Archives

A Statement by the Rt. Rev. Maurice M. Benitez, Bishop of Texas, Retired My Friends in Christ, I am Maurice Benitez, former Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Texas, a ministry in which I served for 15 years, before retiring 9 years ago. I come at this time to visit Saint James' Church in Newport Beach, All Saints Church in Long Beach, and Saint David's Church in North Hollywood. I come at the invitation of these three congregations, who have disassociated themselves from the Episcopal Church USA, and who have been accepted in the jurisdiction of the Diocese of Luweero, in the Anglican Province of Uganda. I also am here at the invitation of The Most Rev. Henry Orombi, the Archbishop of the Anglican Province of Uganda, and The Rt. Rev. Evans Kisekka, the Bishop of the Diocese of Luweero, who asked me to come, and offer in their behalf, a measure of pastoral care and Episcopal ministry to these three congregations, as best I can. I now address you in these congregations to whom I was sent, and I begin by declaring that I am here today to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to call all people, beginning with each one of us, to repent of our sins and to embrace Godliness and righteousness, and to obey Biblical doctrine and the Apostolic Faith. I am not here to argue or say harsh words about anyone, but rather to try "to speak the truth in love." I urge each one of you to pray daily and fervently for Bishop Bruno and the Diocese of Los Angeles. Pray fervently for the Episcopal Church, that it may be an instrument for the furtherance of God's Kingdom. Pray that it will turn away from those departures from the Faith and Practice of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, that have led many good and Godly people - clergy and lay - to feel utterly heartsick about the Church, and to feel that they could not in good conscience accept the pastoral care and Episcopal ministry of their diocesan bishops, and to feel forced to leave the Episcopal church. This is the price, and a painful one it is, they feel they must pay to remain loyal to the Faith in which they were nurtured. And I grieve for them, because I, in the Name of God, agree with them. However, now I turn from the present circumstance, and urge each one of you in these three congregations to focus not on the past, where you have been, but focus on the future, on what lies ahead, under your new jurisdiction, the Anglican Province of Uganda. Each of you, devote your lives for the rest of your days on earth, to knowing Christ better and better, and to serving Him more and more, and to making Him known to others! Be a disciple who is always at work making more disciples for Christ in this world! I honor each one of you, and I join with you, in once again recommitting our lives to Jesus Christ in this Service of Holy Eucharist that is now beginning. AMEN

By Peter Mullen | 12/09/2004 It is depressing to hear the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, confess on Radio Four that the Beslan atrocity has made him doubt his faith. Asked, "Does your faith not tremble just a tiny bit?" he replied, "Of course it does. Yes, there is a flicker, there is a doubt." The obvious question to the Archbishop is, "You've a tremble or a flicker in your faith in what?" Presumably in God. But it wasn't God who entered that school and murdered the infants. Why blame Him? Besides, there was an infamous precedent set by King Herod - though I don't suppose Mary Magdalene's faith went wobbly when she heard of the massacre of the innocents. We know of course that there is such a thing as "the problem of evil", but I have never been able to see much of a problem here. The argument was classically put by David Hume when he argued that the fact of evil in the world is not consistent with belief in a good God: "If God is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good, whence evil? If God wills to prevent evil but cannot, then He is not omnipotent. If He can prevent evil but does not, then he is not good. In either case he is not God." The argument is trivial. The creation of anything involving freedom for what is created is bound to raise the possibility of evil. The Bible teaches that God endowed human beings with free will. Unfortunately, humankind seems frequently to choose the evil. There is a reason behind this choice and it is that referred to as Original Sin and described by St Paul in words of one syllable: "The thing I would not, that I do and what I would, I do not." The complaint from those who lose their faith in the event of evil is both unjustified and vague. Where do they stop? If God ought to have prevented the massacre at Beslan, then oughtn't He also to have prevented other unfortunate episodes such as the children's deaths in the Aberfan slag heap disaster or the shootings at Dunblane? It seems that this God must operate a sort of sliding scale. According to the faith-losing theologians, He surely should have prevented the atrocity at Beslan. But if evil is the problem, then how much evil can be tolerated before we start losing faith in the Creator? Should I put up with my coughs and sneezes but fall into a theological sulk if I get pneumonia? And so it must go on until the fact that an old lady slips on the soap as she gets out of the bath will count as an argument against the existence of God. That is why the so-called "problem of evil" is an absurdity. Rather than find himself obliged to doubt the goodness of the Lord, the Archbishop and all the other Christian theologians and priests might more profitably declare that evil is the price humanity pays for its freedom - in fact the price for being here at all. They might add that the Christian faith also teaches that death is not the worst that can happen. There is the sure and certain hope of the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Or has the faithless contemporary church descended so far down the primrose path to the everlasting bonfire that even the Creed is no longer believable? -- The Rev Dr Peter Mullen is Rector of St Michael's, Cornhill in the City of London and Chaplain to the Stock Exchange

COMMENTARY David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org April 10, 2026 The unspoken truth about the new Archbishop of Canterbury is that she is entirely irrelevant to the present and future of the Anglican Communion. Nothing she has said or apparently believes will move the needle toward either greater unity or meaningful growth. A Communion Already Fractured To understand why, one must appreciate the structural collapse that preceded her appointment. The Anglican Communion — once a family of 85 million baptized members across 165 countries, (now 100 million) bound together by the four Instruments of Communion — has been fracturing for decades. The fault lines deepened dramatically after the US Episcopal Church consecrated Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, as Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003. That act triggered the Jerusalem Declaration of 2008, the formal launch of GAFCON (the Global Anglican Future Conference), and the eventual birth of the Global Anglican Communion (GAC). Today, GAFCON represents the only genuinely global Anglican player, encompassing the majority of the world's practicing Anglicans — concentrated overwhelmingly in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The Anglican Consultative Council (ACC), one of the four historic Instruments of Communion, is no longer recognized by this new world order and has been rendered effectively impotent. Most African Anglican provinces have abandoned it. The Global South Fellowship of Anglicans (GSFA), while not yet formally aligned with GAFCON, has similarly distanced itself from Canterbury's authority. Unity, in any meaningful institutional sense, has already been shattered. Sarah Mullally inherits the ash heap of that collapse. The Slow Work of Her Predecessors The groundwork for this moment was laid by two previous archbishops. George Carey (1991–2002), though personally evangelical, presided over a communion increasingly at war with itself over women's ordination and human sexuality, and proved unable to hold the center. Rowan Williams (2003–2012), a theologian of genuine brilliance and an Affirming Catholic by conviction, brought intellectual sophistication to Canterbury but navigated the sexuality crisis with deliberate ambiguity — satisfying no one and accelerating the drift of the Global South. Justin Welby (2013–2023), a soft evangelical with a corporate background, staked his legacy on the Lambeth Calls of 2022, which sidestepped binding authority on sexuality and left orthodox provinces feeling betrayed. His resignation in 2024, following the Makin Review into the John Smyth abuse scandal, was a further institutional humiliation. Each archbishop, in his own way, deepened the crisis he inherited. Mullally is the product and inheritor of that cumulative failure. The Problem of Her Appointment That she is the first woman in 1,400 years to occupy the throne of the See of Canterbury is not, for a significant portion of global Anglicanism, a milestone to celebrate. It is, for many, a reason for mourning — and a final confirmation of Canterbury's direction of travel. Anglo-Catholics and the majority of conservative evangelicals do not recognize the ordination of women to the priesthood on theological grounds, a position held consistently for two millennia across Catholic, Orthodox, and much of Anglican tradition. Their objection is not cultural conservatism; it is theological conviction rooted in apostolic order. Her appointment was, in effect, a deliberate signal to the two most theologically orthodox constituencies within the Church of England – evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics. They were told, without ambiguity, that their convictions no longer shape the institution's self-understanding. Theological Vacancy at the Center Mullally's background is that of a nurse and health service administrator — a National Health Service career that earned her the title Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire before her ordination. She brings genuine gifts in pastoral management and institutional leadership. But these are not the primary qualifications demanded of a leader tasked with speaking authoritative theological truth to a communion in existential crisis. Her theological formation is thin by the standards of her predecessors. Whatever one thought of Rowan Williams's conclusions, he was a patristics scholar of international standing. Mullally is, by most accounts, a capable manager of people and processes — a quality useful in a hospital trust, less sufficient for the Archbishop of Canterbury of a hundred million souls. Broad Church to the End Theologically, Mullally fits squarely within the Broad Church tradition — the third of Anglicanism's three historic streams, alongside Anglo-Catholicism and Evangelicalism. In practice, contemporary Broad Church progressivism operates on a simple axiom: hold your beliefs lightly, do not insist on doctrinal boundaries, and above all, do not bang the drum for orthodoxy. Sincerity of conviction matters more than its content. Inclusion is the supreme virtue. It is, by any honest reckoning, a recipe for continued spiritual and institutional decline. The symbolism of her installation was telling. She was received at Canterbury Cathedral by a dean living openly in a same-sex partnership. No commentary was needed. The theological direction of her tenure had already been declared — not in words, but in the company she keeps and the arrangements she visibly endorses. Conclusion Sarah Mullally does not represent the Anglican Communion's future. She represents the final chapter of a particular ecclesial experiment — a progressive, inclusivist, post-doctrinal Anglicanism centered on the Church of England and its dwindling Western allies. The future of global Anglicanism, by every demographic measure, belongs to the orthodox provinces of Africa, Asia, and the Global South, who have already voted with their feet. Canterbury still commands a building, a title, and a ceremonial role. What it no longer commands is the communion. END

Todd Atkinson, center, from a conference retreat photo on Arrupe Spirituality website By Jessica Eturralde MINISTRY WATCH April 8, 2026 Less than two years after an Anglican church court deposed Todd Atkinson from ordained ministry, he is back in ministry. Arrupe Spirituality—a Zoom-based ministry offering retreats, book discussions, and instruction in Ignatian prayer—lists him as a spiritual director. In a 2025 interview, Atkinson said he provides one-on-one sessions focused on listening, discernment, and guiding “directees” through their spiritual experience. Spiritual directors meet privately with people seeking guidance in prayer and discernment, often including those recovering from church trauma. Unlike ordained roles, the work can operate without standardized licensing, supervision, or a clear disciplinary pathway, depending on the organization. In May 2024, the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) removed Atkinson, a bishop at the time, from ministry after an ecclesiastical trial found him guilty on four charges, including improper relationships with women and inappropriate interactions with minor females. The ACNA College of Bishops voted to depose him on May 9, 2024. The denomination announced the decision nearly two weeks later. Following the announcement, Atkinson published a formal public apology titled “Addressing My Mistakes.” Atkinson denied inappropriate relationships or circumstances with minors, calling the ACNA’s public wording “ambiguous” and “defamatory.” He wrote that if certain claims were true, civil authorities would have intervened. Atkinson also apologized for what he called excessive affirmation, attention, and contact that he said damaged relationships, and pointed to a pre-ACNA investigation conducted in 2015-2016 that he said found “emotional co-dependency” (a conclusion he said he accepted). Arrupe Spirituality’s listing includes an Atkinson bio that emphasizes his training and formation. It says that after completing the Spiritual Exercises in 2017–2018, he undertook internships and training under Jesuit spiritual director Fr. Bill Creed, who taught him how to be a spiritual director. The bio adds that, over the last two years, he has “played a small role” in “helping” train other spiritual directors. The bio further explains Atkinson’s 2015 “trainwreck” as a case of “good taken to excess,” saying he “exceeded emotional boundaries” while believing he was helping those he led pastorally. He later sought to “own his failings” and take responsibility, it says: language he also echoed in his public apology. During the disciplinary process, in August 2022, a third party launched a GoFundMe titled “Atkinson Family Support Fund,” naming Atkinson as the beneficiary and setting a $60,000 goal. Donors contributed roughly 4% of that total, just under C$2,000. In July 2025, podcast host Jobie Mallett interviewed Atkinson in a video titled “Surviving a Train Wreck.” Mallett praised Atkinson as a man who left a “long and lasting positive impression,” adding, “Todd is not perfect, but then again, who of us is?” In the interview, Atkinson described himself as an “exile” pushed to the margins and said that while he still attends church at times, he would not start another one, citing lingering hurt and shaken confidence. Atkinson said he had found meaning in working with people wounded by the church. MinistryWatch contacted Arrupe and Atkinson for comment. Neither has responded. We will update if we hear back from either of them. Arrupe has a zero-star efficiency rating in the MinistryWatch database, an “F” Transparency Grade, and a failing Donor Confidence Score of 2 (out of 100). END

COMMENTARY By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org April 8, 2026 There are moments when the Church must speak plainly—not to the world, but to herself. We are fond of asserting our belief in truth, righteousness, and the unchanging standard of God. We preach judgment, repentance, and holiness, warning that all will stand before Christ's throne to give an account. Yet, when that standard is applied unevenly—when it shifts depending on who is under scrutiny—we not only fail in consistency; we fail in integrity. This is not a new problem. Scripture has already named it: “My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality” (James 2:1, NKJV). The issue before us is not whether sin should be judged—it must be. The issue is whether we judge it truthfully or selectively. The Sin We Condemn and the Sin We Excuse In recent years, several public figures have exposed a troubling inconsistency within evangelical life. Philip Yancey confessed to a long-standing moral failure. The response was immediate and severe. His reputation collapsed, and his voice was silenced for many. There was little space for restoration and even less for reflection. The judgment was swift and final. Now compare this to Karl Barth, one of the most influential theologians of the modern era. His personal life bore contradictions that would have undone most pastors. For years, he maintained a deeply disordered domestic arrangement that strained his marriage and scandalized those closest to him. Yet, his theological stature remains largely untouched; he is still read, quoted, and admired. Then we examine the political sphere, where moral clarity often fades altogether. Public figures like Donald Trump whose conduct would be condemned from the pulpit are defended, excused, or simply ignored—as long as they serve a perceived greater good. In some cases, the language used to defend them has bordered not merely on tolerance but on reverence. We must be honest about what is happening. The standard has not changed. The application has. The Real Measure: Usefulness If we are willing to look plainly, the pattern becomes clear. When a man is no longer useful, his sin disqualifies him. When a man is admired, his sin is contextualized. When a man is politically necessary, his sin is excused. The variable is not righteousness. The variable is usefulness. This is precisely the kind of judgment Scripture forbids—not judgment itself, but partial judgment. Judgment that is shaped not by truth, but by advantage. Repentance, Judgment, and the Fear of the Lord The Church must recover something she has begun to lose: the fear of the Lord. Repentance is not a public relations gesture or a means of regaining influence; it is the turning of the soul before a holy God. Where repentance is present, it must be taken seriously. Where sin persists, it must be named honestly. In all things, the standard must remain constant. We do not excuse sin because a man is useful. We do not magnify sin because a man is expendable. We do not adjust righteousness to fit our preferences. “For there is no partiality with God” (Romans 2:11, NKJV). If we claim to speak for Him, we must reflect that same impartiality. A Warning to the Church The danger here is not merely inconsistency; it is something deeper. When the Church applies one standard to her enemies and another to her allies, she ceases to be a witness to truth and becomes a participant in the very hypocrisy she condemns. And the world notices. Not because it loves righteousness, but because it recognizes inconsistency. We should not be surprised when our moral voice carries less weight; we have taught others, through our actions, that our convictions are negotiable. The Call to Integrity This is not a call to abandon judgment. It is a call to purify it. To judge sin as sin—whether it appears in the life of a theologian, a writer, a pastor, or a political ally. To take repentance seriously wherever it is found. To refuse the temptation to excuse what benefits us or condemn what does not. In short, we must fear God more than we fear losing influence. Because in the end, there will be only one judgment that matters. And it will not be partial. I am indebted to the Rev. Dr. Ronald Moore for his contribution. This story was not AI generated nor did it go through AI for additional input.

