Archives

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

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

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

By David MacInnes https://www.facebook.com/david.macinnes.92 March 5, 2026 Given the recent news about more than a hundred service members filing complaints that a commander told them that war with Iran is part of “God’s divine plan,” that a sitting president is “anointed by Jesus” to ignite Armageddon, it is important to make it clear how unbiblical this claim is. This claim has more to do with the fiction series of “Left Behind” and dispensational theology than it does the Book of Revelation. The Book of Book of Revelation was composed in the late first century, most likely during the reign of Domitian, when the Roman Empire demanded not only political loyalty but religious reverence. Rome ruled through claiming divine sanction. Emperors were hailed as “Lord” and “Savior” and participation in imperial cults was a sign of allegiance. Refusal could mean marginalization, economic exclusion, or worse. It is that context where John of Patmos writes his vision. Revelation is not a coded forecast of 21st-century geopolitics. As John writes in verse one, the entire letter is the revelation of Jesus Christ. It is the way of God through Jesus Christ being revealed in the world. It is written in the prophetic genre of apocalyptic resistance literature. It pulls back the curtain on earthly empires and names them for what they are: beastly. Rome is depicted as the first Beast, seven heads representing the seven hills of Rome. The second beast is the propaganda machine for the first beast, looking like a lamb but speaking for the dragon. Then the mark of loyalty to the beast is a number (666 or 616 in some manuscripts), and when using gematria, the number is transliterated into Hebrew (nrwn qsr) it points to Emperor Nero, one of the worst persecutors of the early church (Rev. 13). John also describes Rome’s economic system becomes “Babylon,” drunk on luxury and the blood of the saints. (Rev. 17 & 18). John is offering a theological critique of imperialism in contrast to the way of the crucified Lamb (Jesus Christ). He is telling persecuted Christians that while the empire looks invincible is not ultimate. Its violence is not divine. Its claims to eternal rule are a parody. They will not have the last word. This is the contrast to keep in mind when we consider the famous “battle of Armageddon,” which appears in Revelation 16:16. The kings of the earth gather at a place called Armageddon, from “Har-Megiddo,” Mount Megiddo, which is a symbolic site associated with decisive Old Testament conflicts. But here’s the striking detail many miss: no battle is actually described. The nations gather. The stage is set. But when we reach Revelation 19, where we expect a final and epic clash of armies, something else astonishing happens. Christ appears as a rider on a white horse. His robe is dripping with his own blood, not his enemies. Legions of angel armies are flanked behind him, armed to the teeth. Then they just stand there. The word comes out of his mouth, which is described as sharper than any double edged sword (the advanced weapon of the time). And the Beast and the kings of the earth are defeated, not through violent warfare, not, but by the word that proceeds from him, but the word that is revealed through him, buy the Word that is him (John 1). There is no prolonged fight. No exchange of blows. No suspenseful military drama. No Christian foot soldiers taking up arms against hostile evil forces as the “Left Behind” series would have us believe. The “battle” is over before it begins. We are then given a casualty report of the enemy’s of God in Rev 19:20-21. It is a powerful depiction of how Jesus has defeated sin and death through his self giving love on the cross. Even earlier, in Revelation 5, John hears of the Lion of Judah. But when he turns, he sees a Lamb, standing as though slain. This is the entire theological center of the book! Victory in Revelation does not come through superior violence. It comes through faithful witness, sacrificial love, and divine judgment enacted by truth itself. The conquering Messiah conquers as the slain Lamb, not as a beast. It is a fragile, insecure god that needs weapons and armies to achieve victory. It is an all powerful God that creates and dismantles simply by speaking a word. The Word. Empire thrives on spectacle, like parades, armies, intimidation, and crucifixions lining the roads. Revelation subverts that spectacle. It stages what looks like the ultimate imperial showdown and then refuses to narrate it as a conventional war. Why? Because the point is not that God wins by out killing Rome. The point is that Rome’s power is the hollow and endless cycle of violence. God’s power is the redeeming, nonviolent power of self sacrificial love (the cross). In the ancient world, empires justified war as divinely sanctioned. Rome claimed Pax Romana, which means the “peace of Rome,” and it was secured by conquest. Peace through domination. Revelation exposes that as counterfeit peace. “Babylon” falls not because Christians take up arms, but because her violence results in a self inflicted wound as all empires inevitably do, leading to her collapses under divine judgment. The merchants weep when she falls, not because of lost lives, but because of lost profits. It is a piercing indictment of economic exploitation fused with military power. Same story repeats throughout history and today. The so-called final battle reveals that God does not need legions to defeat tyranny. Empire gathers for war. God simply speaks. So this is the crucial theological meaning of the book of Revelation: -God’s victory is not symmetrical with empire’s violence. God does not mirror the beast to defeat the beast. -Faithful witness, not armed revolt, is the church’s calling. The saints “conquer” by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony (Rev. 12:11), not by seizing power. -Imperial claims are temporary. What looks absolute is already judged in heaven’s perspective. -Evil always self-destructs when confronted by truth. The absence of a literal battle underscores that evil has no ultimate substance before God’s reign. All this to say, when Revelation is read as a blueprint for inevitable global warfare, it can be co-opted to sanctify violence or to arrogantly believe that Jesus’ return can be manipulated into happening by causing “Armageddon” as we are seeing again today. In its original context, it functioned as a pastoral encouragement to marginalized believers: Do not fear the empire. Do not worship it. Do not become like it. Armageddon is not a call to arms. It is a dramatic unveiling of the futility of arms before God. The final word of Revelation is not war but renewal. It is a new heaven, a new earth, and a city where the nations bring their glory, not their weapons, into the light of God. The empire gathers for battle. The Lamb reigns without fighting. The battle was already won on the cross. That contrast is the critique. We want the warhorse. Jesus rides a donkey. We want the eagle. The Holy Spirit descends as a dove. We want to take up swords. Jesus takes up a cross. We want the roaring lion. God comes as a slaughtered lamb. We keep trying to arm God. God keeps trying to disarm us. END

