In the resulting "visitation charge", a legal document published today, Bishop Donald Allister says the redundancies were "necessary" along with some property sales. And he warns that more "tough decisions" lie ahead.

He also warns that the current independence enjoyed by England's 42 cathedrals poses "serious risks" to the reputation of the entire Church of England.

The cathedral, which will be celebrating its 900th anniversary next year, last year suffered a "cash flow crisis" as a result of problems far deeper than simply managing cash flow, he writes.

Cathedrals are normally the province of a dean and chapter, made up of both canons of the cathedral and, more recently, some lay members as well. Cathedrals also have larger bodies, councils, which meet twice a year to advise the chapter. The bishop has a right to preach in the cathedral and under his or her powers as visitor, can invoke other powers, discussed recently on the Law and Religion blog.

In his charge, the Bishop of Peterborough takes advantage of this.

He says the cathedral is the "mother church" of the diocese as well as the "bishop's cathedral". He says the bishop should be invited to attend and speak at chapter meetings and directs that he sent all copies of chapter papers.

"There has been a culture of small groups within chapter making decisions," he writes. He directs it instead to make its decisions corporately, to give lay members and part-time members with the full-time Canons, and to stop using the term "dean and chapter".

Bishop Allister also warns that the Church of England's reputation is at risk and calls for the laws surrounding cathedrals to be tightened up.

"The Peterborough situation has convinced me that the high degree of independence currently enjoyed by cathedrals poses serious risks to the reputation of the whole Church, and thus to our effectiveness in mission. A closer working relationship of cathedrals with their bishop and diocese would be of benefit to all, both practically and spiritually," he writes.

Canon Jonathan Baker, the Acting Dean, said: "While the cathedral faces many challenges, there are also some exciting opportunities for us to seize as we move into a new phase of serving the diocese and city of Peterborough."

A spokesperson for The Church Commissioners said: "We were made aware of the financial difficulties at Peterborough Cathedral last year and have worked with both the cathedral and Bishop Donald to provide support."

He added: "Cathedrals offer spiritual sanctuary for millions of people each year and are the jewels in the nation's heritage crown. The financial problems that have faced Peterborough Cathedral are being resolved. Together our 42 cathedrals will continue to serve their communities and prosper for the benefit of future generations."

Bishop Allister said in a statement: "This wasn't about attributing blame. It was to help the Cathedral get things onto a better footing for the future."

END

Chris Curtis, the CEO of Youthscape, said: "This report is more a sober warning from a doctor than an autopsy of a dead body. Youth and children's work in churches isn't dead, but we're badly out of shape and a change of lifestyle is urgently required."

Losing Heart claims the majority of the churches "never" discuss the subjects of pornography, same-sex attraction, other world faiths and drugs and addiction with their young people.

In the report, Youthscape writes: "We were surprised to see the results ... which reveal that only 50.2 per cent of the churches regularly talk about the basic beliefs of the Christian faith with their young people, and under 10 per cent of the churches surveyed regularly talk about sex and relationships, other world faiths and pornography in their youth groups."

Youthscape also found that churches, especially smaller ones, do far more children's work than youth work.

Nearly all churches polled offered some form of children's work on a Sunday, although this varied from 80.3 per cent of small churches (up to 50 congregants) and 98.7 per cent of large churches (more than 150 congregants).

However, the same was not true for youth work: 89.1 per cent of the large churches offered youth work on a Sunday, while only 49.7 per cent of the small churches did.

The disparity is also seen in the effectiveness of the ministry offered.

While only half of respondents believe their youth work to be effective, nearly three quarters -- 73.9 per cent -- believe their children's work is effective.

Shockingly, 41.4 per cent of the small churches surveyed said their youth work was "ineffective".

Churches know they are struggling with their youth work and children's work, but admitted in the survey they don't know what to do to change it.

The report said: "The overall tone of responses from the churches was pretty desperate. Many lack the people, the funds and the time to keep their youth and children's work going, and many don't have any youth work, or any young people -- and in some cases children -- to start with.

"When asked what was good about their youth and children's work, many simply answered: 'Not a lot.' There is a desire to offer something to children and young people, but many churches don't have the energy or the ideas to make it happen."

To complement the findings, Youthscape polled 100 11 -- 19-year-olds through an online survey to gauge what the age group is most interested in.

The most popular topic, with 47 per cent of the young people saying they were "very interested" in, was mental health and self-esteem. However, this is one the least discussed topics in our churches, with only 10.2 per cent of respondents often talking to their young people on this -- 48.6 per cent "never" did.

The research found that churches need more leaders volunteers to work with children and young people, for aging congregations to seek younger leaders and whole church involvement.

Interestingly, when asked what was needed to improve, there were very few refences to God's involvement, prayer or the work of the Holy Spirit -- only seven per cent referred to God.

Chris Curis wrote: "It's hard to hear the difficult findings contained in this report. At this early stage, more work needs to be done to understand why this has happened and, more importantly, what action we need to take."

The CEO admits this is a generalised view, and said it's important to remember that there are bright spots where youth work is thriving, and children's work is clearly doing even better.

He concluded: "The bigger picture is clear: it tells us what many of us know from our day-to-day work. The doctor's warning must be heeded and this report is a good moment to galvanise ourselves into action."

Youthscape will be responding to this research through their work and priorities over the next two years. To find out more, read the full report or get involved with the work of Youthscape, visit the website here. https://www.youthscape.co.uk/

The move was ridiculed by former Conservative Minister Ann Widdecombe, an Anglican who converted to Catholicism.

'These gestures are pointless. The Archbishop has not put anyone to death, as far as I know,' she said.

'Modern Christians are not responsible for what happened in the Reformation.

'You might as well expect the Italians to apologise for Pontius Pilate.'

The Most Rev Welby is drawing up a joint statement with the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, which is expected to call for repentance for the excesses of the period.

The initiative, which will stress the need to heal divisions, comes a month before the Church of England's 'Parliament', the General Synod, debates the anniversary.

The Rev Andrew Atherstone, a member of the Synod and the Faith and Order Commission, said the Reformation remained 'deeply embedded in our national psyche' as the context for events such as the Spanish Armada and the Gunpowder Plot.