Queen Anne’s Bounty first charter 1704 By Ian Paul PSEPHIZO Blog April 8, 2026 Professor Richard Dale writes: KICKING IN THE CATHEDRAL DOOR How the Church Commissioners relied on bogus history to denounce their predecessors and vilify their own Church It is over three years since the Church Commissioners published their controversial report on the Church’s links to the slave trade. Since then critics have challenged the Commissioners’ historical research while both the Church Commissioners and their historical advisers have published their separate responses to such riticism. However, in the light of recent academic research it is now clear beyond doubt that the Commissioners’ historical analysis is deeply flawed and their conclusions mistaken. The Commissioners therefore have a moral responsibility to withdraw their report and correct the record before a false historical narrative, to which they have lent their full authority, becomes further embedded in Google, AI and in schools and colleges throughout the world. In February 2021 the accountants, Grant Thornton, were instructed by the Church Commissioners to review the ledgers of Queen Anne’s Bounty to “determine the extent to which the origins of the Endowment Fund may have been derived from the profits of the slave trade.” Grant Thornton’s verdict was devastating: We found that Queen Anne’s Bounty had purchased investments in an entity called the South Sea Company which is known to have transported 34,000 enslaved persons across the Atlantic. The South Sea Company ceased trading in enslaved people in 1739 at which point the Bounty had invested £443 million (in today’s terms). These findings were incorporated into the Church Commissioners’ report on the Church’s links to slavery, publicised in the press and cited as the basis for Project Spire, a proposed £100 million impact investment fund, that was announced in January 2023. The central argument of the Church Commissioners and their historical advisers is that Queen Anne’s Bounty profited hugely from their slavery-linked investments, derived principally from interest on its holdings of South Sea Annuities. Church leaders were understandably shocked by the Commissioners’ report. The then Archbishop of Canterbury publicly apologised for the fact that the Church had profited from slavery, and the Bishop of Manchester, who was also deputy chair of the Commissioners, wrote an open letter to Save the Parish in support of Project Spire. He said: Having come to the full understanding of the extent of the involvement of Queen Anne’s Bounty in investing in the slave trade through research and forensic analysis…we cannot hold on to money gained so wrongly, any more than a burglar can hang on to profits from their activity. Here, then, is the historical narrative propagated by Church leaders and invoked as justification for Project Spire. However, this narrative is demonstrably false. The Church Commissioners’ historical advisers have misled the Commissioners, the Commissioners have misled Church leaders and Church leaders have misled the public at large. Because there is incontrovertible evidence that Queen Anne’s Bounty’s investments earned not one penny from the slave trade. The Commissioners’ Report makes three related mistakes that distort its historical account. First, although the Report refers to the South Sea Company stock splits in 1723 and 1733 that separated the Company’s trading operations from the newly created South Sea Annuities, it fails to examine the legislative framework governing the latter (9 Geo 1 c.6, 1723 and 6 Geo 11 c.28, 1733). In 1723 Parliament established a new annuity company, the Joint Stock of South Sea Annuities which, according to the statute’s preamble, legally insulated investors from “future frauds, abuses, errors and mismanagement” of the South Sea Company. The Annuity certificates stated that the contracting party and issuer was the Joint Stock of South Sea Annuities and not the South Sea Company. The Annuitants were entitled to receive their pro-rata share of interest from the government at a specified rate in perpetuity and were ring-fenced from the risky and generally loss-making operations of the South Sea trading Company. The Company’s capital was split again in 1733 when, according to its chief clerk, Adam Anderson (An Historical and Chronological Deduction of the Origin of Commerce, 1764), “the proprietors of the trading stock becoming uneasy on account of their late losses by the Asiento and Greenland [whaling] trades” petitioned Parliament to divide the Company’s capital 25/75 in favour of South Sea Annuities. The intent behind the legislation was made clear in a ‘general court’ (shareholders’ meeting) of the South Sea Company in March 1732 when it was proposed that three quarters of the Company’s capital be…entirely severed from the trade, and not liable to any debts or incumbrances of the Company …. and be a clear fund or annuity (cited in Armand DuBois, The English Business Company after the Bubble Act 1720-1800, 1938). Following this second stock split there was a nominal distinction between Old and New South Sea Annuities. The failure of the Commissioners to address the legal basis of the South Sea Annuities contributed to a second serious error. The authors mistakenly categorise South Sea Annuities as investments in the South Sea Company and the interest thereon as earnings from the slave trade. This, despite the fact that the Annuities, as the Report acknowledges, were invested exclusively in government debt and therefore equivalent to government bonds. Furthermore, Francois Velde, an authority on 18th century English finance, states in a recent paper that after the stock split of 1723 the Annuities represented the only form of liquid government debt available and that “if the Bounty wished to invest in government funds, there was no choice” (“An Institutional Investor in 18th Century Britain,” Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, October 2025). It is preposterous that the Bounty managers should be castigated for investing in the slave trade when they were opting for a low risk investment strategy that explicitly avoided exposure to the South Sea Company’s trading activities. Even more extravagant is the Report’s assertion that “anyone [including Annuitants] investing in the Company before 1740 was consciously investing in [slavery] voyages.” Of course, the precise opposite was the case: Annuitants could be sure that they were not investing in such voyages. This consideration leads to the third major error—which is also the most outlandish. Although the South Sea Annuities were government bonds in all but name the Commissioners’ advisers claim to have found a direct linkage between these assets and the South Sea Company. Their wording is significant: Grant Thornton’s website refers to its research into “Annuities issued by the South Sea Company” and the Report itself refers variously to the South Sea Annuities as “South Sea Company investments”, “investments in the South Sea Company”, “South Sea Company securities” and, in the glossary, as “Annuities in the South Sea Company”. Here, the Commissioners’ advisers have confused two different companies, each with the words “South Sea” in their name: the South Sea Company and the separately incorporated annuity company, the Joint Stock of South Sea Annuities. Furthermore throughout the Report the authors incorrectly refer to South Sea Annuities as South Sea Company Annuities, a descriptor unknown in contemporary records, whether this be the ledgers of the Bank of England, the Bounty’s ledgers, Chancery proceedings or the Annuity certificates themselves. Once more, the report is guilty of an elementary gaffe by conflating two legally separate entities. From the above it is clear that South Sea Annuities had no connection whatsoever with the South Sea Company’s trading activities. As the parliamentarian and banker, John Brocklehurst, explained to the House of Commons in 1834: the South Sea Annuities had nothing to do with the South Sea Company beyond receiving at their hands the dividends as they became due from the government. The annuities were payable at an office called South Sea House in much the same way that other publicly held government debt was payable at the Bank of England. The Bounty did, for a time, have a much more limited investment in South Sea Company stock. This was acquired in April 1720 when the South Sea Bubble was beginning to inflate, England was at war with Spain, and, with its trade suspended, the South Sea Company had become “of necessity a naked finance corporation” (John Carswell, The South Sea Bubble, 1960). Quantitatively, this one-off investment in stock was a small fraction of the Bounty’s Annuity investments. In the period 1708-1793 dividends from the South Sea Company represented a mere 0.1% of the Bounty’s total income against nearly 30% for Annuities, First Fruits and Tenths accounting for most of the balance. Nevertheless, though limited in both amount and duration—the stock was largely disposed of in 1728—the investment became a direct exposure to the slave trade when this was resumed in 1722—28. However, the dividends the Bounty received from its holding of stock were not derived from profits from the slave trade because the trade was loss-making. A committee, appointed by the South Sea Company’s shareholders to examine the Company’s accounts, shows that in the period 1720 to 1732 (which covers the time when the Bounty held stock) the loss on the trade account was over £385,000 (The Report of the Committee appointed to Inspect and Examine the Several Accompts of the South Sea Company, 1733). The books of the Company have not survived but on the basis of these summary accounts Velde finds that the Company was forced to issue bonds to cover its losses and then, when in 1732 the bond debt had reached £2 million, to slash its dividend to a level below the interest it received from the government. (After the stock splits the South Sea Company continued to receive its pro-rata share of the interest paid by the government on its debt.) Stung by its losses the South Sea Company declined in 1748 to take up Spain’s offer to renew the Asiento Contract on unchanged terms. Velde also shows that when the Bounty invested in South Sea Company shares in 1720 it did so by exchanging its existing holdings of government debt, (eg. lottery loans) for stock. This was done on terms that proved to be highly unfavourable, prompting the Bounty’s Treasurer to set out the losses the fund had incurred through this transaction. According to Velde “[the Bounty’s] involvement in the South Sea Company was financially costly and within a few years it disposed of its equity and bond interests in the company.” In summary, the Bounty’s investments, whether in stock or annuities, earned no money from the slave trade. Additionally, the Commissioners’ advisers dropped a clanger when they assumed that it was the South Sea Company that issued South Sea Annuities. In fact the Company was neither issuer, vendor, counterparty or guarantor of the Annuities which were issued by a legally separate company with its own investor base and investment objectives. The whole point of the stock splits of 1723 and 1733 was to create a new class of asset that had nothing whatsoever to do with the South Sea Company’s commercial activities. In propagating a false historical narrative around the Bounty’s alleged earnings from and links to the South Sea Company and the slave trade, the Church Commissioners’ and their historical advisers have deluded themselves and misled everyone else. It was not long before criticism of the Commissioners’ historical research appeared in print and on line. See my own article in the Church Times, Slavery did not benefit Bounty; The Church and Slavery: the Facts, an anonymous article in The Critic, May 30 2025; and articles