Home Blog

Bishop Ashey withdraws lecture claims about Wood Trial in letter to ACNA College

By
George Conger
-

In a three-page letter dated 8 May 2026 and addressed to his “brother Bishops in the ACNA,” the Rt. Rev. Dr. J. Philip Ashey, Bishop of the Diocese of Western Anglicans, has withdrawn or apologised for a series of statements he made during public lectures on “Ecclesiastical Justice” delivered the previous week through his diocese’s Anglican Center of Theology and Formation. The lectures, given on 1–2 May 2026 and offered to “lay and clergy leaders alike,” touched repeatedly on the pending Title IV trial of Archbishop Stephen D. Wood, in which Bishop Ashey openly serves as a volunteer “Canonical Advisor” to the Archbishop.

The letter was prompted, Bishop Ashey writes, after “Dean Julian Dobbs has brought to my attention the concerns some of you have raised to him regarding the lectures.” Ashey says he relistened to the recordings and concluded that “in several places I spoke imprecisely, and in two places I said things that, on reflection and on the record, I should not have said.” He gave fellow bishops permission to share the letter “in whole and not in excerpt” with clergy and lay leaders where pastorally appropriate.

The letter is unusually specific, listing seven discrete corrections:

  • The sequence of the Presentment. Ashey withdraws his claim that, after publication of the Washington Post investigation of 23 October 2025 the College of Bishops “decided they had to ‘catch up with the Washington Post’ and sign the accusation.” For the record, he now concedes, “no bishops have signed this presentment,” and he apologises “to every bishop whose integrity I impugned by that remark.”
  • A prediction of “exoneration.“ Ashey had told his audience there was a “good chance” Archbishop Wood would be exonerated. He now withdraws “the speculation” and apologises, acknowledging he “should not have offered a prediction about the outcome of a matter that is properly before the Court for the Trial of a Bishop.”
  • The nature of his role with Archbishop Wood. He clarifies that he is a volunteer “Canonical Advisor” who serves “entirely at the pleasure of Archbishop Wood as a friend and colleague.” He was “not appointed nor was I approved by the College to serve in this way.”
  • The “ruckus” with the College. Ashey explains that the disagreement he described in the lectures concerned bishops who had contacted him directly to express concern that his advisory role to Wood created a “conflict of interest” and that his presence would “taint the ‘objective neutrality’ of the College” during the pending Board of Inquiry and trial. He had offered to recuse himself at the time; Dean Dobbs declined. In the 8 May letter, “in light of the distress my comments in the lectures have caused, I renew my offer … to recuse myself from all further meetings of the College until after all procedures with regards to Archbishop Wood are concluded.”
  • The five senior bishops who signed the inhibition.Ashey now disavows any impression that they “did so under pressure from social media, or that they in any way acted in bad faith and not on the merits.” He asks their forgiveness.
  • Compliance with the inhibition. “My advice is simply advice. Any determination about His Grace’s compliance with the inhibition will be made by the Dean and the College. Not by me.”
  • The status of the complainants. Ashey acknowledges he referred in the lectures to certain complainants as having been “terminated as employees.” He withdraws that characterisation and apologises “to the individuals concerned and to the College for my imprecision.”
  • Motive in approving the new Title IV. Ashey had framed the College’s Title IV deliberations as driven by bishops’ “fears and nervousness about being subject to presentment.” He withdraws that ascription of motive and acknowledges that the College’s work has been “driven by the merits of the inquisitorial paradigm to which we are now turning in new Title IV.”

The letter closes by invoking “the promise of unity, fellowship and cleansing promised in I John 1:7–9,” with a general apology to “any person, named or unnamed, complainant, bishop, or member of the faithful, who has been grieved or wounded by what I said or how I said it.”

Ashey delivered the Spring Lectures in the same week that, on 7 May, the Court for the Trial of a Bishop heard arguments on Archbishop Wood’s Motion to Dismiss. The lectures were summarised by VirtueOnline on 4 May and reported by The Living Church shortly thereafter, “naming Bishop Ashey publicly as Archbishop Wood’s canonical adviser, quoting the exoneration prediction directly, and recording his characterization of the complainants as former employees aggrieved by their terminations.”

Notably, VirtueOnline reports one striking claim from the 2 May lecture that does not appear among the items Ashey withdrew on 8 May: an assertion, attributed to him in The Living Church‘s coverage, that “the province did not forward all of the evidence, including exculpatory evidence, to the court.” That allegation — a charge of prosecutorial mishandling against the very provincial apparatus prosecuting the Archbishop — remains on the record.