He said: 'As the Church of England prepares to celebrate the Reformation, it should also repent of the violence and brutality it sometimes committed in God's name.'

But critics questioned whether such regret so many centuries after the events had any value.

The Reformation is not even a required subject for the National Curriculum.

VOL Footnote: Like his visit to Auschwitz, this is just one more piece of silliness from his grace the Archbishop of Lunacy.

END

Many will also remember the lasting damage done five centuries ago to the unity of the Church, in defiance of the clear command of Jesus Christ to unity in love. Those turbulent years saw Christian people pitted against each other, such that many suffered persecution and even death at the hands of others claiming to know the same Lord...

Remembering the Reformation should also lead us to repent of our part in perpetuating divisions...

We can quibble over the propitiatory efficacy of vicarious apologies for the sins and crimes of our forefathers. Some people are gladdened by the contrition expressed by today's leaders for centuries-old grievances; others think it absurd to apologise, or even presume to apologise, for the thoughts, attitudes and actions of those for which we are by no means responsible, and quite possibly can't even begin to understand. Can a 21st-century archbishop really exhort his postmodern flock to repent of the sins of his episcopal predecessors and their modern and medieval herds and legions? Is there any worth in the RSPCA apologising to animal rights activists for the domestication of the horse? Can Welby and Sentamu pass judgment on the conscience of Cranmer? Their gesture may have political purpose and the benefits of compassion, but can it ever be soteriological? Can we really repent of the divisions and schisms initiated and caused by others in their own complex and convoluted times and situations?

We can park that question there, because the archbishops aren't quite doing that. Or are they? Are they blaming Luther for the lasting damage he caused to Church unity, and asking his Protestant progeny to repent of being Lutheran and Protestant? Are they rebuking him for defying the clear command of Jesus Christ to unity in love? Are they saying that it was a all just a sad and tragic mistake?

It isn't entirely clear, except that the archbishops apportion no blame at all to the corruption and evil in the medieval Church against which Luther was driven to protest. Might not Protestants protest that the Church that called itself Catholic had ceased to be in any sense holy, catholic, compassionate or salvific? And so, in accordance with Scripture, coming out of her was necessary for the welfare of the body and the salvation of the soul: "..the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith" (Article XIX, to which the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York subscribe).

It was not for nothing that the Reformers hurled 'Antichrist' at the Pope. Yes, there were fractious European nationalisms and feudal competitions, not to mention contemporaneous economic pressures, urgent scholarly enquiries and restless social movements. The Reformation was a melting pot of convergent murky forces and contiguous muddled minds. But (and it's quite an important 'But') the religious element of the Reformation was its essence, and it became one of the greatest movements of the Spirit of God since the Apostles walked the earth. If the schism was not of God, it was certainly greatly used by God and much good came of it.

Much bad, too, of course. Even our righteous deeds are filthy rags.

But times have changed: bad popes and corrupt princes have come and gone, and all those Protestant lenses tinged with the patina of bias or bigotry continue to blur our vision only if we refuse to see face to face. For Archbishop Justin and Archbishop John, in the 500th anniversary year of the Reformation, it is clearly time to move away from rigid distinctives and to focus on what unites us:

Remembering the Reformation should bring us back to what the Reformers wanted to put at the centre of every person's life, which is a simple trust in Jesus Christ. This year is a time to renew our faith in Christ and in Him alone.

That's an interesting sola, and one from which no child of the Reformation would demur. But what ecumenical rapprochment, let alone unity, can or should there be with those who insist it is Christ and..? At what point does Christ and become a false gospel? At what point to does Christ and become 'another Jesus' (2Cor 11:4)?

That isn't to say there is no common ground and there are no common causes by which and for which Christian denominations may not gather for fellowship or unite to oppose. The doctrine of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the bodily Resurrection and the literal Second Coming are all sufficient to determine the truth of faith. There really is no controversialist urge to maintain an ecclesial party line just to buttress history and tradition. Where we are concerned with the gospel and salvation, we are concerned with loving Christ.

The Queen loves Christ. It is not possible to listen to her Christmas Day broadcasts and not be left with an overwhelming sense of her humility, adoration and devotion to the Son of God; almost a yearning to unburden her shoulders and lay down her crown at the feet of the King of Kings, and place her government upon his shoulder. It is plain also that she loves the nation state of which she is Head, and the church of which she is Supreme Governor. The United Kingdom and the Church of England are separate and distinct: the United Kingdom is separate from the Continent of Europe; the Church of England distinct from the Church of Rome. In her very offices of church and state, the Queen embodies political and historic division, and she perpetuates ecclesial and theological schism. Why should she repent of this, as her archbishops exhort, when it is her sovereign duty and divine vocation to lead, uphold and sustain both? Consider her Coronation Oath:

Archbishop: Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

Queen: All this I promise to do.

Are Dr Welby and Dr Sentamu asking the Queen to repent of her sacred oath? They appear to be, for their statement is concerned not merely with the unholy burnings, hangings, drawings and quarterings of the past, but with those who perpetuate division into the present, which the Queen is sworn to do. And she is sworn to do this because the Reformation in England was an act of the State of which she is now Head; a parliamentary transaction sustained by the consent of the people over whom she reigns. How can the Queen repent of her part in perpetuating division without handing over her church to the Bishop of Rome ([who, constitutionally,] hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England [Art. XXXVII])?

The word the archbishops chose was 'repent', which is rather distinct from political apology, personal sorrow or corporate contrition. It is a concept which has its origins in the Old Testament, where the creature first turned his back on the Creator. It is the recognition of the true state of affairs, sorrow for it and a turning back to God with a resolve to do His will. To repent is to turn away from disobedience; to engage in the rebellion no more. If one is to repent sincerely of the sin of adultery, one must not only be sorry for the sin, but promise also to cease living in the adulterous relationship. How may one repent of a thing and yet carry on doing it wilfully and purposely?

The only way, surely, is to be persuaded either that it is not such a bad thing, or to believe that the punishment will not be so austere as to justify cessation of the indulgence. And so.. cursory confession.. trivial penance.. no real repentance.