on the History Reclaimed website. Nigel Biggar brings many of these criticisms together in his book Reparations: Slavery and the Tyranny of Imaginary Guilt, 2025; see the interview with him about it here. Criticism was also raised privately in April 2024 with the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, in the hope of finding a diplomatic route out of a situation that could be damaging to the Church. However, after some preliminary exchanges, the Archbishop decided to delegate the matter to Gareth Mostyn, Chief Executive of the Church Commissioners, who refused to engage with his critics. In June 2024 Mr Mostyn published a Comment piece in the Church Times in which he reiterated that the Bounty invested significant sums in, and derived a material amount of its income from, the South Sea Company (in fact dividends from the Company represented 0.1% of the Bounty’s total income in the 1700s.) He also stated that the degree of profitability was no longer the issue, a departure from the Commissioners’ original remit to Grant Thornton, and that what mattered was unspecified “historical connections”, “financial involvements”, and “tangible links” to enslavement. But not everyone was singing from same hymn sheet. On April 14th 2025, the Archbishop of York gave a keynote address to a UN sponsored forum on historical injustices in which he focussed on the Commissioners’ research into the Church’s links to slavery: “How we invested in the South Sea Company and the very significant amounts of money we made from this.” Here again there was an assertion that the Church had made large profits from the slave trade. The Commissioners’ historical advisers, Professor Richard Drayton and Dr Helen Paul, released their own defence of the Commissioners’ research in June 2025. However, once again there were serious errors, some of which are identified below (for a longer engagement, see here): 1. South Sea Company and annuities. Dayton and Paul renewed the claim that the South Sea Company was a counterparty to and issuer of South Sea Annuities. Apparently, the South Sea Company “could issue a financial instrument or contract called an annuity to investors. The investors would be entitled to an annual payment (ie. an annuity payment) from the South Sea Company”. This rash assertion is contradicted by the wording of the Annuity certificates (no mention of the South Sea Company) and the stated objective of the 1723 and the 1733 stock splits which was to relieve Annuitants of any risk exposure (including counterparty risk) to the South Sea Company. The D and P assertion does not qualify as evidence based research, the authors having failed to identify a single Annuity certificate on which the South Sea Company is named as counterparty. 2. Asiento Dayton and Paul proclaim “the myth of the unprofitability of the Asiento”. Their assertion that the South Sea Company made profits from this gruesome slaving contract relies on an (outlier) article by Price and Whatley who base their findings on the capital asset pricing model. The econometric formula makes heroic assumptions about investors (all are rational, have the same access to information, have the same expectations of future returns on all assets, can borrow without limit at the riskless rate of interest and so on) which limit the technique’s relevance even to today’s markets, let alone the unregulated mayhem of Exchange Alley in the early 1700s. In any event there is no need to rely on controversial mathematical formulae when there exists a contemporary shareholders’ report on the South Sea Company’s accounts published in 1733 (The Report of the Committee appointed to Inspect and Examine the several Accompts of the South Sea Company). As already stated this shows large losses on the Company’s trade account. Price and Whatley do not cite, mention or reference this crucial document or indeed other primary sources such as Adam Anderson’s classic contemporary account. Evidence based research surely requires that the best evidence be used, a principle which D and P have failed to follow. 3. Reciprocity Dayton and Paul suggest that “at the level of the firm” there was “reciprocity” between the South Sea Stock and the South Sea Annuities, the one (stock) risky and the other (annuities) secure, as if we were dealing with a single corporate entity diversifying its income stream. In reality, as anyone who has read the relevant legislation should know, there were two companies with separate balance sheets, legally separated assets and liabilities, separate revenue streams and separate proprietors. There was no “reciprocity”. 4. Fungibility Dayton and Paul claimed that money is “fungible” and that the sums to be paid out to annuity holders “was not neatly separated from other moneys held by the Company.” The South Sea Company was therefore free to divert such funds to its own use and then use profits from the slave trade [!] to pay the Annuitants. The authors have evidently not understood the relevant legislation which makes clear that interest received from the government by the South Sea Company on behalf of Annuitants was to be held separately “in trust and for the benefit of the annuitants” before passing to the Annuitant beneficiaries. 5. Administration The government paid an annual fee of £14,500 to the South Sea Company for acting as registrar and paying agent for government debt. This sum, equivalent to less than 0.1% of assets administered, was intended to cover the enormous costs of maintaining an army of clerks: we do not know how many but no doubt considerably more than the Bank of England which, in 1720, with a much smaller balance sheet than the South Sea Company, employed around 100 clerks on a minimum salary of £50 per annum. Allowing for the higher salaries of senior clerks and supervisors, the administration fee does not appear exorbitant. However, D and P state that the annual fee provided “a steady income stream” for the South Sea Company which could be used for any purpose they chose, as if it were a net profit rather than payment for (costly) book-keeping services. 6. Scholarship There are several lapses of scholarship in the Dayton and Paul response, notably a reference to the historian Victoria Sorsby. She is cited as authority for Dayton and Paul’s insistence that a payment of £100,000 to the South Sea Company in 1750 was not made as compensation for the Company’s losses on the slave trade. However, the abstract of Sorsby’s excellent thesis states unequivocally that “in 1750 the Asiento Contract was terminated and the South Sea Company paid £100,000 to cover their losses on the trade.” It is quite a feat to seek to rebut ones critics by citing a source that proves their point. 7. Cross subsidy Dayton and Paul cast around for any conceivable connections between the Annuities and the South Sea Company’s slave trade. Such speculation includes hypothetical cross-subsidisation involving the South Sea Company’s administration fee and the suggestion that some clerks at South Sea House may have been tasked with book-keeping for the Company’s trading activities as well as the legally separate Annuity function. However, no evidence is offered and all is surmise. Perhaps there was even occasional sharing of quill pens? The responses of the Commissioners and their historical advisers to criticisms of their research simply serve to raise fresh questions about their version of history. Nevertheless, though the Commissioners have grossly exaggerated its connection with the slave trade the 18th century Church, in common with so many others, looked on passively while this abominable traffic in humans was in full swing. Furthermore, the Bounty managers did make one foray into the stock market during the South Sea Bubble, which, for a limited time, exposed them directly to the slave trade. Finally, the Bounty may have received significant tainted funds from benefactions as the Commissioners have alleged—though at 4–5% of the Bounty’s total income such slavery related donations were surely no greater than the tainted funds received by other charitable institutions in the 18th century. (Charles Wide has shown that the methodology used by the Commissioners to identify tainted benefactions is highly speculative. See Wide’s comments cited in Biggar, Reparations pp. 133/4.) In short, the Church, with all its faults, was a reflection of society at the time rather than a malign actor profiteering from the slave trade. The question that arises is why the Commissioners have shown such willingness, even eagerness, to accept an ill-founded version of history so damaging to their predecessors. Certainly church leaders may feel that by denigrating their 18th century forebears, they are placing themselves and the modern church on a higher moral plain than would otherwise be the case. Such virtue signalling has an ancient history as evidenced by the biblical warning from the Sermon on the Mount: Beware of practising your piety before others in order to be seen by them; for then you have no reward from your father in heaven. (Matthew 6: 1) When the Commissioners were confronted with compelling evidence of major flaws in their research different forces came into play. No doubt convinced that they were pursuing a righteous cause, their behaviour exhibited all the signs of “cognitive dissonance”. This may arise when discomfort is triggered by beliefs clashing with new information. In the words of Leon Festinger, the eminent American social psychologist who originated the theory: “Tell them you disagree and they turn away. Show them facts or figures and they question your sources. Appeal to logic and they fail to see your point.” Another tell-tale manifestation of this condition is “Belief Disconfirmation” where those affected double-down on a belief when confronted with evidence that it is wrong. What should happen now? Some may take the view that although the Commissioners’ research is flawed and misleading too much reputational damage would be incurred by a formal admission of error on their part. Therefore it might be better to let things stand. This however would be a grave mistake. In the first place the Church Commissioners are appointed to uphold their publicly declared principles which include a commitment to transparency, accountability and evidence-based research. Failure to demonstrate this commitment would be a betrayal of their office. Second, the Commissioners’ allegation that the Bounty was deeply complicit in the slave trade provided their justification for launching Project Spire. It would surely be morally wrong if not illegal, to seek charitable status for such a project on the basis of a false historical prospectus. Finally, and most importantly, the widely publicised historical misrepresentations to which the Commissioners have lent their full authority are now embedded in Google and AI and no doubt relied upon by schools and colleges worldwide. For instance, Google/AI put the Church’s earnings from the slave trade at between £400 million and £1.4 billion, the higher figure equating with the Bounty’s total revenue from South Sea Annuities. The consequences of the Commissioners’ false historical narrative have therefore gone well beyond the remit of Church leaders and must be viewed as nothing less than a national scandal. If the Commissioners will not appoint a truly independent legal panel to look into this matter it would surely be appropriate for Parliament to intervene and conduct an investigation into how the Commissioners came to rely on deeply flawed research to damage the global reputation of the established Church and distort this country’s national history. Dr Richard Dale is an Emeritus Professor of the University of Southampton and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society. His books include The First Crash: Lessons from the South Sea Bubble (Princeton University Press, 2016).