The disciplinary process against Archbishop Wood has been the central crisis of the Anglican Church in North America since autumn 2025. A timeline drawn from ACNA’s own news page and the Anglican Diocese of the Carolinas FAQ:

  • 20 October 2025 — A formal presentment is filed alleging that Wood, while Bishop of the Carolinas, made inappropriate comments toward Claire Buxton, a former children’s ministry director at St. Andrew’s, Mt. Pleasant, “culminating in an unwanted advance in April 2024” when he allegedly attempted to kiss her. The presentment also alleges roughly $3,500 in unsolicited payments from church funds, plagiarised sermons, bullying of staff, and misuse of church resources.
  • 23 October 2025 — The Washington Post breaks the story publicly.
  • 3 November 2025 — Wood announces a voluntary, paid leave of absence, stating he believes the charges “lack merit.”
  • 7 November 2025 — The Washington Post reports a second accuser; the presentment is amended.
  • 14 November 2025 — More than 80 ACNA clergy publicly call for Wood’s inhibition.
  • 15 November 2025 — Bishop Ray Sutton resigns as Dean; Bishop Julian Dobbs is appointed in his place.
  • 16 November 2025 — With the written consent of the five senior diocesan bishops, Dean Dobbs inhibits Archbishop Wood from the exercise of ordained ministry.
  • 12 December 2025 — The Board of Inquiry finds probable cause and refers the matter to the Court for the Trial of a Bishop.
  • 13 January 2026 — The inhibition is extended pending resolution.
  • 23 February 2026 — A summons is issued.
  • 21 April 2026 — Trial is set for 20 July 2026; the Court notes Wood’s Motion to Dismiss.
  • 7 May 2026 — Motion to Dismiss is argued.
  • 8 May 2026 — Bishop Ashey’s letter of withdrawal.

The Anglican Diocese of South Carolina — geographically and pastorally closest to the events at the heart of the presentment — has been the most outspoken diocese in the province throughout the affair. Its public correspondence both frames and contrasts with Bishop Ashey’s letter.

On 13 November 2025, the Rt. Rev. Chip Edgar wrote to “the Faithful of the Anglican Diocese of South Carolina” to clarify his support for the complainants. He directly rebutted what he described as “the frequent charge, heard from the highest levels in the ACNA, that the complainants had gone to the press before they initiated the disciplinary process.” That charge, he wrote, “is not true”:

“I’ve written to the College of Bishops explaining to them that, for over six months the complainants sought a way forward, following the canonical structures of the Anglican Church in North America. I and several other bishops were involved at this preliminary stage. Throughout their efforts, they were stymied by a system that appeared unable to do what it is designed to do … I’ve asked the College for a unified, public apology for these disparaging statements.”

Bishop Edgar described the complainants as “credible and trustworthy” and joined those urging the senior bishops to impose an inhibition, noting that “an inhibition makes no judgment as to guilt or innocence … Rather, it is an acknowledgement that continued ministry in the face of serious charges further damages the reputation of the Church.” The diocesan Standing Committee followed on 14 November with a letter of its own standing with the bishop and the complainants and urging the College to inhibit Wood.

The South Carolina position hardened with experience. On 24 March 2026, Bishop Edgar and the ADOSC Standing Committee wrote formally to the ACNA Executive Committee demanding transparency. The letter, occasioned by concerns arising from the December 2025 acquittal of Bishop Stewart Ruch (a separate ACNA trial in which the court found that the prosecution had not met its evidentiary burden, set out specific demands:

  • That “the standard of avoiding any appearance of impropriety” be upheld among all provincial staff in pending and future proceedings;
  • That those involved in allowing a court member in the Ruch trial to access prosecution files without the prosecutors’ knowledge or consent be recused from all future disciplinary proceedings, “particularly those involving Archbishop Wood”;
  • That a complete transcript of trial and pretrial proceedings, including unedited video or audio, be released;
  • That all motions, court rulings, and the three pretrial investigations be made public;
  • That the identity and engagement letter of any investigator be disclosed, with appropriate confidentiality protections for victims.

“Those who would deny a public response to valid questions,” the diocese warned, “insisting the province is best served by withholding answers — do so at the risk of destabilizing the very foundation on which their authority rests.” Edgar added: “Lack of trust and mutual suspicion erode our communion and weaken our witness to a watching world. But our communion and witness are strengthened by a commitment to transparency and truth that is above reproach.”

That earlier framing places the present moment in unusually sharp relief. South Carolina has consistently asked for procedural rigour, transparency, and a posture of belief toward the complainants. Bishop Ashey’s lectures — delivered to a general audience the week before a dispositive motion was heard in the trial of his client-of-conscience — were perceived by some bishops as cutting in the opposite direction: prejudging the verdict, attributing improper motives to colleagues, and casting complainants as merely terminated employees.

Read as a whole, the 8 May letter is more than a routine clarification. It is a public acknowledgement, on the record, that:

  • No bishops have signed the presentment, contrary to impressions Bishop Ashey himself helped create;
  • The five senior diocesan bishops who joined Dean Dobbs’s inhibition did so on the merits, not under social-media pressure;
  • The Title IV revisions now before the College are being deliberated on their substance, not from institutional self-protection;
  • Predictions of “exoneration” have no proper place in public commentary about a pending bishop’s trial;
  • The complainants were not, as Ashey had suggested, simply “terminated employees”;
  • His role with Archbishop Wood is volunteer and personal, not provincial, and any judgment on the Archbishop’s compliance with the inhibition belongs to the Dean and the College.

Ashey’s renewed offer to recuse himself from the College of Bishops “until after all procedures with regards to Archbishop Wood are concluded” is significant. He had made the same offer earlier and was declined; the public revival of the offer effectively returns the question to Dean Dobbs and to a College that, in the weeks since the lectures, has had to navigate its own discomfort with the optics of one of its members serving as personal counsel to an accused archbishop while continuing to sit and vote among those who will, in due course, receive the Court’s verdict.

