ACN NEWS July 14, 2004 The Anglican Communion Network (ACN) has called for a Day of Prayer and Fasting on Thursday, August 5, 2004, in observance of the first anniversary of the confirmation of V. Gene Robinson, the first openly homosexual bishop of the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA). The following Sunday, August 8, 2004, is set aside as a day to recognize and prayerfully support global missions whose ministries and resources experienced the negative repercussions of General Convention 2003. With the impending anniversary of Gene Robinson's confirmation to the episcopate, the ACN bishops, at a recent meeting in Fort Worth, Texas, called for a specific date of organized intercessory prayer for the Anglican Communion, the Episcopal Church and global witness. The bishops pointed to the growing turmoil within ECUSA as well as the divisive and chaotic fallout from decisions made at General Convention that have plunged the Anglican Communion into a crisis situation affecting both domestic and ecumenical relations. The flow of support, relationships with host provinces and the integrity of teaching of missionaries around the world has also been damaged by the Episcopal Church's unilateral decisions to move forward on its social agenda. Participating in the Great Commission has become more difficult now, versus a year ago, for many missionary movements. In an effort to rebuild awareness and commitment to global missions, the ACN bishops are encouraging parishes to dedicate their services on August 8 to recognition of missions through special preaching, prayers, and designation of collections to help meet the needs of missionaries.

By Ken Garfield, Religion Editor — The Charlotte Observer July 14, 2004 The spiritual leader of nearly 50,000 Episcopalians in North Carolina has given his formal OK to churches in his diocese blessing same-sex unions. In a letter to clergy, Bishop Michael Curry of the Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina said "the blessing of the committed life long unions of persons of the same gender is one way our community can live the Gospel through faithful and loving pastoral care and spiritual support for each other." Curry's diocese is one of at least six among the nation's 108 U.S. Episcopal dioceses to adopt official, written policies allowing the blessing of same-sex unions. The Raleigh-based diocese is home to 121 parishes in Mecklenburg and 38 other N.C. counties. The U.S. Episcopal church, with 2.3 million members, does not officially have a liturgy for same-sex blessings. But the denomination acknowledges that an unknown number of bishops -- including Robert Johnson in Asheville -- allows their clergy to conduct them. Kaye Lasater Culp, a spokesperson for Curry's Raleigh-based diocese, said no same-sex ceremonies have been held in the diocese with the bishop's approval. "If this was done before," she said, "it's been done on its own." Of the four other Carolinas dioceses, only the Western North Carolina diocese allows its clergy to bless same-sex unions. There, Johnson said an unwritten "collegial policy" allows parishes to decide for themselves. He said three parishes among 72 in the diocese have conducted fewer than 10 ceremonies. He said parishes will still be free to decide for themselves when he retires and is succeeded in September by the Rev. Porter Taylor of Athens, Ga. Nearly every mainstream religion denomination in the United States has been battling over gay marriage and ordination for years, with no resolution in sight. Nowhere has the controversy been hotter than in the U.S. Episcopal church, with last summer's confirmation of Gene Robinson of New Hampshire as the first openly gay bishop in the church serving as the spark. Already, Curry's July 1 letter to clergy is stirring more debate, and having an influence. With the bishop's blessing, the Rev. David Pittman of St. Peter's Episcopal Church said he'll now ask lay leaders at the uptown Charlotte church to OK two requests for same-sex ceremonies. "I don't imagine it will be a problem," Pittman said. "We bless homes and consecrate buildings. I think people are more important than things." All four people belong to the 900-member church. One couple is male. Pittman said two women are planning their same-sex blessing to mark their 25th anniversary. In Durham, St. Philip's Episcopal Church plans to bless same-sex unions within the year. Other churches, though, will have no part of same-sex unions despite Curry opening the door. While saying he respects the bishop for laying out his position, the Rev. Fred Hoffman of All Saints Episcopal Church in Concord said he believes blessing same-sex unions runs counter to his reading of Scripture. "This is not an issue of being against homosexuality," he said. "We're called to love everybody." But, Hoffman noted, "I don't think we have to accommodate to the culture." Episcopalians angry over Curry's strong stance have made their feelings known this past year. Spokesperson Culp said financial donations are down 15 percent since last August, when Robinson was confirmed amid national front-page headlines. She said such a drop likely results from tough economic times and disagreements with the bishop. At a forum last September attended by 300 at St. Peter's Episcopal Church, George Young of St. Margaret's Episcopal in Charlotte held up a check and told Curry: "You will never see this." Curry's July 1 letter spells out guidelines for a principle he espoused a day after voting with the majority to confirm Robinson: Congregations can decide for themselves whether they want to bless same-sex unions. Those that do should consult with the bishop, and hold such ceremonies only "after wide and extended prayer, conversation and education in the parish and in consultation with the vestry (board of lay leaders)." As stated in the language of the denomination, relationships being blessed should be "characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God." As Curry put it at the close of his letter: "As followers of Jesus and members of the family of God, we are called to welcome, honor and love all persons."

Special Report — By David W. Virtue BRISTOL, CT., 7/13/2004 Six orthodox priests in the Diocese of Connecticut are under fire from their bishop Andrew D. Smith over their request for DEPO, and he has ordered all of them to appear before him on or before July 24th. The bishop has refused to meet all six clergy and their vestries jointly, demanding that they meet with him separately, compelling them to meet at Diocesan House. He has also refused to address all the issues of DEPO the six priests and their vestries unanimously raised in their letter to him. In an exchange of letters that has clearly crossed the line from "conversation" to "compulsion", Smith sent a terse one paragraph letter to Hansen saying, "In my capacity as canonical overseer, I issue you a Pastoral Directive. You, as Rector of Saint John's Church, Bristol, shall meet with me in my office at Diocesan House, Hartford, Ct. This meeting shall take place on or before July 24, 2004. I expect that you will contact my office to set up an appropriate appointment." On May 27, the six priests including the Rev. Ron Gauss from Bishop Seabury Church, Groton, the Rev. Allyn Benedict, Christ Church, Watertown, the Rev. Mark Hansen, St. John's Church, Bristol, the Rev. Christopher Leighton, St. Paul's Church, Darien, The Rev. Donald Helmandollar Trinity Church, Bristol, and the Rev. Gilbert Wilkes, Christ & The Epiphany Church, East Haven, sent a letter to Bishop Smith saying that the Clergy, Wardens, and Vestries of the six churches had jointly signed a letter voting unanimously to apply for Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO). The priests said they had reviewed the House of Bishops plan entitled "Caring For All Churches," and they failed to find any requirement that prohibited joint DEPO discussions for multiple parishes. They further requested that a record of the conversations should be taken in order to prevent misunderstanding or misinterpretation. "We cannot envision anything that any of us might say regarding DEPO that should not be a matter of public record," argued the priests. The priests called on Smith to repent of his action in the consecration of V.G. Robinson and also called on him to repent "for your ordination of other unchaste homosexuals to the ordained ministry in this diocese; and an acknowledgement that your actions have done serious damage to the worldwide Anglican Communion." The priests argued in their letter that if the bishop showed due repentance there would be no need for DEPO. They suggested the Parish Hall at Christ Church, Watertown, as the venue for all parties involved. "We intend to have transcripts made of all proceedings by a third party professional transcription service," they said. The six priests said they wanted immediate care and pastoral oversight of a bishop "acceptable to us who affirms Holy Scripture, the ancient creeds, and the 39 Articles and upholds the 1998 Lambeth Resolution on human sexuality and who did not support the election, consecration and ministry of V. G. Robinson as bishop, nor supported the ordination of any unchaste homosexuals to ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church." They also asked for suspension of assessment of funds to the Diocese of Connecticut mission and ministry. They further requested a one-year review of the DEPO agreements in consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury on behalf of the Primates of the Anglican Communion or their appointed designee. With the liberal bias of the diocese, the six clergy demanded written agreement that guarantees the future succession of clergy in their parishes rest in the hands of their vestries, search committees, and the DEPO bishop, and not the diocesan bishop. They also asked for a written agreement that all decisions regarding future candidates for ordained ministry from these parishes rest in the hands of the rectors, discernment committees, vestries, the DEPO bishop and not the diocesan bishop. They then sought a written assurance that Smith and the Diocese of Connecticut would not foster a ministerial environment that was hostile to their parishes' mission and ministries. "We are concerned not just for the present situation of faithful, orthodox priests in this diocese, but for the future of our congregations when we are no longer here," said Hansen to Virtuosity. "We want to preserve the 'faith once delivered' for our successors and allow it to thrive continue after we have gone." On June 15, Smith wrote Hansen recalling the visit he made on December 14, 2003 saying there were tensions in the air, "but we did worship and proclaim Christ as brothers and sisters, and we engaged in what I believe were charitable and beneficial conversations together." Smith then said that a review of the "spirit and intent of the House of Bishops plan" made it impossible for a number of their expectations to be met within the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. Smith stipulated there were three major items that needed to be addressed - "the appointment of a bishop for the exercise of the delegated oversight: a pledge for the contribution of funds for the mission and ministry of our diocese, and scheduling appropriate ways that we, your bishops, can regularly visit with you." On June 28 Hansen wrote back to Smith saying that it was unanimously resolved that they would "stand firm" with regard to all the terms set forth in their letter of May 27. "Therefore, your request to meet with us separately as representatives of an individual parish is rendered moot," Hansen wrote, adding that this reflected a unanimous decision by the vestry. "It is clear to us that the bishop has crossed a line between collegiality and a raw exercise of power, and any claim on his part to be acting in a conciliatory fashion will be much harder to sustain," he said. "His pastoral directive has gone from pseudo friendly to outright legalistic," he told Virtuosity.

