In a statement suggesting the enormity of Canterbury’s failure to be a focus for unity, the former archbishop Rowan Williams recently admitted: “I honestly don’t know whether the communion will survive.” Such a statement from a former leader of the Church of England reflects the gravity of the current crisis. It is not merely a matter of internal disagreement but a question about the very future of Anglicanism.

A significant turning point came in 2023 when the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches (GSFA) issued what became known as the Ash Wednesday Statement. In this declaration, the GSFA announced that it would no longer recognize the archbishop of Canterbury as primus inter pares and the head of the Anglican Communion. This decision marked a historic shift: The symbolic center of Anglican unity was effectively withdrawn by churches representing the majority of Anglicans worldwide.

The roots of this shift are not only historical but also theological and structural. The traditional configuration of the Anglican Communion emerged during the era of the British Empire. During that time, the Church of England functioned naturally as a coordinating center for Anglican churches established through missionary and colonial expansion. However, the global context has changed dramatically. The demographic center of Anglicanism has moved decisively to Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Today, the vast majority of Anglicans live in what is commonly called the Global South.

The departure of several western provinces from the traditional Anglican faith inevitably raises questions about unity, governance, and authority.

Read it all.

Canterbury and the Collapse of Anglican Unity
by Mouneer Anis @bishopmouneer https://t.co/5oNTQIwrz3 pic.twitter.com/LVjAFzbJjP

— First Things (@firstthingsmag) March 31, 2026

It takes a certain colonial arrogance to refuse to acknowledge the real reasons people give for their actions. And after three decades, it is perhaps that arrogance, which has led both the GSFA and Gafcon to believe there needs to be significant change in the leadership of the Anglican Communion. It is true that at the moment they are divided over the best way forward – GSFA are holding out the Cairo Covenant, while Gafcon look to the Jerusalem Declaration and have announced the formation of a Global Anglican Council, to replace the Instruments of Communion. What both are agreed on, however, is that the future of the Anglican Communion must be confessional rather than institutional. In other words, what provinces believe about the word of God and the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is of far greater import than historic relationships.

How this all works out in the future has yet to be seen, but what today’s events have shown is that the leaders of the majority of the world’s Anglicans are not just talking a good game. Instead, by their words and their actions, they have made it crystal clear that they are united in rejecting the moral and spiritual leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Read it all.

Reflections on the ABC's installation range from the ecstatic to the downright rude. Why is everyone ignoring the fact that the primates of a 1/4 of provinces refused to attend? This is not personal but it is important. https://t.co/8RhXHCU8Iq

— Anglican Futures (@AnglicanFutures) March 26, 2026

It is, Rowan Williams assures me, a coincidence that his new book will be published three days after the installation of Sarah Mullally as Archbishop of Canterbury. “I will not be attending,” he says. “You don’t want to be Marley’s ghost.”

Yet, fittingly – since that book takes solidarity as its theme – this priest, poet and critic is keen to empathise with Mullally, the first female Archbishop, in the weight of challenges she faces. “Every archbishop starts, like every president or prime minister: with expectations being thrown at them,” he recalls of his time at Lambeth Palace from 2002 to 2012. “Realising you’re not going to be able to meet them is part of the job. It is no walk in the park.”

Williams, who now lives in Cardiff with his theologian wife Jane, comes across as gentler, kinder and more self-deprecating than I remember him from his episcopal tenure. He used to make regular headlines, his every utterance and act picked apart. His 2011 dismissal of David Cameron’s “Big Society” initiative as “painfully stale” had the Conservative benches in uproar. Today, as we sit talking in a book-lined reception room at his publisher’s London office, he stands out from the colourful backdrop in his black clerical shirt and trousers, with a simple cross hanging round his neck. Those monkish eyebrows remain as untamed as ever.

The two biggest issues in Mullally’s in-tray, Williams tells me, are the same ones he tried but failed to settle during his turbulent decade in post: women’s ordination and what he refers to as “the same-sex question”. With the first, he feels, at least in England, “some of the bitterness has gone out of it”. Not, though, in much of the 85-million-strong worldwide Anglican Communion, over which the Archbishop of Canterbury also presides, with some provinces muttering about schism. “I honestly don’t know whether the Communion will survive,” he says bluntly.

Read it all.

"Is he saying that British public life has lost its moral centre? “Yes,” he replies, boldly and without any caveat. “Increasingly, we permit and collude with dishonourable forms of behaviour, and we don’t seem very concerned about that.”" Rowan Williams: ‘I don’t know whether the…

— Mark Lambert (@sitsio) March 17, 2026

The question then becomes what status we should give to the acceptance of same-sex sexual relationships by some Anglican churches today.

In the words of C S Lewis, the traditional rule of the Christian Church with regard to sexual ethics has always been ‘either marriage, with complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence’[9] (marriage here means marriage between a man and a woman). This is the consensual teaching about marriage and sexual ethics that, as Vincent of Lerin puts it, has been held ‘always, everywhere and by everyone’[10] from biblical times onwards, in the same way that belief in the divinity of Christ and his bodily resurrection have been universally taught and accepted.

In the words of Darrin Belousek in his book Marriage, Scripture and the Church:

‘Scripture, consistently, presents a single picture of marriage and approves a single pattern of sexual relations: male- female union. Jesus summarizes this witness: ‘the two’ of ‘male and female’ joined into ‘one flesh.’ The Holy Spirit has woven this pattern of holy union throughout Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, in the form, function, and figure of marriage. Tradition, East and West, also has consistently taught a single standard of sex and marriage: marriage is man-woman monogamy; all sex outside man-woman monogamy is sin. This doctrine has been taught always by the church, beginning with the apostles’ testimony to Jesus teaching; It has been proclaimed throughout the worldwide church, among all people in every place and epoch, as God’s will for sex and marriage; it has been articulated by apologetic writings and theological treatises, transmitted through baptismal catechesis and canonical discipline, celebrated in monastic vows and nuptial rites.’ [11]

Judged against this standard, the acceptance of same-sex sexual relationships (and even same-sex marriages) by some churches in the Anglican Communion has to be viewed as a ‘gross and grievous abomination,’ since it constitutes a departure from a key part of the Catholic and apostolic faith and an endorsement of sin. To put it plainly the churches involved have supported both heresy and immorality.

Furthermore, as the Church of England Evangelical Council report ‘Guarding the Deposit’ notes, the apostolic witness in the New Testament, which has also been accepted ‘everywhere at all times and by all,‘  teaches that:

‘…the Church should make a separation in this world between the people of God and those who practise sexual immorality (1 Cor 5: 1-13).

As Tom Wright notes, Paul teaches that the Church has the ‘God-given right and duty to discriminate between those who are living in the Messiah’s way and those who are not’.

Read it all.

Martin Davie–Assessing two different visions for the future of the Anglican Communion https://t.co/F3so2u4TtA 'The difference between the two views of the future of global Anglicanism put forward by the Nairobi-Cairo Proposals and The Abuja Affirmation is that the former holds… pic.twitter.com/LXTgMmiuOZ

— Kendall Harmon (@KendallHarmon6) March 16, 2026

The statement from Abuja makes clear that the leaders gathered here believe the Anglican Communion has reached a point where reordering is necessary. For more than two decades, GAFCON leaders and other orthodox Anglicans called for repentance from provinces and leaders who departed from historic Anglican teaching, particularly on matters of biblical authority and human sexuality. The communiqué argues that those appeals did not result in meaningful discipline or correction within the Communion’s historic structures.