Is schism a sin when the justification and motive is the maintenance of holiness? Ecumenism may be the reconciling work of the Holy Spirit in renewing the life of the corporate councils of the Church, but are individual Christians really called to repent of their part in sustaining their churches as vehicles of truth, morality and the salvific vision? Is communion with God and man dependent on a simplistic view of good and right, such that all division becomes grave sin which must be repented of?

Surely the Queen's personal faith trusts in the promises of God by which she is united to Christ. Surely her witness to this living faith moves beyond historical knowledge and ecclesial structures: she believes Christ was born for her personally, and has accomplished for her the work of salvation. She is sure and certain of this: her trust is in Christ, not some assent to an abstract set of doctrines. She needs nothing and no-one else. In her humility and truth she walks, talks and eats with Christians of all denominations, radiating grace, life and salvation. She infuses the Church of England and inspires the Church in England. Pray, what does she have to repent of?

*****

Reformation Anniversary: Statement from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York
Ahead of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity 2017, which starts Jan. 18, the archbishops of Canterbury and York have issued a joint statement on the 500th anniversary of the Reformation

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/5826/reformation-500th-anniversary-joint-statement-by-archbishops-of-canterbury-and-york

"This year, churches around the world will be marking the great significance of the 500th anniversary of the beginning of the Reformation in Europe, dated from Martin Luther's 95 Theses protesting against the practice of indulgences, on 31 October 1517 at Wittenberg. The Church of England will be participating in various ways, including sharing in events with Protestant church partners from Continental Europe.

The Reformation was a process of both renewal and division amongst Christians in Europe. In this Reformation Anniversary year, many Christians will want to give thanks for the great blessings they have received to which the Reformation directly contributed. Amongst much else these would include clear proclamation of the gospel of grace, the availability of the Bible to all in their own language and the recognition of the calling of lay people to serve God in the world and in the church.

Many will also remember the lasting damage done five centuries ago to the unity of the Church, in defiance of the clear command of Jesus Christ to unity in love. Those turbulent years saw Christian people pitted against each other, such that many suffered persecution and even death at the hands of others claiming to know the same Lord. A legacy of mistrust and competition would then accompany the astonishing global spread of Christianity in the centuries that followed. All this leaves us much to ponder.

Remembering the Reformation should bring us back to what the Reformers wanted to put at the centre of every person's life, which is a simple trust in Jesus Christ. This year is a time to renew our faith in Christ and in Him alone. With this confidence we shall then be ready to ask hard questions about those things in our lives and the life of our churches that get in the way of sharing and celebrating faith in Him.

Remembering the Reformation should also lead us to repent of our part in perpetuating divisions. Such repentance needs to be linked to action aimed at reaching out to other churches and strengthening relationships with them. This anniversary year will provide many opportunities to do just that, beginning with this Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.

We therefore call on all Christians to seek to be renewed and united in the truth of the gospel of Christ through our participation in the Reformation Anniversary, to repent of divisions, and, held together in Him, to be a blessing to the world in obedience to Jesus Christ."

END

Phoney Tony and Chillax Dave are to blame. Tony Blair, the once consummate PR man, took it upon himself to apologise for the slave trade and the Irish potato famine (though not for the Iraq war). Dave tallied up an even more mouth-watering selection--for the economic crisis no less, Section 28, Bloody Sunday, the Hillsborough victims and the Amritsar massacre in India of 1919.

"When we blame ourselves," Oscar Wilde noted, "we feel that no one else has the right to blame us." Indeed. In modern politics strategic apologies are motivated by the speaker's attempt to change how others perceive him; a weak man's way, you could say, of keeping your relationships with critics intact.

Now we're blessed with an Archbishop who has taken on this holy mantle of contrition chic. Just before "Wobbly" Welby ascended the throne of Canterbury, his predecessor, Rowan, the Grand Druid of Long-windedness, had offered a hand-wringing apology to Charles Darwin of blessed memory for the Church of England's initial rejection of his theory of evolution. Since his consecration, His Piousness the Grand Panjandrum of Canterbury has managed to apologise to most of the Church's secular critics as well as to its entire vocal victim group discontents therein.

He has apologised (for the Church's 'persecution on the grounds of sexuality') to 'lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people' and for 'the hurt and pain they have experienced by the Anglican Communion over the years.'

If that wasn't enough virtue-signalling for his incumbency, he hasn't been able to resist taking on the evils of history. He (just) avoided apologising for the Dresden bombings. He cried mea maxima culpa before 700 'wimmin' vicars at St Paul's Cathedral and apologised for the 'scars' and 'hurt' to the campaigners of women's ordination and 'for my own part in that hurt.'

With Christian Unity Week on the radar and his abhorrence of anything divisive (from the free market to Brexit), another apology opportunity has offered itself--the Reformation no less. Yes, our division and despair creating prelate has found another wrong he seeks to put right--that all time biggest division of conscience ever--the schism between then Catholic and Anglican Churches that dates back 500 years to the Reformation and the turning point in British history.

It must be healed and Welby has hit on the very way to do it. We must repent of it--the Reformation no less! What could be easier? What a clever way to placate the Romans. Without having to worry that by ordaining women priestesses or bishopesses he has forever severed the slender thread of fading hope that linked Canterbury with Rome. Never mind that his progressive 'beliefs' have even driven Anglican clergy out of the C of E into the arms of Rome.

By this trick of the cards, Welby can happily put to one side the fact that every single modern teaching (or lack of it) and practice of the C of E--on homosexuality, abortion, and contraception and women priests--has been utterly divisive. Rome shudders! And, so too, would the Reformers! So too, does anyone with any understanding of the history of freedom of conscience, toleration and free speech that the Reformation uniquely heralded.

'The Reformation had been accompanied by a revolution, one in which a book that had been imprisoned in Latin had become accessible in the everyday language of the English people,' writes Gordon Campbell in his magisterial work on the King James Bible. Is Welby apologising for being able to read the Bible in his native English? Or is he apologising for the revolution that ushered in the printing press along with the liberating doctrines of Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide and Sola Gratia?

Does Welby not understand the gravity of an apology? Or does he think an apology is like the modern prayer of confession in the Church of England's Common Worship where the congregants no longer confess that they are 'miserable offenders' but instead say a mild, 'oops, sorry', every time they sneeze or spill a drink?