By David W. Virtue Come October the Africans will leave the Anglican Communion following the conclusion of the Lambeth-Eames Commission, because they think the report will be little more than a "fudge", says David Phillips, General Secretary, Church Society. "There is no doubt that the Africans in particular do not really understand the western church. They do not understand they way it plays politics in bodies such as the General Synod or the Primates meetings. They do not understand how 'fundamentalist revisionist' Bishops in the US can persecute Christians and others turn a blind eye, they do not understand how some leaders can blatantly lie to them and they do not understand why we are so lifeless as a church and why we have sold out so thoroughly to the culture around us," said Phillips. These views were expressed at a meeting called by Anglican Mainstream at General Synod and included various leaders in the Anglican Communion - Greg Venables (Primate of the Southern Cone), Stephen Nyorsok (Bishop of Kitale, Kenya), Peter Rwaboma (Uganda) and Ellis Brust representing the Anglican Communion Network and the American Anglican Council, made a presentation at the meeting. "It is evident that none of them expect the Lambeth Commission to do any more than Rowan Williams and Robin Eames wanted it to do - produce a fudge," Phillips is reported as saying. Anglican Mainstream is a community within the Anglican Communion teaching and preserving the Scriptural truths on which the Anglican Church was founded. Church Society exists to promote a biblical faith which shapes both the Church of England and the society in which we live for the sake of Christ.

By Hugh McCann The Anglican Communion Network says its core purpose is, "To be a missionary movement of Anglicans IN FELLOWSHIP WITH global Anglicanism, making disciples who make disciples of Jesus Christ in North America and to the ends of the earth." The American Anglican Council claims that it "is a Network of individuals, parishes, specialized ministries and Episcopal Bishops who affirm Biblical authority and Anglican orthodoxy AS the Episcopal Church WITHIN the Anglican Communion. In response to the Lord's calling and by His grace, we commit ourselves to proclaiming the Good News to every person and to working to reform and renew OUR CHURCH. We are gathering those of like mind in order to move ahead with the mission and ministry OF THE CHURCH." David Virtue wrote on May 9th, 2004, "The one unifying principle for both conservative and liberal Anglicans is that they REMAIN IN COMMUNION with the mother Church of England through the Archbishop of Canterbury." Though many of their aims are lofty and often biblical, what is strikingly lacking in the AAC & ACN statements of "vision," "values," and "purpose," is any indication of being willing (much less planning) to separate from the faithless, heretical bishops and priests in authority in both the ECUSA and the Church of England. Sadly, those who stay united to heretics are untrue to Christ. The Episco-Anglicans who like to play dress up (and kiss up to the Archbishop), seem bent on rejecting Christ's word where his inspired apostle Paul commands separation from unbelievers in 1 Cor. 6:14-7:1. "Do not be deceived: Bad company ruins good morals" (1 Cor. 15:33, ESV). Until the conservatives leave the ECUSA, the impotent AAC-ACN gang is just blowing smoke. They do not REBUKE the enemies of Christ, they do not DENOUNCE them, they do not CHARGE them with sin, they have not DISCIPLINED them, and they do not SEPARATE from them. Instead, they DIALOGUE with them, trying to NEGOTIATE alternative oversight! Imagine Jesus doing that with the devil in his temptation. Eve tried it with the serpent in the garden, and we know how successful that was. But unless and until faithful ECUSA priests and bishops (1) recognize the illegitimacy of their communion with antichrist, and (2) are willing to lose all for Christ, there is no hope for them. But they are masters of compromise; they have been comfortably yoked together with the unfaithful in the ECUSA for decades. Trying to operate as a faithful remnant within an apostate church, the AAC-ACN is calling on outside help in Africa and the UK to restore order and piety within the ECUSA. This is a fool's errand, as the liberal majority in the ECUSA is (1) unimpressed with the "Canterbury connection," and (2) not even under the jurisdiction of Africa or the C of E! But when the Africans excommunicate the ECUSA, the conservatives will finally be forced to decide between their properties, and fellowship with African Anglicans. Until the AAC-ACN repent of their lust for respectability in associating with the C of E, and their unbiblical ordination of women, they will continue to be out of communion with the more orthodox Africans, AMiA, REC, and others, and out of step with the holy Spirit, who is not bound to bless a church apart from its being faithful to the Scriptures he inspired. The "Big Six" alliance is hurriedly thrown together with at least two problems: (1) Trying to impress the Archbishop of Canterbury. They think they need Rowan Williams' imprimatur for validation. Wrong. But the fear of man is a strong snare, indeed. (2) They haven't reached unanimity on women's ordination. As long as women are ordained, St. Paul (God's word) is being despised, and those biblically prohibited from office are in positions of authority and influence. But just as Eve was deceived (Gen 3:1-6; 1 Cor. 11:3; 2 Cor. 11:3-4; 1 Tim. 2:9-15), and misled her irresponsible hubby, so too do "female clergy" their neutered counterparts today. This lack of unanimity will come back to haunt the now-roused troops within ten or so years. The issue of accepting homosexuality is not unrelated to that of women in the pastorate. Both rely on revisionist interpretations of Scripture, sharing the same underlying hermeneutic: "The Bible may teach it (anti-sodomy or anti-feminism), but we reject it because of our enlightened ways today." Those holding this principle must repent and see the error of such thinking. Finally, the "common cause" is all well and good, but Evangelicals, Calvinists, and Anglo-Catholics each have very different views on the work of Christ, the sacraments, and how grace is mediated. These too will need addressing. Simply being united against outrageous revisionists will not be enough to sustain the perceived "common cause." The center may hold, but the bigger the center (the more that can be agreed upon), the stronger the bond, of course. May God help those in leadership in the Anglican and Episcopalian churches today. Hugh McCann (MA in biblical studies) taught New Testament at the APCK seminary in Berkeley, CA. Once confirmed in the Episcopal Church, USA, he is today a recovering ex-member, realizing that the ECUSA is irredeemable and irreformable.

