VirtueOnline Digest, Vol 17, Issue 7

[virtueonli...@listserv.virtueonline.org]

=================================
VirtueOnline Weekly News Digest
http://www.VirtueOnline.org
=================================

Welcome to the VOL Weekly News Digest, an electronic communique of news about The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion is brought to you by VirtueOnline (VOL), a non-profit news and information ministry to the Anglican Communion. Subscriptions are offered free of charge.

For questions about the digest, to subscribe or modify your subscription:
a. Visit: http://www.virtueonline.org/listserv.html, or
b. Email your request to: in...@virtueonline.org

VOL depends on its readers for financial support. Please consider a tax deductible donation. You can do so via check or credit card. http://www.virtueonline.org/support.html

VIRTUEONLINE
570 Twin Lakes Rd
P.O. Box 111
Shohola, PA 18458

http://www.virtueonline.org
http://www.facebook.com/virtueonline
http://twitter.com/VirtueOnline

THANK YOU FOR READING AND SUPPORTING VOL

--

P.S. Direct replies to this digest do NOT go to VOL staff. If you wish to comment on today's digest, please address your email to in...@virtueonline.org

Today's Topics:

1. Table of Contents (David Virtue)
2. VIEWPOINTS: February 17, 2017 (David Virtue)
3. Radical New Inclusion needed post Synod Vote say Archbishops
Canterbury and York (David Virtue)
4. Church of England's report on marriage and sexuality suffers
setback at Synod (David Virtue)
5. Church of England Pansexualists Lay out their Agenda in
OneBodyOneFaith document (David Virtue)
6. GAFCON UK's response to the lobby group OneBodyOneFaith
(David Virtue)
7. Damning verdict on response to child abuse in Australia
(David Virtue)
8. ACNA orders valid state Archbishops of Canterbury and York
(David Virtue)
9. Pro-Homosexual Church of England Dean Spins Smyth Report to
Blacken Evangelicals (David Virtue)
10. The Rapidly Diminishing Anglican Church of Canada (David Virtue)
11. Welby's Masonic Service at Canterbury Cathedral at Odds with
the Christian Faith (David Virtue)
12. Archbishop Welby Denounced by Bishop of Buckingham over Abuse
of Boys (David Virtue)
13. On Synod, sexuality and not "Taking note" (David Virtue)
14. Church of England gay marriage vote thrown into chaos after
members 'get confused and press wrong button' (David Virtue)
15. Statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury following today's
General Synod (David Virtue)
16. Archbishop of Canterbury's address to General Synod (David Virtue)
17. UK: Priest Threatens Resignation if forced to give Communion
to Lesbian Couple (David Virtue)
18. York Minster bells to ring again, in aftermath of heavy
dispute (David Virtue)
19. Church of England General Synod votes to retain marriage
banns (David Virtue)
20. Nothing has changed--the system is broken (David Virtue)
21. The Episcopal Church's Christian Witness (David Virtue)
22. It's time for the Church of England to lay down the law on
marriage (David Virtue)
23. Why Churches Should NOT Fear the "Nones" (David Virtue)
24. CHURCH OF ENGLAND: Manipulative, domineering revisionists
must be opposed, not appeased (David Virtue)
25. QUESTIONS JESUS ASKED: What do you want me to do for you? -
Mark 10:46-52 (David Virtue)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 21:50:08 -0500
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: Table of Contents
Message-ID:
<1487386208.525290....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

VirtueOnline Weekly News Digest - Desktop & Mobile Edition
www.virtueonline.org
February 17, 2017


*************************************
VIEWPOINTS
*************************************

1. CofE Synod Votes to Rebuke Bishops' Conservative Stance on
Marriage...
http://www.virtueonline.org/cofe-synod-votes-rebuke-bishops-conservative-stance-marriage-anglican-church-canada-major-decline


*********************************************
GLOBAL ANGLICAN NEWS
*********************************************

2. Radical New Inclusion needed post Synod Vote say Archbishops
Canterbury and York
http://www.virtueonline.org/radical-new-inclusion-needed-post-synod-vote-say-archbishops-canterbury-and-york

3. Church of England's report on marriage and sexuality suffers
setback...
http://www.virtueonline.org/church-englands-report-marriage-and-sexuality-suffers-setback-synod

4. Church of England Pansexualists Lay out their Agenda in
OneBodyOneFaith Documents
http://www.virtueonline.org/church-england-pansexualists-lay-out-their-agenda-onebodyonefaith-document

5. GAFCON UK's response to the lobby group OneBodyOneFaith
http://www.virtueonline.org/gafcon-uks-response-lobby-group-onebodyonefaith

6. Damning verdict on response to child abuse in Australia
http://www.virtueonline.org/damning-verdict-response-child-abuse-australia


************************************************
ANGLICAN NEWS IN NORTH AMERICA
************************************************

7. ACNA orders valid state Archbishops of Canterbury and York
http://www.virtueonline.org/acna-orders-valid-state-archbishops-canterbury-and-york


*********************************************
CHURCH OF ENGLAND NEWS
*********************************************

8. Pro-Homosexual Church of England Dean Spins Smyth Report to Blacken
Evangelicals
http://www.virtueonline.org/pro-homosexual-church-england-dean-spins-smyth-report-blacken-evangelicals

9. The Rapidly Diminishing Anglican Church of Canada
http://www.virtueonline.org/rapidly-diminishing-anglican-church-canada

10. Welby's Masonic Service at Canterbury Cathedral at Odds with the
Christian Faith
http://www.virtueonline.org/welbys-masonic-service-canterbury-cathedral-odds-christian-faith

11. Archbishop Welby Denounced by Bishop of Buckingham over Abuse of
Boys
http://www.virtueonline.org/archbishop-welby-denounced-bishop-buckingham-over-abuse-boys

12. On Synod, sexuality and not "Taking note"
http://www.virtueonline.org/synod-sexuality-and-not-taking-note

13.Church of England gay marriage vote thrown into chaos after members
get confused and press wrong button
http://www.virtueonline.org/church-england-gay-marriage-vote-thrown-chaos-after-members-get-confused-and-press-wrong-button

14. Statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury following today's Gen...
http://www.virtueonline.org/statement-archbishop-canterbury-following-todays-general-synod

15. Archbishop of Canterbury's address to General Synod
http://www.virtueonline.org/archbishop-canterburys-address-general-synod

16. UK: Priest Threatens Resignation if forced to give Communion to
Lesbian Couple
http://www.virtueonline.org/uk-priest-threatens-resignation-if-forced-give-communion-lesbian-couple

17. York Minster bells to ring again, in aftermath of heavy dispute
http://www.virtueonline.org/york-minster-bells-ring-again-aftermath-heavy-dispute

18. Church of England General Synod votes to retain marriage banns
http://www.virtueonline.org/church-england-general-synod-votes-retain-marriage-banns


********************************
AS EYE SEE IT
********************************

19. Nothing has changed--the system is broken
http://www.virtueonline.org/nothing-has-changed-system-broken

20. The Episcopal Church's Christian Witness
http://www.virtueonline.org/episcopal-churchs-christian-witness

21. It's time for the Church of England to lay down the law on marriage
http://www.virtueonline.org/its-time-church-england-lay-down-law-marriage

22. Why Churches Should NOT Fear the "Nones"
http://www.virtueonline.org/why-churches-should-not-fear-nones

23. CHURCH OF ENGLAND: Manipulative, domineering revisionists must be
opposed, not appeased
http://www.virtueonline.org/church-england-manipulative-domineering-revisionists-must-be-opposed-not-appeased


*********************************
DEVOTIONAL
*********************************

24. QUESTIONS JESUS ASKED: What Do You Want Me To Do For You? - Mark
10:46-52
http://www.virtueonline.org/questions-jesus-asked-what-do-you-want-me-do-you-mark-1046-52


END



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 21:51:54 -0500
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: VIEWPOINTS: February 17, 2017
Message-ID:
<1487386314.526954....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Life in Christ. No-one may dare to claim that he lives in Christ and
Christ in him unless he is obedient to the three fundamental commands
which John has been expounding (1 Jn. 4:24) which are belief in Christ,
love for the brothers and moral righteousness. 'Living in Christ' is not
a mystical experience which anyone may claim; its indispensable
accompaniments are the confession of Jesus as the Son of God come in the
flesh, and a consistent life of holiness and love. --- John R.W. Stott

Reputation and reality. The distinction between reputation and reality,
between what human beings see and what God sees, is of great importance
to every age and place. Although we have responsibilities to others, we
are primarily accountable to God. It is before him that we stand, and to
him that one day we must give an account. We should not therefore rate
human opinion too highly, becoming depressed when criticized and elated
when flattered. We need to remember that 'The Lord does not look at the
things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord
looks at the heart' (1 Sa. 16:7). He reads our thoughts and knows our
motives. He can see how much reality there is behind our profession, how
much life behind our facade. --- John R.W. Stott

Dear Brothers and Sisters,
www.virtueonline.org
February 17, 2017

THE EXPLOSIVE news development of the week was the Church of England's
Synod vote which rebuked the bishops' conservative line view on marriage
and its report on sexuality.

In a major revolt against the CofE's hierarchy, members of the Church's
General Synod rejected a report by top bishops that said there was
'little support' for changing the view that marriage was between one man
and one woman.

An impassioned debate by the Church of England's General Synod ended
with defeat for the bishops.

The shock result plunges the Church into confusion on its stance on
marriage with the bishops' report barred from being discussed until the
end of this synod in 2020.

Although a majority of members voted in favor overall, a move by
campaigners forced the synod to split into its three separate houses --
the laity, the clergy and the bishops -- with all three needing a
majority for it to pass.

But the clergy voted by 100 to 93 against, in a rebuke to the bishops'
authority.
The Church of England's ruling body has thrown out a controversial
report on homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

The report by the House of Bishops, which was presented to the General
Synod on Wednesday, had called for the Church to adopt a "fresh tone and
culture of welcome and support" for gay people -- but not to change its
opposition to unions between same-sex couples.

More than 400 Church leaders gathered for a "take note" debate on the
issue at Church Hall in Westminster, where they voted to symbolically
reject the recommendations.

The Archbishop of Canterbury had urged the Synod to approve the report,
describing it as a "good basis, a road map" for moving forward.

The report had to gain a majority in the House of Bishops, House of
Clergy and House of Laity to be approved.

A total of 242 votes were cast in favor across the three houses, 184
against, along with six abstentions.

But some 100 members of the House of Clergy voted against -- compared
with 93 who voted in favor and two who abstained.
The report recommended the Church of England should continue to consider
marriage as "a union, permanent and lifelong, of one man with one
woman".

The Bishop of Norwich, Graham James, said there had been "very little
appetite" for changing the doctrine, as he introduced the debate.

However, a story broke soon after the vote that said a number of bishops
did not exactly know what they were voting for.

The crucial vote on gay marriage was thrown into doubt after the Bishop
of Coventry admitted he accidentally voted against the report and
several others may have made the same mistake.

The Right Reverend Dr. Christopher Cocksworth apologized for the mistake
last night, which he said was because of "a moment of distraction and
some confusion over the voting process".

The bishop insisted that he did, in fact, support the report written by
his colleagues and was "embarrassed" to have accidentally rejected it.

It has since emerged that some members have suggested that clergy had
made the same mistake.

How they voted:

House of Laity: 106 for, 83 against, 4 abstentions
House of Clergy: 93 for, 100 against, 2 abstentions
House of Bishops: 43 for, 1 against, 0 abstentions
Given the number of members registered for this meeting of General
Synod, the numbers suggest that 21 members were absent, or refused to
vote or record an abstention.

Naturally the Church's pansexualist campaigners said they were not
seeking gay marriage, but only approval for blessings. We think that is
not true based on what we saw in The Episcopal Church which has now
placed in canon law that marriage shall be extended to same-sex
partners. The CofE is headed down the same road and nothing will stop
the pansexual steam roller in the Church of England.

For the moment, the status quo remains the status quo. It was a "Take
Note" report, not a new Canon or Measure. The Bishops will now go away
and write a teaching document -- a replacement for Issues. The BBC will
present it as a victory for the liberal lobby -- but it changes nothing.

Following the vote in General Synod, the Archbishops of Canterbury and
York weighed in saying they wanted to set out the way forward in the
next few months.

"First, we want to be clear about some underlying principles. In these
discussions no person is a problem, or an issue. People are made in the
image of God. All of us, without exception, are loved and called in
Christ. There are no 'problems', there are simply people called to
redeemed humanity in Christ.

"To deal with that disagreement and to find ways forward, we need a
radical new Christian inclusion in the Church. This must be founded in
scripture, in reason, in tradition, in theology and the Christian faith
as the Church of England has received it; it must be based on good,
healthy, flourishing relationships, and in a proper 21st century
understanding of being human and of being sexual.

"We need to work together - not just the bishops but the whole Church,
not excluding anyone -- to move forward with confidence."

We have heard this line before. 'Radical new inclusion' is just buzz and
spin for brokering sodomy into the church under new house rules. If sex
outside of marriage between a man and a woman is now not sin, where do
these archbishops then draw the line? What sexuality in the pantheon of
sexualities is now no longer sinful behavior -- bestiality, polygamy.
Who's to say if the lines can now be drawn anywhere one wants to draw
them?

I have posted a number of stories on this historic event in today's
digest with some excellent commentary on what it all means.

*****

VOL recently exposed the sexual rot in the Anglican Church of Australia
and this week came a damning verdict on response to child abuse in
Australia.

A Royal Commission examining allegations of child sexual abuse delivered
a verdict on a system which enabled a culture of abuse to flourish.

The report by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child
Sexual Abuse comes after public hearings into how the Church of
England's Boys' Society (CEBS) and the Anglican dioceses of Tasmania,
Adelaide, Brisbane and Sydney dealt with claims of abuse. The hearings,
in Hobart, Tasmania, were told of allegations of abuse by lay people and
clergy associated with CEBS in the 1970s and 1980s.

The report concluded that most CEBS branches were able to operate in an
autonomous and unregulated way. As a result, a culture developed in
which attackers had easy access to boys and opportunities to sexually
abuse them. It found the abuse often happened at camps, on sailing and
fishing trips and on overnight stays at rectories and private homes. You
can read the full report in today's digest.

*****

Archbishop Mouneer Hanna Anis, Primate of the Anglican Province of
Jerusalem and the Middle East, says a recent decision of President
Donald Trump to restrict entry to the United States from seven
Muslim-majority nations, and to prioritize the refugee applications of
Christians in the Middle East is a mistake and will not contribute to
the security of the United States in any way.

"I appreciate the right of the government to protect the nation from
terrorism, but this will not happen by preventing Muslims from coming to
the country. The Oklahoma City bombing, we recall, was conducted by an
American, not a Muslim.

"President Trump's policy is a na?ve solution based on generalization
and discrimination. The risk of terrorism should be dealt with by the
security agencies on an individual basis and in cooperation with other
nations. This decision will result in innocent people being barred
entry, and refugees will suffer greatly.

"Under so much pressure in their home countries, refugees need a refuge.
Much poorer nations like Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt have been
accommodating the thousands that the United States is turning away.

"This decision is contrary to the teachings of the Bible, which requires
us to welcome the stranger and treat him well. Jesus Christ, we must
remember, was once a refugee in Egypt.

"But President Trump's decision to prioritize Christian refugee
application will not help. Deep in my heart I do not want to see
Christians leaving the place where Jesus was born, lived, and was
crucified.

"The Middle East will not be the Middle East without Middle Eastern
Christians. It will change, and in more than just demographics. The
beautiful mosaic will suffer, as will the church's witness to Christ's
love among all the peoples of the region.

*****

A number of TEC bishops have weighed in on the recent decision of
President Donald Trump to restrict entry to the United States.

The Diocese of Olympia welcomes refugees and is pursuing a separate
lawsuit against the president's executive order to keep resettlement
efforts alive.

A federal appeals court ruling Feb. 9 that blocked reinstatement of the
Trump administration's temporary ban on refugee admissions was welcomed
by Episcopal Church leaders in Washington, where the Diocese of Olympia
is helping to coordinate the resettlement of 190 refugees each year. Of
the refugees now preparing to arrive in the Seattle area, about 90
percent are expected to come from one of the seven Muslim-majority
countries singled out in President Donald Trump's Jan. 27 order, which
also banned visitors and visa holders from those nations.

Both the Diocese of Olympia and the American Civil Liberties Union of
Washington filed a separate lawsuit Feb. 7 challenging the executive
order.

Refugees who had been held up at airports overseas when Trump first
signed the executive order, are now making their way to Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport. Still, the legal uncertainty threatens to shutter
the diocese's Refugee Resettlement Office, a scenario Bishop Greg Rickel
said would run counter to the Episcopal Church's mission.

*****

The Episcopal Public Policy Network is opposed to the U.S. embassy in
Israel moving to Jerusalem.

This would change over 50 years of U.S. foreign policy. Prior to his
inauguration, President Trump said that one of the first things he would
do is move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem.

Since his inauguration, he has said, "I am thinking about the embassy, I
am studying the embassy [issue], and we will see what happens. The
embassy is not an easy decision. It has obviously been out there for
many, many years, and nobody has wanted to make that decision. I'm
thinking about it very seriously, and we will see what happens."

