Archives

From Anglican Essentials ST CATHARINES, ONTARIO – Less than twelve hours after the Anglican Church of Canada’s governing body was braced to defer a decision to bless same-sex unions for theological study, Synod today passed an eleventh-hour amendment to the motion affirming the “sanctity” of same-sex relationships. The amendment was briefly debated on the floor of General Synod late last night, and deferred until this morning’s plenary session. Several orthodox delegates rose to speak against the amendment, saying it didn’t make sense to affirm the sanctity of same-sex relationships ahead of the theological discussion Synod had already called for. One delegate tried to change the language of the amendment to “affirm and love those who are in same-sex relationships,” but that effort was voted down. In church language, “sanctity” means “blessed,” “holy,” or “sacred.” It is twice used in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer in relation to marriage ceremonies. But Rev. Garth Bulmer, mover of the amendment, told Synod he didn’t intend for “sanctity” to hold any theological meaning. Anglican Essentials Canada, a coalition of orthodox Anglicans, says the amendment to affirm the sanctity of same-sex relationships goes even further than the original motion, which merely assigned jurisdiction of same-sex blessings to individual dioceses. “Sanctity equals blessing,” said Rev. Charlie Masters, national director of Anglican Essentials. “This entire discussion is about whether we can bless same-sex unions. So the matter has suddenly already been decided.” Masters said the Essentials group will wait for the response from the international community before making any further decisions about their future. The Synod’s decision overturns a 1998 resolution by an overwhelming majority of all Bishops in the Anglican Communion, which stated that same-sex activity was incompatible with Scripture. The church has been in turmoil since June 2002, when the governing body of the Vancouver-based Diocese of New Westminster voted by 62 percent majority to become the first in the world to officially enact a blessing rite for same-sex unions. In October 2003, the world’s 38 Anglican national leaders said decisions in the United States and New Westminster threatened to “tear the fabric of our communion at its deepest level.” The Canadian and U.S. churches jointly represent about 4 percent of the worldwide communion. END

Reflections on Immigration and Unrest By Bryan Hollon https://bryanhollon.substack.com/ January 31, 2026 Paul Gustave Dore. Illustration to the Bible: The angel shows the apostle John the new Jerusalem Gustave Dore, The New Jerusalem, 1865 A faculty colleague recently expressed concern to me that Trinity students are caught between conflicting views on immigration. In their churches, they hear one message, but social media and friends promote another. Some say Christian hospitality means welcoming and loving our neighbors, while others argue that love requires us to uphold the law and protect civic order. Both perspectives cite the Bible and claim to be faithful to the gospel. In an environment like this, we are all likely curious about what Christian love actually requires. As tensions in places like Minneapolis continue to increase, some Christians have moved from advocacy to civil disobedience, joining efforts to block deportations and disrupt immigration authorities. There’s a growing sense among some Christians that any cooperation with immigration law is inherently wrong. But this perspective overlooks important biblical teaching on our responsibilities to the state. Paul’s instruction in Romans 13 is very clear: Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment (13:1-2). This doesn’t give governments a blank check, but civic order is a divinely ordained good to be protected. As Paul goes on to say, the government “‘is God’s servant for [our] good… [so if we] do wrong… [it] does not bear the sword in vain’” (13:4). Legitimate authority has the right and responsibility to maintain order, and this includes control over borders. But the current unrest is complicated. Even as we affirm the necessity of legal order, we can’t be indifferent to how immigrants are treated – especially the most vulnerable. The Christian commitment to human dignity doesn’t evaporate because someone entered a country illegally. We’re talking about people made in the image of God whose humanity demands pastoral care and compassion, even when legal consequences must follow. The current unrest in Minnesota shows us why this matters. Over the past month, Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations there have detained more than 10,000 people, including legally admitted refugees awaiting permanent residency. Churches have delivered thousands of boxes of food to families in hiding, and at least two Americans were killed during confrontations with federal agents. Citizens and legal residents report widespread fear of being detained based only on their racial appearance. A federal judge found that ICE violated at least 96 court orders in Minnesota in January alone.¹ The scale of disruption and the reports of overreach raise serious questions about whether enforcement is being carried out with the justice and mercy Scripture requires. Thanks for reading A Mere Christian On the Anglican Way! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and engage with my work. Bishop Eric Menees of the Diocese of San Joaquin offered a characteristically Anglican response to these events in a recent pastoral letter. Acknowledging the complexity, he wrote: “A faithful Christian response must therefore hold together two truths: the responsibility of governments to uphold the rule of law and protect their borders, and the obligation to treat immigrants and refugees with justice, mercy, and compassion, in accordance with God’s law.” This is exactly right. The task isn’t to choose between order and mercy, but to hold both together through properly ordered love. As an Anglican priest and seminary president, I work with a faculty and staff who prepare men and women to shepherd congregations facing these tensions. Our students need to understand how Christian love works when it engages questions of law, order, and the common good. The Gift of Particular Obligations One of Augustine’s most important insights is that love isn’t a formless universal sentiment we direct equally at everyone. Love has structure and can be ordered rightly or wrongly. In De doctrina Christiana, he writes: Further, all men are to be loved equally. But since you cannot do good to all, you are to pay special regard to those who, by the accidents of time, or place, or circumstance, are brought into closer connection with you... Just so among men: since you cannot consult for the good of them all, you must take the matter as decided for you by a sort of lot, according as each man happens for the time being to be more closely connected with you. Because we’re finite, we can’t love everyone in the same way, which means that real love requires differentiation. You love your children in a different way than you love your neighbor’s children – not because other children matter less in God’s eyes, but because God has given you particular responsibility for these specific children. Looking after those closest to us isn’t selfish; it’s how God intended human love to function. The same principle applies to political communities. I have obligations to fellow Americans that I don’t have to citizens of other nations, and this is not because Americans are inherently superior. Instead, it’s because Americans share a common legal order and mutual responsibilities. When Jeremiah commands the exiles to “seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (29:7), he’s recognizing this truth. But our obligations to fellow citizens don’t cancel our obligations to the stranger. The same finite love that requires special care for those nearest us also requires humane treatment of those who arrive looking for refuge or opportunity. We can insist on the rule of law while demanding that enforcement be carried out with pastoral sensitivity. Christians should care about immigrants as people – that’s not negotiable. But caring for them doesn’t mean abandoning concern for civil order. The Earthly Peace We’re Given to Use But doesn’t this emphasis on earthly communities compromise our eschatological identity? Shouldn’t we be unconcerned about law and order among our earthly communities, since our real home is in God’s eternal city? Paul tells us plainly that “our citizenship is in heaven” (Philippians 3:20). Colossians commands us to “set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth” (3:2). I’ve heard Christians asking these questions recently, but I believe they present a false dichotomy. In Augustine’s City of God, the eternal and earthly cities aren’t set in opposition. They exist together in this present age, sharing a common concern for what Augustine calls “earthly peace,” which is the relative order, security, and justice that make human life possible. Augustine explains in Book 19: The earthly city seeks an earthly peace... The heavenly city, or rather the part of it which sojourns on earth and lives by faith, makes use of this peace... Consequently, so long as it lives like a captive and a stranger in the earthly city, it makes no scruple to obey the laws of the earthly city... and thus, as this life is ordinary to both cities, so there is a harmony between them regarding what belongs to it.