According to the statement, the problem lies not only in the theological disagreements themselves but in the inability, or unwillingness, of the Canterbury-centered “Instruments of Communion” to maintain doctrinal accountability. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council, and the Primates’ Meeting are described as having failed to guard the faith once delivered to the saints. Rather than confronting false teaching, the communiqué argues, these structures increasingly sought to preserve institutional unity through the language of “walking together” despite deep theological disagreement.

In response to this perceived failure, the statement outlines what it calls a “reordering” of the Anglican Communion around a confessional foundation. The key theological principle underlying this vision is that true communion among churches must be grounded in shared doctrine rather than merely shared institutional affiliation or historical connection. In this view, communion exists where churches confess the same faith, particularly as expressed in the Jerusalem Declaration and the historic formularies of Anglicanism, including the Thirty-Nine Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.

From this perspective, the communiqué suggests that the current crisis within Anglicanism reflects not the existence of two separate communions but rather two competing definitions of communion. One definition is confessional, grounded in shared doctrine and submission to the authority of Scripture. The other is institutional, centered on historical structures that attempt to hold together provinces with fundamentally incompatible theological commitments.

The leaders gathered in Abuja argue that a confessional understanding of communion is not an innovation but a recovery of the historic Anglican vision. The communiqué points to the first Lambeth Conference in 1867, when Archbishop Charles Longley described the Anglican Communion as a fellowship of churches bound together by shared faith and common formularies rather than by centralized authority.

Against this backdrop, the G26 statement formally affirms the emergence of what it calls the Global Anglican Communion. According to the communiqué, this is not intended to be a breakaway body or a rival communion, but rather a reordering of Anglican life around the historic doctrinal commitments that originally defined Anglican fellowship. 

Read it all.

A Commentary on the Abuja Statement from @gafconference G26: https://t.co/cL0Od8JdkQ

— American Anglican (@AnglicanCouncil) March 6, 2026

The BBC article also implies that the GAFCON movement is reacting primarily to the appointment of Dame Sarah Mullally as Archbishop of Canterbury. Anyone actually present in Abuja would know otherwise. This council was scheduled long before her appointment. On the second day of the gathering, GAFCON General Secretary, the Rt. Rev. Paul Donison, made the point plainly: the issue is not the archbishop’s gender, but the theological direction of the Church of England and other Western provinces that have departed from historic Anglican teaching.

If the BBC genuinely believes this moment is about the gender of the Archbishop of Canterbury, it suggests either a serious misunderstanding of the situation or a refusal to listen to what leaders here have repeatedly said.

The article also quotes Diarmaid MacCulloch, Emeritus Professor of Church History at Oxford, who describes the gathering as “a set of leaders, all male, going to a conference in Africa to assert an identity which no longer satisfies many Anglican churches.” That claim raises an obvious question: which Anglican churches, exactly?

The reality is that many of the churches represented in Abuja, particularly in Africa, Asia, and the Global South, make up the overwhelming majority of the Anglican Communion’s membership. If anyone is speaking for “many Anglican churches,” it is the bishops gathered here. The recurring Western media portrayal of GAFCON as a fringe movement “coming to Africa” ignores a simple fact: it is in Africa because Africa is where the majority of Anglicans live.

The BBC also notes that GAFCON “says it speaks for the majority of the world’s Anglicans, although that is contested.” By whom, exactly? The demographic numbers are not difficult to examine. The provinces represented in GAFCON, many of which also belong to the Global South Fellowship of Anglicans, account for the clear majority of practicing Anglicans worldwide. Calling this movement “fringe” does not change that reality.

Professor MacCulloch further describes GAFCON’s actions as “very aggressive.” But in some Western circles, any refusal to conform to the theological innovations of Western church leadership is labeled “aggressive.” Those present in Abuja would struggle to recognize that description. The atmosphere here is marked far more by conviction and confidence than by hostility. The leaders gathered believe they are continuing the Anglican faith as they received it, ironically from the very Western churches now dismissing them.

Read it all.

The @BBCNews was reporting on @gafconference but unfortunately, one of the articles was less than accurate, to be charitable. The majority of the @AnglicanWorld is represented here whether they like that or not. https://t.co/DaYrR4qfe0

— American Anglican (@AnglicanCouncil) March 5, 2026

As bishops and church leaders gather in Abuja, Nigeria for the 2026 Gafcon Council, another conversation about the future of the Anglican Communion is unfolding at the same time. The Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) announced that it will consider revised versions of the Nairobi–Cairo proposals later this year, structural reforms intended to rethink how the Communion is organized and how authority is exercised across its global fellowship of provinces.

The timing is striking. While Gafcon leaders meet to reaffirm their vision for Anglican unity and identity, the Communion’s official institutions are considering their own attempt to address the fractures that have defined Anglican life for nearly two decades. Whether these efforts represent parallel responses to the same crisis, or competing visions of Anglicanism’s future, remains an open question, but we suspect a purposeful step to undermine Gafcon’s G26 conference. We’ve seen this before in the Church of England, and that battle is moving onto the world stage.

At the first press briefing of the gathering in Abuja, the Rev. Canon Justin Murff, Communications Director for Gafcon, addressed a question that followed the movement since its founding in 2008: whether it represents a break from the Anglican Communion. “The goal is not to break apart the Communion,” Murff said. “This is a claim to continuum.” Murff emphasized that the movement continues to define itself through the Jerusalem Declaration, the theological statement adopted at the first Gafcon gathering in Jerusalem. Far from being merely a protest against developments in the Western churches, he said, the declaration was intended to articulate what unites Anglicans who believe the Communion must remain rooted in the authority of Scripture. “We will be reaffirming and upholding the Jerusalem Declaration,” Murff said. “It is not designed to show what we oppose but what unites Gafcon.”

For many within the movement, the declaration has increasingly functioned as a theological centre of gravity for Anglicans who believe the Communion has struggled to address doctrinal divisions that have widened in recent decades. “It has become a basis of communion across boundaries,” Murff said, noting that it provides theological grounding for cooperation, and, at times, cross-provincial oversight, among churches that share the same doctrinal commitments. Murff insisted that Gafcon does not see itself as creating a new church. Instead, he suggested that many within the movement believe they are preserving the historic faith of Anglicanism even as the Communion’s institutional structures struggle to respond to theological conflict. “We are the Anglican Communion,” he said, describing the movement as committed to “defending the faith as the Word of God has taught and commanded.”

Read it all.

While we wait for Gafcon to announce a new leader of the Global Anglican Communion, we take a look at the alternatives. https://t.co/T8P6kpxpLQ

— Anglican Futures (@AnglicanFutures) March 5, 2026

‘There are three ideas currently supported by those in the Church of England who take a liberal approach to marriage and sexual activity (including members of the House of Bishops) and which are being pushed as part of the Prayers of Love and Faith process that cannot rightly be seen as a development of the Church of England’s doctrine…

The first idea is that it would be right to bless same-sex couples who are in a sexually active relationship either in normal church services or in special ‘standalone’ or ‘bespoke’ services.

The reason that this would not be a development of doctrine is that the doctrine of the Church of England, as we have seen, is that all forms of sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage are forms of the sin of fornication which all Christians are called to avoid committing (and for which those Christians who have committed it are called to repent, confess and receive absolution as they would with all other forms of sin). It is not an explanation of the Church’s doctrine on this matter to say that those who continue to be in a relationship involving the sin of fornication should be able to have this relationship blessed by the Church. Rather, saying this would contradict the Church’s doctrine in one of two ways. It would involve saying either (a) that fornication is not a sin or (b) that sin does not need to be met with a call to repentance, confession, absolution and amendment of life but can instead be the object of prayers of blessing.

