Archives

News Analysis By Uwe Siemon-Netto UPI Religious Affairs Editor WASHINGTON, April 15 (UPI) -- In the face of the contemporary challenge by radical Islamists, Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism are bidding farewell to the hatred caused by the Fourth Crusade exactly 800 years ago. The spiritual leader of the Orthodox faithful formally accepted an apology Pope John Paul II offered in 2001 for the three-day sacking of Constantinople in April 1204. The city, until then the wealthiest in Christendom, never recovered from this event, which permanently weakened the Greek Empire, a bulwark that had protected Europe for centuries against Muslim incursions. "The spirit of reconciliation is stronger than hatred," said Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople during a liturgy attended by Cardinal Philippe Barbarin, archbishop of Lyon, France, considered to be a potential successor to the present pope. "We receive with gratitude and respect your cordial gesture for the tragic events of the Fourth Crusade," said Bartholomew, the titular head of Orthodoxy. Referring to the Easter season, Bartholomew added, "The spirit of reconciliation of the resurrection incites us toward reconciliation in Christ." Two years ago, the pope had asked for God's forgiveness for the "sins of action and omission" Catholics had committed against the Orthodox, including the destruction of Constantinople, an event whose cruelties ended all attempts to overcome the great schism between the Western and the Eastern Church 150 years earlier. Much of the Vatican's contrition over this butchery has to do with the appalling comportment of Catholic clergymen during the siege of the center of Eastern Christianity. The Crusaders were reluctant to attack fellow Christians, but the clergy convinced them that the Orthodox Byzantines were almost as bad as the Muslims. They had allied with Saladin against the Third Crusade, and had done nothing to aid the Second Crusade; they should be punished for their lack of support. During the rampage, in which even the Crusaders' cooks participated wearing their pots as helmets, ancient works of art were annihilated. The Crusaders returned to Europe brimming with plunder, including a novelty for the West -- wallpaper, a Chinese invention that until then had made its way to Constantinople, but no further. "Between the plunder and the fire ... Constantinople was ravaged so badly that it never recovered," writes Ellis "Skip" Knox, who teaches history at Boise State University in Idaho. "It would not return to anything like its former glory until the Ottomans had conquered it and turned it into a great Muslim city." "Maybe recent events (meaning terrorist acts by Muslim extremists) have leant urgency to recent attempts at healing the rift between the Eastern and the West Church, including the pope's apology and now its acceptance by Bartholomew I," Knox suggested in a telephone interview. The Rev. Emmanuel Clapsis, dean of Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology at Brookline, Mass., was even more outspoken. "We have to see to it that the Christian Church reconciles and recovers its broken unity," he told United Press International Thursday. "That's the will of Christ. Christianity's division is a scandal." "The Church must breathe again with both lungs," said Clapsis, using a term John Paul II had coined during his pilgrimage to Greece in 2001. The pontiff's encounter with Greek prelates went surprisingly well, as did his subsequent meetings with Orthodox prelates in Syria, the Ukraine and other countries. However, the intransigence of the Russian Church has so far proved to be a seemingly insuperable hurdle in the pope's quest for Christian unity. A recent visit by Cardinal Walter Kasper, the Vatican's chief ecumenical officer, with the Russian hierarchy "accomplished nothing," according to Claus-Peter Clausen, publisher of a Catholic newsletter in Germany and a specialist on the tensions between Rome and Russian Orthodoxy. The main obstacle is the existence of Catholic "uniate" churches, which are loyal to Rome but have maintained rites are identical to those of the Orthodox denominations. The uniate have been around since the 16th century. "But with the liberation of Eastern Europe, their existence created unexpected difficulties," said Clapsis, one of Orthodoxy's foremost ecumenists. "However, I am very optimistic that by God's grace and our determination we will overcome these temporary obstacles," he added. "If we allow God's grace overcome our human reservations, we can resolve problems even with Russia." "After all," he went on, "both the Holy Father and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew are committed to the unity of the Christian Church." Could this happen during this pope's lifetime, which may not be very long anymore? "This is an active and real possibility," the Greek Orthodox scholar replied. "Unexpected things may occur -- since we are in the speed of the resurrection." END

News Analysis By David W. Virtue This is a tale of two churches. By any standard they would be considered successful. Both churches are large with significant ministries. Both are wealthy and both are powerful forces in their communities. One is old money, one is new. They are landmark churches in their dioceses and at least one rector is the apple of his bishop's eye. Their rectors are known nationally and each is respected for their work and ministry in the circles they travel. But now all that is all changing. Recent events in the Episcopal Church — the consecration of an openly homoerotic bishop - is profoundly affecting the unity of the church and the polity of the worldwide Anglican Communion. It has also affected both these churches, but in vastly different ways. Here are their stories. The Very Rev. Samuel G. Candler is the Dean of the Cathedral of St. Philip in downtown Atlanta. The cathedral is an historic landmark erected in 1848 and it was consecrated the first Episcopal Church in Atlanta. It is much respected for its place in the community. The cathedral is also the epicenter of the Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta's pansexual community. Furthermore Dean Candler is an extremely vocal advocate of the church's doctrine of inclusion of homosexuals and has done yeoman's work in the diocese and in Cathedral publications justifying his views. He has traveled extensively around the Southeast speaking his mind on the issues and has the ear of Bishop J. Neil "Heresy is better than schism" Alexander. This bishop voted last fall in favor of Robinson's ordination and consecration. But the effect of Dean Candler's push for homosexual acceptance has come with a large price tag. His cathedral is in financial free fall. As one observer noted, "Candler's gas allowance is about to go down, as the downtown homosexual community hasn't been able to make up for the financial losses from the few remaining orthodox members at the cathedral." In the cathedral newsletter Candler whines about the church's declining finances and asks the question: Is the Cathedral a Rich Church? He asks, "Will our parish be able to make ends meet in 2004?" The answer it would appear is no. Pledges, he