News Analysis By David W. Virtue WEST CHESTER, PA--A rare double event took place in the Diocese of Pennsylvania this past weekend - an event that encapsulates the contradictions inherent in The Episcopal Church and in the wider Anglican Communion. A revisionist bishop who believes Jesus was a sinner and who forgave himself, and who likened the growth of the Anglican Church in Africa to the rise of the Nazi Party, behaved in a Hitlerian fashion by forcing his way, unwanted, onto an orthodox Bible-believing Episcopal parish. Another bishop, an African Primate, one of 38, was warmly welcomed by an orthodox congregation that believes in the authority of Holy Scripture and unchanging truth, for the exact opposite reasons. The first bishop, Charles E. Bennison (Pennsylvania) has poured scorn on the 'faith once delivered', arguing that the church wrote the Bible and could therefore could rewrite it, that God's revelation is continually evolving, and that one can find unity and truth through the collective mind and will of the contemporary church. The other, an Archbishop, Bernard Malango (Central Africa) believes that God's truth is unchanging, and that timeless doctrines cannot be rewritten to suit the current zeitgeist. Bennison believes that evolving truth means God has changed his mind about sexuality issues, and we should all just grow up and graduate from the dreadful strictures of heterosexuality to the glorious freedom of pansexual behavior, to draw a wider circle to include God's Kinky Ones into the church if not exactly into the kingdom. The Archbishop, whose faith has been tested in the vortex of pain and suffering, believes that God's unchanging moral laws cannot be compromised to suit the tastes of a few post-modernist, whiny sodomites, while the Pennsylvania bishop believes, along with some 60 of his fellow ECUSA bishops, that whatever the culture demands, the church should quickly adapt and follow. This past weekend, these two worldviews collided head on. And they symbolize in no small measure the dilemma the entire Anglican Communion faces as it waits anxiously for the Lambeth/Eames Commission to complete its task. In truth these two worldviews can never be reconciled. Never. They are as far apart as God is from Satan, as heaven is from hell and Jack Spong (Newark ret.) is from Keith Ackerman (Bishop of Quincy). And it is why the Lambeth (Eames) Commission is facing an uphill battle trying to find neutral ground where everyone can meet, get along and smoke peace pipes. It is not going to happen. Because if the Commission does allegedly find common ground we would see a liberal tyranny the like of which you are now only just beginning to see coming from the heterodox bishops in the Episcopal Church and in the Anglican Church of Canada. If you think that Bishop Bennison, who won't allow orthodox graduates from Nashotah House or Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry into his diocese, or won't allow an orthodox graduate from one of those seminaries to be ordained in his diocese, or tried to prevent a fellow bishop who is orthodox from baptizing his grand-daughter in an orthodox parish, then you don't know what tyranny is, or you have blinders on and don't want to see what is going on. And that has been the tragedy of the Episcopal Church's orthodox for the past 30 years. The orthodox have naively believed that if they drew enough lines in the sand and made the compromises necessary the other side would either see the light or at least come half way with them. They were fools. It never happened. The orthodox have drawn more lines in the sand than there are rings around Uranus, and whenever they thought they got close enough to a compromise or, heaven forbid, the other side might be wrong about sex, the other side screamed 'local option' and it was all over. The revisionists have had one goal for three generations - to win the culture wars by turning the seminaries into theological and moral cesspools, seducing biblically illiterate bishops into feeling their pain of exclusion over sexual misbehavior, and watering down whatever doctrines they had left to make them camera ready for the United Religions Initiative. In Canada this week, the Anglican General Synod voted to amend a motion on same-sex blessings to include a consultation on the experiences of gay and lesbian people. But a motion to amend this to also include "ex-gays and lesbians" was defeated. Peter Ould, himself an "ex-gay" expressed his outrage in the following language. "Since the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality as a disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) 30 years ago, no evidence has emerged that there is a substantive biological, genetic or chemical basis to homosexual attraction." Mr. Ould is right of course, but the revisionists led by their newly anointed primate Montreal Archbishop Andrew S. Hutchison did not want to hear that. And then to double the insult they went right ahead and elected a Vancouver gay priest to be the second-in-command for the Canadian Synod. Jesus was right. "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's (read Bishops robes) clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them." And now we are seeing the "fruit" in living technicolor and when you open it, you find it rotten to the core.

Liberal teachings bring church split Orthodox Episcopalians form own congregation By Geneive Abdo Tribune religion reporter June 6, 2004 Disillusioned with the liberal teachings of the national Episcopal Church, a group of orthodox Episcopalians will hold its first service Sunday at the Church of Christ the King in Evanston, a new congregation born of a nationwide conflict. Wes Schneider, one of the founders, hopes the breakaway church--believed to be the first in Illinois, if not the Midwest--will draw similar-minded Episcopalians from throughout the Chicago area. The congregation, being launched in a rented 74-year-old gothic church on Sheridan Road that is lined with Tiffany stained-glass windows, is one of dozens of breakaway churches sprouting across the United States as conservatives part ways with the Episcopal Church USA. The division in the national church over social issues, including gay rights and the ordination of women, has been widening since leaders approved V. Gene Robinson, an openly gay cleric, as bishop in New Hampshire last year. The split has left liberals with a church dwindling in numbers and facing doubts over its place in the more conservative worldwide Episcopal body, the Anglican Communion. For conservatives who believe they represent the true Episcopal Church, the challenge will be whether to try to join the Anglican Communion as a separate group or try to reclaim the Episcopal Church USA. Bishop William Persell, head of the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago, said the new congregation is "unfortunate" and a "distraction" from the mission of the Episcopal Church. But he said the diocese would not take measures to oppose it. Schneider said he was inspired to establish a church because his former congregation, the Church of the Holy Comforter in Kenilworth, had become too liberal. His parish pastor, Rev. Robert Myers, endorsed Robinson's consecration. Then, in January, Myers delivered a pastoral address saying the Bible is not the direct word of God, Schneider said. "When Rev. Myers said the Bible is not the word of God, I knew I had to leave the church," said Schneider, sitting inside the Church of Christ the King, located five miles from his former congregation. Repeated requests for an interview with Myers and other church administrators went unanswered Friday. The theological debate between liberal and orthodox Episcopalians is primarily over the degree of authority of Scripture. Other faiths are locked in similar conflicts. Traditional and modernist Muslims are split over whether the Koran should be literally interpreted and applied to modern life, and the divide among Christians surfaced after the debut of the movie "The Passion of the Christ." Director Mel Gibson and his supporters argued the film represented a literal interpretation of the Bible. But others said the Gospels were not meant to be taken at face value. Rev. David Anderson, president of the conservative American Anglican Council, a national organization, said the dispute in the Episcopal Church has reached a new phase. "How one lives out their sexual life is only the symptom of our dispute," said Anderson. "The underlying cause is the authority of Scripture. The orthodox give it serious authority and the revisionists do not. "What we have in liberal dioceses is bishops who no longer believe what Christianity has taught for 2,000 years but have put a New Age spin on things." Canon Kendall Harmon is part of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes, a breakaway movement that wants to reclaim the Episcopal Church in the United States. Some of the new churches in the United States have joined the network, founded earlier this year, primarily in protest of Robinson's consecration. Harmon, a scholar, accused the Episcopal Church USA of repudiating the Bible. "Some think you should stand in judgment of the Bible. But in fact, the Bible stands in judgment of us," he said. The controversy sparked by Robinson's appointment is global. At least nine of the 38 Anglican provinces worldwide have ended relations with the U.S. church. In Evanston, the new Church of Christ the King is leasing a building that for 60 years had housed an evangelical church. Rev. Joseph Murphy, formerly the rector of St. Mary's Episcopal Church in Reedville, Va., will lead the congregation. "We are following a traditional Christian approach to liturgy and life," Murphy said. The church's founders said they have not decided if they will join the breakaway Anglican network. They plan to wait until a congregation is formed, and they are uncertain how large it might be. But they said one thing is certain: They no longer consider themselves Episcopalians, but part of the worldwide Anglican Communion. That is a claim Bishop Persell challenged. "Episcopalians in the United States are part of the Anglican Communion," he said. "Thus, if they no longer consider themselves Episcopalians, they can't be part of the Anglican Communion." Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune

By Dr. Edith M. Humphrey June 4, 2004 Last night, following Evening Prayer, nine Bishops of the ACC who remain faithful to the Scriptural teaching on sexuality stood up before General Synod. They issued a statement of regret and exhortation to the Anglican Church of Canada, for which they have been unjustly criticized. I am thankful for their forthright assertion that the "opinion" of the current Synod was "in error," "contrary to the teaching of Scripture and the tradition of the undivided Church," "the Lambeth Conference of 1998," "the…ecumenical consensus of the Church," and "the 1997 Guidelines" of the Canadian HOB. Unfortunately, customary Canadian politesse has led my dear friends and our leaders to call for restraint while the house is on fire. Resolution A-134 was bad enough: it settled for a three-year extension to a discussion that has gone about as far as possible, ending in theological impasse between irreconcilable positions. it implied that the issue of blessing homoerotic relationships may well not be a matter of doctrine—that is to be decided. The imported last minute amendment to "affirm the integrity and sanctity of committed adult same sex relationships" is downright darkness. Indeed, it uses theological terms ("sanctity"), and this means that the framers of this resolution have already decided how it is that the three-year discussion will conclude. For if something is deemed "holy," who is the church, or any church council, to forbid it? Indeed, any synodal permission to "bless" is simply icing on the cake. Those currently blessing these so-called "unions" will continue to do so, undisciplined, for they are simply "affirming" what "God" has already accepted; those parishes and dioceses desiring to begin this practice will do so unencumbered, for they have seen that even dissenters in the Canadian Church have no stomach to do anything stronger than "regret" such actions. Last night's statement from the traditionalist bishops said that this "may be causing confusion in the Church." In fact, the whole week, entitled "catharsis and switch" by one shrewd analyst, is already a major stumbling block. The hemorrhage of the ACC has begun: those who stay have as much to fear as those who escape this schismatic province. Is there a fearless leader to the south or the global south who will offer refuge? Let us pray so. Would that our cautious leaders had not simply expressed thanks to the Bishops of the Global South, and support for the AciNW! Would that they had emulated those courageous bishops directly to their south, who last August stood "filled with sorrow!" Those U.S.A. pastors (admittedly in an un-Canadian American style) roundly rejected the action of ECUSA's General Convention as an act that "divided itself from millions of Anglican Christians around the world." Surely the Canadian synod has likewise departed from the historic church, and from those who hold to the truth amidst dangerous conditions, even by speaking out of both sides of the mouth. Though this synod has not agreed to bless same sex unions, nor to consecrate a practicing fornicator, it has called these arrangements blessed, smiled on "gay" and pro-gay schismatic leaders, and suffered its newest Primate to criticize his dissenting bishops as divisive. Confusion reigns supreme. Article XXI may be a certain comfort, since it is true that the Church has seen hard times. But how do we know that this communion has simply "acted unwisely" and that it is "still the Body of Christ." Has any prophet seen the candlestick still upright? Theologians with the acumen of Pannenburg and Packer have called this a communion-breaking issue. It is true that homoerotic sin is no graver than any of the garden variety iniquities that would bind us all. However, not to discipline those who have acted without reference to the rest of the Church, to assert that this state is blessed, and to set up a constitutional quibble about whether this is a doctrinal issue, and to malign those who dissent from the decision —these acts are deadly. How can faithful Canadians continue to be complicit with those who are determined to lead the Church away from the truth, or spend more time in synods that doubt Biblical, historical and ecumenical teaching? Continued discussion is to engage with the Enemy in his "Hath God said?" rhetoric. Many faithful Anglicans in Canada must now choose between their well-meaning leaders, who have asked them to so engage, and their conscience. Perhaps the international community will intervene in our confusion and timidity, whether or not we deserve it. Is this a "doctrinal issue"? How can it be otherwise? The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) considered debates about eating non-kosher food theological, and called on the churches of God to act together. If food matters to catholicity, how much more does our sexuality! Sexuality has to do with our doctrine of humanity (anthropology). Anthropology is directly related to the doctrine of the church, and to the doctrines concerning our triune and holy God, in whose image humankind, male and female, have been created. In the wake of ECUSA's apostasy, the ACC has veered off the way of the Lord. It has taken its candlestick to a new altar. It is colluding with the spirit of this age. May those Canadian shepherds who still hear the word of the Lord on this issue wake up, and hear God's voice, "Come out of her, my people, lest you partake in her iniquities." And may they take counsel with the whole people of God to decide how best to do this. Edith Humphrey is Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. An Anglican layperson, she served as Professor of Scripture at Augustine College, Ottawa, Canada, from 1997 - 2002. Prior to her departure, she served as Dean. Before her service at Augustine College, she had an extended career as Lecturer at several colleges and universities in Canada. Her Ph.D. is from McGill University, Montreal. As well as being the author of numerous articles, she is the author of two books, Joseph and Aseneth (Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), and The Ladies and the Cities, Transformation and Apocalyptic Identity in Joseph and Aseneth, 4. Ezra, the Apocalypse and The Shepherd of Hermas (JSOT Press, 1995). She is a co-author of Longing for God: Anglicans Talk about Revelation, Nature, Culture, and Authority (ABC Publishing, 2001). She was a member of the Canadian Primate's Theological Commission, and the New Westminster Dialogue on Sexuality.

Failures go right to the top of the ecclesiastical chain COMMENTARY   By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org February 8, 2026   If you wonder why the Global South in all its variety regards the Church of England with mild scorn, but with even deeper shouts of heresy, one need look no further than its failed safeguarding practices.   It is a mockery of all that is holy.   Dr. Ian Paul, an evangelical theologian in the CofE outlines it all here. https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/do-we-have-safeguarding-leadership-in-the-church-of-england/   The prevailing mentality combines deliberate stalling tactics, prolonged and agonizing delays in implementing the practices, the ignoring of facts about vicars who perpetuate harmful practices on children time and time again without fear that any permanent discipline will come their way.   It is a shocking display of hubris, "I see nothing here" that must shock the living God. Why this has not become a Sodom and Gomorrah moment is bewildering. Why these archbishops, bishops and clergy have not been turned into pillars of salt for the harm they have caused by their neglect and blindness can only be explained by a long-suffering God who will in His time judge them all at the Last Judgement.   Let us look at the to-ing and fro-ing between the newly anointed Archbishop of Canterbury, Sarah Mullally, an appointment already rejected by the vast majority of the Global South and the Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell.   It is a study in denial, lies, half-truths and a blatant refusal to face facts.   Archbishop Mullally was credibly charged with failed safeguarding.   A Premier Christian News investigation into the case of N, who claims he was abused by a priest in the Diocese of London, refuses to go away. N said the response and lack of investigation into his claims by the Diocese of London and Sarah Mullally, as Bishop of London, caused him to have such a severe mental health breakdown that he made two attempts on his life.   He brought a CDM complaint against the accused priest, but Bishop Mullally was accused of contravening the safeguarding code of practice by sending a confidential email about the allegations directly to the priest concerned, outside of the CDM process.   In 2020, Survivor N brought a complaint under the CDM for her handling of his case, but he and his solicitors heard nothing more until Premier contacted the Diocese of London in December 2025. It emerged that the complaint hadn't progressed and was no longer outstanding.   Following the Premier investigation, the Church of England undertook a scrutiny report into Bishop Mullally's handling of the case, with the Archbishop of York given the final decision. In his final ruling dismissing the complaint, Most Rev Stephen Cottrell wrote: "After having very carefully reviewed the matter I have determined that no further action will be taken in respect of this complaint." He added: "Accordingly, I am entirely satisfied that there is no misconduct".   In a statement to Premier in December, Bishop Sarah said the CDM complaint against the accused priest had been "fully dealt" with. N disputed this and has now received a letter from the Diocese of London's Registrar Stuart Jones, informing him that the allegations against the priest would now be looked into. The Bishop of Fulham has been tasked with handling the complaint which should be dealt with within 28 days.   Both Archbishop Stephen and Bishop Sarah are still subject to separate complaints under the Clergy Discipline Measure. The two complaints were filed by N in December and are being overseen by the Bishop of Winchester Rt. Rev. Philip Mounstephen.   This is like two foxes guarding the henhouse. The only thing missing is the backslapping and a 'keep on keeping on' moment.   