The second idea is that those who are in same-sex sexual relationships should be admitted to, or allowed to continue to exercise, ordained ministry.

The reason that this would not be a development of doctrine is that the Church of England’s doctrine, as set out in the 1662 Ordinal is that it is an integral part of the calling of those who are ordained to be: ‘diligent to frame and fashion your own selves, and your families, according to the doctrine of Christ; and to make both yourselves and them, as much as in you lieth, wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Christ.’  It is not an explanation of the Church’s doctrine to say that being in a same-sex sexual relationship is compatible with providing a wholesome example and pattern to the flock of Christ. As in the previous example, it would instead contradict the Church’s doctrine by in this case suggesting either (a) that being in a same-sex sexual relationship is in accordance with ‘the doctrine of Christ’ or (b) that the requirements for ministerial conduct set out in the Ordinal no longer matter.

The third idea is that the Church of England should accept that marriage can rightly be between two people of the same sex as well as two people of the opposite sex. This again would not be an explanation of the Church ‘s doctrine, but rather a contradiction of it. One cannot say both that ‘The Church of England affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent and life-long, for better or worse, till death do them on the part of one man and one woman’ and also say that a relationship between two people of the same-sex is a marriage. The only way one can consistently say that a relationship between two-people of the same-sex is a marriage is if one has a different understanding of the nature of marriage. The idea that a doctrine of marriage that teaches that marriage is between two people of the opposite sex could be ‘spacious’ enough (as the bishops put it) to include same-sex relationships simply does not make sense.

What all this means is that the development of doctrine, rightly understood, rules out rather than permits these innovations which liberals wish to introduce, and which members of the House of Bishops are proposing.

Read it all.

How can we know what God is like and what his will is for our lives? Dr. Martin Davie, author and Anglican theologian, will explain how a careful reading of one of the Thirty-Nine Articles can provide us with answers. Register for this free event at https://t.co/2GO6OL0uPr. pic.twitter.com/Q5GTHbbswA

— Trinity Anglican Seminary (@TASeminary) September 6, 2024

Just over two years ago, an Anglican Futures blogger adopted the concept of the ‘Travelator’ as a way of explaining how the process of changing the Church of England’s practice and teaching about sexual relationships works.

The blog explained how David Porter, the then Archbishop of Canterbury’s Strategy Consultant, ensured that the process would itself become the outcome, by legitimising the questions being asked and preventing any ‘end point’, other than the introduction of blessings and/or same-sex marriage, with the expectation that those who disagree are required to ‘walk together’/ ‘agree to disagree’.

Just like a Travelator – once the first step is taken, there is no way off.

Today, however, some are suggesting that the House of Bishops’ latest statement represents a reversal of the Travelator. If this were true it would be a cause for great rejoicing amongst orthodox Anglicans throughout the Anglican Communion.

In contrast, this blog sets out 6 reasons why the most recent missive from the House of Bishops is a very clear indicator that the Travelator is still doing its work, inching forward and carrying all in the Church of England along with it, whether or not they approve of the destination.

Just over two years ago, an Anglican Futures blogger adopted the concept of the ‘Travelator’ as a way of explaining how the process of changing the Church of England’s practice and teaching about sexual relationships works.

The blog explained how David Porter, the then Archbishop of Canterbury’s Strategy Consultant, ensured that the process would itself become the outcome, by legitimising the questions being asked and preventing any ‘end point’, other than the introduction of blessings and/or same-sex marriage, with the expectation that those who disagree are required to ‘walk together’/ ‘agree to disagree’.

Just like a Travelator – once the first step is taken, there is no way off.

Today, however, some are suggesting that the House of Bishops’ latest statement represents a reversal of the Travelator. If this were true it would be a cause for great rejoicing amongst orthodox Anglicans throughout the Anglican Communion.

In contrast, this blog sets out 6 reasons why the most recent missive from the House of Bishops is a very clear indicator that the Travelator is still doing its work, inching forward and carrying all in the Church of England along with it, whether or not they approve of the destination.

Read it all.

A much needed dose of realism from @AnglicanFutures concerning the PLF process. Some will say the reality on the ground will, in fact, be worse https://t.co/Lezo9qf2HW

— Dan Leafe (@DanLeafe1) January 16, 2026

The crisis facing the ACNA is fundamentally a crisis of integrity, stemming directly from this unwillingness to speak plainly. For the Church, confession is not merely an institutional duty; it is the covenantal key to healing.

Our tradition holds that true restoration is rooted in specific, humbling admission. The Apostle James lays out the standard for the community of faith:

“Therefore, confess your sins one to another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.” (James 5:16, ESV)

The Failure to Confess for Healing

By substituting abstract spiritual language for concrete admissions, the bishops prevent the very healing they pray for. Healing—for the wounded, the Province, and the College itself—requires a clear definition of the injury and the sin. A nebulous confession attempts to bypass the painful process of public truth-telling.

The College’s statement reads like a carefully worded legal brief designed to limit exposure, rather than a pastoral lament seeking forgiveness. This is where the corporate double speak does its deepest damage. By using generalized terms, the bishops are engaging in semantic evasion—a classic tactic of risk management—that seeks to confess only what is legally or institutionally unavoidable. We see a leadership that is prioritizing image control over truth-telling, sacrificing its spiritual integrity for the sake of its organizational stability.

Read it all.

Has the ACNA College of Bishops' effort at confession been undermined by its method of communication? Fr. Randall Graf writes "we needed specific admissions of procedural failures, suppressed information, or concrete acts of omission." https://t.co/kh66Y1hW5z

— Jeff Walton (@jeffreyhwalton) December 10, 2025

To the Standing Committee of the Diocese of South Carolina

With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says:
‘You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive.
 For this people’s heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing,
    and their eyes they have closed, lest they should perceive with their eyes,
    and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart,
    and turn for me to heal them.’
–Matthew 13:14-15

“Nothing in the world is harder than speaking the truth and nothing easier than flattery.”
–Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

Dear friends:

Let me begin by saying that I love the Lord and I love his church and I love the Anglican Church in North America and I wish her the best and pray for her and her leaders every day.

But I have to tell you that as someone watching what has been happening over the last week since the story broke about the accusations against the current Archbishop I have been profoundly troubled, deeply upset and incredibly concerned; those feelings have done nothing but get deeper every single day since.

I find myself thinking again and again of Dr James Houston at Regent College and his course on Christian spirituality I took it when I had only been a Christian for about four years. Dr. Houston began the class by saying that if you want to understand what it means to think about growing as a Christian, you have to understand the beatitudes, and you have to understand that the beatitudes are written in order.

What that means is the beginning of any real growth is wrestling with and living into the first beatitude, which is blessed all the poor in spirit which Eugene Peterson wonderfully translates as “You’re blessed when you’re at the end of your rope. With less of you there is more of God and his rule.”

He went on to tell us many memorable things in that class, one of them, which I shall never forget, is what is one of the most important characteristics of the character of a genuine Christian. His answer comes like a little voice, which is in fact a piece of dynamite in our current cultural moment in the church in the west, he said the answer is self-mistrust.

If you really understand yourself and the broken nature of the world and the insidious nature of sin, and you need to know that human beings have a stubborn incapacity to handle the truth which manifests itself in ways that the systems which sinful people construct so often miss.

So let me begin in a place where I see almost no ACNA leader beginning and that is I don’t trust myself so maybe what I’m saying is incorrect. That’s for you to decide, but I’ve reached the point where I cannot not say What I feel the Lord is calling me to say.