What the letter does not address is the substantive accusation, attributed to Bishop Ashey in The Living Church‘s reporting, that “the province did not forward all of the evidence, including exculpatory evidence, to the court.” If that claim is maintained, it sits uneasily alongside the seven items Bishop Ashey did withdraw. If it is not, it deserves its own clarification.

In a Communion long accustomed to division along theological lines, ACNA’s current crisis has exposed a different fault — between dioceses that have demanded transparent, victim-centred process and a provincial apparatus that, in the words of South Carolina’s Standing Committee, has at times “appeared unable to do what it is designed to do.” Bishop Ashey’s withdrawal does not resolve that tension; it illustrates it. The Anglican Diocese of South Carolina has asked for “transparency and truth that is above reproach.” On 8 May 2026, an architect of ACNA’s canon law issued a letter that, with disarming specificity, conceded he had fallen short of that standard from the lectern. The trial of Archbishop Wood is set for 20 July. Between now and then, the College of Bishops will face the further question of whether Bishop Ashey’s offer to recuse will be accepted — and whether the broader procedural reforms South Carolina has pressed for will be in place before the next chapter is written.

Ashey_Letter_to_College_8May2026_signed_xDownload

Ashey Letter Withdrawing Imprecise Statements from Ecclesiastical Justice Lectures

By
Phil Ashey
-

8 May 2026

THE RT. REV. DR. J. PHILIP ASHEY BISHOP ORDINARY DIOCESE OF WESTERN ANGLICANS

Dear brother Bishops in the ACNA,

Grace and peace to you in Jesus’ name,

Dean Julian Dobbs has brought to my attention the concerns some of you have raised to him regarding the lectures I gave May 1–2 through our Diocesan Anglican Center of Theology and Formation, our Spring Lectures on “Ecclesiastical Justice.” Specifically, some of the things I said regarding the pending trial of His Grace Archbishop Steve Wood. I have reviewed the lectures and write you to set the record straight and clarify any things I could have said differently or perhaps not at all.

The purpose of these lectures is educational. They were offered at a level that would be understood by lay and clergy leaders alike. I believe with all my heart that transparency builds trust, and it is in that spirit that I offered my comments in response to questions posed in person and to an online audience.

Nevertheless, I have relistened to the relevant portions of the lectures. In several places I spoke imprecisely, and in two places I said things that, on reflection and on the record, I should not have said. What follows is not an attempt to recharacterize what I said but to withdraw and correct it where correction is owed.

The sequence of the Presentment against Archbishop Wood: On relistening, I did say that after the Washington Post publication, the bishops decided they had to “catch up with the Washington Post” and sign the accusation. I, myself, was contacted by a bishop and asked to sign a Presentment. I declined because I was already preparing to volunteer as a canonical advisor to Archbishop Wood. Nevertheless, my statement regarding this College in the plural was not only imprecise but incorrect. For the record, no bishops have signed this presentment, and I should not have spoken in a way that suggested otherwise. I withdraw the statement and apologize to every bishop whose integrity I impugned by that remark, and I ask their forgiveness.

My use of the word “exonerated” with regards to the outcome of the trial of Archbishop Wood: I said in the lecture that I personally believed there was a “good chance” Archbishop Wood would be exonerated. Despite the qualifications I attached to that comment, I should not have offered a prediction about the outcome of a matter that is properly before the Court for the Trial of a Bishop. I withdraw the speculation and apologize for it.

The nature of my role with Archbishop Wood: I have said to the College, to individual Bishops who have asked me directly, and to others that I am a volunteer “Canonical Advisor” to the Archbishop. Period. I was not appointed nor was I approved by the College to serve in this way. I serve entirely at the pleasure of Archbishop Wood as a friend and colleague. With regards to my comment in passing about a “ruckus” with the College, my comment was solely in regards to those Bishops who called me directly and expressed their concerns that my service as a canonical advisor to the Archbishop created a “conflict of interest,” and that my very presence in the College would introduce a point of view that would taint the “objective neutrality” of the College pending the outcome of the Board of Inquiry and the Trial and sentencing of Archbishop Wood. For the record, I responded at once with an offer to recuse myself from all further meetings of the College of Bishops—in response to those concerns that my presence would “taint” the College. At that time, Dean Julian declined my offer. In light of the distress my comments in the lectures have caused, I renew my offer to Dean Julian and to this College to recuse myself from all further meetings of the College until after all procedures with regards to Archbishop Wood are concluded.

The Inhibition of Archbishop Wood and the five senior Bishops who signed that Inhibition: One question that came to me online was “why was Archbishop Wood inhibited when he had already voluntarily taken a leave of absence?” In reviewing what I said in the lecture, please note that I said it was due to the seriousness of the charges and the desire of the bishops that the College not appear to give “special treatment” to one of its own members, and especially an Archbishop. I did not mean to leave an impression that the five senior bishops who signed the inhibition did so under pressure from social media, or that they in any way acted in bad faith and not on the merits. I ask their forgiveness for leaving such an impression.