We need you to tell Congress that Jerusalem is important to Jews,
Christians and Muslims, and that its final status needs to be negotiated
by Israelis and Palestinians with the support of our nation and the
international community.

The Episcopal Church Office of Government Relations is joining Churches
for Middle East Peace in meetings with lawmakers today to raise this
issue.

*****

I wrote a story this week on the rapidly diminishing Anglican Church of
Canada.

By any measurable standard, the Canadian church is in serious decline
with little hope that the numbers can or will be reversed in the
foreseeable future.

In one diocese after another, the third largest denomination in Canada
is declining, its demise now almost certain as it focuses on a host of
social justice issues to the neglect of evangelism, discipleship and
church planting.

The Anglican Church of Canada, which is squeamishly shy about
publicizing how many people attend its churches, has published no
complete statistics for membership and average Sunday attendance since
2001, although the ACoC did claim a membership of 545,957 in 2007. You
can my full report in today's digest.

*****

A major player at Vatican II confessed this week to concealing his
homosexual life. LifeSiteNews reports that 93-year-old Gregory Baum, a
famed Canadian Catholic ex-priest, has in his latest book revealed that
he secretly led an active homosexual life for decades.

Baum, who was a periti or expert at the Second Vatican Council,
reportedly composed the first draft of the conciliar document Nostra
aetate, the Declaration on the Relation of the Church with Non-Christian
Religions. Baum advocated for the elimination of the Church's efforts to
encourage Jews to recognize Christ as the Messiah and has since pushed
social justice and liberation theology.

The influential cleric reveals candidly in The Oil Has Not Run Dry: The
Story of My Theological Pathway, "I did not profess my own homosexuality
in public because such an act of honesty would have reduced my influence
as a critical theologian." "I was eager to be heard as a theologian
trusting in God as salvator mundi and committed to social justice,
liberation theology, and global solidarity."

Baum was also influential in the Catholic Church in Canada, despite his
openly heretical positions on sexuality, which he published in various
journals. His public dissent from the 1968 declaration of the Church
maintaining the ban on contraception -- Humanae Vitae -- was
instrumental in the Canadian bishops' own dissent from the encyclical of
Pope Paul VI. As the foremost expert on the Canadian bishops' dissent,
Monsignor Vincent Foy has written, "If it had not been for the black
shadow of Baum over Winnipeg, his influence over some Bishops, the
Canadian theological establishment and pressure groups, the Winnipeg
Statement of the Canadian Bishops on Humanae Vitae would not have
refused to endorse the teaching of the encyclical as it did."

*****

We are slowly reaching the financial level necessary for a working
budget for 2017. We will delay the paywall idea if the necessary
financial support keeps coming in.

If you are a regular reader, then think about what it means to keep the
news coming FREE into your e-mail inbox each week and being able to go
daily to VOL's website. A gift of any amount helps keep reporters
reporting, allows me to travel and much more.

You can send a tax-deductible donation to VOL via PAYPAL at the link
here: http://www.virtueonline.org/support-vol/

Or you can send a snail mail check to:

VIRTUEONLINE
570 Twin Lakes Rd
P.O. Box 111
Shohola, PA 18458

Thank you for your support.

David



------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 21:52:39 -0500
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: Radical New Inclusion needed post Synod Vote say Archbishops
Canterbury and York
Message-ID:
<1487386359.527000....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Radical New Inclusion needed post Synod Vote say Archbishops Canterbury
and York

February 15, 2017

Dear sisters and brothers in Christ,

Following the vote in General Synod not to take note of the paper on
Marriage and Same Sex
Relationships after the Shared Conversations (GS 2055) we are writing to
set out the way forward in
the next few months.

First, we want to be clear about some underlying principles. In these
discussions no person is a
problem, or an issue. People are made in the image of God. All of us,
without exception, are loved
and called in Christ. There are no 'problems', there are simply people
called to redeemed humanity
in Christ.

How we deal with the real and profound disagreement - put so
passionately and so clearly by many
at the debate - is the challenge we face as people who all belong to
Christ.

To deal with that disagreement and to find ways forward, we need a
radical new Christian inclusion
in the Church. This must be founded in scripture, in reason, in
tradition, in theology and the Christian
faith as the Church of England has received it; it must be based on
good, healthy, flourishing
relationships, and in a proper 21st century understanding of being human
and of being sexual.
We need to work together - not just the bishops but the whole Church,
not excluding anyone - to
move forward with confidence.

The way forward needsto be about love, joy and celebration of our common
humanity; of our creation
in the image of God, of our belonging to Christ - all of us, without
exception, without exclusion.
Nevertheless while the principles are straightforward, putting them into
practice, as we all know, is
not, given the deep disagreements among us.

We are therefore asking first for every Diocesan Bishop to meet with
their General Synod members
for an extended conversation in order to establish clearly the desires
of every member of Synod for
the way forward.

As Archbishops we will be establishing a Pastoral Oversight group led by
the Bishop of Newcastle,
with the task of supporting and advising Dioceses on pastoral actions
with regard to our current
pastoral approach to human sexuality. The group will be inclusive, and
will seek to discern the
development of pastoral practices, within current arrangements.

Secondly, we, with others, will be formulating proposals for the May
House of Bishops for a large
scale teaching document around the subject of human sexuality. In an
episcopal church a principal
responsibility of Bishops is the teaching ministry of the church, and
the guarding of the deposit of
faith that we have all inherited. The teaching document must thus
ultimately come from the Bishops.
However, all episcopal ministry must be exercised with all the people of
God, lay and ordained, and
thus our proposals will ensure a wide ranging and fully inclusive
approach, both in subject matter and
in those who work on it.

We will also be suggesting to the Business Committee a debate in general
terms on the issues of
marriage and human sexuality. We wish to give the General Synod an
opportunity to consider
together those things we do affirm.

In the meantime, we commend to your prayers our common concern for every
member of this church,
of all views, and most especially our concern for the mission of God to
which we are called by the
Father, for which we are made ready by the Son, and in which we are
equipped by the Holy Spirit.

Signed

+ Cantaur Justin
+Sentamu Eboracensis



------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 21:54:47 -0500
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: Church of England's report on marriage and sexuality suffers
setback at Synod
Message-ID:
<1487386487.527125....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Church of England's report on marriage and sexuality suffers setback at
Synod

ACNS
February 15, 2017

A report from the House of Bishops about marriage and same sex
relationships has received a significant setback in a vote at the
General Synod in London. It is an embarrassing symbolic rejection of the
Bishops' report which had stated that there should be no change in the
church's teaching while calling for a "fresh tone" on the issues.
Speaking before the vote, the Archbishop of Canterbury said he believed
passionately that the report that had been worked on and struggled with
was a roadmap and he promised the church would find a new "inclusion."

However many speakers in the debate said the report was not clear enough
or did not go far enough. After the debate, a "Take Note" vote was held;
it's a neutral motion which allows Synod to discuss the content and
recommendations of a report without committing the Synod to the formal
acceptance of it. However the vote to "take note" was lost, because it
needed a majority in all three Houses of the Synod -- the Bishops, the
Clergy and the Laity and it was defeated in the House of Clergy, which
voted NOT to take note by 100 votes to 93.

Responding to the vote, the Rt Revd Graham Jones, the Bishop of Norwich
said: "I can guarantee that the House of Bishops will consider carefully
and prayerfully all the contributions made in the debate today...there
is no simple and easy answer to this issue beyond committing ourselves
to engagement with each other when the views on what we should do are
profoundly contested."

Earlier, Bishop James had acknowledged "significant differences of
opinion within the House of Bishops about same sex relationships" and
that the report had not received a "rapturous" reception in all
quarters; he expressed regret for any "pain or anger it may have
caused." He noted the "tension which can exist between our determination
to uphold firmly the teaching on marriage and sexual relationships as
currently expressed in our Canons, and the commitment to affirm the
place of LGBTI people within the church..... to enable their voices to
be heard."

During the debate a number of speakers had called for greater clarity.
"Same old, same old" said one speaker. "Deeply flawed" said another and
"there's a need for a radical welcome for all." One gay speaker said
people wanted the church to go forward faster and called on the Bishops
to think again -- her words were warmly applauded. The Dean of
Southwark, the Revd Andrew Nunn, said to the Bishops: "You talk of a new
tone -- but I don't like the tone: you can do a lot better. Bishops can
we not have a bit of pride in our LGBT members and more recognition of
the blessing that gay people bring to our churches?" Again, loud and
prolonged applause. However some evangelical members of Synod also
expressed concern, fearing that the Bishops' report was a softening of
the guidelines on sexual morality.

Responding to all of the comments Archbishop Justin said the Bishops
would go on thinking : "we could hardly fail to do so in light of what
has been said in the debate."

Earlier in the day Bishop James had charted the recent history of the
Church of England on issues of sexuality, saying he had been discussing
same sex relationships for over forty years of ordained ministry. He
addressed the difficulty of the issues; "I would be misleading you if I
did not confess to being conflicted in presenting this report but in
that I think I am far from alone among the bishops and in the wider
Church of England.....our own history in dealing with these matters also
explains why people on all sides of the debate rarely find themselves
satisfied." He said on one level nothing much seemed to have changed
since he made a presentation on the issue of homosexual relationships in
the 1970s but on another level "everything seems to have changed,
especially in the wider culture."

The Bishop of Willesden, the Right Reverend Pete Broadbent, said this
debate would be "a continuing source of disagreement because we haven't
coalesced around an end point. When we legislated for women to be
bishops, even those opposed came to the view that the Church of England
had to make it possible for women to be bishops in the Church of God
according to our canons and formularies. In this debate we haven't even
begun to find a place where we can coalesce. The Bishops' Report
acknowledges a place of starting. More conversation is needed."

*****

Church of England in turmoil as synod rejects report on same sex
relationships
Clergy vote against report by 100 to 93 in blow to archbishop of
Canterbury as he tries to chart course between apparently unreconcilable
wings of church

By Harriet Sherwood Religion correspondent
https://www.theguardian.com/
February 15, 2017

The Church of England has been plunged into fresh turmoil after its
general assembly threw out a report on same sex relationships in a
rebuff to bishops following almost three years of intense internal
discussion and intractable divisions.

The C of E's synod, meeting in London this week, voted on Thursday to
effectively reject the report, which upholds traditional teaching that
marriage is a lifelong union of a man and a woman.

Although there was a clear overall majority in favour of "taking note"
of the report, it needed the support of all three houses -- bishops,
clergy and laity. The clergy narrowly voted against, by 100 votes to 93,
meaning the motion was lost.

The de facto rejection of the report is a blow to the authority of
Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury, who pleaded with the synod
to accept the report as "a basis for moving on, a good basis, a
roadmap".

Welby presides over the House of Bishops, which has met four times since
internal discussion groups wound up last July to chart the way forward
between two apparently unreconcilable wings of the church.

Responding to the vote, Graham James, bishop of Norwich, said: "I can
guarantee that the House of Bishops will consider carefully and
prayerfully all the contributions made in the debate today."

He added: "We have listened to those who have spoken, and those others
who have made contributions to us directly. Our ongoing discussions will
be informed by what members of synod and the wider church have said as a
result of this report."

Acknowledging that the next steps were unclear, Pete Broadbent, bishop
of Willesden, said: "In this debate, we haven't even begun to find a
place where we can coalesce.... More conversation is needed. We don't
yet know the next stage -- nor yet when and whether we can bring any
further report to synod."

The issue has dominated the current four-day session of the synod, and
has been the subject of bitter debate within the C of E -- and the
global Anglican communion -- for decades. At the moment, gay clergy are
forbidden from marrying or having sexual relationships, and same sex
marriage services are prohibited in churches.

In a debate lasting more than two hours, about one in three members of
the synod requested to speak from the packed floor of the auditorium.
Many contributions included personal testimonies from lesbians and gay
men.

Jayne Ozanne of Oxford accused the bishops of putting "political
expediency ahead of principle". Fearing a split, they had "chosen not to
lead but to manage".

Simon Butler of Southwark, an openly gay member of synod, said that
"only when fracture comes can new possibilities emerge", and quoted
Genesis: "I will not let you go until you bless me."

Lucy Gorman of York told the synod that "outside these walls, we are
being heard as lacking in love". No wonder, she added, that fewer young
people were coming to church. "Why would people become part of a church
that is seemingly homophobic?"

But those on the conservative wing of the church also expressed
criticisms and some voted against the report. Andrea
Minichiello-Williams of Chichester said: "All sexual expression outside
a lifelong permanent union on one man and one woman is sinful."
Sexuality was a "first order issue", one on which salvation depends.
"That's why it's so important to speak clearly with regard to sexual
sin."

Paul Bayes, bishop of Liverpool, said: "I honour the anger and, indeed,
fury, of the LGBTI community who see in this report hard stones when
they looked for bread." However, he urged the synod to back the report,
saying its encouragement for clergy to exercise maximum freedom within
existing doctrine "may carry us to places we have not previously gone".
The report, he said, "cannot, will not and should not mark the end of
the road" on the issue.

Welby, the final speaker to be called, said "how we deal with profound
disagreement... is the challenge we face". The church needed to be
"neither careless in our theology nor ignorant of the world around us",
he added.

Before the debate, both James and Broadbent, who led the bishops' group
which wrote the report, apologised to its critics. "It has not received
a rapturous reception in all quarters, and I regret any pain or anger it
may have caused. And if we've got the tone wrong, we are very sorry,"
said James.

Broadbent acknowledged it was "a pretty conservative document", adding:
"I do want to apologise to those members of synod who found our report
difficult, who didn't recognise themselves in it, who had expected more
from us than we actually delivered, for the tone of the report. On
behalf of the House [of Bishops], and without being trite or trivial,
I'm sorry."

While upholding traditional doctrine on marriage, the report said
teaching should be interpreted with "maximum freedom" for same sex
couples and called for a "fresh tone and culture of welcome and support"
for lesbians and gays while proposing no concrete change.

Following the vote, Ozanne, a leading gay rights campaigner on the
synod, said: "I am thrilled that this report has been voted down. We now
look forward to working together to build a church that is broad enough
to accept the diversity of views that exist within it, courageous enough
to address the deep divisions that exist between us and loving enough to
accept each other as equal members of the body of Christ."

Simon Sarmiento, chairman of LGBTI Mission, said: "I'm pleased the
report was not accepted. I am sure the bishops will have learned a
lesson from this experience which I know has been painful. I hope they
will now consult widely and proceed wisely."

Andrea Williams, from the conservative Christian Concern, said the
report had tried "to straddle positions that cannot be reconciled". She
added: "This shouldn't be read as a victory for the LGBT activists
within the Church. The reason why this happened was because there was no
clarity in which direction the church will go."

LGBTI Christians and supporters of gay equality held a vigil outside
Church House in Westminster, the venue for the synod, during the debate.



------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 21:55:19 -0500
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: Church of England Pansexualists Lay out their Agenda in
OneBodyOneFaith document
Message-ID:
<1487386519.527142....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Church of England Pansexualists Lay out their Agenda in OneBodyOneFaith
document
There is no pleasing GAFCON Chairman Archbishop Nicholas Okoh

By David W. Virtue, DD
www.virtueonline.org
February 15, 2017

OneBodyOneFaith is clear about what they are seeking. What they are
asking for to begin to escape the dead end that GS 2055 represents is
this:

? For an explicit acceptance of the integrity of theological
diversity over matters of sexuality -- that it is possible to be
Biblically faithful and hold different positions -- and the creation of
systems to assure that this is honoured. The establishment of a
Sexuality and Relationships Working Group which will be responsible for
'holding' the theological diversity of the Church of England. Pilling
has already described the different positions --the reference group
needs to be tasked with exploring how they live with each other, and how
the church develops theologically, and how pastoral oversight is given
in the context of the range of views present in the Church of England.

? In addition to the Sexuality and Relationships Working Group
there needs to be a significant level of LGBTI+ representation on each
of its boards, councils and divisions for which the Archbishops' council
has oversight -- the representatives should be chosen by members of all
houses of Synod, not by the Archbishops' Council or bishops alone
? For the Church of England to appoint a National Lead for LGBTI+
matters based at Church House -- LGBTI+ themselves, who works to the
Sexuality and Relationships Working Group and liaises with boards,
councils, divisions and dioceses, holds to the need for the kind of
change that we propose, but also understands and accepts the need to
support all sides
? For the publication and recommendation of an official liturgy
for the blessing of same-sex couples after a Civil Partnership or Civil
Marriage - this does not need to be complicated. The Service of Prayer
and Thanksgiving after a civil marriage could be adjusted very simply
? To effect paragraph 13 (a) of Annex 1: Sexuality Issues: what is
and is not possible under the relevant legal positions, so that being
married to a person of the same sex is not of itself a breach of Canon
C26.2

Some will ask, What about the Communion? I know that for some people
this program is not what they want to see. But even the Bishops' Report,
muddled and cautious and compromising as it is, leaves the conservative
voices in the Communion dissatisfied and suspicious.

To put it bluntly, there is no pleasing Archbishop Okoh. (Nigerian
Primate). We would have to return to a punitive, closeted, change
therapy-seeking church to satisfy that source of opinion. There is no
point in trying to appease those who take that position.