An apology is meaningful only when the victims are identifiable as a distinct group, continue to suffer harm and are causally connected to the past injustice. Who, on earth, are the current victims of the Reformation? The Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster? Or the Polish and Filipino immigrants who now fill the pews of Roman churches in Britain and ensure their survival? Or is Welby in keeping with his left-wing ideology of victimhood canonising a new caste of Reformation victims?

Does Welby not know the original meaning of the word apology? In the New Testament "apologia" is a speech in one's defence. St Peter uses this word when he writes to the suffering Christians to always be 'prepared to make a defence (apologia) to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you' (1Peter 3:15). Christians, even when persecuted, were to offer an apologia and not an apology for their faith. "Wobbly" Welby is doing precisely the opposite.

If he hasn't learned anything about an apologia from the Apostle Peter, he might learn something about an apology from P G Wodehouse. That wonderful creator of Blandings Castle stuck his pipe in his mouth and pounded these words on his typewriter as he wrote in The Man Upstairs: 'It is a good rule in life never to apologise. The right sort of people do not want apologies, and the wrong sort take a mean advantage of them.'

Kathy Gyngell is Co-Editor of The Conservative Woman and Rev Dr Jules Gomes is pastor of St Augustine's Church, Douglas, on the Isle of Man.

The House of Bishops will tomorrow discuss proposals to overhaul the system so homosexuals will not be asked about their private lives when they join the church.

But Ben Bradshaw, a Labour MP who is in a civil partnership, criticised the policy for shrouding homosexuality in secrecy as clergy would still be expected to be celibate.

He told the Sunday Times: 'It is progress for them to stop asking the celibacy question but it still leaves the Church of England policy based essentially on dishonesty and encouraging its clergy to lie.'

The move follows three years of debate on homosexuality within the church, since same-sex marriage became legal and the first ceremony in March 2014.

The church, led by Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, still refuses to perform gay marriages, leading to growing rifts within the church.

The new proposal comes just a few months after the church alleged that gay clerics had sparked a 'witch hunt' by alleging that 11 bishops were gay in September.

It seemed to be a move from gay clerics to put pressure on more than 100 bishops who met secretly later that month to discuss attitudes to homosexuality.

Also in September, the suffragan -- or junior -- Bishop of Grantham revealed he was gay and in a celibate same-sex relationship in a newspaper interview.

It is proposed that gay clergy will not be asked about their sex life, unlike the current system, and the recommendations will be put before the Synod in February

A group of 14 married gay and lesbian clergy from pressure group Changing Attitudes also called for a relaxation of CofE rules on gay relationships.

The Synod, the church's parliament of lay members, had also discussed the issue in July and debate continues to rage on within the church.

The recommendations put forward by the bishops when they meet tomorrow will then be considered by the Synod in February.

Mr Bradshaw suggested that if the church does not usher in equality then the Government should intervene as it did in 2012 when the Synod refused to allow women to become bishops.

Some members of the clergy have also hinted at a campaign of civil disobedience if the church does not move forward.

One example could be carrying out celebrations for marriages performed elsewhere if they are not allowed to marry same-sex couples themselves.

END

Surveys show that the laity in our churches don't feel equipped for whole life discipleship and witness in the world. 'Clericalism' is identified as a major problem in the C of E's culture, for example it is commonly assumed that ordination is the 'next step' as part of an upward progression in the journey of discipleship, rather than a calling to a specific ministry. Rather, as one clergyman explains, the church should view clergy and church life as part of the 'trellis' on which the vine of the lay community can flourish and be a blessing in the world.

The report concedes that in this it is not saying anything new: every generation 'rediscovers' the importance of lay ministry (there are quotations from the 1946 report 'Towards the Evangelization of England' which contained very similar sentiments). William Temple, CS Lewis, John Stott and Lesslie Newbigin are named as past voices who advocated an emphasis on lay discipleship. But according to SGPF, there has been little change, because of a lack of clear strategy, goals and budgeted plans to implement the idea in practice across the church.

SGPF helpfully identifies four key areas of lay ministry: elected leadership roles in the church (for example, church warden); informal service roles in the church (making coffee, teaching Sunday school); involvement in church-led community action (volunteering in the local school or care home, debt counselling); and involvement in the workplace and wider society (being a Christian in the world). What are the factors which prevent better lay ministry, particularly in this crucial lastly-mentioned area? The report suggests firstly 'theological deficit', by which it means a lack of ability to articulate and apply theological principles to reflect on how God is at work in our lives outside of 'church'. Then, a "weak lay voice", whereby the church institution does not sufficiently understand and give space for the expression of the needs and gifts of lay people.

Third, poor relationships between clergy and laity. Some bitterness emerges in this section, as clergy are heavily criticized (laity feel "underused, disenfranchised, not equipped"), but also from the clergy perspective, laity often don't want to be empowered but just want the clergy to do church for them. Fourthly, there is a lack of proper research, strategies for change, and resources targeting new learning compared with other successful organizations. While lay reader training is mentioned, it is acknowledged that this is narrowly focused on equipping certain people for specific tasks in the gathered church (eg biblical study, preaching and teaching), not whole life discipleship.

The paper sets out a strategy for change in the form of eight 'levers' which it believes can shape thinking and practice for the future. These include requiring Bishops to make a shift in focus towards intentionally encouraging lay discipleship, creating new liturgies eg renewal of baptismal vows for lay people, and perhaps most significantly, re-focussing clergy selection, training and ministry to prioritise the formation of lay disciples. This would of course require clergy to be teachers and encouragers of ministry, rather than primarily pastors and administrators. All this must be championed by the Archbishops. The report suggests immediate commissioning of theological resources, the development of a central online 'portal' for networking and training, and trials of new systems to be carried out in 'pilot' Dioceses.