Who is responsible for making sure Archbishop Wood complies with the Inhibition: My comments about my counsel to Archbishop Steve were not intended to say that I am an authority on whether he has in fact complied. My advice is simply advice. Any determination about His Grace’s compliance with the inhibition will be made by the Dean and the College. Not by me.

The status of the Complainants: On relistening, I did refer to certain complainants as having been “terminated as employees.” That was inaccurate, and I should not have characterized their separation in those terms. I withdraw the statement and apologize to the individuals concerned and to the College for my imprecision.

Motive of the College in approving new Title IV: On relistening, there was a point where I framed the discussion of Title IV in terms of bishops’ fears and nervousness about being subject to presentment. I should not have ascribed that motive to fellow bishops. The College’s deliberation on Title IV deserves to be described on its merits, not through the lens of fear. I acknowledge publicly and personally that our deliberations as a College are driven by the merits of the inquisitorial paradigm to which we are now turning in new Title IV. So, I am deeply grieved that I have left any other impression than that, and I withdraw those comments and ask forgiveness for impugning the motives of this College.

A Note on the Letter: I write this letter to the College, but I recognize that questions about the lectures have travelled beyond the College, and that some of you have been asked about them by clergy, lay leaders and others in your dioceses. You have my permission to share this letter where you judge it pastorally appropriate, in whole and not in excerpt, so that the corrections and apologies offered here are received in the same context in which I offer them.

Finally, I am grateful to Dean Julian for bringing your concerns about these imprecisions and misstatements to my attention, and for the opportunity to correct them with apologies and requests for forgiveness. The corrections are owed and I make them gladly. I offer this College my apologies. In the future, I will focus my teaching on canon law with more precision and attention to the facts.

I continue to stand on the promise of unity, fellowship and cleansing promised in I John 1:7–9. I apologize to any person, named or unnamed, complainant, bishop, or member of the faithful, who has been grieved or wounded by what I said or how I said it.

Yours in Christ,

The Right Rev. Phil Ashey The Diocese of Western Anglicans

Ashey_Letter_to_College_8May2026_signed_xDownload

Archbishop Duncan to Interim as Bishop of Western Coast

By
Clark Lowenfield
-

Dear Beloved in our Lord Jesus of the Diocese . . .

The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the Fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with us all evermore! 2 Corinthians 13:14

A week ago, yesterday, I woke up extra early to pray, as I knew I would be spending time that morning with the Dean of the Province, Bishop Julian, to discuss the results of our Electing Synod. As I prayed, the most profound sense of peace came over me. I had known the peace that passes understanding during the two days following the lack of an election, but this was a different kind of peace. This was the peace that one feels when they are experiencing the “release” from an assignment they had been given by the Lord. I knew I had only experienced it a couple of times before in my 50 years of walking with Him. In this case, I was being released from my assignment as your Bishop. When I met with Bishop Julian, he began by saying he had a hard question to ask me. I told him not to worry, that the Holy Spirit had gone ahead of our conversation. When I shared what I had experienced early in the morning, he said he had indeed planned to ask me whether I was prepared to carry out my assignment if it were extended beyond my announced retirement date of August 15th. I shared the only fleece I had before the Lord was His appointment of a pastoral-gifted bishop to serve as Interim Bishop. His provision would ensure I would not abandon the sheep but instead entrust them to a faithful pastor.

Here is a resolution passed by the College of Bishops at a meeting on Thursday, May 21st and accepted by our Diocesan Council earlier today. In the resolution, the College accepts my resignation as Bishop Ordinary of the Anglican Diocese of the Western Gulf Coast, effective on the previously announced August 15th, 2026. It also states that the College chooses not to elect a Bishop Ordinary at this time, but names Archbishop Bob Duncan as Interim Bishop for not more than a year, and hopefully much less, permitting the Diocese the opportunity and space to “take a breath” and seek the Lord’s will for her future in healthy mission and vitality. Please read the resolution.

In the coming weeks, I will serve Archbishop Bob in any way I can to help him prepare for his new assignment.

With more love for each of you than you will ever know, and in His peace,

[Signature] +Clark WP Lowenfield Bishop The Anglican Diocese of the Western Gulf Coast

For the Kingdom of God is not just a lot of talk; it is living by God’s power. 1 Corinthians 4:20

Why the Strange Arrest of Metropolitan Hilarion in Czechia Looks Like a Setup

By
Riley Martin
-
Hilarion

The downfall of a powerful religious figure rarely happens in a vacuum, but the latest twist involving the Russian Orthodox Church feels like something pulled straight from a Cold War spy novel. On May 24, 2026, Czech police pulled over a vehicle leaving the Church of Saints Peter and Paul in the resort town of Karlovy Vary. Inside was Metropolitan Hilarion, a man who once stood on the absolute precipice of leading the entire global Russian Orthodox structure. By the time the traffic stop ended, police had recovered four small containers filled with an unidentified white substance from the trunk.

Hilarion isn’t staying quiet about it. He immediately called the incident a blatant provocation. His defense team is crying foul over how the search went down, claiming officers essentially ambushed the car and intentionally hid the actual inspection from the cleric. Whether this is a legitimate drug bust or a highly coordinated political hit depends entirely on who you ask, but the messy backstory of the man at the center of the scandal makes both options entirely plausible.