(Image: The Tower of Babel, Pieter Bruegel the Elder) The Rev. Dr. Ronald Moore The Southern Anglican April 8, 2026 There is a thread running quietly beneath many of the crises we see in the modern West. It is not always named, but it is widely felt. It appears in our institutions, in our public discourse, and increasingly in our moral reasoning. At its core, it is this: the elevation of the self to the highest authority. We are living in an age where the individual—his desires, his perceptions, his preferences—has become the final court of appeal. What was once ordered under God, tradition, and moral law is now judged by the internal compass of the autonomous self. And when the self becomes ultimate, everything else becomes negotiable. This shift does not always appear in obvious ways. It often presents itself clothed in the language of compassion, justice, or authenticity. But beneath the language lies a deeper question: Who has the authority to define what is good? Increasingly, the answer given is: I do. The Root: A Disordered Love The problem is not that man loves himself. Scripture assumes that he does. “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:31, NKJV). Self-love, properly understood, is not a vice but a given. The problem arises when the order of love is reversed. In the classical Christian tradition, love must be rightly ordered: · God first · then neighbor · then self, in its proper place When that order collapses, the self moves to the center. And once enthroned, it does not remain contained. It begins to reorder everything else around it. This is what Augustine described as the soul curved inward upon itself—incurvatus in se. It is not merely selfishness in the trivial sense. It is a fundamental misalignment of the human person. The Many Faces of a Single Disorder When the self becomes the highest authority, its effects manifest in different ways. In some cases, the result is outright moral evil. The exploitation of the vulnerable—whether through manipulation, abuse, or grooming—is rooted in the elevation of personal desire over the dignity of another human being. The logic is simple and devastating: I want, therefore I take. In other cases, the distortion appears as hatred or superiority. Racism and antisemitism elevate identity over truth, placing one group above another in direct contradiction to the Christian understanding that all are made in the image of God. Again, the root is the same: my perception, my identity, my judgment—these are ultimate. But not all distortions present themselves as cruelty. Some appear as compassion. There are movements and positions in our time that, on the surface, seem motivated by kindness—care for the stranger, concern for the outsider, sympathy for those in need. These are not impulses to be dismissed. They reflect something genuinely human and, in many cases, genuinely Christian. And yet, when compassion is severed from truth, order, and responsibility, it can become destructive. A society cannot sustain itself if it is governed solely by sentiment. Laws exist for a reason. Boundaries exist for a reason. The common good is not an abstraction—it is the condition that allows a people to live, flourish, and endure together. When the individual says, “My compassion overrides the structures that hold society together,” what has happened is not mercy rightly applied, but love misordered. The Loss of a Shared Moral Framework What we are witnessing, then, is not merely a collection of unrelated problems. It is the breakdown of a shared moral framework. When God is no longer the reference point, there is no longer a common standard by which competing claims can be judged. Each person becomes, in effect, his own moral authority. The result is not freedom, but fragmentation. One group elevates compassion above all else. Another elevates order. Another elevates identity. Another elevates autonomy. And because there is no higher standard, these competing moralities cannot be reconciled—only asserted. This is why our discourse feels increasingly unstable. It is not simply that we disagree. It is that we no longer agree on how to determine what is true. The Collective and the Person It would be a mistake, however, to frame this as a simple conflict between the individual and the collective. The Christian tradition does not erase the individual in favor of the group, nor does it exalt the individual at the expense of the community. It orders both under God. The person has dignity because he is made in the image of God. The community has purpose because it is the context in which that dignity is lived out and protected. When the self is deified, both are damaged. · The individual becomes isolated, burdened with the impossible task of self-definition · The community becomes unstable, unable to sustain shared norms or long-term cohesion What is lost is not merely balance, but meaning. The Only Remedy The answer is not a stronger assertion of the collective over the individual. History has shown where that leads. The answer is the restoration of right order. “For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11, NKJV). When Christ is the foundation: · the self is no longer ultimate, but neither is it erased · compassion is guided by truth · justice is tempered with mercy · and the common good is understood not as a competing interest, but as a shared participation in ordered life The problem of our age is not merely political or cultural. It is theological. We have not simply lost our way—we have lost our center. And until that center is restored, we will continue to see the same pattern repeat itself: different issues, different language, but the same underlying disorder. The deification of the self will always produce confusion, and confusion will always produce fracture. Only a return to the One who orders all things can bring clarity again. END

By Canon Dr. Chris Sugden ANGLICAN MAINSTREAM April 8, 2026 The parish One point needs to be remembered. The Church of England has been rooted in its parishes, since well before the Reformation. In the New Testament we learn that from the earliest days of the church there was a structure made up of apostles / bishops, elders and deacons and ‘those with gifts of administration’ (1 Cor 12.28). The apostles founded churches and visited them, but there was no plethora of assistants, secretaries, committees etc . Some of the newer churches today function in a way more similar to the New Testament pattern, and so do many Baptist, Independent Evangelical and Pentecostal churches. Non-episcopal churches (many of which are gathered rather than parochial) now represent the largest sector (43%) of worshipping people in the UK. https://faithsurvey.co.uk/uk-christianity.html. Anglicans make up 21% and Catholics 25%. These ‘newer’ churches have very little superstructure or central costs. Each church is an individual entity. They have trans-church leaders with oversight of other congregations and leaders, but it is mostly done by elders who are already helping lead churches themselves. The CofE is different from ECUSA. It is not an organization. ECUSA took its ecclesiology and its orders from the Episcopal Church in Scotland. The Church of England derived its structure, and parish order from the Catholic church from before the Reformation. So the Church in England has been rooted in its parishes for 1500 years. They have been part of local organisation for a millennium and a half. They are part of our national structure. Interestingly the dioceses were for centuries very extensive, for example the Diocese of Lincoln included parts of Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire. There is a stall in Lincoln Cathedral for the Archdeacon of Buckingham and the Bishop of Lincoln is still the visitor of Eton College. What is more, travel was by horseback. So the parishes functioned by and large without extensive oversight or involvement by the bishop and his staff. The Church of England is rooted in the English culture. Its very cultural power and presence is why the gay, green and other political activists have 'gone for it'. The desire to maintain the place and role of the parish church is not a matter of wanting to hang on to assets as such, but to maintain its presence in the community. A drive through the countryside will show how embedded people in parish churches are in their local communities. In many areas, a high proportion of those who work in organisations such as Meals on Wheels, or the work of transporting disabled and sick people to surgeries and hospital, especially in rural areas happen to be church people who do this as part of the parish church’s presence in the community although they are not organized by the church. When people move into a new area, if they so wish, a parish church immediately provides a new network and community to which to relate. Commentators are increasingly noting that many of the values that have underlain our national life such as honesty, integrity, care for the neighbour and neighbourhood have been rooted in the life of the churches and is not something that we want to lose. Melanie Phillips writes in the Times for March 31 “Precepts such as respect for every human being as having been formed in the image of God, responsibility for one’s actions, the high value placed on compassion and putting the interests of others first, the importance of justice and equality under law – these are particular to the Bible”. Lord Glasman, a Jewish Labour Peer wrote in the Times on Christmas Eve 2025 “The English church is a glory of our nation. It gave us charity, law and government. Thomas Cromwell’s parish maps of 1538 are still how we imagine our country. The parish, the village, the town, the city, the county, the kingdom. Who cares for Medway, Merseyside and the combined authorities? They are administrative units that command no loyalty or affection. We need the strength and clarity of the Church of England more than ever now and yet its voice is strangely silent. It has become a ghost, haunting its own churches.” The CofE is composed of a series of parishes, covering the whole country, each served by a vicar who needs wider support. In this it is similar to the pattern of the distribution of the Levites throughout the land as recorded in Joshua 21. They were distributed throughout the land and cities allotted to the other tribes in order to have a priestly and teaching presence among the whole people. A vicar in a parish is not only the vicar of a congregation there, he/ she is also the vicar of the parish with a concern for the wellbeing of the whole community. The existence of a parish offers many opportunities for mission. Examples can be seen in the way some parishes distribute cards advertising their Christmas carol services and other Christmas activities to every house in the parish, or organize activities based at the church or elsewhere for the whole community thus building all-important relationships. The folly of recent policy has been to regard the CofE as an organisation like BP or the NHS which needs managers and to centralise worship centres. This considerably reduces the role of the local church. Much of resources and money of the Church of England is being used in diocesan projects and bureaucracy. More and more is the diocese interfering in the life of the local