By David W. Virtue DD There is a deep contradiction (perhaps many) inside Frank Griswold, The Episcopal Church's Presiding Bishop. He talks much about the need for unity in the church, a need to come together across divisions, to "hear" and "listen" to one other, to have "deep conversation" and much more, all the while he and his fellow revisionist bishops do things that continue to separate us all from one another. While it is true that Anglicans do not have a central authority, we are bound, at the very least by Holy Scripture and more, all the while Episcopal church leaders continue to say that we are independent of the other 37 Primates and their provinces, accountable only to the Archbishop of Canterbury. The truth is ECUSA revisionist bishops, especially Frank Griswold don't care what the other Primates think anyway, he prefers to act independently on issues of sexual morality. All the while the ECUSA itself is riven by growing factions because of the church's sexual and doctrinal innovations. The more Griswold shouts unity, the more things keep falling apart. And it is not like Women's Ordination as the revisionists keep saying, and while the church survived, it paved the way for further innovations. What is worse is that the Global South bishops know it and so does the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Lambeth Commission will deliver itself of a verdict ere long, and then we will know for sure who is "independent" of whom. And when it comes to language, no one is better than Griswold at twisting words to make them mean what he wants them to mean. I have taken a long hard look at the way he uses words like "listening", "dialogue", "mediation" and "conversation". They are often smoke screens for my way or the highway. On the brighter side I interviewed TAC Primate Archbishop John Hepworth and you can read what he has to say about the future of traditionalists in the Anglican Communion. IT WAS ANOTHER WEEK OF CHAOS AND MAYHEM in the Anglican Communion. Episcopal globe trotter and strategist for the Communion's orthodox Primates Canon Bill Atwood made the case at the recent FIFNA conference in Texas that it was impossible to overrate the ill health of The Episcopal Church. He writes, "The difficulty nowadays is to make a caricature of the institution. The biggest concern is not that the parts are in ill health but the impact it has on those of us who have good health." You can read that story. In the DIOCESE OF COLORADO, two priests and two bishops duke it out in the press with charges made of deception, "secret protocols" and perjury by the orthodox clergy, with a revisionist bishop hissing and taunting the priests saying "present me if you dare". In the DIOCESE OF PENNSYLVANIA Charles Bennison got taken over the coals by parishioners and vestry at a Forward in Faith parish - St. Luke's, Newtown - where, in a face to face encounter his answers proved indisputably just how far off base revisionist bishops can get when they have no authority for what they say except "stories" and themselves. And a parish in the DIOCESE OF LOUISIANA, Holy Spirit Episcopal Church in Baton Rouge, wrote a letter to Frank Griswold saying, "We, the vestry of the Episcopal Church of the Holy Spirit, are most distressed by the misapplication of Holy Scripture and the grievous distortions of the Gospel contained in your pastoral letter of June 23 to the Episcopal Church." You can read the full letter in today's digest. And in the DIOCESE OF LONG ISLAND the sad saga of Bishop Orris Walker continues with a story saying the cathedral Dean was summarily fired by Walker and that the bishop's letter saying he resigned was a "gross inaccuracy". In a copy of the Dean's letter obtained by Virtuosity, Cardone wrote that "he [the bishop] never asked for my resignation, either verbally or in writing," and he accused the bishop of having a "convenient memory lapse" or being "a deliberate ruse." You can read that full report. And in the DIOCESE OF OHIO the homosexuality debate has divided the Episcopal Church with three churches in the Greater Akron area having a different view on what is acceptable. The Church of Our Saviour is proud to be part of the Episcopal Church USA, which ordained an openly gay bishop. St. Luke's is still Episcopal but would rather not be and Hudson Anglican never was Episcopal, having started with people who left the Episcopal Church over the ordination. Those differences are a reflection of the division that remains within the Episcopal Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion. In the DIOCESE OF CONNECTICUT, six orthodox parishes have written to The Rt. Rev. Andrew D. Smith applying for DEPO. The six parishes are Bishop Seabury Church, Groton; Christ Church, Watertown; St. John's Church, Bristol; St. Paul's Church, Darien; Trinity Church, Bristol and Christ & The Epiphany Church, East Haven. We wait with baited breath to see what eventuates. And in the DIOCESE OF HAWAII, the Bishop's Warden of Holy Cross at Malaekahana in Honolulu wrote a heart-wrenching letter to the liberal bishop there one Richard Chang on the impending split in the worldwide Anglican Communion. "American Episcopalians, a tiny (and declining) minority of the world's Christians, are so confident that we honor and ordain an exemplar of the open practice of a specifically forbidden sin. This to many is in apparent defiance of the prior understanding of most Christians as to the faith once received, and in disregard of the leaders of millions of worldwide Anglicans who call us to repentance. Why then are we so timorous in our discussions about it? Do we despair of reason?" You can read the full letter in today's digest. The Rev. Tony Seel rector, Saint Andrew's, Vestal, in the DIOCESE OF NEW YORK has written a piece in defense of the gospel. But he got taken to task by Louie Crew, over his parish's statistics. When the story was posted on the HOB/D list Crew said that in 1989 St. Andrew's reported between 300-400 members. "When Seel became rector six years ago, in 1998, the parish reported only between 200-300 members, down by about one-third. Crew said that in 2002 St. Andrew's reported no growth, with membership still between 200-300 members." Seel's response: "We cleaned the books (something I have found that liberals don't often do, because it decreases a parish's representation at diocesan conventions in a lot of places). I did the same thing in my previous parish. The parish has not lost a third of our members in my six years - this is totally false. We were pretty much on a plateau until GC 2003. Over 20 people left over GC 2003, some conservative, most liberal (left in response to parish joining the AAC). We have picked up a similar amount of new attendees, but giving is down from before the GC." ON THE INTERNATIONAL FRONT sweepstakes are being taken on who will succeed John Peterson as head of the Anglican Communion Office. Odds on favorite are Canon Gregory Cameron who works in the same office and is a close personal friend of Rowan Williams. He appeared at the Canadian Anglican gabfest in St. Catherine's recently and gave a middle of the road speech on whether the Canadians should offend gays or Global South bishops as they move forward into an unknown future. Word has it that Frank Griswold is pushing for an American to get the job. Either way a liberal will hold the top slot, thus marking it out for isolation by the Global South. But the real action this week was in the CHURCH OF ENGLAND SYNOD where the ARCHBISHOP OF YORK opined that the CofE is in danger of suffering a seismic rift over the issue of homosexuality. Dr David Hope called for church members to move on from the debate and concentrate on the Church's original task of converting the unbeliever. But the truly sinister stuff going on at General Synod is that they "kicked out" the Draft Clergy Discipline Measure, thus defeating the Conservatives who created the measure, and giving freedom to the gays. But this is all liberal spin says a Virtuosity reader who is at the Synod. "The first piece of evidence the press don't consider is that the Measure was created by General Synod itself, not the evangelicals on it, and it has been about four or five years in the cooking. The second piece of evidence that the press choose to ignore is that evangelicals have consistently opposed the measure; not because they don't want orthodoxy tests (we do), but because in its present form the measure was also designed to clip the wings of evangelical churches who were (for instance) church planting into liberal parishes, refusing to pay their quota because of the St Alban's debacle, not having an unorthodox bishop to do confirmations. The third piece of evidence: the argument that this was an evangelical move to clip heresy would explain why it passed through the House of Laity (who are the most conservative of the three Houses), and might explain why it failed to get through the House of Clergy. What the paradigm fails to explain is why the Measure passed massively in the House of Bishops. The last thing the Bishops want is to be tied up in a series of heresy trials, so why would they vote for it? Because it gave them more power over trouble makers, who are overwhelmingly at the moment the Conservatives. Why else would the bishop of St Alban's type of man want it through? In a word P-O-W-E-R. Press coverage is saying that it was a conservative plot against the gays? Of course. The Parliament of the World's Religions opened this week with such illustrious figures in attendance as "His Holiness" the Dalai Lama and "Her Holiness" Mata Amritanandamayi Devi, popularly known as Amma, the Indian-born spiritual leader who works to establish charitable institutions. London-based author Karen Armstrong, whose books include "A History of God," "Islam," and "Buddha," will also speak, as will Catholic theologian Hans Kung, president of the Foundation for a Global Ethic, and Rabbi Michael Learner. Among Episcopalians scheduled to participate in the Parliament gathering are Bishop Christopher Epting, the Presiding Bishop's deputy officer for ecumenical and interfaith relations; Sonia Omulepu, coordinator for the Episcopal Church's Interfaith Education Initiative; and Richard Parkins, director of Episcopal