulness! Yet these counterfeits of love and relationship are damaging even those in the Church, while leaders ignore both the perils and the roadkill. And that is what is so tragic - all the roadkill.       Who are the loving ones now?   Dr Lisa Nolland is CEO of the Marriage, Sex and Culture (MSC), Group in London.

By Jeffrey Walton JUICY ECUMENISM July 28, 2025   Southern Baptist social media was abuzz late last week when a prominent Baptist theologian announced his departure from the Southern Baptist Convention for the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA).   Matthew Barrett, a professor at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City for the past eight years, will depart that institution (among the largest seminaries in the country measured by enrollment) for a new role as a Research Professor of Theology at Trinity Anglican Seminary in Ambridge, Pennsylvania.   This is significant news for a modestly-sized institution like Trinity: the school issued a press release trumpeting the appointment, Barrett’s expertise in Reformation theology, and how he helps students “retrieve the Great Tradition for the sake of recovering creedal orthodoxy in the church.”   Trinity Vice President for Advancement Alex Banfield Hicks tells me that the seminary’s post announcing Barrett had joined the faculty was seen over 200,000 times within 24 hours.   In a widely circulated substack piece, Barrett outlined his journey into Anglicanism at St. Aidan’s Church in Kansas City. He praises the beauty of liturgical worship experienced in The Book of Common Prayer and how sacramental theology “stands in stark contrast to the disenchanted mindset of our modern world.”   He also took a few shots at the SBC.   “Our family is burnt out on the Southern Baptist mindset—the big show. My family has been crying out for participation, not mere performance,” Barrett writes. Read his July 24 essay in full here.   I don’t expect that casual readers will be familiar with Barrett, but I highlight him here because he is emblematic of an evangelical-to-Anglican pipeline among students serious about classical Protestantism.   This isn’t remotely new: it’s been 25 years since Colleen Carroll Campbell researched The New Faithful: Why Young Adults Are Embracing Christian Orthodoxy, an investigation of the reasons behind the choice of orthodoxy in a society that often denigrates traditional morality and rejects organized religion. The draw to liturgy is part of Campbell’s volume, and she name-checked the young adult ministry at The Falls Church (then Episcopal) that I was a part of, Kairos, in suburban Virginia outside of Washington.   Kairos was chock full of Baptists and nondenominational Christians considering historic, liturgical expression of the Christian faith for the first time. For some of them, it was their first opportunity to recite the creeds during a worship service. That ministry concluded 15 years ago this week, but I see its fingerprints across the ACNA. From 1996-2010, Kairos produced an extraordinary number of clergy and laity who met and, in some cases, formed families from that time period. These now populate the half-dozen daughter congregations of The Falls Church Anglican, among many, many other churches both within and beyond Anglicanism.   Many readers of this blog already know that “high demand” faiths tend to be the ones that grow, while those churches that tout “welcome-welcome-welcome” but don’t specify what people are being welcomed to or for tend to plateau and decline.   Recitation of the Nicene Creed is, of course, a significant part of creedal orthodoxy, and Barrett laments the SBC Executive Committee’s rejection of the creed’s inclusion in the Baptist Faith and Message.   “I cannot stay in a denomination where the Nicene Creed has been officially rejected from inclusion and remains blatantly absent,” Barrett writes.   (Denny Burke of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary subsequently pushed back on this assertion, arguing that no, Southern Baptists Have Not “Officially Rejected” the Nicene Creed).   I gladly join in welcoming Barrett and his family into the Anglican fold, although I gently caution that the grass is often greener on the other side. Barrett is correct that overseers/bishops (episcopoi) are among the historic, biblical orders, and I value my bishops. But as a cradle Episcopalian, I also witnessed repeated failures of the episcopacy, and I am uneasy about elevating my Anglican polity as more faithful than that of other Christians. Similarly, those upset by scandal in the SBC will find the same problems in other churches, including Anglican ones (Barrett’s diocese is not immune to crises, nor is my own). The Anglican Church is a hospital for sinners, and our sins are many.   “If the SBC is anything like we are, no one has any reason to boast,” Anglican commentator Anne Kennedy wryly noted.   Fortunately, we’re not here to boast, we’re here to grow in knowledge and love of the Lord. As Barrett himself writes, quoting Luther, “we are beggars.” I’m glad that Barrett has decided to come alongside us in this, as I am grateful for the many current and former Baptists who have enriched us with their teaching and witness (a retired bishop of mine, Martyn Minns, was one such person!)   In looking ahead, Trinity has invited Barrett to deliver the John Rodgers lectures this October.   “I will share my pilgrimage into Anglicanism and explain why I believe Anglicanism is so unique, capable of leading the way, guiding Christians back to biblical orthodoxy,” Barrett wrote this week on Facebook. “What a way to celebrate Reformation week!”

By Amine Ayoub THE STREAM July, 2025   While the world’s attention remains locked on nuclear threats, anti-Israel rhetoric, and escalating Middle East tensions, a quiet revolution is transforming Iran, not through politics or protests but through a surge of faith that defies everything the Islamic Republic stands for.   Beneath the iron grip of clerical rule and state repression, more than 2,000 Iranians are converting to Christianity every single day, embracing a faith that is banned, criminalized, and punishable by prison or worse. This spiritual explosion, invisible to international headlines but deeply real on the ground, is rewriting the very identity of a nation once seen as an unshakable stronghold of radical Islam. What’s happening is not a fleeting trend but a sustained transformation with roots going back nearly a decade.   As early as 2016, Iran was recognized as the country with the fastest-growing Evangelical movement in the world. Today, mission groups and researchers estimate that well over two million Iranians have turned to Jesus, despite the threat of surveillance, torture, and execution.   Behind these numbers lies a deep disillusionment that has hollowed out Iran’s official religion from within. For more than 40 years, the Islamic Republic has used Shia Islam not as a spiritual guide but as a tool of totalitarian control. Promises of justice and divine governance have instead led to widespread economic collapse, repression of women, violent crackdowns on dissent, and crushing isolation. The people of Iran, especially the youth, have stopped believing, not just in the regime but in the very ideology it claims to represent. Mosques are emptying. Clerics privately admit their fear that younger generations are walking away in droves. Even the children of Iran’s most senior religious and political leaders are quietly rejecting Islam and exploring Christianity, not because of outside pressure but because they’ve seen firsthand how religion has been weaponized to oppress, divide, and destroy.   Supernatural Experiences The extraordinary rise of Christianity in Iran is not due to evangelistic campaigns or public preaching, as those are impossible under the current regime, but through deeply personal experiences that often begin with dreams, visions, or encounters that defy explanation.   Converts tell stories of seeing Jesus in dreams, hearing His voice, or being overcome with peace during moments of despair. One such woman, Simin, was so moved after watching a film about Christ’s crucifixion that she cried for hours and began praying to Him. Her home later became a house church. She was arrested, imprisoned along with her two-year-old daughter, interrogated, and threatened, but she never recanted. Eventually, she escaped Iran and now lives in freedom, still helping others come to faith. Another woman, now 92, carries a tiny New Testament on public buses. Claiming she can’t read the small print, she asks strangers to help her, secretly introducing them to the Gospels. Almost every time, the passenger ends up taking a copy home.   These stories may sound small, but they reflect a much bigger truth: This revival is real, it’s personal, and it’s spreading under extreme conditions because of the sheer hunger Iranians have for hope, truth, and transformation.   Costly, Digital, Transformative The price of this faith is high. Iran is among the most dangerous places in the world to be a Christian, especially for those who leave Islam. Last year, 96 believers were sentenced to a total of 263 years in prison, six times more than in 2023. Charges like “acting against national security” or “propaganda against the regime” are often slapped onto believers for activities as basic as praying, reading the Bible, or gathering in homes. Torture, solitary confinement, and being denied medicine are regular tools used against converts.   But rather than breaking the church, persecution is making it stronger. There is no lukewarm Christianity in Iran. Everyone who follows Jesus does so knowing it could cost them everything. And this pressure is forging a church that is not just surviving but thriving — resilient, courageous, and impossible to contain.   Without physical churches or public worship, the revival is spreading through encrypted apps, satellite TV, and digital discipleship. Ministries like Transform Iran and Mohabat TV are reaching tens of thousands each month with online church services, prayer rooms, and Bible study tools that slip past regime censors. In hidden living rooms, Iranians gather in twos and threes, risking their freedom to read Scripture, worship quietly, and support one another. The digital underground is now the primary highway of the Gospel in Iran, with VPNs and secure communication platforms allowing believers to organize, evangelize, and grow without being detected. The same internet the regime thought would be a tool for surveillance and control is now fueling a movement that no amount of force can kill.   And perhaps most astonishingly, this revival is changing not just spiritual identities but political ones. For decades, Iranians were taught to see Israel as the enemy, fed a steady diet of state-sponsored antisemitism and propaganda. But as new believers embrace the Jewish Messiah, many also find their hearts transformed toward the Jewish people. Converts who once chanted, “Death to Israel!” now pray for peace between the two nations. They see Israel not as a threat but as a beacon of hope, a spiritual family. This quiet reorientation represents one of the most profound shifts within the revival. It’s not just a personal faith transition; it’s a total worldview transformation that undermines the regime’s core narrative and chips away at the foundations of hate it has long relied on.   None of this is happening in isolation. While the revival is Iranian in nature, it is sustained by the prayers and support of a global community. Underground churches depend on the courage of their members but also on the practical help of ministries working across borders to smuggle in Bibles, train secret leaders, and support those imprisoned or exiled.   The need is urgent. The opportunity is historic. And the invitation is clear. Stand with Iran’s hidden believers. Their faith, tested in fire, is not only transforming lives inside the country, but may also be preparing the ground for a spiritual awakening that will one day spread across the entire Middle East. Behind the headlines of war and tyranny lies a different Iran — one where light is breaking through darkness, one soul at a time.   Amine Ayoub, a Middle East Forum fellow, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco.

