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

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.

'Baal and Yahweh offer complimentary insights into the oneness of worship we are all seeking. Both faiths believe in a supreme god in whose image we are made and which excludes no one. We celebrate our common origin, as indicated by the names themselves ('Lord'). It is acknowledged that Baal worship involves the use of images which traditional Yahwism forbids. But it must be remembered that such images are not crude primitive idols or manifestations of deity, but aids in devotion. It has long been recognised that different people have different entry points into the numinous and that it is too restrictive to insist that the logocentric approach of the Yahwist faith should be determinative (there is also an increasing awareness that logocentricism tends to be abusive and manipulative, an instrument of the politics of power).

Much has been made in the past of the' problems' regarding the differences in the area of ethics between the two faiths. We do not see problems but only people who wish to be true to themselves as people of integrity. We would call upon our Yahwist sisters and brothers to recognise the common ground we share, not least in the supreme value of love as setting our moral compass. This provides us with an ideal opportunity to witness to an increasingly divided world of the possibility of unity in diversity, agreement in disagreement, walking together in different directions. We are heartened by the recognition by some leading members in the Yahwist sect that the informality and sensuality in Baal religion is a much needed corrective to the rather austere and repressive 'holiness' aspects of traditional Yahwism. Indeed, some of their own have made the enlightened claim that it is possible that within the intimacy of same sex relations Baal/Yahweh herself can be encountered.

It is now time to move on in love and joy as we celebrate our common humanity without exception and without exclusion, leaving the hermeneutics of suspicion behind us. We are thankful to the reactionary-progressive policies of His Majesty King Ahab and Her Eminence Queen Jezebel and their advisors (admittedly most of them of the Baal cult). There undoubtedly lies ahead a new era of the mutual enrichment of our shared, albeit apparently contradictory, traditions which is universally recognised as the genius of the new Israel.'

Melvin Tinker is Vicar of St John Newland since 1994, Melvin read Theology at Oxford University and trained for ordination at Wycliffe Hall. He has previously been curate at Wetherby Parish Church, Chaplain to Keele University and vicar of All Hallows, Cheadle. As well as speaking around the country and abroad, Melvin is the author of over sixty published articles dealing with a wide range of subjects relating to ethics and theology.

But the diocese did not take any action, saying it could cause further upset to the victims.

Oxford-educated Timothy Storey was jailed for 15 years last April after a court heard how he groomed hundreds of children on Facebook, using his position as children's pastor to prey on 'weak, insecure girls'.

Judge Philip Katz lambasted the 'utterly incompetent failure' of 'arrogant' church leaders to protect young girls -- and accused them of a cover-up. Bishop Chartres apologised and set up an independent inquiry into the scandal.

The Mail on Sunday has established that it was concluded five months ago.

Its full contents were kept secret, but this newspaper can reveal the inquiry said both clerics should face disciplinary action -- even though both had already been removed from their children's supervisory roles.

We can also disclose that the two clerics -- identified in the report only as 'clergy person A and B' -- are the Reverend Hugh Valentine and the Reverend Jeremy Crossley.

Valentine was Bishop Chartres's adviser on child protection during Storey's reign of terror. The Storey trial judge criticised his 'arrogance' in refusing to give evidence.

Valentine has carried on as curate at St James's Church, Westminster. In his sermon last Sunday, entitled Sexuality And Bishops, he accused the Church of treating gays and lesbians like 'embarrassing relations' and said religion had helped breed 'hatred', including 'homophobia, misogyny and racism'.

Valentine also works for a young person's charity, the Walcot Foundation. Crossley was Bishop Chartres's director of ordinands, and is Rector at St Margaret Lothbury Church in the City of London.

END

We all know the seemingly irreconcilable theological positions of those who, on the one hand, believe sexuality to be a matter akin to the civil rights struggle, votes for women and so on -- and those who, on the other, believe it is an issue in which the authority of the Bible and people's eternal salvation are at stake.

But there is another under-discussed problem, and it is simply this: what are the bishops, who have been at the centre of this story, supposed to be there for? And what light does that cast on the Church of England's current predicament?

1. Bishops are meant to be shepherds: but are they in danger of letting the sheep lead them?

In the service for a consecration of a bishop, the liturgy declares: 'Bishops are called to serve and care for the flock of Christ. Mindful of the Good Shepherd, who laid down his life for his sheep, they are to love and pray for those committed to their charge...'