Migration Ministries. Episcopal deacon Gwynne Guibord, officer for ecumenical and interfaith concerns in the Diocese of Los Angeles, and Episcopal lay leader Kay Lindahl, director of the Listening Center in Laguna Niguel, California, are among Episcopalians leading workshops. It's ironic when you think about it. The Episcopal Church is imploding, it is doing its best to eviscerate, marginalize, yell homophobia, fundamentalist and much more at its orthodox and Evangelical wing, but it must make haste to Barcelona to make nice with this phony "parliament" who would water down all distinctions of faith and belief in favor of a grab bag of loosely held liberal notions about the goodness of mankind even as Islam rears its ugly head in countries like the Sudan, Nigeria, Iran, Iraq and Indonesia to wipe out Christians and Jews. It is really sad when in northern Nigeria, Shari'a loving Islamicists are busy slaughtering Anglican Christians. It's the irony to end all ironies, and The Episcopal Church is right in the thick of things pushing diversity and inclusion even as souls are being lost for all eternity. And you wonder why millions of orthodox Global South Anglicans have no respect for the Episcopal Church. On the specifically Anglican front regarding same-sex issues, the new Primate of New Zealand is a Maori and, as such, is opposed to homosexuality. In Canada, the First Nations are opposed and in the Diocese of New Westminster a large number of the clergy opposed are Chinese. In the United States, the Black clergy are also opposed. In Australia, the Uniting Church a few years ago failed to pass pro-Gay legislation because of the opposition of the Aborigines. And, of course, the Primates of the Global South are noisily opposed to homosexuality. This is a matter of record. Are we getting the picture here? NEW BIBLE FIRESTORM. Rowan William's backing of this "Good as New" book is setting off a firestorm amongst the English bishops, and, from several phone calls received not a few ECUSA prelates. Given previous divisions over the scandals in England and America last year, this really blanches the cabbage, de-centralizing Williams from the "supposed" centrist position which he took after the English problem in June, putting him right into the fire kettle with Griswold and Robinson. Effectually, it compromises his position as first among equals in the now very uneven worldwide episcopate, making himself the focus of all that ails. An orthodox CofE bishop says it could enflame a constitutional crisis if enough of the bishops of the bench, that is, those in Parliament, take issue with him over his authority to subsume Scripture. Of course, this will set off a firestorm with the already doctrinally handicapped ACC in the UK, further widening the chasm within ECUSA. A NEW GROUP calling themselves "Accepting Evangelicals" in the CofE believe the time has come to move towards the acceptance of faithful, loving same-sex partnerships at every level of church life, and the development of a positive Christian ethic for gay and lesbian people. Accepting Evangelicals is a network of people who are increasingly uncomfortable with the hard-line statements which are being issued by some Evangelical groups, and the damage which this is causing, both to the church and the mission of the Gospel. Accepting Evangelicals is open both to people who believe that the Bible does not condemn loving, faithful same-sex relationships which are built on mutual commitment and self-giving love and to people who, although they do not personally hold this view are willing to accept the integrity of those who do. David Phillips General Secretary, Church Society, THE evangelical organization in the CofE says he is one of those groups mentioned as making hard-line statements. "By this I presume that they mean statements which could have been made by any orthodox Christian through the last two millenia. This is where evangelicalism has come, that people can delude themselves into believing that they have an interpretation of the Scriptures which is completely at odds with what every previous generation of believers have held. Of course they will not like it but it is clear they are not evangelical." CORRECTION: In my report on the dating of the Primates Commission, I cited Oct. 16 as the revelation date. However this refers to a memo from John Peterson saying the report should go to the ACC/Primates standing committee on Oct 15 & 16. He does not plan for the report to be public then. The Primates still want this in their hands first so Peterson can't spin it. In another note on Ingham's appointment to represent the Canadian Anglican Church in ECUSA comes this from Fr. Steve Lane: "He was elected by the General Synod to serve on the Council of General Synod (like our Executive Council). The Council elected Michael to represent it as the Partner to the Episcopal Church. The Council of General Synod also elected Bishop Rodney Andrews as alternate." IN TODAY'S DIGEST you can read a number of fine stories from commentators around the world, including Timothy Bradshaw, Bob Wenz and Max Stackhouse. All blessings, David W. Virtue DD

June 25, 2004 Dear Bishop Chang: I know you are forced, by your calling as our spiritual leader, to wrestle with these issues. The attached article, and these considerations of mine, are offered faithfully and in hope, that you may be guided by the Holy Spirit as you lead our Diocese in the one holy catholic and apostolic faith. Our entire delegation to last year's national convention voted for the action that precipitated the impending worldwide split. Only one among them felt obliged to give any explanation. While admirable in its length and erudition, we heard lectures on social and cultural matters, with no substantive reference to the authority of scripture independent of the context-bound spirit of the age. And who is to say what that spirit of the age is? Spengler and Nietzsche and Heidegger said it was what made Nazism nearly the world conqueror, Marx, Engels, Lenin and Mao said it was what nearly made atheist communism the conqueror of all. I believe that, in our Diocese, it is therefore yet incumbent upon the faithful to return to the scriptures and the dialogue with each other and to seek guidance. Are we to suffer this schism from the Anglican communion gladly? Are we clearly pono and so may disregard the pleas from our more numerous Global South brothers and sisters that we repent? It's the first place yet that I've seen mentioned the important distinction, worked out in blood and travail through the many European and English religious struggles, between the RITES and CIVIL PRECEPTS of the Old Testament, and the MORAL Commandments. Our church agreed at its founding, in 1801, that the former two are not, but that the latter are, BINDING ON THE CHRISTIAN. That is to say, it is not the ancient social or political order, nor the particular forms of punishment, nor the food rituals, nor the master-slave relationships, nor any "ritual purity" precepts of the Hebrew Bible that we are to follow. But our church's founders agreed, in the Articles of Religion, that in our voluntary actions in our relation to others, we Christians are to follow the MORAL Commandments of the Hebrew Bible (Articles of Religion, VII, BCP p. 869). These articles, I believe, have never been officially rescinded. Christ came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. His men, like David's, plucked grain, and He Himself healed, on the Sabbath. This was His open disregard of certain CIVIL PRECEPTS, namely, what to do or not to do, on a certain day of the week. Christ saved an adulteress from a stoning: but he told her to "go and sin no more." He shamed the judges into withholding an awful, though scriptural, punishment. But He did not tell her that her MORAL sin was no more a sin! Yes, he disregarded the CIVIL PRECEPT that an adulteress should be stoned, yes he disregarded many of the cleanliness RITES, and associated with the unrighteous, but he drove the MORAL understanding of life to a deeper level: lusting in our heart is already adultery! American Episcopalians, a tiny (and declining) minority of the world's Christians, are so confident that we honor and ordain an exemplar of the open practice of a specifically forbidden sin. This to many is in apparent defiance of the prior understanding of most Christians as to the faith once received, and in disregard of the leaders of millions of worldwide Anglicans who call us to repentance. Why then are we so timorous in our discussions about it? Do we despair of reason? Can we be sure that to simply dispense with our anchor in scripture and to lead from the spirit of the age is not to be led by a deceiving spirit? Is tolerance to be tolerance of all things? Of what do I speak? Leaders in our Diocese who insist that words cannot be relied upon to reliably communicate with each other: this is despair of reason. Assembled church lay and clerical representatives who refuse to even consider the issues at hand: this is despair of reason. A visiting Bishop of the church who freely calls the Bible a fairy tale and a myth, and proclaims a "non-theist" doctrine, yet is welcomed by some in the church: this is tolerance taken to the extreme. There are hundreds of millions of sincere and, most definitely, neither stupid nor socially retrograde Christians, who look upon our Episcopal quandary with wonder, as do I, and hundreds of thousands of our fellow Episcopalians who cannot understand the path our national church and Hawaii Diocese has taken. Without the careful use of words, the study of pertinent holy scripture, our historic traditions, and the faithful use of our reason (in obedience to His will) how can we be sure we're pono? What does our Church reliably rest upon? The constitution and canons alone will most certainly not be enough. The truths revealed to us by the Holy Spirit, per our catechism, are known to be of that Spirit when they are "in accord with scripture" (BCP, p. 852). This is not to call for any "bibliolatry", but for a comparison of new truths, if they be of the Holy Spirit, with God's Word. The passion with which views are held is no evidence per se that they are of the Holy Spirit. But to those who would