Primates dissolve council, create broader governing body — but decline to name a rival archbishop COMMENTARY   By David W. Virtue, DD VirtueOnline.org   March 5, 2026 ABUJA, Nigeria — Conservative Anglican primates meeting in Nigeria’s capital this week voted to dissolve the GAFCON Primates Council and replace it with a broader governing body, but stopped well short of the formal split that many in the movement had anticipated. The newly created Global Anglican Council will include primates, bishops, clergy, and lay members, each holding full voting privileges — a significant departure from the top-down structure that has guided the Global Anglican Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (GAFCON) since its founding in 2008. “Today is a historic day for the Global Anglican Communion. Indeed, the future has arrived!” the primates declared in a statement. Three-Man Council, No 'First Among Equals' Three leaders will form a new Primates Council: Archbishop Laurent Mbanda of Rwanda, who will serve as chairman; Archbishop Miguel Uchoa of Brazil; and Bishop Paul Donison of the USA. Their terms will run until the next GAFCON conference, scheduled for Athens in 2028. Notably, the council will have no primus inter pares — Latin for “first among equals” — a title that would have implied a parallel to the Archbishop of Canterbury. That option was taken off the table entirely. Dame Sarah Mullally, recently appointed as Archbishop of Canterbury, will remain the formal spiritual head of the global Anglican Communion. While millions of evangelical and Anglo-Catholic Anglicans are expected to disregard her authority in practice, there will be no overt institutional challenge to her leadership. For those who had hoped GAFCON would mount a direct challenge to the liberal direction of the Church of England, the outcome is likely to disappoint. A Conciliar Model — and Its Critics The new structure is built around the principle of conciliarism — the idea that the Church governs itself through shared councils rather than a single central authority. The approach has been championed by Archbishop Bob Duncan, the emeritus leader of the Anglican Church in North America, and Bishop Phil Ashey, a canon lawyer. But the model has drawn skepticism from within orthodox Anglican circles. The Rev. Chuck Collins, a Reformation historian and theologian, warns that conciliarism could prove to be a structural substitute for genuine theological conviction. “We do not need another Windsor Report to tell us what Anglicans have confessed true over time,” Collins wrote, referring to the 2004 document that attempted to address divisions over homosexuality within the Communion. Collins argues the new council risks resembling the Anglican Consultative Council — the existing body designed to coordinate cooperation among Anglican provinces — rather than advancing the confessional Anglicanism rooted in the Thirty-nine Articles, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the Books of Homilies. The Case for Confessional Roots Dr. Gillis J. Harp, a retired history professor at Grove City College, argues that the path forward for orthodox Anglicans lies in recovering their Reformation heritage, not in building new institutional frameworks. Harp traces the current doctrinal drift in part to a decision made at the founding of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the 1780s, when American Anglicans chose not to require clergy to subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles. By the late 1970s, those Articles had been relegated to a “Historical Documents” appendix at the back of the American prayer book. “The Articles will help reinvigorate Anglican theology because they reflect the core teaching of the Protestant Reformation,” Harp writes. He identifies key doctrines including the supremacy of Scripture, justification by grace through faith, and the proper administration of the sacraments as non-negotiables for any genuine Anglican recovery. Harp also takes aim at several practices he considers departures from historic Anglican teaching: reserving and venerating the Eucharist, expanding the sacraments from two to seven, praying for the dead, and claims of apostolic succession through physical lineage. The English Reformers, he argues, held that what mattered was adherence to apostolic doctrine, not episcopal genealogy. What Comes Next Whether the new Global Anglican Council can provide the theological coherence and institutional momentum that GAFCON's supporters seek remains to be seen. The Athens gathering in 2028 will be the first real test of whether conciliarism can hold together a movement that spans continents and traditions — and whether it can offer a credible alternative to a Communion its members believe has lost its way. END

By Colette M. Jenkins Beacon Journal Religion Writer July 11, 2004 On any given Sunday, you can hear the same prayers, readings, psalms and devotions at Church of Our Saviour, St. Luke's Episcopal Church and Hudson Anglican Fellowship. But while they all look like Episcopal churches -- using the Book of Common Prayer as their primary guide for worship -- there is something very different going on in each one a year after the Episcopal Church's painful debate over homosexuality. Church of Our Saviour is proud to be part of the Episcopal Church USA, which ordained an openly gay bishop. St. Luke's is still Episcopal but would rather not be. Hudson Anglican never was Episcopal, having started with people who left the Episcopal Church over the ordination. Those differences are a reflection of the division that remains within the Episcopal Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion. It was August when delegates to the Episcopal General Convention confirmed the Rev. V. Gene Robinson and acknowledged the blessing of same-sex unions has become part of the church's common life. Since then, the chasm has widened. Orthodox Episcopalians and Anglicans worldwide have called for global leaders to discipline and censure the U.S. church and there is discord within parishes and dioceses, including the Ohio Diocese. The delegation from the Ohio Diocese, covering the northern 48 counties of the state, supported the decision of