The church is not meant to be a democracy -- it is meant to be something entirely different. If Jesus, the Good Shepherd, is its head, then bishops are meant to be 'under-shepherds' -- leading, nourishing, protecting and guiding their flock.

If the net effect of synodical government as it works today is that these under-shepherds can be harangued and ordered around by more junior shepherds (clergy) and sheep (laity), is it not surprising that things go awry?

2. Bishops are meant to be gladiators: but are they in danger of becoming referees?

The Anglican liturgy also states that bishops are 'guardians of the faith of the apostles' -- a phrase which implies valiantly fighting off anything not in keeping with that credo. Elsewhere we read that bishops are 'to teach and to uphold sound and wholesome doctrine, and to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange opinions'. There's a vigour and energy to that last phrase which brings to mind fighting off ferocious exotic beasts.

But in modern Anglican practice, bishops often seem to act more like referees overseeing a contest between two (or indeed more) opposing teams, and trying to keep order by blowing their whistles when things get out of hand. In practice, this pleases neither side, both of whom end up complaining 'we wuz robbed'.

It seems to me, therefore, that any way forward on the issue of sexuality raises wider issues about the theology and practice of church governance. Both look shaky. We need to radically reform the present shape of the episcopacy so that bishops once again fulfil their role and become more like teachers and less like technocrats.

Don't get me wrong -- I like bishops! I want to be their chief cheerleader. I'm not talking about particular individuals or seeking to criticise specific people -- I am thinking of the system as it seems to have evolved in practice.

So why not be brave, my lord bishops? Re-examine the whole system of synodical government. Are there better ways of listening to the blessed bleating of your flock and liaising with the clergy, your junior shepherds? And then what about recognising the irreconcilable nature of the two positions on sexuality? Why not announce a bold restructuring of the Church of England into two related but distinct organisations -- a 'Labour / Co-op solution', if you will?

But above all else, don't listen to the ever-changing winds and waves of popular opinion; certainly don't listen to armchair pontificators like me. (Well, not too much, anyway!) Listen to the chief shepherd, Christ. And let that same Jesus, the incarnate Word, point you to the written Word, Scripture, and back again. Then pastor your people boldly.

As a poem by ML Haskins puts it: 'Go out into the darkness and put your hand into the Hand of God... / So I went forth, and finding the Hand of God, trod gladly into the night. / And He led me towards the hills and the breaking of day in the lone East.'

Percy claims there is a "substantial amount of resistance building up" to North's appointment, which he says would "represent the toleration of gender-based sectarianism".

In 2012, North stepped aside from his appointment as bishop of Whitby after protests over his opposition to women in the ministry. He is currently the suffragan bishop of Burnley; Sheffield, a diocesan post, is a promotion.

According to an article by Percy, published on Friday on the Modern Church website, North's theological position would make it impossible for him to affirm female clergy in his diocese, or male clergy who have been ordained by a female bishop. In Sheffield, a third of the clergy are women.

"This will feel like a step backwards for many parishes and clergy ... the crown nominations commission has shown a marked insensitivity to this history in nominating [North] to the see of Sheffield," Percy writes.

"Sheffield is a go-ahead, vibrant, progressive city, with cutting-edge universities and research-led industries. It is thoroughly modern. The public will neither comprehend nor welcome this rather fogeyish sacralised sexism of the religious organisation -- known simply as the Society -- and that Bishop Philip leads."

The Society has begun issuing "identity cards" to priests to prove they were ordained by a bishop "whose orders we can recognise", according to an address by its director, Colin Podmore, published this month in New Directions, the magazine of Forward in Faith, a pressure group opposed to female priests.

Until the ordination of the first female bishops in 2015, Podmore said, "you could tell by looking who was a priest whose ministry we could receive, and who was not. But now we have male priests ordained by women bishops. We can't receive their ministry, but how can you tell who ordained whom, for example, when you're a churchwarden arranging cover in a vacancy?"

The identity card proposal was intended to demonstrate a chain of "ontological purity" via a "taint-free" litany of bishops, said Percy.