A Highly Unusual Traffic Stop in Karlovy Vary

The mechanics of the arrest itself raise immediate red flags. According to a detailed timeline released on Hilarion’s official Telegram channel by his legal defense, the Metropolitan was traveling with an accompanying cameraman when two police patrol vehicles intercepted them on the highway.

What makes the stop weird is the behavior of the officers. His lawyer, Michal Pakovsky, pointed out that the police gave absolutely no reason for the stop. They didn’t allege a speeding violation, a broken taillight, or erratic driving. Yet, instead of just checking the operator’s license, the officers demanded identification from everyone in the vehicle, including Hilarion.

Things got even shadier during the physical search of the trunk. Pakovsky claims that instead of letting Hilarion witness the inspection of his own property, officers actively removed him from the scene, escorting him into a nearby gas station convenience store. While he was isolated inside, officers claimed to have discovered the four small containers of white powder.

Read it all at Achievers

A Year with Pope Leo: Evangelical Impressions

By
Leonardo di Chirico
-

A gentle yet tough pope? A pope all about peace and dialogue? It is still too early to settle on a definitive assessment of Pope Leo XIV’s papacy. One year after his election (8th May 2025), however, it is possible to discern some key themes that confirm what was already evident at the start of his pontificate.

The global geopolitical landscape
Over the past year, the American pope has assumed a prominent “political” role on the global stage. It was predictable that the clash with Trump would erupt sooner or later, given the president’s combative temperament. And so it did. Preceded by Leo’s criticism of the handling of the deportation of undocumented migrants, the conflict with the U.S. administration erupted over the war in Iran. Trump has repeatedly criticized the pope, and the pope has responded in kind.

From someone like Trump, this was to be expected; less predictable was Leo’s decision not to rely on the soft-spoken ways of Vatican diplomacy, but to use direct communication to respond blow for blow. A talkative and casual pope like Francis used to make “free-wheeling” and sometimes unrestrained comments on current events; the surprise was that Pope Leo, too—despite his reserved and controlled nature—chose the unfiltered, “open-mic” approach to speak his mind.

In fact, for months now, the Trump vs Leo dynamic has dominated the global political narrative, casting the pope as Trump’s ultimate opponent in the name of “peace.” The gain in popularity, even among secular audiences, has been evident: in a world at war, who is against peace?

Meanwhile, with his trips to Turkey, Lebanon, and Africa, Pope Leo has confirmed contemporary Catholicism’s focus on the Global South, where the Roman Catholic Church is grappling with Islam and with growing evangelical churches. Following in Francis’s footsteps, he confirmed the offer of “dialogue” to the former and highlighted the bizzarre nature of the latter, while simultaneously emphasizing “Catholic” superiority.

The internal peacemaking line
Even within the Roman Catholic Church, Leo has acted in line with the reasons that led the conclave to elect him pope. Francis had left behind a church rife with internal conflicts and with the issue of “synodality” left confusingly unresolved. In this first year of his pontificate, Leo has not fanned the flames of division, but has sought to tone down the rhetoric, calm tempers, and maneuver in search of compromises.

Read it all at Vatican Files

Ndukuba: Nigeria is missing oil windfall while debt, China deals, and insecurity bite

By
George Conger
-

Nigeria should be riding an oil boom. Instead, the Primate of All Nigeria told the Diocese of Abuja that like Esau the country has been selling its birthright for ready cash.

The Most Rev Henry Ndukuba, Bishop of Abuja and Primate of the Church of Nigeria, used his Bishop’s Charge to the First Session of the 13th Synod of the Diocese of Abuja to deliver a wide-ranging address on Nigeria’s economic distress, political disorder, insecurity, and the Church’s theological task. The Synod met at St. James’ Anglican Church, Asokoro, Abuja, from May 14-17, 2026 under the theme “The Priesthood of All Believers: Equipping God’s People for the Work of Ministry,” with 1 Peter 2:4-5 and 9-10 as its text, according to ACNN TV’s official listing of the event.

Archbishop Ndukuba’s address moved quickly from prayer to public life. “The situation in Nigeria seems to defy solution, but we shall not give up,” he said, before adding that God had gathered the Synod “to refresh, empower, lift and lead us forward.” His charge was at once economic, political, and theological: Nigeria’s reforms, he argued, have not yet reached suffering households; the political class is already consumed by the 2027 elections; and the Church must recover the priesthood of all believers if it is to meet the crisis of the hour.

The Primate gave the Tinubu administration credit for some signs of macroeconomic stabilization. He commended “the competence and confidence demonstrated in the management of the economy” and said the “battered condition” inherited from the Buhari administration had been handled by “competent hands.” But he said the gains remain incomplete. “Nigeria’s macroeconomy is showing signs of steady stabilization,” he said, while warning that inflation, even after falling, “is still too high to ease the cost of living and drive growth.”

Official figures support part of that mixed picture. Nigeria’s headline inflation rose to 15.69 percent in April 2026 from 15.38 percent in March, while food inflation stood at 16.06 percent year on year, according to NBS figures reported by Channels Television.

Archbishop Ndukuba said the effect on ordinary Nigerians remains severe: “At this level, inflation continues to erode salaries and pensions and remains the biggest threat to household welfare.”