disregard the plain sense of scripture and persist in calling newly honored erotic practices to be of the Holy Spirit, what are we, who follow the Book of Common Prayer, to say? Is it in accord or not? Many of us look the other way when words and contexts are twisted and parsed until the sin becomes not a sin anymore, but that seems not Jesus' way. How about a challenge, to the new truth tellers to do the hard work to expurgate the objectionable books, to re-edit and re-write so as to create a new scripture that does no contradiction to the new-found pan-sexual path. And, with that task, can they, dare they try to convince the millions of fellow Christians in the world to join in the new adventure? If not up to such a task, how can this errant movement last? If not willing to persuade world Christianity that the new scripture is what Christ and the martyrs and all the saints have believed and would believe, how can we grant authority and honor to these novelties? Christianity is a religion of the ages and the endless multitudes of saints, it is not a plaything of a temporary sociological subgroup that can, without real and earnest defense of its innovations on scriptural principles, simply disregard the accepted MORAL Commandments our founders agreed are binding. It can disregard them, but will risk breaking communion with a majority of all the orthodox. No mere rationalizing deference to temporary sociological trends can be ultimately persuasive to the faith of millions. There is a true Christian religion that is not the plaything of history's unreasoning whims, and it is attested by the blood of the martyrs and by the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ's shining life and memorable words. There is an orthodoxy that is not the arbitrary utterance of a single Pope or Council. Martyrs and sages have guided the saints to be persuaded by what is believed everywhere and at all times and by everyone. At our baptism we swear to continue in the apostles teaching, and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers. That teaching is the orthodoxy we seek, and it is real and based on scripture, and it will defeat the heresies and schisms that rend the Body of Christ. You cannot persuade millions of believers, many of whom are locked in a life and death struggle for survival, or who find themselves unavoidably subject to persecution and intimidation by Muslims and communists, that the latest pansexual pastimes, no matter how discretely and honorably practiced, among a few urban sophisticates, are the inevitable progressive wing of Christianity that all are destined to follow, without some better reasoning and deeper scriptural understanding than what has been made evident so far. Those who would vote for such things are obliged to explain the scriptural basis of the new pan-sexualism, not just to themselves, but to an audience of all Christians, the safe, the well-fed, the secure, but also the persecuted, the struggling, the hungry. Love, when it finds a wound, binds it up, but may put a stinging antiseptic on it. The wounded who avoids antiseptic, may feel better for awhile, but will regret it, with much more pain, and the threat of death, as time goes on. Sin, like a wound, needs healing, not tolerance, and not rationalizations to avoid a bit of emotional pain. To malama our mana will take some ho'opono'pono. Faithfully, Boyd Ready Bishop's Warden Holy Cross at Malaekahana — END —

By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent The London Times | July 11, 2004 THE Church of England is in danger of suffering a seismic rift over the issue of homosexuality, the Archbishop of York, Dr David Hope, said yesterday. He called for church members to move on from the debate and concentrate on the Church's original task of converting the unbeliever. Dr Hope, leading a Bible study seminar at the summer meeting of the General Synod in York, said that the Church was "in danger of being overwhelmed in respect of the single issue of sex and sexuality to the extent that we are almost wholly diverted and distracted from the fundamental priority of the mission entrusted to us by Christ". Dr Hope was speaking shortly before the synod threw out proposals to introduce heresy trials for clergy who step out of line on orthodox church teachings. If the proposal had been passed, clergy or bishops who knowingly ordained a practising homosexual or who promoted or preached in favour of a gay lifestyle could have found themselves in the doctrinal dock and removed from their post, or unfrocked. Dr Hope, speaking at York University, compared the present turmoil in the Anglican Communion and the wider world with the traumas of the early Church and the first Christians. He said: "You and I may not yet be called to witness to Christ to the point of bloodshedding, but that does not mean to say that we are not called to martyrdom." Arguing that "witness" was a key feature of trying to follow the Christian path, he said that many synod members, as churchgoers and as people living in the world, had the feeling of being "overwhelmed" by events around them. Referring directly to the Church, Dr Hope continued: "As you might just have noticed we have not been without our squalls, seismic and otherwise." He urged church members to study and learn from the history of Christianity, in particular the first five centuries, when arguments "raged" about the nature of Christ and of the Trinity, threatening "the very existence and continuance of the Church". Dr Hope's Bible exposition came as the Lambeth Commission - set up to find a way through the difficulties caused by homosexual ordinations and same-sex blessing rites - prepares to report back in October. Church leaders fear that there will be no way forward without some "realignment" between the episcopal churches of the West and of the Global South, if not a complete breach of communion amounting to a schism between conservative evangelicals and liberals. Drawing a comparison between the present disputes and controversies in the early Church, Dr Hope pleaded for a more Christian tenor to "the tone of the way we both handle and debate deeply disputed issues". — END —

From Rector and Vestry of the Episcopal Church of the Holy Spirit July 4, 2004 The Most Reverend Frank Griswold, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, 815 Second Avenue, New York, New York 10017 Dear Bishop Griswold: We, the vestry of the Episcopal Church of the Holy Spirit, are most distressed by the misapplication of Holy Scripture and the grievous distortions of the Gospel contained in your pastoral letter of June 23 to the Episcopal Church. In this obliquely worded and palliative attempt to justify your consecration of a noncelibate homosexual as bishop and the resulting inevitable fracture between the Episcopal Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion, you have indulged in specious reasoning that is truly stunning in its arrogance. You are correct when you say in your letter that this is "not an easy time in the life of the church, as we live with questions that yield no easy answers," which presumably is an indirect way of referring to the controversy over the role of noncelibate homosexuals in church leadership. The answer to this question, however, is clearly stated in God's Word and, furthermore, has been supported through hundreds of years of church tradition and reasoning by the great saints of the faith: Noncelibate homosexuality is sin and not acceptable in a church leader. As you say, ecclesial divisions and polarities are indeed "the order of the day" but you fail to mention your own part in fomenting the resulting "anxiety, confusion, fear, and anger." If you had not chosen to flout the authority of Scripture and church teaching, to stubbornly ignore the pleas of your fellow primates of the Anglican Communion, the present division in the church could have been avoided. You write that, because the church is "called into being not by us, but by God through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit," it is "never ours." True, it is God's church, but it is doubtful that you actually believe this. If you did, you never would have had the temerity to wrest authority from God and revise His Word to your own liking. Your section on love is truly eloquent. The radical love of Christ within us does indeed open us to constant surprise, give us the ability to discern Christ in others, and demand that we relinquish our plans, views, and expectations in favor of God's. Any Christian who worships and serves God in spirit and in truth can attest to this. However, you fail to mention an important dimension of love: While Christ requires us to love others as he loves us, we are not to condone their sin but help them overcome it. Jesus ministered his love and healing in radical and life-changing ways, but never did he accept sin. We are to emulate Christ by loving the sinner but rejecting the sin. Our church is now not only openly condoning sin, but celebrating it by placing an unrepentant sinner in a position of authority. This is especially grievous when the person's role makes him or her a model for the church, as bishops are meant to be. As Romans 3:23 says, we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Mercifully, God loves us even in our sin, but full fellowship with him requires us to confess our sins and repent of them. We see no repentance within the leadership of the Episcopal Church, but instead a selfish insistence on a road that can only lead the church farther and farther from God (see 1 Corinthians 11:27-32). Your use of the story of Peter's rooftop vision as an analogy to reinforce your own perspective on the church's acceptance of noncelibate homosexuals is a false and blatantly self-serving application of Scripture. God showed Peter that simply being Gentiles did not preclude people from the church, that God loved them as much as he loved the Jews. But sinful Gentiles were expected to repent, to renew their minds, to change their lives, just as today those who desire intimate relationship with God are called to radical new lives of repentance in accordance with God's Word. Your implied analogy with noncelibate homosexuals fails because deliberate and continuing noncelibacy is a state of sin and is contrary to God's Word. Bishop Griswold, we too hope and pray for healing and reconciliation in a broken and divided world. But reconciliation in the Episcopal Church cannot happen if you as presiding bishop continue to bless sin, because we and other orthodox Episcopal churches will not seek unity at any cost. We continue to remain faithful to Scripture and church tradition, and we continue to pray for the repentance of our church's leadership. You remain in our prayers, The Rector and Vestry of the Episcopal Church of the Holy Spirit Baton Rouge, LA Copy: The Right Reverend Charles E. Jenkins — END —