That Mullally said she did all she could was clearly untrue and Cottrell exonerated her while he himself faced similar failed safeguarding issues.   Archbishop Cottrell’s failed safeguarding is even more egregious and deliberate. Consider the case of the Rev. David Tudor.   Tudor was ordained in the Church of England, and served in Southwark Diocese in the 1980s, and then in Chelmsford Diocese from 2000, as Rector of Canvey Island. As a BBC report from a year ago notes:   In 1988, David Tudor was a defendant in two criminal trials. In the first trial, he was acquitted of indecently assaulting a 15-year-old school girl although he admitted having sex with her when she was 16.   In the second trial, he was convicted of indecently assaulting three girls and was jailed for six months. The conviction was quashed on technical grounds because the judge had misdirected the jury. In 1989, Tudor was banned for sexual misconduct by a Church tribunal but was allowed to return to ministry after 5 years. In 2005, Tudor was suspended as police investigated an allegation he had indecently assaulted a child in the 1970s. He was not charged and was allowed back to work under conditions. From January 2008, Tudor had been working under a safeguarding agreement preventing him from being alone with children or entering schools in Essex—and yet months later he had become an area dean in charge of 12 parishes.   All this was known by Cottrell when he was appointed bishop of Chelmsford in 2010. In 2012, Cottrell was told about the £10,000 payout Tudor had made to Jessica, who says she was sexually abused by him, sometimes very violently, from the age of 11 during the 1970s when Tudor was training to be a minister. Cottrell nevertheless reappointed Tudor, not once but twice, as Area Dean, and also (as part of a new diocesan policy Cottrell introduced) made him an Honorary Canon of Chelmsford Cathedral.   In 2019, fresh allegations were made, and Tudor was suspended from ministry. Ian Paul noted that there was a long delay in bringing a formal tribunal against Tudor, because the police were slow to review the case and decided that they would not prosecute. Finally, a Church disciplinary tribunal found Tudor guilty of gross misconduct and banned him for life.   A senior Church of England disciplinary decision concluded that there was "no case to answer" in relation to the Archbishop of York's handling of the David Tudor safeguarding case. REALLY? This is an example of institutional failure, personal failure and anybody daring to challenge the prevailing ecclesiastical and theological winds.   In any secular environment would Cottrell still be holding onto his job? Hell no. He'd be tossed to the curb. Not even he could play the victim game, or "I couldn't do anything about it" nonsense.   It should not be forgotten that two archbishops of Canterbury resigned over sex abuse scandals.   Former Archbishop George Carey got his head handed to him following a damning report on abuse perpetrated by John Smyth, a Christian leader and alleged serial abuser. Carey resigned from his last formal role in the Church after Dame Moira Gibb's independent investigation found he covered up, by failing to pass to police, six out of seven serious sex abuse allegations relating to 17- to 25-year-olds against Bishop Peter Ball a year after Carey became archbishop.   Former Archbishop Justin Welby took the fall over his failure to deal adequately with the findings of the Makin Report and the brutal beatings by the now deceased lawyer John Smyth.   Dr. Paul asks three questions: How can the Archbishops' Council oversee aspects of safeguarding with confidence, with Stephen one of the two senior figures on the Council and its notional chair? How can the General Synod make decisions on safeguarding implementation, with Stephen as one of its presidents? How can the wider Church have confidence in safeguarding policy, when someone responsible for such serious failures remains in post?   Cottrell should resign, but that won't happen because Mullally has his back. But it is yet another reason why 98% of the British public have no confidence in the Church of England; have little interest in its woke messaging, and, most egregiously, its priests are too afraid to tell people that rejecting the gospel has eternal consequences.   It is not just the church's failed safeguarding, it is the church's failed gospel messaging, and that, as the apostle Paul says in Rom. 1:18, invites "the wrath of God…against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness." And that includes archbishops and bishops in the Church of England.   END

By Peter Johnston ANGLICAN COMPASS February 3, 2026   For more than 400 years, the Anglican tradition has played a central role in the development of the United States of America. The intellectual culture of recent decades has obscured this historical truth, both on account of revisionist historians who see America as a secular nation and also by the failure of Anglicans to tell our own story. But as lifelong Anglican George Washington wrote in 1794, “truth will ultimately prevail where pains is taken to bring it to light.” With some effort, then, we will see the importance of Christianity, and especially Anglicanism, to the American Experiment.   This brief survey is intended as the first of an extended series of articles on the topic of Anglican America. Written by a broad cross-section of authors over the course of 2026, our series will engage the national discourse of the nation’s semiquincentennial year. Even more importantly, with this series, we lay claim to our own notable history, seeking as living heirs to rediscover and reassert the genius of Anglicanism as we chart a course for the future. May this work bless our churches, our nation, and the proclamation of the gospel of Christ to all nations of the earth.   Anglican America: Five Eras We can divide the history of Anglican America into five eras, each spanning approximately one century. Here I provide a brief summary of each era, together with a selection of notable figures. The date after each figure represents the feast day from the calendar of the BCP 2019 or a proposed date for those of particular piety or religious significance, indicated by an asterisk. Those whose notability is primarily secular but who were nonetheless Anglican during their lives have not been assigned a potential commemoration.   17th Century: Colonial Anglicans The first Christian liturgy in the colonies was conducted in 1607, at Jamestown, Virginia. The people prayed from the Book of Common Prayer, gathered outside under a ship’s sail. By the end of the 17th century, Anglicanism was the established church of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and even New York City. The deep roots of Anglicanism in these states remain evident today, and the oldest Anglican parishes from the colonial period, such as St. Philip’s Church in Charleston, South Carolina, and Falls Church in Virginia, are now among the nation’s largest Anglican congregations.   Moreover, the Puritan colonists in New England were themselves a movement within Anglicanism. Their early clergy were ordained as Anglican priests, and although they eventually separated from the Anglican Church, the tradition left a lasting imprint on them. This accounts for the strong alignment between Puritan and Anglican preachers during the Great Awakening of the 1730s and 1740s.   Notable 17th Century Anglicans Robert Hunt, Priest and Chaplain to Jamestown Colony (April 26*) Alexander Whitaker, Priest and Missionary to Virginia (March 13*) Pocahontas, First Native American Convert Thomas Bray, Priest, Missionary, and Founder of Public Libraries (Feb 15) John Winthrop, Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony Richard Mather, Priest, Translator, Theologian (April 22*) John Eliot, Priest, Missionary to Native Americans, Translator, Educator (May 21*) John Harvard and Elihu Yale, Philanthropists John and Charles Wesley, Priests and Reformers of the Church (March 3)   18th Century: The Revolution of Anglican Laity In the run-up to the American Revolution, a majority of Anglican clergy were Loyalists, and in the Revolution, many of these clergy actually left the country. The recent musical Hamilton, for example, spoofs the New York clergyman Samuel Seabury, who took the opposite side of Alexander Hamilton and argued against the revolution. What is often missed here, however, is that Alexander Hamilton was himself a layman in the Anglican church. Hamilton and Seabury thus reflect, in microcosm, the major theme of Anglicanism in relation to the Revolution: clerical loyalism, together with lay leadership.   The most prominent Revolutionary Anglican, of course, was George Washington himself. He was not a rare case; more than half of all delegates to the Continental Congress were Anglicans, and they were all laymen.   In the aftermath of the American Revolution, Anglican parishes faced the dilemma of how to continue now that the political link to England had been severed. But this dilemma proved a blessing in disguise, for the old system of sending seminarians to England was never very effective anyway. The clear need was for a new line of bishops in America, which was achieved in the consecrations of Samuel Seabury of Connecticut (yes, him again!) and William White of Pennsylvania, who formed The Episcopal Church to continue the Anglican ministry in the newly formed United States.   Notable 18th Century Anglicans George Washington, General and President Martha Washington, First Lady Alexander Hamilton, General and Cabinet Member Samuel Seabury, First American Bishop (November 14) William White, First Presiding Bishop of the USA (July 17) 19th Century: Anglicans on the Frontier With the arrival of Bishops in America, it became possible for Anglicans to pursue frontier missionary efforts in the American West. The prototype for this ministry was Jackson Kemper, consecrated by William White in 1835 to serve as the church’s first missionary bishop. Kemper subsequently ministered in a territory including Indiana, Missouri, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and Nebraska, an area roughly the size of Europe!   