³ Augustine suggests that Christians use civic order the way pilgrims use roads. We don’t worship them or confuse them with our ultimate destination. A legal system that preserves fundamental justice creates conditions for human flourishing and Christian faithfulness. We’re supposed to work to preserve and improve them – not because they’ll save us (only Christ does that), but because they serve human goods during our sojourn. This has immediate ramifications for immigration debates. It is right to ask whether the scale and pace of immigration in some communities threaten the earthly peace in ways that harm real people. When hundreds of thousands of people arrive annually from cultures with legal and political traditions fundamentally incompatible with constitutional democracy, we face real questions about whether our systems can bear such rapid transformation. The European experience should serve as a warning to us. Take Sharia law as a case in point. It’s not “Islamic law” in the way that canon law is “church law.” It’s a comprehensive ordering of all life (political, economic, domestic, and religious) that doesn’t recognize the distinction between civil and ecclesiastical authority that Christianity spent centuries developing. The classical Islamic legal tradition produces an entirely different vision of justice, authority, and human liberty than the Western legal tradition. European nations are struggling with large immigrant communities who resist integration into liberal democratic institutions and prefer to establish parallel legal and social structures. Many European nations have subjected their own citizens to serious social and political turmoil and injustice. Young women have paid the highest price as instances of sexual violence (perpetrated primarily by Muslim men) against them have increased dramatically, and authorities have been reluctant to acknowledge or address the issue. I think of our Nigerian students when I hear these debates. They’re facing something far more urgent, since the Fulani (a Muslim ethnic group) have waged a systematic campaign of violence against Christian communities for decades. When a Nigerian Christian tells me he’s concerned about Islamic expansion (as Abp. Ben Kwashi did just last week), he’s doing so because of murdered neighbors and burned churches. Properly ordered love in his context might well require stronger resistance to Islamic expansion than would be warranted in suburban America, precisely because the threats and responsibilities differ. This line of thinking is not grounded in tribalism or “Christian nationalism.” If Christian love has order, then we must acknowledge that some neighbors have been entrusted to our care in uniquely binding ways. To neglect their welfare – especially the welfare of children and other vulnerable people – in favor of abstract notions of universal justice is to invert love’s proper order. The scale and pace of immigration in parts of Europe show us what happens when the desire to act justly is severed from the duty to protect those for whom we hold primary responsibility. Some legal systems better reflect the moral order embedded in creation than others. Western legal traditions, with all their flaws, have developed protections for human dignity, limitations on arbitrary power, and frameworks for ordered liberty that took centuries to achieve. They’re fragile right now, and this should concern us all. The Both/And of Faithful Love We can and should extend Christian love to immigrants – including Muslim immigrants. That love has to be real rather than abstract. It means welcoming them as neighbors, working for their good, praying for them, and recognizing them as fellow image-bearers. The Good Samaritan parable (Luke 10:25-37) makes clear that neighbor-love crosses ethnic and religious boundaries. But this doesn’t mean we’re indifferent to whether our legal and cultural order survives. We can love Muslims as people made in God’s image and still resist legal and social norms that would undermine justice, as Sharia law certainly does. We can work for the good of refugees and still insist that immigration happen at a pace that allows for genuine integration. What’s at stake is whether immigration at current levels from societies with fundamentally different legal traditions can happen without transforming our society in ways that make it much less just. Religious liberty is protected by our First Amendment, but it doesn’t require us to facilitate the introduction of legal traditions that would eliminate religious liberty. We can extend hospitality while enforcing reasonable limits. Both are expressions of properly ordered love. The theological tradition, from Augustine through Aquinas to Richard Hooker and beyond, insists that earthly peace is a real good and that just laws matter because cultural coherence serves human flourishing. What matters is whether we’re ordering those concerns correctly. This means rejecting two opposite errors. First, we can’t embrace an anti-immigrant, xenophobic idolatry that treats our culture as ultimate. That’s paganism dressed in Christian language. But there’s an equal and opposite danger in treating concern for earthly order as automatically suspect, as though Christian eschatology requires indifference to whether our children inherit order or chaos. To do so is to fail to love our neighbors – especially the most vulnerable among us – with the particular, embodied, and finite love our humanity requires. Augustine developed the Christian just war tradition on the premise that earthly communities and their peace are worth defending. The magistrate who fails to protect his people from invasion sins against justice. Love doesn’t negate the duty of defense – it properly orders it. Living Between Two Cities I don’t pretend this answers every question Christians might have about policy and the proper approach to Christian witness in our time. Prudential judgments about specific immigration numbers, asylum procedures, and enforcement methods require expertise I don’t have. What I do know is that Christians need better categories than the ones dominating our current debates. We need to recover the understanding that particular political communities and their legal orders are genuine goods worthy of Christian care. We should certainly avoid both the nationalist temptation to idolize our culture and the universalist temptation to pretend that all cultures and legal systems are morally equivalent. Most importantly, Christian love has structure and order. It is particular, differentiated, and embodied care for those brought near to us by God’s providence, including our families, neighbors, and fellow citizens. That’s how finite creatures participate in God’s love as we make our pilgrimage between two cities. We’re citizens of heaven, yes. But we’re citizens who still travel on mortal roads, and some roads are better than others. Our pilgrimage toward the New Jerusalem doesn’t require indifference to whether the paths we travel are marked by justice and order or chaos and violence. We care for earthly peace and work to preserve it because love requires nothing less from pilgrims who still have neighbors to care for and a long road still to walk. The Very Rev'd Cn. Bryan Hollon, Ph.D. is Dean and President of Trinity Anglican Seminary in Ambridge, PA.

A satirical Essay By Concerned Anglican January 31, 2026 [CLASSIFIED - FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY] Meeting Date: January 2026 Location: Undisclosed Location (Definitely Not a Bunker) Present: Various Bishops Whose Names Have Been Redacted to Protect the Guilty Presiding: The Right Reverend Julian Dobbs, Dean of the Province and Definitely Not Under Federal Investigation Also Present: Bishop Jay Cayangyang, Who Is Having a Complicated Year [Recording begins mid-conversation] DOBBS: …and that brings us to item seven on the agenda: “How Did Everything Go So Wrong So Quickly?” Bishop Edgar, would you like to open the discussion? EDGAR: I object to the phrasing. I prefer “minor challenges requiring creative interpretation of our governing documents.” SECRETARY: Should I minute that as the official characterization? DOBBS: Minute it as “ongoing discernment regarding provincial unity.” SECRETARY: …I’m going to need a longer notepad. BISHOP 1: Speaking of governing documents, has anyone actually read our Constitution lately? Because I’m looking at Article II here, and I have some concerns. DOBBS: What sort of concerns? BISHOP 1: Well, it says that only “dioceses or groupings of dioceses organized into distinct jurisdictions” can be members of the Province. So when we created a “Special Jurisdiction” by canon instead of constitution… DOBBS: Yes? BISHOP 1: …and then claimed it couldn’t withdraw because it wasn’t a diocese… DOBBS: Go on. BISHOP 1: …we essentially argued that something we created by canon, which we said was part of us, also somehow wasn’t covered by the constitutional provisions that apply to everything else that’s part of us. Do you see the problem? DOBBS: I see that you’re overthinking this. Next item. BISHOP 2: [looking at phone] I just Googled “constitutional supremacy.” It says canons can’t override constitutions. That’s… that’s basic legal principles, isn’t it? DOBBS: Please stop Googling things during meetings. BISHOP 2: I also Googled “ultra vires.” It means acting beyond one’s legal authority— DOBBS: We know what it means. BISHOP 2: Do we though? Because we keep doing it. BISHOP 3: Can we discuss the federal lawsuit? The one where we’re being sued for trademark