He also tied the economic pain to unemployment and poverty. “Growth only matters if it translates into jobs,” he said, urging industrialization, agricultural revival, and business expansion alongside information technology. The National Bureau of Statistics’ 2022 Multidimensional Poverty Index found that 63 percent of Nigerians, or 133 million people, were multidimensionally poor, with 65 percent of the poor living in the North.

The most striking part of the charge concerned oil. Global crude prices have risen sharply amid Middle East tensions, but the archbishop said Nigeria has failed to enjoy the kind of windfall available to other oil producers. “Unlike the other oil producers, Nigeria has not benefited from the windfall because of the regime of her pre-sold crude,” he said. “We not only borrow and borrow what our great-grandchildren cannot pay, but we also sell our oil up front.”

Reuters reported in April 2026 that Brent crude rose nearly 3 percent to $108.23 as stalled U.S.-Iran talks and restricted shipments through the Strait of Hormuz kept supplies tight. The higher price environment would normally improve the fiscal position of oil exporters, but Nigeria’s crude-backed financing has complicated the picture. Reuters reported in June 2024 that Afreximbank had disbursed $925 million to NNPC as part of a $3.3 billion prepayment facility secured by crude oil, bringing total disbursements under that facility to $3.175 billion. 

Reuters later reported that NNPC was seeking at least another $2 billion oil-backed loan, to be secured against 30,000 to 35,000 barrels per day of crude production.

Archbishop Ndukuba also warned about the politics surrounding crude sales and the Dangote refinery. “The politics surrounding crude oil sales and Dangote refinery should be handled in the interest of Nigerians,” he said. Arise TV, citing NUPRC data, reported that domestic refineries were allocated 61.9 million barrels in the first quarter of 2026, but actual deliveries were only 28.5 million barrels, with the regulator attributing the gap mainly to pricing disputes under a “willing buyer, willing seller” framework.

His criticism sharpened when he turned to China. Archbishop Ndukuba said the “recent handover of the national refineries to China must be reconsidered” and argued that competent Nigerians should be given opportunities to invest and “plow back their gains into Nigeria,” rather than “allow China to loot our oil, just as they have done in the solid mineral sector.” NNPC’s own description is more limited than the Primate’s phrasing: the company said in May 2026 that it had signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Sanjiang Chemical Company Limited and Xinganchen Industrial Park Operation and Management Co. Ltd. toward a possible technical equity partnership for the Port Harcourt and Warri refineries, including completion, operation, maintenance, expansion, and upgrade work.

The China question is part of a wider Belt and Road debate. China’s embassy in Nigeria says Nigeria signed a Belt and Road cooperation agreement with China in 2018 and lists Lekki Deep Sea Port, the Zungeru Hydroelectric Project, the Lagos-Ibadan rail line, the Abuja-Kaduna rail line, the Abuja-Keffi-Lafia-Makurdi road dualization, and several airport terminals among Chinese-enterprise projects in Nigeria. 

Energy for Growth Hub says China funds or builds roughly one in five power-generation projects in sub-Saharan Africa, but warns that bundled finance and construction arrangements can weaken host-country leverage unless governments negotiate well and enforce oversight.

The primate’s reference to solid minerals also has an external context. Mining.com reported on a NEITI-ANEEJ study alleging that foreign buyers, particularly Chinese actors, exert disproportionate influence over pricing, purchasing, and export channels in Nigeria’s illegal mineral trade, while noting that the Chinese embassy and Nigeria’s Ministry of Solid Minerals Development did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The Primate connected economic disorder to insecurity. “Nigeria is bleeding and the lives of our citizens are being wasted,” he said, rejecting language that describes attacks as merely “communal clashes” or “herders and farmers clashes.” He said “Islamization and expansionist land grabbing agenda remain central to insecurity in Nigeria,” along with criminal attempts to seize mineral resources. He called for sustained military action, better protection of communities, and accountability for perpetrators and sponsors.

He was equally blunt about politics. “It is unfortunate that Nigeria has leaders who serve their own interests and work for themselves rather than the citizens,” he said. He accused the political class of abandoning governance for 2027 election maneuvers, while urging Christians to participate in politics “in any party of your choice.”

Yet the charge was not simply a political speech. Ndukuba repeatedly returned to the Synod theme, arguing that “the whole people of God” must be equipped for “the whole task of God to the whole world.” The priesthood of all believers, he said, is not a slogan against ordained ministry but a call to recover the vocation of every Christian. “All believers are therefore priests of God,” he said, adding that priesthood “is a function and not just a bearing of office.”

He urged the Diocese of Abuja to become a functional, missionary Church shaped by Scripture, prayer, fellowship, household discipleship, service, and lay ministry. “Christian maturity is not measured by the gifts that you manifest,” he said. “Christian maturity is measured by your capacity, your ability, your readiness to grow in the fruit of the Spirit.”

Archbishop Ndukuba closed with a missionary warning. Citing Augustine, he said, “As fire exists by burning, so does the Church exist by mission.” When believers stop witnessing, he said, “the church starts to die.”

Italian bishop to LGBTQ people: I speak not of “welcoming” but of “recognition and full integration.”