To state the matter carefully: ACNA is in profound trouble, and I do not think that the people in charge of ACNA see how much trouble we are in.

Ask yourself this question–what would an outside observer who had a healthy sense of self-mistrust and who knew that a healthy institution needs to have a heavy dose of self mistrust—what would he or she say about what is just happened in ACNA over the last few years and especially the last week or so.

The first thing such a person might say: the process by which allegations of misbehavior by ACNA leaders are adjudicated is incredibly messed up and needs to be deeply reformed.

How do I know this—well just look at what we know as fact. Bishop Stewart Ruch has had a process going on by which he’s been put in a form of an ecclesiastical trial for alleged misbehavior. The process is taking a long time and the first thing that we know, is that the prosecutor who was asked to participate in the process named Alan Runyan resigned just a few hours before the process was to complete because what happened in the process was so completely out of kilter and deeply disturbing to him that he felt he had no other recourse but to resign.

Now I happen to know Alan Runyan and I’ve worked with him in some very unusual contexts. He’s a greatly capable person and a wonderful Christian; for someone like him to take a step like that is incredibly significant to me.

It speaks to a process in a canonical system that does not work properly by any reasonable standard.

If you read the new, very lengthy Washington Post story about the Bishop Stewart Ruch situation ask yourself a question– if even 1/8 of what’s in the article is true, how in the world has the system reach this point? It is self-evidently not working.

Now consider recent developments with the allegations against the current archbishop of ACNA, Steve Wood.

A presentment has been filed against him, a formal church procedure alleging misbehavior. The people involved in filing this presentment are people who love the Lord and who love his church.

If the people involved love the Lord and love his church then why is no one in ACNA leadership asking about this reality–there is simply no way that anyone who loves ACNA and cares deeply about her and her future whatever not initially try to use the process provided by the church to make these allegations, but have the people done so?

No; no.

Almost everyone that I’ve seen in ACNA who is looking at the situation is looking at it backwards. They are saying things like trust the process, isn’t it terrible that people in the church felt it necessary to go to a secular newspaper like the Washington Post in order to do what they felt had to be done.

To me that entirely upside down, the question everyone in active leadership should be asking themselves is supposing I was part of the group that made these allegations.

It would then necessarily be the case that I would seek to use the processes provided by the church to do so

It is clear that they did not because they felt that they could not.

Think carefully about what that means, it means that a group of people who love ACNA had such a profound mistrust of the existing process that they felt they had a better chance of beginning to get the truth into the light in a secular newspaper as opposed to the process provided by the church.

Let’s be clear here–no one saying they are right. We are just asking questions, but let’s make sure to ask the right questions. Do you have any idea how sick the process has to be for people in positions of leadership to feel such an extreme measure was necessary? It speaks to a process which is so deeply wrong that it is nearly or entirely bankrupt.

Now again, let’s look at the response to what occurred so far. We have a number of responses, from bishops especially, most of which can be reduced to trust the process, we have an adequate process, we have a process that will work. Let’s just be patient and pray and let it work itself out, and on and on.

That can’t be true and we know it’s not true because of what’s been happening in the Ruch trial, but we also know it’s not true because of the extreme measures that were deemed necessary by the group that filed these allegations against Archbishop Wood.

Yet there’s more.

Whenever you have a situation like this, where there are allegations, you have alleged victims and alleged perpetrators; we simply don’t know what happened, so we have to keep a healthy dose of skepticism, but what needs to be said very strongly is that neither of the allegations nor the denial can be assumed to be true.

Anyone who reads the initial responses can see that the concern for the victims, and the possibility that the allegations could be true, are given short shrift, but the protection of the leaders and the institution and the process are almost always paramount.

So it’s clear that the process is deeply flawed already and you can see it and what has transpired publicly not only in the Ruch trial, but in the response to the allegations against Archbishop Wood so far.

We are still not done. Let’s look at what else has happened with the allegation so far. It is a matter of public record that there was an objection to the presentment made by the Canon for safeguarding, and the Chancellor. They alleged that a standard wasn’t met, even though it has been determined now that the presentment can go forward and the objections have been overcome. We need to pause and ask ourselves a question–who made these objections.

They were made by a Canon who works for Steve Wood and a chancellor who works for Steve Wood. But Steve Wood is the accused in this situation, so no one who works for him can and should be involved in the process at all.

However, they were involved in the process. They should never have been; they should have recused themselves immediately.

Not only has that occurred, but Bishop Ray Sutton, who is now the bishop in charge of this process, has written a letter to the ACNA House of bishops in which he discussed the overcoming of these objections by suggesting that the process by which the objections were made was legitimate. It was anything but. Other people could have been appointed to make objections, but not people who work for or were appointed by the current person accused.

This is just a matter of basic justice and due process. It may seem like a simple thing, but it’s not a simple thing because not only has it occurred, but it has implicitly been sanctioned by the current person in charge of the process.

Notice also that none of the other leaders have made an objection to this.

What we are looking at here, brother and sisters, is a colossal mess which has so many things out of kilter one hardly knows where to start.

We have to question the process, not trust the process, but more than that we have to question the people who are in charge of ACNA, what they are doing, how they are doing it, why they are so defensive and why they are missing so many basic points and not asking the right questions.

And all this is the case at this very early stage….

29 October 2025

–The Rev Dr. Kendall S. Harmon is theologian in residence, Church of the Holy Cross, Sullivan’s Island, SC

If Kendall Harmon is irked, the Lord may be returning soon! Please read this heartfelt document. Concerns from my heart about the deep ACNA leadership crisis: Kendall Harmon https://t.co/vAVWbC0OAi via @Anglican Ink © 2025

— Will ⚓ (@monkofjustice) November 7, 2025

The GAFCON leadership is calling a conference (G26) for all orthodox Anglican bishops, who can sign the Jerusalem Declaration, in Abuja Nigeria in March of next year. All are welcome. This coincidently will be about the same time as the new Archbishop of Canterbury takes up her office. Her appointment was made without adequate consideration of the wishes of the majority of Anglican churches and her apparent liberal direction of travel means they have been presented with more of the same leadership that has failed to discipline wayward Provinces and restore any semblance of unity to the Communion post the widespread agreement after the Lambeth Conference in 1998. The Chairman of GAFCON said on the news of the appointment of the new Archbishop of Canterbury — “Due to the failure of successive Archbishops of Canterbury to guard the faith, the office can no longer function as a credible leader of Anglicans, let alone a focus of unity”. It would appear that Dame Sarah will find herself relating to a very different world-wide Communion. 

Again, coincidently and perhaps ironically, on the same day this week it was announced that the English House of Bishops has postponed any further implementation of the “Living in Love and Faith” process, which has been causing agony and division in the church for more than a decade. This has been abandoned because of legal and theological advice that has shown the bishops what they should have known already, that their proposals change the doctrine of marriage held by the Church of England. Such a change, though possible, must follow due synodical processes and decisions, and requires a two thirds majority to alter doctrine. As the current process has been shambolic and lacking integrity, it is good to see the bishops at last consenting to adhere to proper processes. However, this looks more like a press of the pause button rather than the delete one, and means that discontent will rumble on in the church.

It is no wonder then that GAFCON, which continues to support orthodox believers in the Church of England, has lost patience with its leadership, as it sees no real evidence of repentance or a change of heart about the liberal direction of travel. It wishes to stop wasting time in pointless squabbles and to bring together those who are firm in faith to get on with the task of bringing the Good News of the Gospel to a lost and suffering world. Compassion and clarity of doctrine are not enemies but ought to go together — the grace and truth only ever perfectly shown in the person of the Lord Jesus needs to be followed as far as possible by his followers.