The era of expansion was also marked by the contributions of remarkable Anglican laity. Most prominently, President Thomas Jefferson appointed two Anglican laymen, Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, to explore the newly acquired Louisiana territory (which extended from modern Louisiana northwest to Montana!). Though Lewis died shortly after the expedition in 1809, Clark settled in St. Louis, where he led the effort to establish the first Anglican parish and served on its vestry.   Wherever Anglicans went, they established schools, colleges, and other institutions to support the secular education of the people and the spiritual education of future clergy. An important early figure in this movement was William Augustus Muhlenberg, who developed the model of the Church School and trained the next generation of leaders. James Lloyd Breck, for example, went from working in New York for Muhlenberg to serving under Kemper in Wisconsin and founding Nashotah House.   The Civil War saw a severe division within the American church, with clergy and laity serving in both the Union and Confederate armies. The southern branch of the church declared itself independent, though the two sides reunited after the war. In northern states, many Anglicans became staunch abolitionists, with some churches even serving as hubs on the Underground Railroad. Less than 20 years later, in 1885, the first African American bishop, Samuel David Ferguson, was consecrated as the Missionary Bishop to Liberia.   Notable 19th Century Anglicans Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Presidents Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, Explorers Jackson Kemper, First Missionary Bishop in the United States (May 24) William Augustus Muhlenberg, Priest, Reformer, and Educator (April 8) James Lloyd Breck, Priest, Missionary, and Educator (April 3) Absalom Jones, First African-American Priest (Feb 13) Alexander Crummell, Priest and Abolitionist (August 10) Harriett Starr Cannon, Founder of the Community of St. Mary and Educator (April 5*) Constance and her Companions, Martyrs of Memphis (August 9) Samuel David Ferguson, Missionary and First African-American Bishop (August 2*) Phillips Brooks, Bishop and Hymwriter (January 23*) William Reed Huntington, Priest and Ecumenist (July 27) 20th Century: The Rise and Fall of the Anglican Mainline By the turn of the 20th century, Anglicanism was newly confident in its place in broader American society. This explains the ambition (and presumption) of Episcopalians in Washington, D.C., to build a new “National Cathedral,” constructed of stone, in the European Gothic style. Based on designs by architect Henry Vaughan, construction began in 1907, with an address by President Theodore Roosevelt. As construction continued throughout the 20th century, the Cathedral became the site of major state events, including inaugural prayer services, memorials, and presidential burials. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a lifelong member of the Episcopal Church, began the practice of attending an annual prayer meeting on the occasion of his inauguration.   The high status of the Episcopal Church contributed to both its rise and its fall in the 20th century. On the one hand, the Episcopal Church became a natural landing place for an upwardly mobile postwar middle class. By 1960, the membership rolls swelled to more than 3,500,000 across some 7500 parishes. On the other hand, the Episcopal Church’s close alliance with the educational and social elite meant that it was unable to resist the liberal theology and the sexual revolution that swept universities and elite culture in the mid-20th century.   Both clergy and lay leaders began to openly question central tenets of the faith, including the divinity of Christ, his virgin birth, his bodily resurrection, and his judgment of the saved and the damned. Moreover, biblical morality, especially concerning gender and sexual ethics, was relativized as a relic of a bygone age. As the church lost confidence in God’s word, it began an inevitable decline. This culminated in the 2003 consecration of Gene Robinson, a divorced man in a same-sex union, to be the Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire.   Notable 20th Century Anglicans Henry Vaughan, Architect of the National Cathedral (June 30*) Samuel Shoemaker, Priest and Renewer of Society (Jan 31) Franklin Delano Roosevelt, President Jonathan Myrick Daniels, Seminarian and Martyr (August 21) Alfred Stanway, Missionary Bishop and Educator (June 27*) George H.W. Bush, President J.I. Packer, Priest and Reformer, First Canon Theologian of the ACNA (July 17*)   21st Century: Anglican Realignment and the Future Beginning in the late 1990s and accelerating after the consecration of Gene Robinson in 2003, a group of individuals, parishes, and eventually dioceses leave the Episcopal Church, seeking oversight from orthodox Anglican bishops worldwide. In 2008, those same bishops gathered in Jerusalem for the first GAFCON conference. They issued the Jerusalem Statement and Declaration, which reiterated the Biblical teaching on marriage, deplored the innovations of the Episcopal Church, and called for the creation of a new Anglican province in North America. The subsequent year saw the formation of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). Today, the ACNA is small but growing, with some 125,000 Anglicans across 1000 parishes.   The most important city in this Anglican realignment was Pittsburgh, for two reasons. First, the founding Archbishop of the ACNA was Bob Duncan, the Bishop of Pittsburgh, who led most of his diocese out of the Episcopal Church. Second, Pittsburgh was home to Trinity Anglican Seminary, founded in 1975 and having planted seeds of renewal for multiple decades. From the start, Trinity focused on the authority of the Bible, the importance of a personal relationship and commitment to Christ, and Christ’s call to evangelize the nations. These values would shape the emerging ethos of the ACNA, revitalizing Anglicanism for the 21st century.   The Ven. Dr. Peter Johnston is the Ministry President of Anglican Compass. He is a priest and archdeacon in the Anglican Diocese of All Nations and the rector of Trinity Lafayette. He lives with his wife, Carla, and their nine children near Lafayette, Louisiana.

By Chuck Collins www.virtueonline.org February 7, 2026   Why are there so many different churches? Mostly because there are so many different views of the Lord's Supper. The unwillingness of the Medieval Catholic Church to budge even an inch to the Protestants, and the unwillingness of the 16th century reformers to yield to one another, explains the important denominational differences. Are the elements of bread and wine automatically changed into the physical body and blood of Christ by a sacrificing priest on a sacrificial altar? Or, does the sacrament of Holy Communion mean something even more miraculous and fantastic? All the reformers agreed that transubstantiation was a violation of the central biblical doctrine of "justification by faith.” But they differed in their understandings of “real presence” in the eucharist.   Philip Hesse, one of Germany's leaders, called together the first generation principals of the Protestant Reformation with the hope that there could be Christian unity. Philip’s nickname was “the magnanimous.” The Marburg Colloquy (October 1-4, 1529) brought together the reformers who easily agreed on all matters of doctrine, 14-Articles, except for the last Article on the meaning of Holy Communion. The Colloquy is remembered for what it did not accomplish: "We have not been able to agree at this time whether the true body and blood of Christ are corporeally present in the bread and wine." All Protestants disavowed the Medieval teaching of transubstantiation: the belief that the substance of the elements change entirely into the body/blood of Christ, while the appearance and taste (the accidents) remain the same. The miracle for Roman Catholics is that bread and wine become the actual body and blood of our Lord to be lifted up and carried around for all to gaze upon and worship. Protestants, on the other hand, generally view real presence as Christ’s spiritual presence, as Christians faithfully receive the grace of the sacrament by faith with thanksgiving.   The standoff between Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli at Marburg is infamous. Luther taught that the blessed bread and wine of Communion is Christ’s corporeal body and blood, but, unlike transubstantiation, the breadness and wineness continue to exist united with the divine substance. Later this was called consubstantiation. Consubstantiation was Edward Pusey’s controversial position. Pusey was Anglican and a well known 1830’s Tractarian leader who viewed Christ’s body and blood “in, with, and under” the bread and wine. This was the adopted explanation of many high church Anglicans, even though it contradicts the clear teaching of the historic Anglican formularies. Zwingli was happily settled on the idea that the Lord's Supper is a memorial commemoration, symbolic of Jesus' death on the cross. Luther would not leave "This is my body" and Zwingli was stuck on "Do this in remembrance of me.”   The winner of the Marburg Colloquy, as far as Anglicans are concerned, was John Calvin who was not even present! Calvin and Archbishop Thomas Cranmer were essentially second-generation reformers riding on coattails, and clarifying those matters that were unclear at the beginning of the Reformation. It was Calvin and his followers who most influenced the Church of England’s reformed sacramental theology in the Book of Common Prayer and the Articles of Religion. Cranmer, the chief architect of the Prayer Book and Anglican’s confessional statement, believed that Christ is present “after an heavenly and spiritual manner” in the bread and wine of Communion, because his body is in heaven at the right hand of the Father. The greater miracle of Holy Communion is not the transformation of bread and wine, but the transformation in the hearts and wills of those who receive the grace of the sacrament by faith with thanksgiving (who receive “rightly, worthily, and with faith,” Article 28).   Borrowing ideas from the church fathers, especially Cyril of Alexandria, Cranmer spoke of communion as reunion (commingling) with Christ - the way wax melts and fuses together with other wax. And since Christ cannot be divided, human and divine (the Nestorian heresy), the happy reunion of Communion is with the whole Christ in heaven and on earth. Jesus reunions with his people, both spiritually in our hearts while raising us to be with him again in the “heavenly places,” that he may dwell in us and we in him. These are Cranmer's words of institution: "The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life; take and eat them in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving.”   When Jesus speaks of eating his flesh and drinking his blood in John chapter 6, he is not speaking specifically about the sacrament, but of the union Christians have when they become Christian and the reunion they enjoy in the sacrament: we are baptized with Christ in death and raised with him in resurrection (Romans 6). St. Paul puts it this way: “You were have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God” (Colossians 3:3).   On February 6, 1564, John Calvin preached his last sermon, ending a golden era and his twenty-three years ministry in Geneva. His mouth reportedly was filled with blood as he was carried away in a chair. Three months later he died.   (Recommended: "Thomas Cranmer Reputation Reconsidered," Ashley Null, Reformation Reputations: The Power of the Individual in English Reformation History, 2021, Ed. Crankshaw and Gross)