ITV News 30 July 2025   Cherry Vann, the Bishop of Monmouth, has been announced as the new Archbishop of the Church in Wales.   The Bishop of Monmouth, Cherry Vann, will become the Church in Wales' first female and gay Archbishop.   Her election follows the retirement of the Bishop of Bangor, Andrew John, who held the office of Archbishop of Wales for three-and-a-half years.   He stepped down in August after two reports published concerns about Bangor Cathedral. One detailed report of inappropriate behaviour, lack of boundaries and excessive alcohol consumption.   At the time, the Church in Wales said it takes safeguarding extremely seriously. The former Archbishop said the findings "offer [...] opportunity for change". There was no suggestion that Andrew John behaved inappropriately.   The Church in Wales has since called for a number of reviews and investigations of Bangor diocese and cathedral following “deeply troubling” revelations.   Cherry Vann was chosen from among the five serving Welsh bishops to become Wales' 15th Archbishop and the first woman to hold the position. Reacting to the news, she said: “The first thing I shall need to do is to ensure that the issues which have been raised in the last six months are properly addressed and that I work to bring healing and reconciliation, and to build a really good level of trust across the Church and the communities the Church serves.”   She was elected having secured a two-thirds majority vote from members of the Electoral College on the second day of its meeting at the St Pierre Church and Hotel in Chepstow. She will be enthroned at Newport Cathedral at a later date.   Originally from Leicestershire, Cherry was consecrated as Bishop of Monmouth five years ago.   Archbishop of Wales Andrew John retires following Bangor Cathedral concerns Before that, she was among the first women to be ordained as a priest in the Church of England in 1994. She then served as Archdeacon of Rochdale, in the Diocese of Manchester, for 11 years.   She lives with her civil partner Wendy and their two dogs and was also a member of The Church in England's Archbishops’ Pastoral Advisory Group, charged with creating resources to help churches welcome LGBTQI+ people.   The Very Revd Ian Black, Dean of Newport, welcomed the news on behalf of the Diocese of Monmouth.   He said: “Cherry is the right person for this moment in the Church in Wales’ life. She has the skills and vision that we need to restore trust following some very public failings.   "She has brought stability to the Diocese of Monmouth, managing the change to ministry areas with clarity and purpose, showing deep care for the clergy and people. This foundation will be a good base as she leads the Province over the next few years.   "She has a deep faith, which is also open to those who take a different view to her, and this has impressed those people enormously.   "I look forward to supporting her as Dean of her Cathedral. One of our duties and pleasures here is to pray for the bishop every day and we will continue to do so gladly.”

By Anugrah Kumar, Christian Post Contributor THE CHRISTIAN POST July 28, 2025   Public trust in the church as an institution has risen after three years of stagnation, with 36% of Americans now saying they have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in it. The shift, recorded in Gallup’s latest survey on the topic, marks the first significant increase since 2020.   Confidence in the church had fallen to 31% in 2022 and remained around 32% over the following two years, near its lowest recorded levels. Gallup has tracked this trend annually since 1973, when trust stood at 66%, reaching a high of 68% in 1975.   The only other major rebound in recent decades came in 2001, when post-9/11 sentiment briefly raised confidence to 60%, the last time the institution earned such broad support, as reported by Lifeway Research.   The latest numbers show the American church regaining some ground, matching levels last seen in 2021 when confidence was at 37%. While still far from majority support, the increase is notable across several demographics, particularly among political conservatives.   Among Republicans, trust in the church jumped from 49% in 2024 to 64% this year. That change aligns with broader gains in institutional confidence among Republican voters following the reelection of President Donald Trump.   In contrast, confidence in the church fell slightly among Democrats, from 22% to 21%, and rose modestly among independents from 28% to 30%, according to Gallup.   The divide along party lines follows political patterns in institutional trust. In the same survey, Gallup recorded a 73-point increase in Republican confidence in the presidency, while Democrats’ trust in that office dropped 58 points. Gallup noted that partisan control of institutions plays a central role in public trust, stating that confidence often correlates more with political affiliation than with institutional performance.   Women, younger Americans and lower-income households showed marked increases in trust toward the church over the past year. Women’s confidence rose eight points to 36%, closing the previous gender gap. Americans aged 18 to 37 experienced the largest increase, rising from 26% to 32%. Those aged 38 to 54 increased three points to 31%, and Americans 55 and older grew from 39% to 42%.   Trust among black and Hispanic Americans remained lower than among white Americans, but all groups showed modest gains. Thirty-one percent of black Americans and 33% of Hispanic Americans expressed high confidence in the church, compared to 37% of white Americans. In 2024, the figure for all non-white respondents stood at 30%.   Those with some college education but no degree reported one of the steepest increases — up 11 points to 36%. People earning less than $50,000 per year also grew from 31% to 39% in confidence, while those in households earning more than $100,000 rose from 29% to 36%.   Despite the increase, the church still ranks behind small businesses (70%), the military (62%), and science (61%) in terms of public trust. It falls in the middle tier, alongside the police (45%), higher education (42%), and the medical system (32%).   Institutions with lower levels of confidence than the church include the presidency (30%), banks (30%), public schools (29%), the U.S. Supreme Court (27%), and large tech companies (24%). Newspapers (17%), the criminal justice system (17%), big business (15%), television news (11%), and Congress (10%) occupy the bottom of Gallup’s 2025 ranking.   Gallup’s Megan Brenan noted that institutional trust tends to shift dramatically depending on which party holds power. “… Partisans’ confidence is easily restored when their political party controls the institution,” she wrote. “The flip side, of course, is that the confidence of the other party’s supporters declines when their party loses power.”   The average public confidence across the 14 institutions measured by Gallup remains low. This year, just 28% of Americans reported high trust in these institutions overall, the same as in 2024.   END

July 29,2025 Incarnation Anglican Church in Williamsburg, VA has experienced a series of crises, one result of which is a request for a formal inquiry into Bishop Chris Warner’s conduct under Title III, Canon 8 to determine whether his actions constitute canonical violations, abuse of authority, or neglect of episcopal duty.   X account “@DOMA_Misconduct” has provided many documents that outline the recent history of this conflict. Extrapolating from these documents, I came up with the following timeline. Timeline: Incarnation Anglican Church Conflict 2020–2023 Aug 9, 2020: Rev. Drew Thomas is instituted as Vicar by Bishop John Guernsey. Sept 2023 or Jan 2024: Rev. Thomas departs. Date unclear. 2023 Spring 2023: Fr. Justin Murff becomes Interim Rector during a leadership crisis. 2024 Dec 27, 2024: It is suddenly announced that Fr. Murff will depart within a month, with no replacement lined up. It is revealed he had been quietly demoted from Interim Rector to Priest-in-Charge earlier in the year. 2025 Jan 17, 2025: At Bishop Warner’s and Canon Mary Hays’s direction, Incarnation Anglican Church is informed there will be no interim rector for the next 4 months. Guest preachers will serve. Jan 31, 2025: Archdeacon Murff concludes his service as Priest-in-Charge. Feb 2, 2025: Canon Tuck Bartholomew begins leading services twice a month; Canon Jim Beavers also assists. Feb 9, 2025: Canon Mary Hays celebrates the Eucharist—the first female priest to do so at Incarnation Anglican Church. Attendance drops and small groups are paused. Apr 20, 2025: Bishop Warner visits IAC, insists on gender parity for the vestry and doctrinal openness to female celebrants. Apr 27, 2025: Vestry election is disrupted. A DOMA deacon calls it “a battle between the women and the men.” Apr 28, 2025: Bishop Warner calls an emergency congregational meeting for April 30. Apr 30, 2025: Bishop Warner holds the meeting, rebukes the vestry, praises election disruptors, and accuses the vestry of plotting to leave DOMA. May 3, 2025: Bishop Warner sends a letter confirming the vestry election was valid but bars the vestry from meeting until his interim rector arrives. May 7, 2025: Tom Hample is announced as interim rector. He previously worked under Bishop Warner. May 28, 2025: The vestry sends a formal misconduct report to Archbishop Steve Wood and DOMA’s standing committee. Eight charges are outlined. Jun 5, 2025: Bishop Warner replies to the parish. Confirms Tom Hample’s appointment and expresses disappointment with the vestry. Jun 10, 2025: DOMA’s standing committee responds to the vestry’s plea by urging them to attend the next parish meeting. No substantive action is taken. Entire vestry resigns. Jun 11, 2025: Bishop Warner and DOMA appoint a “transitional vestry.” They confirm they will not investigate the misconduct claims. Jun 14, 2025: Former vestry member William Eastman emails the parish, sharing the misconduct report and urging transparency. Jun 19, 2025: Interim rector publicly shares the names of vestry signatories and accuses them of sin for bypassing Matthew 18. Jul 6, 2025: DOMA Whistleblower tweets: “Spiritual abuse is taken lightly, and investigations into misconduct only exist to be weaponized.”   