Speaking to the Guardian, Percy drew a distinction between North's legal or canonical acceptance of female priests and his theological disapproval, and called on the bishop to clarify his position.

In his article, he said he "could not envisage a diocesan bishop functioning well who is also an ambassador for gender-based discrimination, and an advocate of inequality". The situation for many clergy, both male and female, would be "profoundly unjust". He said either North should step aside, or female clergy, and male priests ordained by a female bishop, may have to resign, "as their own bishop does not recognise and affirm their sacramental efficacy".

A C of E spokesperson said North had said at a meeting with women clergy in the diocese "that he is in favour of women's leadership and would actively promote it".

The spokesperson added: "The beauty of the Church of England is its theological breadth and its ability to hold together disparate views across a range of issues whilst still finding unity in Jesus Christ. The Church of England supports all orders of ministry being open equally, irrespective of gender, and remains committed to enabling all people to flourish within its life and structures."

North has also said he is "determined to be a bishop for all and will love, care for, appoint and develop the ministry of all clergy female or male".

END

The letter was written to Dr Richard and Matthew Edwards, who married last year in Birmingham Register Office. Both are members of the PCC at St Paul's, Birmingham. Dr Edwards is the treasurer, and Matthew Edwards the vice-chair and a churchwarden. They have been together for five years, and got engaged in 2015. Before they married, they wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury for guidance.

The letter they received in response, written by the Archbishop's correspondence secretary, Andrew Nunn, demonstrates the Church of England's ambivalence on the question of same-sex marriage. He states: "marriage in an Anglican church is not an option for you." On the other hand, he describes the practice of having a blessing in church after a civil ceremony. "The church ceremony can be arranged so as to be almost indistinguishable from a wedding, but without the legalities."

A Lambeth Palace spokeswoman said on Wednesday: "The correspondence secretary was intending to refer to marriages and blessings which take place in denominations other than the Church of England."

Mr Nunn writes that Archbishop Welby had been "shaken" by the reaction in the House of Lords to the Bishops' opposition to the same-sex marriage legislation. Same-sex marriage had "become something of a shibboleth for those opposed to homosexuality more generally. . ."

He continues: "I am really sorry that you cannot have the church wedding that you want so much. However you get around the issue, I very much hope that your wedding is a happy and joyful occasion, and that your lives together are everything and more that you dream of."

Dr and Mr Edwards went on to have a service at St Paul's, conducted in front of 170 guests, in June last year (News, 17 June). It was, Dr Edwards said last week, "as close to the real deal as it could be, and we enjoyed every moment. I hope it encourages other gay couples to do the same -- particularly whilst we wait for the day when they can do the legal bits, too. . .

"We wanted a church service for all of our family and friends, and for the choirs in which we sung and conducted to be involved, and to be able to sing sacred music. We wanted my mother, a lay reader, to lead some prayers, and we wanted Bible readings, not secular poems. The register office could offer none of this." Tim Knight, a friend and composer, was commissioned to set to the text Ubi Caritas.

The service -- "A service of thanksgiving following the marriage of Richard and Matthew" -- was designed with the help of the Vicar, the Revd Mary Gilbert, and included a blessing of the rings.

Dr Edwards said that on the wedding day, Ms Gilbert put a rainbow flag up on the church flagpole, prompting another churchwarden to request its removal. The churchwarden resigned, and left the church shortly afterwards. It is understood that a complaint was made to the Bishop of Birmingham, the Rt Revd David Urquhart, who said at the time that he was "in the process of establishing what occurred". Dr Edwards said that he had been "shocked to the core" by this, having been unaware that any member of the congregation was unhappy about the service.

He has heard nothing from Bishop Urquhart, but understands that he wrote a brief letter to Ms Gilbert, passing on his good wishes. Neither the Bishop nor Ms Gilbert could not be reached to confirm this.

Dr Edwards believes that the current guidance from the Bishops, which prohibits a blessing in church, is "homophobic. It does not recognise the love which we share. . . It saddens us, but we were very blessed to have such a caring and understanding priest in Mary."

He welcomed the Archbishops' recent letter, but said that it "seems a bit late. I will, however, take them at their word, and watch the next stages closely. . . I do hope there will be tangible and valued involvement of real gay people."