By
Vincenzo Viva
-

Editor’s note: On May 16, 2026 at the Parish of Santa Maria Stella in Albano Laziale, Italy, a diocesan prayer service was held with the LGBTQ community for the intention of overcoming homophobia and transphobia, organized in conjunction with La Tenda di Gionata, a group for Italian LGBTQ Catholics.  One of the main speakers was Vincenzo Viva, the bishop of Albano, who also knelt in the sanctuary before the vigil and prayed with the group.  The original Italian is on the diocesan website here.

“Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name: you are mine” (Is 43:1). These are the words that resonate this evening in our Church here in the city of Albano, on the Via Appia Antica, specifically at the 15th mile of ancient Rome’s most famous and important consular road, the “Regina Viarum” (from the Latin, “Queen of Roads”), where we also find the Catacombs of San Senatore, a place particularly dear to this city, which take us back to the roots of our diocesan Church.

And these words, which we find in Deutero-Isaiah, remind us of a central truth that runs throughout Scripture: The people of the covenant are constantly enveloped in the love of their God, who “created” and “formed” them (cf. Is 43:1). These are the very same verbs that the author takes from the Book of Genesis (cf. Gen 1–2), where we are told that God expresses satisfaction with the work of his creation; indeed, he approves of it and takes pleasure in it: God loves His creation and loves every person created in His image.

And precisely when his people are depressed, disoriented and faced with entirely new situations—as in the time of exile—God instills courage and proclaims hope: “Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name: you are mine … Because you are precious in my eyes and honored, and I love you” (Is 43: 1-4). Note that this is not an isolated statement in the Bible: throughout salvation history, the Lord continually repeats this command “Do not fear.” He says this to different men and women, in different times, but always anew, even on Easter morning, through the words of the angel at Jesus’ tomb (cf. Mt 28:5–7). He says, “Do not fear.” The first word of the resurrection is, therefore, freedom from fear. Just as in the context of exile, the people of the covenant are encouraged to step out of their fears, because the Lord has redeemed these people and called them by name: “You are precious in my eyes; You are mine.”

Read it all at Outreach

Church of England House of Bishops meeting May 2026

By
Press Release
-
The House of Bishops met in person from 19th to 21st May in York.

The House spent time discussing the Church of England’s Faith and Order Commission’s (FAOC) theological response to the Nairobi-Cairo Proposals.

Produced by the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith, and Order (IASCUFO), the Nairobi-Cairo Proposals make recommendations for updating the description and Instruments of the Anglican Communion. 

The House commended FAOC’s response to the Nairobi-Cairo Proposals. The FAOC paper and an introductory reflection from the House of Bishops will be published in due course. 

On the first proposal of the Nairobi-Cairo Proposals, regarding the description of the Anglican Communion, the House believed that FAOC’s language – which would continue to emphasise the significance of eucharistic communion – would be the basis for further reflection in this area. 

On the second proposal, which considers the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury among the primates, the House supported FAOC’s judgment that an open dialogue process among the Primates that does not presume any specific outcome would be welcome.

The House received an update from the Bishops’ Working Group on ‘Promoting Unity in our Nation’. The group, chaired by Bishop Martyn Snow, has been convened to help equip the Church to understand and respond to political and social polarisation in our country. It is working on resources to support parishes wanting to respond to division pastorally, practically and theologically, as well as equipping church leaders to participate constructively in the national debate. 

The Bishops agreed on the importance of this work and were keen to encourage local churches to offer spaces to listen, to be courageous in speaking truth to power and naming injustice, as well as actively seeking opportunities for community cohesion. 

The House reflected on trends in Church of England attendance between and across dioceses in the light of five consecutive years of growth. The House welcomed the increased church attendance and paid tribute to the clergy, laity and volunteers across the country offering people a warm welcome and encouraging their faith.

The Bishops unanimously endorsed Hope for All Creation, produced by FAOC, as its teaching document on understanding and responding to the climate and environmental crises, drawing from the faith, life and worship of the Church. The document is expected to be published before the July Synod.

The House discussed the start of work on a review of the definition of safeguarding, to examine whether the Church’s structures and processes are established in a way that can best ensure everyone it comes into contact with is kept safe from harm. 

Bishops heard an update on the evolution of the population of stipendiary and self-supporting clergy. They discussed ongoing work on clergy wellbeing and deployment as well as the significant work which is currently being undertaken to support the renewal of ministerial vocations across the church. 

The House discussed ongoing research work nearing its conclusion on trust and trustworthiness in the Church of England alongside a separate item on strengthening accountability for Bishops and clergy. Bishop Debbie Sellin, the new Lead Bishop for Accountability, will be taking this work forward. 

Archbishop Sarah pledges solidarity with the Jewish community during visit to Sternberg Centre for Judaism

By
Press Release
-
Archbishop Sarah talks to children at Akiva Primary School. Photo credit Lambeth Palace

The Archbishop Sarah, pledged the Church of England’s solidarity with the UK’s Jewish community during a visit to the Sternberg Centre for Judaism in Finchley, north London, this morning.

The Archbishop visited the headquarters of The Movement for Progressive Judaism in Finchley to express her concern and solidarity in the wake of rising antisemitic attacks around the UK, and to witness the vibrant life and work of the Progressive Jewish community at the Sternberg Centre.