Discovering what Good Disagreement looks like should probably be the
task of the Anglican Communion. It is not the right thing to sacrifice
the lives and relationships of the LGBTI+ faithful of the Church of
England on the altar of a pretended unity within the Communion.

Do the right thing and then work out how to embody that unity in
diversity which is the reality of every church in every time.
Anglicanism, almost above any other global expression of Christianity,
has acknowledged for a very long time the importance of local
inculturation of the faith. And the right thing to do in England is the
right thing for the Church of which the bishops are its leaders and the
Synod is its parliament.

OneBodyOneFaith, with its ecumenical concern for the life of the
Christian Church across the nation, sees this coming week as a moment of
real opportunity and hope. We will be praying for the Synod and all its
members as they gather. But while the focus of activity will be on
trying to persuade Synod members not to take note of GS 2055, God is
calling us to a better and different future. So, this is our starting
point. This is the way forward. This is gathering the stones together.
This, as a minimum, will help start to build and grow a servant church
for all the people, in which every person, be they ever so small or
ordinary, can have a full and valued place. It is time to build

END



------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 21:56:12 -0500
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: GAFCON UK's response to the lobby group OneBodyOneFaith
Message-ID:
<1487386572.527210....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

GAFCON UK's response to the lobby group OneBodyOneFaith

GAFCON UK
February 14, 2017

GAFCON UK welcomes the publication of the OneBodyOneFaith statement "A
time to build".

The statement is admirably clear in its wholesale abandonment of any
pretence that OneBodyOneFaith has any respect for Biblical authority or
any interest in the wellbeing of global Anglicanism.

While "A time to build" suggests that it seeks "theological diversity"
it in fact requires that the whole Church worldwide submit to a view
that God has not spoken clearly in his Word about the nature of humanity
and human sexuality.

The authors of the statement suggest that they are wiser than 4,000
years of Biblical revelation, 2,000 years of Christian theology and the
overwhelming majority of Christians down the ages and around the world.

We note with a degree of amazement that OneBodyOneFaith's attempt to
discredit GAFCON, which represents the majority of the world's
Anglicans, relies entirely on an ad hominem attack which entirely
misrepresents the position of a Primate whom the authors have never had
the pleasure of meeting. We trust that the Secretary General of the
Anglican Communion will use his comments to General Synod tomorrow to
distance himself from the manifest nonsense asserted by OBOF concerning
Archbishop Okoh, Primate of Nigeria.

It is a remarkable thing that a tiny English campaign group sees fit to
be so disrespectful to the Godly leader of a vibrant, growing Church of
many millions. As we hope OBOF is aware, at the present time, rather
than criticism the Church of Nigeria desperately needs our prayers given
the price many are paying for their commitment to the Gospel of Jesus
Christ.

GAFCONUK is content to contrast the hubris and divisiveness of the
leadership of OBOF and with the humble and clear leadership of
Archbishop Nicholas Okoh, Primate of Nigeria. As well as being Chairman
of GAFCON, he is also Vice-Chair of the Global South movement,
representing the large majority of Anglicans worldwide, standing for
unity under a shared confessional basis of faith, and committed to
serving Christ in contexts much more challenging than anything seen in
this country.

The members of the GAFCONUK Task Force wish to put on record their
immense gratitude to God for His provision of the servant-hearted
leadership of ++Okoh, the GAFCON Primates and their bishops. Our own
renewed commitment to Anglicanism is in no small measure due to the
refreshment derived from re-experiencing episcopal leadership which is
unequivocally Biblical both in character and in action. The growing
strength of GAFCON both numerically and organisationally bears elegant
testimony to Archbishop Okoh as a worthy successor to Archbishop Akinola
and Archbishop Wabukala.

On Wednesday 15th February the General Synod of the Church of England
will debate whether to "Take Note" of GS2055. Whatever the outcome of
the vote we anticipate that the debate will reveal serious divisions
within the Church of England, with voices of revisionism louder and more
confident than orthodoxy. Unless the House of Bishops has the collective
will to reassert the historic biblical understanding of marriage and
publicly explain it, a trajectory that takes the Church ever further way
from its own foundation documents seems inevitable. The ever growing
number of orthodox Anglicans abandoned by the Church of England as is
embraces secularism in the futile pursuit of popularity will find a warm
welcome in the global, confessionally Anglican fellowship which is
GAFCON.



------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 21:56:43 -0500
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: Damning verdict on response to child abuse in Australia
Message-ID:
<1487386603.527255....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Damning verdict on response to child abuse in Australia

ACNS
February 13, 2017

Royal Commission examining allegations of child sexual abuse in
Australia has delivered a damning verdict on a system which enabled a
culture of abuse to flourish.

The report by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child
Sexual Abuse comes after public hearings into how the Church of
England's Boys' Society (CEBS) and the Anglican dioceses of Tasmania,
Adelaide, Brisbane and Sydney dealt with claims of abuse. The hearings,
in Hobart, Tasmania, were told of allegations of abuse by lay people and
clergy associated with CEBS in the 1970s and 1980s.

The report concluded that most CEBS branches were able to operate in an
autonomous and unregulated way. As a result, a culture developed in
which attackers had easy access to boys and opportunities to sexually
abuse them. It found the abuse often happened at camps, on sailing and
fishing trips and on overnight stays at rectories and private homes.

The report also found that there were networks of sexual predators at
CEBS who had knowledge of each other's offending. A number of abuse
survivors told the hearing they were shared by abusers or their abusers
were aware of the conduct of other attackers.

The Royal Commission found that the CEBS National Council's only formal
response to the abuse was to revoke the national awards it had given to
some offenders. It had considered making a formal apology for the abuse
in 2008 and 2009 but decided against it.

The Anglican Dioceses of Tasmania, Adelaide and Brisbane held three
separate inquiries into child sexual abuse but there was no
investigation into whether there was an organised network of offenders
or a culture which facilitated the abuse.

A number of systemic issues within CEBS, the Anglican Church of
Australia and the dioceses of Tasmania, Adelaide, Brisbane and Sydney
were identified by the report. These included:

* Child sexual abuse being treated as one-off offences or incidents of
aberrant behaviour
* Historically, allegations of child sexual abuse not being reported to
the police in timely way or not at all
* Limited sharing of information between dioceses about allegations of
child sexual abuse
* A lack of child protection policies and procedures within CEBS
* Minimisation of offending
* A focus on protection of the church, dioceses, CEBS and individual
clergy

Read the Report here:
http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/getattachment/64814c11-ff18-4fae-922a-e42b2d286422/Report-of-Case-Study-No-36



------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 21:57:18 -0500
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: ACNA orders valid state Archbishops of Canterbury and York
Message-ID:
<1487386638.527272....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

ACNA orders valid state Archbishops of Canterbury and York
Recognition of the Orders of the Anglican Church in North America

By Donald Allister
http://transfigurations.blogspot.com/2017/02/acna-orders-valid-state-archbishops-of.html
Feb. 10, 2017

The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have recognised the orders of the
Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) under the Overseas and Other
Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure 1967. The Measure gives the
Archbishops authority to determine whether the orders of any Church are
'recognised and accepted' by the Church of England for the purposes of
the Measure.

This follows work undertaken by the Church of England's Faith and Order
Commission (FAOC) in consultation with the Council for Christian Unity
both (a) to clarify the general criteria by which the Church of England
recognises the ministry of those whose orders are of churches within the
historic episcopate and with whom the Church of England is not in
communion, and (b) to consider whether the orders of ACNA meet these
criteria. The work on the general criteria is presented in Recognition
by the Church of England of Orders Conferred in Other Churches,
available on the FAOC page of the Church of England website. The work on
ACNA specifically was communicated to the Archbishops, whose
responsibility it is to make the decision in such cases. The
Archbishops, having carefully reflected on this advice, have decided to
act on it by formally recognising ACNA's orders.

When someone who was originally ordained in ACNA or any other church
whose orders are recognised under the Measure wishes to minister in the
Church of England, the first questions to be considered are those of
whether the person concerned is suitable for ministry in the Church of
England and if so, whether any further training is necessary. Where
those questions are resolved satisfactorily, the Archbishop of the
relevant Province can decide to give the minister permission to
officiate in the Church of England without being ordained in the Church
of England, either permanently or for a specified period.

Other churches whose orders the Church of England recognises although it
is not in communion with them are the Roman Catholic Church, the
Reformed Evangelical Anglican Church of South Africa (formerly known as
the Church of England in South Africa), and the Free Church of England.

These churches are distinct from those with which the Church of England
is in communion, which include all churches of the Anglican Communion.
For up to date information on this, please see Part 5 of the current
edition of the Church of England Yearbook.

The Bishop of Peterborough Chair, Council for Christian Unity

Bishops Respond to Archbishops canterbury and York announcement

The recognition of orders, as the statement makes clear, is not a
statement of being in communion. The Church of England recognises
validly, if irregularly, conferred orders of bodies like CESA or the
FCE. This does not mean it is in communion with them or that they are
members of the Anglican Communion. --- Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali

This will allow, however, some of our clergy who have had resistance
from CoE bishops, to be able to respond to requests to serve in CoE
congregations. --- Archbishop Foley Beach

This is what we expected when this matter was first considered. I would
have been very shocked if the report had been different. It does not put
us in communion with the C of E, but that would be the next step, and
that is what the C of E had indicated it would like to see. Remember the
Resolution of several years ago urging some recognition? --- Bishop
William Wantland

Sorry, I don't care what the Church of England thinks or decides
anymore. Canterbury and the CofE are no longer the center of the
Anglican Communion. As long as ACNA is a full member of GAFCON, that is
what matters. - Dr. Bruce Atkinson



------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 21:57:50 -0500
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: Pro-Homosexual Church of England Dean Spins Smyth Report to
Blacken Evangelicals
Message-ID:
<1487386670.527785....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Pro-Homosexual Church of England Dean Spins Smyth Report to Blacken
Evangelicals

By David W. Virtue, DD
www.virtueonline.org
February 14, 2017

A pro-homosexual Church of England Oxford Dean is attempting to paint
evangelicals as those who "torture and oppress" are therefore
responsible for the Church's alleged homophobia and should accept
same-sex relations as normative.

The Very Rev. Prof Martyn Percy, Dean of Christ Church Cathedral,
Oxford, has made the link in an article published on the website of
Modern Church, a society promoting liberal Christianity, of which he is
a Vice President. (He is not the first to make such allegations and to
attack evangelicals, that "honor" goes to Alan Wilson, Bishop of
Buckingham.)

In the essay, called Beating the bounds in states of unfeeling, Prof
Percy says of the House of Bishops' report, Marriage and Same-Sex
Relations After the Shared Conversations, to be debated at Synod on 15th
February, "We learnt far too much about how tortured the authors all
felt in this debate; and much of their own agonizing and pain. But we
learnt virtually nothing of the pain of the people - the very subjects
of the report - that the church continues to torture and to oppress."

He claims the Bishops' report is guilty of "projective identification"
-- communicating their tensions, chaos and confusion in a way that
causes similar feelings in the reader. He writes, "They project their
powerlessness on to the very groups who most need compassion and
liberation."

Against this background, Channel 4 News reported a police investigation
into Jonathan Smyth QC, a prominent conservative Evangelical and former
chairman of the Iwerne Trust, which raised money for the holidays. The
Camps were the responsibility of Scripture Union at the time. He is
alleged to have carried out 'brutal lashings' on boys in his care, not
at the camps, but in a garden shed near his home.

Professor Percy's essay seeks to understand this tragedy and the
Church's responsibility for it, so lessons are learned to avoid such a
scenario in future. He highlights connections between the Smyth case and
wider issues in the church, including classism, elitism, sexism and
homophobia. Percy sees this, too, as "projective identification". He
says the leaders are working out their own ambivalences and hostilities
towards their own bodies and desires.

He critiques the conservative evangelical doctrine of
"complementarianism"- that men and women have different but
complementary roles and responsibilities in marriage, family life and
religious leadership -- which, he argues, "legitimizes
socio-psychological behavior patterns." He writes, "Those men who most
fear their relationship with their own bodies, and the bodies of women
(that is to say their ambivalence, the need to repress their own
desires, often with associated feelings of shame, and sometimes of
disgust; and quite often with some seeking to repress an inchoate
homosexuality) simply transfer that to other groups, and attempt to make
them feel as they do."

Percy concludes by calling for "some revolutionary emotional and
ecclesial intelligence to rectify this. Otherwise, the Church of England
will continue to be a place that is full of "states of unfeeling". It
won't even be able to enter into the experience of women, let alone our
LGBTQ sisters and brothers, who are part of the church."

So what, exactly, is going on here with all this psychobabble dressed up
as serious analysis from the Dean?

Apart from being theological rubbish, it is a brilliant plot by the gay
lobby who were "angry" at the Bishops' report - a proxy anger for the
bishops of Salisbury, Manchester and Liverpool, all of whom would like
to see the ban on gay marriage lifted. Enthusiasts for same-sex marriage
are angry. For them, this subject is the great battleground, and they
are uncompromising fundamentalists. Their most formidable opponents are
the mainstream evangelicals who now provide the greatest drive and
largest number of recruits within the C of E. If the gay marriage
faction can convince the media and public that their opponents are all
John Smyth-style weirdos, they are much more likely to prevail. Indeed,
experts now think the bishops will lose the (advisory) vote on the
report at the Synod because of the Smyth story. Yet more bitterness is
injected into the debate.

The other truth is that Welby had nothing to do with it - he was only an
"intern". He has since apologized, on behalf of the Church,
"unequivocally and unreservedly", saying that it "failed terribly" in
this matter. Actually he did not need to do this, personally or in
general. He was only 21 years old when he was a dormitory captain, and
heard nothing against Mr. Smyth at the time. How would he have known
when the brutal acts never took place at Iwerne? None of this took place
on the grounds of Iwerne camp.

To make the psycho-sexual predator Smyth the poster boy for evangelicals
is like saying that a host of sado-masochistic homosexual priests are
the poster boys for the Roman Catholic Church.

The deeper aim, as one astute observer of the HOB noted, is to vote to
"NOT' take note of the report which will be a test vote on whether they
can command a majority in synod, get a number of people on any further
committee work, and if it succeeds leave the field open for a free for
all.

A brilliant strategy, but will it work? Based on what this writer
observed in The Episcopal Church over many years is that the answer is
probably yes. The divide and conquer strategy can work along with the
relentless push by groups like Integrity and Changing Attitude to keep
pushing the envelope, results sooner or later with a weakened Welby
simply folding his tent and marching towards Changing Attitude, a white
flag in hand, begging Colin Coward's forgiveness. Scripture be damned.
Welby may well turn out to be another Tony Campolo, a renowned
evangelical sociologist and social activist who felt the pain of
homosexuals, but not their sin which might actually keep you out of the
kingdom.

When he was Presiding Bishop, Frank Griswold employed a strategy of
huddling small groups of bishops together, making sure that men and
women with diametrically opposed views had to face each other. That made
it hard for someone like Bill Wantland, Mark Lawrence or a Bob Duncan to
declare homosexuality wrong, when opposite you sat Gene Robinson, ready
to weep tears into his miter about the Church's alleged homophobia.

England's evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics will need to be at their
sharpest to oppose the psycho-babble and pain-feeling bishops and their
acolytes and deal them sound blows with "sound teaching" and good
theology otherwise they will lose the plot and the divide in the
Anglican Communion will only widen making reconciliation impossible.

END



------------------------------

Message: 10
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 21:58:19 -0500
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: The Rapidly Diminishing Anglican Church of Canada
Message-ID:
<1487386699.527838....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

The Rapidly Diminishing Anglican Church of Canada

By David W. Virtue, DD
www.virtueonline.org
February 13, 2017

By any measurable standard, the Anglican Church of Canada is in serious
decline with little hope that the numbers can or will be reversed in the
foreseeable future.

In one diocese after another the third largest denomination in Canada is
declining, its demise now almost certain as it focuses on a host of
social justice issues to the neglect of evangelism, discipleship and
church planting.

The Anglican Church of Canada which is squeamishly shy about publicizing
how many people attend its churches, has published no complete
statistics for membership and average Sunday attendance since 2001,
although the ACoC did claim a membership of 545,957 in 2007.

Today, by all measurable standards the average Sunday attendance in the
Anglican Church of Canada is around 320,000. If this is correct, in 40
years the average attendance will be 19,200 or less. As there is no wave
of Millennials aching to fill Anglican pews this figure is probably
exaggerated.

A recent academic study of Canadian churches revealed that conservative
churches that held to the faith grew, while liberal ones that focused on
social issues were dying. They surveyed some 2,200 churches and, based
on their sampling found, without exception, the clergy and congregants
of the growing mainline Protestant churches held more firmly to
traditional Christian beliefs, such as the belief Jesus rose physically
from the grave and that God answers prayer. The clergy of the growing
churches were the most theologically conservative and the declining
church clergy the least.

This news has not filtered down to Anglicans in Canada, who believe that
brokering pansexuality into the churches as a justice issue (plus a
whole host of other social issues) is more important than bums in pews
vs. bums in the bed.

Several dioceses have revealed the dire straits they are in, largely we
suspect because if they hadn't told us, real estate agents would. The
list is by no means complete, as most dioceses are reluctant to say or
reveal their closures unless a local newspaper runs a story about a
church being sold to a Muslim group or an evangelical start-up.