Fr. Justin Murff Here is the text of the vestry’s letter to the Archbishop, with their request for a formal inquiry:   Incarnation Anglican Church Williamsburg, VA 27 May 2025   To: The Most Rev. Stephen D. Wood, Archbishop The Anglican Church in North America 440 Whilden Street Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464   Dear Archbishop Wood, Grace and peace to you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We, the duly elected Vestry of Incarnation Anglican Church, write with heavy hearts and solemn conviction to request immediate relief from the conduct of the Rt. Rev. Christopher S. Warner, Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic. Our parish has experienced significant dysfunction, pastoral harm, and decline in attendance and financial health as a result of Bishop Warner’s repeated departures from the canonical, spiritual, and relational standards required of a bishop in the Church.   The matters outlined herein reflect multiple grievous contraventions of canonical duty, pastoral responsibility, and episcopal integrity under 1 Peter 5:2–3; Titus 1:7–9; 1 Timothy 3; and Title III, Canon 8 of the Canons of the Anglican Church in North America that have gravely impaired the spiritual health, flourishing, governance, and unity of our congregation:   Neglect of Pastoral Oversight and Support: Through repeated and deleterious interventions by Canon for Clergy & Congregation Care Mary Hays, Bishop Warner neglected to address ongoing parish leadership conflicts and subterfuges fomented by the Senior Warden, undermined the Priest-in-Charge’s legitimate authority to maintain church order, and permitted unfounded insinuations of disciplinary charges to proceed against a priest under his care, thereby allowing the Church’s mission in the Gospel to stagnate and falter. Manipulating and Undermining the Rector Search: Bishop Warner and Canon Hays directed a delay in the formation of a search committee, withheld interim pastoral support for four months, repeatedly insisted that the next rector be installed within an expedited six-month timeframe, and imposed substantial financial burdens by mandating costly arrangements for a part-time out-of-state interim rector with prior personal ties, in a scheme to unilaterally pressure the Vestry and search committee into advancing the Bishop’s preferred candidates. Imposition of Ideological Requirements Against Parish Discernment: Bishop Warner sought to enforce a doctrinal stipulation in the parish profile that the next rector must be willing to receive Holy Communion from a female priest, contrary to the unanimous discernment of the Vestry and rector search committee—fully aware that this would divide the congregation and alienate a substantial number of members from the body of the church. Public Maligning of Clergy Formerly Under His Pastoral Oversight: The Bishop maligned, knowingly mischaracterized, and instructed Vestry members to disparage a priest formerly under his care in public congregational settings, failing in his episcopal role as pastor. Participation in a Campaign of Spiritual Harassment to Undermine Ecclesial Order: Bishop Warner enabled, encouraged, and actively participated in a pressure campaign of spiritual harassment orchestrated with Ms. [REDACTED], parish staff, and volunteer Deacon [REDACTED], directed at Vestry Members to intimidate, improperly influence, and obstruct a Vestry election which was later determined to be lawful by the bishop’s own chancellor. Failure to Enforce Accountability for Public Disruption of a Lawful Vestry Election:   Despite the premeditated and public disruption of a lawful Vestry election by the spouse of Ms. [REDACTED] and the husband of the Director of Children’s Ministries, Bishop Warner failed to hold these individuals accountable or adequately call them to repentance. Instead, he publicly commended Ms. [REDACTED] before the entire congregation, signaling approval for their conduct and emboldening further disorder. Public Undermining of Vestry Members Without Attempts at Reconciliation:   Bishop Warner publicly maligned Vestry Members by disclosing and misrepresenting selective contents of private and preliminary communications before the entire congregation without first seeking the Vestry Members’ private clarification or consent. He thereby irreparably compromised the trust necessary for the Vestry to engage with him directly in good faith. Weaponization of Ecclesiastical Authority to Usurp Vestry Governance:   Bishop Warner coerced a Member of the Vestry through ecclesiastical directives and spiritual pressure to unilaterally enter contractual and financial obligations with his preferred candidate for interim rector, thereby circumventing the Vestry’s canonical authority over temporal matters and violating the collaborative governance model essential to Anglican church order. In light of these grave concerns, we respectfully request immediate relief under the appropriate canons of the Anglican Church in North America and Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic. Specifically, we seek:   A formal inquiry into Bishop Warner’s conduct under Title III, Canon 8 to determine whether his actions constitute canonical violations, abuse of authority, or neglect of episcopal duty. The emergency appointment of a trusted interim rector, selected by the Vestry, to stabilize the congregation, restore trust, and resume an open rector search. Since Bishop Warner’s April 30 intervention, ASA has declined to less than 50% of parish membership and roughly $70,000, or 25%, of annualized pledged giving has been lost. The congregation can no longer meet its financial obligations at current giving levels. We submit this request out of sincere desire to restore health, trust, and proper order to the Church, and after numerous failed attempts to resolve concerns privately with Bishop Warner. We seek accountability and healing, and entrust this process to your prayerful discernment.   Please confirm receipt of this letter and advise us of the next appropriate steps. We are prepared to provide full documentation and testimony as needed.   Sincerely, The Vestry Incarnation Anglican Church Williamsburg, VA   The tweets (do we still call them tweets?) and some of the correspondence follow:     Dec 27: It is suddenly announced that IAC’s priest, widely respected by the congregation, will be departing within a month with no planned replacement. It is also revealed that he was quietly demoted earlier in the year from interim rector to priest in charge.   Incarnation will experience another new season in 2025. After serving our congregation for the past 18 months, Archdeacon Murff’s time as the Priest-in-Charge will come to a conclusion at the end of January. We were blessed that [REDACTED] was willing to loan him to us and help get through a difficult period that began in the spring of 2023.   If you were not at Incarnation at that time, our Rector left suddenly, and we needed a replacement not only in the pulpit but also a spiritual leader. Archdeacon Murff served as our Interim Rector through the end of that year, and then joined us as Priest-in-Charge at the beginning of this year. During this time he continued his responsibilities to the Province as the Archbishop’s Canon for the [REDACTED].   Jan 17: An email from IAC's Parish Administrator announces that, at the direction of Bp. Warner and Cn. Mary Hays, IAC will forgo pastoral support for the next 4 months. Guest preachers from his diocesan staff including Cn. Hays herself will lead services, with no interim rector.   Incarnation Family,   This week our diocese sent Canon Mary Hays (DOMA’s Canon for Clergy and Congregational Care) to meet with the Vestry and Staff to help plan our transition. Mary informed us that Bishop Chris Warner has arranged for Canon Tuck Bartholomew to lead our services twice a month beginning on February 2nd. Canon Tuck lives in Charlottesville and is the Canon for Mission and Ministry in our diocese. The other Sundays will be covered by Canon Jim Beavers (Canon for Ordinations in DOMA). We are incredibly blessed and grateful for the support and leadership that both of these men will bring to Incarnation.   Additionally, we are excited to announce that Bishop Chris will lead our Easter service this year. Any Sundays that are not covered, Canon Mary Hays or Deacon [REDACTED] will help fill in as needed. Abbot [REDACTED] also lives nearby and may be called to lead as well.   Feb 9: Canon Mary Hays visits IAC and leads the Sunday service. This is the first time a female priest has celebrated the Eucharist at IAC. Parish attendance declines significantly amid growing unease over innovations to liturgical standards. Small groups are placed on hold.   