Bishops in the early Church were noted and respected for their courage and adherence to the Apostolic Faith. Bishops today in the West, with thankfully a number of notable exceptions, have too often become uncertain trumpets, driven by expediency, who seem to want to sanctify current fashionable opinions more than to be faithful to their ordination vows to uphold the Christian Faith as revealed in the Scriptures. This is a sad and tragic state of affairs. To quote the Dutch/American theologian R.B.Kuiper — “The church that has grown indifferent to the truth is, to put it mildly, on its way out”. GAFCON shines a light of hope to a generation looking for an alternative to the faithless, materialistic, self-absorbed answers of the current western world. 

Read it all.

Bible believing Anglicans should be pleased that the new Archbishop has been ejected from the Anglican Communion, argues W. Gilchrist https://t.co/JSVc08XHj8

— The Critic (@TheCriticMag) October 22, 2025

A group of leading Anglican traditionalists this month announced a reordering of the worldwide Anglican Communion.

Top bishops (primates) of the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON), a renewal movement composed of both historic Anglican provinces and newly inaugurated Anglican churches, are seeking to bind the Anglican family not around a common tie to the See of Canterbury but around shared theological commitments. Among them the centrality of holy scripture. This is an outworking of what was called for at the group’s 2023 conference in Kigali, Rwanda. More on that from Bishop Paul Donison at The Gospel Coalition here.

GAFCON provinces already comprise the majority of adherents within the Anglican Communion member churches, which are functionally self-governing and autonomous while operating in relationship with one another. Both GAFCON and Global South Fellowship of Anglicans (GSFA), which have significantly overlapping membership, represent the vast majority of people within Anglican Communion, although each group has a different sensibility and strategy.

This is why recent headlines about schism are ill informed. No one is going anywhere, but neither is everyone looking to Canterbury as a central focal point of unity.

But will most provinces cease to look to the institutions, historic role, and financial resources of the Canterbury-led order? That remains to be seen.

Read it all.

Historic news for global Anglicanism today!

– The majority of Anglicans worldwide are, as of today, officially disaffiliated from the Church of England.
– GAFCON (Global Anglican Future Conference) has declared itself the Global Anglican Communion.
– The Global Anglican… pic.twitter.com/4q4t57BAAj

— Larry Sanger (@lsanger) October 16, 2025

The Church of England has halted its plans to introduce ‘wedding’ services for same-sex couples after the bishops finally accepted long-resisted legal advice that it is not possible to do so without the approval of two-thirds of General Synod. Plans to allow clergy to enter a same-sex civil marriage have also been scrapped owing to the legal complications, ongoing divisions on the issue and the confusion that bringing in the reform by itself would sow. The Times has more.

This is a victory of sorts for conservatives in the church, who will be relieved that further divisive changes will not be rammed through at this point. The forced departure of Justin Welby as Archbishop of Canterbury last year over safeguarding failures – Welby being the main driving force behind trying to get this question ‘solved’ before he retired – was key in the momentum collapsing, combined with the retirement of a number of stalwart liberal bishops.

While relieved, though, conservatives will also be frustrated that the reasons for dropping the plans now – essentially the legal situation and the voting calculus in Synod – are no different from what they were eight years ago, before huge amounts of church money, time and emotional energy were expended in divisive ‘conversations’ at every level of church life. A number of bishops and others in senior leadership, led by Welby, had chosen to ignore this reality and attempt to find a way, any way, to push through the changes they wanted. The consequence is a church more divided than ever, with pain on both sides, local churches reeling from acrimonious splits and further demoralisation and disengagement in the pews.

Will the church now be able to move on from this lost decade of division? There are signs liberals were already resigned to this outcome, so it’s possible an uneasy truce will now settle, with liberals going back to quietly ignoring the rules in practice while refraining from making big noises about trying to change them.

Read it all and follow the link to the other cited article from the Times.

BREAKING:

CofE bishops won’t give their green light for ‘standalone’ blessing services for gay couples, or for gay priests to have civil same-sex marriages, @TheTimes understands

Will say both would need formal rewrite of church law

Trial of blessing ceremonies can’t go ahead

— Kaya Burgess (@kayaburgess) October 15, 2025

The announcement of the choice of the Bishop of London, Dame Sarah Mallally, to be the next Archbishop of Canterbury has been accompanied by frequent references to the Archbishop of Canterbury as the ‘head of the Church of England’ or the ‘head of the Anglican Communion.’  In this post I shall explain why both of these statements are misleading, what roles the Archbishop of Canterbury actually has in the Church of England and the wider Anglican Communion, and the implications of the fact that these roles are very limited.

What do we mean by ‘head?’

When thinking about these topics, the first thing we need to be clear about is what we mean when we say that someone is the ‘head’ of something. When we use the word head in this connection we are using analogical language. An analogy is being drawn between the role of the head (and more specifically what is inside the head, the brain) in the human body and the role of an individual in a particular organisation.

The analogy is between the role of the brain in determining how a human body shall act and the role of an individual in determining what happens in an organisation. Calling some the head in this way (as in the terms ‘head of state,’ ‘head teacher’ and ‘head of the armed forces’ ) means that they are the person who has the authority and ability to govern the life of the state, the school, or the armed forces. They have the right to say what will happen.

By extension, when it is said that the Archbishop of Canterbury is head of the Church of England or the Anglican Communion, what is being claimed is that the Archbishop of Canterbury has a similar governing authority over these bodies. The problem with this claim is that it is untrue for three reasons.

Read it all.

Martin Davie–'The…problem with this statement is that the idea that the Church of England does not have a ‘straightforward statement of doctrine’ is simply untrue. The Church of England does have a straightforward statement of its doctrine, and this is found in the Thirty Nine… pic.twitter.com/8jtUCwrQDb

— Kendall Harmon (@KendallHarmon6) November 21, 2024

Once again the history of the church is instructive; any kind of acceptance of same-sex unions was unknown to Christianity before about the last hundred years, and has only found widespread traction in about the last thirty. (Of course, popes, televangelists and many others have had their moral failings, but these were always recognised as failings and a subject of scandal when revealed.) And once again this is in part because of extremely plain statements in Scripture. Such behaviour is an “abomination”; those who practice these things “will not inherit the kingdom of God”. There is a famous story about Sodom and Gomorrah with which you may be dimly aware. Scripture is at pains to point out that this sin, like all others, will be forgiven for anyone who repents; but it is a sin, and forgiveness does require repentance. (Of course, for all the creative reinterpretations that have flourished here as well, the real reason for the church’s shift is evident to anyone with half a brain: the culture moved, and the church wanted to move with it.)

Here there is an important difference from the issue of women’s ordination. While Scripture is clear on that topic, it is silent on its precise seriousness; most conservatives would not suggest that disobedience around women’s ordination is necessarily the death of faith. But the matter is very different with sexual immorality (of which same-sex unions are of course only one example); here God repeatedly warns us that unrepentant disobedience means judgement. To our culture, obsessed with sex and thereby cheapening it, this seems a strange overreaction. In reality, however, God could hardly do otherwise. Sex is deeply significant, the closest you can get to another human being and therefore an act with enormous power. Any parent can testify to its life-giving strength; any victim of sexual abuse, to its destructive force. God takes it seriously because it is serious.

Read it all.