says, are down 3.5% from last year. "This is more than disappointing to me." As a result there will be no general staff raises, a reduction in requested diocesan pledging and no replacement of vacant staff positions that he says "are desperately needed." Furthermore several staff positions will remain vacant including an administrative assistant, registrar, and information technology, "our staff will continue to work with the discouraging squeeze of more demands and less support." Candler then went on to cite increased expenses including increased property insurance of $54,000 (and more to come), utility increases of $36,730 (and more to come). Then he drops the big news. He says that the cathedral has lost more than $200,000 in reduced pledges from folks upset with the Episcopal Church General Convention's actions on sexuality. "Some of those folks have told me that they want to make a financial protest." Candler then says, "but that statement does not directly affect places like New Hampshire, it directly affects the spirit and the life of our parish." There you have it. The sins of New Hampshire are visited upon Atlanta, and Candler is feeling the pain. And to add fuel to an already blazing fire, Candler announced that he needs another $70,000 in pledged income to meet new interest costs on new construction. He whines that the church has no "sugar daddies" and says that the problem might be that the church is perceived as rich in "both material and spiritual resources" but it is only a perception with the result that people are spiritually lazy, he says. In 2003 the budget was $3,647,000 with expenditures and costs $3,515,000. The year ended with a surplus of $132,000. Average Sunday attendance for 2003 was 1262. But now all that is crashing and burning. The church has built a whole new wing that has cost $17 million. So far the church has raised $10 million and needs $7 million to complete it. A source said that it is very unlikely that he will ever get that kind of money again. It is believed that Candler's family money is Coca Cola. The interest alone is causing a headache for the church. But what Candler won't admit is that it is not just demographics and an aging Episcopal Atlanta population that is doing him in, but his theology on human sexuality. He just doesn't get it. Blessing sodomy is not a draw card for white or black middle class, upwardly mobile Atlantans. They like their sexuality straight up, and, er… straight. Now consider another church in another part of the country. This church is growing and thriving because it has a different theology and a different understanding of sexuality and mission. This one is in Plano, Texas and it is called Christ Church, and its rector is Canon David Roseberry. Roseberry is making a name for himself having sponsored the Plano gathering earlier this year that drew several thousand orthodox Episcopalians following General Convention's affirmation of Robinson's unbiblical lifestyle and his elevation to the episcopacy. But unlike the Cathedral of St. Philip's in Atlanta, the Robinson consecration has not affected Christ Church, Plano, because Canon Roseberry has a different gospel, with an age-old message that he won't change to suit the passing fashions of our times. "The Robinson consecration has galvanized the church to take a biblical stand for orthodoxy," said Roseberry to Virtuosity. "If there is one thing I have learned about ministering in a large church, it is that large churches thrive on clarity and Christology. We have to be clear about who Jesus is and the effect he has on personal life transformation. That is what the Good News is." People come to church to find out what God has to say about pressing social issues, said the canon, one of Bishop James Stanton's outstanding priests. "The bible is very clear on what the most important subjects are. People can find out what the world believes from magazines and a newspaper rack; but what God believes in, what Holy Scripture declares is a wholly different matter. The church has a theology and a moral responsibility to share that Good News with its people." And as a result his church is growing nicely and his budget is up. "Attendance figures are up. Week by week we see 2,200 people coming to four services. Our projected giving for the whole year will be $4.2 million." According to figures released by the church, in 2003 the total pledged budget was $2,950,000. In 2004 pledges will reach $3,362,000, said Roseberry. Total giving will be over $4 million, making it one of the most prestigious and powerful parishes in the Episcopal Church. The parish income alone is bigger than some whole dioceses. "The average donation in 2003 was $4,545.00, in 2004 it will be $4,865.00, and that is in a down economy," said Roseberry. So why is one church successful and the other failing? "To the extent that we are faithful people will come. God will always send His people where they can be cared for," said Roseberry. That might be a lesson Dean Candler could learn as he watches pansexuality ravage his cathedral. NOTE: If you are not receiving this from Virtuosity, the Anglican Communion's largest orthodox Anglican Online News Service, then you may subscribe for FREE by going to www.virtuosityonline.org. Virtuosity's website has been accessed more than 1.4 million times. When you sign up a weekly digest of stories will come directly into your E-mail. END

BBC News Most African Church leaders have condemned Robinson's appointment. Africa's Anglican bishops have resolved to stop receiving donations from western congregations which support the ordination of gay bishops. The bishops also made clear that they would continue to accept funding from what they termed people of good faith. Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola said they would not sacrifice their faith and conscience on the altar of money. Although two-thirds of Anglicans are in the developing world, the wealth of the church still resides in the West. "We will not, on the altar of money, mortgage our conscience, mortgage our faith, mortgage our salvation", said Archbishop Peter Akinola. The work of African churches is, to a large extent, funded by donations from rich Western congregations. Archbishop Akinola said that if the Anglican Church in America offered money to help the poor in his province he would turn it down. "Money can't buy us. There is no price tag on our heads. Money is not everything" he said after a meeting of African, Asian, Caribbean and Latin American bishops in the Kenyan capital Nairobi. African churches had to break their dependency on donations from the West, he added. "To gain our independence and our freedom, we have to suffer for a while," the archbishop said. "We will not, on the altar of money, mortgage our conscience, mortgage our faith, mortgage our salvation." VITAL SERVICES The BBC's Ishbel Matheson in Nairobi says Anglican church leaders in Africa find themselves in a tricky position - most have condemned the ordination of the gay bishop Gene Robinson in America but they would find it hard to completely cut themselves off. In Africa's slums and in impoverished rural areas, religious organisations provide vital medical and social services. The bishops made it plain that money from like-minded Americans, that is those who oppose the ordination of homosexuals, would not be turned away. They said they were now conducting a review of how many programmes would be affected by a ban on official donations from the American church. Archbishop Akinola also said they would take "action they deem necessary" if the US Church failed to "repent" over the ordination of homosexuals within the next three months. "We shall cross that bridge when we get there," he said. "We represent more than half of the entire Anglican world. I don't think anybody would simply want to wish away our opinion. END