infringement, trade secrets theft, and about ten other things? DOBBS: What about it? BISHOP 3: Well, the plaintiffs have three federally registered trademarks. They sent us cease-and-desist letters. We kept using their marks anyway. And now we’re facing potential statutory damages of two million dollars per mark. BISHOP 4: How many marks did they register? BISHOP 3: Three. BISHOP 4: So… six million dollars? BISHOP 3: That’s before treble damages for willful infringement. And punitive damages for malice. And the trade secrets violations under the Defend Trade Secrets Act. And— DOBBS: Thank you, Bishop. I believe everyone gets the picture. BISHOP 5: [typing on phone calculator] Let me just… three trademarks times two million in statutory damages… six million. Plus treble damages for willful infringement on the other counts, so if actual damages are two million, that’s… six million more. Plus punitive damages for malice, attorney’s fees under the Lanham Act, the Defend Trade Secrets Act violations… DOBBS: What’s the total? BISHOP 5: My phone says I should speak to a financial advisor and possibly a therapist. BISHOP 6: We also apparently hired the two people who stole their entire database before they were terminated. The people who tried to log back into their systems after they were terminated. DOBBS: I’m sure there’s an innocent explanation. BISHOP 6: They’re now working for our competing chaplaincy organization. Running the very operation that’s using the stolen data. CAYANGYANG: [shifting uncomfortably] Can I just say, as the bishop they elected to replace Bishop Jones, this is all very awkward. DOBBS: How so? CAYANGYANG: Well, I was consecrated suffragan by JAFC. With ACNA’s consent. In January 2025. Eight months later I’m supposedly replacing the bishop who consecrated me, in a "special" jurisdiction that is not legally or constitutionally allowed to exist, while working with staff who stole their database. DOBBS: And? CAYANGYANG: I’m just saying my LinkedIn is very confusing right now. [Long pause] DOBBS: Moving on. BISHOP 7: Can we circle back to the inhibition of Bishop Jones? Because I’m still confused about the procedure we followed. DOBBS: What’s confusing? Archbishop Wood issued a Godly Admonition, Jones refused to cooperate with the investigation, so Wood inhibited him. BISHOP 7: Right, but… under Title IV, don’t we need a presentment before we can order an investigation of a bishop? DOBBS: Technically. BISHOP 7: And was there a presentment before Wood ordered Jones to submit to an investigation? DOBBS: Not as such, no. BISHOP 7: So we… inhibited a bishop for refusing to cooperate with an investigation that we had no canonical authority to conduct in the first place? DOBBS: I prefer to think of it as “proactive safeguarding.” BISHOP 7: And then we filed a presentment against him in December for “disobedience to the canons” because he insisted that we follow the canons? DOBBS: When you put it that way, it sounds problematic. BISHOP 7: How would you put it? DOBBS: I would avoid putting it any way that might appear in a court transcript. SECRETARY: Should I be recording this? DOBBS: Absolutely not. SECRETARY: [gestures at notepad] What do you think I’ve been doing? BISHOP 8: Speaking of Archbishop Wood, is anyone else troubled that the bishop who initiated this entire disciplinary action against Jones is now himself facing trial for sexual misconduct? EDGAR: The Board of Inquiry found probable cause. It’s a process matter. BISHOP 8: The allegations go back seventeen years. There are six sworn affidavits. Multiple women. The Washington Post has done two investigative articles. BISHOP 9: Someone on Twitter compared us to Game of Thrones. DOBBS: That’s ridiculous. BISHOP 9: They said our final season has worse writing. BISHOP 10: To be fair, Game of Thrones only had one archbishop with sexual misconduct allegations. We’re overperforming. BISHOP 11: And wasn’t there a suspicious timing correlation? Wood creates a new Safeguarding Office in March 2025, right when his own presentment was being drafted. That office suddenly identifies Jones as urgent. Wood moves against Jones in September. The Wood presentment is filed in October. DOBBS: Correlation isn’t causation. BISHOP 11: Wait. Let me make sure I have the timeline right. Bishop Jones discovers Wood is covering up a bishop who failed to report child pornography to law enforcement. Jones warns Wood to come clean about his own misconduct. Two months later, Wood inhibits Jones. And we’re charging Jones with abuse of ecclesiastical power? DOBBS: The charges are confidential. BISHOP 11: They’re in the federal court filing. They’re literally public record now. DOBBS: They’re ecclesiastically confidential. BISHOP 11: What does that even mean? DOBBS: It means we don’t discuss them in meetings that someone might satirize later. [Door opens] CHANCELLOR: Apologies for interrupting, but I’ve just received another discovery request from JAFC’s attorneys. They want all communications related to— [reads paper] —“the decision to continue using federally registered trademarks after receiving cease-and-desist letters.” DOBBS: Tell them we’re asserting ecclesiastical privilege. CHANCELLOR: That’s… not a thing, Your Grace. DOBBS: It should be. CHANCELLOR: I went to law school. It’s not. DOBBS: Then assert something else. CHANCELLOR: They also want all communications regarding the McElraths’ access to JAFC systems after their termination. CAYANGYANG: [very quietly] They work for me now. CHANCELLOR: Yes, Bishop Cayangyang, the plaintiffs are aware. It’s specifically mentioned in paragraph 94 of the amended complaint. [Chancellor exits] BISHOP 12: Can we discuss the… elephant in the room? DOBBS: Which elephant? We have several. BISHOP 12: The Washington Post article about you, Bishop Dobbs. The one that detailed two separate financial misconduct investigations totaling seventy-six thousand dollars. DOBBS: Those allegations were investigated and dismissed. BISHOP 12: By your own diocese. DOBBS: Correct. BISHOP 13: Has anyone actually read the full Washington Post article? DOBBS: I’d prefer we didn’t— BISHOP 13: [reading from phone] “Barnabas Aid pushed back and their liaison wrote Archbishop Beach ‘reiterating that the Dobbses had not obtained authorization from the head office for all their expenses and other payments.’ The charity requested their disagreement be ‘noted for the record’ if the IRS or another authority investigated.” [Silence] BISHOP 13: It says “if the IRS investigated.” That’s what they were worried about. The IRS. DOBBS: Context is important. BISHOP 13: What context makes “we’re worried about the IRS” sound better? BISHOP 14: The lawsuit also alleges you “absconded with approximately forty-eight thousand dollars” from the chaplaincy jurisdiction when you led CANA. DOBBS: That’s a gross mischaracterization. BISHOP 14: Bishop Jones documented this in March 2021. At the June 2024 conclave, Jones prevented you from being considered for Archbishop by indicating he would expose these “financial indiscretions.” You withdrew from consideration. DOBBS: I withdrew for personal reasons. BISHOP 14: And then four years later, you end up as the acting head of the province, overseeing the inhibition of the bishop who has documentation of your alleged financial misconduct. DOBBS: I see no conflict of interest. BISHOP 14: You literally inhibited the whistleblower who exposed you. DOBBS: He was inhibited for unrelated reasons. BISHOP 14: What were the related reasons? DOBBS: They’re… safeguarding-related. BISHOP 14: Can you be more specific? DOBBS: I cannot, for safeguarding reasons. BISHOP 2: [looking at phone] I just Googled “nemo dat quod non habet.” It means “no one can give what they don’t have.” That’s… that’s literally our entire jurisdictional argument, isn’t it? We’re claiming authority we never had to give jurisdiction we never controlled. DOBBS: I thought I asked you to stop Googling Latin phrases. BISHOP 2: I also Googled “conflict of interest” and there’s a picture of this meeting. DOBBS: There is not. BISHOP 2: There should be. BISHOP 15: This seems like an appropriate time to bring up the admonition letters you sent to the three JAFC suffragan bishops last week. DOBBS: A routine canonical matter. BISHOP 15: They’re not part of our province anymore. They withdrew. They’ve formed a new Church, the Anglican Reformed Catholic Church. It’s incorporated in Alabama. They have three dioceses now. DOBBS: We don’t recognize their withdrawal. BISHOP 15: But… they don’t need our recognition to withdraw. That’s what withdrawal means. BISHOP 16: They literally created a new church body to be a home for Anglicans in crisis. I wonder who the “Anglicans in crisis” are that they had in mind. DOBBS: That’s speculative. BISHOP 16: They incorporated on December 24th. Merry Christmas to us, I suppose. BISHOP 15: Canon I.11 says the Special Jurisdiction “shall function under the oversight of the Archbishop.” BISHOP 17: Canon I.11 also can’t override the Constitution, which allows dioceses to withdraw. And their argument is that they were never properly subject to Canon I.11 in the first place because the Constitution doesn’t authorize “special jurisdictions.” DOBBS: That’s their interpretation. BISHOP 17: It’s also the federal court’s interpretation, apparently. The court explicitly protected JAFC’s trademarks because JAFC “demonstrated questions as to whether the ACNA Constitution provides for the existence of a Special Jurisdiction.” DOBBS: The federal court lacks ecclesiastical competence. BISHOP 17: The federal