The Archbishop of Canterbury talks to Roy Hattersley about Tony Blair, war and God Sunday July 11, 2004 | The Observer Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of All England, possesses personal modesty and moral certainty in equal measure. Combined with the scholarly precision of his language and his unqualified belief in the message of the Gospels, those qualities make him reluctant to give glib answers to simplistic questions. They also enable him to express strong views in gentle language. It is a technique which allowed Downing Street to describe his criticisms of government ('manipulating the media ... habitually repressing criticism') as 'elliptical'. He could hardly have been more direct in his condemnation of the war in Iraq. At a time when mistakes are being admitted and errors of judgment exposed, didn't he think an apology was necessary. He does not. 'Those who took the decision [to go to war] were acting in good faith.' I suggested that 'acting in good faith' understated the conviction of a Prime Minister who 'has no doubt that he is doing God's work'. The Archbishop described the Blair conscience in more theologically acceptable terms. 'He believes that he's answerable for what he does, and I respect that.' Answerable? Rowan Williams had already spoken of the instigators of the war being 'called to account'. Unsure what that meant, I asked him to explain. 'Two levels. At the simplest level, the public - nations, electorates - watch for the results. Politicians take large risks. I think they know that and the Prime Minister acknowledged it. Anyone making decisions involving the lives and welfare of other people must answer to God.' I asked, in the language of the Victorian Church, if the answer would be required 'at the Judgment Seat'. To my astonishment, the Archbishop of Canterbury replied - carefully enunciating each word - 'at the Judgement Seat'. That raised the question of what the penalty would be for an inadequate reply. I understood that, in life, Tony Blair and George W Bush might have to live with the knowledge that the death and destruction in the Iraq war could not morally be justified. But was the Archbishop talking about punishment after death? The penalty for those 'found wanting' at the Judgment Seat is, or used to be, Eternal Damnation. The Archbishop of Canterbury worships a more merciful and a more subtle God. 'Not damnation. But you know the scale of the mistakes you've made ...' I interrupted him to make sure I understood that he meant more than the regrets of old age. Was he, I asked, talking about 'the life to be, God's reckoning?' The Archbishop's reply - expanding the general to the particular - could not have been more categoric. 'You only see the clear perspectives of the situation when some of the ordinary muddles and selfishness of what life now involves have somehow slipped away. I'm talking about judgment and punishment. I've always thought that the essence of judgment is simply to be face to face with the truth - and no escape.' Was he really saying George W Bush and Tony Blair - and the rest of us - would, after death, still be able to feel guilt and remorse? Again, there was no doubt about the Archbishop's certainty. In the next life we will all be 'cognisant and conscious' beings, capable of suffering the torment of the truth about ourselves. Putting aside the implication of that doctrine for the Prime Minister and the President, it seemed - in my atheist ignorance - astonishing that a man of such obvious intellectual sophistication should speak in such fundamentalist language. The time had come to advance into the remote recesses of faith. 'Is it possible,' I asked, 'to be simply an ethical Christian or must I believe in the mysteries and miracles?' The answer - hedged about with a description of how a moral commitment usually evolves into 'something pretty indistinguishable from those doctrines' - seemed to be 'No'. I moved on to another one of the great intangibles. Are human beings redeemed, that is to say 'saved', by good works or by faith? The Archbishop answered that 'big classical question' with the explanation that 'neither good works (the way you act) nor faith (a state of mind) can guarantee a place in heaven. What brings you into eternal life is a relationship with God' - an answer which did not help me fumble my way towards my intended inquiry about 'the good life' (pace Thomas Aquinas rather than Tony Bennett). So I just asked, 'Is it the Church's job - your job as its head - to guide the nation's morals?' 'It is the duty of a religious community, part of its job, to say to the rest of society: "This is what matters about human beings, these are non-negotiable things about human beings" ... There are a range of matters where the Church says this far and no further - the image of God requires more than this.' So how does the Church decide what those issues are? 'There is always a range of possible issues and there is a danger of them becoming issues of the week. I think ecclesiastical spokesmen are prone to this ... A lot depends on being a bit reactive - what comes up at a particular moment.' It was the Archbishop of Canterbury's misfortune to have the issue of gay clergy - the nomination of Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading - 'come up' at the very start of his archiepiscopate. I wondered if the wounds, endured as a result of his reaction to that proposal, had healed. Is he 'anxious not to be quite as controversial as it was assumed he would be when first appointed?' 'A lot of people helped to build up the picture of the controversial, turbulent priest. I have to be as honest as I can within the framework of the responsibilities I have to a large range of people. I have never thought there is any virtue in being controversial for its own sake.' Although Rowan Williams is a man whose word it is impossible to doubt, it did seem - during his early months in Lambeth Palace - that he was attracted to trouble. In February 2003, he announced that it was 'perfectly reasonable for those hoping to stay in Britain to be kept in secure accommodation while their cases are considered'. He appears genuinely surprised that his statement was interpreted as a support for imprisoning asylum seekers. That was not his intention. He meant 'security in a wider sense' - a concept difficult to define. Thirteen months later, he again demonstrated the wisdom of not commenting on the event of the week. He criticised Footballers' Wives for exhibiting 'different sorts of selfish behaviour'. The programme's executive producer said the Archbishop had missed the point. He disagrees. 'I knew it was ironic. I knew it was self-parody. Like a good moral comedy, it drew out an extreme version of human behaviour.' But it was the peg on which he hung two fundamental criticisms of modern society which television epitomises and encourages. The first is 'emotional voyeurism' - not just observing sex and suffering, but wanting to see 'other people going through extremes of feeling - anger and misery'. Both television drama and reality TV pander to a taste which the Archbishop finds baffling as well as distasteful. That is not, in itself, unworldly, but a surprise that expressing such opinions makes tabloid headlines is. The question which now hangs over Rowan Williams is whether or not the bruising experience of those early months - the abuse from the homophobic wing of the Church and the threat by the African bishops to break up the Anglican Communion - had driven him back from his own convictions that gay clergy, homosexual in inclination but celibate in life, should not be victimised. I suggested a preoccupation with unity was the reaction to be expected from a 'Prince of the Church' while the refusal to be driven off principle was the response of a 'Man of God' and that the accusation that he had chosen to occupy the wrong role was a 'very severe criticism'. He accepted the severity of the criticism but refuted it with the insistence that 'unity is a principle ... it is all to do with a calculation that goes something like this. The decision was one which severely ruptured a whole set of relationships which are not about structural harmony but about mutual learning and mutual giving - relationships, let's say, between churches in the developing world and the Church here or the Church in the States. To rupture those relations would be bad for the Church not as an institution but as a community ... making people feel they have not been taken seriously.' He then added, with admirable humility, 'I recognise the argument of unity versus principle and it stings. It goes deep.' No one can doubt that it does. But, integrity being beyond question, his decision may have been an error of judgment. I suggested that men and women of every sort are longing for people who speak out, who say 'it is wrong to discriminate against gays and I do not care what the consequences are of my saying so. It is a matter of principle.' Wouldn't it do the Church a world of good if people said that sort of thing? The Archbishop got very near to agreeing and perilously close to exhibiting regret that the inhibitions which are imposed upon him require discretion. 'I have had it borne in on me - I do not mean by weighty figures but borne in by the office - that, as Archbishop, I have to keep as many voices in play as possible ... The voices in the developing world, people who regularly feel marginal in pretty well every respect, this is another turn of the screw for them. I'm serious about the international dimension here. That is probably what weighs with me most, personally and emotionally.' Concern for the developing world - in the argument about the acceptability of gay clergy, normally a euphemism for Nigerian obduracy - leaves a palpably principled Archbishop with a dilemma. Some of his brother bishops openly speak of homosexuals in the pure language of prejudice. How does he deal with them? 