By Adrian Plass   DEAR READERS, I am strongly moved to take advantage of a half-hour break in a meeting that is being held in my home, to introduce all of you, and particularly those with church connections, to some of the people who are gathered in my sitting room at this very moment.   The meeting consists of representatives from a variety of oppressed Christian minorities, suffering brothers and sisters of yours and mine who have been dealt with very roughly by the wider church, and I just know that your hearts, dear readers of Ship of Fools, will go out to them in love and sympathy.   I cannot be away for too lengthy a period, as some of these minority representatives are likely to exercise their proclivities rather indiscriminately on each other, if you see what I mean.   You don't see what I mean? Ah, well, let me explain.   SITTING SIDE BY SIDE on the floor by the piano, for instance, are Phil and Bob, who run a helpline for those who see disembowelling as a natural and essential part of any intimate relationship. Some of us were in tears just now as we heard about the crass way in which these two fine young men were more or less rejected by their local church when they dared to suggest that the forcible removal of internal organs should become a regular feature of Sunday worship.   'The thing is,' said Bob, 'a lot of people have got a very blinkered and old-fashioned idea of what disembowelling is all about. We're not rushing wildly around with knives from morning to night, are we, Phil?'   As we all laughed at this absurd caricature, Phil's good-natured face broke into an infectious grin.' Good heavens, no,' he chuckled, 'we're not monsters, you know. We just think that if the need to disembowel and be disembowelled is part of the way we've been created, then there should be some recognition of that by the body of the church, and an opportunity on Sundays to express ourselves at least as openly as everyone else.'   At this point, a member of the group rather insensitively put forward a suggestion that disembowelling was a grotesque and appalling practice that invariably resulted in a lengthy and agonising death, and might therefore be outside the will of God.   It was good to see how patiently Bob and Phil handled this, but the pain in their eyes told its own story of similar hurts in the past, and our hearts went out to them — metaphorically.   'Look,' said Bob, 'we're the same as everyone else, right? We go to work, go to the supermarket, watch television — all the things that ordinary people do. The only real difference is that in order for us to feel fulfilled on the deepest level, we like to cut open abdominal cavities and drag out the contents. It really is as simple as that, and if anyone can find anywhere in the New Testament where Jesus in any way specifically condemns that kind of behaviour, well, I'd just like them to show me where it is.'   'And if he doesn't condemn it,' added Phil quietly, 'it's hard to see why anyone else should.'   SOMETHING IN THE calm dignity of these responses precluded further comment or criticism, and our attention turned to a reserved but pleasant looking lady called June, who had been listening interestedly from a stool on the other side of the room.   'It's really encouraged me to hear what Phil and Bob are saying,' she began shyly, 'because I've been trying to introduce human sacrifice as a regular activity at church weekends, and so far I've met nothing but opposition from the leadership.'   'What exactly is their problem?' asked somebody wonderingly.   June spread her arms wide and shook her head.' That's exactly what I'd like to know!' She exclaimed.' Apart from the personal outlet that it provides for me, I've tried to point out again and again what a good group activity it would be for people who don't always know each other very well.'   June's eyes shone with the bright light of the enthusiast as she warmed to her subject.' You break up into groups, you see, and each group has a different job. One lot gets sent off to collect dry paper and firewood, another sorts out a good strong stake and some rope and matches and that sort of thing, and the rest do sausages on sticks, and jugs of squash and sandwiches and whatnot to have round the pyre when it really gets going.'   This happy picture of bright and busy mutual involvement was greeted by expressions of interest and nods of approval from most of us, but the same troubled person who had already carped at disembowelling seemed to feel it necessary to throw cold water over this idea as well.   'How do you choose which person is going to be sacrificed?'   This was met by little gasps and sighs of incredulity and a general shaking of heads from the rest of us, but June held her ground well.   'Nobody who doesn't actually want to be burnt alive should have any pressure put on them, 'she declared firmly.' That would be quite wrong, and, in my view, quite unnecessary. Church people do tend to be a little wary about trying out new things, as we all know, but I think once they've understood what it was all about, there'd be no lack of volunteers.'   'I sometimes can't believe,' added June, her eyes suddenly filled with unshed tears, 'that people like Phil and Bob and me, whose only crime is to look for fulfilment through things like disembowelling and human sacrifice, are so marginalized by the church. Why are people so frightened by the needs of others?'   WE ALL SAT in silence for a moment, filled with unspoken sympathy as we pondered this seemingly unanswerable question. The silence was broken eventually by an elderly lady dressed in a rubber suit and carrying a spiked metal ball on the end of a chain.   'I suppose,' she said tentatively, 'that something like sado-masochism, which in itself is obviously morally neutral, tends to be given a bad name by a small number of irresponsible people who use it for their own selfish ends.'   She sighed deeply, gazing into the distance as she went on.' In the old days, you know, it was different. We used to have our own rack at home when father was alive, and on special occasions, we'd pull it out and put an aunt on it — it was usually an aunt, I seem to remember — and, you know, we'd all have a turn at the handle. It was such fun. A much greater sense of the extended family.'   She giggled at her own little joke. 'Nowadays, if you bring, say, a thumbscrew into a prayer meeting, everyone backs away and gets all sniffy. Church, generally, was so much better in the old days in every way. The traditional hymns were lovely, and we didn't get all muddled up, confusing what we believed with the way we lived.'   After that, the floodgates were opened. A small, round, balding man who had said nothing until now, sliced the air with scything gestures as he described a lifetime of survival at church in the face of outright disapproval of his deeply felt decapitational needs. Asked if he had ever found a partner, the little man held his head in both hands and shook it miserably from side to side. Most congregations are a long way from regarding mutual decapitation between consenting adults as an acceptable norm.   So much unhappiness! An athletic looking young lady painted a vivid picture for us of what it meant to battle the widespread taboo against jumping out at people in the dark, lonely places with a portable, battery-operated chainsaw... a middle-aged banker talked with pride of the stable, monogamous relationship that he has enjoyed for twenty years with a fellow-arsonist... and we heard from a small group of professional men and women who are in the process of establishing an information and exchange service for those who describe their future lives as 'meaningless without access to napalm' — all folk whom the church has heartlessly rejected for the flimsiest of reasons.   I MUST STOP writing and go back to them now, but I do ask you, dear readers, to consider the fact that these poor folk are as much a part of the church as you and I. We've come such a long way in broadening our attitudes. Let's not stop now.   Thank goodness we live in such increasingly enlightened times! Do you not agree that the spirit of tolerance abroad in the church at present indicates a strong chance that the so-called peculiarities of these persecuted ones will very soon become a normal part of everyday church life?   And isn't that what we all want?   END