Much of the post-war resurgence of Anglican Evangelicalism can be attributed to the leadership given by those formed at and by Iwerne. Against this background, how justified is the broadside against the whole constituency occasioned by the one man's appalling behaviour and launched by Professor Linda Woodhead and Andrew Brown (Comment, 17 February)?

(a) Not one other deviant person is named by your contributors from the 80-plus years of operation, though "The Church of England is being forced to face the full reality of abuse in the Iwerne Trust and other institutions."

(b) The paragraphs they give to the quite separate publication, The Returns of Love, appear to have no connection with Iwerne at all, or John Smyth's activities.

(c) I have never, in 63 years, heard any Evangelical, whether from Iwerne or not, cite the Hebrews 12 passage about fathers' chastising their children as some kind of example or warrant for Christian leaders' beating disciples, nor encountered nor heard rumoured any practice that might have developed from such exegesis.

(d) It seems that even John Smyth did not attempt to relate his beatings to the sufferings of Christ, though I have heard that linkage made by a critic on the radio.

(e) The whole of Iwerne history has been staked upon the doctrine that "there is one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus, who became human," and that this has been a safeguard against too priestly a role being taken by human leaders and guides.

(f) It is true, though wholly irrelevant to the Smyth case, that Evangelicals (and not only "Bash campers") eschewed controversy in the 1950s and 1960s. It is, in fact, the common stance of persecuted minorities. It is difficult now to recapture how Anglican Evangelicalism had been ghettoised in those years, and how difficult it was to break out of it. But it is ludicrous to cite that stance to suggest that there was a widescale concealing of abuse.

John Smyth must be treated as a perverse and secretive exploiter of the trust in leaders which was well developed at Iwerne. Widening the allegations against him into an attack on the whole constituency surely requires serious widespread evidence. This is completing lacking in your contributors' vacuous article, which reads as though they think that any stick would do with which to beat their opponents.

END

It wasn't just the hunger for 'free love' as it became described; other factors affected faith,- like the horror of the two world wars; as if it was somehow God's fault that having given us free will, we exercised it to slaughter each other in unimaginable numbers.

Not that the love was exactly free either. There has been a cost to our recreational free love. We live in what has been called 'the age of disposable dads'. More teenage boys now have mobile phones (62%) than live with their dads. (57%).

The cost of broken families in the UK was estimated at £50 Billion. 48% per cent of children aged five and under in the poorest 20 per cent of families are now from broken homes.

A few more numbers tell a bit more truth about the cost. More children are born to unmarried than married parents now. Of the unmarried, half of all cohabiting couples will break up within a year of moving in together. 47% do not live with both natural parents by the time the child is 15. 90% of unmarried couples will break up by their childrens' teens.

The love was not as free as we thought.

But the rejection of Christianity by our culture wasn't just the choice of rock and roll, drugs, sex and indulgence over a moral framework that protected our families and children. We chose other things too. Brown commented:

"The generation that grew up in the sixties was more dissimilar to its parents than in any previous century. A moral metamorphosis.....the decline of marriage, the rise of divorce and remarriage, the rise of cohabitation ... decreasing stigmatisation of illegitimacy, homosexuality and sexual licence, the growing recourse to birth control and abortion, and the irresistible social pressures for government liberalisation of restrictions on drinking, Sunday closing and recreation."

Of all these, I think one of the most serious was the choice of the state to break the bond between children and marriage, and legislate for same-sex marriage. Of course it was a choice that any society has the freedom to take, but it was the final repudiation of the Christian culture that defined our civilisation. As Brown says, what took over one and a half thousand years to build and grow, we tore down in forty years.

So when I listened to the retiring Dean of Jersey make a case in an exit interview to continue the practice of the Anglican Dean sitting in the legislature by right of office, I wondered if he had missed the scale of this change. He reflected :

"I do think that Christian faith has been the basis of the island's law and culture, and therefore to have that faith, and I never speak narrowly as an Anglican, it's always on the basis of other Christians and frankly what I understand to be the Muslim and Jewish position on matters that are before us."

Today, in Jersey only 1300 people out of a population of 103,000 on the island of Jersey choose to identify as Anglican Christians. An Anglican Dean may want to speak of behalf Roman Catholics, Muslims and Jews in a legislature, but on matters as varied as homosexuality, marriage, abortion, alcohol, FGM, there is no global 'inter-religious' position; - he doesn't, shouldn't and can't.