DIOCESE OF HURON

The Diocese of Huron is experiencing closures, building sales,
amalgamations and more. A gloomy picture is emerging from the Diocese of
Huron: there are too many buildings, too few people and too many
congregations that cannot afford to pay for their priest or maintain
their buildings.

Bishop Linda Nicholls, recently imported from the Diocese of Toronto,
has inherited the mess and will be encouraging parishes to start "the
difficult conversations themselves -- at least initially". Or else.

The blame for all this is being placed on "social transformation";
nothing whatever to do with replacing the Gospel with leftist political
agitation laced with religionless spirituality, writes David of
Samizdat, an orthodox Canadian Anglican blogger.

"Nicholls is doing her best to be relevant to the culture, though - some
might say to the extent of being subsumed in it. She was recently seen
arriving at her diocese marching under a brolly across a rainbow colored
cross-walk, a tribute to London's annual gay pride cavorting. If that
doesn't pull them in and reverse the decline, nothing will," Samizdat
cynically observes.

DIOCESE OF QUEBEC

Despite the fact that many Anglicans are committed to keeping their
churches going, Bishop Dennis Drainville recently noted "the handwriting
is on the wall for the future...we just don't have enough people and we
won't."

Since Drainville took up his position in 2008, the diocese has struggled
through some difficult times financially, and has only recently begun to
stabilize, following an effort to be more strategic with diocesan
investments and the sale of a large number of properties.

"We've been selling a lot of churches...I think we have sold eight or
nine churches in the last couple of years." He adds that the diocese
makes an effort to sell church buildings to local historical societies
or the municipalities in which they are located before putting them on
the open market.

While church officials anticipate fewer closures in the coming years,
due to the fact that most of the churches that were going to close have
already done so, he stresses that there has been a fundamental shift in
how the diocese provides ministry.

"Lay leaders have taken a greater role--there is much more of an
acceptance that you don't have a parish priest," he says. The new model
in his own region, the archdeaconry of St. Francis, is to have a team of
priests and lay readers who share responsibility for the entire
jurisdiction. Whether that is a recipe for success remains to be seen.

DIOCESE OF ALGOMA

Last August the Diocese of Algoma approved the closing of 16
churches...that's 16 churches out of a total of 35, or 45% in the
Muskoka area.

I think it's fair to conclude that an organization that closes 45% of
its outlets is tottering on the brink of extinction, writes Samizdat.

"Any business in this position would do the decent thing, declare
bankruptcy and try something different. Not so in the Anglican Church of
Canada: even though it uses business euphemisms -- churches are
rationalized rather than closed -- its moldering corpse continues to be
propped up by bequests from dead Anglicans and the sale of buildings
belonging to ejected congregations."

"Particularly in Muskoka...we have too many churches," former Bishop
Stephen Andrews, who left the diocese at the end of July to take up the
position of principal of Wycliffe College in Toronto, said in an
interview with the Anglican Journal. "Everybody agrees that there have
to be fewer churches, but nobody agrees on which churches need to be
rationalized--and they are pretty sure that it should be somebody else's
church." Muskoka, one of Algoma's five deaneries, has the largest share
of church buildings--35 of the diocese's 100 churches and chapels.

Two challenges Bishop Anne Germond expects to deal with are the closing
of parishes and same-sex marriage.

"Some of our congregations are certainly unsustainable," she said.
"Parish closures will be part of what we will have to face."

According to a clergyperson within the deanery, who requested anonymity,
the problem is exacerbated by an unwillingness among some parishioners
to drive to a different congregation if their church is closed.

Andrews said he did not believe the financial situation in Muskoka to be
significantly different from that faced in other parts of the church,
and stressed that the reorganization is more about ensuring that
full-time ministry be maintained in as many places as possible.

DIOCESE OF TORONTO

Within the Toronto diocese, there are now many examples of parishes
established years ago that no longer fit their local community's needs.
The symptoms of this mismatch show up in declining Sunday attendance and
shrinking financial resources. It can also be seen in the deterioration
of buildings and church fabric. Parishes are expected to be financially
self-sufficient but parishes in decline often need grants for ministry,
in particular help with building costs. Such parishes also require
disproportionate time of senior clergy/staff, said an official Church
document.

"The Church is doing particularly badly in areas where there is a young
population, ethnic diversity or a population working in blue-collar
industry. The demographic shifts in the diocese have also resulted in
emerging and growing communities where there are no local or adequate
expressions of mission and ministry."

The Diocese of Toronto faces a stark reality: grow or die.

THE DIOCESE OF NIAGARA

The Diocese of Niagara is also in decline. The Diocesan newspaper
recently published some statistics for 2013 and 2014 which revealed that
the average Sunday attendance fell 7.2 percent in one year. If it
remains the same, in 60 years there will be 91 people left in the
diocese or, since there are 89 parishes, around one person per parish --
presumably the priest.

On a less gloomy note, the number of green parishes increased by three,
demonstrating, I suppose, that the diocese overestimated the drawing
power of its Gaia god, writes tongue-in-cheek blogger David of Samizdat.
A number of parishes were closed by the bishop against the will of the
people, resulting in newspaper stories unflattering to the bishop,
Michael A. Bird. The thin-skinned bishop likes litigating against people
who disagree with him or who spoof his stupidities.

The diocese's decline can also be attributed to what the diocese say
they now believe. Here is what we found in the diocese's
newspaper...shades of John Shelby Spong. "The church must change or
atrophy. The concept of Original Sin is the key to obsolete beliefs
including propitiatory sacrifice and substitutionary atonement.
Likewise, to blame afflicted people for their personal torments is
presumptuous in the extreme. God did not create us evil and prone to
diseases as punishment for our fallen state. Humanity is not fallen.
Original Sin is not a concept even mentioned in the Bible. Original
Blessing, its opposite, is, yet we allow ourselves to be "guilted" about
Jesus dying for our sins." These theological insights were signed by
someone called Paul Winter, Missa Gaia.

DIOCESE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Just half a century ago, 40 per cent of Vancouver Island's population
was Anglican; now the figure is 1.2 per cent. On Vancouver Island, the
diocese closed 14 of its 59 churches on the Island and the southern Gulf
Islands because of falling attendance.

Five other churches were renamed and became so-called "hub churches,"
which would provide services in the areas affected by closures, reported
Bishop James Cowan.

NATIONALLY

Nationally, between 1961 and 2001, the Anglican Church of Canada lost 53
per cent of its membership, declining to 642,000 from 1.36 million.
Between 1991 and 2001 alone, it declined by 20 per cent.

According to the report, the dioceses - "like most across Canada" - are
in crisis. The report repeats, without qualification or question, the
results of a controversial study presented to Anglican bishops five
years ago that said that at the present rate of decline - a loss of
13,000 members per year - only one Anglican would be left in Canada by
2061.

END



------------------------------

Message: 11
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 21:58:45 -0500
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: Welby's Masonic Service at Canterbury Cathedral at Odds with
the Christian Faith
Message-ID:
<1487386725.527835....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Welby's Masonic Service at Canterbury Cathedral at Odds with the
Christian Faith

By David W. Virtue, DD
www.virtueonline.org
January 10, 2017

The Archbishop of Canterbury is following the example of President
Donald Trump's thumbing his nose at the US judicial system.

In blatant defiance of a recent ruling against Freemasonry by an
ecclesiastical judge of the Church of England, Justin Welby is opening
his archiepiscopal cathedral at Canterbury to a full-scale Masonic
service on February 18, 2017.

Canterbury Cathedral agreed to hold the service of thanksgiving to
celebrate 300 years of Freemasonry after receiving a donation of
?300,000 ($374,520) from the Masons for the restoration of the
North-West Transept in the Cathedral.

This is in complete violation of the spirit of the ruling by Chancellor
Geoffrey Tattersall (Queen's Counsel) who as the judge in the Consistory
Court of the Diocese of Carlisle banned a family from having the
Freemasons square and compass emblem engraved on the gravestone of a
Freemason who died after devoting much of his life to the organization.

The set square and compass is a Masonic symbol and can be found on a
number of large wooden tables at Liverpool Cathedral where Justin Welby
was Dean before becoming Bishop of Durham and Archbishop of Canterbury.

While Welby was Dean of Liverpool he accepted a gift of ?69,000
($86,139) by the West Lancashire Freemasons' Charity, which was used to
install a new elevator in the Lady Chapel in Liverpool Cathedral despite
the uneasiness many felt about Welby's and the Cathedral's close
association with Freemasonry.

The service at Canterbury Cathedral is expected to last about three
hours and it is not clear whether Archbishop Welby has given his
permission for the Masons to participate in full regalia.

Judge Tattersall's ruling delivered on 8 September 2016 was met with an
angry response from the Masonic community. In his ruling, the judge
stated that epitaphs on the gravestone "must be entirely compatible with
the Christian faith."

Though Provincial Grand Master Keith Hodgson had argued that the Masonic
symbol "can be seen in most cemeteries in this area," Judge Tattersall
ruled that "no evidence has been produced to me that such symbol appears
in any Church of England churchyards in the Diocese."

Tattersall's judgement was also questioned as he failed to disclose the
symbols in prominent sections of Liverpool Cathedral and other
cathedrals and did not disclose how he had arrived at the judgement that
no such symbol has been used on any other gravestone. Liverpool
Cathedral under Welby had permitted the symbol to be engraved on the
elevator being donated.

Tattersall's ruling quoted at length from the report Freemasonry and
Christianity: Are they compatible? -- a summary of the deliberations by
the General Synod of the Church of England in July 1987.

In his ruling Mr Tattersall quoted the Synod report which stated that
"it was "clear that some Christians have found the impact of Masonic
rituals disturbing and a few perceive them as positively evil." Some
believed that Masonic rituals were "blasphemous" because God's name
"must not be taken in vain, nor can it be replaced by an amalgam of the
names of pagan deities." It noted that Christians had withdrawn from
Masonic lodges "precisely because they perceive their membership of it
as being in conflict with their Christian witness and belief."

"The Synod's primary theological objection centred upon Freemasonry's
use of the word "Jahbulon," which is the name used for the Supreme Being
in Masonic rituals, and is an amalgamation of Semitic, Hebrew and
Egyptian titles for God."

Conservative Christians are angered by Welby's willingness to "accept
large bribes both at Liverpool and at Canterbury Cathedrals and
compromise the very essence of the Christian faith when even the Roman
Catholic church bans Freemasonry in its Canon Law," as a senior
clergyman told VOL. "How can Welby expect his clergy to follow the law
of the Church and accept discipline when he himself so dismissively
treats such a significant issue when both General Synod and an
ecclesiastical court have so clearly ruled on the issue," he said.

Welby's predecessor Dr Rowan Williams took a much firmer doctrinal
position against freemasonry. However, in April 2003, Williams was
forced to apologise to Britain's 330,000 Freemasons after he said that
their beliefs were incompatible with Christianity and that he had
rejected them from senior posts in his diocese.

The Dean of Canterbury Cathedral, the Very Reverend Robert Willis, has
agreed to preside personally at this Service. The Cathedral has agreed
that a special plaque will be placed in the Cathedral building to show
the support given by the Freemasons, as well as a permanent engraving in
the Stonework within the Tower.

END



------------------------------

Message: 12
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 21:59:48 -0500
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: Archbishop Welby Denounced by Bishop of Buckingham over Abuse
of Boys
Message-ID:
<1487386788.527879....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Archbishop Welby Denounced by Bishop of Buckingham over Abuse of Boys
Pro homosexual Bishop of Buckingham claims evangelical theology is to
blame
Canon Dr. Michael Green Repudiates Bishop Wilson's theological claims

By David W. Virtue, DD
www.virtueonline.org
February 9, 2017

The Bishop of Buckingham, the Rt. Rev. Alan Wilson, says that claims
made by Archbishop Justin Welby that he was ignorant of boys being boys
being beaten by John Smyth at his home in Winchester. The Archbishop
vigorously denies any such knowledge. The bishop accused the Archbishop
of lying, but declined to clarify his assertion.

Smyth, now 75 and living in South Africa where he campaigns on morality,
was the head of a Christian charity, the Iwerne Trust, when he helped on
the holiday camps. The young Justin Welby was among the Christian young
men who attended the camps. The camps were where public school
evangelical Christians were sent if they were deemed to have potential
as future leaders in the Church of England.

Smyth was a volunteer leader at the Christian summer "Bash" camps under
the auspices of the Iwerne Trust and Iwene Holidays is alleged to have
beaten as many as 22 boys who attended the camps, some of whom he met at
the camps over a series of years. The attacks only stopped when one
victim, the author of the anonymous letter, attempted to commit suicide.

Founded in 1932 by the Rev. E.J.H. Nash, the "Bash" camps invited boys
from Britain's top 30 public schools to programs that sought to mold
their character and worldview. Over 7000 boys have attended the camps,
including many influential church leaders such as John Stott, David
Sheppard, Michael Green, Dick Lucas and Justin Welby.

According to U.K. evangelist Canon Dr. Michael Green, there were no such
beatings at Iwerne! "They occurred in a shed on his property in
Winchester, and later in Zimbabwe."

Canon Green, a contemporary of John R.W. Stott, said he went to these
camps three times a year for about 8 years and he never saw or heard of
anything untoward. "Smyth was not there in my day. He was clearly a
sadist and the beatings recorded are horrific. The Iwerne camps and Bash
in particular were major formative influences in my life and that of my
friends, many of whom have become substantial Christian leaders at home
or abroad. I learnt there, as I have never learnt so well elsewhere, how
to lead an inductive Bible study without dominating it, how to preach
for decision, and how to help an individual to faith. Bash himself is
one of the greatest pastors I have known with immense insight, humor and
a strong evangelistic gift without being emotional."

Wilson says Welby's ignorance of the abuse was not credible and alleges
he would have known and talked about allegations of abuse.

In a statement released from the Lambeth Palace press office, the
Archbishop said he had no knowledge of the abuse until 2013. "John Smyth
was one of the main leaders at the camp and although the Archbishop
worked with him, he was not part of the inner circle of friends; no one
discussed allegations of abuse by John Smyth with him. The Archbishop
left England to work in Paris for an oil company in 1978, where he
remained for five years. He began training for ordination in 1989. The
Archbishop knew Mr. Smyth had moved overseas but, apart from the
occasional card, did not maintain contact with him," the statement said.

Later, in a revealing statement, the Bishop of Guildford, Andrew Watson,
said he reported to the police the abuse committed against him. "I am
one of the survivors of John Smyth's appalling activities in the late
1970s and early '80s. I am also one of the bishops in the Church of
England. This has placed me in a unique and challenging position when it
comes to the events of the past few days."

Buckingham Bishop Blames Evangelical Theology

But then Bishop Wilson launched into a tirade, charging the abuse at the
socially exclusive "Bash" camps in the 1970s was fueled by their
conservative evangelical worldview, which promulgated a "nasty" and
"punitive" doctrine of a vicious God.

In an interview, Wilson linked evangelical theology with "violence and
nastiness."

"These camps and [Smyth] activities had extraordinary influence among
senior evangelicals in the Church of England of my generation. Pretty
much everybody who was anybody in the leadership of public school
Anglican evangelicalism had something to do with John Smyth's
operation."

Wilson said, the "bigger question is what lies behind it really about
the mentality of these people who have been immensely influential in the
Church of England."

The "theology that these people." conservative evangelicals, "bring to
the table very often has an element of violence and sort of nastiness in
it, a kind of element of punitive behavior. God is seen as this punitive
figure who is somehow out to 'get' people and I suppose it does blind
people to what's going on in front of them sometimes, when there is that
kind of violent basic theology."

Canon Dr. Michael Green Repudiates Bishops' claims

Canon Green fought back saying that Bishop Wilson is a thorn in the side
of the diocese and nobody can understand why he was ever made a
suffragan!

"The Bishop of Buckingham is only a suffragan, but he makes a lot of
controversial statements to the media. He does not like biblical
standards nor the evangelicals who uphold them.

"He is in favor of gay sex and same sex marriage, thus contravening the
agreed position of the worldwide bishops in Lambeth 1.10, and the recent
declaration by the English House of Bishops upholding traditional
Christian standards. He certainly does not speak for the Church of
England.

"Coming from such a position it is rich that he should blame
evangelicals for the Smyth affair. The horrible behavior of Mr. Smyth
has nothing to do with being an evangelical but everything to do with
his being a sadist, who managed to cover it up for far too long."

Dr. Green, the author of some 50 books and a leading world authority on
evangelism, said he was enormously helped as a teenager and young man by
the house parties at Iwerne Minster, where he went for companionship and
Christian nurture three times a year for some 8 years. "I never saw or
heard of anything remotely improper among boys or leaders. There was no
trace either of homosexuality or of sadism. The Bishop of Buckingham
demeans himself by suggesting that sadism marks evangelicals. Most of
his statements are regarded with skepticism in this diocese. This recent
charge of his will only deepen it."

Wilson's attack on evangelical Christianity comes with his own personal
bias. He is one of a handful of decidedly pro homosexual bishops in the
Church of England who, when asked at a discrimination case brought by
homosexual activist Canon Jeremy Pemberton against the Church, described
the Church of England's teaching that marriage is only between a man and
a woman as "a lousy definition".