Apr 20: Bp. Warner visits IAC a week before the vestry election. Around this time, he insists the vestry add another female vestry member and that the parish profile require the next rector to be willing to receive communion from a female priest.   What guidance has our Bishop offered?   Currently, one of our Bishop’s top priorities is achieving gender parity on the Vestry. He has asked that we create a new Vestry seat to add an additional female Vestry Member. Because we received this guidance after we had already announced the time and location of the election, the Vestry will consider creating a female-only Vestry seat at our next Vestry meeting in May.   Apr 27: The vestry election is disrupted by individuals associated with Bp. Warner, who challenge the legitimacy of the process, berate vestry members, and attempt to impede the vote. A DOMA deacon is overheard describing the election as "a battle between the women and the men."   Apr 28: The next day, an IAC staff member sends a message from Bishop Warner to the parish calling for "an emergency congregational meeting" on Apr 30. He attributes the unrest not to the election disruption but to "systemic anxiety" within the parish’s leadership.   Dear People of Incarnation Williamsburg,   Grace and peace to you in Christ our Lord. It was a joy to be with you on Easter to celebrate the Feast of the Resurrection and to baptize and confirm/receive.   It has come to my attention that Incarnation is experiencing significant tension, interpersonal conflict and systemic anxiety within the congregation and among its leadership. While it is unlikely the casual attender would be aware of this, the nature of this conflict is serious enough that I have decided to call an emergency congregational meeting at 7pm this Wednesday, April 30th at the Hellenic Center. I’m sorry for the short notice — I know everyone’s schedules are full — but it’s very important that we gather to address some critical matters together. If you are committed to the church and concerned about a healthy future, I strongly recommend that you attend.   It is my intention that we make space for honest conversation. I truly believe the Lord will meet us as we seek His grace and wisdom together.   Thank you for your understanding and your flexibility. I’m looking forward to being with you all very soon.   In Christ’s love,   +Chris   The Rt. Rev. Chris Warner   Bishop, Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic   Apr 30: At the parish meeting, Bp. Warner offers no rebuke for the instigators. He blames the vestry, questions their legitimacy, maligns former parish priests, praises the spouse of one of the instigators, & accuses the vestry of plotting an illicit transfer to another diocese.   May 3: In a letter to the parish, Bp. Warner continues to undermine the vestry's legitimacy. He reveals that vestry members were re-elected but accuses them of disloyalty, barring them from meeting until his handpicked interim rector arrives. "His contract is now signed."   Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic   Anglican Church in North America   May 3, 2025   Dear Brothers and Sisters of Incarnation Anglican Church,   I want to thank those of you who joined me for the emergency congregational meeting on Wednesday. It was an important first step toward healing the confusion, division, and secrecy that have affected this wonderful community. IAC is a young congregation, still growing into the rhythms and practices of our Anglican tradition and polity, and you have experienced leadership transitions over the last five years, which have contributed to some of the challenges that came to light on Sunday. These things do happen in churches, and when they do, we are called to reorient ourselves to Jesus Christ—His love, His truth, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.   It was good to be with you, to begin unpacking the backstory and timeline of your church, and to name the challenges you now face. Conflict is often uncomfortable, but when engaged through the lens of our life in Christ—with direct communication, repentance, and faith—it can become an opportunity for growth and renewal. Wednesday’s meeting was a hopeful and necessary beginning in that direction.   I also want to report on the results of last Sunday’s election of Vestry members. While there were some irregularities in how the meeting was conducted and in the delay in counting the vote, and there was also tension and uncharitable actions on the part of multiple people, it is my judgment, after consultation with the Diocesan Chancellor, that the meeting and the vote were valid. Your bylaws state that a Vestry member must receive a simple majority of the members present at the congregational meeting. While there are more than 80 members at Incarnation, only 33 were present, which means a minimum of 17 votes to be elected. All four individuals received more than the minimum votes and are therefore duly elected (yes votes ranged 25–27). That said, there are important issues that must be addressed to ensure that the Vestry functions in a way that aligns with the bylaws of Incarnation, and the Canons of the Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic and the ACNA. Therefore, I do not want the Vestry to meet formally or informally until after the Rev. [REDACTED] begins his ministry as Interim Rector and calls the Vestry together. His contract is now signed and his first Sunday will be May 11. Once in place, he will guide the Vestry in bringing its membership and election procedures into conformity with the proper norms.   Finally, I must share that the Vestry’s relationship with me, your Bishop, is currently impaired. As Anglicans we know that Christ is the Head of the Church. The Archbishop of the ACNA, the Most Reverend Steve Wood, is first among equals within the College of Bishops. The Bishop of a Diocese (in DOMA, it’s me) is the spiritual authority, under Christ and within the College of Bishops, over the churches and clergy of his Diocese.   Mistrust and division have taken root. Two Vestry members resigned in frustration following Sunday’s chaotic meeting. Another has offered resignation. Some have struggled to honor Fr. Justin’s resignation, even though his designated ecclesial authority as Priest-in-Charge was formally removed as of the end of January. Others have initiated conversations with a Bishop through a priest from another Diocese about departing DOMA. These actions are deeply concerning and out of step with Anglican polity and the agreements under which Incarnation, DOMA, and the ACNA operate. I have spoken with Bishops Breedlove, Hawkins, and Jones. We are united that Incarnation is a church of the Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic under my authority as the rightfully elected Diocesan Bishop and no conversation about changing dioceses can begin or occur apart from my consent per the Canons of the ACNA.   Compounding this, only one member of the Vestry attended the emergency congregational meeting I called to help the congregation speak truth to one another and to begin the healing process—further straining trust between the Vestry and Diocesan leadership. These matters will be addressed in due course, and I remain hopeful that trust can be restored. This will be more fruitful once the Interim Rector is in place and able to lead alongside me.   Please know that I care for you deeply and that you are continually in my prayers, as well as in the prayers of Canons Jim, Mary, and Tuck—all of whom have served you this year and came to show their support for you at the emergency meeting this week.   There is a good and godly future ahead for IAC. This will come as we seek the Lord together. In the meantime, pray. Hold fast to what is good. Practice the love you have for one another by resisting gossip and speaking the truth in love. Repent to those whom you’ve hurt.   With love for you in Christ,   Chris S. Warner The Rt. Rev. Chris S. Warner The Rt. Rev. Christopher S. Warner, Bishop   May 7: The new interim rector is announced in the parish newsletter. He has an extensive history of having worked under Bp. Warner, having served 9 years as his assistant at St. Christopher Conference Center in Charleston, SC. He will travel back and forth between IAC and SC.   May 28: The vestry sends a letter to the archbishop and DOMA's standing committee signed unanimously by the vestry & search committee, outlining 8 charges of episcopal misconduct and spiritual abuse by Bp. Warner. The letter is personally received by Archbishop Steve Wood.   Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic Anglican Church in North America June 5, 2025   To the Vestry and People of Incarnation Anglican Church (IAC) Incarnation Anglican Church 4900 Mooretown Rd Williamsburg, VA 23188   Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ, Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. I write to you, as your Bishop, mindful of the challenges that Incarnation has experienced in recent months—a time marked by uncertainty and disruption. In such moments, we are called anew to seek the presence of Christ among us: the One who calms the storm, heals the brokenhearted, and calls His Church to unity in love and truth. At present, there is tension between members of the church, between the vestry and the staff, and between the vestry and my office.   Recently, and in accord with my responsibility and prerogative as Bishop, I called an emergency meeting of the congregation on April 30, following the disrupted vestry election that occurred on April 27. My goal was to foster discussion, to be open about the tensions that had developed, and to do so in the context of community. I called the meeting because I was baffled by the notification I received that two vestry members had resigned, and one of them did so via a text message to me.   