court has competence over trademark infringement. Which is what we’re being sued for. While you send admonition letters to bishops in a jurisdiction we may never have legally controlled. DOBBS: I prefer to think of it as asserting our pastoral concern. BISHOP 17: Did you meet with them in person to discuss your concerns before issuing the admonitions? DOBBS: Not as such, no. BISHOP 17: Isn’t that required in our canons? DOBBS: The canons are really just suggestions. BISHOP 17: I don’t think that’s true. DOBBS: We need to move on. BISHOP 17: They filed the letters in a folder labeled “Correspondence From Bishops We Don’t Recognize.” It sits next to “Urgent Messages From Nigerian Princes” and “Extended Car Warranty Notices.” SECRETARY: Should I minute the admonition letters as “pastoral outreach” or “possible evidence of continued bad faith for the federal lawsuit”? DOBBS: The former. Definitely the former. BISHOP 18: Gentlemen, can we discuss our strategic position? Because from where I’m sitting, we have: · An archbishop facing trial for sexual misconduct spanning seventeen years · An acting archbishop with seventy-six thousand dollars in documented financial misconduct allegations · A former acting archbishop who admitted discussing a “bishop-friendly” Board of Inquiry, then resigned · A federal lawsuit seeking millions in statutory damages, treble damages, and punitive damages · Thirteen separate legal claims including trademark infringement, trade secrets theft, tortious interference, and conversion · Documentary evidence that we stole their entire database · A presentment against a bishop that essentially charges him with “insisting we follow our own canons” · Admonition letters to bishops who no longer recognize our authority · The Washington Post actively covering our institutional collapse · A newly incorporated denomination created specifically as a refuge from us Have I missed anything? BISHOP 19: Bishop Stewart Ruch was just acquitted. BISHOP 18: Ruch was acquitted of mishandling sexual abuse allegations by a Board that was explicitly described as “bishop-friendly” by the archbishop who appointed it. The court document literally says the process suffered from “narrative capture.” That’s not a vindication—that’s an indictment of our entire disciplinary system. BISHOP 19: But technically he was acquitted. BISHOP 18: Technically, O.J. was acquitted. CAYANGYANG: Should I… should I still be here? This feels like a meeting I shouldn’t be in. DOBBS: You’re fine, Bishop Cayangyang. CAYANGYANG: I’m really not. I’m the bishop of a jurisdiction that might not exist, appointed to replace a bishop who was never validly removed, working with staff who committed federal crimes, in a province where everyone in leadership is under some kind of investigation. I updated my résumé this morning. DOBBS: Gentlemen, please. We need to present a unified front. BISHOP 20: Unified behind what, exactly? DOBBS: Behind our canonical authority. BISHOP 20: Which canonical authority? The one that says we can inhibit bishops without presentments? The one that says we can create jurisdictions by canon that the Constitution doesn’t authorize? The one that says people can’t leave even when they’ve demonstrably left? DOBBS: All of them. BISHOP 20: Bishop Dobbs, with respect, those aren’t actually in our canons. We appear to have made them up as we went along. DOBBS: We call it “living canonical tradition.” BISHOP 20: I believe the federal court calls it “ultra vires overreach.” BISHOP 2: [looking at phone] I Googled “ultra vires” again. Wikipedia has updated the examples section. We’re not in it yet, but give it time. BISHOP 21: What’s our defense in the lawsuit, anyway? DOBBS: Ecclesiastical abstention. We’re arguing that this is an internal church matter and the federal court lacks jurisdiction. BISHOP 21: But they’re suing us for trademark infringement. Under the Lanham Act. DOBBS: Yes. BISHOP 21: Which is a federal statute. That applies to everyone. DOBBS: We’re claiming First Amendment protection. BISHOP 21: For using someone else’s federally registered trademarks after they sent us cease-and-desist letters? DOBBS: It’s… creative legal strategy. BISHOP 21: It sounds like the legal equivalent of claiming diplomatic immunity because you’re really confident about it. DOBBS: That’s a good idea. CHANCELLOR: [poking head back in] I just want to confirm, we’re not actually claiming diplomatic immunity, correct? DOBBS: Not yet. CHANCELLOR: [sighs, exits] DOBBS: Does anyone have any constructive suggestions? BISHOP 22: We could acknowledge that we made mistakes. [Extended silence] [Someone coughs] [A phone buzzes] [More silence] DOBBS: Anyone else? BISHOP 23: We could stop sending admonition letters to bishops who don’t recognize our authority. DOBBS: That would be an admission that they successfully left. BISHOP 23: They did successfully leave. They’ve incorporated a new Church. They’re functioning independently. They have their own college of bishops, their own dioceses, their own corporate structure. The only people who think they haven’t left are… us. DOBBS: And the canons. BISHOP 23: You mean the unconstitutional canons that don’t apply…the canons can think whatever they want. Reality has other plans. BISHOP 24: At what point do we acknowledge reality? DOBBS: When reality acknowledges our canonical authority. BISHOP 24: I don’t think reality works that way. BISHOP 2: [looking at phone] I just Googled “institutional denial.” There’s a whole Wikipedia article. Should I read it aloud? DOBBS: Please don’t. BISHOP 24: Did someone ask our PR firm if they can help get us out of this mess? BISHOP 2: We tried, apparently Kevin and George are on vacation. BISHOP 25: Can I ask an uncomfortable question? DOBBS: At this point, why not? BISHOP 25: If we lose the lawsuit, and I mean really lose, damages in the millions, permanent injunction, the whole thing, what happens to the province? [Very long silence] DOBBS: We would… discern God’s will through the process. BISHOP 25: God’s will appears to involve federal statutory damages calculated at two million dollars per willfully infringed trademark. BISHOP 26: The Lord works in mysterious ways. BISHOP 27: The Lord’s ways here seem less “mysterious” and more “predictable consequences of ignoring cease-and-desist letters.” BISHOP 5: [still on calculator] I’ve been running the numbers. If we lose on all counts with maximum damages, plus attorney’s fees, plus the injunction that prevents us from operating our competing chaplaincy… DOBBS: Yes? BISHOP 5: Do we have liability insurance for “willfully ignoring federal trademark law while our leadership is under investigation for sexual and financial misconduct”? DOBBS: I… would have to check. BISHOP 5: You should check. DOBBS: I think we should adjourn and reconvene when we have more information. BISHOP 28: What additional information do you need? The lawsuit lays out the case in 278 paragraphs. The Washington Post has published multiple investigations. The federal court has already ruled on preliminary matters. We’ve sent admonition letters to bishops in another denomination. At what point do we acknowledge reality? DOBBS: When reality acknowledges our canonical authority. BISHOP 28: You said that already. DOBBS: It bears repeating. BISHOP 28: Does it though? DOBBS: The meeting is adjourned. BISHOP 29: [as everyone is leaving] Same time next week? DOBBS: Unless we’re in depositions. BISHOP 29: Which depositions? The federal lawsuit, the Wood trial, or— DOBBS: Yes. CAYANGYANG: [gathering papers] I’m definitely updating my LinkedIn. SECRETARY: Should I title these minutes “Emergency Meeting” or “Evidence Exhibit 47”? DOBBS: …Good night, everyone. [Recording ends] EDITOR’S NOTE: This transcript was definitely not leaked by someone present at the meeting who questioned whether any of this was a good idea. Any resemblance to actual events is purely coincidental, except for the parts that are meticulously documented in federal court filings, Washington Post investigations, and sworn affidavits. The secretary has requested anonymity and a transfer to a diocese with less litigation exposure. DISCLAIMER This is satire. However, the following elements are documented facts: · Bishop Jones was inhibited without a formal presentment being filed first · ACNA’s Constitution does not authorize “special jurisdictions”—Canon I.11 created one anyway · JAFC disassociated from ACNA in September 2025 and formed the Anglican Reformed Catholic Church in December 2025 · ACNA subsequently sent admonitions to the JAFC bishops and filed a presentment against Bishop Jones · The federal lawsuit alleges $76,000 in financial misconduct by Bishop Dobbs across two separate incidents · Archbishop Wood faces trial for sexual misconduct spanning 17 years, supported by six sworn affidavits · ACNA faces potential statutory damages of up to $6 million for trademark infringement alone, before treble damages and punitive damages · Lawrence and Megan McElrath, who allegedly stole JAFC’s database and attempted to access systems after termination, now work for Bishop Cayangyang’s organization · The Washington Post has published investigative articles on both Wood and Dobbs · Former Acting Archbishop Sutton resigned after admitting discussion of a “bishop-friendly” Board of Inquiry · The federal court explicitly protected JAFC’s three registered trademarks · Bishop Cayangyang was consecrated by JAFC in January 2025 and elected by ACNA to replace Bishop Jones in September 2025 We couldn’t make this up if we tried. Reality beat us to it.