Why Christians have an issue with Sarah Mullally — by @petermileach https://t.co/S0KODGQZhf

— The Critic (@TheCriticMag) October 11, 2025

Despite many advantages of demography, immigration, finance, vigorous evangelical church-planting networks and prominent traditionalist expressions of worship such as the work of Revd Marcus Walker at St Bartholomew-the-Great, during the years Mullally was its diocesan bishop, the Diocese of London has managed to not just buck the growth trend but to shed 17% of its regular attendance.

Perhaps this shrinkage should come as no great surprise given what Sarah Mullally served-up at the announcement of her appointment – it would have starved any generations’ hunger pangs for ‘full-fat Christianity’.

It was more a diet of John Major channelling George Orwell – “warm beer” and “old maids bicycling to Holy Communion through the morning mist”– than any attempt to satisfy present spiritual cravings.

Having delivered a pre-written prayer, as if reading from an autocue (a schoolboy’s later counterpart was noticeably less wooden), Bishop Mullally spoke of how, “In the apparent chaos which surrounds us, in the midst of such profound global uncertainty the possibility of healing lies in acts of kindness and love… I hear parishioners ringing bells and inviting people to pray. I hear the quiet hum of faith in every community the gentle invitation to come and be with others and the welcome extended to every person. In all of this I see hope because I see the person of Jesus Christ reaching out to us all”.

Dished-up was, “The rhythms of Anglican worship echoed with familiar grace… made real in global diversity… joining their voices in advocacy for those in need,” and a portion of “people fleeing war and persecution to seek safety and refuge”, “communities that have been overlooked and undervalued”, “the ever-worsening climate crisis”, “the misuse of power in all its forms”, “Love one another- our source and our standard”,  “quieter but stronger”, “If we want to go fast, go alone but if we want to go far, go together”.

Dame Mullally said that she wanted her legacy as archbishop to be “…to nurture and cultivate confidence in the gospel” but, unlike at the Charlie Kirk memorial, what was noticeably absent was any real explanation at all, let alone a ‘confident’ one, of what that gospel is. “Jesus Christ is the life-changing hope that brings us together as church, even in our own brokenness and messiness – and sends us out into the world to witness to that Love” or “Hope is made of the infinite love of God, who breathed life into creation and said it was good. Hope shimmered in the courage of Abraham and Sarah and the challenging call of the prophets. Hope resounded through Mary’s ‘yes’ to God’s call to bear His Son. Hope is found in Christ’s triumph over sin and death” are not meaty explanations of the gospel.

Read it all.

Some thoughts on the new Archbishop of Canterbury – perhaps the worng choice for Gen Z who are looking for full fat faith?https://t.co/1R9PE8evXU

— Anglican Futures (@AnglicanFutures) October 3, 2025

The bishop of Ebbsfleet, who looks after conservative evangelicals in the Church of England (and is severely overworked because of the flourishing nature of this constituency), has pointed out the challenges this appointment creates for those with complementarian convictions. Having worked with Mullally in London, however, he points out that she “has a long track record of gracious engagement, and real understanding of the particular theological convictions we hold,” and has no doubt this will continue. He will need to seek alternative spiritual oversight for his own role, however, now that the Archbishop is to be a woman.

The biggest challenge for the new Archbishop is the crisis of trust and credibility she faces. She has led the way in an attempt to institutionally gaslight the entire church, claiming that she and other revisionist bishops are not changing the doctrine of the church on marriage and sexuality, even while they attempt the most radical change to Church of England teaching and practice for 500 years. This has led to the collapse of confidence in Canterbury around the world and a severe split not just in General Synod but in every parish and chapel in the land.

Whether Mullally will have the ability to heal these deep rifts or not, remains to be seen. I am hopeful (because Jesus reigns!), but not optimistic. To use Augustus Toplady’s phrase: she will certainly have our prayers, but her errors will have our opposition also.

Read it all.

My article for @TGC on the new Archbishop of Canterbury. https://t.co/xrVwYThVxZ

— Lee Gatiss (@LeeGatiss) October 6, 2025

The Crown Nominations Commission needs to put forward a genuinely pro-parish successor to Justin Welby or thousands of churches will be at risk

The Crown Nominations Commission, tasked with choosing the next Archbishop of Canterbury, is expected to make its recommendation this week. For the sake of England’s parish system, let us hope it chooses wisely. The Church of England hierarchy talks a good game on parishes but the evidence shows that, unless there is a significant policy shift, small and rural churches are doomed.

During the General Synod’s July meeting, the Bishops of Hereford and Bath & Wells, supported by Chelmsford and others, mounted a rescue bid. They proposed that 1 per cent of the asset value of the Church Commissioners’ £11.1 billion endowment should be apportioned each year directly to parish ministry.

The commissioners can surely afford £110 million per annum for the endowment’s intended purpose: supporting poorer parishes. Yet the plan was foiled by a wrecking motion and absurdly alarmist speeches from senior Church Commissioners.

Read it all.

Next Archbishop of Canterbury must be pro-parish churches | ✍️ James Burnell-Nugent
https://t.co/NcdkXtTzwg

— The Times and The Sunday Times (@thetimes) September 22, 2025

While the identity of the next Archbishop of Canterbury remains unknown, staff at Lambeth Palace refer to their incoming boss as “106”, after the next Archbishop’s position in the lineage of the see of Canterbury. There is a touch of The West Wing about it: the same system is used for Presidents of the United States, which explains why Donald Trump often had “45” on the side of his red baseball cap, and now has “45-47”. Just as the code name is redolent of American politics, the precariousness of the situation that 106 will inherit is comparable to the one faced by an incoming US administration.

Top of the to-do list is safeguarding. This is the issue that forced the resignation of 105, and will loom large in the public’s mind when 106 is announced. The new Archbishop’s first order of business will be defending their own record. The CNC, led by a former spy-chief, Lord Evans of Weardale, will be conscious of this, and whoever is chosen will have been carefully vetted. Any blemish that is uncovered after the announcement, though, will have the potential to scupper the ship before it is out of the harbour.

After the new Archbishop’s personal record has been pored over, and the Archbishop has said the right things about the need for continued structural reform in church safeguarding, they will be under intense pressure to see that such reform actually takes place. The General Synod delivered a somewhat unclear mandate in February for partial outsourcing of the Church’s safeguarding to a new independent body (News, 14 February), but there is still no firm timeline for its creation. Gaining the trust of survivors, and prominent church commentators, will be vital to winning confidence on this issue.

Read it all.

Francis Martin considers the most pressing issues that are awaiting the attention of the next Primate https://t.co/JORYRmAoZW pic.twitter.com/xQJhBfcmD0

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) September 19, 2025

Anglicanism was never meant to be robes and chants for their own sake. It was meant to be a way of being the Church: rooted in common prayer, shaped by shared doctrine, and carried forward in mission.

Living with tension has never been easy, but it has often been fruitful. Time has a way of clarifying what is central and what is secondary, and tension has a way of forcing us to depend on grace rather than power. Together, they have preserved us before, and they may preserve us again.

Compromise. Balance. Tension. These aren’t bugs. They’re features.

So perhaps the lesson of history is this: we do not need to settle everything today. We need only hold fast to Christ, to one another, and to the mission set before us.

If we do, time and tension may yet prove to be our strength—the means by which God steadies His Church and carries the gospel to the world.

Read it all.

Each day’s work at The College of Bishops '25 was concluded with Evening Prayer during which personal testimonies were shared. Bishop Eric Menees of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin share his testimony here https://t.co/PZt9eo08Lc or listen here https://t.co/lfcBMvmp7y. pic.twitter.com/uCVceyP6Tg

— ACNA (@The_ACNA) February 3, 2025

One of the most quoted metaphors in the early days of the ACNA was that we were “flying the plane while building it.” Apt—and dangerous. Circumstances in those first months demanded urgency. We “ready–fired–aimed” the Province into existence, united in our goal: the restoration and renewal of biblical Anglicanism in North America.