The Bishop has also given his outspoken support for changing the
church's teaching on human sexuality, which has led to a quiet rebellion
in the diocese of Oxford. Some parishes under his jurisdiction have
asked the Bishop of Oxford to send another bishop to their churches for
visitations and confirmations, as the Bishop of Buckingham does not have
their confidence.

One victim, Mark Stibbe, attacked the Bishop for his statement about the
theology behind the allegations. He tweeted that Bishop Wilson was
treating victims like a "theological test case" rather than people.

"These camps and this man's [Smyth] activities had extraordinary
influence among senior evangelicals in the Church of England of my
generation. Pretty much everybody who was anybody in the leadership of
public school Anglican evangelicalism had something to do with John
Smyth's operation."

The Rev. David Robertson, minister of St Peters, Dundee and director of
the Solas Centre for Public Christianity said, "While I expect the more
extreme atheist secularists to take this kind of line (and to be fair
many secularists would not make that kind of clumsy connection), it is
more than a little disappointing that a professing Christian leader
should use this tragic case to further a particular
theological/political agenda within the church. It is as reprehensible
as those who would use the fact that some Catholic priests have been
found guilty of child sexual abuse, as a reason for denouncing
Catholicism per se.

CORRECTION: There have been some serious corrections to this story based
on new evidence sent to me from England. Mr. Smyth only helped in
running the camps. Also none of the abuse took place at the camps
themselves, only at his home. We regret the misinformation.

END



------------------------------

Message: 13
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 22:00:18 -0500
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: On Synod, sexuality and not "Taking note"
Message-ID:
<1487386818.527901....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

On Synod, sexuality and not "Taking note"

By Ian Paul
PSEPHIZO
http://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/on-synod-sexuality-and-not-taking-note/
February 16, 2017

Yesterday the General Synod of the Church of England debated the report
offered by the House of Bishops outlining where we had got to in the
debate about sexuality. The form of the debate was unusual; rather than
proposing anything, the motion was simply to 'Take note' of the report,
which essentially means acknowledging that it exists. In most contexts,
this functions as an opportunity for general discussion, after which a
substantive motion is offered which proposes action in the light of the
report. Because of this, 'Take note' votes are usually uncontroversial;
a Synod 'old hand' commented that, in 28 years of experience, the person
had only known of 2 or 3 occasions where a 'Take note' motion had not
been passed.

But because there was no substantive motion offered, many of those who
were unhappy with the report saw the 'Take note' motion as the only
opportunity to express their view about the contents, even though such a
motion technically does not mean that. Jayne Ozanne, a lay member from
Oxford, seems to have spent the last weeks and months working full time
on a PR campaign against the report, and this bore fruit in the voting.
Overall, Synod 'took note' by 242 to 184, with 6 abstentions (and about
20 members of Synod not present or not voting). But, as is common when
there is controversy or a close vote, there was a call for a vote 'by
houses' i.e. the votes of bishops, clergy and laity are counted
separately, and a motion is only passed if it passed by all three
groups. The votes were:

43 to 1 amongst the bishops (but it turns out the 1 against was an
error, and one abstention was not registered);
93 to 100 with 2 abstentions amongst the clergy; and
106 to 83 with 4 abstentions amongst the laity.
Because of the clergy vote, the motion to 'Take note' was not passed.

The question is: what does this mean? The answers varied, from 'a rebuke
to the bishops' (Martin Bashir of the BBC, Harry Farley on Christian
Today) to 'Anglicans come a step closer to gay marriages in church' in
the Telegraph. To understand this, we need to consider both the reasons
behind the vote, and the consequences of it.

The report itself was seen by many 'traditionalists' as positive, in
that it made clear that there was no consensus for change in the
Church's doctrine of marriage. That infuriated those pressing for
change, and explains the energy behind the campaign not to 'Take note';
it was explained as frustration with the tone of the report, but most
comments argued that the only change of tone that would have mattered
was a change in direction and recommendations. Others who were
sympathetic to the position stated did still find the detached feel of
the report unsatisfactory, but for many there was also a sense of lack
of connection with the Shared Conversations process, which was costly in
more ways than one. Andrew Goddard analysed what he thought the bishops
were aiming to cover in the report, but then asks the pertinent
question: how did they end up with the conclusion they offered? Given
that the group and the House must have considered a range of possible
options, in the light of the Shared Conversations, why weren't we
informed what those options were, and why they were discounted?

It would, perhaps, have been helpful to the wider church if the bishops
in their report had shown us more of their workings here. This could
have addressed such questions as:

How many other options were considered?
What were these other options and why were they framed as they were?
What evidence -- biblical, theological, pastoral, legal, missional,
ecclesiological -- was presented in their favour?
What were the primary objections which meant they lacked sufficient
"weight of opinion"? (These were presumably a mix of the more pragmatic
for some -- though desirable they would not achieve the necessary
majorities in Synod to become a reality or in doing so risked causing
division -- and more theologically principled and biblically based for
others)
Can the bishops -- drawing on the Shared Conversations -- help the
church as a whole to understand the "very wide spectrum" there is even
among the bishops, why different positions are held on that spectrum,
why we are so divided, and where the heart of our disagreements lie?
What sort of process (a formal vote for and against each one or simply a
sense of the meeting? the use of the Single Transferable Vote to choose
between options?) was used to determine that one had "a clear (although
not unanimous) weight of opinion"?
I suspect the practical answer is that this would have given too many
hostages to fortune--but without this kind of explanation, many felt the
bishops were simply saying: 'This is where we are--trust us' and that
trust was lacking for a whole range of reasons.

But the vote cannot be understood without taking into account one other
group: Conservative evangelicals. Alongside the commitment to leave
marriage unchanged, there were several contrary indicators, included
either as a genuine reflection of the range of views amongst the bishops
or (if you are more cynical) as an exercise in balancing. A key phrase
here is allowing 'maximum freedom within the law' for pastoral
provision, and Conservatives saw that as an alarming compromise within
the report. In the Synod debate, I had the impression that two moments
were key for them. The first was the speech of Paul Bayes, Bishop of
Liverpool, who wanted to honour the 'anger, the fury' of campaigners (I
am still trying to work out where in Scripture 'fury' towards your
fellow believers is a commended virtue), and who was determined to make
the most of 'maximum freedom' in his diocese.

The second came in Archbishop Justin Welby's speech, the last to be
taken, in which he emphasised the need for 'Christian inclusion'. I am
not clear whether he intended the emphasis to be on 'Christian' or
'inclusion', but it was clearly a trigger phrase for Conservatives, who
put it alongside Justin's other positive comments about gay
relationships as a signal that he cannot be trusted on this issue.
Though I don't agree with their approach, I can understand this
viewpoint. He concluded his short speech with:

The way forward needs to be about love, joy and celebration of our
humanity; of our creation in the image of God, of our belonging to
Christ -- all of us, without exception, without exclusion.

If this means anything, I am not sure what it does mean. Including
clergy defying the Church's teaching, and ignoring their bishop and
their ordination vows? Including 'non-realists' who don't believe in the
existence of God? Including all? Moving boundaries is one thing, but
abolishing them is quite another. (And where is mention of kingdom,
redemption, newness of life?) Once Justin had said this, the die was
cast, and I suspect just enough Conservatives joined with liberals in
voting not to take note for the motion to fall. James Oakley was spot on
when he commented:

Each group found the bits they disliked. The progressives really
disliked the idea that marriage was not to be redefined. The
traditionalists distrusted the idea that developments on the ground
could now unfold without necessarily having future input from
Synod...The report fell not because it was too conservative. It fell
because it pleased no-one. It tried to hold together what cannot be held
together. It was a pantomime horse.

One of the speeches which attracted most applause was from Simon Butler,
Prolocutor (chair) of the House of Clergy. He began with a story in
which I (unnamed) had a starring role:

I want to reflect on my relationship with a member of this Synod. He was
the first person I ever told I was gay, 27 years ago. I will always be
grateful to him: he listened without judgement and promised to accompany
me on my journey. He gave me a card of a shadowy road lit by sunlight.
It remained on my study wall for years.

Our paths separated. His ministry has taken a particular path. He got
married and had kids. I met my partner fifteen years ago. Synod has
brought us back together and we find ourselves serving the church in
close proximity. I've told him something of my life and it has not been
hard to see how difficult that is for him. He believes me to be living
dishonestly in relation to the doctrine of the church. A red line has
been crossed for him.

And of course it's wounding for me too, working alongside someone who
believes that about me. GS2055 took me over a red line too. What that
means for future working remains to be seen. It's too early to tell.
But, despite those red lines being crossed the Church of England forces
us to work together. It may not be Good Disagreement. But it is, I
believe, just about Workable Disagreement.

Whenever I hear this story I am moved, not least because I never knew
how Simon felt about it all until he posted it in a comment on this blog
last year. (In passing, it also demonstrates that it is perfectly
possible to be welcoming without being 'affirming'.) But yesterday it
felt bittersweet, because it seemed as though Simon was trying to
compensate for having lied about me, to Synod, from the platform, in his
story about 'the message' he received on Monday. And believing his lie,
the Archbishop paraded me as 'the perfect example of how not to act' and
the antitype to Jesus' restraint and discipline in the temptations, in
his Presidential Address. (Note to self: if I am going to damn someone
in public, first check whom I am damning and whether it is for good
reason.) I don't think I have featured so prominently in Synod before
without uttering a single word.

More significantly, Simon draws a parallel between what has been for
each of us a 'red line' that has been crossed--but there is a
difference. My 'red line' relates to what the Church actually teaches,
articulating its understanding of the teaching of Jesus and Scripture,
to which we as clergy have made a public commitment. Simon's 'red line'
relates to his anger with the report, and the disappointment that it
brought. If we are equating aspiration, however laudable, and
disappointment, however well founded, with the compromise of actual
commitment to the teaching and doctrine of the Church, then I think we
are in a very difficult place. In the light of the enormous lobbying and
PR that went on, I wonder whether yesterday's debate was the beginning
of a new era: doing theology by social media. If so, it does not augur
well.

Simon welcomed the debate as marking 'a new era of honesty and
openness.' But for many in the chamber it was experienced as just the
opposite. Questions on Monday were dominated by a few angry voices, and
it seemed that everything in the Church was somehow linked to the
question of sexuality. Many who support the Church's current teaching,
particularly those who are celibate as single and/or same-sex attracted,
were fearful of speaking because of the atmosphere of intimidation,
manipulation and even bullying. The response of one campaigner to this?
'Now you know how we have been feeling.' (Thankfully in terms of media
coverage, the debate on Wednesday had a better feel--though the balance
of speakers was skewed.) How have we got to this, where people are
afraid to speak up in agreement with the teaching of the Church and of
their bishops--in front of those self-same bishops and in the Synod of
the Church?

Simon's concluding comment drew on the story of Jacob wrestling with the
angel at the Jabbock.

I thought that would be my last word but, as we worshipped last evening,
a text of scripture came to be as a bolt from the blue. Genesis 32:26:
"I will not let you go until you bless me." Despite the enormous
difficulty it presents, I say to that person who sent me that text and
who finds my presence in this place so difficult, "I will not let you go
until you bless me."

The statement has been picked up as a slogan, and as a sign of generous
engagement on Simon's behalf. But is that how it is functioning? Simon
seems to me to be saying: 'I am not going to leave until I get what I
want from you.' And used in this way, it is completely disconnected from
its meaning in the Genesis narrative.

Jacob is, literally, a 'heel'. He has been wheeling and dealing,
plotting and scheming, since the day he was born. He appears to think
that he will not get anything--from other people or from God--without
using guile and cunning. It all comes to a head in the moment of crisis
at the Jabbock, where he spends all night wrestling with (the angel of)
God. The wrestling seems to symbolise Jacob's struggle that God will
actually give him anything good without his getting it for himself: 'God
helps those who help themselves' it seems to him. As the climax of this
struggle, perhaps as his final act of grasping for himself what God
actually longs to give him, he demands a blessing. And he gets one. But
he gets two others 'gifts' as well. The first is a wound, a limp, which
disables him and reminds him for the rest of his life that it is not his
strength or his cunning which in the end are the most important things.
And he gets a new attitude--an attitude of humility, obedience and
gratitude. He has finally learned to accept what God has given him, and
to follow God's calling, even if he thinks that he could do better by
his own cunning--but he cannot. To remind him of the moment, his name is
changed to Israel, and the people who then bore his name had to be
constantly reminded of the same lesson--that flourishing lay in
receiving from God his grace and his call to obedience, rather than in
wrestling using their own cunning.

But Simon's use of the phrase turns it into exactly the opposite. He has
isolated it, stripped it of its narrative clothing, and put it to work
as a weapon in service of an ideology. And as this happens, God is
silenced. This process of atomisation, isolation and decontextualisation
is writ large all over the argument for change in the Church's teaching,
and it is why the debate is about so much more than just sex and
marriage. It is about whether we will allow God to speak to us by his
Spirit through the pages of Scripture, and in so speaking will form us
in the likeness of Christ.

Simon demands a blessing from me, but in doing so he is asking me to
bless that which Scripture says God does not bless. Paul talks of the
'love of Christ which constrains us' (2 Cor 5.14) and if we are to be a
loving Church, we must love with the love of Christ. Instead, my
continuing affection for and commitment to Simon makes me pray that he
(and I equally) will learn the lesson of Jacob/Israel, to accept God's
grace and calling to obedience as sufficient. It is not loving to bless
what God does not bless--neither is it loving to demand such blessing
from others.

That is the heart of our dilemma as a Church, and no amount of language
of 'inclusion' will resolve this.

What practical difference will the vote make? It will not lead to a new
report, since we cannot consider one on the same issue in the life of
this Synod. It is difficult to see how the position of the bishops will
change; if some break ranks, many will respond 'Why didn't you speak up
earlier?' It might lead to a fracture in the House of Bishops, as some
clearly hope--which will mean dioceses diverging in their teaching and
policies. If so, evangelicals will start to withdraw both cooperation
and funding--so keep an eye out for the next diocese to run out of
money. It has perhaps raised hopes for change again--which are likely to
be dashed once more, at least in terms of formal change in the Church.
In introducing the report, Graham James, Bishop of Norwich, emphasised
yet again that changing this teaching, shared in much of the Anglican
Communion and ecumenically, wasn't in the gift of the Church.

What it has done is highlighted the deep divisions in the Church--but
done nothing to heal them. Not only do we disagree, we even disagree
about what it is we disagree on. And it has set clergy against their
bishops. Some will ask what the bishops have been doing all these years,
in terms of teaching and training and holding clergy to appropriate
account, to lead to such a deep level of mistrust. But others might ask
clergy what they think they are doing in rejecting the teaching of those
to whom they have pledged canonical obedience. Either which way, it is
incoherent, and no way to run a railway. And in the end it has
demonstrated the power of this issue to break the Church. Those seeking
change have demonstrated their determination to continue pushing,
regardless of the consequences.

As Zachary Giuliano concludes: there are no winners.



------------------------------

Message: 14
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 22:00:40 -0500
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: Church of England gay marriage vote thrown into chaos after
members 'get confused and press wrong button'
Message-ID:
<1487386840.527971....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Church of England gay marriage vote thrown into chaos after members 'get
confused and press wrong button'

By Olivia Rudgard
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/16/bishop-apologises-accidentally-pressing-wrong-button-crucial/
16 FEBRUARY 2017

The Church of England's crucial vote on gay marriage has been thrown
into doubt after the Bishop of Coventry admitted he accidentally voted
against the report and several others may have made the same mistake.

The Right Reverend Dr Christopher Cocksworth apologised for the mistake
last night, which he said was because of "a moment of distraction and
some confusion over the voting process".

The bishop insisted that he did in fact support the report written by
his colleagues and was "embarrassed" to have accidentally rejected it.

It has since emerged that some members have suggested that clergy had
made the same mistake.

Rev Peter Ould, of Canterbury, said he had heard from other synod
members who had also voted "no" incorrectly.

He added: "I've spoken to two members of the house of laity who were
confused, one of whom was very clear that he voted the wrong way. It
would need four members of the house of clergy to say that they made a
mistake for the result to change.

"They voted the wrong way because they weren't sure of what they voted
on. One I spoke to thought they were still voting on procedure aspects
rather than the actual substantive motion."

Other members said that they had voted the wrong way because they
thought they were voting on a point of procedure, and not the actual
debate.

Prominent Anglican blogger Archbishop Cranmer tweeted: "If a bishop can
do it, so can four members of clergy. How precarious is digital
democracy."

The lay synod member, who accidentally voted against the report but did
not want to be named, told magazine Christian Today about the chaos in
the chamber, saying a lot of people were unsure what they were voting
for.

"Other people around me were talking about their own misunderstandings,"
he said.

"The voting wasn't clear. I have concerns, someone got shouted over, it
was very confusing."

He added: "It was more of a colluding with people rather than an orderly
debate."

In response to the confusion the Church of England reminded members to
be more careful with their voting machines.

A spokesman said: "We are aware that the Bishop of Coventry and a member
of the House of Laity have reported pressing the wrong button in the
vote following the take note debate on the House of Bishops' Report on
marriage and Same-Sex Relationships

"As the results in both the House of Bishops and House of Laity were
strongly in favour of the report there is no material difference to the
outcome of the vote.