church and telling it what to do: flower arranging, heat pumps, safeguarding. The diocese is even telling one parish that one of their brilliant churchwardens must stand down because she has been churchwarden for 5 years. There is also the issue of the amount spent at the national level on social and political issues. Might it not be argued that such issues could be better left to ‘voluntary societies’ within the Church of England, drawing on the expertise of those who already specialise in these subjects, rather than by the Church of England as an institution? The calling of bishops is to be overseers/elders whose task is to be pastors of the pastors, to guard, teach, pray for and build up the church. It is those under their care who have the task of translating the faith into social and political application. It means that there needs to be creative means of providing local lay leaders so that the church leadership can get to know the people in the parish properly. A similar challenge has taken place in GP surgeries as well, where no one now has their ‘own GP’. Continuity is with data in the NHS system rather than with a known GP. The church needs to appoint and train many more people to perform many of the functions in the local church that used to be fulfilled by the Vicar, not just admin, but preaching, leading worship, and doing the local pastoral visiting. It will take time for this sort of pattern to develop. If we are going to have more local leaders then the issue of how they are trained has to be addressed. At the moment the training provided by local ministry courses is widely recognized to be inadequate in providing lay ministers with a strong foundation in biblical knowledge and orthodox Anglican teaching. This in turn means that the teaching they provide in the parishes is very often inadequate. If we want to see a revival of parochial Anglicanism this issue is arguably at least as important as reviewing diocesan and national administration. The older traditional free churches (Methodists, and Congregationalists and Presbyterians – now URC) are now largely absent in rural areas apart from perhaps Cornwall and sections of northern England. But there has been a growth of local witness and pastoral care by newer free churches. However they are nearly all gathered churches so there is rarely much tangible local presence, relying on the witness of individual Christians. There are exceptions but they rarely have anything similar to parishes with local responsibility and accountability. It is the CofE parish churches which remain and the percentage of the local population that attend is greater than in urban areas. John Keble said "The Church of England continues in my parish". Challenges and opportunities At the head of the high street in Bedale, North Yorkshire stands the parish church of St Gregory’s. For the parishioners of Bedale, this is where they meet the presence of God together. While the imposing structure of York Minister is a short train ride away it should not be regarded as a more significant or important place to meet with God. The same is true of the large urban churches, ‘meccas’ to which many are attracted away from the parishes in which they live. In the gospel narratives, Jesus describes himself as the one who will replace the Jerusalem temple. David Wenham writes in ‘The Parables of Jesus’ that Jesus warns that the presence of God will no longer be in the Jerusalem temple, and worship will be in Spirit and truth (John 4 21-24). “The hints point to the new temple being in the risen Jesus himself as the Messiah and in the community of his followers”. This is not an appeal for a 19th century version of the parish and parish clergy. Country parishes are caught up in a variety of social changes that make the old structure more difficult to maintain. Villages used to have their own school, shop(s), pub, etc, most of which have become centralised in the nearby town to which everyone goes for almost everything. Even the surviving pubs are now gastro restaurants. Going to the nearby town church is therefore only what you do for everything else - by car! In addition to these changes in village life, many properties in the villages are now second homes or AirB&B lets, particularly in areas like the Cotswolds. So fewer residents live there to support any village activities. There is not an easy answer to these social changes and so many village churches are on the closure list as places of regular worship. There is of course a considerable pressure on the resource to fill every parish with an incumbent. In some areas already the incumbent has to ‘service’ as many as ten ‘worship centres’ in churches. This calls for a proper understanding of ‘team ministry’ where an important role of the vicar is to train, pastor and lead senior lay people to lead worship, preach and provide pastoral care in the manner of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians (4:11-13) “So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.” That is to be a team player who recognizes and encourages the gifts which God has given to other members of the fellowship and congregation and allows them space to exercise them and make their contribution. All too often I have sadly come across cases of ‘one man band’ vicars who misinterpret their role as holders of the freehold to be an autocratic managing director whose voice is the only one heard and before whom everyone else is a class of possibly unruly schoolchildren. The days of the ’one-man band’ are over – even though they remain in some places regrettably. A further challenge and opportunity presents itself to the larger ‘gathered’ churches in urban areas. Because they can have well-resourced teams leading the church community they are very attractive to people living further ‘out-of-town’ who are actually based in the under-staffed parishes. So people travel in from these areas to the urban ‘meccas’. Might some follow the example of John Stott at All Souls Langham Place and the leaders of Holy Trinity Brompton and encourage such folk, once ‘firm in their faith’, having been built up in these gathered churches to play their part in their local parish? There is also a challenge to the dioceses and central church authorities. They have seen (been responsible for?) a major increase in the number of ‘diocesan officers’ for various activities. It is true that the impact of compliance issues on clergy - safeguarding, finance, governance, HR, GDPR etc. very significantly impact on the size of the central teams in dioceses and accounts for their growth. Without them parishes would have even greater responsibilities in these areas. However, while such activities may be important, might not the salaries and costs involved be better expended on providing clergy for parishes, and attaching some of these ‘diocesan activities’ to those appointments? To take the Oxford Diocese, for instance. Current figures from their reports and the Diocesan Office are as follows. No of regular worshippers, about 32,000. This figure comes from statistics gathered from average weekly attendance. No of clergy: 1287. Stipendiary clergy 435, those with PtO 519, self-supporting Ministers 110, and licensed lay ministers 223. There are also 160 chaplains. That is 1287 clergy in 808 churches. Number of Diocesan staff. 82.4 number of full time equivalent employees employed by the Diocesan Board of Finance. The website notes 133 staff in all who include post-holders ( not employed by the DBF) The breakdown is as follows: Oxford team 13, Bucks team 12, Dorchester team 8+1 duplicate, Reading team 11. Total 44 Communications 7, Property 15, Finance 10, HR&Safeguarding 13, Mission/Ministry 23, Secretaries, 16, Reg 5, Total 89 Therefore the number of central (overhead) staff 133 (including vacancies but excluding everyone concerned with education) So the ratio of central team to parish teams: 1:10 Ratio of ministers to people: 1:25 Ratio of churches to people: 1:40 Ratio of central team to people: 1:240 Overall ratios Central team: ministers: people is 1:10:250 approx, which is shocking in terms of overhead/superstructure. Those reflecting on the development of businesses notice that they tend to increase the number of administrators and ‘bureaucrats’ out of proportion to those actually engaged in the ‘work’ of the company. Unless they significantly reduce these central overheads this usually leads to the collapse of the company. A plan put forward in Chelmsford Diocese a few years ago was to make each deanery and archdeanery of up to 20 parishes with the leadership and oversight exercised at that level. Such a unit would be the focus of funding. The Church Commissioners Then there is the role of the Church Commissioners. Arguably one of the key problems facing the Church of England is the unwillingness of the Commissioners to release a greater amount of funds to the dioceses and specifically to give a greater amount of money to support clergy pensions. If more money was released to support clergy pensions that would be a very important step in enabling the dioceses to appoint more parochial clergy. At the moment, the existing pensions bill and the need to put away money to cover potential future liabilities is a major factor in making the appointment of more stipendiary clergy prohibitively expensive. The Commissioners argument is the need to preserve funds for the future, but this approach is in danger of ensuring that the Church of England will have a much reduced future. The Church Commissioners funds are to be used to support parish ministry – which is a further reason for this article now. A letter to Archbishop Mullaly when she was still Archbishop-elect read: “By law, the endowment must be used to support parish ministry, maintain church buildings, and care for the Church’s historic records. At a moment when churches across the country are struggling to keep their doors open — many even falling into disrepair — it’s wrong to try and justify diverting £100 million to a project (Project Spire) entirely separate from those core obligations.” Orthodoxy and the Church of England Most people in parish churches will be orthodox, or at least, due to the impact of societal and often family realities, quietly understanding of liberal views on sexuality while not being flag-waving PRIDE advocates or part of the elite class pushing for same-sex marriage. There are some 'enthusiasts' for it, but people in those churches will not have a vote to leave and join the Anglican Mission in Europe; they will not want division but a reasonably quiet life nor will they want to lose the embeddedness of their church in local life. This is their church at the heart of their community. They are not about to go anywhere else. We cannot leave the sheep to the wolves. A challenge in many parishes is that, in addition to members of an elite class pushing for same-sex marriage, many men and women in the pews are also supportive in practice, due to the prevailing liberal messages of the media rarely bring countered from the pulpit, with support being particularly strong where there are family or friends in same-sex relationships. So, with an uncertain future a vision is needed. That vision should not neglect the lessons of the past when every part of the country was covered by a parish with a Christian minister responsible for teaching biblical truth and equipping a Christian community to witness to the good news of the Kingdom of God until the Lord returns. Chris Sugden is honorary associate minister in the parish of St Michael’s Cumnor in Oxford Diocese. He has previously served in parochial ministry in Leeds, Bangalore, and Eynsham. He is a canon of Jos, Nigeria and Sunyani, Ghana. He is chair of the Anglican Mainstream trustees https://anglicanmainstream.org/article/the-parish-is-the-heart-and-other-thoughts-on-the-cofe/