By Rajeev Syal   13/06/2004   Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, is to be the subject of a formal complaint to the Church of England for revealing confidential details of conversations with members of the Royal family.   In his autobiography, extracts of which appeared last week, Lord Carey describes himself as "the Royal family's parish priest" and details private meetings with Diana, Princess of Wales, Princess Margaret and Camilla Parker Bowles.   One lay member of the Church of England said yesterday that he would ask the Bishop of Southwark, who officiates over Lord Carey's pastoral responsibilities, to investigate his comments.   It is the first time that a senior clergyman has been accused of breaching guidelines of confidentiality. If found to have broken the rules, Lord Carey could face censure. The draft of the Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of Clergy were drawn up in 2000 and 2001 when Lord Carey headed the Church. He retired in 2002 and the guidelines were finally approved by Synod last year.   The complainant, a London barrister, said that he would write to the Bishop of Southwark tomorrow asking for an investigation. He said: "Carey has forfeited the right to a licence to officiate by breaching the guidelines as published by the Church of England last year - which applies to all priests, irrespective of their status."   David Stancliffe, the Bishop of Salisbury, advised Lord Carey last night to keep silent about his pastoral work. "This [Carey's book] has really cut the ground from under the present Archbishop if he wants to establish a role as pastor to the Royal Family," he said. "If a former church leader cannot keep his counsel, people will ask can they trust their local priest?"   Andrew de Berry, a member of the clergy section of Amicus, the trade union, said that he would support further examination of Lord Carey's comments. "At worst, it is an illustration of betrayal. At best, it is a sad example of 'bless and tell'," he said.   "It is simply not appropriate for the former Archbishop to articulate his observations about confidential discussions he had with Diana. I think Carey has been unwise in dragging up observations he may have had about Diana when she was in absolute tumult. In the circumstances of marital conflict, whoever it is, such discussions have to be treated with absolute confidence."   Lord Carey's autobiography, entitled Know The Truth, compared The Princess of Wales to a fictional, schizophrenic monster when describing their meetings following her divorce from Prince Charles.   "My last meetings with Diana following her divorce revealed a Princess who was determined to go her own way and show the world what she was made of," wrote Lord Carey, 69. "The 'Jekyll and Hyde' sides to her character came out strongly in her deep upset and bitterness about Charles and the divorce which she claimed she never desired yet to which, sadly, she had contributed greatly."   In another passage, Lord Carey described how an ailing Princess Margaret, swollen by medicines, sought comfort from him as she lay ill in bed in Kensington Palace.   Lord Carey also revealed that he met Mrs Parker Bowles after details of her relationship with the Prince of Wales became public.   The Guidelines For The Professional Conduct of The Clergy state that members of the clergy should not pass on details of private conversations to third parties.   "What is said to clergy in confidence must be understood to be confidential at all times. Information may only be divulged with the other parties' informed consent," the guidelines read.   Neither Lord Carey nor the Bishop of Southwark would comment   END

by Paul Kangor The Catholic Exchange   Long before the editorial pages of the New York Times flogged Mel Gibson for his film or denounced George W. Bush for citing Jesus Christ as his favorite philosopher, they assailed Ronald Reagan for his thoughts on the Nazarene Carpenter.   In January 1984, President Reagan dared to utter the "J word" before the annual convention of the National Religious Broadcasters. "He promised there will never be a dark night that does not end," Reagan said of Christ. "And by dying for us, Jesus showed how far our love should be ready to go: all the way."   This was too much for the New York Times, which unleashed the wrath of its judgment. Reagan, complained the Times editorial board, had presented the speech "not while worshiping in his church but in a Washington hotel."   "You don't have to be a secular humanist to take offense at that display of what, in America, should be private piety," the aggrieved newspaper lectured. "It's an offense to Americans of every denomination, or no denomination, when a President speaks that way."   Reagan was, after all, "the President of a nation whose Bill of Rights enjoins Government from establishing religion, aiding one religion, even aiding all religions." By the Times' estimation, Reagan's utterance had somehow constituted an attempt to establish a state religion.   None of this deterred Reagan. According to speechwriter Ben Elliott, when the president received condemnation from the likes of the New York Times, "He wore it like a badge of honor."   Reagan boldly brought Christ's name into completely secular situations. At Kansas State University in 1982, he appealed to the "admonition of the Man from Galilee to do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Reagan personally inserted that line into the speech himself.   That said, President Reagan tried to avoid Christ-specific remarks on occasions where he knew Jews would be in the audience. He cared deeply about persecution of Jews, particularly in the Soviet Union. However, when addressing an explicitly Christian group, he did not shirk from speaking of the figure he called his Savior.   Indeed, in editing his own speeches, the 40th president sometimes went further: On one occasion, he took a draft by speechwriters Peggy Noonan and Ben Elliott, in which they wrote that Christmas is "the day that marks the birth on Earth of the Son of God," and added that Christmas is "the birthday of the promised Messiah, the Son of God," ("promised Messiah" added.) Such additions by Reagan were common. "He didn't make a big deal about it," said Elliott. "He would want a change like that and would just write it in."   Citizen Reagan often wrote of Jesus Christ in private correspondence. He was not shy about Christian apologetics. He once pressed an interviewer: "How can you write off the prophecies in the Old Testament that hundreds of years before the birth of Christ predicted every single facet of his life, his death, and that he was the Messiah?"   In a March 1978 letter to a Methodist minister who expressed doubts about Christ's divinity — and accused Reagan of a "limited Sunday school level theology" — Reagan responded:   "Perhaps it is true that Jesus never used the word 'Messiah' with regard to himself (although I'm not sure that he didn't), but in John 1, 10 and 14 he identifies himself pretty definitely and more than once. Is there really any ambiguity in his words: 'I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me?' ... In John 10 he says, 'I am in the Father and the Father in me.' And he makes reference to being with God, 'before the world was,' and sitting on the 'right hand of God.' ...   These and other statements he made about himself, foreclose in my opinion, any question as to his divinity. It doesn't seem to me that he gave us any choice; either he was what he said he was or he was the world's greatest liar. It is impossible for me to believe a liar or charlatan could have had the effect on mankind that he has had for 2,000 years. We could ask, would even the greatest of liars carry his lie through the crucifixion, when a simple confession would have saved him? ... Did he allow us the choice you say that you and others have made, to believe in his teachings but reject his statements about his own identity?"   Reagan employed this specific argument a number of times, echoing C. S. Lewis's classic "liar, Lord, or lunatic" line from Mere Christianity.   This is the tip of the iceberg on Reagan's distinctly Christian faith. And yet, perhaps the principal difference between Reagan's reflections on Christ and those of Mel Gibson or George W. Bush is that we totally missed Reagan's (aside from the vigilant New York Times). Only now are we recognizing this crucial side of the historical Reagan — at a time when Ronald Reagan approaches the moment when he will learn the truth about Christ's divinity and the crucifixion.   END

EPISCOPAL COMMUNICATORS FAIL TO ADDRESS CENTRAL ISSUES   News Analysis   By David W. Virtue   At a time when the Anglican Communion is roiling with talk of schism over pansexuality, and a commission has been set up by the Archbishop of Canterbury to examine how the communion might shake out, a recent meeting of some 125 Episcopal Communicators failed to address the central issues facing the possible breakup of the worldwide body of Anglicans.   Meeting in Kanuga, NC the Episcopal communicators drew fellow journalists from England, Australia, El Salvador, Ghana, Kenya, Haiti, Panama, South Africa, and Wales. The theme of the conference was deliberately planned to "listen" and called for a more intentional approach to local, national and global church communications, said its leaders in a press release following the meeting.   Now "listening" has become a much favored word used by ECUSA's liberal elite. Behind this word is the idea of keeping an open mind, usually indefinitely, with the sin being to close it on anything substantial. God forbid. By keeping an open mind one can, presumably, allow anything to go in and out at random without stopping on the way to examine if in fact it might be true - the issue of sexual boundaries being a case in point.   The conference listened to how communications ministries are being practiced in different parts of the world and heard some of the challenges of fellow brothers and sisters in the Anglican/Episcopal family.   The Rev. Sipo E. Mzimela, an Anglican priest from South Africa who lives in Atlanta, Georgia, addressed the conference June 3, delivering a sobering account of the international perception of the United States. He said he "sensed a radical shift in how South Africans think of Americans." Opponents of democracy now point to the invasion of Iraq and ask if that is what they want South Africa to be. "You cannot imagine," Mzimela said, "the impact this war is having around the world."   Perhaps, but what has American foreign policy got to do with the Anglican Communion and how it is being torn apart, and what is the connection between the two? Whether America is loved or hated by others is the business of national and international politics, the President and the State Department; it has got nothing to do with how the Anglican Communion and its communicators is or should be conducting its own affairs. Bush bashing by ECUSA's liberals is now a favorite pastime.   