Syria’s Kurds, feeling betrayed by the U.S. An Exclusive Report By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org January 28, 2026 An American missionary trapped inside Syria says that what Americans need to understand is that the Syrian government—which the U.S. is supporting and praising for doing a "great job"—is committing genocide against the Kurds. "The Kurds cannot grasp why the U.S. has betrayed them," the missionary reported. "There are at least 150,000 displaced people in the city where we are based. All the city's schools are closed to house them. There is no electricity. The city of Kobane is under siege with 300,000 displaced, no electricity, no water. It's freezing, and children are dying every night from exposure. They are cut off and waiting for the impending massacre. Help." "We were advised to leave this morning with an armored convoy back to Iraq," he continued. "If the Kurds can't hold the M4 highway against ISIS—there's heavy fighting at night—we will be cut off and trapped. But we felt called to stay. So we did. We are on our own to do relief work." "Today we connected with great local believers and visited two schools where about 90 families are staying. This is their fifth displacement since 2018. They arrived here about a week ago, running for their lives. They were kind and gracious, though there were lots of tears as they told us their horror stories and expressed their fears for their children. They have this 'look' that took us right back to 2014 and ISIS." "We shared that God loves them and that the American people will not forget them. We emphasized that we were representing King Jesus, not any government. They need cookers, gas, food, warm clothes, and medicine." "We have $20,000 with us from our friends and partners. Tomorrow we're going to buy and deliver priority relief items while supply lines remain open." The missionary, Jerry, noted a growing anti-Western sentiment. "It's not just from the U.S. betrayal, but also from Western organizations that come over, ask questions, take pictures, and then do nothing. We've promised the Kurds we would help, and we need to deliver on that promise quickly." "Another positive development is that we have a strong network of local believers who can share stories about Jesus alongside the physical relief. Everyone heard the Gospel in Kurdish today for the first time." "This is a disaster threatening to become a catastrophe. Pray for a ceasefire to hold. Pray we can source and secure the relief items they so badly need and create a trustworthy supply line. Pray for God's kingdom to come through the obedience of believers here." If you can help, please help. The situation is dire and trending toward catastrophic. One hundred percent of donations will go to frontline assistance for the displaced. We're doing the Wilberforce work: Give, pray, advocate. This is an SOS. You can donate here: https://lovefortheleast.org/give/

ACNA Missionaries Face Opposition in Syria // Bp Null to Deliver 2026 Kuehner Lecture   Probably the greatest tragedy of the church throughout its long and checkered history has been its constant tendency to conform to the prevailing culture instead of developing a Christian counter-culture. — John Stott   The See of Canterbury must be returned to those who actually believe what the Church has always taught. — Bishop Ceirion Dewar   Everything the GSFA communiqué articulates maps directly onto what I have elsewhere called the Remnant Church thesis. — Rev. Dr. Ronald H. Moore   Beware of manufacturing a God of your own: a God who is all mercy, but not just; a God who is all love, but not holy; a God who has a heaven for everybody, but a hell for none; a God who can allow good and bad to be side by side in time, but will make no distinction between good and bad in eternity. Such a God is an idol of your own, as truly an idol as any snake or crocodile in an Egyptian temple. The hands of your own fancy and sentimentality have made him. He is not the God of the Bible, and beside the God of the Bible there is no God at all. — J. C. Ryle   Dear Brothers and Sisters, www.virtueonline.org January 30, 2026   She came, she saw, she conquered; by that we mean she met the legal requirements to be the next Archbishop of Canterbury . Dame Sarah Mullally is now the 106th Archbishop of Canterbury, without qualifier. Her elevation to the office was marked on January 27 with a ceremony at St. Paul's Cathedral in London.   But does she meet the spiritual and theological requirements for the job? Not according to one priest, the Rev. Paul Williamson, who railed against her appointment in the cathedral. You can read my take on this here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/st-paul-s-london-church-of-england-priest-disrupts-archbishop-s-ceremony . VOL had earlier published his takedown of her appointment here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/first-woman-appointed-archbishop-of-canterbury-faces-safeguarding-criticism-bishop-sarah-mullally-s   The Daily Express called him a "heckler" when he objected to her appointment. He was swiftly escorted from the ceremony.   But Williamson's objections are not without foundation. They include appalling safeguarding failures by Mullally, which when examined by the Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, were quickly dismissed. This is ironic because he himself was charged with similar failings. His boss at the time, Archbishop Justin Welby, resigned over his safeguarding failings.   Williamson also highlighted concerns from orthodox African Anglican bishops, many of whom do not recognize the ordination of women as bishops and oppose same-sex marriage.   Cottrell said that a "full opportunity" had been given for lawful objections, but none had been received and the process would therefore continue. Of course, the show must go on.   The British are known for their pageantry even if there is not much theology behind it. The music included hymns and readings, the choir of St. Paul's Cathedral singing an anthem by Elgar, and the gospel choir of Christ's Hospital School performing a Xhosa South African chant, "Thuma Mina" (Send Me, Lord). But where and to whom?   "These are times of division and uncertainty for our fractured world. I pray that we will offer space to break bread together and discover what we have in common—and I pledge myself to this ministry of hospitality. I want us to be a Church that always listens to the voices of those who have been ignored or overlooked, among them victims and survivors of church abuse who have often been let down. I am committed to equipping the Church to be a kind and safe place that cares for everyone, especially those who are vulnerable, as we rise to the challenge of God's call to justice, equity, peace and the care of creation."   We have heard all this before. Shades of Frank Griswold: "I am the presiding bishop of all." Words like "hospitality," "community," and "pluriform truths" could regularly be heard from Griswold's lips... and then it all crashed and burned.   GAFCON bishops of the Global South won't even recognize her authority, and the GSFA bishops, while not splitting from Canterbury, will doubtlessly not let her into their provinces for fear of reprisals from their own people.   Here is what Bishop Ceirion Dewar, a Missionary Bishop serving the Missionary Diocese of Providence (UK), had to say: "We are invited—once again—to mistake ceremony for substance, pageantry for piety, and novelty for faithfulness. We are asked to believe that the mere occupation of a throne confers apostolic authority, that legality can substitute for legitimacy, and that the historic See of Canterbury may be treated as a laboratory for ideological experiment rather than the spiritual anchor of English Christianity."   Let us speak plainly.   The See of Canterbury is not a prize to be won, nor a platform upon which to rehearse the slogans of the age. It is the ancient guardian of doctrine, the steward of a received faith, the watchman charged with handing on—not reinventing—the deposit entrusted once for all to the saints. When the Archbishop becomes a curator of contemporary opinion rather than a custodian of catholic truth, the office is hollowed out from within.   This moment is presented to us as one of "hope." Hope for whom? For the faithful clergy and laity who have watched orthodoxy sidelined, Scripture relativized, and the moral teaching of the Church dissolved into the acid of accommodation? Or hope for a managerial class that confuses numerical decline with "progress" and imagines that abandoning the faith will somehow make the Church relevant again?   What we are witnessing is not renewal but replacement. Not reform but rupture.   The Church of England is collapsing not because it has been too rooted in tradition, but because it has been ashamed of it. It has chased the approval of the world and forfeited the confidence of its own people. The result is empty churches, disillusioned priests, and a generation taught that Anglicanism stands for nothing in particular—and therefore means nothing at all.   The See of Canterbury must be returned to those who actually believe what the Church has always taught.   Returned to bishops who affirm the authority of Holy Scripture without embarrassment. Returned to shepherds who preach repentance, sin, salvation, and sanctification without footnotes or apologies. Returned to men formed by prayer, sacrament, and continuity with the undivided Church—not by ideological activism dressed up as compassion.   This is not about personalities. It is about faithfulness.   The Confirmation of Election may satisfy canon lawyers and politicians, but it does not silence the growing cry from the pews and the parishes: Enough. Enough with the pretense that departure from orthodoxy is courage. Enough with the fiction that contradiction of Scripture is progress. Enough with the idea that Canterbury can survive while severed from the tradition that made it what it is.   Canterbury belongs to the catholic and apostolic faith—or it belongs to nothing at all.   And until it is restored to traditional Anglicans who will guard that faith without fear or favor, every such ceremony will ring hollow, every speech about "hope" will sound rehearsed, and every claim to moral authority will continue to drain away like water through cracked stone.   The throne is ancient. The faith is older. And it will outlast those who think they can redefine it.   