COMMENTARY By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org April 6, 2026 Pope Leo XIV has come out aiming his theological guns at Donald Trump, issuing a direct appeal for peace and urging him to end the war with Iran. Ahead of the Easter holiday, the pontiff addressed the U.S. president and other world leaders, urging them to “look for solutions to problems” and to bring the conflict to an end. Speaking with reporters at Castel Gandolfo, the pope said he hoped President Trump was searching for an “off-ramp” to the war. “I’m told that President Trump recently stated that he would like to end the war,” Pope Leo XIV said. “Hopefully he’s looking for a way to decrease the amount of violence and bombing, which would be a significant contribution to removing the hatred that’s increasing constantly in the Middle East and elsewhere.” The pope’s comments reflect a long tradition within the Roman Catholic Church that emphasizes peace and restraint in the use of military force. Yet they have also stirred debate within Christian circles about the Church’s own historical teaching on war. The Just War Tradition The Catholic Church has never held that all war is immoral. The concept of “just war” was first articulated by St. Augustine in the fourth century and later developed by St. Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. The theory attempts to set moral boundaries around warfare, outlining conditions under which military action can be justified. Traditionally, those conditions include: A just cause, such as self-defense or the protection of the innocent Legitimate authority declaring the war Right intention, meaning the goal is justice and peace rather than revenge or conquest War as a last resort, after diplomatic options have failed A reasonable chance of success Proportionality, ensuring the harm caused by war does not exceed the good achieved Under these criteria, the Church historically recognized that war, while tragic, might sometimes be morally permissible. Would anyone deny that World War II was justified? Six million Jews died in the Holocaust, and millions more soldiers and civilians were slaughtered across Europe and Asia. Fascism threatened to dominate the continent. Adolf Hitler and his regime represented one of the most destructive forces in modern history. The Allied war effort ultimately defeated Nazism and brought an end to one of humanity’s darkest chapters. It also defeated Japanese totalitarianism, which was one of thre cruellest and most racist regimes in history. Anglican theologian Gerald McDermott visited Singapore recently where Singapore Christians reminded him of how grateful all Asians are for the Allies' victory over the Tojo war machine that tortured and murdered untold numbers of their parents and grandparents. The just war tradition has often been invoked to explain why such a conflict was morally necessary. Even pacifists are grateful that Japan and Germany were defeated. Without that war, we would all be speaking German or Japanese. A Moral Dilemma for Soldiers In a related development, Archbishop Timothy Broglio—who heads the Archdiocese for the Military Services and serves as president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops—recently commented on the current conflict. Broglio has ministered to U.S. military chaplains since 2007. In an interview scheduled to air on CBS’s Face the Nation, he suggested that the U.S.–Israeli war against Iran may not meet the traditional criteria of a just war. He said that Catholic service members facing moral questions about the conflict should strive to “do as little harm as you can.” Broglio also described claims that God explicitly approves of the war as “problematic,” arguing that pre-emptive military action raises serious moral concerns. When asked directly whether the war against Iran could be justified under just war theory, Broglio responded: “I would think, under the just war theory, it is not, because while there was a threat with nuclear arms, it is compensating for a threat before the threat is actually realized.” His comments reflect a long-standing debate within Christian ethics: whether pre-emptive war can ever be morally justified. Critics Push Back Some theologians disagree with the pope’s tone and emphasis. Robert A. J. Gagnon, a well-known biblical scholar and ethicist, has argued that broad condemnations of warfare risk overlooking the long-standing Christian framework that allows for military action under specific conditions. Gagnon maintains that just war theory recognizes the moral responsibility of governments to defend their citizens and protect innocent life. Ignoring that framework, he argues, can lead to moral confusion in times of crisis. He has urged church leaders to provide greater clarity about how traditional teachings apply to modern geopolitical threats. The Iranian Threat Iran has been widely identified by Western governments as a state sponsor of international terrorism for decades. Through proxy forces such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, Tehran has extended its influence throughout the Middle East. Its leaders have repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel. On the day Iran declared war on Israel, Hezbollah also launched attacks, forcing Israel to fight on multiple fronts. Hamas rockets continued to strike from Gaza, while Houthi forces in Yemen periodically launched missiles into Israeli territory. From Israel’s perspective, Iran represents an existential threat—particularly if the regime were ever to acquire nuclear weapons. To argue that President Trump was manipulated by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not withstand scrutiny. Israel has faced simultaneous threats from several directions and believes its survival may be at stake. Besides, most are unaware of what became known (to those willing to look, which means only a few) shortly before the war started. The director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency testified about the deadly peril of Iran’s roughly 400 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium which would allow Iran to produce at least 10 fission bombs in short order. One critic of mainstream reports has added, "There was no applause, no gratitude, no support [when Israel and America tried to eliminate this imminent threat to the world]— only more “anti-colonial” polemics against Israel, and even more anti-American resentment, as if the conjunction of nuclear weapons with fanatics waiting for the return of the Twelfth Imam and the “end of history” were not a danger unprecedented in history." Peace at Any Price? The pope calls for peace. In that desire, he speaks for millions. But peace cannot always be purchased at any price. Scripture itself acknowledges the reality of war. The Old Testament contains numerous accounts of Israel engaging in battle at God’s command against nations that threatened its survival. The Bible’s moral landscape is not one of absolute pacifism. Even in the New Testament, Jesus did not rebuke the Roman centurion whose servant he healed. Instead, he commended the soldier’s faith. At no point did Christ demand that the centurion abandon his profession. This suggests that military service itself was not inherently condemned. And Jesus' parables are full of hints that he believed force was necssary to destroy radical evil--such as in his parable of the ten minas where he said the (presumably righteous) nobleman said of his enemies, "Bring them here and slaughter them before me" (Luke 19:27). A War of Attrition The present conflict increasingly resembles a war of attrition. Previous American administrations often gave the Iranian regime diplomatic latitude, sometimes with devastating consequences for stability in the Middle East. Iranian leaders have repeatedly chanted “Death to Israel” and “Death to America.” These slogans are not merely rhetorical flourishes. Tehran’s policies and regional interventions suggest a determination to challenge the Western order and expand its ideological influence. President Trump appears determined to prevent that outcome, as does Israeli leadership. Americans may face economic hardship as a result of the conflict. Yet supporters argue that confronting Iran now may prevent a far greater catastrophe later. Reports indicate that Iran possesses missile systems capable of striking far beyond the Middle East, potentially reaching Europe and even parts of North America. If Iran were allowed to develop missiles and nuclear weapons unchecked, Israel might eventually feel compelled to use its own nuclear arsenal in self-defense. The consequences would be unimaginable. A Clash of Ideologies The struggle in the Middle East is no longer merely a regional dispute between Sunni and Shiite powers. It increasingly reflects a clash of political systems, religious visions, and competing worldviews. This is clear now when Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Bahrain are urging Trump to finish defeating Iran. Turkey’s president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan once dismissed the idea of “moderate Islam,” declaring simply, “Islam is Islam.” Statements like that raise questions about whether ideological reconciliation with militant Islamist movements is truly possible. For critics of the pope’s position, calls for peace that fail to acknowledge these realities risk emboldening aggressors rather than restraining them. The Hard Road to Peace Peace is always the ideal. Yet history shows that lasting peace sometimes requires confronting forces that threaten global stability. Defeatism is not the answer. END