the national church, which is the American branch of Anglicanism. Shortly after the vote, 16 members of Christ Church Episcopal in Hudson left and formed Hudson Anglican Fellowship. Although the independent church is not affiliated with the Episcopal Church, it was established in the Anglican tradition. The congregation has grown to include more than 100 people and worships at 9:30 a.m. each Sunday at the restored octagon-shaped Danforth Barn on Darrow Road. Although it's not a traditional church setting, the order of worship is conventionally Anglican, or liturgical. Holy Communion is celebrated each week. The ecumenical creeds, both Nicene and Apostles', are recited. In addition, worship services include testimony, a mix of contemporary and traditional music and exhortative preaching. The Rev. David "Doc" Loomis, the founding pastor of the conservative congregation, spent more than 20 years as a pastor in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). Two years ago, he went to St. Luke's in Fairlawn, where he served until becoming rector at Hudson Anglican Fellowship. Loomis says his congregation is not interested in dividing the church any further but wants to be part of the "realigned" American Anglican church. To that end, the church has placed itself under the spiritual oversight of orthodox bishops in the Anglican Mission in America. The mission is a part of the province of Rwanda, which is part of the worldwide Anglican Communion. "The Anglican church is splitting in two because the main body of the Episcopal Church fails to recognize Scripture," Loomis said. "More than 70 percent of the worldwide Anglican Church stands with us and against ECUSA." Anglican archbishops from Africa decided in April to reject donations from any diocese that recognizes gay clergy and recommended giving the Episcopal Church three months to repent for ordaining an openly gay bishop or face expulsion. Bishops in Asia, Latin America and the Middle East are also furious over the American church's move. African leaders represent 18 provinces with a membership of more than 55 million people. The Episcopal Church USA's 2.3 million members are a much smaller fraction of the global Anglican Communion's 77 million members. Last month, the Anglican church in Canada approved a measure to implement rites for the blessing of same-sex unions, complicating the possibility of unifying the global church. Within days, the American Anglican Network asked global leaders to recognize it as a true Anglican province in North America, if the Episcopal Church does not repent and immediately cease blessing same-sex unions. The network is a national orthodox organization that started in response to Robinson's appointment. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the spiritual leader of the Anglican Communion, has appointed a commission to explore ways of resolving the friction within the church. The Lambeth Commission is expected to issue its final report with recommendations in late September. Ohio Diocese Bishop Mark Hollingsworth Jr. says each congregation in the diocese is currently focusing on its ministry rather than the issues arising out of last year's General Convention. He says that is likely to continue until the Archbishop of Canterbury gives some direction. Hollingsworth, who was ordained bishop in April, is committed to maintaining unity within the diocese, the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. "I am continuing to build an individual relationship with each congregation, its clergy and its lay leaders, as we explore how to work together toward those ends that will best support their ministries and the communities they serve," Hollingsworth said. The Rev. Meghan Froehlich, pastor at Church of Our Saviour in Akron, supports Hollingsworth in his effort to strengthen solidarity. She believes the Anglican Communion can be held together despite differences among its members. She holds up her church as an example of how that can be done. Church of Our Saviour is in fellowship with the diocese, the national church and the global communion. "Four words describe what we do here at Church of Our Saviour -- welcome, worship, caring and outreach," Froehlich said. "We extend an open welcome. There are no exclusions, regardless of age, race, gender, life experience. Our message is, 'You are welcome here and God's love is available.'" Since August, nothing has really changed for the West Hill congregation. A glance around the sanctuary during worship services reveals singles and couples, both heterosexual and homosexual; families with and without children; blacks and whites; and young and old. "It's not a new place for us to stand in communion with the diocese and the Episcopal church. We have always been known as a welcoming church, not necessarily based on issues," Froehlich said. "Jesus welcomed everyone that he met. We're continuing to do what we do because that's what Jesus wants us to do. It's all about love." Froehlich says her church, the Ohio Diocese and the Episcopal Church are keeping with the Anglican tradition of encompassing a variety of viewpoints in one body. The Rev. Roger Ames, pastor at St. Luke's, disagrees. He says the American church has clearly violated the orthodox stance of the Anglican Communion. He and his charismatic, evangelical congregation have declared themselves in "impaired communion" with the local diocese and the national church. The congregation has accepted oversight from a retired Episcopal bishop that shares its view and is withholding contributions to the diocese and national church. Instead, it is redirecting those funds to orthodox Anglican organizations and missionary work. The Anglican Communion Network is one of those organizations. Ames is the contact person in northern Ohio for the Anglican network. "We totally reject what the U.S. church has done and we are pulling together to reject its revisionist, liberal agenda that is anti-authority, anti-biblical and anti-marriage," Ames said. "We are in fellowship with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the great majority of those in the Anglican Church that have declared themselves out of fellowship with the Episcopal Church." While conservatives like Ames are in the minority in the Episcopal Church, their viewpoint probably holds sway when it comes to global Anglicanism. They have been pleading with upset Episcopalians not to leave their churches, but to wait and see what the commission does. As the commission seeks a way to resolve the rift and avoid a schism, the Archbishop of Canterbury has asked for calm. "We have an informal understanding that everything is on hold until the archbishop issues his response," Ames said. "Until then, we -- conservatives and liberals -- are in a period of waiting together."