Hosted by Rabbi Charley Baginsky and Rabbi Josh Levy, Co-Leads of The Movement for Progressive Judaism, the Archbishop visited Leo Baeck College – a rabbinical seminary and centre for the training of teachers in Jewish education – and the Akiva Jewish Primary School, where she witnessed the security measures in place to protect children and staff.

During the visit, the Archbishop met with Rabbi Charley and Rabbi Josh to hear about the challenges facing their community in the wake of rising antisemitism, and the importance of working together to promote interfaith dialogue and solidarity.

She then visited Leo Baeck College, where she met with and addressed Progressive Jewish clergy and student clergy. The Archbishop also spoke with Rabbi Eleanor Davis of Finchley Reform Synagogue, where an arson attack took place last month.

The Archbishop then spent time with pupils and teachers at Akiva Primary, dropping in on several classes to speak to pupils about the friendship between Christian and Jewish communities.

Praising the Sternberg Centre and the wider Jewish community, Archbishop Sarah said: “From charity work and healthcare, to education and the arts, your flourishing community enriches society and embodies the best values of this country.”

Speaking of the ongoing rise in antisemitism in the UK, the Archbishop said: “This is not a problem for the Jewish community to solve. It’s on all of us – every single member of our society – to call out antisemitism whenever we see it, and to oppose it without hesitation or qualification.”

Speaking about the visit, Rabbi Josh and Rabbi Charley said: “We are living through a time when loud voices are trying to deepen divisions between communities, and especially between faith communities.

“To have the Archbishop of Canterbury with us at such a moment was a powerful act of solidarity and care. Her presence meant a great deal at a time of rising antisemitism, and we are grateful for her clear support and willingness to stand with our community.

“Her visit also pointed to a better vision of public life, one in which faith communities and minorities recognise one another’s dignity, stand alongside each other, and work together for the common good.

“Her presence meant a great deal at a time of rising antisemitism, and we are grateful for her clear support and willingness to stand with our community.

“We were able to share with her the breadth and depth of our communities across the four nations, and to speak about the faithful and often unseen work they do every day.”

Archbishop of Canterbury makes first diocesan visit to Peterborough

By
Press Release
-
Archbishop Sarah talks to people at St Peter's Church, Oundel. Photo credit Diocese of Peterborough


The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Revd Dame Sarah Mullally, has made her first pastoral visit to Peterborough since her Installation, to witness the work of clergy and congregations across the diocese. Hosted by Bishop Debbie Sellin, the Bishop of Peterborough, Archbishop Sarah visited care homes, hospitals, outreach projects and churches across the weekend (16-17 May).

On Saturday morning, she met with Canon Jun Kim and his volunteers at Abington Church in Northampton. Known to locals as ‘Church in the Park’, the team runs art-led initiatives in its churchyard for families, schools and charities. One of its most well-known projects was Ribbons of Prayer, that attracted more than 20,000 prayers tied to the railings of the churchyard by the public.

Following this visit, Archbishop Sarah walked to the nearby St Christopher’s Care Home, where she met with residents and members of the Anna Chaplaincy, chaplains who offer ministry and friendship to older people, as well as helping them reflect on their relationship with God and break down generational barriers. Archbishop Sarah explored the home and its grounds with staff and later prayed with residents during a coffee morning in the chapel.

At the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Archbishop Sarah attended a service presided over by the rector, the Revd Canon Oliver Coss, before meeting with service users and volunteers from the Northampton Hope Centre, which has recently partnered with the church to provide support to the town’s homeless community.

She ended the first day of the visit at Kettering General Hospital, where she met with nurses and palliative care staff, and told them how thankful she is for the National Health Service, acknowledging the pressures they face in their roles. She also spoke with multifaith hospital chaplains, hearing their experiences of providing pastoral and spiritual care at bedsides across the hospital, from its wards to its A&E unit. At the hospital’s own radio station, she met with volunteer presenters and producers, and recorded a message for staff and patients from the studio. At the end of the visit, she laid of wreath in the Covid memorial garden, where she remembered those who lost their lives during the pandemic.

On Sunday morning, Archbishop Sarah was hosted by Rev Canon Stephen Webster at St Peter’s Church in Oundle for a Sunday service of confirmation and baptism. She preached on Matthew 28:16-20 and Acts 1:1-14, speaking on the death and resurrection of Christ, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. After the service, she met with those who had been baptised and confirmed.

In the afternoon, Archbishop Sarah was given a tour of Peterborough Cathedral by the Dean, the Very Reverend Chris Dalliston, during which she was shown St Oswald’s Chapel and a full-scale cast of a Titanosaur, a 37m-long dinosaur on loan to the cathedral from the Natural History Museum. She later preached at Evensong on 2 Samuel 23:1-5 and Ephesians 1:15 and met with members of the congregation as they left the service.

Reflecting on the visit, Archbishop Sarah said: “It has been a real privilege to spend time with Bishop Debbie and congregations across the Diocese of Peterborough. Spending time here has re-emphasised to me the way in which the Church is a source of hope to our communities. I have seen the signs and symbols that speak of God’s love, demonstrating that love in very practical ways.”

123...1,364Page 1 of 1,364