By Jon Brown THE CHRISTIAN POST April 04, 2026 King Charles III has prompted concern from members of the public and some Christian leaders in the United Kingdom for declining to issue a formal Easter message to his subjects this year, despite offering one last year and commemorating Ramadan with a statement in February. King Charles III and Queen Camilla held the Royal Maundy service on Thursday in Wales for only the second time in its 800-year history, though the king's lack of an Easter message, which was confirmed by Buckingham Palace, raised eyebrows from many on social media, including some who speculated he might have secretly converted to Islam. Ceirion H. Dewar, a traditionalist Anglican bishop who penned an open letter to the king last month, warning that the Christian heritage of the U.K. is being "deliberately eroded" and faces growing hostility amid surging Islam, told GB News that he is "bitterly disappointed" by the lack of a royal Easter message this year. "There isn't a royal precedent for releasing a message, but since coming to the throne, Charles has chosen to do so every year," he said. "Having just issued a Ramadan and Eid Mubarak message for the Islamic community, choosing not to give an Easter message is bitterly disappointing." "It does not meet the expectations you would expect from the monarch," he added. "Christians will be heartbroken, having learned the defender of the faith has ignored them." Dewar suggested that the historically Protestant English monarch neglecting to issue a statement commemorating the most important Christian holiday is "so much worse" than simply being syncretistic. Godfrey Bloom, an English author and former member of the European Parliament, echoed concerns that Charles might be Muslim, accused him of betraying his constitutional role and urged him to abdicate. "You are of no use to this country whatsoever," Bloom said. "You have failed in every conceivable way in your relatively short period of time on the throne." "In the name of God, go!" he added, quoting Oliver Cromwell's famous line to the Rump Parliament in the wake of the English Civil War in 1653. Stephen Kuhrt, who serves as the Anglican vicar of Christ Church, New Malden in England, said he believes the king's lack of an Easter message was ill-advised, but is being misinterpreted. "If the king was going to make a speech about Islam in the current climate, perhaps he would have been well-advised to have done something Christian as well, but I genuinely don't think that it was intended the way people have been interpreting it," he said. "I can understand why people are upset in the current climate, but I don't think that was the intention: to denigrate Christianity." Gavin Ashenden, who served as chaplain to Queen Elizabeth II from 2008 to 2017 before leaving the Church of England for Roman Catholicism, issued a 15-minute video statement rebuking the king for neglecting an Easter message, especially as Christianity evaporates in the U.K. amid what he called "a moment of crisis in our civilization." Ashenden, who departed his role as the queen's chaplain after publicly protesting that St. Mary’s Cathedral, Glasgow, marked the Feast of the Epiphany by reciting verses from the Quran denying Christ's divinity, suggested the exclusive claims of Christianity are not palatable to Charles because they contradict the multicultural relativism that has become his de facto religion. "It's Easter, your majesty. Christ is risen," he said. "Try saying it, perhaps, to your subjects to encourage them; to encourage them to live the faith, to talk the faith, to pray the faith, and to rediscover their own value in the eyes of God. Is that not what a king ought to do at a time like this?" Ashenden questioned the usefulness of Charles and his royal house if he is unwilling to fulfill his oath to be a defender of the Christian faith. "I'm afraid it's true: if you can't do this, if you cannot find it in your heart on Easter day to wish your Christian country well on a feast of Christ's resurrection, then maybe you ought to be doing something else in life. Maybe the span of the usefulness of the house of Windsor has come to an end," he added. Since formally assuming the throne in 2023, Charles has repeatedly prompted outrage for actions that many have characterized as an affront to the historic English Protestantism that he swore to uphold and defend in his coronation oath. When he met with Pope Leo XIV and participated in an ecumenical worship service with him in the Sistine Chapel last October, he became the first reigning English monarch to be formally received by a pope since King Canute met with Pope John XIX in 1027. The move led to complaints and calls for his abdication from multiple historic Protestant fraternal groups in the U.K. Last Christmas, the king stoked backlash for his Christmas message that praised "the great diversity of our communities" while expressing his admiration for "all the great faiths." King Charles III is slated to make a state visit to the United States later this month, when he will deliver an address to a joint session of Congress to mark the 250th anniversary of American independence from Great Britain. END

By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org April 5, 2026 The former flagship parish of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut — St. Paul's, Darien — is being demolished to make way for multimillion-dollar homes, according to local news reports. St. Paul's was for decades the leading charismatic parish in the Episcopal Church, shaped by the vision of the Rev. Everett L. "Terry" Fullam, who served as rector from 1972 to 1989. Under his leadership, the congregation became one of the most active and fastest-growing churches in the United States, with a focus on renewal through the work of the Holy Spirit. Fullam had come under the influence of Dennis Bennett, an Episcopal clergyman widely regarded as the most prominent progenitor of the modern charismatic movement. The movement's beginning is often dated to April 3, 1960, when Bennett announced from the pulpit of his church in Van Nuys, California, that he had received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and spoken in tongues. Through Bennett's influence, Fullam became a leading voice of the charismatic renewal then sweeping the country — and a counterweight to the Episcopal Church's accelerating drift toward theological revisionism. Fullam left St. Paul's in 1989 to pursue a wider global ministry. In a 2004 interview with this writer at an Anglican Mission in America conference in Destin, Florida, Fullam — then 72 and using a power chair following a stroke — said he did not believe the Episcopal Church could be reclaimed. "I blame the seminaries," he said, "because they do not give proper instruction." Asked whether the Episcopal Church was finished as a major Christian denomination in America, he replied simply: "Yes, I think ECUSA is finished." He praised Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry (now Trinity Anglican Seminary) and Nashotah House as the best remaining sources of hope for any kind of renewal. Fullam died in 2014. Following Fullam's departure, a succession of charismatic clergy led St. Paul's, but the church eventually became embroiled in serious legal disputes. The most damaging involved the Rev. George I. Kovoor, who was fired amid allegations that he had misrepresented his background during the hiring process. The vestry sought his removal, which resulted in a lawsuit that also named Bishop Ian Douglas, who had supported Kovoor. A settlement was reached in 2020, with all accusations against Kovoor withdrawn and his position as rector restored. But the damage was done. The legal battle had emptied the pews, and the congregation could not recover. A group of former wardens and vestry members chose to continue worship independently, forming what they called New St. Paul's Church. The original parish closed, and the property fell into disuse and disrepair. The diocese has not disclosed the sale price; its gay bishop Jeffrey Mello stated that the proceeds would be directed toward ministry objectives. St. Paul's nearly 60-year history stands as a documented example of charismatic evangelical renewal within American Episcopalianism — and its collapse as a cautionary one. The rise and fall of the charismatic movement in the Episcopal Church coincided with the denomination's increasing embrace of revisionist theology, same-sex marriage, and progressive theological priorities — trends that many observers believe will continue to erode its membership and influence. Terry Fullam is gone. The building that bore witness to his ministry soon will be too. The faith he proclaimed endures. END

By Andrew Carey Theologians may one day explore a “theology of email” or a “spirituality of email,” but it may not be necessary. Reports from the Greenbelt festival noted that Archbishop Rowan Williams spoke about how email technology fueled the global debate over sexuality within the Anglican Communion. Emails allowed campaigners across the world to mobilize quickly and encouraged rapid responses. New communication technology certainly accelerates controversy. Yet similar patterns existed long before email—through the printing press, newspapers, and press releases. At the same time, the internet has allowed isolated conservatives in liberal dioceses to find support and encouragement from others who share their views. Nevertheless, disagreements among Christians require grace and patience. Before pressing the “send” button, Carey suggests four simple disciplines: Sleep on contentious emails before sending them. Consider how you would feel receiving the message. Ask whether everyone on your list needs to receive it. Ask whether the email needs to be sent at all. VIRGINIA: EX-ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY TO PRESIDE AT CONFIRMATION By Julia DuinThe Washington Times — September 7, 2004 Several hundred Virginia Episcopalians unhappy with their bishop’s support for homosexuality are bringing in a retired Archbishop of Canterbury to preside over confirmation services. The event will feature confirmation candidates from eleven churches in Northern Virginia and former Archbishop George Carey, who will place his hands on each candidate during the rite. The service is being organized by conservative Episcopalians who split with Bishop Peter J. Lee after he approved the election of Bishop Gene Robinson as the Episcopal Church’s first openly gay bishop. EPISCOPALIANS TO U.K. FOR DAMAGE CONTROL London, Sept. 8 (UPI) The head of the Episcopal Church flew suddenly to London to address growing tensions within the Anglican Communion. Frank Griswold traveled to support four other U.S. bishops attempting to slow momentum toward disciplinary action against the Episcopal Church following its support for gay and lesbian advocacy. Reports indicate the recommendation for sanctions could be made soon but publicly revealed later in the year. RITES AND PRAYERS BEFORE A STORMBy Terry Mattingly Anyone who has lived in a hurricane zone knows the rituals before a storm: boarding windows, filling bathtubs with water, checking radios and flashlights. Eventually, however, people begin to pray. But what should believers pray for? Should they ask God to redirect the storm elsewhere, or simply pray that God’s will be done? Christian traditions have long wrestled with these questions. Catholic liturgies include prayers “for averting tempests,” while Lutheran and Orthodox traditions offer prayers for protection and mercy. In times of danger, many believers simply pray for deliverance—for themselves and for others. LONDON CONSECRATION SETS PRECEDENTS FOR BOUNDARY CROSSING News AnalysisBy David W. Virtue The decision to allow the consecration of an English vicar by an African primate as a missionary bishop raises major questions about authority and jurisdiction within the Anglican Communion. The Rev. Sandy Millar of Holy Trinity, Brompton will become a Ugandan bishop responsible for Alpha parishes in England following consecration by the Primate of Uganda. This extraordinary action could have legal implications across the Communion, particularly in the United States where orthodox parishes are engaged in disputes with Episcopal bishops. By allowing such cross-boundary ministry, the Archbishop of Canterbury may have unintentionally strengthened arguments made by orthodox clergy seeking alternative oversight. Whether this move helps preserve unity or deepens division remains to be seen.