By Rod Minchin, PA News The Church of England today rejected moves to look at ways of overhauling clergy disciplinary procedures. The General Synod voted against a proposal to create heresy courts to deal with allegations of misconduct by the clergy. It was the first review of disciplinary procedures in relation to doctrine, ritual and ceremonial matters since 1963 and was designed to make the process simpler. Under the proposals, new heresy courts, headed by bishops and advised by panels of theologians, would hear cases in which priests were alleged to have erred on doctrine, ritual or ceremonial. The Church of England has been rocked by a number of doctrinal controversies in the last century, notably that of the teaching of the former Bishop of Durham, the Rt Rev David Jenkins, in relation to the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection. However, there were fears the courts could be used to enforce a traditionalist view, targeting clergy who, for example, support same-sex marriages or gay priests. The Venerable Robert Reiss, the Archdeacon of Surrey, warned against a witch-hunt. "If theological conservatives try to use this as a stick to beat liberals over the head with then the church will gravely damage itself," he said. Addressing the General Synod, The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, said it was important for the Church of England to be able to speak out against issues like Apartheid. "The question I think we ought to be asking is whether this does or does not serve the integrity or credibility of the church in the long run," the Archbishop said. "I believe that such a measure can serve the integrity and credibility of the church if we do indeed step back in this way. "It is over 20 years since the World Alliance of Reform Churches declared that the theological justification for Apartheid was a heresy. "It would be, I think a very incredible and inadequate Christian church which did not have the resource to say something like that."

News Analysis By David W. Virtue COLORADO SPRINGS, July 10, 2004 Two orthodox ECUSA priests have charged two revisionist Colorado bishops with deception, "secret protocols" and perjury, with one bishop taunting the priests saying "present me if you dare" in response. The Rev. Don Armstrong and the Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner have taken on the former Bishop of Colorado Jerry Winterrowd and the present incumbent Bishop Rob O'Neill in the press and a private letter, charging the bishops with covert blessings of same-sex unions and running the diocese with a wholesale disregard of the church's received teaching on sexuality. The war of words escalated into the media with the Rocky Mountain News screaming in a headline, "Rift over same-sex ceremonies frays Colorado Episcopal diocese. Clergy exchange volleys as church weighs gay rights." The diocese's leading orthodox 'take no prisoners' rector is the Rev. Don Armstrong of Grace Church and St. Stephen's in Colorado Springs, who traces the diocese's decline into pansexuality back to former Bishop Winterrowd who knew these covert blessings were being done and who paved the way for today's disputes by secretly laying down guidelines for same-sex blessings 10 years ago - but testified otherwise during a 1999 lawsuit brought by a lesbian youth minister. "Jerry Winterrowd knew such covert blessings were being done," said Armstrong. "That's a bald-faced lie," Winterrowd retorted. "If Mr. Armstrong feels that way, he ought to make a presentment (church complaint) against me," he told Jean Torkelson of the Rocky Mountain News. Such is the rift between two men who once played tennis and enjoyed dinner together with their wives. Winterrowd bristles at the notion he did anything wrong, saying what he allowed was gay couples "to improvise and write their own prayers" - clearly the right of any Episcopalian under church law, he says. However, he says, he added a crucial caveat: "Under no circumstances may a priest bless that relationship." Winterrowd's policy became important to a 1998 lawsuit brought by Boulder youth minister Lee Ann Bryce, who charged she had been wrongfully fired for participating in a same-sex ceremony with her partner at St. Aidan's parish in Boulder. The bishop won the case. But Armstrong has also blasted the relatively new bishop, O'Neill accusing him of being soft on the issues, unwilling to take a stand for orthodox biblical faith on same-sex unions. In June a number of orthodox priests met to hash things out. At that meeting, O'Neill confirmed what conservatives found startling: that the diocese had "at least 11 same-sex blessings performed," according to a private process Winterrowd set up in 1994. In a letter to the Colorado clergy in anticipation of the article appearing in the press, O'Neill wrote about the deceptions by himself and his predecessor saying, "Although some clergy now allege that there was a 'secret protocol' established by Bishop Winterrowd for 'the blessing of same-sex relationships,' that is simply not accurate. What can be said accurately is this: That Bishop Winterrowd did establish an agreement with some clergy of the Diocese that made provision for honoring same-gender relationships in the context of the Eucharist at the time of the Prayers of the People; and that the agreement specifically excluded the pronouncement of any blessing