Another favorite image came from the maritime world. In those tense days, TEC was likened to the Titanic, already struck by the iceberg of modern secular liberalism. The ship of the church was taking on water and would soon sink. Those who could launch lifeboats or lashed together the flotsam and jetsam into makeshift rafts. Out in open water, people could jump from lifeboat to lifeboat while waiting for rescue from our Global South friends—our ecclesial Carpathian.

It was all very compelling.

And then there was Shakespeare’s line from The Tempest: “Misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows.” Anglo-Catholics, charismatics, and evangelicals agreed to be strange bedfellows—if only for the sake of getting off the runway—to mix our metaphors.

Since “bedfellows” isn’t the most appealing picture—who really wants to sleep together anyway?—we borrowed a gentler idea from Psalm 46:4: There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God. One river, three streams. Many clergy and bishops even claimed to be “all three.”

But the reality was more fragile than the slogans. Compromises were stamped with a large “TBD.” Let’s get along for now so we can get going.

Read it all.

I fully agree with @DHRoseberry’s conclusion in today’s article. https://t.co/8EkxYBMktE pic.twitter.com/SQH9G3VAfQ

— Fr. Ron Offringa (@RonOffringa) August 12, 2025

Bell then comments:

‘Such a vision of unity is surely what must lie at the heart of any theological vision for the Anglican Communion. The gift of unity, intertwined with truth and holiness, empowered and initiated through and by love, flowing from its Trinitarian source, and finding its visibility not only in our structures and institutions but in our relationships and lives of Christian service, witness mission. Unity as gift and imperative sits above our disagreements requiring us not to contort ourselves into pseudo- agreement, but instead to recognise that metaphysical unity precedes our disagreements and will be revealed in different visible ways as we journey on together.’ (p.191)

What conservative Anglicans would want to say in response to these paragraphs is that Archbishop Rowan is right to say that the unity that all true Christians possess is the ‘pure gift’ of  ‘being summoned and drawn into the same place before the Father’s throne.’ However, they would want to add that this pure gift also includes a summons to ‘bear much fruit’ (John 15:8) or in other words to begin to live a new life enabled by the Holy Spirit which fulfils God’s intentions for his human creatures. In addition they would want to say that according to the witness of Scripture, and the uniform tradition of the Christian Church based on Scripture, living this new life involves living as the men and women God created us to be and observing a strict sexual ethic involving sexual faithfulness within (heterosexual) marriage and sexual abstinence outside it.  

Because they would want to say this, they would also want to say that unity is broken not only when Christians are not ‘able to see in each other the same kind of conviction of being called by authoritative voice into a place where none of us has an automatic right to stand,’ but also when they are not able to see in each other a recognition of God’s call to bear fruit in the ways just described. They would also add that this is what is currently the case in the Anglican Communion and in the Church of England.

In response to Bell’s comments conservative Anglicans  would agree that unity is both a gift and an imperative and would also agree that it is ‘revealed in different visible ways.’ However, they would say that these ways have to include Christians living as the men and women God created them to be and observing the Christian sexual ethic as outlined above.

Read it all.

We may subjectively dislike what God has said, but true Christian humility lies in accepting what God has said and acting upon it anyway' Martin Davie https://t.co/EUCULJ0Bk1 #anglican #marriage #theology #sexualethics #anthropology #scripture #religion #uk pic.twitter.com/WyjgnobT0k

— Kendall Harmon (@KendallHarmon6) February 10, 2023

Although the procedure for formally choosing and appointing a new Archbishop of Canterbury is thus clear, what is much less clear is how it will prove possible for the CNC to choose a candidate who is acceptable across the breadth of both the Church of England and the Anglican Communion.

The deep divisions within the Church of England and the Anglican Communion over the issue of human sexuality which have opened up since 2003 and which have become even more pronounced during the tenure of Archbishop Welby, mean that it will become very difficult, if not impossible, to find someone who the Church of England as a whole and the Anglican Communion as a whole will be able to agree upon. If a candidate takes a conservative view on human sexuality this will make them unacceptable to the liberals in the Church of England and the Anglican Communion and vice versa.

The question that therefore arises is whether it might not be sensible to hold off from appointing a new archbishop until there is the sort of reconfiguration of the Anglican Communion suggested by the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches and the sort of reconfiguration of the Church of England suggested by the Church of England Evangelical Council and the Alliance.

This would solve the problem because a liberal Archbishop of Canterbury could be appointed who would be acceptable to liberals in the Church of England and across the Communion, but conservatives in the Church of England and the Anglican Communion would no longer come under his archepiscopal authority.

Read it all.

Why the appointment of the next Archbishop of Canterbury may prove challenging https://t.co/fzDRacSfnt

— Christian Today (@ChristianToday) November 19, 2024

It’s widely rumored that organized religion is going down the drain. While the secularization thesis has been debated for decades, its main components are hardly controversial. Religion has reduced social power: its chief officers have less influence on political ideas and social norms, its language and habits no longer permeate the discourse of public life, and fewer people make collective worship and fellowship the rhythm of their week. Death no longer has a compelling hold on the public imagination: people still die, but usually not in the home or in their youth, and few people are terrified of the prospect of eternal hell. Meanwhile, with the possible exception of minority faiths among recent immigrants, it’s become increasingly difficult to socialize young people into a religion. It’s not that religion adheres to egregious ideas so much as that the whole notion of being habituated into a committed community of ritual and tradition seems incongruous.

There’s little that’s specifically Christian about all this. Real as the church’s failures are, most of its challenges it shares with other institutions associated with the pretechnological era. But in any case, in most congregations in the US mainline and the UK equivalent, a disproportionate number of the people are over age 65. The prospects for self-replication in 30 years’ time aren’t promising.

What are we to do about this? I see three main options…

Read it all.

“We have no idea what lies around the corner. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever, but the way the Holy Spirit makes Christ present to us seems to be ever changing.”

– Samuel Wellshttps://t.co/Vh9j7Gfe1E

— theChristianCentury (@ChristianCent) October 18, 2024

In summary, almost everything of substance that the Archbishop says about PLF in the quotation above (apart from “the church is deeply split over this”) is demonstrably either false or misleading unless the previous explanations and commitments offered by him and the bishops to General Synod are false or misleading. 

The Archbishop’s interview gives the impression that the Church of England, with the agreement of the majority of bishops, now teaches that sexual relationships, including same-sex sexual relationships, are acceptable as long as the couple are in a committed relationship, either a civil partnership or a marriage. Furthermore, he claims that the Church of England will provide a service of prayer and blessing in church for couples in such relationships. 

In fact, the theological argument presented by the bishops (and sight of the legal advice to bishops might demonstrate that this is also crucial for PLF’s legality) has been that any sexual relationship other than marriage between a man and a woman is contrary to the Church’s doctrine of marriage. Despite this, it has nevertheless been claimed by the majority of bishops that any committed same-sex couple (with or without a legal status) can be offered PLF as prayers within an existing authorised liturgy. This is even though it is also acknowledged that because their relationship may be sexual, such prayers are indicative of a departure from the church’s doctrine.

The Archbishop’s answer might have been “better” in the sense of probably being more appealing to Alastair Campbell. It is, however, in fact so highly misleading and inaccurate as to suggest a disturbing level of some combination of ignorance, misrepresentation, dishonesty and inaccuracy on the Archbishop’s part in his account of the church’s recent decisions, its doctrine, and its stated rationale for PLF. 