'When our conference had a discussion in '98 about this, one of the things that the famous resolution said was that we had a commitment to listen to the voices of gay people. When I hear what I do regard as deeply prejudiced voices coming out of the Church I say "look, we have that commitment as well" ... There are some things which should not be said in the Church or anywhere else.' The hope of renewed harmony lies, the Archbishop believes, in the 'difficult and quite recent principle that orientation and sexual behaviour can be distinguished'. Jeffrey John is celibate. But that has not prevented the Reverend David Holloway, leader of Reform within the Church of England, excoriating him. That, the Archbishop says, is why the 'discipline making a disjunction between orientation and behaviour is important. The Church is committed to it, whatever any individual cleric may say.' The Church of England exists on compromise. But Islam seems to flourish on the refusal to yield. If a young Muslim, working in a Birmingham car factory, says that it is absurd that during Ramadan he must not eat between dawn and dusk, he is told by his priest that the Koran brooks no amendment. I wondered if the Archbishop thought people responded more enthusiastically to an absolute view of belief and faith. 'Some clearly do. Some are clearly appalled by it. If you look, second- and third-generation Muslim families have a lot of the same problems with teenagers that other families do.' My suggestion that they may be just as prone to steal motor cars, but probably still believe that the sky is God's canopy provoked the response that an 'older generation of Muslims would have regarded seeing the sky as God's canopy and not stealing motor cars was a part of the same ethical tradition'. The Archbishop is all of a piece. He never tries to divide virtue between faith and good works. — END —

By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org March 6, 2026   ABUJA: The Rt. Rev. Richard Condie, Anglican Bishop of Tasmania told conferees gathered at GAFCON’s G26 mini-conference that the challenges facing the Church today should not come as a surprise. The Apostle John described false believers as a sign of “the last days,” referring to them as the spirit of antichrist, he said.   “We are here because of the antichrists among us,” Condie said, emphasizing that false teachers and false believers have always been a feature of Christian discipleship. He cautioned that the danger is not limited to those outside the orthodox faith. Church leaders themselves must guard their hearts against denying Christ. “We deny him when we expect deference and walk in pride as leaders,” he said. “We deny him when we are taken in by money given to us by heretical teachers.   We deny him when we live in immorality while claiming leadership in the Church.” Though the motivations may differ, Condie warned, the temptation remains the same: to abandon Christ.   Drawing from John’s teaching, (1 John 2), he urged the Church to remain steadfast in four ways: to remain in the truth, remain in the Word, remain in Christ, and remain in the Spirit. The Church’s confidence ultimately rests not in its leaders or structures, but in Christ himself, who continues to build his Church. “It is the last hour,” Condie said.   “On that day we will not stand before synods, or parliament, or secular courts. We will stand before the Lord Jesus Christ, the judge of heaven and earth. And how will we be found on that day?”   END

Choose this day whom you will serve… As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD (Joshua 24:15) March 6, 2026 Greetings from Abuja, Nigeria where 347 Anglican bishops and 121 lay and clerical Anglican leaders from 27 provinces met from 3-6 March 2026, generously hosted by our brothers and sisters in the Church of Nigeria. The Chair of the Gafcon Primates’ Council, Archbishop Laurent Mbanda, announced the inauguration of the Global Anglican Communion in the October 2025 Martyrs’ Day Statement (MDS). As that statement foreshadowed, we met in Abuja both to “confer and celebrate the Global Anglican Communion.” We gathered together under the Word of God prayerfully to discern the Lord’s future for the Global Anglican Communion, founded on the person and work of Jesus Christ and the authority of his word, and his commission to make disciples of all nations. We met each morning for prayer, praise and hearing God’s word. Our plenary sessions explored the implications of the MDS. Our Global Vision Event encouraged us in the work of fulfilling the Great Commission. The Future has Arrived For more than two decades, we have in prayerful humility called for the repentance of those senior leaders of the Anglican Communion who have denied the orthodox faith in word and deed. Reordering the Anglican Communion is now necessary, because a significant number of provinces who claim to be Anglican have abandoned the authority of Scripture and failed to follow Christ faithfully. While matters of human sexuality are one expression of this, this is merely symptomatic of doctrinal and moral departures from the teaching of Scripture. The leadership of the Canterbury Instruments of Communion have failed to exercise discipline and maintain the biblical witness and uphold fundamental Anglican doctrine as expressed in its Reformation Formularies (the Thirty-nine Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer including the Ordinal). Instead, these Instruments seek to hold together a confused communion of institutional co-existence, based on the fiction of “walking together” with those who are walking away from the truth of the gospel and the teaching of Jesus. The Bible at the Heart of the Communion The Church’s one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord. The communion is a fellowship of churches who submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, whose life and teaching is revealed in the Scriptures. We understand the Bible is to be ‘translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading’ (Jerusalem Declaration, Article II), which reflects Article VI of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion. The Bible is God’s Word written (Article XX). It was breathed out by him and written for us by faithful messengers. It carries God’s own authority and is its own interpreter – it is clear, sufficient and true for all times. God’s Word is the final authority in the church and in the life of discipleship. The Canterbury Instruments have compromised the authority of the Scriptures by normalising hermeneutical pluralism, elevating cultural capitulation, and reframing the rejection of Scripture’s authority and clarity as “good disagreement”, and not what it really is – false teaching. The Failure of the Canterbury Instruments We “reject the so-called Instruments of Communion, namely the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC), and the Primates’ Meeting, which have failed to uphold the doctrine and discipline of the Anglican Communion.” (MDS Recent Archbishops of Canterbury have failed to guard the faith by inviting bishops to Lambeth who have embraced or promoted practices contrary to Scripture. The former Archbishop of Canterbury welcomed the provision of liturgical resources for the Church of England to bless people who had entered same-sex civil marriages. The current Archbishop of Canterbury led the “Living in Love and Faith” project that produced these liturgical resources for the Church of England. The moral and spiritual authority of the Seat of Augustine has been severely compromised by this. Notwithstanding the unequivocal rejection of “homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture” as expressed in Resolution I.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference, contrary teaching has continued to gain a foothold in some Anglican provinces. At Lambeth 2022 it was treated as a matter over which Christians could disagree but remain in fellowship. Archbishop Justin Welby affirmed both a “traditional teaching” and a “different teaching”, the latter held by those who are “not careless about Scripture. They do not reject Christ. But they have come to a different view on sexuality after long prayer, deep study and reflection on understandings of human nature”. This is unambiguously contrary to Anglican doctrine as it has been received. The ACC and the Primates’ Meetings have likewise failed to uphold the doctrine and discipline of the Anglican Communion, notwithstanding the repeated recommendations of various reports, for example the 2004 Windsor Report. They have neither restrained nor challenged false teaching and instead have called for the acceptance of false teachers as fellow members of the Communion. A Confessional Communion True communion is confessional, rather than defined by a shared history or institutional structures. The Jerusalem Declaration, which includes the Reformation Formularies, expresses our common confession of the Biblical truth, shared faith, and communal conviction. We are in fellowship with all who assent to the Jerusalem Declaration. However, there is, and will continue to be, an institution that calls itself the Anglican Communion, which defines communion on an institutional basis. This body has recognised that its current institutional rules have failed to maintain genuine communion and is currently exploring the Nairobi-Cairo Proposals to change its institutional rules. But these proposals are based on a commitment to “walk together to the maximum possible degree” despite fundamental disagreement on the Bible’s teaching. This cannot lead to true communion. There are not two Communions, but two incompatible definitions of communion – one confessional, the other institutional. The Global Anglican Communion At its inception, the Anglican Communion was based on a common confession. At the first Lambeth Conference in 1867, Archbishop Charles Longley stated its