and required the expressed permission of the Bishop." O'Neill, in effect, denied that the process amounted to "secret protocols," though he conceded "some variations" existed in the ceremonies that could be misconstrued as outright same-sex blessings, he told the Rocky Mountain News. Both Winterrowd and his successor, Rob O'Neill, favor the idea of blessing same-sex unions, but to placate orthodox clergy O'Neill promised in January he would not authorize same-sex blessings until a task force study was finished. The study ended this week but he declined to give details, but he told Torkelson that the findings "don't call for same-sex blessings right now." But Colorado scholar and theologian the Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner joined the fray, and in a letter blasted O'Neill saying: "I feel deceived. Deeply so. I worked for 5 years as missioner of this diocese, struggled to maintain order within a fracturing common life riven by conflicts over same-sex relationships and their affirmation, and none of this was laid out to me within the formal life of our deliberations. Indeed, it appears that some of my colleagues simply went their own way in the shadows, pretending 'dialogue' while moving ahead secretly with agenda that certainly preempted the decision-making of this diocese and church." The Pueblo-based rector outlined four areas of concern. "Firstly, we didn't know about such an agreement beyond mutual thanksgivings in the context of the prayers of the people. Yet you told us 'it was much more than that'. Indeed, I have now been told by one of your chancellors that it was 'much more than that'. You yourself told us of 'guidelines in the files of the bishop's office'. These guidelines are not in the files of any priest I know of. Secondly, we still haven't been told about what exactly this 'agreement' was -- since it apparently included 'far more' than mutual thanksgivings in the prayers of the people. Did it in fact include the exchange of rings, as took place at Good Shepherd? Mutual vows? Just what? But we don't know, and though you seem to think it was 'all discussed' at clergy conference, we have not now -- nor in the past 7 years -- been told what 'more' this is. Thirdly we still have not been given access to these guidelines -- everything you have said has been vague (despite the fact that you claim it was all discussed at some clergy conference). Your response has been: 'wait for the taskforce to explain (maybe)... but meanwhile I'll avoid discipline based on something you don't know about.' Fourthly, in your public letter to clergy of the diocese regarding your response to the Good Shepherd exchange-of-vows, you made no mention whatsoever of any agreement from the past upon which these actions might be happily accepted. Why not, if you knew of some common 'agreement' that would make sense of all this?" Radner said the guidelines were a "protocol" and accused the bishop of keeping them "secret." "Until they are published and made available, so that they can be examined and compared to actions of your predecessor, yourself...they will remain 'secret'." Radner said he felt "deceived" and urged the bishop to "come clean." Is there any chance, as conservatives hope, that O'Neill will reconsider his gay rights stand? "I don't know how to answer that," O'Neill replies. "I believe, in the life of our church, there is room for those who hold different perspectives to live together with integrity and goodwill." Winterrowd, too, is solidifying his gay rights beliefs. He's bitter and regretful now about the vote he cast with the Anglican majority at the 1998 worldwide Lambeth Conference, which asserted that homosexuality is contrary to scripture. Today, Winterrowd calls that vote "a very ugly moment in the long and glorious history of the Anglican church." "If there's no discipline, the communion (the Episcopal church) will probably fall apart," predicts Armstrong. One thing he and O'Neill agree on: The crisis may require an outside body to step in and settle the issue. Says the bishop: "The issue Don is raising is, what is the authority of the worldwide Anglican Communion over individual provinces (such as the U.S.)? That question hasn't been answered yet." It has been the hope of orthodox priests like Armstrong and Radner that O'Neill would "repent" of his pro-gay positions, which they believe is a violation of 2,000 years of church teaching. Both men have founded the Anglican Communion Institute, an organization with international ties to the former Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. George Carey. They recently submitted a 50-page document to Lambeth (Eames) Commission arguing that the Episcopal church should be disciplined for its actions in consecrating an openly homoerotic priest to the episcopacy. In Colorado, orthodox priests claim to have the behind-the-scenes support of about 40 clergy in 30 parishes - about a quarter of the total number. Armstrong is a member of the Standing Committee, a diocesan advisory board, and he projects a $500,000 budget deficit because parishes are withholding funds from O'Neill's control, though the bishop disputes that figure. This weekend marks a nationwide campaign to urge church members to support the federal marriage amendment, which defines marriage as solely a union between a man and a woman. It's scheduled for a Senate vote next week.