Our dire situation as a church is bad enough as a result of having been so divided because of the direction set by the Archbishops and most of the bishops. The fact that there are such deep theological disagreements on these matters that need to be addressed cannot and must not be avoided. However, such significantly erroneous statements as these from no less than the Archbishop of Canterbury, unless swiftly followed by an apology and correction, can only add further to the widespread erosion of trust and growing sense of disbelief, betrayal, deception, anger and despair now felt across much of the Church of England in relation to both the PLF process and our archiepiscopal leadership.

Read it all.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has now made claims about the debate on sexuality and the Church's teaching which are demonstrably untrue. Why has he done this, and what will be the impact on trust, the unity of the Church, and the future of the debate?https://t.co/Falt0kuP5Q

— Dr Ian Paul (@Psephizo) October 15, 2024

I want to address the third and fourth “existential crises” Warren Cole Smith suggested we address in his public letter to the ACNA on “Why the Anglican Church faces existential challenges.”. Under the challenge of “Theological Education,” he writes:

“Because ACNA has so many refugees from other denominations, it is tempting to call it a ‘melting pot.’ But the current reality is less a melting pot than a salad bowl.

That is a glib way of saying that a lot of Anglicans are not … well … truly formed in the Anglican faith. They have retained the spiritual formation of the tradition from which they came — everything from Calvary Chapel and Vineyard to high church Episcopalians and Catholics. Again, that diversity can be a strength, but it is a diversity that must be more intentionally integrated into Anglican theology and polity.”

He goes on to note that many nationally recognized seminaries offer a course or two that allow them to claim they have an “Anglican Track” but that these courses are minimal at best. And so, he concludes that this lack of Anglican formation in the clergy presents a vulnerability to leaders at odds with the history and fundamental doctrines of the ACNA. He then goes on in his fourth crisis to cite the recent problem with the Luminous Church in the ACNA diocese of C4SO as Exhibit A, a congregation whose clergy and website affirmed LGBTQ Pride events and played “fast and loose” with fundamental Anglican doctrines of baptism—among other things.

Read it all.

A wonderful end to a great week of @The_ACNA Provincial Council and Assembly! Praying for God's continued guidance for Abp Wood and the province moving forward. pic.twitter.com/LNQQF5u5ot

— American Anglican (@AnglicanCouncil) June 28, 2024

And here is my speech, given after two amendments were discussed and voted on (and so limited to three minutes):

This is not a debate between love and legalities. Those who oppose this motion do so because we want to be true to the love of Christ for all—‘if you love me, keep my commandments. Remain in my love’. Love rejoices with the truth, and the truth is that, if this motion is passed, three things will certainly happen.

First, trust—already at a low—will be finally broken. There has been no adequate theology, no adequate process, no transparency, no coherence. LLF has failed all four tests of trust.

Secondly, the Church will split. Not in formal structures—I cannot see how that could work. But it will in practice. Nowhere in scripture, nowhere in the history of the church catholic, nowhere in the Church’s own doctrine—nowhere in past statements by the bishops until very recently, has this been a ‘thing indifferent’ on which we can agree to disagree. And we do not.

Thirdly, the Church will continue in serious decline. In fourteen years, we have halved in size. In one diocese, the number of children has dropped by 50% in four years. There are no real signs that this is slowing, yet alone reversing. After the Scottish Episcopal Church changed its doctrine it declined by 40% in six years. The Church of Scotland will be extinct by around 2038—just fourteen years from now. No Western denomination has changed its doctrine of marriage without then accelerating in decline. We will be no different. This is not ‘catastrophising’; this is not a power play. This is honesty; this is reality.

So if you do vote for this proposal, please do it with your eyes wide open—knowing it will destroy trust, knowing it will divide the Church, and knowing it will lead to greater decline. I don’t feel any of that is a demonstration of the love of God. Vote for this—only if you think that distrust, disunity, and decline is a price worth paying. If not, vote against and let us think again together.

Read it all.

What happened at General Synod last weekend? What became clear in the debate about sexuality and marriage? Why is there so much lack of honesty and transparency? And where do we go from here? @talkChristianly https://t.co/e1lpLJ3JVl

— Dr Ian Paul (@Psephizo) July 10, 2024

As Vice-Chair of the GTF and a Trustee for the American Anglican Council, I’ve been honored to be part of the work we did to improve our canons over the last five years. I’m particularly thankful for the now-ratified canon that places a canonical duty upon our diocesan bishops to ensure that protection plans are in place to prevent abuse to both children and adults within our churches and ministries. Sample protection plans are available through the Executive Committee of the ACNA to aid bishops in developing protection plans that fit their diocesan contexts. Perhaps even more “province-changing” are the now-ratified canons requiring diocesan bishops to develop clear processes and procedures to report misconduct by priests, deacons, and even laity. These new canons seek to improve consistency and fairness to both accusers and the accused across the province, providing easy on-ramps and off-ramps for accusations of misconduct and increasing the transparency with which such allegations are handled.

Additional changes to our disciplinary canons were ratified as well and, by God’s grace, will act to increase the tools available to our province to protect the flock of Christ from abuse and misconduct. Importantly, these changes include granting the archbishop (with the consent of a panel of senior bishops) power to give a godly admonition or inhibit a wayward bishop. They also grant the dean of the province the same power towards any wayward archbishop. God forbid such powers will need to be exercised, but discipline for every level of the Church leads to greater discipleship, as we all seek to glorify God in his Church.

Please pray for Archbishop-elect Steve Wood as he takes the provincial crozier tomorrow and carries on the good legacy of leadership begun by Archbishop Duncan and Archbishop Beach. Pray for the Governance Task Force as we continue to work on further revisions to the disciplinary canons of the ACNA. And pray for the ACNA in general, that we might continue to proclaim the Good News of Christ with boldness and vigor. What an honor it is to see God’s Spirit on the move in this branch of his body, as we seek to express the English Reformation in a way that is orthodox, evangelical, catholic, and, with the help of good canons, disciplined in all our doings.

Read it all.

Canon Andrew Rowell of the ACNA Governance Taskforce breaks down the developments in the new canons affirmed at Provincial Assembly, the difference between Assembly and Council, and what it all means moving forward: https://t.co/ZaaTTSIwe7

— American Anglican (@AnglicanCouncil) June 27, 2024

The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) has been one of the success stories in recent American church history. Most denominations in the U.S. are in decline, but ACNA, founded just 15 years ago, has grown to more than 1,000 congregations and a membership of 120,000.

It began as a movement of conservative Episcopalians frustrated with the liberal drift of that denomination. Today, though, most members of ACNA are not former Episcopalians. They (we, as I am a member) are new converts or — in many cases — refugees from other mainline and evangelical denominations nourished by ACNA’s combination of Reformed theology and adherence to biblical authority, its evangelical vibrancy, and the beauty of its ancient, incarnational liturgy. As I have written elsewhere, Anglicanism has the potential to breathe new life into the evangelical movement.

But the denomination is experiencing growing pains. Its growth has flattened, and there is growing discontent in the denomination about its inability (or unwillingness) to address head-on some vital issues.

The denomination holds a national conference every five years, and the next one is…[finishing up today] in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, and the delegates to the conference face some important issues that need action.

Read it all.

(ANALYSIS/@WarrenColeSmith) The Anglican Church in North America has been one of the success stories in recent American church history. But its growth has flattened, and there is growing discontent about its inability to address some vital issues.https://t.co/kkEXLJf7iM

— Religion Unplugged (@ReligionMag) June 21, 2024