Thursday, April 15, 2004 NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) -- Africa's Anglican archbishops decided Thursday to reject donations from any diocese that recognizes gay clergy and refuse cooperation with any missionary that supports the idea. Their decision at a meeting with their counterparts from Asia, the Caribbean and Latin America was the latest attack by church conservatives against the consecration of an openly gay bishop in the United States. The African archbishops also recommended that the Episcopal Church USA, the American branch of the Anglican church, be disciplined and be given three months "to repent" for the consecration in August of Bishop V. Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, in New Hampshire. If the Episcopal church is not disciplined, African Anglicans will be free to take whatever action they see fit, but breaking away from the worldwide Anglican Communion "is not an option", Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria told journalists. The election of an openly gay bishop has created deep divisions within the worldwide Anglican Communion, a confederation of national Anglican churches. The communion established a commission to look into the issue and its report is due in October. The archbishops from Asia, Latin American and the Caribbean at Thursday's meeting were to issue a statement Friday, but Akinola said that "by and large we are together on most issues." Akinola acknowledged that rejecting funds raised in wealthy nations, particularly the United States, will hurt the African churches in the short term. "If we suffer for a while to gain our independence and our freedom and to build ourselves up, I think it will be a good thing for the church in Africa," said Akinola, who also is chairman of the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa, which represents 12 national and regional churches plus the diocese of Egypt. "We will not, on the altar of money, mortgage our conscience, mortgage our faith, mortgage our salvation," he said. Akinola urged African dioceses to become more self-reliant, giving the example of the Anglican Church of Kenya, which uses rent from buildings it owns in the capital Nairobi and elsewhere in the country to pay for some of its work. After the New Hampshire diocese consecrated Robinson, several African Anglican churches severed ties with it. All African churches -- except those in South Africa -- have opposed the ordination of homosexuals. Akinola said the South African leader, Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane of Cape Town, told him in a telephone conversation Thursday that he supported the stand taken by the other African archbishops. He added that Archbishop Drexel Gomez of the Bahamas, who listened in on the conversation, "is firmly in support of the views which we are espousing. He made that quite clear." The worldwide Anglican Communion, a group of 37 independent national churches that trace their roots to the Church of England, has 76.5 million members, of whom 36.8 million are African. The African churches are the fastest growing in the world. "We are not against every church in the America. We are not against every in the West," Akinola said, explaining that in the American Anglican church there were individual churches which did not support what happened in U.S. Diocese of New Hampshire. END

News Analysis By David W. Virtue Episcopal Church leaders have repeatedly said that giving to the ECUSA is down because of the economy and not because of the consecration of V. Gene Robinson an openly homoerotic bishop to the episcopacy. The Episcopal Church is being financially hit hard but the people at 815 insist it is the economy not the decisions to promote sodomy and approve Robinson's consecration that is the problem. According to Episcopal Church treasurer Kurt Barnes charitable and nonprofit organizations have suffered income restrictions this year due to a poorly performing economy, citing declines of up to 20 percent. "Layoffs affect churches too," he pointed out. Nationally, donations to the Episcopal Church are down about $3 million, or 6 percent, since the confirmation of New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson, officials said. Virtuosity reported that this figure was considerably larger based on a business consultant's analysis of ECUSA's figures. But in one diocese after another giving is down to the National Church, attributable they say, to current economic conditions. The continuing loss to the national church will run into the tens of millions of dollars. But all this, is "not material" says deputy director Jan Nunley. "With 9 million unemployed Americans, 4.7 million who have given up looking for work altogether and 80,000 unemployed who exhaust their benefits every week, I have a question: How many of those folks are Episcopalians?" No one knows of course, but as Episcopalians are generally among the richest groups in the U.S. it is unlikely that that is a contributing factor. But according to a Barna report released this week, giving to churches rose substantially in 2003. The California-based organization said that one sure-fire indicator that the national economy is on the path to recovery is found in that Americans donated significantly more money to non-profit organizations in 2003 than they did in 2002. The new report from The Barna Group shows that giving to churches and to non-profit organizations of all types jumped in the past twelve months, with the average dollars donated to churches hitting the highest level since 2000. The study also found that the percentage of adults who tithed to a church remained unchanged, but there are sizeable differences in the proportion of people who tithe according to various demographic and theolographic characteristics. Churches continue to be the dominant recipients of people's generosity. Close to two out of every three households (63%) donated some money to a church, synagogue or other place of religious worship during 2003. That percentage has remained constant since 2001, but is somewhat lower than the number of church donors identified in 2000 and in 1999 (66%). The mean amount of money donated to churches and other worship centers in 2003 was $824. That is the highest mean since 2000, and is 14% higher than the giving level measured in 2002. Once again, the current level is somewhat below the donation level, calculated in constant dollars, of 2000. In total, about three out of every four dollars donated by individuals in 2003 went to churches, synagogues and other religious