"It is the responsibility of Synod members to follow debates and the
business of Synod carefully and to cast their votes accordingly."

The technical problems raise questions about whether the vote, which was
only lost by seven votes in the house of clergy, can stand.

The report, which was rejected last night after the House of Clergy
voted against it by 100 votes to 93, said that the Church should
preserve current teaching on gay marriage, which says that marriage is
between one man and one woman and gay couples cannot marry in church.

Members of the general synod, which is the Church of England's general
assembly, take votes using a hand-held device which has three buttons -
one which means approval, one which means rejection and a third which
means abstention.

The other two houses of the Synod, bishops and laity, both voted to
"take note" of the report. But there was surprise when it was revealed
that one bishop had voted against it.

Sources said they believed the rejection came from the more liberal
members of the clergy who thought the Church should ultimately drop its
opposition to gay marriage.

Members said it was "grudging and condescending", "divorced from
reality" and made the Church look "unkind" and homophobic.

In a statement, Bishop Christopher admitted to being the dissenter and
said: "Much to my embarrassment, I have managed to give the impression
that there was not complete agreement in the House of Bishops that the
Report provided us with the best way forward.

"Due to a moment of distraction and some confusion over the voting
process, I pressed the wrong button on my handset, thus registering a
vote against taking note rather than a vote for taking note of the
Report!

"I have apologised to my colleagues in the House of Bishops and to the
Archbishops for my mistake."

END



------------------------------

Message: 15
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 22:01:05 -0500
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: Statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury following today's
General Synod
Message-ID:
<1487386865.527971....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury following today's General
Synod

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/
15th February 2017

Statement from Archbishop Justin Welby following the General Synod's
vote "not to take note" of a Report by the House of Bishops on the
report earlier today on Marriage and Same-Sex Relationships.

"No person is a problem, or an issue. People are made in the image of
God. All of us, without exception, are loved and called in Christ. There
are no 'problems', there are simply people.

How we deal with the real and profound disagreement - put so
passionately and so clearly by many at the Church of England's General
Synod debate on marriage and same-sex relationships today - is the
challenge we face as people who all belong to Christ.

To deal with that disagreement, to find ways forward, we need a radical
new Christian inclusion in the Church. This must be founded in
scripture, in reason, in tradition, in theology; it must be based on
good, healthy, flourishing relationships, and in a proper 21st century
understanding of being human and of being sexual.

We need to work together - not just the bishops but the whole Church,
not excluding anyone - to move forward with confidence.

The vote today is not the end of the story, nor was it intended to be.
As bishops we will think again and go on thinking, and we will seek to
do better. We could hardly fail to do so in the light of what was said
this afternoon.

The way forward needs to be about love, joy and celebration of our
humanity; of our creation in the image of God, of our belonging to
Christ - all of us, without exception, without exclusion."



------------------------------

Message: 16
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 22:01:32 -0500
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: Archbishop of Canterbury's address to General Synod
Message-ID:
<1487386892.527973....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Archbishop of Canterbury's address to General Synod

Justin Welby
Feb. 14, 2017

In around 1905 the Orthodox Churches began to consider that, since it
was well over 1,000 years since their previous Synod, it was about time
for another one. They began preparatory work in earnest in around 1965
and so last June, for two weeks in Crete, the Great and Holy Synod was
held. Although some people did not attend, it was generally considered a
success, and the conclusions it reached are now being widely studied.

I wanted to begin there to put some perspective on our practice as
Synod. I am not, to be clear suggesting we move to a once in a
millennium regularity of meetings, neither am I raising any question as
to how often we do meet. By most standards of churches including other
Anglican ones we meet very frequently. This is especially true for
churches where there is a historical and personal episcopacy, rather
than episcopacy found in a conference or gathering. That is a
consequence of our history and of our delegated power to make national
law in England.

We live and think synodically, in terms of parties, procedures and
attitudes. We work on winning votes which means we develop well
organised parties which meet and co-ordinate speeches and responses even
to quite routine bits of legislation. We may not be at the stage of the
House of Commons, with three line whips, but we have some resemblance to
the Lords, with party groups and a mass of cross bench members whose
vote is far less predictable.

People become experts in the ways and procedures of the Synod. When
looking at proposals all of us think about what the response of the
General Synod will be, how to get things through, or block them. That is
both normal and proper.

Yet, because we are followers of Christ, participating in this Synod in
His name, we need to remember the dangers and temptations. We turn then
to look at Luke 4:1-12.

In all three temptations Barth sees Satan encouraging Jesus to "take
from now on a direction which will not need to have the cross as its end
and goal."

We cannot ever forget that as Christians we are a cross shaped people.

We are to follow the one who was crucified, expecting the same or worse
treatment at the hands of the world. That is the promise and warning of
Jesus to his followers.

We are to carry the cross as we follow. We are to be publicly, openly
and convincingly those who are Christians.

We are to abandon all other forms or hopes of salvation, of safety and
hope, than those which come from belonging to the fellowship of the
cross. We are only to rely on God, Barth comments again that we are: "to
live only by this word and promise of God".

The temptations (which of course are mentioned in all three synoptic
gospels, and arguably in different forms in John) have been commented on
and applied millions of times, and there are many ways of seeing them as
they apply to us. I want to pick three things which seem relevant to a
Synod at such a time as this.

First a word about 'at such a time as this'. The word 'uncertainty' to
apply to where we are is surely one of the more overused words of the
era, and I have, to be honest, contributed to its overuse, especially in
my Christmas sermon, deeply unpopular with some. Perhaps a better way of
expressing things is that we are in a time when the future offers a
wider range of opportunity, or of threat, than we have been used to,
culturally, politically and economically.

There are a thousand ways to explain the Brexit vote, or the election of
President Trump, or the strength in the polls in Holland of Geert
Willders or in France of Madame Le Pen and many, other leaders in a
nationalist, populist, or even fascist tradition of politics. Almost
certainly there is no simple explanation, almost certainly the impact of
globalisation economically, or marginalisation politically and of post
modernity culturally have some role to some extent. That will be the
material of a thousand PhDs and no consensus in the next 50 years. We
are in the middle of it all, and we see neither the destination nor the
road.

Whether one was a supporter of Brexit or of remain, there is now a wide
and liberal choice of future for this country. In a recent meeting with
some economists we reviewed the very serious and ultimately
unsustainable balance of payments deficit, the appallingly low levels of
investment by the corporate sector, the near absence of research and
development funding, the dreadful levels of educational aspiration
amongst those who have the least opportunities, the growing demands of
care for an older population to a degree that will put massive strain on
government funding, the skills gap, the lack of progress towards our
goals of a carbon neutral economy, and so on and so on. I really do not
wish to sound like Cassandra, who was never believed, but it did not
seem entirely and unreservedly optimistic.

Yet at the end of an afternoon of bludgeoning ourselves with figures,
not even having reached the end of it, the economists and social
scientists and (I am so sorry but I must use the word) experts (you may
hiss if you like) agreed on one thing: at the heart of all the issues is
one of culture and of values.

This is a moment to reimagine Britain, a moment of potential
opportunity, certainly combined with immensely hard work and heavy
lifting. It is a moment of challenge, but challenge that as a nation can
be overcome with the right practices, values, culture and spirit. This
could be a time of liberation, of seizing and defining the future, or it
could be one in which the present problems seize our national future and
define us.

Which is where we come in. Let's not be too self-important. I don't mean
we, the Church of England, are the answer. But we can be part of the
answer, we have a voice and a contribution and a capacity and a reach
and above all a Lord who is faithful when we fail and faithful when we
flourish.

We educate a million children. We are in every community. We are
embedded in the national history. We can work in partnerships,
ecumenically, interfaith and across society, partnerships that have
grown stronger in this century. When we consider that the Office of
National Statistics ranks White British on free school meals as third
lowest of 18 ethnic categories for educational achievement at GCSE, that
educational provision beyond 16 is struggling, and that we are a major
provider of education our first question must be addressed to ourselves.

We have the skills, the strength, the heritage, most of all the Christ
sent vocation, what are we going to do as Britain is reimagined? How are
we going to contribute to the national future?

There is before the churches of this land, over the next many years, an
extraordinary opportunity to be part of reimagining a new Britain, its
practices, values, aspirations and global role. To do so we must
ourselves be cross shaped, Jesus following, confident in faith and
humble in service, above all outward looking.

Our temptations are those that will make such a national role which we
can have in partnership with many others, impossible.

The only witness for the temptations was Jesus himself. He must have
known his disciples would have similar times of trial -- so he shares
this story with them that they might know his presence with them in the
midst of it being hard, his example and his leading.

There is first the temptation to self-indulgence, to satisfying our
needs within the Church first and foremost. "He ate nothing at all
during those days, and when they were over, he was famished. The devil
said to him, "If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become a
loaf of bread." Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'One does not live
by bread alone.' "

One aspect of this temptation is to meet his own needs, to indulge an
appetite that is both urgent and reasonable. To do so is to avoid the
way of the Cross. Jesus came for a purpose, and that purpose take him
through the cross to the resurrection and the ascension and the sending
of the Spirit and eventual return. All of that would be shipwrecked by
self-indulgence, by using his power for himself rather than continuing
in the full and limited humanity of hunger and frailty at the end of a
great fast.

Wanting to win votes is normal, wanting our point of view to prevail now
is reasonable, yet our vocation as God's people is to subordinate our
interests to God's call to be Christ in the world in which we live. That
is costly. It requires restraint, sense and care for the most
vulnerable.

There are no structures that guarantee safety, or feeling safe, only
right attitudes do. The text received by Simon Butler was an inexcusable
self-indulgence by the sender; a perfect illustration of how not to act.
He rightly said that it or all actions like it eliminate any sense of
safety, and, as Jayne Ozanne says, any sense of trust.

The recent revelations about abuse is another example, about which I
cannot directly comment, because they are the subject of a police
investigation. But on the principle let me be blunt and clear. Abuse has
occurred across every tradition of the church, and in every other
institution, and in society as a whole, and above all in families. It is
part of the human tragedy, and something against which we must struggle.
That struggle has to show genuine concern for survivors. They are people
to be loved, as much as we are able, as one, united church.

We resist this first temptation to self-indulgence through simplicity
and the open and genuine expression of love in action. We pray together,
read scripture together, live as God's family in the world. We are to be
truly synodical, on the way together, the literal meaning of the word
synod. It is a way of the cross, as we will be reminded on Wednesday,
and involves listening, travelling, loving, changing. It is a hard
lesson, often failed.

The second temptation includes a desire for power and glory, for
relevance through demonstrating that our way is effective. "Then the
devil led him up and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the
world. And the devil said to him, To you I will give their glory and all
this authority; for it has been given over to me, and I give it to
anyone I please. If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours."

Jesus answered him, "It is written,

'Worship the Lord your God,

and serve only him.' "

This temptation is one into which the church historically has fallen
continually and still does, whenever the post-Constantinian tendency to
exercise power overtakes us. The Church of England retains influence. We
have at present the extraordinary privilege of sitting in parliament,
the remarkable gift and responsibility of educating, chaplains in every
sphere of life, and a role in public life of the nation. We have a
heritage of presence across England, burdensome although it may
sometimes be, and the vocation of being the default point of help and
support in times of trouble, or celebration in times of joy.

It may not be what it was, although Golden Age nostalgia syndrome is a
deeply unreliable guide to history, but it remains a gift and heritage
beyond value, offering opportunities for service and love beyond all our
deserving.

It is a heritage to be used confidently, but not arrogantly. We are not
to seek to rule, but to love and serve, to validate what God alone has
given us, by grace and not by our deserving, through our commitment to
be with the people of England in all circumstances, regardless of
whether they agree with us or not. We wash all feet indiscriminately,
and thus must affect our language, our attitudes and a profound desire
to do good rather than to be given influence and power.

In the necessary reimagination of our country we cannot dictate but we
must participate. Participation means being a listening, suffering and
reconciling presence, not a hectoring, self-interested one. The language
of public life at present is deeply, savagely divided and may become
worse. Our power is found only in selfless service and the cross.

Lastly, one aspect of the third temptation in Luke's account is to seek
impact and effect through drama and crisis, to tempt God to make it
clear we belong to God. "Then the devil took him to Jerusalem, and
placed him on the pinnacle of the temple, saying to him,

"If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here,

for it is written,

'He will command his angels concerning you,

to protect you,'

and

'On their hands they will bear you up,

so that you will not dash your foot against a stone.' "

Jesus answered him, "It is said, 'Do not put the Lord your God to the
test.'

It is the temptation to shortcuts and easy solutions, to grand gestures
which are no solutions because they avoid the Cross. It says to us that
"if only we do x or y, then the church will flourish and grow". Unless x
and y include discipleship and prayer, then the answer is wrong, for
prayer takes us to the feet of the crucified, risen and glorified
saviour.

The tapestry at the east end of Coventry Cathedral is one from which I
have drawn huge inspiration and comfort, but I only want to take one
aspect here. Sitting in my Canon's stall on the eve of another overseas
journey, often likely to be complicated, I would look at the tapestry
during Evensong.

Between the feet of Christ in glory is a human figure. The person is
safe, secure, protected, looking outward into the world. Yet they cannot
see Christ, only the wounds of his feet, and they are naked, exposed and
unprotected except by the Christ they cannot see. It is in closeness to
the crucified, in sharing in the burdens of that crucifixion by our own
cross carrying, that we are truly secure in our future in this world at
this time.

We are called to be the people of the cross, to live as those whose only
hope is God, closely nestling in the presence of Christ, seeing and
loving the world around as Christ does, so that in this time of a choice
between national hope and opportunity or threat and fear we may play the
part to which we are called in reimagining our country and seizing the
best future that lies before us.



------------------------------

Message: 17
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 22:01:54 -0500
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: UK: Priest Threatens Resignation if forced to give Communion
to Lesbian Couple
Message-ID:
<1487386914.528522....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

UK: Priest Threatens Resignation if forced to give Communion to Lesbian
Couple
Priest could face Clergy Discipline Measure complaint

By Anonymous
February 15, 2017

Karen is head teacher of a Church of England Primary School in the
diocese, having taken up her appointment about a year ago. She lives in
your parish about 10 miles from her school. In recent months she has
been attending regularly, sometimes with Anna whom you now understand to
be her partner. Anna has asked to be confirmed. Although she's been in a
long-term relationship with Karen she has only recently come to
acknowledge her own Christian faith largely through the Alpha Course run
in your parish.

Your Rector, Julie, has now discovered that Karen and Anna are in a
relationship, and, indeed, were married around the time of Karen's
appointment to the school. Julie has told Anna that she cannot in
conscience present her for confirmation to the Bishop since she believes
that she and Karen are living in a relationship which is contrary to the
teaching of the Church. She's also said that they should no longer
receive Communion. Julie has written the Bishop too, asking how someone
who does not model Christian family life can possibly be a head teacher
in a Church school.

Karen argues that what she and Anna are doing is no more than what is
permitted by Issues in Human Sexuality, issued as long ago as 1991, and
reiterated in the Pastoral Statements of the House of Bishops ever
since, namely that lay people may dissent from the traditional teaching
of the Church and continue to be welcomed as members of the Body of
Christ in sacramental life. She says that Julie has no power to bar them
from receiving Communion. Given that all clergy are asked to uphold the
disciplines of issues Karen believes that she should make a Clergy
Discipline Measure complaint against Julie for her failure to honour the
teaching of the Church.

A number of your fellow members of the PCC believe Julie has gone too
far and promoted this reaction. Julie is now threatening to resign if
she is made to give Communion to Karen and Anna. The Bishop is coming to
meet the PCC. What will you do as a member of the PCC and what do you
think the Bishop should do?

END



------------------------------

Message: 18
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 22:02:15 -0500
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: York Minster bells to ring again, in aftermath of heavy
dispute
Message-ID:
<1487386935.528511....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

York Minster bells to ring again, in aftermath of heavy dispute
Following controversial mass sacking of 30-strong bellringing team, the
cathedral advertises position to recruit and induct new group
This Christmas York Minster's bells remained silent for the first time
in 600 years

By Josh Halliday
THE GUARDIAN
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/feb/13/york-minster-bells-ring-again-bellringing
February 13, 2017

The bells of York Minster could ring out on Easter Sunday after it began
the search for a replacement bellringing team following the
controversial mass sacking.

The 15th-century cathedral, whose bells fell silent on Christmas Day for
the first time in 600 years, has advertised for its first paid 'head of
bell tower' to lead a new team of volunteer bellringers.

York Minster disbanded its 30-strong ringing group in October in the
culmination of a bitter and long-running dispute over safeguarding.

The mass dismissal caused an outcry among campanologists around the
country, with some refusing to ring York's bells on Christmas Day in
solidarity with their sacked colleagues. A petition for their
reinstatement was signed by more than 18,000 people.

The famous bells may not be silent for long, however, as York Minster
advertised online for a 'head of bell tower' to recruit and establish a
new team of campanologists. The role, which was previously unpaid, will
command an annual salary of ?7,000 for 10 hours of work a week.

The advertisement said: "The ring of 12 bells in York Minster are widely
regarded by experienced change ringers as some of the best sounding
bells in the country.