By Jean Torkelson, Rocky Mountain News July 10, 2004 A private same-sex ceremony in April between two Episcopalian women has escalated into charges of deception, "secret protocols" - and even a taunt of perjury against a retired Colorado bishop. "Jerry Winterrowd knew such covert blessings were being done," says the diocese's most outspoken leader of the traditional wing, the Rev. Don Armstrong. He argues that Winterrowd, who retired in January, paved the way for today's disputes by secretly laying down guidelines for same-sex blessings 10 years ago - but testified otherwise during a 1999 lawsuit brought by a lesbian youth minister. "That's a bald-faced lie," Winterrowd retorts. "If Mr. Armstrong feels that way, he ought to make a presentment (church complaint) against me." Such is the rift between two men who once played tennis and enjoyed dinner together with their wives. The rift in the Episcopal Church USA - and the Colorado diocese - illustrates how American society is being riven by the movement to widen marriage to include same-sex unions. This weekend marks a nationwide campaign to urge church members to support the federal marriage amendment, which defines marriage as solely a union between a man and a woman. It's scheduled for a Senate vote next week. Last summer, the gay rights issue made history in the Episcopal Church USA when the church officially approved an openly gay bishop and the right of each diocese to develop so-called same-sex blessings - essentially, a ritual presided over by a priest and the closest thing to an official church marriage for gay couples. In Colorado, both Winterrowd and his successor, Rob O'Neill, favor the idea. But to placate conservatives, the newly appointed O'Neill promised in January he would not authorize same-sex blessings until a task force study was finished. The study just ended, O'Neill said this week. He declined to give details, but said the findings don't call for same-sex blessings right now. In the interim, the traditionalists hoped O'Neill would "repent" altogether from his gay rights stand, which they believe is a fundamental break with historic Christianity. They have founded the Anglican Communion Institute, an international body that has submitted a 50-page document to the London-based worldwide Anglican Communion, appealing for sanctions against the pro-gay American church leadership. In Colorado, conservatives claim to have the behind-the-scenes support of about 40 clergy in 30 parishes - about a quarter of the total number. Armstrong, a member of the Standing Committee, a diocesan advisory board, projects a $500,000 budget deficit because parishes are withholding funds from O'Neill's control, though the bishop disputes that figure. And now, the fragile goodwill on both sides is fraying in earnest. The present tear traces back to April 24, when, at Good Shepherd Episcopal Church in Centennial, assistant rector Bonnie Spencer "made promises and exchanged rings" with lay leader Catherine Anderson, the widow of an Episcopal priest. They say there was no blessing by a priest. The ceremony had been forbidden by O'Neill. Because of "the current climate," he says, he categorically turned down several requests for same-sex ceremonies, including even low-key prayer gatherings. So, when Spencer went ahead with her ceremony anyway, conservatives were outraged that O'Neill responded with only a light rebuke - 6-week paid leave - which Spencer and Anderson could have used for a vacation. The two women declined to be interviewed. Spencer is expected to resume her parish duties later this month. O'Neill and the affronted traditionalists met in June to hash things out. At that meeting, O'Neill confirmed what conservatives found startling: that the diocese had "at least 11 same-sex blessings performed," according to a private process Winterrowd set up in 1994. O'Neill denies the process amounted to "secret protocols," though he concedes "some variations" existed in the ceremonies that could be misconstrued as outright same-sex blessings. Winterrowd bristles at the notion he did anything wrong, saying what he allowed was gay couples "to improvise and write their own prayers" - clearly the right of any Episcopalian under church law, he says. However, he says, he added a crucial caveat: "Under no circumstances may a priest bless that relationship." Winterrowd's policy became important to a 1998 lawsuit brought by Boulder youth minister Lee Ann Bryce, who charged she had been wrongfully fired for participating in a same-sex ceremony with her partner at St. Aidan's parish in Boulder. In a deposition, Winterrowd's testimony helped the diocese win. He said Bryce's firing was valid because "it was against the practice of the church for someone who had participated in a public blessing of same-sex union to be a minister of the church." Winterrowd insists his testimony is consistent with his approval of improvised prayers, but Armstrong jeers, "He's parsing words." Is there any chance, as conservatives hope, that O'Neill will reconsider his gay rights stand? "I don't know how to answer that," O'Neill replies. "I believe, in the life of our church, there is room for those who hold different perspectives to live together with integrity and goodwill." Winterrowd, too, is solidifying his gay rights beliefs. He's bitter and regretful now about the vote he cast with the Anglican majority at the 1998 worldwide Lambeth Conference, which asserted that homosexuality is contrary to scripture. Today, Winterrowd calls that vote "a very ugly moment in the long and glorious history of the Anglican church." "If there's no discipline, the communion (the Episcopal church) will probably fall apart," predicts Armstrong. One thing he and O'Neill agree on: The crisis may require an outside body to step in and settle the issue. Says the bishop: "The issue Don is raising is, what is the authority of the worldwide Anglican Communion over individual provinces (such as the U.S.)? That question hasn't been answered yet."