worship centers. When contributions are examined as a percentage of household income, giving to religious centers represents about 2.2% of gross income. When the survey examined the behavior of born again adults — those who have made a significant personal commitment to Jesus Christ and who believe they will experience eternal life because of their confession of sins and acceptance of Jesus Christ as their savior — the outcome showed just 7% had tithed to their church. The Barna Group survey also identified segments of the population that are the most and the least likely to tithe their money to churches and other worship centers. The segments that were most likely to give at least ten percent to their house of worship included evangelicals (14% did so); adults with an active faith (12% of those who had attended church, prayed and read the Bible during the previous week); African-Americans, born agains, charismatic or Pentecostal Christians, and people from households with a gross income of $60,000 or more (7% among each of those segments). The segments that were least likely to tithe included Catholics (1%) as well as non-born again individuals, adults under 35, and those from households with a gross income of $40,000 to $59,999 (2% of the people in each of those segments tithed). George Barna, whose company conducted the tracking survey, commented that church giving will likely remain flat until church leaders address people's motivations for giving. "Once a church establishes itself as being trustworthy in people's minds, it will raise a minimal amount of money from attenders. However, to significantly increase people's willingness to give generously, a church must speak to the issues that get people excited. The leader, first and foremost, must present a compelling vision for the ministry — not simply keeping the doors open and the programs running, but a clear and energizing goal that describes how lives will be transformed by the church if people contribute their time, money and skills. Related to that vision," Barna continued, "the church must then impress potential donors with its ability to minister in ways that are efficient, effective, satisfying urgent needs, providing personal benefits, and incorporating donors into the heart of the effort to bring about serious life-change. Most donors give a modest sum of money out of habit, guilt or hope, but are not moved to share or sacrifice in a bigger way because they do not sense that the church is revolutionizing the community." The Barna Group, Ltd., and its research division (The Barna Research Group), is an independent cultural analysis and strategic consulting firm located in Ventura, California. Since 1984, it has been studying cultural trends related to values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors. END

By TOM MALITI The Associated Press 4/15/2004 NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — Anglican archbishops from Africa resolved Thursday to reject donations from any diocese that recognizes gay clergy and recommended giving the Episcopal Church in the United States three months to repent for ordaining an openly gay bishop. The archbishops also said they will refuse cooperation with any missionary who supports ordaining gay priests. They said the Episcopalians — the American branch of Anglicanism — should be disciplined for the election last year of V. Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire. Robinson has lived openly with his male partner for years. "If we suffer for a while to gain our independence and our freedom and to build ourselves up, I think it will be a good thing for the church in Africa," Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria told journalists. "And we will not, on the altar of money, mortgage our conscience, mortgage our faith, mortgage our salvation." He spoke at a meeting of African Anglican archbishops and their counterparts from Asia, the Caribbean and Latin America. The other regions planned to issue a statement Friday. Akinola is also chairman of the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa, which represents 12 national and regional churches plus the diocese of Egypt. Robinson's election has created deep divisions within the worldwide Anglican Communion, a confederation of provinces that each govern themselves. All Anglican provinces in Africa — except for Southern Africa — have opposed ordaining homosexuals, and several have severed ties with the U.S. Diocese of New Hampshire. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the spiritual leader of the world's 77 million Anglicans, has appointed a commission to explore ways of holding the communion together, or perhaps managing a split. The financial impact of the African bishops' stance is unclear. American church officials have said that overseas Anglican leaders who had publicly denounced the U.S. denomination over Robinson's election last year have continued taking aid money from them. Also, a significant amount of those grants come from Episcopal foundations that are independent of American dioceses and national church headquarters. "It's hard to parse this statement and to figure out are there any loopholes here or what," said Jim Naughton, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of Washington. But Canon Bill Atwood, director of Ekklesia Society, an international aid agency created by U.S. Episcopal conservatives, said the African bishops have shown that they will break ties with the U.S. church no matter the cost. "Western leaders, especially in the Episcopal Church, have miscalculated," said Atwood, who was in Nairobi. A spokesman for the national U.S. church did not immediately return a call seeking comment. Africans comprise about half of the members of the global Anglican communion. The African churches are the fastest-growing in the world. END

COMMENTARY By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org January 9, 2026 An astute observer of the travails of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) offered this assessment: "The gravest error now afflicting the ACNA is not misconduct, nor even scandal, but a fundamental category mistake: the confusion of institutional defensibility with ecclesial fitness. Whether allegations are true or false is, at this stage, almost irrelevant. The Church does not require bishops who are merely defensible; it requires bishops whose very visibility does not fracture trust. "To install an interim archbishop whose past must be explained, contextualized, hedged, or juridically caveated—precisely amid cascading failures of credibility—is not prudence. It is a confession. It reveals a Church that has already surrendered its understanding of authority, mistaking procedural survival for moral coherence. "This is not about guilt or innocence. It is about contradiction. Episcopal authority is not a credential one holds behind the scenes; it is a public reality that either gathers trust or corrodes it. When leadership itself becomes a point of dispute, the office is already impaired. No amount of clearance can repair what visibility itself destroys. "The College of Bishops has acted as though the Church could be stabilized by internal process, governed by