In a question and answer session following Mzimela, remarks flowed about the role and makeup of the international community. The divisions and boundaries we place on one another are artificial, he said. Really, and how is a South African living and enjoying the benefits of this country to make any sense of that.   "In the final analysis, there is no Iraqi, no American, no South African....we are one family, one people...We need a new world: a world where we understand that truth. We are one."   And how does one create "oneness" through endless UN resolutions and voting out a Republican president? The truth is sick and fallen man has no ability to make one out of many, only the Son of Man can do that. Liberal fantasies like this need to be shot down.   In the end Mr. Mzimela has no ability to change anything but himself and through the preaching of peace through the Prince of Peace can any kind of real hope and reconciliation be found.   PRIORITIES IN JERUSALEM   Nancy Dinsmore, an American missionary and director of development in the Diocese of Jerusalem and the Middle East made up of 7,000 Anglicans in five countries: Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, and Israel offered up that the diocese is losing its young people to emigration, as extended families move away from the areas of strife and violence.   That is true, but who is most responsible for that? The truth is that nationalist Arab groups, Islamic hard liners, a corrupt Palestinian Authority and not just the Israelis have caused Arab Christians to flee the State of Israel and Palestine. Both sides bear responsibility for Arab flight.   Despite the catalogue of eminent social services that are being offered, the failure to address the rock bottom causes of the pain in the Middle East were simply not addressed.   Dinsmore said that her highest priority as director of development was the initiation of long-term relationships, working with the "living stones," the people of the region. Characterizing her work and the work of the diocese, she said, "Peace isn't only possible, it's our only choice." Indeed it is.   LISTENING AND UNDERSTANDING   In a workshop led by Katerina Katsarka Whitley on Communicating Across the Cultural Divide, Ms. Whitley focused on how to listen with intelligence and understanding to people of other cultures. Whitley, an adjunct professor at Appalachian State University in Boone, North Carolina, explained that everyone is brought up ethnocentric. "It is only education that brings about this change and eradicates the preconceived motions," she said. "Everyone has prejudice; the difference is how much and how we control it."   Highlighting the differences between individualism and collectivism, Whitley, who was born in Greece and moved to the United States at the age of 16, described the U.S. as a "supremely individualistic culture." Because of that, she said, it doesn't understand collectivistic culture. "Individualistic cultures are very impatient, ambitious, longing to make money and very direct in communications to one another," she said. "Collectivistic cultures think of 'we' rather than 'I' and decision making affects the group and community rather than the individual." Whitley urged the workshop to remember this when thinking of the struggles in the Anglican Communion.   Ms. Whitley should know better. The last great "collectivist" experiment was the Soviet Union and it collapsed under the weight of 70 years of collectivist thinking, then abandoned by its leaders as a total failure.   Furthermore the struggles in the Anglican Communion have nothing to do with American individualism, it has everything to do with bad theology and morals, something Ms. Whitley either knows nothing about or was too coy to mention.   The different value systems in societies also contribute enormously to misunderstandings and misinterpretations between cultures, Whitley explained, contrasting the honor/shame system that exists in Arab culture, and Western society, which is based on the concepts of right and wrong. "If we shame the Iraqis we will never be forgiven," she said.   In case Ms. Whitley doesn't remember, shame arose as a result of a certain incident that took place in a Garden several thousand years ago. After an illicit fruit picking incident, good and evil became firmly established, and we have each individually ratified the Fall ever since.   Whitley described how we all have a "perceptual set" of values, beliefs and attitudes and how this changes from culture to culture. This, she explained, is why there is more respect for a bishop in African society than there is in the US, adding that America is a "low context" society, whereas Asia and Africa are "high context" societies.   This is nonsense. If there is no respect for bishops in North America it has nothing to do with culture, but everything to do with what the fact that the majority of ECUSA's and Canada's bishops no longer believe 'the faith once delivered' and are relying on the canons to enforce conformity to their unbelief.   Biblically orthodox priests despise heterodox bishops precisely because they don't believe anything, and get paid vast sums of money for actually dissembling the faith and confusing the faithful who pay their bills.   Bishops in Africa (and I have been there) are loved precisely because the bishops are shepherds of their sheep and they feed the sheep and the sheep look up to them. And why not? The majority of American bishops have no gospel to proclaim, and they feed nothing but their own bank accounts, and the more money they make the less they believe. They are secure knowing they have pensions right to their graves.   Furthermore the "values" of Christians in the US and those Christians in Nigeria are almost the same. Our "values" arise out of our belief systems. Orthodox believers in North America are completely at home with orthodox Nigerians...there is not a sliver of difference in "values", faith or anything else.   Finally, Whitley pointed out the difference between listening as intentional and hearing as unintentional and involuntary. "Critical thinking is asking questions and only then can we become constructive, which is the highest rung of the listening ladder," she said. "We have to understand the differences within the context. We have made so many mistakes because we didn't understand the culture. We have so much educating to do."   The truth is culture has little to do with it. When I travel to countries with cultures different from my own, (in India you eat with your right hand only) what unites me to my fellow brother Nigerians is not the difference in the color of our skin, the car I drive (the bishops have better ones), or the kind of food we both eat. What unites us is a common faith in Christ and everything else is subsumed or made largely irrelevant to that central truth. The Nigerian struggle is between Islam (Shari'a Law) and Christianity, and between the biblically orthodox driven Nigerian Anglican Church versus the Western heterodox Episcopal Church. Those are the struggles, they have little or nothing to do with "culture." Culture is vastly over-rated.   And on the issue of "critical thinking" let us say this. The African bishops are in the midst of the most critical thinking of their lives, and they are thinking critically about Western pluriformity and pansexual behavior which is ripping the church apart. And they will have none of it.   They have "listened" to Frank Griswold whine about sodomy at every Primates meeting since 1998 and they are sick to death of it. And if he doesn't repent of his actions for consecrating the sodomite bishop of New Hampshire they may well shun him from the Supreme Club of Purple.   The African bishops are in the business of saving souls...by the millions, while ECUSA becomes more "inclusive" and "diverse" succeeding only in emptying churches with a false doctrine of come as you are, stay as you are.   Now one of the biggest fantasies of this meeting was The Episcopal Church's new Episcopal Ad Campaign being promoted by Dan England, director of communication for the ECUSA.   He gave a presentation about the "National Ad Campaign", which is actually designed to work as a local ad campaign. ECUSA's last General Convention authorized $750,000 for this fantasy. (That money could do more fighting AIDS in Africa than puffing ECUSA through a phony public relations campaign.)   The idea here is to jump start The Episcopal Church even as it is divided by heresy, is in free fall with parishes closing, money drying up and is being whacked by 22 Global Primates about once every week, facts that are not even mentioned in Episcopal Life, the church's national newspaper.   But these "communicators" did have a workshop about "How to get an Online Presence given by Nicolas Knisely". No word on what Mr. Knisely said, but this writer would have been delighted to tell them how...and how effective it is.   Reflecting on the Global Anglican Communion, Canon James M. Rosenthal, director of communications for the Anglican Communion noted that "in these difficult times the highest degree of unity for the sake of God's people should be our aim."   But unity has a price tag, and for the Global South that price tag is way too high to sell the faith short.   But a couple of attendees from very liberal dioceses in Australia opined that, "We work in an environment of misinformation which makes it difficult to make informed decisions." No word on WHO the misinformer is, but we can guess. But an Australian woman communicator did say one thing that rang true, "the power of Christian media can be used to change public opinion." Virtuosity couldn't agree more.   "It is important to make the effort to cross the miles," she said, "so that we can together get the strength, energy and clarity to combat this misinformation." Indeed it is. Virtuosity is glad to oblige.   Bringing greetings from CAPA - the African bishops - an African communicator observed the cultural differences, particularly in spirituality, between Africa and America. "There was a lack of talking about Jesus," he said. "Maybe faith is more of a private thing in the US but I think we need to be talking about Jesus' message." Really. One hopes these messengers (communicators) of Anglican enlightenment were "listening".   In their final worship, the Rev. Dan Webster, director of communications for the Diocese of Utah, said one of the biggest challenges is "looking at what is compromising us," adding that we should not delude ourselves by "compromising for the sake of peace" but should seek "comprehension for the sake of unity."   Indeed we should Mr. Webster, and perhaps it could start with Episcopal Life mentioning the crisis the Episcopal Church is having with 22 Primates for ordaining an avowedly homoerotic bishop, and whether ECUSA will still be part of the Anglican Communion once the Lambeth/Eames Commission has finished its work.   Now that will be worth "listening" for. We wait with baited breath.   END