Of the remaining vestry members, regrettably, only the Junior Warden attended that gathering. During that event, the parishioners present participated in Evening Prayer, some publicly repented of their words or actions from previous weeks—including at the vestry election—and we talked about ways to move forward as a congregation. I offered a history of the past two years, and we discussed some of the complexities around leadership that had contributed to the confusion and challenges we now face. For many attendees, this information was new and surprising. It was not meant to disparage anyone, though I have been told after the fact that some who weren’t actually at the meeting took it as such. No one has called me directly.   The evening seemed to be productive and charitable for those who attended. After the meeting, the one vestry member who did attend freely offered me his resignation if it would help the church. I asked him to wait, telling him that I would consider it and follow up with him after I had time to pray and consult with the Diocesan Chancellor. Because the April 27 vestry election vote had never been counted, there was also some question as to the validity of the election. I was given the ballots and proceeded to consult with the Chancellor in the days ahead. Together we determined that the vestry election was viable.   However, at that point in time, we were also unclear as to whether there even was a vestry other than the Treasurer and the Junior Warden. On May 1, attempting to bring pastoral stability to the congregation, I installed the Reverend [REDACTED] as the Interim Rector of IAC. In this role he serves as the pastoral leader with all the responsibilities of priest-in-charge, as well as the express goal of helping the church prepare for the next full-time and permanent Rector whom the vestry is tasked to call with my approval as Bishop. Rev. [REDACTED] has signed an employment agreement and operates, as all Anglican clergy do, under the ecclesial authority of the Diocesan Bishop.   Rev. [REDACTED] is a priest in good standing in the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina but has been licensed by me to serve in the Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic. After having searched for several months to find IAC a clergy person within DOMA, I had come up empty. Because we are a new diocese, we simply don’t have a “deep bench” when it comes to extra clergy. Thus, after prayer, I asked Rev. [REDACTED] to serve in this capacity. I am delighted that he agreed to do so. He has already made a wonderful difference in bringing peace and stability to this church community.   Rev. [REDACTED] brings pastoral experience and spiritual maturity, but also a heart for reconciliation and a steady presence that will serve you well during this season of transition. As Interim Rector, his ministry will be to walk alongside you: listening, healing, leading worship, overseeing, and working with a vestry to prepare the ground for a faithful and hopeful future.   A couple of weeks ago I was told that the remaining vestry had notified Rev. [REDACTED] of their intention to step down, “for the good of the church,” and to do so in a non-destructive way. As such, Rev. [REDACTED] sought potential names from the few remaining vestry members and others who could serve as a temporary vestry until such time that a new vestry election can be called. Four people indicated their willingness to serve in this temporary capacity. This seemed right and good to me, as well as peaceable and holy.   Sadly, I was notified last week that the vestry members rescinded their resignations and no longer intend to step down. Additionally, they sent a letter to the Standing Committee of the Diocese, with copies to the Archbishop and others in the ACNA, complaining of my conduct as bishop. At no time have they sought me out or communicated with me directly.   This has been the cause of the recent delays in communication, and it means the search process for a permanent Rector will be on hold until we get these matters sorted out. My communicated hope was that we could get a new Rector in place by the end of the summer for the sake of the church and because that’s a good time for clergy with families to move. This time frame seems unlikely now. The next thing that will occur is a…   Jun 10: With mounting pressure from Bp. Warner, the vestry again pleads with DOMA’s standing committee and the archbishop's office for relief. They offer no action, only encouragement to attend the Jun 11 meeting. With no diocesan & provincial support, the entire vestry resigns.   Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic Anglican Church in North America June 10, 2025   To: Senior Warden Incarnation Anglican Church, Williamsburg Via email   Dear [Name Redacted],   Thank you for your letter to the Standing Committee, and your subsequent emails to me. Please be assured that we are praying for you, for the vestry, and for the congregation at Incarnation Anglican Church, and for our Bishop.   As I previously informed you, the DOMA Standing Committee met last night to review the current situation at Incarnation Anglican (of which Bishop Warner had already made us aware), to pray, and to consider our recommendations for next steps.   It is clear to us that there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty surrounding the current situation at Incarnation Anglican. To cite one example, there seems to be a lack of clarity as to who is or is not on the current vestry, given some apparent resignations or offers to resign. In this environment, we believe that Bishop Warner’s offer to meet with members of the congregation who would like to meet with him is both timely and appropriate. In fact, we believe that face-to-face communication is almost always the best way to overcome misunderstandings among Christians. To that end, we urge you and other members of the leadership of the congregation to attend the meeting and to participate fully in the conversations and prayers. We believe that this step is the best way to find a path forward that honors God and that assures that all concerned parties are heard.   We will hold you and Bishop Warner in prayer during the meeting.   In Christ, Jim Oakes Vice-Chair, Standing Committee   Jun 11: A "transitional vestry" is quickly appointed. Members of DOMA’s standing committee join Bp. Warner at the Jun 11 parish meeting. They discuss the allegations in the misconduct report but state that they do not intend to investigate the charges or take any further action.   For the past couple of weeks I have worked to identify and ask some members of IAC to prayerfully consider serving on the temporary/transitional vestry. This search was done quietly to avoid over-complicating the process and causing more division. Much thought, care, and prayer went into how this process was conducted, and to ensure that the process was in line with the Bylaws of IAC and the Canons of the Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic.   Four individuals were identified and agreed to serve, and last night the transition began at our regularly scheduled vestry meeting. Because the bylaws do not anticipate a group resignation from the vestry, it took multiple votes and extra time to complete the necessary steps. This morning the process was completed.   Jun 19: After a former vestry member shares the misconduct report with the parish, Bp. Warner’s handpicked interim responds on Jun 19 by sharing the names of signatories with the parish, publicly accusing them of sin for not following the pattern of reconciliation in Matthew 18.   Subject: Letter of Complaint   From: William Eastman Date: 6/14/2025, 9:55 PM   To: undisclosed-recipients   Over the past several weeks, you may have heard references from Bishop Warner and others to a letter the former vestry submitted to the Standing Committee of our diocese and to Archbishop Wood. This letter, dated May 28, raised serious concerns about the conduct and integrity of Bishop Chris Warner.   While we had hoped that diocesan and provincial processes would be able to address these concerns quietly and faithfully, parts of our letter have now been described by the bishop publicly in parish communications and meetings, without the letter itself being shared. However, in the interest of transparency and to prevent further speculation or misunderstanding, it is now necessary to share the May 28 letter with you directly, so that you can see clearly the matters that led to mounting pressure on the vestry to step aside. You will find it attached.   We understand that some have asked why we did not share these concerns with the congregation sooner. Our desire was to keep the congregation united, not divided. It was not until the bishop began pressuring the vestry—particularly on the topic of women’s ordination—that we realized how deeply these matters were affecting parish life. Also, the vestry was hesitant to share the information because we didn’t want a trial by gossip, rather an investigation carried out by a neutral third party so everyone was protected.   