managerial logic, and healed by compliance. But the Church is not a corporation weathering reputational risk. It is a moral body whose authority depends upon the credibility of those who stand before it. When leaders require explanation simply to be tolerated, authority has already collapsed into administration. "What we are witnessing, then, is not merely a leadership failure but a theological one: a refusal to reckon with what a bishop is. By privileging technical legitimacy over moral intelligibility, the ACNA has chosen institutional continuity over ecclesial truth. "And institutions may survive such choices for a time. Bodies do not." I believe this assessment is accurate. Furthermore, rejiggering the canons will change nothing. This is little more than window dressing, rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The problems in the ACNA are systemic. Their model is The Episcopal Church, but with different institutional bodies and the word "orthodox" affixed to the front. The Crisis of Leadership Archbishop Steve Wood has fractured trust in the ACNA. The Washington Post article has severely damaged his credibility despite his protestations of innocence. A cloud still hangs over Bishop Julian Dobbs, with charges by JAFC Bishop Derek Jones of financial malfeasance still not fully answered. "Internal processes" will not heal the divisions, and "managerial logic" will not solve the ACNA's problems. Only an outside organization is capable of addressing the various charges properly. Canon Chuck Collins has made this point brilliantly. He writes, "I firmly believe that the ground of our church's dysfunction is theological." Dean Collins, a historian with decades of church ministry experience, believes that ACNA bishops need to hire independent church trauma experts to openly assess the cases before them and advise the church on its disciplinary canons. "There might be hope for our future," he suggests. "Bishops disciplining bishops behind closed doors is a silly, unworkable solution. And the next time we elect a primate, we must call it an assembly, not a conclave. We are electing a leader, not a pope." The Pattern of Accountability Failures Bishop Stewart Ruch avoided consequences even though he remains legally guilty of a misdemeanor for his failure to act. The bishops gave him a pass because police decided not to prosecute, since the youth minister was already incarcerated. Pittsburgh Bishop James Hobby abruptly resigned when it was revealed that he allegedly "failed to act with urgency, transparency, and timeliness when an accusation of sexual misconduct by a member of the clergy was brought to his attention." He did not hesitate but did the honorable thing and resigned. This misconduct involved another adult, not Hobby himself. He still remains in good standing with the ACNA House of Bishops. So why hasn't Wood resigned? Wouldn't it be the honorable course for him to step down rather than putting the church through a trial that might find him technically not guilty because he has an explanation for everything? Playing by Worldly Standards The ACNA is operating by worldly standards, not biblical ones. Lawyers are being hired, and legal fights are about to commence—not just with Wood, but with JAFC Bishop Derek Jones. In Jones's case, a deal could be cut to end all the litigation, but the ACNA steadfastly refuses. The JAFC has extended an olive branch. It has been rejected. They are ignoring the Apostle Paul's plea not to take fellow believers to court but to resolve matters for the sake of the gospel and public testimony (see 1 Corinthians 6:1-8). There is no way, if all these trials proceed to court, that the ACNA will emerge with clean hands. Can one imagine hundreds of unbelievers pouring into ACNA churches to hear the gospel, knowing that its leaders covered up sin or made deals to lessen the consequences of wrongdoing? It's not going to happen. The age of sheep-stealing is nearly over. People are no longer moving from church to church; they are simply not going to church. Sunday is for sports, coffee, sleeping in, and reading online newspapers and blogs. The Path Forward If the ACNA is to survive—and the jury is out on that—then it must fully remove Archbishop Wood from the church's leadership immediately, quickly reach a settlement with Bishop Derek Jones to end the threatened million-dollar lawsuits, and bring transparency to an otherwise opaque church. Time is running out. END

By Aine Fox, Press Association Social Affairs Correspondent January 8, 2026   A complaint against the incoming Archbishop of Canterbury over her handling of an abuse allegation has been dismissed.   Dame Sarah Mullally should face no further action on the issue, Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell decided.   The complainant, a man known as Survivor N, has a right to ask for the decision to be reviewed.   A diocese of London spokesperson said N’s allegations against a priest were originally received and investigated in 2014 and 2015, and no safeguarding concerns were found.   The spokesperson added that a restraining order had later been sought by the Metropolitan Police in relation to N’s contact with the priest concerned and was issued in 2017 and remains in place.   On Thursday, the Church confirmed no further action against Dame Sarah but said the 2020 complaint against the priest had been revisited and was being looked at again.   A spokesperson from the office of the Archbishop of York said: “On 7 January the Archbishop of York issued his determination not to take any further action in relation to a CDM (clergy discipline measure) complaint originally filed against Bishop Sarah Mullally in 2020.   “The complainant can under Section 13(3) of the measure request this decision is independently reviewed by the President of Tribunals.”   In a statement last year, Dame Sarah said it was “clear” that a complaint made against her in 2020 “was not properly dealt with”.   She added that she was “seeking assurance that processes have been strengthened to ensure any complaint that comes into Lambeth Palace is responded to in a timely and satisfactory manner”.   The Church said the 2020 complaint against a priest had been revisited and is now being “considered and determined” by the Bishop of Fulham, the Right Reverend Jonathan Baker.   Under the church’s internal disciplinary process, known as CDM, outcomes can range from a conditional discharge where no penalty is imposed, to removal from office, resignation by consent and a lifetime ban from ministry.   Andrew Graystone, who speaks on behalf of some survivors of Church abuse, described the current complaints procedure as “incestuous”, adding that victims are therefore unlikely to have much confidence in it.   He told the Press Association: “No-one will be surprised that the Archbishop of York has dismissed the complaint against his friend and colleague the incoming Archbishop of Canterbury, given that in three weeks time it will be her job to pass judgment on disciplinary complaints against him.   “Survivors of abuse in the Church of England aren’t likely to have any confidence that they will be treated justly, given the incestuous complaints processes of the Church of England.”