purpose as: [for] cementing yet more firmly the bonds of Christian communion between Churches acknowledging one Lord, one faith, one baptism, connected not only by the ties of kindred, but by common formularies…our very presence here is a witness to our resolution to maintain the faith which we hold in common as our priceless heritage, set forth in our Liturgy and other formularies. The Global Anglican Communion is a return to this historic sense of the Anglican Communion as “a fellowship of autonomous provinces bound together by the Formularies of the Reformation” (MDS). True communion is a voluntary fellowship which at its heart is neither synodical nor legal. The Global Anglican Communion is neither a breakaway Communion nor an alternative Communion. The Jerusalem Statement clearly says that “We cherish our Anglican heritage and the Anglican Communion and have no intention of departing from it”. What has occurred instead is a shift of the stewardship of the Anglican Communion from the Canterbury Instruments to the Global Anglican Communion. We are returning the Anglican Communion to its roots. The Global Anglican Communion is not a new Communion, but the historic Anglican Communion reordered from within. We warmly invite all who submit to the Lord Jesus and cherish the Bible and our Anglican Formularies as expressed in the Jerusalem Declaration to join us. The Jerusalem Declaration as Our Confession Christian unity is not based on shared human values, inherited institutional structures or a common commitment to mission. These are merely the fruit of Christian unity, not its essence. According to John 17, Christian unity is union with Christ, a gift from God that comes from trusting the words of Jesus which the Father gave him. The English Reformers understood that the gospel revealed in Scripture is the source of life for the church now and for our eternal life together in the age to come. Consequently, they reformed their Church accordingly. The Jerusalem Declaration was written as an expression of authentic Anglican doctrine because the Canterbury-led Anglican Communion had lost connection to its biblical roots, compromising its values, structures and mission. To embrace the Jerusalem Declaration is to apply historical Anglican doctrine and practice to the needs of contemporary society. We encourage all provinces to distribute and recommend appropriate translations of the Jerusalem Declaration for study. Principled Disengagement While our fellowship in the Global Anglican Communion is based on assent to the Jerusalem Declaration, leadership in the Global Anglican Communion requires a principled disengagement from the Canterbury Instruments. Leaders who hold office in the Global Anglican Communion must not attend future Primates’ Meetings called by the Archbishop of Canterbury, nor attend the Lambeth Conference, nor attend ACC meetings or participate in Commissions of the ACC, nor personally approve financial contributions to the ACC. It is also expected that they will not receive financial assistance from compromised sources. This principle enables, for example, a Gafcon Branch chair in a mixed province to participate in Global Anglican Communion leadership. A full and public disengagement from these structures is necessary. The clear and consistent teaching of the New Testament is that those who seek to lead the church astray must not be tolerated and Christians must refuse to have fellowship with those who promote false teaching (Romans 16:17; 2 John 10-11; Revelation 2:20). Continued participation in these Canterbury-led meetings gives credence to the lie that it is possible to “walk together despite deep disagreement” with those who have abandoned biblical teaching. A separation from the Canterbury Instruments is necessary to demonstrate that such teaching is not of secondary importance. The warning of the prophet Amos rings true: “Can two walk together unless they are agreed?” (Amos 3:3). Office holders in the Global Anglican Communion who continue to participate in any Canterbury Instruments will not be able to continue in this role. Those who disengage from the Canterbury Instruments are not schismatic. The Church of England was reformed by Thomas Cranmer, leaving the errors of the Church of Rome behind. Like Cranmer, we are reforming the Communion from within and leaving the Canterbury Instruments behind. The Global Anglican Communion is committed to Anglican orthodoxy. The Jerusalem Declaration is the contemporary expression authentic Anglican Communion: apostolic in its foundation, global in its spread, and catholic in its beliefs. Constitutional Disconnection As noted above, participation in the Global Anglican Communion is by assent to the Jerusalem Declaration. That assent may be made by resolution of a Provincial or Diocesan Synod, or it could be incorporated into their respective constitutions. Parish Church Councils and individuals may also participate by assenting to the Jerusalem Declaration. Provinces which have yet to do so are encouraged to amend their constitution to remove any reference to being in communion with the See of Canterbury. However, we recognise that such amendments take time, and often involve complex canonical changes, sometimes requiring acts of civil parliaments. As such, whether or not an orthodox province or diocese makes such amendments, all (including churches) who have assented to the Jerusalem Declaration are participants in the Global Anglican Communion. For the sake of clarity, we avoid the language of being “in communion” due to its legal implications when discussing participation within the Global Anglican Communion. This is because some orthodox dioceses outside the UK have provincial constitutions that define their Church as being “in communion” with the Church of England. However, this in no way prevents such dioceses from participation as Global Anglicans, provided they give their assent to the Jerusalem Declaration. Gafcon has always been committed to supporting faithful Anglicans whether they stay in revisionist or mixed provinces or decide to leave and establish separate provinces or dioceses. This commitment will continue for Global Anglicans, as we seek to proclaim Christ faithfully to the nations and to see the Lord’s blessing upon his church, in the knowledge that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). Gafcon has always acknowledged that it is a matter of conscience, when rejecting the authority of revisionist leaders, as to whether one remains or not in a compromised ecclesial structure. We stand, for example, with those who remain within the Church of England who assent to the Jerusalem Declaration, who seek to remain as a faithful witness within the Church of England structures. And we stand with those who have joined Gafcon-authenticated, such as The Anglican Network in Europe, who are a faithful witness in the UK and Europe. Gafcon is Leading the Communion Successive statements from GAFCON Assemblies have expressed our commitment to reform the Anglican Communion, most recently in the 2023 Kigali Commitment. Resetting the Communion is an urgent matter… The goal is that orthodox Anglicans worldwide will have a clear identity, a global ‘spiritual home’ of which they can be proud, and a strong leadership structure that gives them stability and direction as Global Anglicans. Since 2008, Gafcon has taken the initiative to authenticate genuine Anglican dioceses and provinces which had been marginalised by revisionist leaders. Gafcon has also nurtured a real fellowship among Anglican churches based on shared theological conviction. Global Leadership for a Global Communion Gafcon’s initiative to reorder the Communion is a continuing expression of its leadership. Gafcon was originally formed as a fellowship within the Anglican Communion. Now that the Anglican Communion is being reordered, the Gafcon Primates Council has been replaced by the Global Anglican Council. The newly constituted Global Anglican Council consists of Primates, Advisors, and Guarantors as voting members. The Chair and Deputy Chair shall be elected from among the Primates by the whole Council. Primates who retire from their provinces will continue on the Council until the conclusion of the next GAFCON Assembly. We were delighted to hear at our gathering that Archbishop Laurent Mbanda has been elected Chair, Archbishop Miguel Uchôa has been elected Deputy Chair and Bishop Paul Donison has been elected as General Secretary. We recognise that there is still much work to be done by the Global Anglican Council, including working out the implications of the Jerusalem Declaration in word and deed. The role of the Global Anglican Council is to guard and strengthen the faith of Global Anglicans. They will acknowledge and welcome existing provinces and dioceses who desire to participate in the Global Anglican Communion, and will be responsible for inviting new Primates to a seat on the Council. The Global Anglican Council will also authenticate newly formed provinces and dioceses who seek recognition as Global Anglicans. Discerning the Communion’s Way Forward At Abuja, we rejoiced in the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ – the good news that God, in his great love for sinners, gave his Son so that, through his death and resurrection, sinners might be forgiven and adopted through the Spirit and live as God’s beloved children forever. Without this gospel, the Church dies. We gathered to celebrate the inauguration of the reordered Global Anglican Communion, with this gospel at its heart. We invite all faithful Anglicans and all who wish to be Anglicans to be part of the Global Anglican Communion, where fellowship is based on a shared confession articulated in the Jerusalem Declaration which issues in a shared commitment to proclaim Christ faithfully to the nations. The theme of the G26 conference has been “Choose this day whom you will serve” (Joshua 24:15). While some of Israel’s forefathers had chosen to serve other gods, Joshua and his household chose to serve the Lord. Our Abuja Affirmation is that we and our global household of faithful Anglicans will also serve the Lord. The Most Revd Dr Laurent Mbanda Chairman, Global Anglican Council Abuja, Nigeria Friday, 6th March, 2026