From the beginning, we sought to follow the Church’s canonical processes. We submitted our request to the Standing Committee and the Archbishop’s Office, trusting they would provide next steps. We were grateful that Archbishop Wood personally received our letter. Then, in the face of continued escalating public pressure from Bishop Warner invalidating the vestry’s authority, we followed up again to the Standing Committee and Archbishop’s Office with a plea for guidance. They responded without offering any substantive action or relief. This led all vestry members to succumb to the mounting pressure from the bishop to resign.   As of today, no meaningful steps have been communicated to us—either by the diocese or the province—to formally address these allegations, provide relief, or initiate an impartial investigation. We continue to pray that leaders in the Church will act with pastoral courage so that an investigation will be allowed to run its course prayerfully and without obstruction.   Light dispels darkness. Our hope is for true reconciliation, healing, and unity between all parties. Healing requires the truth to be named. Without truth, there can be no trust. And without trust, reconciliation cannot be real. More importantly, our prayer is that bringing these concerns into the light may not only help our church heal and be restored, but may also protect other congregations facing similar misuses of episcopal authority.   The Church does not ultimately belong to any one of us: not to a vestry, not to a rector, not to a bishop, and not even to an archbishop. When authority in the Church is exercised without accountability, and when concerns are silenced rather than addressed, it strikes at the very heart of the Church’s witness to the Gospel of our crucified and risen Lord Jesus Christ, who alone is the true and eternal Head of the Church.   We are praying for you, for your new vestry, and for healing and peace.   (end of email)   Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,   Grace and peace to you.   I write to you with a heavy heart, in response to a recent email that was sent by a former vestry member to the entire congregation this past Saturday evening, disclosing grievances against individuals in our church that are contained in the grievance letter that the former vestry has made against our Bishop. The message and the letter understandably caused concern, confusion, and pain among many in our church family.   Because I have heard that not everyone at church has received the email sent on Saturday night, I regretfully need to provide the email and the letter so that all may know the context of my comments made this past Sunday and of this present email. Both the letter with the complete signature page and the Saturday night email are attached to this email.   DOMA Whistleblower Jul 6   The response from DOMA's standing committee, and the silence from Archbishop Steve Wood of @the_ACNA speaks loud & clear: Spiritual abuse is taken lightly, and investigations into misconduct only exist to be weaponized against ideological opponents.

Bryan Hollon Jul 28, 2025   Introduction Trinity Anglican Seminary recently hired Dr. Matthew Barrett to serve as Research Professor of Theology. Dr. Barrett, formerly of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, has made the significant decision to convert to Anglicanism, citing among other reasons his concern that the Southern Baptist Convention would not affirm the Nicene Creed and his desire to retrieve the "Great Tradition" of Christian orthodoxy. This announcement, as many have observed, has caused quite a stir online – with hundreds of thousands engaging with social media posts on the subject and prominent Baptist voices expressing sharp disagreement with Dr. Barrett's theological journey. The controversy has exposed deep fault lines within evangelical circles about the nature of tradition, biblical authority, and denominational identity. Some Baptist critics have accused Dr. Barrett of elevating tradition above Scripture, of abandoning "biblical Christianity" for high-church formalism, and of embracing a "Catholic" understanding of authority that undermines the sufficiency of God's Word. These are serious charges that deserve a serious and sustained response. While I’m sure this won’t be the last word, I’d like to offer my own “two-cents” on the issue in what follows.   I write not to attack our Baptist brothers and sisters, whom we love and with whom we share the fundamental truths of the gospel, but to offer a gracious explanation of the Anglican position on these matters. In doing so, I hope to demonstrate that Anglicanism maintains an exceptionally high view of biblical authority while embracing the Great Tradition in a way that is not only consistent with Scripture but necessary for its proper interpretation. More pointedly, I want to suggest that the Baptist critique of Dr. Barrett's position reveals an inconsistency at the heart of much contemporary evangelical thinking about tradition – what we might call "traditioned anti-traditionalism." Beyond Traditioned Anti-Traditionalism The response to Dr. Barrett's move has been illuminating precisely because it reveals how deeply embedded Baptist life is in its own particular traditions. James White of Alpha & Omega Ministries has criticized Barrett for "promoting the 'Great Tradition' at a Baptist institution," arguing that his conversion "proves our point" about the self-contradictory nature of such retrieval efforts within Baptist contexts. Other critics have focused on Barrett's supposed abandonment of "no creed but the Bible" principles in favor of conciliar authority. But here lies the central irony: the very phrase "no creed but the Bible" is itself a creedal statement – and one that appears nowhere in Scripture. It represents a particular tradition of biblical interpretation that emerged in nineteenth-century American Protestantism, not an apostolic teaching. When Baptist critics invoke "Baptist distinctives," appeal to "what Baptists have always believed," or defend their denominational identity against Anglican influence, they are engaging in precisely the kind of traditional reasoning they claim to reject. This is not hypocrisy – it is the unavoidable human condition. As the great 20th-century historical theologian, Jaroslav Pelikan, memorably observed: Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. Tradition lives in conversation with the past, while remembering where we are and when we are and that it is we who have to decide. Traditionalism supposes that nothing should ever be done for the first time, so all that is needed to solve any problem is to arrive at the supposedly unanimous testimony of this homogenized tradition. 1 We all stand within interpretive traditions whether we acknowledge them or not. The question is not whether we will be shaped by tradition, but whether we will engage with tradition thoughtfully and deliberately, or allow ourselves to be unconsciously controlled by unexamined assumptions. The controversy surrounding Dr. Barrett's move demonstrates how entrenched these unexamined traditions have become. When Baptist voices speak of defending "biblical Christianity" against "traditional Christianity," they reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of how Scripture itself speaks about tradition. This brings us to a crucial theological point: the Bible itself has a complex and nuanced understanding of tradition, recognizing both its dangers and its necessity. Scripture's Own Teaching on Tradition The Scriptures speak of tradition in both negative and positive terms, and we must attend carefully to both. Jesus warned against "the traditions of men" that "nullify the word of God" (Mark 7:8, 13), and Paul cautioned the Colossians about being "taken captive by philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men" (Colossians 2:8). These passages rightly warn us against human traditions that obscure or contradict divine revelation. But Scripture also speaks positively of tradition, using the crucial term  paradosis  – the handing down of authoritative teaching. Paul commends the Corinthians because they "hold firmly to the traditions just as I delivered them to you" (1 Corinthians 11:2), and he instructs the Thessalonians to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us" (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Most significantly, Paul describes the gospel itself as a tradition: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:3). This biblical understanding of  paradosis  refers to the necessary process by which "the faith once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3) is transmitted from generation to generation. It is not an addition to Scripture, but the faithful preservation and transmission of scriptural truth. The apostolic tradition is not something alien to Scripture – it is the living community of faith that gave birth to Scripture, preserved Scripture, and continues to interpret Scripture according to the rule of faith that Scripture itself establishes. The Body of Christ Across Time This brings us to a fundamental ecclesiological point that Baptist critics of the Great Tradition often miss: the church is not merely a collection of autonomous individuals or local congregations, but the body of Christ that transcends both geographical and temporal boundaries. Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 12 makes this clear: "For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ... Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it" (1 Corinthians 12:12, 27). If the various members of Christ's body cannot say to one another "I have no need of you" (1 Corinthians 12:21), then this principle surely applies to the temporal dimension of the church as well. The great cloud of witnesses described in Hebrews 12:1 are not merely past exemplars but continuing members of the one body of Christ. The fathers of the first centuries, the bishops who gathered at Nicaea, the theologians who articulated the doctrine of the Trinity – these are our brothers in Christ, members of the same body, participants in the same Spirit. This means that when we read Scripture, we do not read as isolated individuals but as members of a community that spans the centuries. The Holy Spirit who inspired the apostolic writings is the same Spirit who has guided the church in its understanding of those writings. To ignore or dismiss the theological reflections of our forebears is to commit precisely the sin Paul warns against – telling other members of the body that we have no need of them. This is not to say that the fathers were infallible or that later tradition carries the same authority as Scripture. But it is to say that we should read Scripture at least somewhat as they did if we are truly members of Christ's one body. Their insights, their struggles with heresy, their careful articulation of biblical truth – these form part of the context within which Scripture is properly understood. The Anglican Way: Scripture, Tradition, and Authority This brings us to the distinctive Anglican approach to these questions, which offers a way forward that honors both the supreme authority of Scripture and the ministerial authority of the Great Tradition. Importantly, we can distinguish between Scripture as the only  source  of revelation and Scripture as the only source of authority. This distinction is crucial for understanding how tradition functions in Anglican theology. Scripture alone is revelatory in the strict sense – only the written Word of God conveys God's presence and communicates divine truth authoritatively. The creeds, councils, and fathers do not add new revelation to what God has already revealed in Christ and recorded in Scripture. In this sense, Anglicans are committed to  sola scriptura  in its proper meaning: Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith and the only source of revealed truth necessary for salvation. But this does not mean that Scripture is the only source of authority in the church's life. Non-scriptural sources can have a certain ministerial authority – particularly in helping us interpret Scripture correctly. The distinction here is between  magisterial  authority (which belongs to Scripture alone) and  ministerial  authority (which can be exercised by creeds, councils, and the tradition of the church when they faithfully serve Scripture's own teaching). This is precisely how the early church understood the relationship between Scripture and the rule of faith. As Michael Bird has written: Our biblical canon and church creeds go together like peanut butter and jelly or like Vegemite and avocado... The formation of the biblical canon and the origin of the early creeds arose out of processes that were concurrent and mutually influential. 2 The same apostolic tradition that gave us the New Testament also gave us the Nicene Creed. They are not competing authorities but complementary expressions of the one apostolic faith. But the Creed does not convey Christ as the Word does – the Creed is not the Word written. Thomas Cranmer’s Understanding of Tradition This Anglican understanding finds its classical expression in the work of Thomas Cranmer, the chief architect of the English Reformation. Cranmer, whose Protestant credentials are unimpeachable, provides an excellent example of how to embrace the Great Tradition without compromising biblical authority. His approach is instructive for contemporary discussions about tradition and Scripture. We should not forget that Thomas Cranmer was burned at the stake by order of the Roman Catholic Mary Tudor. Cranmer was most certainly aligned with the Protestants, theologically. In Cranmer's preface to the Great Bible of 1540, he writes: "Here may all manner of persons... learn all things what they ought to believe or do, as well concerning Almighty God, as also concerning themselves and all other." Scripture is the supreme authority for faith and practice. But Cranmer does not stop there. He recognizes that Scripture must be interpreted, and that this interpretation benefits from the wisdom of the church's greatest teachers. In his theological treatises, Cranmer consistently appeals not only to Scripture but to the fathers of the church, particularly Augustine, Chrysostom, and other ancient authorities. But he does so in a way that maintains Scripture's supremacy. The fathers are valuable interpreters of Scripture, not additional sources of revelation. When they agree with Scripture, they help us understand Scripture better. When they disagree with Scripture (or with each other), Scripture judges them. This is precisely the approach that Cranmer takes toward the creeds and councils. In his "Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament," he writes: The old holy fathers and ancient bishops were in many points much better learned, and in all points much more godly, than our men be nowadays... But yet they were men as we be, and might err as we may err. The fathers deserve our respect and careful attention, but they do not possess infallible authority. Cranmer's treatment of the Nicene Creed exemplifies this balance. He includes it in the liturgy not as an addition to Scripture but as a faithful summary of scriptural teaching about the Trinity and the Incarnation. The Creed has authority precisely because and insofar as it accurately reflects what Scripture teaches. It serves as an authoritative guide for interpreting Scripture, but Scripture remains the ultimate standard by which the Creed itself must be judged. This approach allows Cranmer to embrace the theological achievements of the early church while maintaining the Protestant principle of Scripture's supremacy. The Creed does not compete with Scripture; it serves Scripture by providing a reliable interpretive framework that has been tested by centuries of faithful use. As Cranmer puts it in his homily "Of the Salvation of Mankind": These be the very words of our Saviour Christ, which ought to be believed of every Christian man without doubt or mistrust... But because we be ignorant and cannot perceive the meaning thereof, let us hear what the ancient fathers have written. The genius of Cranmer's approach is that it is thoroughly Word-saturated while remaining deeply traditional. His prayer book, collects, and homilies demonstrate that embracing the Great Tradition actually serves biblical faithfulness rather than undermining it. The tradition helps us read Scripture better, not differently. The Mutual Dependence of Canon and Creed This brings us to a crucial historical point that contemporary Baptist critics of tradition often miss: the biblical canon and the early creeds emerged from the same historical process and serve the same theological purpose. Both represent the church's attempt to preserve and transmit the apostolic faith in the face of heretical distortion. The process by which the New Testament canon was established was not a purely individual or congregational matter – it was a community process that unfolded over several centuries and involved the same kind of conciliar discernment that produced the Nicene Creed. Church fathers like Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, and Irenaeus, "frequently quoted and referred to various texts in their epistles and theological works. Their writings not only reflect the theological inclinations of the time but also exhibit a discernible pattern of which texts were considered authoritative and inspired." 3 Moreover, "these texts had to align with the rule of faith, a set of core theological beliefs derived from the apostolic teaching. This rule of faith acted as a benchmark against which the content and doctrinal integrity of the texts were measured." 4  The same theological discernment that recognized certain writings as canonical also produced the creeds that summarize the faith those writings teach. Historically speaking, to accept the biblical canon while rejecting the conciliar tradition that helped establish it is inconsistent. It’s like cutting off the limb upon which we are perched.  