Archbishop Mbanda Corrects Anglican Ink Report on Trial Outcome By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org January 8, 2026 The Archbishop of Rwanda, the Most Rev. Laurent Mbanda, has clarified that a bishop previously reported as acquitted of corruption charges remains incarcerated and is serving a three-and-a-half-year sentence. The archbishop's statement corrects a report by Anglican Ink claiming that the Rt. Rev. Samuel Mugiraneza Mugisha had been found not guilty of corruption charges by a Rwandan court and released from prison. "Based on information available through appropriate channels, the former Bishop of Shyira, Rt. Rev. Samuel Mugiraneza Mugisha, has not been acquitted and has not been released from custody," Archbishop Mbanda stated. "He remains incarcerated and is currently serving a sentence of three and a half years following determinations made by the competent courts." The archbishop further clarified that the Anglican Church of Rwanda is not a party to the criminal proceedings referenced in the article. "Any diocesan-related matters identified through the forensic audit are being addressed by the appropriate leadership structures in accordance with established accountability processes," he said. Archbishop Mbanda cautioned against "reliance on partial narratives promoted by interested individuals, which may not fully or accurately reflect the legal or ecclesiastical realities of the matter." He requested that the Anglican Ink article be corrected or clarified accordingly. Pattern of Disputed Reports This is not the first time Anglican Ink reporter George Conger has faced accusations of inaccurate reporting. Bishops in the Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces & Chaplaincy (JAFC) previously accused the blogger of "publishing numerous untruthful stories about Bishop [Derek] Jones and the JAFC/SJAFC." The JAFC communications team disputed an Anglican Ink article titled "SC FEDERAL COURT HANDS JONES A LOSS IN HIS BATTLE WITH THE ACNA," stating that "the reporter, George Conger, misstated facts and proposed conclusions that defy reality." Anglican Ink had claimed that the Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina rejected the bulk of JAFC's claims for an injunction or temporary restraining order against the Anglican Church in North America. However, according to JAFC, this characterization was inaccurate. Further details are available at: https://www.virtueonline.org/post/anglican-ink-accused-of-misstating-facts-and-conclusions-in-jafc-vs-acna-imbroglio

Until the past few years, almost all Americans—and especially Presidents and candidates for President—firmly believed that America had earned God’s blessings. Now, secularists and even some Presidential candidates question this bedrock belief of religious Americans. The naysayers may unwittingly prove to be correct—if they are successful in imposing their secular agenda on the majority. From the religious point of view, same-sex marriage and its public sanction of homosexuality will desecrate God’s name. On a much larger scale, it will also risk the loss of His blessings on the United States—so eloquently requested by President George Washington in his first Inaugural Address (1789): “It would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect—that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes.” — Samuel Silver is Chairman of Toward Tradition (www.towardtradition.org), a national movement of Jewish and Christian cooperation, fighting anti-religious bigotry and secular fundamentalism. END

Who are the ultimate victims? On a micro level, our children are the victims—but on a macro level, our free society will be the victim. As President John Adams said in 1798: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” [39] George Washington expressed this same idea in his 1796 Farewell Address: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness—these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.” [40] In other words, our secular form of government was designed only for a non-secular people. 150 years later, President Harry Truman confirmed that a moral and religious people were still necessary for maintenance of our free society: [41] “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul… If we don’t have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State.” Adams, Washington, the other Founders, and Presidents through George W. Bush understood that a limited Constitutional government of the people, by the people, and for the people could work only if society is primarily self-policed—based on a common moral code that served as an invisible net of social stability. In America, this has always been the Judeo-Christian values derived from the Bible—most recently expressed in the phrase “one nation under God.” Some argue that to officially state the United States is “one nation under God” or to publicly recognize Judeo-Christian thought as the source of our legal and political systems violates the rights of atheists and non-monotheists. But the very concept of rights in the United States presupposes belief in the God of the Bible—not by every citizen, but at least by the majority. Like homosexuals, atheists want to invent a right to force their neighbors to lock their religious beliefs in the closet—so no one except the religious ever feels uncomfortable. To accept the assertion that public sanction of religion violates the rights of atheists and non-monotheists, one must completely ignore the Declaration of Independence, the history and writings of the Founders, and our nation’s history until the last 50 years. If ignored, then this discussion is not about the United States—but a completely new country. How can the greatest nation in the history of the world allow judges and special interest groups to completely redefine the nature and character of this great country without ascertaining the will of the majority through a democratic process? [42] Do we really believe that the Founders—who created this revolutionary concept of rights and the greatest Constitutional system yet devised by mankind—did not understand what they were doing? Contrary to a historical myth perpetrated by secularists, America at the time of the founding included atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, etc., [43] and the Founders knew that it was only this unique form of government—based on individual rights from God—that would protect people of all beliefs. As historian David Barton explains, the Founders were all religious Christians, but they did not oppose pluralism—as long as the beliefs of other religions did not threaten the stability of civil society. [44] In fact, the Founders believed that pluralism survived only within the concept of religious liberty espoused by American Christianity, [45] uniquely different from European Christianity—and based on what we now term the Judeo-Christian Ethic. [46] The opposite is not necessarily true. As Rabbi Hirsch taught us about the secular fundamentalist: “There will be no well-being and no peace as long as his convictions have not become the only ones recognized as right and valid.” He cannot tolerate a religious worldview outside the confines of church or synagogue. Sadly, the history of 20th-century Europe and the secular liberalism of 21st-century American academia confirm both his prediction and the Founders’ understanding: pluralism of belief will not survive in a secular society. People yearn for predictability in their lives and communities—and this invisible net provides that predictability. If predictability is lost to chaos, they often turn to dictators or other forms of totalitarian government to restore it. Without a moral public culture—shared by the majority of citizens—to provide the invisible net of social stability, government could not be limited and would have to encroach into every citizen’s life and freedom. Instead of a free society of cooperation between individuals, more and more human interaction would have to be decided by the legal system and bureaucrats. Morality would be replaced by legality—which helps explain why the judicial system is taking control of our government and our lives. Without a commonly accepted morality, there is no basis for human cooperation other than force. Freedom would rapidly morph into tyranny. As Rabbi Lapin has explained: [47] “One unintended side effect of the secular fundamentalism sweeping America is how it erodes the rules that hold together the invisible net of social stability. By encouraging unfettered personal license, secular fundamentalism helps collapse civilized norms… When young people no longer see their maturation leading naturally toward marriage—and when marriage itself becomes threatened by cultural ridicule and purported alternatives—parents feel unmoored… Many Americans feel resentment and alienation.” This is obviously not to suggest that the hobby of shattering traditional rules… is going to endow America with a future dictatorial tyrant. It can eventually, however, infect ordinary Americans with docility about further Federal control beyond that necessary to protect us from our enemies. In a desperate attempt to recover some sense of normality and predictability in our lives, we might be tempted to embrace expanded government influence over how we live, earn, and worship. We would yearn for the predictability and normality that used to be supplied by those traditional rules that many Jewish and Christian Americans of faith remember increasingly nostalgically. Biblically-based faith helps to maintain freedom by holding together the invisible framework of social stability. The Founders understood this lesson well—but we have strayed. Our free society—as the Founders dreamed it and we once knew it—will be lost forever unless Americans make a political stand to preserve this endangered invisible framework of social stability. That stand must begin with protecting children from the Trojan horse of secular fundamentalism—expressed in such formerly unthinkable legalisms as same-sex marriage. The secular fundamentalists leading this assault on Judeo-Christian values understand very well that the children are their point of attack. If you doubt that children are the intended victims, read the words of an openly homosexual woman who was formerly an insider in the leadership of the feminist and radical gay rights movements—until she realized these movements were no longer based on the ideal of civil rights, but on socialism, the foundational model of the Far Left. [48] Her comments about efforts to end anti-gay bias in K–12 schools: [49] “For people whose entire identity and reason to live is based in their sexuality, what do they need to do in order to fit comfortably into our society? They must work to sexualize every part of society—and, as every good marketer knows, that effort must begin with children.” “The efforts of gay establishment organizations, if the future is really their concern, should be focused on persuading the horde of bacchanalian boys to change their lifestyle. Instead, they are demanding that we accept their degeneracy, and the destruction of our future in the process. We dare not judge them. We dare not question their actions. And we are to hand the nation’s children over to them.” This is why a free society such as the United States—where the vast majority believe in Judeo-Christian values—can tolerate unrestricted private sexual activity between consenting adults, but cannot allow public sanction and endorsement of homosexuality as a cultural norm.