The biblical concepts of whole life discipleship, the priesthood of all believers, and a church in which all the gifts of the body's members are being used together for evangelism and mission, are central to historic, bible-based Christianity, and so it can only be positive that there are plans to prioritise these ideas more in the church's self-understanding, and to implement them with practical programmes. So should we not be enthusiastic about the possibility of an evangelical ecclesiology and missiology being pushed through the church? Well yes, certainly, but as with all these schemes, a question has to be asked about whether writing well-researched reports and rolling out centralized programmes is the best way to promote healthy churches. There are churches up and down the country, mostly evangelical, which are already doing many of the things suggested in the report. If in many other congregations they are not being done because of ignorance, then encouragement and resources from the centre can help, but openness to learn from good local practice of nearby fellowships might be more effective. But as the report admits, in many cases relationships in the body are dysfunctional, and there is strong resistance either from clergy, or laity, or both, to the basic principles of personal faith in Christ and every member ministry -- can this be changed by online portals and Diocesan initiatives?

Perhaps the biggest flaw in SGPF though is the lack of clarity on what a lay disciple, ie a Christian, actually is. In more than one place 1 Peter 2:9 is quoted: "you are a royal priesthood", and it is claimed this is the role of every baptized person. But reading this verse in the context of the epistle as a whole, the idea of baptism as the defining mark of what makes someone part of this new priesthood is absent. The apostle Peter, writing to God's people scattered throughout what is now Turkey, uses many images in the first two chapters to describe their unique status: sprinkled by Jesus' blood (ie not the water of the font), saved through faith, set apart for obedience to God, redeemed from sin by Christ's sacrificial death, part of God's new temple of living stones. It may be true that baptism is a sign and seal of these spiritual realities for believers (and as an Anglican, I believe the sign occurring before the reality is as effective as following it), but Peter, along with the other New testament writers, clearly seems more interested in the reality than the sign when talking about being a Christian.

In which case, it would surely be better to base any strategy for enabling discipleship and empowering the members of the body of Christ lay and ordained, the 'royal priesthood', to be based on the spiritual realities themselves mentioned by Peter, especially a clear understanding of repentance from sin and faith in Christ, rather than merely baptism, a ritual which many have undergone who remain unconverted. A new emphasis on empowering the laity for witness which understands God's people as those who are born again rather than just baptized, and where training is based unequivocally on biblical foundations shared with orthodox Christians down the ages and worldwide, would get my full support.

****************************************************************************

Meanwhile the Anglican world awaits the report from the Bishop's Reflection Group on sexuality which is due to be released on Friday 27th January. It will be included in the second tranche of discussion papers for General Synod. Among the speculated (or leaked?) conclusions are the following: the church will not change its doctrine of marriage, but Bishops will not have to explain or defend this doctrine, for example by asking any questions about the domestic arrangements of clergy in exclusive relationships, and Synod are not being asked to debate the issue. I guess the hope is that there will be a general desire to stop talking about sexual ethics and doctrines of sin and salvation, which are seen as divisive, and instead focus on other issues which are apparently more likely to unite and lead to growth.

Gavin: Yes, it is ironic. But the irony can partly be explained by the fact that while the DNA of the monarchy is Christian, the country is not. The monarchy faces difficulties as it prepares for the coronation of Prince Charles at the sad moment when our present Queen dies. Secularism will try to rubbish the highly potent Christian content of the coronation; and Islam is likely to claim that it wants to be recognised within it in some way.

In fact, a previous bishop of Oxford has foolishly suggested that Muslims be accommodated by having the Koran read in the coronation. Since the Koran is predicated on rebutting the claim of Jesus to be the Word made flesh, that seems wholly contradictory and undesirable. So we face a struggle for the integrity of Christianity provoked by the issues that a Christian coronation ceremony brings up in a so-called multicultural Britain. I can see why the monarchy's advisers are anxious about how to play the future. In my view you gain nothing by watering down Christianity. It's wrong in principle and foolish in practice. It's like paying Danegeld--and look what that achieved.

Jules:You are regarded by many as one of the finest priests in the C of E. Your ministry over the years has brought together skills of journalism, academia, preaching, teaching and pastoral care. With the C of E struggling to find clergy to promote to the episcopate, as Archbishop Justin Welby himself admitted to me at Lambeth Palace, I should have thought that you would have been made a bishop a long time ago. Instead I find you out in the cold. Explain that!

Gavin: You are far too generous. It's true that I was on a list of people considered for episcopal responsibility. It appears that my shortcomings combined with what I have since learned were fairly robust campaigns to resist my candidature ensured that didn't happen. The C of E is a rich mixture of the spiritual and the political. If you make political enemies, or your face does not fit, or you fail to adopt increasingly secular values, options that might have otherwise been open are closed down. One senior bishop invited me to tea in the House of Lords to tell me that I was finished in the C of E as an organisation because what he described as my 'critics' were too determined.

Jules:You have been outspoken against the ordination of women clergy. Have you had opposition to this from the hierarchy of the Church of England?

Gavin: I believe passionately in women's ministry. I think women are often very much more open to the Holy Spirit than men are. But the offices of the Church reflect the way gender was used by God to reveal himself to us. Jesus reveals God as our Father--he is the Son--totally dependent on the role of His mother, for the salvation of the world. Bishops and priests represent the father in the Church. At the same time the denigration of motherhood, a gift through which women become co-creators with the Father--and a loss of a relationship with Mary--means that gender relations have turned to the language of status and power within the Church. The hierarchy of the C of E have become so politicised that it matters more now that you are a feminist than a theologian or a baptised Christian.

Jules:Why do you think the Church of England is terrified of its outspoken priests?

Gavin: Good faithful priests represent life in the Holy Spirit, which exposes the limitations of political power. The C of E is much more comfortable with politics and power than it is with the Holy Spirit, which is why both Wesley and Newman had such difficulty remaining in it. The weaker clergy are spiritually, the more they take refuge in politics. They become terrified when called up on it, because deep down, I think they know they have lost their reliance on the Holy Spirit and are frightened of that being exposed.

Jules:Would you agree that the Church of England castrates its best clergy?

Gavin: I certainly think that holy clergy make the people who have found their way to the top of the institution very uncomfortable. But they probably make us all feel a little uncomfortable. The answer is to learn from them rather than to shut them up or destroy them.

Jules:Monsignor Carlo Liberati, Archbishop Emeritus of Pompeii, said last week: 'In 10 years we will all be Muslims because of our stupidity...per nostra stupidità.' Do you agree with him?