The Christian Challenge June 26, 2004 A noted Anglo-Catholic Episcopal parish in the nation's capital has announced the visits next year of an outspokenly conservative Anglican provincial leader, followed by a liberal one--namely, Episcopal Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold. The invitation by the well known St. Paul's, K Street, Washington, to the presiding bishop--among other things the chief consecrator of openly homosexual Bishop Gene Robinson--raised some eyebrows among local traditionalists. Nonetheless, the rector, the Rev. Andrew Sloane, announced in the parish publication, The Epistle, that Bishop Griswold would be at the parish for Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and the Great Vigil of Easter, 2005. Fr. Sloane did not say what role Griswold would play in these observances. Fr. Sloane also announced that the Archbishop of the West Indies, Drexel Gomez, would be at St. Paul's for Candlemas, February 2, 2005, "to celebrate and preach with the Bishop of Washington's permission. Archbishop Gomez has been to St. Paul's before, and his sister, Myrtle, is a faithful member of our congregation." "These visits speak of the high and broad esteem in which this parish church is held in the wider Church and are also expressive of the respect for diversity that is possible within Anglicanism," Sloane wrote. "We shall be delighted and honored by their presence and their office." Asked about Griswold's visit, one St. Paul's parishioner candidly approached the matter thus: "Fr. Sloane has said many times that one cannot experience Holy Week at St. Paul's without being changed."

COMMENTARY   By David W. Virtue, DD www.virtueonline.org March 4, 2026   The push to form a rival Anglican Communion has reached a climax at the G26 gathering of primates meeting this week in Abuja, Nigeria's capital.   The move culminates more than 28 years of theological conflict over the authority of Scripture and human sexuality — disputes that have plagued the Communion through four successive Archbishops of Canterbury and now threaten to transform long-simmering divisions into a permanent split. GAFCON, which claims to speak for nearly 100 million Anglicans, represents the majority of the global church.   At the heart of the dispute lies Lambeth Resolution 1.10, passed at the 1998 Lambeth Conference, which upholds marriage as a lifelong union between a man and a woman and affirms abstinence for those not called to marriage. Four archbishops — George Carey, Rowan Williams, Justin Welby, and now Sarah Mullally — have each failed to hold the Communion together. The institution today lies in tatters, as Global South primates move to reconstitute it along orthodox lines.   At the four-day conference now underway in Abuja, GAFCON — a global movement of "authentic Anglicans, guarding God's gospel" — plans to elect its own "first among equals," just weeks before Archbishop Mullally's formal installation at Canterbury Cathedral. The timing is no coincidence.   Mullally will be installed as spiritual leader of the world's Anglicans in a ceremony later this month, but her appointment has deepened existing fractures across the Communion. Not all Global South bishops align with GAFCON's position: the Anglican Church of Southern Africa and Kenya's first female bishop, Emily Onyango, both welcomed Mullally's appointment.   Founded in 2008 in response to theological disputes over same-sex unions, GAFCON last October resolved to "reorder the Anglican Communion," refusing to participate in meetings convened by the Archbishop of Canterbury and urging members to sever remaining ties with the Church of England. The movement has consistently maintained that it has not left the Communion — rather, the Communion has left them, having embraced what GAFCON calls "strange and erroneous doctrines."   At the opening press briefing in Abuja, the Rev. Canon Justin Murff, GAFCON's Communications Director, addressed the question that has shadowed the movement since its founding: whether it constitutes a break from the Anglican Communion. "The goal is not to break apart the Communion," Murff said. "This is a claim to continuum." He emphasized that GAFCON defines itself through the Jerusalem Declaration — the theological statement adopted at its inaugural 2008 gathering — which articulates not what members oppose, but what unites them: a Communion anchored in the authority of Scripture. "We will be reaffirming and upholding the Jerusalem Declaration," he said.   Formally, the Anglican Communion is held together by four "Instruments of Communion," headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The majority of Global South primates have now rejected all four.   "This is a schism, even if they don't want to say that," said Diarmaid MacCulloch, Emeritus Professor of the History of the Church at the University of Oxford. The election of a rival global spiritual leader, he told the BBC, is "a very aggressive thing to do." MacCulloch is an openly gay Anglican academic.   The Anglican Communion comprises 42 provinces across 165 countries. Its member churches share a common heritage and liturgical tradition while maintaining independent governance. It is the third-largest Christian denomination after Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy — a platform that carries significant weight on issues ranging from climate change to human rights and global peace.   "We see ourselves as a family of autonomous, yet interdependent churches," Bishop Anthony Poggo, Secretary General of the Anglican Communion, told the BBC.   The relationship between the Church of England and the broader Anglican world has never looked more precarious.