As Benjamin Franklin wrote to Thomas Paine in an attempt to persuade Paine to abandon his anti-religion essays: “If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it.” [25] Fallacy #3: Same-sex Marriage Is A Private Act Between Consenting Adults “The hidden [sins] are for Hashem, our God, but the revealed [sins] are for us and our children forever, to carry out all the words of this Torah.” (Deuteronomy 29:28) The sages explain that Moses is teaching: hidden sins are the province of God alone, and He holds no one responsible but the sinners themselves. But everyone is obligated to safeguard against openly committed sins. [26] Thus, homosexual activity between consenting adults practiced in privacy is primarily a sin against God, and He will deal with it. It is not a matter for government regulation. The same cannot be said about same-sex marriage. Most people may be surprised to know that the debate over same-sex marriage is not new. As the wise King Solomon taught us, “There is nothing new under the sun.” The Bible teaches that God brought on the Flood in Noah’s time because “all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth.” [27] A fascinating Midrash (ancient rabbinic commentary on the Bible) teaches: “The generation of the Flood was only blotted out from the world because they wrote marriage contracts for males and for females.” [28] Later, the Talmud teaches that Noahides (monotheistic non-Jews) who did not observe all of the Noahide laws at least did not write a marriage contract for males. [29] In explaining this discussion, Rashi, the great 11th-century commentator on the Bible and Talmud, points out the vital distinction between private actions and public policy: “Even though they are suspected of homosexuality and sequester themselves with males for intercourse, nevertheless, they are not so irresponsible about this commandment that they would write a marriage contract for them.” There are serious consequences to a society that officially sanctions activities the vast majority of its citizens accept as immoral. We ignore, at our own peril, the infinite difference between acceptable private and public behavior—especially for families raising children with a focus on future generations, a challenge very few homosexuals share. To publicly sanction same-sex marriage is to implicitly sanction the short-term outlook on life inherent to homosexuality. A perfect example of the disastrous public policy effects of this short-sighted viewpoint was the father of FDR’s New Deal, economist John Maynard Keynes. A major flaw in Keynes’ thinking was his concentration on the short-term. He thought that focus on the long run was utterly futile and one of the great mistakes in economics. He abhorred “savings,” thought the “abstinence” of people impedes the growth of wealth, and believed savings are always a potential threat to economic progress. One of the leading economists of the 20th Century, Joseph Schumpeter, noted the connection between Keynes’ flawed ideas and his “childless and essentially short-run philosophy of life” when he said, “For a person committed to homosexuality, who is without descendants, there is little for them to focus the future on.” [30] It is not a coincidence that the Hebrew word in the Bible for children is linguistically the same as builders. As economist and political philosopher Thomas Sowell explains: [31] “Marriage is not an individual right. Otherwise, why limit marriage to unions of two people instead of three or four or five? Why limit it to adult humans, if some want to be united with others of various ages, sexes, and species? Marriage is a social contract because the issues involved go beyond the particular individuals. Unions of a man and woman produce the future generations on whom the fate of the whole society depends. Society has something to say about that.” If society elects not to say anything about it and abandons the primacy of the traditional family—with its focus on children and future generations—we also abandon our connections to past generations, traditions, and history. All we will be left with is a present filled with hedonistic irresponsibility. And we don’t have to wait too long—just look around! This current attempt at a perpetual age of adolescence, if not halted soon, will lead at an increasingly rapid rate to the uncontrollable destruction of civil society. The Emperor Nero reportedly went so far as to write a marriage contract for one of his favorite male lovers. [32] Do we really want to follow the Roman Empire into decline and ruin? It is critical to recognize the essential difference between a society where homosexuality is practiced privately and one that actually gives it official sanction and recognition. Fallacy #4: Economic Benefits For Homosexuals Can Only Be Obtained By Government Force Proponents of same-sex marriage claim all they really want are equal rights for homosexuals who live together as couples. This is very appealing to Americans, who have historically been tolerant and fair—but it is a false argument. Before new rights are created, it is only logical to ask: what is their source? The revolutionary achievement of the Founders of the United States was their recognition that neither they nor any government could create rights. This was in complete contrast to the historic Divine Rights of Kings or the modern systems of man-made collective rights, such as in the former Soviet Union. The individual rights of man were from God, as the Declaration of Independence clearly states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” President John F. Kennedy confirmed the divine source of these rights in his Inaugural Address: “The same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.” Same-sex marriage, by any stretch of the imagination, is in complete contradiction to God’s Instruction Manual—so if the rights of man come from the hand of God, it is inconceivable that God would view same-sex marriage as a right. If proponents of same-sex marriage truly want just the economic benefits (not rights) that heterosexual couples have, those benefits can easily be provided in the free market on a voluntary basis—without the use of government force. Many corporations, such as Disney, General Electric, and Wal-Mart, accommodate their employee benefit programs for homosexuals and many already include insurance coverage for domestic partners. Just as voluntary sexual activity should be a private matter, economic benefits for private sexual relationships should be voluntary. This may entail modifications in some state laws concerning contracts and benefits, but it does not require laws