"The head of bell tower will be responsible for the recruitment and
development of a skilled band of York Minster bellringers to lead change
ringing for Sunday services and for other special services and occasions
in York."

A York Minster spokeswoman told The York Press the head of tower was
being paid at a level reflecting the significant time commitment needed
to recruit and induct the new band and plan bellringing activities for
the next 12 months.

Asked whether regular bellringing would resume by Easter Sunday, she
said: "Whilst we won't be rushing this process, we are very much looking
forward to the resumption of regular ringing at the Minster."

A spokeswoman confirmed to the Guardian that the sacked bellringers
would be eligible to reapply for their roles.

The recruitment comes nearly five months after the mass dismissal, which
the Minster initially said was due to "health and safety" issues. Six
days after the dismissals, John Sentamu, the archbishop of York,
disclosed that safeguarding concerns were at the centre of the dispute.

It emerged that the concerns dated back to 1999 when David Potter, a
former ringing master at York, was subject to a police investigation
over an alleged indecent assault. Potter -- who was awarded an MBE in
2000 for services to bellringing -- was not charged.

Last year, North Yorkshire police applied for a sexual risk order
against Potter, which was initially granted on an interim basis but
later refused by York magistrates court.

The Chapter at York Minster commissioned its own risk assessment, and
eventually decided that Potter should be permanently excluded from the
bellringing team. However, other bellringers "consistently challenged
the chapter's authority on this and other important matters", according
to Sentamu, leading to the entire team being dismissed.

Dave Taylor, the lord mayor of York, has described the sackings as
"shocking and unreasonable" and York Central MP Rachael Maskell said the
action had been "disproportionate".

In October, Potter's solicitor, Colin Byrne, said: "Mr Potter has no
cautions or convictions or any civil findings ever made against him.
Issues surrounding the bellringers and the minster is a private and
confidential matter between those two parties but the process that he
has been subject to has shown a disregard for due process and equally
the treatment of his fellow bellringers."



------------------------------

Message: 19
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 22:02:50 -0500
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: Church of England General Synod votes to retain marriage
banns
Message-ID:
<1487386970.528593....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Church of England General Synod votes to retain marriage banns

CHURCH OF ENGLAND
https://churchofengland.org/
February 14, 2017
The General Synod has rejected moves to end the legal requirement to
read banns for couples intending to marry in church services.

Members voted against a Private Member's Motion brought by Rev Stephen
Trott, from Peterborough Diocese, calling for draft legislation to be
drawn up to transfer 'ecclesiastical preliminaries', the legal paperwork
currently carried out by Church of England clergy before a church
wedding, to civil registrars.

The motion called for a similar system to the one in operation in
Scotland since 1977, when banns were replaced by a Marriage Schedule
issued by the civil registrar.

Rev Trott told the General Synod that administering banns was 'fraught
with difficulties' and a cause of 'great concern and even stress' to
clergy.

Clergy should be concerned with marriage teaching and preparation and
not the 'heavy burden' of a legal role, he said.

"In Synod we have made considerable progress towards redirecting all our
efforts and energy into intentional evangelism, renewal and reform," he
said.

"Here is an opportunity to simplify an ancient tradition by which we
have become hidebound and in the process to lift the burden of the law
from wedding couples and from the clergy and indeed from our diocesan
registrars."

But the General Synod also heard from members who said the reading of
banns presented significant opportunities for mission and evangelism.

Ven Cherry Vann, Archdeacon of Rochdale, said: "The Church of England
conducts around 45,000 weddings a year, this means we have the potential
to have direct contact with 90,000 people, largely in the 18 to 45 age
group, the very group that we particularly struggle to engage with.

"The vast majority of those weddings are done by banns. This gives us a
real opportunity to make connections, to build relationships and to
demonstrate something of God's love to the couples who come to us
through our care and concern."

An earlier amendment to Rev Trott's motion, calling for the Archbishops'
Council to draw up draft legislation which 'greatly simplifies' the
current system of ecclesiastical preliminaries was also narrowly
defeated by the General Synod.

The publication of banns involves reading aloud during a service on
three Sundays a declaration that the couple intend to marry and
requiring anyone who knows a reason in law why the couple may not marry
to declare this.

Currently the large majority of weddings conducted in Church of England
parishes involve the reading of banns.

END

The General Synod voted by Houses on the Private Member's Motion
(unamended) brought by Rev Trott. House of Bishops in favour: 10,
against 16, zero abstentions; clergy in favour 74, against 87, zero
abstentions; House of Laity, in favour 79, against 81, 7 abstentions. On
Rev Patterson's amendment 146 voted in favour, 148 against, and there
were 13 abstentions

Here is the full text of the motion and amendment put to the General
Synod

The Revd Stephen Trott (Peterborough) to move:

That this Synod, noting the Registration of Marriages Regulations 2015
and the growing burden and complexity of the legal requirements imposed
on members of the clergy who conduct weddings in the Church of England,
invite the Archbishops' Council to bring forward draft legislation to
replace ecclesiastical preliminaries to marriage by universal civil
preliminaries, such as those which have been in operation in Scotland
since 1977, when banns were replaced by a Marriage Schedule issued by
the civil registrar.

The Revd Neil Patterson (Hereford) to move as an amendment:

Leave out all the words after "draft legislation" and insert "which
greatly simplifies the current system of ecclesiastical preliminaries in
order to reduce the administrative burden on clergy whilst retaining so
far as possible the one-stop-shop and pastoral benefits of the local
arrangement of marriages.



------------------------------

Message: 20
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 22:03:44 -0500
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: Nothing has changed--the system is broken
Message-ID:
<1487387024.528586....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Nothing has changed--the system is broken
"My people have committed two sins: they have forsaken me, the spring of
living water, and have dug their own cisterns, broken cisterns that
cannot hold water." Jeremiah 2:13

By CANON PHILLIP ASHEY
AMERICAN ANGLICAN COUNCIL
https://americananglican.org/current-news/changedthe-system-broken/
Feb. 10, 2017

The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Communion Office are
claiming that the sanctions or "consequences" imposed on The Episcopal
Church (TEC) in January of 2016 have been upheld. This statement is as
far from the truth as any statement could be.

You may remember the January, 2016 meeting of the Primates, or leading
bishops of the several Churches of the Anglican Communion. The American
Anglican Council has written at length about it. In fact, we were there,
on site, helping resource the Primates with accurate information and
facts about those Churches, including TEC and the Anglican Church of
Canada, that have unrelentingly violated Biblical teaching on the limits
of human sexuality. We provided the Primates with information about the
response of the existing structures of the Communion ("Instruments of
Communion"), and how those structures have utterly failed to stop the
march of unbiblical teaching that is at the heart of the crisis in the
Communion. We were there when the sanctions or "consequences" were
imposed. Out of that meeting the Primates said The Episcopal Church is
not permitted to participate in ecumenical conversations or any
decisions on the doctrine or polity of the Anglican Communion because
they've made decisions that unilaterally violate the teaching of the
Anglican Communion. TEC shouldn't be allowed to represent Anglicans
anywhere.

Less than four months later the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC-16)
met in Zambia, April 8-19, and "received" the report of the Primates. In
fact, they ignored it. The Episcopal Church participated in every vote
on every resolution that came before ACC-16--including every matter
relating to the doctrine and polity of the Anglican Communion. I
remember writing a memo to the GAFCON Primates on April 20th documenting
each and every violation. The American Anglican Council documented in
detail how The Episcopal Church delegates moved resolutions, talked
about them, motioned for them to be approved and seconded them. In the
face of these facts, it was inconceivable that the Archbishop of
Canterbury, Justin Welby, would say that somehow The Episcopal Church
had fulfilled all of the consequences spelled out at the January
Primates' meeting. Even The Episcopal Church delegates to ACC-16
publically refuted the Archbishop's claim and admitted to doing whatever
they pleased during the meeting!

Shortly after ACC-16 I wrote the following:

The American Anglican Council encourages Biblically faithful Anglican
leaders across the Communion to say that they are done with meaningless
meetings that cost dearly and distract us from fulfilling Christ's Great
Commission. The meetings simply further expose the sheep to the prowling
wolf.

Christ-centered Anglican leaders should have no more part in
perpetuating the current corrupt and broken system of Anglican Communion
governance. Christ-following Anglican leaders (it's a shame I must put
it that way) should not contribute to efforts to undermine the ancient,
catholic authority of bishops to guard the faith and order of the
Church, a special responsibility that is inherent in their office. They
ought to "stand up and stand out" against any thought that exalts itself
against the knowledge and glory of God uniquely in the face of Jesus
Christ (II Cor. 10: 3-5; 4:3-5). These leaders must speak up and stand
out even when those thoughts and actions are within the Church itself.

Archbishop Justin Welby has recently invited the Communion's leaders
back to Canterbury for another meeting this fall. His public relations
firm, the Anglican Communion News Service, is continuing the false
narrative that The Episcopal Church has been kept from voting on matters
of doctrine and polity within the Anglican Communion. Yet again,
Episcopal delegates to ACC-16 are publicly and proudly refuting this
false narrative.

I see no reason to change the American Anglican Council's call to
Biblically faithful Anglican leaders to avoid such Communion
meetings--meaningless and costly meetings that perpetuate the deficit of
authority in the Anglican Communion to discipline false teaching and
restore godly order.

The system is broken. Something must change. These conflicting signals
and contentions between the very instruments of Communion are
unacceptable.



------------------------------

Message: 21
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 22:04:07 -0500
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: The Episcopal Church's Christian Witness
Message-ID:
<1487387047.528636....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

The Episcopal Church's Christian Witness
'He who converts his neighbor has performed that most practical
Christian political act of all' -- C.S. Lewis

By Ladson F. Mills III
Special to VIRTUEONLINE
www.virtueonline.org
February 17, 2017

There was something of the old Episcopal Church in the way St. Johns
Lafayette Square and the Washington Cathedral handled criticism of their
traditional roles in providing prayer services for the new presidential
administration during the recent inauguration ceremonies.

Luis Leon of St John's and Dean Randy Hollerith of the Washington
Cathedral faced intense pressure to replace services with an
ecclesiastical equivalent of a star-studded celebrity protest as
personified by Madonna (no relation to the real one). It spoke well for
both men and their congregational leadership for resisting the
temptation.

Presiding Bishop Michael Curry's statement that Christians pray
'leadership will try to serve not partisan interest, but the common
good' was a credit to the faith. In the midst of cultural insanity we
were treated to a rare glimpse of good old fashion sane and healthy
example of Christian behavior.

The challenge will be for it to continue.

The Episcopal Church has spent decades teaching Child Abuse recognition
and prevention. Safeguarding Our Children has become an integral part of
all dioceses training requirements. But child abuse is not just sexual
or physical, but psychological as well.

As an overweight and the youngest child in my neighborhood I was
sometimes targeted for what is now called bullying. In those days it
came with the territory, and while not particularly enjoyable learning
to stand up for oneself was a rite of passage. My father took steps
which in today's society would cause horror, but proved quite effective.

He purchased a set of boxing gloves and taught me a few basic moves. The
lessons proved invaluable in dampening the enthusiasm of my antagonist.
I learned that bullies are also cowards.

Today bullying has mutated into mobbing. It is as cowardly as ever, but
protection from unpleasant consequences can be found in the anonymity of
large groups. Just ask the children of President Donald Trump.

Ivanka Trump was publicly harassed on an airplane in front of her small
children. This pales in comparison to what followed. Ten -year -old
Barron Trump was targeted by Kathie Rich, a writer for NBC's Saturday
Night Live. The outrage from the left was either tepid or non-existent.

SNL Producer Lorne Michael suddenly developed problems receiving e-mail.
Minnesota Senator Al Franken, an original Saturday Night Live writer and
cast member , was contacted for his views. It could be surmised that a
man known for touting tolerance and inclusion would have strong opinions
concerning such egregious behavior from an organization he helped make
famous.

A reply to my inquiry never came, but I now receive his newsletter.

While it is comforting to learn what a treasure he is for the good
people of Minnesota, I would have preferred a straight answer to a fair
question. Perhaps the voters of Minnesota may wish an explanation for
his reluctance to condemn such behavior.

It seems that Ivanka Trump has not been subjected to enough indignity
but retail corporations such as Neiman Marcus, T. J Maxx, Marshalls,
Burlington, and Belk have now joined in the assault by removing her
clothing line from their stores.

I am not familiar with most of the stores but I am familiar with Belk.
Twenty years ago in a town where I served as rector a senior member of
the local affiliate was outed for being gay. There was compelling
evidence suggesting gay men were unfairly targeted in a sting operation.
Belk turned on him and fired him.

Belk was not alone. The local newspaper, a member of the Knight-Ridder
chain, inexplicably changed its policy and printed his name. My call to
the local editor requesting an explanation for the policy change
resulted in an answer that can only charitably be described as
indecipherable. Belk was one of its largest advertising clients.

The public humiliation was too much and he attempted suicide. Only the
unanticipated arrival of a repair man prevented his death. The treatment
of this very decent man was despicable and I never entered the local
Belk store again.

It seems that Belk and Knight-Ridder learned their lessons. The LGBT
community of today is a far cry from twenty years ago. It is organized,
financed and will fight back. Presidential children, however present
vulnerable and soft targets for corporate self -righteousness.

But this is where the Episcopal Church can provide Christian witness.
The House of Bishops might follow the lead of the Presiding Bishop, St
John's Lafayette Square, and the Washington Cathedral and speak out
against such behavior. The children of politicians, even those who may
be reviled, are off limits.

And for those who cannot maintain some modicum of decorum there is
always the discipline rubric. It would be refreshing to see it used on
those other than orthodox members.

A few weeks ago the Episcopal Church showed a glimpse of the old we're
going to do what's right, and let the chips fall where they may that was
once its hallmark. For a brief shining moment there was a return to the
blessed swagger of a bygone era.

And if for some reason it doesn't continue then thanks for the memories!

It was good to see it back; if only briefly.

Ladson F. Mills III is a retired priest with over thirty years pastoral
experience. He lives with his wife in South Carolina. He currently
serves as Scholar in Residence at Church of Our Saviour, Johns Island.
He is regular contributor to "Virtueonline."



------------------------------

Message: 22
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 22:04:29 -0500
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: It's time for the Church of England to lay down the law on
marriage
Message-ID:
<1487387069.528698....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

It's time for the Church of England to lay down the law on marriage

By ANDREA MINICHIELLO WILLIAMS
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/16/time-church-england-lay-law-marriage/
16 FEBRUARY 2017

Wednesday's vote in Synod was not a victory for the LGBT lobby. In
whatever way that vote in synod is spun, the real issue is not about
same-sex marriage but about the authority of the Bible in the Church of
England.

The effect of the vote is that there is no change in doctrine or
practice. Marriage remains, as it has for all Christendom, a lifelong
union between a man and a woman.

This moment presents a great opportunity for the House of Bishops to
embrace that truth and to act to uphold it firmly within the Church,
disciplining those who would seek to abandon the authority of the Bible,
and whose actions will eventually bring down the Church by actively
denying that truth.

The Bishops' Report on Marriage and Same Sex Relationships was in danger
of weakening the Church's teaching. It sought to hold together two
positions that are irreconcilable -- the orthodox position holding to
the teaching of Jesus Christ, and the alternative which seeks to revise
his teaching by insisting on acceptance of same-sex marriage.

People in society expect the Church to believe and teach the Bible. What
other authority can the Church have?

Moreover, God's people are called to be "set apart" and clergy are
supposed to be examples to their people. Today, however, a crucial
faultline has opened up in the Church of England because it has
permitted those who openly defy the teaching of Jesus into positions of
authority and influence. Male clergy who declare to Synod their
"marriages" to other men are applauded, despite the fact that this is
directly contrary to the Church's own teaching.

The Bishop of Liverpool, an active LGBT campaigner, took to the floor of
Synod this week and pleaded with members tacitly to back the report by
voting to "take note" of its findings, because the language within it
affirmed homosexual relationships. "Our explanation of maximum freedom
will take us to places where we have not previously gone," the bishop
said, clearly indicating the direction of travel he intended to take.
Such a position runs directly contrary to the teachings of the Church.
Yet the Bishop is not even reprimanded.

I wrestled long and hard about whether to vote "take note" of the
report. As debate progressed, however, I realised that the LGBT lobby
would not stop until it had got full approval in the Church. But the
undeniable truth is that the Church can't give its blessing to same-sex
marriages when its sole source of authority does not.

The Archbishop of Canterbury himself is clearly wrestling with this
contradiction. "To deal with that disagreement, to find ways forward,"
he said, "we need a radical new Christian inclusion in the Church. This
must be founded in scripture, in reason, in tradition, in theology; it
must be based on good, healthy, flourishing relationships, and in a
proper 21st-century understanding of being human and of being sexual ...
the way forward needs to be about love, joy and celebration of our
humanity; of our creation in the image of God, of our belonging to
Christ -- all of us, without exception, without exclusion."

Of course, it is right to recognise that we are made in the image of
God. But we are left with the question what does radical inclusion mean?

Christians are people who believe that Jesus is Lord and that he knows
what is best for us. I believe today is a great moment of opportunity
for the Church of England. The schism has been laid bare. It is time for
the bishops to lead with clarity and authority. The Church of England
has a cherished place in the life of our nation and its duty is to speak
to government and people of the hope that is found in following Jesus
and his words. Either it will flourish by doing so, or it will wither
and die, because it capitulates and seeks the approval of the world more
than the love of God.