(Image: The Sun's Rays Streaming Through Stained Glass Windows of a Cathedral) By The Rev. Dr. Ronald Moore The Southern ANGLICAN Mar 04, 2026 There has been a subtle but unmistakable shift in our culture. Once, our public spaces were warm — wood, color, texture, earth tones. Even secular architecture carried a sense of rootedness. Restaurants were vibrant. Homes were paneled in natural wood. Cars came in blues, greens, reds, and deep autumn shades. Christmas lights glowed in multi‑color joy. Today, much of what surrounds us is monochrome: white, gray, black, steel, glass. Neutral surfaces. Muted tones. Controlled environments. Even sacred spaces sometimes feel hesitant to declare anything boldly. This is not merely a design preference. It reflects something deeper. We are living in an age of metaphysical anemia. Color itself is not the central issue. Wood paneling and fall tones were once common — browns, oranges, yellows. What has changed is not hue, but atmosphere. We have lost a sense of glory. And when glory fades, surfaces flatten. The Fading of Glory Consider the common assumption about Greek and Roman statues. For centuries, we admired them as pure white marble — austere, rational, restrained. Yet archaeology has shown what we now know clearly: they were painted. Brightly. Vividly. Blues, reds, golds. They were alive with color. The white statues we inherited are not original purity. They are the residue of time. The paint flaked away. The vibrancy faded. And modernity canonized the faded version. There is something symbolic in that. We have grown accustomed to surfaces stripped of depth. We call it sophistication. We call it minimalism. But often it is simply the normalization of absence. The world God created is not monochrome. The sky is not gray. Birds are not grayscale. Flowers do not bloom in black and white. The Tabernacle of the Old Covenant was not bare linen and concrete. It was scarlet, purple, blue, gold — richly woven, deliberately beautiful. The heavenly vision in Revelation is not described in neutral tones but in jewels and radiance. Glory is not excessive decoration. Glory is weight. It is density of meaning. When a culture loses its sense of transcendence, its architecture becomes cautious. When it loses confidence in objective beauty, it retreats to neutrality. Monochrome is safe. It proclaims nothing. It offends no one. It demands little. But glory demands something. The Root Problem: Hurry Yet the greater danger may not be gray walls. It is hurry. We live in a culture engineered for distraction. Everything competes for attention. Very little deserves it. “Be still, and know that I am God.” (Psalm 46:10) Stillness is now countercultural. The modern world does not argue aggressively that God does not exist. It simply ensures we never sit quietly long enough to perceive Him. And this spirit of hurry has entered the Church. We hurry through the Mass. We compress sacred time into manageable segments. We rush the Collects. We shorten silence. We move briskly from confession to absolution, from Gospel to sermon, from Communion to dismissal — as though eternity must keep pace with the clock. But the Eucharist is not a meeting squeezed between errands. It is participation in sacred time. When we hurry the liturgy, we allow secular time — chronos — to govern what belongs to kairos. Hurry flattens glory. The Priest Must Believe Renewal will not begin with committees or aesthetic campaigns. It will begin with priests. If a priest truly believes: ·         That Christ is risen. ·         That heaven is real. ·         That angels attend the altar. ·         That the Sacrifice is not metaphor but participation. ·         That history bends toward resurrection. How can he preach without wonder? Tone reveals ontology. A man who stands under glory cannot speak in grayscale. Even if his voice is calm, it carries weight. Even if his gestures are simple, they carry conviction. If the priest does not believe deeply, no stained glass will save the sanctuary. If he does believe deeply, even a wooden altar can feel luminous. Slowness as Recovery The first concrete step toward reopening our eyes to glory is not architectural. It is temporal. We must address the hurry. Silence in the liturgy is not empty space. It is hospitality to transcendence. After the Gospel, let the Word linger. After confession, let repentance settle. After Communion, let thanksgiving breathe. At first, silence may feel uncomfortable. That is not failure. That is detox. We have trained ourselves to fear stillness because stillness exposes interior noise. But silence is the natural climate of awe. In Revelation there is silence in heaven. If there is never silence in our worship, we subtly catechize our people to believe that awe is optional. Slowness thickens the Mass. It does not lengthen it artificially; it deepens it. When sacred time is experienced rather than rushed, something changes. Adults settle. Children notice. The atmosphere shifts. Glory is not announced — it is perceived. Individual Renewal This recovery will not come primarily from institutions. It will come from individual priests and parishes who refuse shallowness. History shows the pattern clearly. Every great renewal began locally. A handful of men believed something profoundly, and the parish changed. Then the diocese changed. Then the Church changed. The parish is a micro‑civilization. If sacred time is guarded there, if silence is restored there, if preaching is done with conviction there, then glory begins to reappear there. And where glory appears, beauty follows. Art does not precede belief. It flows from it. Rest, Not Resistance When I sit in silence before the altar, the first thing that comes is not resistance. It is rest. That alone tells us something. We are not made for velocity. We are made for communion. The world keeps us from being still because stillness reveals what is real. If we wish to recover glory, we must first recover attention. If we wish to recover attention, we must recover stillness. And if the priest recovers stillness, the parish will learn it. Then — slowly, patiently — color will return. Not as trend. Not as nostalgia. But as expression of a people who once again believe that heaven touches earth. Glory is not gone. We have simply forgotten how to look. And the first act of looking is to stop rushing. Dr. Moore blogs at the Southern Anglican through Substack