destroying the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman—that has been the cornerstone of civilization for over 5,000 years. A Final Fallacy: Same-Sex Marriage Hurts No One In America, we believe in Live and Let Live—so who is hurt if two boys or two girls want to marry each other? Live & Let Live is a great hallmark of American political life, but it is only effective in matters between fully developed adults. The introduction of children and a concern for future generations change the equation. This is especially true when it comes to public sanctions and forced indoctrination of children in the public school system. Parents should not be forced to teach their children that a fundamental religious and moral prohibition—one that has been a standard of Judeo-Christian morality for thousands of years—is not only condoned, but is publicly sanctioned by their government. Many homosexuals—such as those with a religious worldview, and especially those with children or strong family ties—understand and accept the position that same-sex marriage will be harmful to society; yet it is understandable that many other homosexuals might not see the harm in it. But why do so many heterosexuals support same-sex marriage? It seems apparent that most are misled by the nice-sounding—but intentionally false—idea that government force is necessary to eliminate hatred, uncomfortable feelings, and differences in economic benefits. What about those leading this battle and intentionally misleading the public? Why are they so vociferously demanding the right to impose this potentially disastrous policy on the majority of Americans? The answer lies in the fundamental difference between the secular and the religious worldviews; therefore, it is not unimportant that the vast majority of Americans hold a religious outlook on life. The third chapter of the Talmud, Pirkei Avos (Chapters of the Fathers), asks three of the most critical questions humans grapple with. [33] As Rabbi Daniel Lapin explains, each of these transcendental questions can be answered in two primary ways—defining the difference between the two worldviews. [34] 1. How did human beings come to be on this planet? Religious: God created us in His image and placed us here. Secular: By a lengthy, random process of unaided materialistic evolution, primitive protoplasm became Bach and Beethoven. [35] 2. Where is the human race headed? Religious: To an ultimate day of God’s choosing, when a grand Messianic redemption will take place—resulting in the whole world recognizing God and His truth. Secular: To an ultimate day of destruction and oblivion that will wipe us out through overcrowding, poverty, global warming, acid rain, nuclear explosion, off-course meteorites, or any combination of the above. 3. What are we supposed to be doing here? Religious: We are supposed to be developing our relationship with God and becoming closer to Him—through studying and following His Torah and obeying His mitzvot. In other words, we have a set of objective ethics to live by. Secular: There are no objective ethics, so everything is subjective and relative. “Anything goes” is good enough as far as our personal lives go! Our primary focus on the future is to head off the threats to humanity in the secular answer to question #2. If they are too formidable for us to solve alone, we should urge our government to solve them. If they are too much for one government to solve, we should urge governments to cooperate through the United Nations. Monotheists—such as Jews and Christians—would be in basic agreement with the religious answers, albeit with variations in the details. Secularists eschew objective values and ethics, [36] and look at the future as extremely tenuous and limited to only this world. The ultimate day of destruction and oblivion is rapidly approaching—and there is nothing after that! Thus both homosexual and heterosexual secularists, based on their secular worldview, can very easily fall into the trap of supporting same-sex marriage. To do so, they intentionally ignore the serious problems they are imposing on parents with a religious worldview—parents trying to teach their children Judeo-Christian values. Secularists truly believe religious people are ignorant, intolerant, homophobic, racist, and generally dangerous; so they believe it is only social justice to destroy any public acceptance of the religious worldview—even by undemocratic means. The leaders of the secular movement are strident atheists who cannot tolerate religious people—a constant reminder of everything they reject. Instead of being religious fundamentalists, they became secular fundamentalists. Through propaganda and ridicule, these fundamentalists have also convinced a minority of Americans—who believe in God—to fear religion more than secularism, in complete disregard of the barbaric reality of the 20th century. After the fall of Nazism and Communism, the secular fundamentalists focused primarily on post-Christian Europe and American academia—turning both into hotbeds of anti-religious bigotry and virulent anti-Semitism. These self-proclaimed progressives espouse diversity, but are in fact very close-minded and hostile to all political, cultural, and especially religious opinions with which they disagree. Over a century ago, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch anticipated modern secular fundamentalism with prophetic precision. [37] “It is now no longer enough for the apostate to be able to live undisturbed according to his convictions, as he calls them; to him there is no well-being and no peace as long as his convictions have not become the only ones recognized as right and valid.” He sees in the Law an intellectual slavery… In Torah-loyalty, he sees superstition, backwardness, and at the same time a calamity… He sees in liberation from the yoke of the Law a goal so high and humanitarian that every means… must be employed… He has reached the stage of waging fanatical campaigns of persecution against those loyal to the Law. Extremists on either side can be dangerous—if initiation of force is not limited by a strong Constitutional defense of individual rights and religious freedom. [38] The secular side, however, offers the greatest risk to society. It contains no internalized mechanism for an objective moral code of human cooperation and must rely solely on the collectivized, legalistic force of government for citizens to defend themselves. It also contains no effective, common moral foundation for raising children—especially in a vacuum without an existent moral culture passed down from previous generations of religious tradition.