Gavin: Yes. The whole of North Africa and the Middle East was Christian once. All the indications are that Muslims are more committed and less willing to compromise than Christians. When that combines with terrorism, which undoes secularists who want a comfortable and easy life, cowardice and compromise will open the way to Islamic domination. Michel Houellebecq's new novel Submission charts how he sees it happening in France in about ten years' time. It's a terrifying vision, and astonishingly, quite politically possible; some would say--likely. I want my children to have the opportunity to worship Jesus, avoid female circumcision and sharia beatings.

Jules:How should ordinary Christians who seek to be faithful to the gospel of Christ respond to liberal clergy who preach and practice heresy?

Gavin: Leave their Church and look for one that has kept as much of the historic, apostolic and biblical values as possible.

Jules:Have you had any support from bishops in the Church of England following your resignation as Queen's Chaplain?

Gavin: I have had hundreds, perhaps thousands of emails in the last week from Christians across the world pledging their support and their prayers. But not a single one from a serving C of E bishop!

Jules:How do you see your future in the Church of England and the future of the Church of England?

Gavin: It isn't a matter of how I see it. Demographically and financially it is dying. Spiritually it appears to be on its last legs too. I'm not sure I see much point in a church that just wants to be accepted as a sort of not too irritating chaplain to a secular and hedonistic culture, which is what it seems to be becoming. I want to remain a faithful Anglican, but increasingly it looks like that is only possible outside the C of E. It has opted for a kind of spiritualised socialism and feminism in opposition to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. You get new life when you repent. But there is no sign that it is ready to take that path.

The Rev'd Dr Jules Gomes is pastor of St Augustine's Church, Douglas, on the Isle of Man.

According to the Ordinal, the biblical DNA of ministerial responsibility diverges between presbyters and bishops at this particular point. The Apostle Paul's instruction to Timothy - 'what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also' (2 Timothy 2:2 - RSV) - would therefore apply to the bishop rather than to the presbyter.

The bishop has the responsibility to entrust the apostolic deposit to faithful ministers by identifying them and ordaining them. Of course, given the profound Apostolic concern for the continuation of authentic gospel proclamation, local church leaders should be on the look-out for men who may have a vocation to ordained ministry. But not being bishops they are not authorised to ordain them. They have a responsibility to refer these men to the senior pastors who are. In the Reformed Anglican tradition such senior pastors are bishops.

The benefit of the distinction between bishop and presbyter in this respect is that the man being ordained is not the sole property of the local church minister. If he were, that would make ministers of God's Word and Sacrament vulnerable to cloning and personality cult following.

So, Bishop Rod has a vital role to play in upholding the biblical doctrine of Canon A5 in the perpetuation, Lord willing, of faithful biblical ministry in local churches. He deserves the full support of all conservative evangelicals in the Church of England in his godly calling as an episcopal minister of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Julian Mann is vicar of the Parish Church of the Ascension, Oughtibridge, South Yorkshire - http://bit.ly/2jlDzaZ

He added that the "extraordinary and hysterical reaction" against Trump is "reprehensible" and could "damage the fabric of democracy".

The Prime Minister, Theresa May has announced that Trump has been invited by the Queen to a state visit of the UK later this year, and has reiterated this despite more than 1.6 million people signing a petition against such a visit.

A former head of the Foreign Office has said that the Queen has been put in "a very difficult position" by the invitation.

Lord Carey said: "I am very concerned by the 'baying of populism'. Donald Trump is the elected President of the US and the vote by the American people has to be honoured and respected. His views may not be largely shared - I don't by and large - but I guess that many Americans do share them. I think that Donald Trump will learn on the job and his rhetoric will be toned down as time goes on. He has the strength of personality to be an outstanding President but this is predicated on him acquiring experience and wisdom."

Asked whether he would attend a state banquet in honour of Trump, Lord Carey said: "Of course, because the invitation would come from the Queen in the first instance. But I would also be there to join in the welcome because of the unique links the UK has with the USA. The extraordinary and hysterical reaction against Donald Trump is deeply worrying and reprehensible and, if allowed to continue, could damage the fabric of democracy."

It is not clear whether the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby would accept an invitation to the state banquet hosted by the Queen. Lambeth Palace declined to comment.

Archbishop Welby has not so far joined church leaders around the world who have voiced their opposition to the new President's executive orders halting travel, migration and refugees from seven Muslim-majority countries.

The Archbishop issued a prayer after Trump's election last November, saying: "As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take office, my continuing prayers are that the United States of America may find reconciliation after a bitter campaign, and that Mr Trump may be given wisdom, insight and grace as he faces the tasks before him. Together we pray for all the people of the United States."

A spokesperson for Westminster Abbey confirmed to Christian Today that the Dean of Westminster, John Hall, would meet the President and take part in the traditional ceremony at the grave of the Unknown Warrior. "We would expect to take part in the ceremony and it would be the Dean of Westminster that would be leading the prayers," the spokesperson said, adding: "The Abbey is a neutral party."

Lord Ricketts, who was permanent secretary at the Foreign Office from 2006 to 2010, said in a letter to the Times that "the Queen is put in a very difficult position" by May's "premature" move.

He said it was unprecedented for a US president to be invited for a state visit in their first year in the White House, and questioned whether Mr Trump was "specially deserving of this exceptional honour".

He wrote: "It would have been far wiser to wait to see what sort of president he would turn out to be before advising the Queen to invite him...Now the Queen is put in a very difficult position".

Lord Carey of Clifton is the former Archbishop of Canterbury

But officials said it had not been authorised and was at variance with the doctrine and teaching of the church.

Polari is thought to have originated in Victorian London but fell out of use as homosexuality began to be decriminalised in England in the 1960s.

Its words, however, were brought to wider public attention in the same decade by comedian Kenneth Williams in the BBC radio series Round the Horne.

'Fantabulosa Fairy'

One person present at the service told BBC News it was led by an ordinand - a trainee priest - rather than a licensed minister.

The congregation was also made up of trainees.

While they had been given permission to hold a service to commemorate LGBT history month, a Church of England source said the college chaplain had not seen the wording of the service.

The translation was based on the Polari bible, a work compiled as a project in 2003 by the self-styled Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.

The scripture and liturgy were printed on to an order of service.