As a senior cleric in the CofE wrote and told VOL: There is no gospel of repentance and redemption. It is now absent throughout the higher echelons of the CofE—as well as among most of the clergy. "It's just a job; what does religion have to do with it?"   There you have it.   *****   ANGLICANISM IS AT A CROSSROADS , writes the Ven. Alex Uzor. The Anglican Communion is living through one of the most significant seasons in its history. Anyone paying attention knows that the shape of worldwide Anglicanism is shifting. What once looked like a single global family gathered around Canterbury now looks more like two distinct expressions of Anglican identity. One is centered in the historic institutions of the West. The other is rising from the Global South with strong conviction, missionary zeal, and a firm commitment to the Scriptures.   What we see today is a Communion where Canterbury still has a historical place but no longer speaks for the majority of Anglicans. Most Anglicans now belong to churches that stand with GAFCON and the Global South Fellowship. These churches have made it clear that authentic Anglican identity comes from faithfulness to Scripture, not from institutional loyalty. You can read his take here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/anglicanism-at-a-crossroads-the-rise-of-the-global-anglican-communion-and-the-future-of-canterbury   *****   BY THE NUMBERS. Ryan Burge, political scientist, statistician, and compiler of statistics, has come out with a new finding. Here is what he recently wrote: "This should come as a shock to no one who is vaguely aware of American religion—Episcopalians are old. In fact, two-thirds of their adult members have celebrated their 60th birthday. In contrast, just 6% are under the age of thirty. Put simply: for every young adult Episcopalian in the pews this Sunday, there will be about ten retirees. Oof."   *****   NOBODY IS GUILTY OF SAFEGUARDING FAILURES IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. The Archbishop of York will not face disciplinary action over his handling of a priest who faced sexual abuse allegations. Stephen Cottrell, the Church of England's second most senior cleric, faced criticism for not acting quickly enough when he was bishop of Chelmsford over priest David Tudor, whom he allowed to remain in post despite him having been barred from being alone with children by the Church and having paid compensation to a sexual abuse victim.   Tudor was subsequently banned from ministry for life in 2024 after admitting what the Church of England described as serious sexual abuse involving two girls aged 15 and 16.   Cottrell, while bishop of Chelmsford, twice renewed Tudor's contract as area dean in Essex despite having been "fully briefed" about his past.   But the president of Church tribunals, Sir Stephen Males, concluded in a finding published on Thursday that although "some mistakes were made in the handling of David Tudor's case," there was no case for Cottrell to answer at a disciplinary tribunal. Cottrell regrets that mistakes were made.   He previously insisted he had inherited a "horrible and intolerable" situation and "acted immediately" when fresh complaints were made about Tudor in 2019, adding that he had "no legal grounds" to suspend him before then.   *****   An Episcopal Bishop and a Southern Baptist leader found themselves at odds over the disruption of a church service in Minnesota. Minnesota Episcopal Bishop Craig Loya refused to condemn protesters who disrupted an evangelical church service in Minnesota, while Southern Baptist leader Dr. Albert Mohler condemned the incident as a violation of freedom of worship and assembly.   "[It is] an unspeakably evil intrusion of a leftist mob into a Christian worship service today in Minneapolis and must be called out for what it is—and Federal authorities should be fast and effective in response," Mohler wrote in a post across multiple platforms, including X and Threads. Mohler is president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. You can read more here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/episcopal-bishop-and-southern-baptist-leader-clash-over-protesters-disruption-of-church-service   One of the disruptors was Don Lemon, a former CNN news anchor. Lemon was arrested on federal charges in connection with the anti-ICE protest at the Minnesota church.   *****   If you wonder whether anything good can be done while the country is in political turmoil, I have some good news for you. Jerry and Stacy are two ACNA missionaries on the front line in the Middle East bringing the gospel and social justice to bear on displaced Christians in Syria, Iraq, and Turkey.   They are presently trapped inside Syria where they are watching a genocide being committed against the Kurds, once U.S. friends whom we have abandoned in favor of a Syrian government—which the U.S. is supporting and praising for doing a "great job." Its president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, now the undisputed star of this year's United Nations General Assembly in New York, is a former al-Qaeda commander.   The couple are pouring out their hearts, trapped behind enemy lines. They say the Kurds cannot grasp why the U.S. has betrayed them. "There are at least 150,000 displaced people in the city where we are based. All the city's schools are closed to house them. There is no electricity. The city of Kobane is under siege with 300,000 displaced, no electricity, no water. It's freezing, and children are dying every night from exposure. They are cut off and waiting for the impending massacre. Help."   If you would like to help Love for the Least, their mission ministry, you can send a donation here: https://lovefortheleast.org/give/   *****   The Reformed Episcopal Seminary in Oreland, PA will host the 2026 Kuehner Lecture. This year's lecture, "The Role of Augustine in the English Reformation," will be presented by the Rt. Rev. Ashley Null. It will be held Feb. 10 at 4 p.m. Reception to follow. Null is a world leader in the writings of Thomas Cranmer. You can make a booking here: https://www.paperlesspost.com/go/kkN25D3Cg4y55ZqunZn5Wx?action=rsvp&skipLoadAnimation=true   *****   It is becoming more apparent to this writer that with increasing heresies flourishing in the Anglican Communion , THE JUDGMENT OF GOD is focused on bishops and clergy who have failed to proclaim the gospel to all and sundry. I have often wondered why orthodox and faithful Christians experience persecution but progressive churches do not. I have written a piece, "Why progressive and revisionist churches will never be persecuted," which you can read here: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/the-judgment-of-god-why-progressive-and-revisionist-churches-will-never-be-persecuted   *****   VOL is bringing on board new writers in 2026 with clear insights into Scripture and culture. VOL has no mega-donors and no grants—just faithful readers like you who believe in what we do and write. Tens of thousands of enthusiastic VOL readers trust us to reveal and expose the most pressing issues facing Anglicanism today.   Please consider a tax-deductible donation to keep the news coming.   How to Give: Online: PayPal donation link at https://www.virtueonline.org/donate By check (tax-deductible): VIRTUEONLINE P.O. BOX 111 Shohola, PA 18458   Thank you for your support, David

Ejected priest files assault charges with police By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org January 30, 2026   The Rev. Paul S. Williamson deliberately disrupted proceedings at St. Paul's Cathedral, where Bishop Sarah Mullally was being formally recognized as the next Archbishop of Canterbury, denouncing failed safeguarding actions, including those involving a priest who committed suicide.   When he spoke up denouncing the proceedings, he was quickly confronted and escorted unceremoniously from the cathedral.   "Actions speak louder than words," he told VOL. "I want the whole truth told from a victim's perspective regarding her safeguarding failures.   "I entered a verbal objection at St. Paul's Cathedral as an impediment on safeguarding grounds—especially concerning the failures of Sarah Mullally and her part in the suicide of the Rev. Alan Griffin.   "In common law and precedent—as in a wedding ceremony in a church—if an objector states that there is an impediment (such as the marriage of John and Mary cannot proceed because he is already married to Jane in Truro), then there is a stop on proceeding until it is proved or cleared by document and law. The same applies to the confirmation of the election of an archbishop.   "The media commentators clearly understood and stated that there was a church service with a pause for the legal actions to take place. St. Paul's is both the House of God and a court. I did not interrupt the church service. John Bannon, sometime churchwarden, is a witness.   "At the time of the legal proceedings, Timothy Briden, vicar general, was wearing a long wig, and the various others in legal dress and the bishops reconstituted themselves as a court for legal purposes. I carefully waited until a verbal pause occurred so that no one was speaking. I chose the point where it was openly stated in the written program, and in speaking, that there were no objections.   "As this was not true, I stood up and stated that 'I objected.' In a court, there are two sides which present their case in the matter before a judge or jury. How can this be a fair hearing in a court if only one side is allowed to speak? This is contrary to more than a thousand years of legal precedent and the explicit provisions of the Magna Carta, as well as the court procedure rules enacted by Parliament.   "Only one side spoke at St. Paul's. I continued by stating that there was a major safeguarding failure by Mullally that resulted in the suicide of Alan Griffin. I stated that this was an impediment. I was speaking not just for Griffin and myself but for all the victims of Mullally's safeguarding failures.   "It is apparent to me that most of these have never been satisfactorily handled either legally or pastorally. 'N' has left the UK. 'O' cannot cope. Others are afraid to stand up in public. I am not. Mullally was a senior nursing officer of the NHS with remit and stated job specification of safeguarding lead. She cannot therefore claim ignorance of correct procedure.   "Scott, the St. Paul's senior security officer, had introduced himself to me (my picture was on a photo identity sheet with others) before I entered the Cathedral. He placed two guards behind me and one at each pillar on the right-hand side aisle when I had taken my seat in the nave. He positioned security guards around me.   "While I spoke, the security guard used physical force to hasten me out of the Cathedral. I protested that I had a walking difficulty. I was using a stick as an aid. Outside the door, he put his hand on my back as if to push me down the extremely steep steps. I felt his hand. I said, 'Can't you see I have a walking stick?' I grabbed the handrail. I nearly fell very badly and could have been seriously injured, if not killed, if my head had hit a granite step during the tumble downward.   "I am complaining to the Dean and Chapter and making a charge of assault to the City Police. John Bannon confirms that he witnessed this as he was behind me at the time."   Williamson said that a whole year elapsed following his complaints without any action—and then Mullally was appointed despite her safeguarding history of failures, hurt, harm, and suicide. Mullally had said on ITV News that "the Church must listen to the people."   "Why is she ignoring her own dictum? People are leaving because of safeguarding failings. The Church does everything it can not to allow any criticism of the bishops. No actions called Clergy Discipline have ever succeeded or been allowed. Justin Welby, former Archbishop of Canterbury, dismissed mine about Mullally with 'no case to answer'!   "The Church acts like a dictator. The Church uses gagging orders called 'non-disclosure agreements.' How very Christian. It cannot face criticism. It is 'Putinesque'—saying what we should believe and what it wants us to accept, purporting that this is the truth in the face of evidence to the contrary. It believes its own falsehoods.   "WHO WILL ACT TO PROTECT US AND DEAL WITH ACCOUNTABILITY—PAST AND IN THE FUTURE?"   END

Whatever the outcome, Bishop Michael Ingham says his Vancouver-area diocese will still bless same-sex unions BY DOUGLAS TODD VANCOUVER SUN ST. CATHARINES, Ont. — The Vancouver-area diocese will still be able to bless same-sex unions even if the Anglican Church of Canada's highest governing body fails to pass a contentious motion today authorizing dioceses to permit them, maintains Bishop Michael Ingham. As the bishop at the centre of an international Anglican storm because he consented to same-sex blessings in 2002, Ingham said Tuesday the decentralized structure of the Canadian church allows dioceses to proceed on their own with rites blessing homosexual relationships. After hearing two hours of debate in which many Anglicans pleaded for more time to study the issue of homosexuality, Ingham said delegates to the church's General Synod are at the same anxious point Vancouverarea Anglicans were seven years ago, when they first narrowly passed a vote to affirm same-sex unions. At that time, Ingham withheld his consent. "I don't know which way this vote is going to go," Ingham said in an interview. "But I know people need time to think the issue through without feeling intimidation. Whatever happens will not affect the right of the Diocese of New Westminster to bless same-sex unions. "This vote here is about 'affirming' a diocese's right to perform a same-sex blessing. It's not about asking General Synod to create the right." But Algoma Bishop Ronald Ferris — a long-time opponent of same-sex blessings who on Monday lost out to more liberal Montreal Archbishop Andrew Hutchison in his bid to become the church's national leader, or primate — countered that the church constitution forbids its 30 dioceses from independently conducting same-sex rites. Ferris argued that the laws of the 700,000-member Anglican Church of Canada ban dioceses from allowing same-sex blessings because they amount to a change of the church's traditional doctrine, worship and discipline. As a result, he said, blessings can only go ahead with the approval of a two-thirds majority of two successive General Synods (which meet every three years). In addition, Ferris warned in an interview there will be "costs and consequences" if dioceses proceed on their own to bless homosexual relationships. One price, Ferris said, will be that 40 million of the world's 70 million Anglicans, through their bishops, will declare themselves in "impaired communion" with any diocese that allows same-sex blessings. Many Anglican bishops in Africa and Asia have already broken ties with the Diocese of New Westminster and the Episcopal (Anglican) Church U.S.A., which last year consecrated an openly gay man as bishop. Ferris said there will be "internal rifts" and "legal and financial problems regarding property," as some disaffected parishes try to leave the denomination and take their buildings with them. So far two Vancouver-area parishes that have left the denomination claim they own parish property. Ingham said individual dioceses will be able to act independently on same-gender rites no matter what happens this week, because the Anglican Church has a "confederal structure" not unlike the Canadian government's federal system, which permits diversified powers. If today's vote passes, Ingham said, "it will only confirm the divisions we already know exist. And I believe it's important to respect that diversity." Ingham predicted the vote will be decided by the many centrists among the more than 300 delegates. About 30 delegates took part in Tuesday's first synod opportunity to speak publicly about the samesex issue. The comments of about one-third of the speakers reflected a liberal perspective, with the rest calling for the same-sex vote to be either delayed or killed. Steve Schuh, a Vancouver delegate who is also president of the city chapter of Integrity, a national organization for gay and lesbian Anglicans, was having trouble with the many delegates who said they hadn't had enough time to consider the issue. "We've had a whole generation to talk about this," said Schuh. "The Canadian church did its first study on homosexuality in 1976. And, at the Lambeth Conference in 1998, most of the world's bishops encouraged Anglicans everywhere to engage in dialogue on homosexuality. Anybody who hasn't yet talked about this has been avoiding the issue." Yukon Bishop Terry Buckle, who had earlier raised the ire of Vancouver-area Anglican officials when he offered to act as an external "flying bishop" to 10 disaffected conservative parishes in the Diocese of New Westminster, read a statement from 15 anonymous Anglican priests and laypersons who have tried to deal with their homosexual desires by either choosing to live celibate lives or by overcoming their sexual impulses and opting to live in heterosexual marriages. Buckle said General Synod delegates weren't taking seriously that many homosexuals can change their sexual orientation. END

News Analysis By David W. Virtue ST. CATHARINES, ONT---As Canadian Anglicans debate the blessings of same sex unions, liberals fear it will be a watershed synod while conservatives hope it will be. For liberals it is a desperate attempt to keep up with the culture - a culture that now recognizes same sex marriages. The 5-part resolution wants to affirm the jurisdiction and authority for diocesan synods with the consent of their bishops to bless committed same sex unions, but not marriage rites. That presumably would come later. The general predictions are that the preparations for synod and the tactics of persuasion have been sufficiently successful that the resolutions of the Council of General Synod (COGS) will see these resolutions pass. All the language of Canadian jurisprudence is going towards same sex marriage not unions, that is, registered domestic partnerships. The Anglican Church of Canada wants on the bandwagon. The church's liberals want to keep marriage separate from blessing same sex unions and not a marriage liturgy, if it is in the canons. The canons forbid it. But if it is canonical on marriage then it is doctrinal. So for political reasons the liberals have made a firewall by calling them committed life long relationships. In doing so, however, they have become obsolete trying to keep up with culture. A union is only a union it is not a marriage. The lawyers for the liberal side will push for the integrity of these motions and for the integrity of unions not marriages. They arguing that it is not a doctrinal issue but a matter of order with the final say by the local bishop. The COGS resolutions are shaped to avoid any substantive discussion or resolution of the theological or doctrinal issue of homosexual marriages; rather they are phrased to be exclusively procedural. It is to affirm the jurisdiction of the diocese to decide the issue on these unions. Basically COGS wants dioceses to make the decision and not the national church. From the conservative side these tactics have been deemed unconstitutional and a legal opinion argues that questions of same sex unions properly belong in the counsels of General Synod of the ACC, the only place they can be decided and not at a diocesan level. The resolution recognizes that some think this a doctrinal resolution and they are asking General Synod what do jurisdiction and authority diocesan synods have. The Synod, however does not want to shape the arguments preferring dioceses to handle the hot potato issue. If conservatives get these resolutions turned down then they will want to ensure clarity that this forbids dioceses to proceed with the blessing of same sex unions. The resolution as it now stands avoids substantive discussion and through procedural manipulation affirms the diocesan jurisdiction and therefore local option. But as one church historian noted, local option leads to congregationalism. By COGS avoiding substantive Scriptural debate and affirming the autonomy of the diocese to proceed down this path it will hope to avoid any disapproval from the Global South Primates If the resolution fails it means the Diocese of New Westminster will have the authority to continue performing same sex unions. Some 13 orthodox bishops are expected to resist local option and want COGS to decide on the motion. There are 30 diocesan bishops and 8 suffragan bishops, making COGS overwhelmingly in the hands of the liberals. The mind of COGS is clearly not about clarity but obfuscation. Conservatives would like to see the motion clearly defeated with a clarity that does not allow diocesan synods the freedom to act as they please. Essentials Canada, the orthodox wing of the Canadian Anglican Church has called for a moratorium on same sex unions. What might catch up with them all is what is taking shape in the Global Anglican Communion. If the Anglican Church of Canada allows same-sex unions to be decided locally it will be easier for the Global South bishops to declare themselves in impaired communion on a diocese by diocese basis as they have done with the Diocese of New Westminster. In short the global Anglican Communion will accomplish what orthodox Canadian Anglicans have failed to achieve - a discipline of their own house - a house that looks more and more each day like a house of cards that is ready to fall. END