ULTIMATUM: Church tells Ian George: Quit or you're on your own   By MILES KEMP, MATT WILLIAMS, DANIEL BRETTIG and DANIEL SLUGGETT   June 11, 2004   ANGLICAN Archbishop Ian George has been given an ultimatum to stand aside by 2pm today or lose the support of another key church body.   The Adelaide Diocesan Council has voted to publicly withdraw support from Dr George unless he volunteers to step down.   It does not have the power to sack Dr George, which can only be done at the church Synod meeting on Thursday. The council is one of the most powerful organisations in the church, made up of its most senior members and lay representatives.   Dr George yesterday remained defiant, ignoring a growing barrage of criticism and demands from within and outside the church for him to resign.   Dr George refused to even make any public comment about the crisis which has engulfed the church, despite mounting pressure on his leadership and criticism of his handling of sex abuse cases.   When approached, Dr George appeared upbeat and unconcerned about calls for him to stand aside yesterday and ignored a deadline set by Acting Premier Kevin Foley of 5pm yesterday for him to resign. "I'm not making any comment thanks. I can't," he said as he emerged from his North Adelaide home yesterday morning to take his dog to a Rose Park vet.   "I'm just looking after the dog this morning. I've had such a good relationship with you guys over the years. All the best."   A senior church source told The Advertiser Dr George's supporters were urging him to remain in the position at least until the church's Synod in eight days, to test opinion within the church.   Members of the church hierarchy were yesterday told to refer questions to public relations firm Michels Warren, hired to manage the crisis.   Spokesman David Williams could not answer any questions.   "They won't be saying anything to anybody," he said. The church hierarchy also avoided public scrutiny, with those contacted by The Advertiser refusing to either support or criticise Dr George's leadership.   But the two anti-sex abuse campaigners lauded by Dr George as being responsible for bringing pedophiles to the attention of the church added their weight to a campaign for him to go.   The Reverend Andrew King supported a decision of the church's Professional Standards Committee, which The Advertiser revealed yesterday had resolved on Tuesday night to ask for Dr George to stand aside while it investigated the church's handling of an independent report on abuse. "If he is asked by the Professional Standards Committee then he should stand aside," he said.   Mr King was critical of the fact that while the committee had the power to take powers from the clergy, it had no power over bishops. "I think it is a matter of natural justice that there is consistency," he said.   The Reverend Don Owers supported the comments. "I'd agree and that clearly is what the Professional Standards Committee believes as well," he said.   Member of the Professional Standards Committee Stephen Clarke yesterday renewed the committee's call for Dr George to stand aside.   Prominent Anglican and Liberal MP Mark Brindal said Mr Foley should stay out of church affairs, pointing out that the independent report had highlighted that abuse by a priest, of homeless boys in a city shelter, had been ignored when reported to a government department.   "I am very distressed that the Premier should have anything to say about people's religious practices," he said.   Mr Foley said he would not be taking the issue further. "I think I have said enough already."   Dr George yesterday had the support of the head of the Anglican Church in Australia, Archbishop Peter Carnley. He said he saw no reason why Dr George should resign and believed the Professional Standards Committee had exceeded its brief in wanting him to stand aside.   "I've skimmed the (independent) report and as I understand, Archbishop George is mentioned in the report for some failures of process," Archbishop Carnley said. "I cannot find any suggestion in the report that he had licensed, or continued the license, of priests who were thought to be pedophiles or anything like that."   Parish leaders contacted by The Advertiser were divided on whether Dr George should resign.   While most were concerned at the way the church had dealt with allegations of child abuse, most were cautious about speaking. Some, however, felt it would be best if he did stand down.   The Reverend Christopher Myers, of St John Parish, Adelaide, said: "I support and respect the man, but I must admit with the report he is not coming out all that well.   "He has to weigh up the situation ... I think it's better for the church if he stepped down."   Although supporting Dr George, Alberton parish's Reverend Michele Chambers said she was "devastated" about the number of allegations of sexual abuse.   "I'm horrified that in the church I love so much that this could go on undetected," she said.   "I can't say I'm happy with the way the diocese has handled it. "I'm very upset that it's happened and that we didn't know it was happening."   But she supported Dr George's handling of the abuse reports. "I don't think he should resign. I see no reason to be ashamed of his behaviour," she said.   END

Reagan -- Messiah, Antichrist or normal mainliner?   by Terry Mattingly   As a Baptist preacher's kid who grew up in Texas in the 1970s, I had plenty of reasons to reject Ronald Reagan.   That may sound strange, since the Southern Baptist Convention and the Republican Party that Reagan built now appear to be wedded at the hip. But people tend to forget that Jimmy Carter really is a Baptist. So are Al Gore, the Rev. Bill Moyers and Britney Spears, while we're at it.   People also forget that Reagan was not a Southern Baptist or even what most would call an evangelical. He grew up in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), in the Illinois heartland of mainline Protestantism.   Still, I believe it's safe to say that America's deep political divisions on moral issues are the result of three cultural earthquakes -- Woodstock, Roe vs. Wade and the Reagan revolution.   These events shaped modern Democrats as well as Republicans. They shaped religious conservatives and the growing bloc some researchers are calling the "anti-evangelical voters." And these events created or deepened cracks in most religious sanctuaries that remain today and have, if anything, only gotten worse.   Take the Southern Baptists. I believe the rise of Reagan split that massive flock of 16-million-plus believers just as much, if not more, than doctrinal debates about "biblical inerrancy."   Millions of Southern Baptists saw Reagan as a near messiah. For Southern Baptist conservatives, Reagan offered hope that the cultural revolution of the Woodstock-Roe era might in some way be overturned. They were wrong, of course.   Nevertheless, these conservative Baptists lost their historic fear of politics and jumped into the public square. But while the conservative grown-ups created the Religious Right, their children were in their multi-media bedrooms watching HBO and MTV.   The parents thought they could vote in the kingdom, but things didn't work out that way. What they got instead was "I Love the '80s."   There were some Southern Baptists who saw Reagan as the Antichrist.   I saw this close up. I had a friend in graduate school who literally lost his moderate Southern Baptist faith because of the election of Reagan. How could he believe in a just and loving God, if a Reagan could be elected president?   After all, the Reagan loyalists hated the really cool movies and they liked the really bad movies. They didn't read the proper books and magazines or laugh at the hip comics. And Reagan was embraced by all of those "fundamentalists" who wanted to ruin the Southern Baptist Convention, which they believed was poised to achieve mainline Protestant maturity.   Most of all, they believed that Reagan was dumb. And if Reagan was dumb, that meant that hating Reagan was smart. Everyone who was smart agreed. If you didn't agree, then you were dumb.   So defeating Reagan was part of voting in a smarter, more nuanced kingdom.   What these anti-Reagan Baptists and new evangelicals really needed was a progressive, smart, complex Southern Baptist in the White House -- someone like Bill Clinton. That would be perfect. But things didn't work out precisely as they imagined, either. They got "Sex & the City."   Many of them liked it. Many didn't, but the alternative was worse. The alternative was being labeled a religious conservative, the kind of person who liked Reagan.   There seemed to be no other option, no middle ground.   But perhaps Reagan wasn't a messiah or the Antichrist. What if he was just a normal mainline Protestant churchman from the 1950s?   Maybe he had good intentions and he did his best. Maybe he accomplished many things on the global level and didn't do so much on the cultural level. Maybe his beliefs were sincere, but not very specific. Maybe he made some people feel good and others feel bad. Maybe his greatest domestic political legacy is the Religious Right and the Religious Left.   But questions remain. Was Reagan truly a cultural and moral conservative? Did he cause the "pew gap" the researchers find in all the polls of modern voters? Could Reagan, if he had really tried, overturn the culture of Woodstock and Roe? Could he have helped Americans do a better job of focusing on their families? I have my doubts.   There are things that politicians cannot do.   It's a culture thing. It's a moral thing. It's a faith thing.   END