An Old Testament reading from the Prophet Joel which says "rend your heart and not your garments, return to the Lord your God" was printed in Polari as "rend your thumping chest and not your frocks - and turn unto the Duchess your Gloria: for she is bona and merciful".

Instead of the traditional "Glory be to the father, and to the son, and the Holy Spirit" the prayer offered was: "Fabeness be to the Auntie, and to the Homie Chavvie, and to the Fantabulosa Fairy".

'Hugely regrettable'

Services in the Church of England are legally required to be conducted using the church's approved liturgy.

The principal of Westcott House, the Rev Canon Chris Chivers, said the liturgy of the service had not been authorised for use.

He said: "I fully recognise that the contents of the service are at variance with the doctrine and teaching of the Church of England and that is hugely regrettable.

"Inevitably for some members of the house this caused considerable upset and disquiet and I have spoken at length to those involved in organising the service.

"I will be reviewing and tightening the internal mechanisms of the house to ensure this never happens again."

*****

Leading Cambridge University theological college apologises for 'subverting the teaching of Christ' in church service

By Robert Mendick, chief reporter and Abigail Frymann Rouch
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
3 February 2017

A leading theological college at Cambridge Univeristy has apologised for "subverting the teaching of Christ" by staging a church service that referred to Jesus as 'Josie' and the Lord as the 'Duchess'.

Trainee priests delivered the liturgy at Westcott House using gay slang to mark LGBT history month.

But the service, held in the college's chapel, backfired spectacularly amid complaints it had brought the Church of England into disrepute.

The theological students held the evensong service on Tuesday with a programme explaining their version was a "queering [of] the liturgy of Evening Prayer".

The trainees used Polari, the language championed in the 1950s and 1960s by the comedians Kenneth Williams and Hugh Paddick in BBC radio's Round the Horne.

The popular show used gay innuendo at a time when homosexuality was still illegal.

A note produced along with the order of service explained that the service was "a liturgical experiment" and an "attempt at queering the liturgy of Evening Prayer, locating the queer within the compass of faith".

A gay activist group called the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, has produced a version of the Bible in Polari, in which God is 'Gloria'; the Lord is turned into "the Duchess"; the Holy Spirit becomes "Fantabulosa Fairy"; and Jesus is feminised to "Josie" and referred to as she. Psalm 19 was reworded to refer to "O Duchess, my butchness".

At Tuesday's service, much to the horror of many of the devout worshippers, they were invited to respond to the line: "O Gloria make speed to save us," with the words "O Duchess make haste to help us."

The Principal of Westcott House, Revd Canon Chris Chivers, told The Telegraph that the service had not been vetted beforehand; was not an authorised act of worship; and was "hugely regrettable".

He added: "The service that was produced was completely at variance with the doctrine and teaching of the Church of England."

Canon Chivers said that worshippers -- who included staff and ordinands -- had not been warned of the unorthodox content in advance and only discovered it when they picked up their orders of service.

"People found themselves in a situation they hadn't expected," he said. He was forced the next day "to deliver an admonishment" in front of the whole of Westcott House.

He said: "Theological colleges are a place where experiments are important and mistakes can be made, because hopefully that means they won't be made in public ministry. But it can't be a place where we subvert the doctrine and teaching of the Church.

"We'll be reviewing the process by which these things are authorised so it never happens again." One former student at the college expressed his disgust.

"This is horrific. As a former Westcott ordinand, I'm appalled," said The Reverend Tom Lilley on Twitter. The Reverend Andrew Symes, executive secretary of the conservative group Anglican Mainstream, said that the service "brings the Church into disrepute".

He demanded that Westcott House issue a public apology. But Canon Simon Butler, an openly gay member of the Archbishops' Council, said that while the Polari service was ill advised it could prove a useful "source of learning".

He suggested the choice of liturgy may have been "an inappropriate way of letting off some steam".

Ordinands, he added, "often do foolish things, but if it leads to a deeper engagement with things -- I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, [but theological college] is a relatively safe place to make foolish errors."

"I was completely unaware of any abuse," the Archbishop told LBC radio, on Thursday. "I never heard anything at all at any point. I never had the slightest suspicion that there was anything going on."

A six-month Channel Four News investigation found that both the Trust and Winchester College had learned of allegations of abuse in the 1980s but failed to report them to the police. One man told the programme that he and other boys had been beaten so badly that they had to wear nappies to staunch the bleeding.

The statement on behalf of the Archbishop said: "We recognise that many institutions fail catastrophically, but the Church is meant to hold itself to a far, far higher standard and we have failed terribly. For that the Archbishop apologises unequivocally and unreservedly to all survivors."

One man said that he grew so fearful of the beatings that he tried to take his own life in 1981. This prompted the Iwerne Trust to launch an investigation, and compile a confidential report, written in 1982, seen by Channel 4 News.

It described what it called the "beatings" of 22 young men.

"The scale and severity of the practice was horrific. . . eight received about 14,000 strokes: 2 of them having some 8000 strokes over three years."

A "senior figure" in the Trust wrote to Mr Smyth, telling him to leave the country. He went on to live in Zimbabwe, and then South Africa.

In its statement, Lambeth Palace said that the Archbishop knew that Mr Smyth had moved overseas but, "apart from the occasional card, did not maintain contact with him".

In August 2013, the Bishop of Ely, the Rt Revd Stephen Conway, wrote to the Archbishop of Cape Town, Dr Thabo Makgoba, informing him of concerns expressed to his diocesan safeguarding adviser about Mr Smyth from an alleged survivor. The British police had been notified. The Archbishop's Chaplain at the time was forwarded this letter, and subsequently showed it to the Archbishop for information only.

"The Archbishop has repeatedly said that he believes that the safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults should be a principle priority in all parts of the Church, and that any failings in this area must be immediately reported to the police," the Lambeth Palace statement says. "The Archbishop is on the record as saying that survivors must come first, not the Church's own interests. This applies regardless of how important, distinguished or well-known the perpetrator is."

The Titus Trust, which absorbed the Iwerne Trust in 2000, told Channel 4 News: "It was only in 2014 that the board of The Titus Trust was informed about this matter, after which we submitted a serious incident report to the Charity Commission and provided full disclosure to the police. The allegations are very grave and they should have been reported to the police when they first became known in 1981."