By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent The Daily Telegraph 5/31/2004 The liberal Canadian Church has been told that worldwide Anglicanism could disintegrate if it paved the way to homosexual "marriages" this week. In unusually blunt language, Canon Gregory Cameron, a senior official close to the Archbishop of Canterbury, gave the warning to the Canadian General Synod in Niagara on Saturday. Canon Cameron said the decision it was about to make was "about as serious as it could get". His comments reflected the growing fears of Anglican leaders that their efforts to avert schism over homosexuality would be "holed below the waterline" if the Canadians permitted gay blessings. But the intervention by Canon Cameron, who was effectively acting as Dr Rowan Williams's envoy, angered many Canadians, who resented that they saw as outside interference. The Synod will be asked on Wednesday to affirm that there is no bar to any Canadian diocese authorising the blessing of "committed same sex unions". Observers believe that the vote is "on a knife edge". If it is passed, the Synod will have defied Dr Williams's pleas for restraint on all sides. The decision could provoke a profound split that would lead to millions of conservative Anglicans breaking their ties with the Church's liberal wing. The stakes are so high that Dr Williams backed the risky strategy of sending Canon Cameron to address the Synod despite fears that it might unleash a liberal backlash. Canada's acting Primate, Archbishop David Crawley, said the Church should have complete independence in its decision-making. Liberals privately complained about "English interference". Canon Cameron, the secretary to the Lambeth Commission, the body set up by Dr Williams to try to keep the Church together, told the Synod that though it had the right to hold the debate, it should know the consequences. While the idea of public rites for blessing same-sex unions might not be new, he said, it flew in the face of the Church's official policy and the views of the vast majority. The Synod needed to be aware of their "sisters and brothers" in Africa and Asia who were wondering whether the West was prepared to pay any attention to their beliefs. "Nor should we decry their motives," he said. "This is no game playing. On both sides people are acting out of profound convictions that this is what God calls them to." The Lambeth Commission feared that the worldwide Church was moving from "respect towards rivalry", he told the 300 delegates gathered at Brock University in St Catherine's. "If you say 'no' to the motions before you, you will be in danger of letting down the gay people in your midst, who are your Canadian family, as well as all those others who are looking towards the Anglican Church of Canada to set a new standard of dealing with this issue. "But if you say 'yes', the work of the Lambeth Commission becomes horribly complicated. We will be told that the Anglican Church of Canada refuses to hear the voice and to heed the concerns of your fellow Anglicans in the growing provinces of the Global South, who are your international family." Canon Cameron concluded by saying that "the implications of your decision for the unity of the Anglican Communion, perhaps even its very survival in its current form, are just about as serious as it could get". One Canadian diocese, New Westminster, has already approved a rite for same-sex blessing. END

News Analysis By David W. Virtue 5/31/2004 The General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada has submitted a number of resolutions that it hopes this Synod will pass in the eventuality that the church dies if same sex blessings passes. The resolutions plan for the church's actual demise. The first resolution A071 concerns the duties of the Primate. "The Primate shall exercise pastoral and spiritual leadership throughout The Anglican Church of Canada." It formerly read, "To maintain a pastoral relationship to the whole of the Anglican Church of Canada." What that means is this. There will no longer be an obligation to maintain a pastoral relationship with the whole church. This is clearly designed to protect a Primate who cannot possibly maintain a pastoral relationship with the whole church that is splitting especially if the Primate is biased towards a liberal worldview that embraces pansexuality and liberal theological views. Resolution A179 concerns dialogue with the United Church of Canada. This church has seen a steep decline in church attendance since same-sex blessings were initiated in 1988. The question is this, is a renewal of dialogue with the United Church an effort to build a relationship with another church that blesses same-sex unions, with an eye to a later merger when the ACC has shrunk just like the United Church has done after it passed a same sex blessing motion? In the Episcopal Church USA a concordat now exists between the ECUSA and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) with precisely the same idea in mind. Hundreds, possibly thousands of Episcopal parishes will go out of business unless they form mergers with ELCA parishes which are in equal danger of dying. Resolution A101 concerns the Anglican Journal and the Anglican Journal Terms of Reference. In the Explanatory note the resolution reads: "With uncertainty about the future of General Synod, and in order to preserve the existence of the journal, the decision was made to incorporate separately from General Synod. What that means is this. The Journal would preserve its assets when General Synod - the legislative governing body of the Council of General Synod (COGS) - folds. Resolution A080. This motion recognizes that the existence of the Church and the General Synod are in jeopardy by the passing of the motion on same sex blessings. The addition of Section 18: S. 18 (a) if at any date the General Synod ceases to exist . . . the following transition rules apply. . . These resolutions have been reviewed and revised to consider the implications of the passing of motion A134 - the blessing of same-sex unions. There is clear recognition by many in the Anglican Church of Canada that the General Synod may cease to exist. END

Jamie Doward, religious affairs correspondent The Observer May 30, 2004 Todd Grimshaw's confusion over his sexuality has kept millions of Coronation Street fans glued to the small screen in recent weeks. And Kat Moon's anguished decision to sleep with evil Andy Hunter so that he wouldn't call in husband Alfie's loan has sparked endless debate among EastEnders' addicts. But now it has emerged it may not just be soap fans who need their regular fix of what is happening in Weatherfield and Albert Square. The Archbishop of Canterbury has called on priests to watch soap operas as a way of helping them connect with parishioners in the real world. Rowan Williams used a lengthy speech on Friday, which drew on a diverse range of writers, from the atheist Frederick Nietzsche to the Old Testament prophet Habakkuk, to stress how important it was for the Church of England to listen to the world around them. Williams told trainee priests at Ripon College, Oxford, that 'along with instruction in theology and ethics, there must be active encouragement to nourish this seeing and listening, (through) the novel and the newspaper and the soap opera and the casual conversation - even when it looks like wasting time.' A priest who follows the plotlines of a soap opera or a novel, Williams suggests, is someone who 'has a fair bit of literacy about the world we're in - literacy about our culture, about the human heart.' Last year Williams likened tensions over homosexual priests within the Anglican Church to a 'soap opera'. In March he drew parallels between contemporary society and the plotlines of Footballers' Wives. END

By Cynthia A. Brust American Anglican Council Since General Convention 2003, the Episcopal Church (ECUSA) has faced an unprecedented crisis. The unilateral actions of confirming the election of an active homosexual as well as the equivalent of local option for same sex blessings have resulted in 21 provinces of the worldwide Anglican Communion declaring either impaired or broken communion with ECUSA. The Lambeth Commission was charged with making recommendations to the Primates on how to deal with the fallout. Both Archbishop Rowan Williams and Archbishop Robin Eames have asked for restraint during this period. We are deeply saddened that two ECUSA bishops have defied this primatial plea for restraint. Bishop Jon Bruno, Diocese of Los Angeles, recently presided over the same sex ceremony of the Rev. Canon Malcolm Boyd, poet laureate of LA, and his long-time "partner". Bishop John Chane has announced plans to preside at the same sex blessing of former President of Integrity Michael Hopkins and his "partner" June 12, 2004. The fact that these bishops not only authorized, but also chose to preside at the "blessings," of such high profile individuals is particularly significant. Are the bishops sending a message to the Primates? These unilateral actions clearly signal a deplorable lack of respect for the request of the Anglican Communion Primates. These actions also demonstrate that the arrogance of revisionist ECUSA bishops knows no limits as they put the homosexual agenda before any hope of unity in the Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion. While it is too late for Bishop Bruno, we call upon Bishop Chane to reconsider his decision. Cynthia P. Brust is Director of Communications, American Anglican Council http://www.americananglican.org