Providentially this vote means that the Church's teaching on marriage is
secure. The House of Bishops declared there to be no appetite among them
for changing the Church's official view. Now all we need is for them to
follow through by upholding the teaching and, ultimately, disciplining
those that brazenly seek to defy it. Jesus Christ proclaimed that
marriage is between a man and a woman. It is Him we follow.

Andrea Minichiello Williams is CEO of Christian Concern



------------------------------

Message: 23
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 22:04:52 -0500
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: Why Churches Should NOT Fear the "Nones"
Message-ID:
<1487387092.528718....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Why Churches Should NOT Fear the "Nones"

By JOSEPH ROSSELL
JUICY ECUMENISM
https://juicyecumenism.com/2017/02/16/churches-not-fear-nones/
February 16, 2017

Popular thought leaders increasingly point to the rising tide of "nones"
as heralding the end of Christianity's importance in America, despite
evidence contradicting this fallacious narrative. The story goes that
fewer young Americans buy into the exclusive truth claims of
Christianity and have abandoned religion in droves, resulting in the
swelling ranks of religiously unaffiliated "nones" across America.

Public Religion Research Institute CEO Robert P. Jones serves as an
example of one public intellectual promoting this narrative. In his book
The End of White Christian America published in 2016, Jones partially
attributes the supposed death of "White Christian America" to the
failure to accommodate young Americans' shifting morals. As IRD
contributor Derryck Green writes in his book review for Juicy Ecumenism:

Jones' claims that the refusal to bend to cultural trends and accept gay
marriage (which he labels anti-gay) puts the evangelical portion of
White Christian America at odds with younger Americans (132-137).
There's a subtle suggestion that evangelicals should follow their
mainline brethren and bend or reject traditional Christian biblical and
theological teaching on marriage as a strategy to broaden its appeal to
younger Americans.

Deeper analysis rebuts arguments like those advanced by Jones. Religious
researcher Rodney Stark debunks several myths about "nones,"
Millennials, and religion in his book The Triumph of Faith, which I
recently reviewed.

Stark begins by refuting the claim Millennials' Church attendance
represents an unprecedented rejection of the Church. He concedes that
"younger Americans are attending church less often than are older
generations," yet he denies this has resulted in lower overall church
attendance.

He says that younger Americans have "always" attended church less often
than their elders. But "generation after generation," they predictably
start attending church more often as they get older and start families.
Consequently church attendance has remained remarkably constant over the
past three decades.

Furthermore, Stark clarifies the emergence of more "nones" in America.
He says this represents nothing new or scary in the religious landscape
(emphasis Stark's):

Back in 1990 most Americans who seldom or never attended church still
claimed a religious affiliation when asked to do so. Today, when asked
their religious preference, instead of saying Methodist of Catholic, now
a larger proportion of non-attenders say "none," by which most seem to
mean "no actual membership." The entire change has taken place within
the nonattending group, and the nonattending groups has not grown.

Stark also busts another myth: that young Evangelicals abandon the
church because they are becoming more liberal. He notes that survey data
show that generally "young evangelicals were as conservative, and
sometimes more so, on major social issues."

These findings jive with statistics released by the Barna Group in their
newly published book, BarnaTrends 2017. Barna acknowledges that
Millennials have become more progressive than their older counterparts,
but that isn't true within the Church. Religiously active Millennials
remain ideologically firm and orthodox.

For example, Barna also notes that younger American generations have
overwhelmingly shifted toward supporting same-sex marriage. Yet
practicing Millennials buck the trend.

"In the U.S., age has been and continues to be a defining fault line
when it comes to same-sex marriage," Barna explains. "Younger
Christians, however, have more in common with the older counterparts in
faith than they do with their peers in the general population."

Furthermore, practicing Christian Millennials rank as the most concerned
about the future of religious freedom of any demographic and the vast
majority (91 percent) views their faith as "a force for good" in
society. Nearly two-thirds of Millennials as a whole identify the Church
as "a place to find answers to live a meaningful life."

Perhaps this indicates why conservative churches are actually growing.
One Canadian study, released in November 2016, demonstrated a link
between church growth and the "conservative theological beliefs of their
members and clergy," as Emily McFarlan Miller reported for Religion News
Service.

Stark notes in The Triumph of Faith that Evangelical denominations and
nondenominational churches have experienced overwhelming growth in
America during the past half century. These conservative churches have
absorbed individuals driven away by Mainline Protestant denominations,
which have experience rapid declines in membership over the same period
of time.

"The wreckage of former Mainline denominations is strewn upon the shoal
of a modernist theology that began to dominate the Mainline seminaries
early in the nineteenth century," Stark writes.

These Mainline seminaries advocated for a radical reinterpretation of
"outmoded" religion. As theologian Gary Dorrien summarized, religion
needed to become "modern and progressive," and that "the meaning of
Christianity should be reinterpreted from the standpoint of modern
knowledge and experience."

The worldly wisdom advanced by the likes of Robert P. Jones asserting
that the Church must compromise on its core theology in order to thrive
has already been attempted and proven wrong. What Millennials want from
the Church is not another voice echoing the liberal social gospel or
postmodern sexual non-ethic.

In a culture that preaches anything but the Christian Gospel,
Millennials thirst for churches that provide ageless truths revealing
the meaning of life. Thus the Church need not fear the seeming growth of
"nones" in America. This represents an opportunity rather than a danger,
since it simply requires that the Church pursues its central mission to
"make disciples of all nations" by preaching the Gospel.



------------------------------

Message: 24
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 22:05:15 -0500
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: CHURCH OF ENGLAND: Manipulative, domineering revisionists
must be opposed, not appeased
Message-ID:
<1487387115.528793....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

CHURCH OF ENGLAND: Manipulative, domineering revisionists must be
opposed, not appeased

By Andrew Symes,
Anglican Mainstream
http://anglicanmainstream.org/
February 14, 2017

I can already hear the shocked gasps from some as they read this title.
"Oh, can't we have a nicer tone in this debate?", some are thinking, as
they cover their ears, desperately thinking happy thoughts and hoping
the whole nasty issue will go away.

It has been said to me that just as Jesus was silent before his
accusers, so that should be our example. Well, he was silent at key
moments in his trial, but in his ministry there were plenty of times
when he confronted and exposed the falsehood and hypocrisy of his
opponents. And he did it publicly, not quietly in a corner. Peter and
John courageously looked their accusers in the eye and told them that
Jesus, whom they crucified, was risen, and was the only Saviour and
Lord. Later, the apostle Paul was not afraid to confront those in
Galatia who were following a false Gospel, and told of how "when Cephas
came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face". This year we are
celebrating the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther who called out the
corruption and heresy in the church leadership and teaching of his day.

In all of these cases and many more, when the people of God are being
led astray by "hollow and deceptive philosophy" (Colossians 2:8), the
sad but necessary requirement is not "peace, peace, where there is no
peace" (Jeremiah 6:14) but conflict: Ephesians 6:10-18. It is true that
our battle is not against flesh and blood in the sense of physically
taking up arms against individuals, but as the previous paragraph has
shown, this cannot mean avoiding all contact with human opposition, nor
that we should just engage with tea and empathy. "Stand your
ground...with the belt of truth...and the sword of the Spirit" says to
me that there are times in the Christian life where strong words and
combined principled action are needed as well as the essential of
prayer.

The revisionists are still pretending on one level to be operating in a
very reasonable way, in the domain of mild disagreement resolved by
polite conversation within the church. The LGBT activists on the TV and
radio are saying "we just want the church to recognize diversity and
different theologies -- can't we just be neutral about same sex
blessings and gay marriage, and allow churches which want to conduct
them to do so?" But then, often in the same breath, they show their own
contempt for diversity, insisting not just that the Church's teaching on
marriage is discriminatory, but that conservative theology per se causes
harm to gay people.

Examples of this can be found in the 'Open Letter to EGGS Members' (EGGS
= Evangelical Group on General Synod). This begins with an appeal to
evangelicals to think again about their biblical interpretation, and
ends with a denial that the issue of sexuality is "first order". But
then it goes on the attack. Evangelicals are complicit in 'homophobia'.
They all support "sexual orientation change efforts" despite "mounting
scientific evidence that sexuality is not chosen nor changeable" (both
assertions are patently false: most evangelicals are not aware of
counselling programmes for sexual orientation change, and recent
evidence shows sexual orientation to be often fluid rather than fixed).
Evangelicals are apparently damaging the mission of the church because
of being perceived as lacking in love and welcome -- a very serious
accusation for Gospel-minded followers of Christ, and hardly a
second-order issue!

In this exchange on TV, Rev Andrew Foreshew-Cain (prominent member of
General Synod, married to his same sex partner) claims that he is simply
asking for toleration of his views and quiet acceptance and blessing of
same sex couples as part of 'diversity', and yet within the same five
minute period is insisting that the conservative view of sex and
marriage causes young people to self-harm and even to commit suicide,
despite the fact that research disproves this.

Others have gone further, widening the attack. Bishop Alan Wilson has
called the universal Christian belief in the atoning sacrifice of Christ
on the cross a "secretive and violent theology", and has explicitly
linked the appalling and inexcusable actions of John Smyth, a unique
case dating back more than 35 years, with all who believe that Christ
took the penalty for our sin. In this he has been followed by Angela
Tilby on the Radio, and Martyn Percy and Giles Fraser in print.

So what we have seen over the past few days, and particularly now during
Synod, is that pro LGBT activists have embarked on an attempt to force
the Church of England to change its teachings on sex and marriage,
firstly by means of appeal to the rational and reasonable middle ground
in the church, branding conservatives as extremists and proposing an
alternative conclusion to the Bishops GS 2055 report (eg here).

And then, the fist inside the velvet glove: an all-out assault on the
tenets of basic Christian orthodoxy in the public domain outside the
church, through the parading of pain and fury at every opportunity on
the floor of Synod, and through the secular media. The aim here is to
appeal to the public at large, particularly the powerful and influential
figures in Government, law and the media, to force change on the church
from the outside.

How can this powerful lobby with its emotional force be resisted? In the
short term, we can perhaps pray that the Bishops and the majority of
Synod members would see through and refute the hypocrisy of the
campaigners, who claim to want diversity, when in fact they want to
eradicate orthodox faith; they claim to be powerless victims or standing
on their behalf, when in fact they stand with the most powerful lobby in
the nation. They speak with the language of Christian faith but have
imbibed a philosophy that is implacably hostile to the teachings of the
bible about the human person, sexuality, marriage, self-control and
chastity -- and ultimately, as we have seen, hostile to the idea of a
Saviour who takes away sin's deserved consequences.

But what of the longer term? It should be obvious that a church which
allows such views with their bullying tactics to flourish as part of
legitimate theological diversity, has abandoned any concept of apostolic
deposit based on divine revelation. Such a church will soon be forced to
reflect the secular ideology of the powerful lobby group more and more,
as has happened in north America. The orthodox can agree to being one
view among many, and be gradually erased. A better option: stand firm
and if necessary force a schism, and at the same time plan for an
alternative jurisdiction.

END



------------------------------

Message: 25
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 22:05:36 -0500
From: David Virtue <da...@virtueonline.org>
To: "virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org"
<virtue...@listserv.virtueonline.org>
Subject: QUESTIONS JESUS ASKED: What do you want me to do for you? -
Mark 10:46-52
Message-ID:
<1487387136.528793....@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

QUESTIONS JESUS ASKED: What do you want me to do for you? - Mark
10:46-52

By Ted Schroder,
February 19, 2017

Twice it is recorded in the Gospels that Jesus asked, "What do you
want?" (John 1:38); "What do you want me to do for you?" (Matt.20:32;
Mk.10:51; Lk.18:41) The first was when John and Andrew were directed to
Jesus by John the Baptist and they followed him. They were curious about
Jesus and intrigued by John the Baptist calling him "the Lamb of God."
The second was outside Jericho when Bartimaeus and another blind man
called out to Jesus, as the Son of God, to have mercy on them. They
wanted to be healed and be able to see. In a sense, on both occasions
the answer to the question, "What do you want?" was being able to see --
see who Jesus was as the Revealer of God and as the Lamb who would take
away the sin of the world.

How would you answer the question of Jesus? "What do you want me to do
for you?" What insight do you need to know? What blind spot do you have?
What intrigues you about Jesus? What pressing need do you have in your
life now? If Jesus were passing by, what would you say if he asked you,
"What do you want me to do for you?"

So many of us have questions, doubts, uncertainties, and fears, that we
would like to have resolved. We cannot see through the fog of life's
daily challenges to satisfactory conclusions. We are confronted with
declining health of ourselves or our loved ones. We are having to deal
with the problems of our family members. We are troubled by the national
mood and the turbulence of politics. We face divided loyalties in our
relationships. We worry about the future. We despair when we see the
hatred and cruelty of so many in the world and the suffering they cause.
We long for love to conquer loneliness, for joy to overcome sorrow, and
for peace to calm conflict. We see so much unhappiness, so many
complaints, so much suffering, so much illness and disability, so much
darkness and so many self-inflicted wounds. How can Jesus meet all these
needs?

"What do you want me to do for you?" What would you say? As I reflect
upon that question for myself I am led to answer: "I want to be
spiritually mature in Christ. I want to be filled with the Spirit.
Nurture in me the fruit of the Spirit so that my life would be full of
love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness
and self-control." I want to be more loving, more joyful, more at peace,
more patient, more kind, more good, more faithful, more gentle, more
self-controlled.

What about you? Bartimaeus wanted to be able to see -- to be healed of
his blindness. Jesus healed many people but not all. Not everyone got
what they wanted even though they were encouraged to pray for healing
and other needs. Wanting something does not mean that we will always get
it. This was true for Jesus in his humanity.

In the Garden of Gethsemane he fell with his face to the ground and
prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me.
Yet not as I will, but as you will." A second time he prayed, "My
Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I
drink it, may your will be done." He prayed a third time, saying the
same thing (Matthew 26:39,42,44). As a man in the prime of life he did
not want to have to suffer a painful and horrible death and bear the
sins of the world. None of us would. Yet all of us have to suffer pain
and eventually all of us have to die. We all have to learn how to die.
None of us want to have to drink that cup of pain. Yet Jesus qualified
this want by a higher want -- to fulfill God's will for his life and
purpose as Savior. Sometimes our wants, our desires, are superseded by
higher needs. Our prayers are contingent upon God's higher will for our
lives which we may not know now.

St. Paul had a similar want. He was given a thorn in his flesh, a
messenger of Satan, to torment him. "Three times I pleaded with the Lord
to take it away from me. But he said to me, 'My grace is sufficient for
you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.' Therefore, I will boast
all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest
on me. That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in
insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am
weak, then I am strong" (2 Cor. 12:7-10). His want of deliverance from
his tormenting affliction (whether it was physical, emotional, mental,
or something else we don't know) was denied him so that he could
experience Christ's power of grace. His presenting problem became the
means for a greater need.

Southern Gothic author, Flannery O'Connor (1925-1964), suffered from the
incurable and painful disease of lupus, which would eventually kill her
at age 39. A devout Roman Catholic in Milledgeville, Georgia, she was
regular in devotional reading, prayer and attendance at Mass. Despite
her affliction she worked as hard as she could, often only two hours a
day, on her writing and correspondence.

"She described her condition as one of 'passive diminishment' -- a
phrase borrowed from the Catholic theologian Teilhard de Chardin. This
referred to 'those afflictions that you can't get rid of and have to
bear. Those that you can get rid of he believes you must bend every
effort to get rid of.' She always appeared more concerned about her
writing and her friends than about her physical health. She reluctantly
made a trip to Lourdes, the sanctuary famous for the curative powers
attributed to it, but quipped that the only miracle she saw there was
that despite all the sick people sharing the waters, no outbreak of an
epidemic occurred. She claimed that 'sickness before death is a very
appropriate thing and I think those who don't have it miss one of God's
mercies.'" (Craddock and Goldsmith, Speaking of Dying, p.156)

"What do you want me to do for you?" The question is like that of the
genie who grants us three wishes. Be careful what you wish for. If all
our prayers were answered the way we want them to we may be in trouble.
John and Andrew asked Jesus where he was staying. Jesus said to John and
Andrew, "Come and you will see." So they went and saw where he was
staying, and spent the day with him. They were never the same again.
They became his disciples, his apostles, and the foundation of his
church. What we ask for, and what we get depends on our motivation, and
our willingness to do God's will in our lives -- to fulfill God's plan
and purpose for our lives.

"What do you want me to do for you and for those you love?" What do you
ask for in your prayers? "God is able to do far more than we would ever
dare to ask or even dream of -- infinitely beyond our highest prayers,
desires, thoughts, or hopes" (Ephesians 3:20 TLB). What is God's will
for your life? Are you willing to trust that he will do it if you
surrender your life to him? You need to pray "God, help me to do what
you want me to do in Christ's power. May Christ's power rest on me."

END



------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

VirtueOnline Weekly News Digest
http://www.virtueonline.org/listserv.html


------------------------------

End of VirtueOnline Digest, Vol 17, Issue 7
*******************************************