The authority that Southern Baptists grant to the 27 books of the New Testament rests on precisely the same kind of ecclesial discernment they reject when it comes to the Nicene Creed. As is well known, the 27 books of the New Testament were first published in a single list in 367 AD by Athanasius of Alexandria - who incidentally had a major theological influence on the Nicene Creed. Moreover, the 27 books of the New Testament were first sanctioned by a church council at the Third Council of Carthage in 393 AD. Importantly, both the canon and the creeds represent the church's faithful response to the apostolic tradition, and both serve the same purpose: preserving the integrity of the gospel against heretical corruption. I’ll have more to say on all of this in the next post. A Living Faith, Not Dead Traditionalism None of this should be understood as an argument for blind traditionalism or the uncritical acceptance of everything that calls itself traditional. Anglicans are not Roman Catholics; we do not believe in the infallibility of popes or the equality of Scripture and tradition. We distinguish carefully between Tradition with a capital T (the apostolic faith itself) and traditions with a lowercase t (particular practices and interpretations that may or may not faithfully reflect that apostolic faith). According to Pelikan, "tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.” A theology of tradition never insists that we repeat the past in slavish fashion but that we are aware of its influence and sensitive to the ways that it will sometimes guide us rightly and sometimes steer us off-course. This is precisely what allows Anglicans to embrace the whole of the church's past without having to defend every particular expression of it. Whether one affirms the theology of N.T. Wright or not, I hope all Anglicans can agree when he suggests that "if it is true, then Anglicans have believed it." We Anglicans are free to believe whatever is true of the gospel, and we are compelled to allow our own "tradition" to be corrected by gospel truth when necessary. Our embrace of "tradition" is one of the great strengths of the Anglican way precisely because it allows us to escape the tyranny of "traditionalism." The genius of this approach is that it provides both stability and flexibility. We are rooted in the apostolic tradition, but we are not enslaved to particular historical expressions of that tradition. We can appreciate the theological insights of Augustine while rejecting his views on particular theological points. We can embrace the Trinitarian orthodoxy of Nicaea while acknowledging that the political circumstances of the fourth century are not normative for all times. The Deep Connection Between Canon and Creed This understanding prepares us to appreciate what Bishop Lancelot Andrewes famously called the foundations of Anglican orthodoxy: One canon reduced to writing by God himself, two testaments, three creeds, four general councils, five centuries, and the series of Fathers in that period – the centuries, that is, before Constantine, and two after, determine the boundary of our faith. This is not a hierarchy of competing authorities but a description of how divine revelation has been received, preserved, and transmitted through the apostolic community. The "one canon reduced to writing by God himself" maintains its supremacy as the only infallible rule of faith. But that canon is properly understood within the interpretive framework provided by the "two testaments, three creeds, four general councils, five centuries, and the series of Fathers." Andrewes' formula elegantly captures the Anglican balance between biblical supremacy and traditional wisdom. Scripture is the ultimate authority, but it is Scripture interpreted within the community of faith that spans the centuries. The creeds do not add to Scripture; they help us understand what Scripture teaches. The councils do not replace biblical authority; they serve biblical authority by protecting the church from interpretations that would distort the apostolic faith. In my next essay, I will explore more fully this deep connection between canon and creed, showing how both emerge from the same apostolic tradition and serve the same theological purpose. I will argue that far from undermining biblical authority, the Great Tradition actually serves to protect and preserve the gospel that Scripture proclaims. Conclusion: The Unavoidable Role of Tradition The controversy surrounding Dr. Barrett's conversion to Anglicanism has revealed something that many in our contemporary evangelical communities would prefer not to acknowledge: tradition plays an absolutely necessary and unavoidable role in Christian life and biblical interpretation.  The question is not whether we will be influenced by tradition, but whether we will engage with tradition thoughtfully and deliberately, allowing ourselves to benefit from the wisdom of our forebears while maintaining proper biblical priorities. Anglicanism offers a way forward that honors both Scripture's supremacy and tradition's ministerial authority. We affirm with our Baptist brothers and sisters that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith and the only source of revealed truth necessary for salvation. But we also recognize that Scripture is best understood within the interpretive community that gave birth to it, preserved it, and has been guided by the Spirit in understanding its meaning. This is not a compromise with "Catholicism" or an abandonment of "biblical Christianity." It is a recognition that biblical Christianity itself is traditional Christianity – that the faith once delivered to the saints has been faithfully preserved and transmitted through the centuries by the very community that produced the New Testament canon. I would argue that Dr. Barrett's journey toward Anglicanism represents not a departure from biblical faithfulness but a deeper embrace of it. In retrieving the Great Tradition, he has found not a competitor to Scripture but the creeds, councils, and perhaps most importantly - the members of Christ’s body who produced the creeds. They were among Scripture's faithful servants, and we need them (1 Corinthians 12:21). In affirming the Nicene Creed, he has not elevated human tradition above divine revelation but recognized that this creed faithfully summarizes what divine revelation teaches about the triune God. The Baptist critique of this position, however well-intentioned, reveals the problematic nature of traditioned anti-traditionalism. It attempts to reject tradition while remaining deeply embedded in particular traditions. It defends "biblical Christianity" while ignoring how that Christianity was understood by the very communities that gave us the Bible. While the ACNA, and the Anglican tradition more generally, are far from perfect, I believe that Anglicanism offers a better way on this issue – a way that takes seriously both the authority of Scripture and the wisdom of the ages, both the finality of apostolic revelation and its transmission through the generations. This is the Anglican way that Dr. Barrett has embraced, and it is a way that serves not only theological precision but pastoral wisdom, providing the stability and continuity that God's people need in every generation. As we continue to engage these important questions, I’m grateful to have Dr. Barrett with us, and I pray that we will all contend for the faith with both clarity and charity, recognizing that our common commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ far exceeds our denominational differences, while also appreciating the distinctive contributions that each tradition brings to the church catholic. 1.       Jaroslav Pelikan, interview with U.S. News & World Report, July 26, 1989. 2 Michael Bird,  How God Became King , 29. 3 Michael J. Kruger,  Canon Revisited , 145. 4 Ibid.

Anglicans grow by a million people each year   By John Sandeman July 27, 2025   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.   “…new data show[s] that the Communion has radically changed, and this raises questions about the process. 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.”   Goodhew states the figure of 100 million is actually an undercount. He cites sub saharan Africa as the engine of growth. “The biggest Anglican Church in the Communion is no longer the C of E, but the Church of Nigeria. Add in Ugandan and Kenyan Anglicans, and those three Provinces [national churches] constitute nearly half the global Communion.” Goodhew does not use the exaggerated Sts from England in his calculations.   These three national churches are members of Gafcon, the Global Anglican Futures movement, that supports an Anglicanism centred on the Bible’s teaching. Together with other Anglican provinces (national churches) such as Myanmar and South Sudan, and conservative breakaway bodies such as the Anglican Church in North America and Australia’s Diocese of the Southern Cross, Gafcon contains a super majority of the world’s Anglicans.   Goodhew gives striking examples of where Anglicanism has grown. It is shifting from its history of growth in the British Empire.   “Before 1972, Congolese Anglicans had no dioceses: the 100,000 members were overseen by Ugandan bishops. Now, the Province of Congo has 14 dioceses and more than half a million members. Congo is one of the poorest and most war-torn countries in the world. As in Sudan, acute suffering has been the social soil in which Anglican churches have mushroomed.   Smaller but still striking growth has been seen in Chile. In 1970, there were about 4000 Anglicans in Chile. Now there are 23,000 in a newly formed and rapidly expanding Province. Once a Church mostly of British expats, Chilean Anglicanism is now predominantly Spanish-speaking.   “The diocese of Singapore is significant, but for a different kind of growth. Its membership rose seven-fold between 1970 and 2020, from 10,000 to 72,900. The number of Singaporean Anglicans has risen greatly. But much of the growth has come from energetic church-planting across a swath of Asia: in Nepal, Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.”   “Data from the researcher Jeff Walton shows that these six countries — most of which were little influenced by the British Empire — together now have 167 Anglican churches and more than 16,000 Anglicans. The Anglican Church in Nepal alone — founded only 25 years ago — had 11,316 members in 2023. It is on course to become a diocese in the near future.”   The term “Anglicanism” is increasingly anachronistic.   John Sandeman is a prominent Christian writer and journalist known for his work with Eternity News and THE OTHER CHEEK. He has been a pivotal figure in shaping Australia's religious media landscape for over 15 years.