"We utterly condemn this behaviour and abuse of power and trust," the Church of England's National Safeguarding Adviser, Graham Tilby, said. He said that his predecessor had helped to find support for the survivors.

"Clearly more could have been done at the time to look further into the case," he said. "We now have a dedicated central team made up of six full-time posts. We will be reviewing all files, making further enquiries as necessary." He urged anyone with further information to go to the police.

When Channel 4 News put the allegations to Mr Smyth on camera, he said: "I'm not talking about what we did at all." He called some of the claims nonsense, and declined to respond to further requests.

END

It said the report read as though bishops saw "their task as managing rather than perhaps enabling or leading" on the issue.

The report, written by serving bishops, upholds the traditional teaching that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Currently church doctrine says that LGBT clergy members must be celibate and are forbidden from conducting same-sex marriage ceremonies.

In contrast, the Church of Scotland voted to allow members of the clergy to marry their same sex partners earlier this year, even if it did not overhaul its stance on marriage as between a man and a woman.

The bishops wrote: "Our perception is that, while the pain of LGBT people is spoken about in your report, we do not hear its authentic voice.

"Our experience would lead us to doubt whether there was an expectation around that canons and doctrinal statements would be changed within any reasonable timescale, and that focus seems to have taken far more time than it would have done if the authentic voices of lesbian and gay people had been allowed to express the major focus of their hopes."

They suggested that the focus on changing canonical law regarding same-sex marriage, rather than focusing on changing the tone and culture surrounding the issue, demonstrated a lack of conviction.

"The tone and culture of your document are incredibly familiar -- we've been there and talked in that tone of voice, and it prevents calls for a change of culture, of course offered in complete sincerity by you, from ringing true", they said.

The intervention comes as the Church prepares for its five-day General Synod in London starting on Monday. Officials hope the 500-plus members of its general assembly will accept the report's findings.

Unusually, it will not make a formal request for the synod to accept the report's conclusion but merely to "take note" of it.

The three sections of the synod - the bishops, the clergy and the laity -- will also be asked individually to "take note" of it, and if just one section rejects it the motion will fail.

Campaigners have warned that there is a movement within the synod as many, particularly in the clergy, are in favour of being more accepting towards LGBT members.

One of the signatories to the letter, the former Bishop of Worcester Revd Dr Peter Selby, told The Observer: "There will be some [serving bishops] who think 'why don't these dinosaurs shut up, it's none of their business'. But I hope there will also be some who are glad we have put this on the record."

END

His comments came after John Bercow was criticised for accusing Mr Trump of "racism and sexism", and are likely to further complicate the planning for the president's state visit later this year.

Addressing the Church of England's General Synod, the Archbishop said both Brexit and Mr Trump's rise had been caused by factors including globalisation and social "marginalisation".

Sketching a pessimistic view of Britain, he spoke of a "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".

But he said leaving the EU had provided "a moment to reimagine Britain," adding: "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."

Addressing allegations of child abuse against John Smyth QC, a former friend accused of savagely beating boys, the Archbishop said the Church was not unique, and that "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".

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.

Other proposals include a new sexuality-and-relationships working group of the Archbishops' Council, "responsible for holding the theological diversity of the Church of England", a national lead for LGBTI matters at Church House, and the publication and recommendation of an approved liturgy for prayer and thanksgiving with same-sex couples after a civil partnership or marriage.

OneBodyOneFaith says that these proposals are "very far from being all we want to see, but it would be a way forward".

In a blog published by the Church of England's communications department, the Bishop of Leicester, the Rt Revd Martyn Snow, says he is aware of plans for protests and alternatives to the take-note debate.

"I understand the motives behind this, but wonder what will be achieved," he writes. "Will it lead to change and a greater acceptance of LGBTI people in churches? I'm really not sure. The media will circle like wolves and everyone's hackles will rise."

He says he is "saddened" by reports that some will boycott the group work, scheduled to take place before the debate on Wednesday. "I have much to learn in my own pastoral response to LGBTI people and I can only learn it by listening," he writes. "Vent your anger at me, but please do it face-to-face in a small group."

The first day of Synod saw gay members raise concerns about the group work. The Prolocutor of the Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury, Canon Simon Butler, questioned how safe it would be to participate, and said that he had already received a text from another member that was "borderline harrassment". The text was condemned by the Archbishop of Canterbury in the chamber as "inexcusable self indulgence . . . a perfect example of how not to act".

Also published on the Church House site is a blog by the Bishop of Chichester, Dr Martin Warner. The Anglo Catholic tradition has "often been caricatured and derided as harbouring a gay subculture," he writes. "Irrespective of the actual sexual orientation of Anglo-Catholic laity and clergy, past or present, we have borne the opprobrium, and offered safe space to recipients, of homophobia. . .

"Still we love the faith and the sacraments received by the Church of England as something rich and life-giving, an articulation of Christian truth shared with the ancient Churches of East and West," he goes on. "I have no formal mandate for saying so, but that is the reason why many Anglo-Catholics, and others, sincerely and gladly accept the retention of the doctrine of marriage as we have received it."

The challenge, he concludes, is to "live authentically in the world, in the fullest communion possible".

On Monday evening, members of the Evangelical Group on General Synod (EGGS) were presented with a request to reject the "Affirmations" of the Evangelical Alliance. These are ten points on "biblical and pastoral responses to homosexuality" that include opposition to moves to "accept or endorse sexually active same-sex partnerships as a legitimate form of Christian relationship and to permit the ordination to ministry of those in such sexual relationships".

A letter was circulated to all members of EGGS by five members of the group who oppose the endorsement, including Jayne Ozanne, a lay Evangelical from the diocese of Oxford. The group wrote of a concern that the present stance of Evangelicals was creating "severe problems for our mission and ministry in today's world".

The letter refers to "high levels of homophobia" and calls for "more honesty about the effectiveness of sexual-orientation change efforts". It urges Evangelicals to consider a response to "mounting scientific evidence that sexuality is neither chosen nor changeable, and that gender is non-binary".

It is understood that no vote on the Affirmations was taken at the meeting.

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."

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

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.

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."