What began as a trickle has become a flood. The flood has carried away the Christian vision of a God who gave us both law and love, intertwined. We like love on our terms and we don't like laws that interfere with our indulgences. Like the wars we have fought, this flood was an exercise of human freedom. But as society atomises and breaks down, the cost in terms simply of morals, money and mental stability may be more than our freedom can easily afford. A Dean in the heart of the legislature presiding over this cultural revolution suggests that nothing has changed and all is well. But it has all changed, and it is not well.

Faced with the deepening incompatibilities between secular political ambitions and the Christian vision, it would be more honourable for the Church to withdraw from this symbolic but now outdated position. Better to do it before the secularists rightly demand it on principle, and return when Christians have recaptured their neighbours' hearts and minds with the love and ethics of Christ, as they once did.

END

'In the face of false teaching, the Apostle Paul tells Timothy both to keep his distance from it but also to continue in patient teaching,' Bishop Thomas writes. 'He recognises that this may involve suffering.'

The 'floating' bishop, whose position was installed to appease conservatives, offers oversight to those parishes who refuse to recognise female ordination but find themselves under a woman bishop.

Thomas admits a number of his fellow bishops are calling for the Church to be more affirming of same-sex relationships but says evangelicals 'are on a different trajectory'.

He writes: 'The time may be on us where individual congregations and parishes have to take fresh steps to show that they are not following the trajectory of others.

'This may well involve them in difficult decisions, unpopular actions and awkward situations.'

But he urged conservative parishes in general not to abandon the CofE.

'The doctrinal foundations of the Church of England are worth protecting,' he writes.

'If we are clergy, we need to remember that when the Apostle Paul warned of false teachers, he didn't urge the Ephesian elders to run away in order to avoid attack, but instead said 'guard the flock'.

'So we need to stand firm -- continuing to teach and do the work of evangelism, continuing to turn up at Synods in order to contend for the gospel, continuing to encourage one another by meeting together, and continuing to support those who run into difficulty.'

Quoting a 19th century essay by theologian and bishop J C Ryle he concluded: 'Let us not desert our post to save trouble, and move out to please our adversaries ... The good ship of the Church of England may have some rotten planks about her. The crew may, many of them, be useless and mutinous, and not trustworthy. But there are still some faithful ones among them. There is still hope for the good old craft. The Great Pilot has not yet left her. Let us therefore stick by the ship.'

END

Michael Overd of Creech St Michael, Somerset and Michael Stockwell of Selden, New York were fined £300 and ordered to pay costs after a magistrate at Bristol Magistrates Court found them guilty of disorderly conduct and using 'threatening and abusive words ... likely to cause alarm'.

A video circulating on the web records one of the men, Michael Overd, preaching about 'sinners' before he is asked by a policeman to 'disperse' for 'winding people up', and is then manhandled and arrested as people cheer.

Mr Gorick gave his reaction on the day of the hearing after he had read a paper on blasphemy to the Council of Christian Muslim Relations in High Wycombe, a former chair manufacturing town northwest of London.

He said: 'It's clear that as a society we are open and tolerant of most beliefs and practices.

'As a Christian I am very happy that we do not prosecute people for blasphemy in this country. We have seen in history how terrible it is when political power, or religious majorities attack religious minorities.

'Christians and Muslims will have differences. Hindus and Sikhs will have differences. Sunni and Shia, Catholic and Protestant will have differences.

'There are places in our world when religious minorities feel constantly under suspicion or worse.

'God is not honoured when we act as if we are God and seek to punish people in God's name.'

He said he had not touched on the transposition of blasphemy into the secular belief system.

Blasphemy

Mr Gorick said the UK had gone on a big journey on blasphemy law since the thirteenth century when a Christian was burned at the stake in Oxford for converting to Judaism in order to marry a Jewish woman.

'We have come through religious wars and executions to arrive at the age in which we live now. When all can live in peace and minorities are free to practice their faith without fear.

'That is something that gives honour to God.'

He said that the style of street preaching he had seen in Oxford was 'provocative'.

Imams

High Wycombe is something of a test bed for interfaith work that incorporates the statutory services with a broad spectrum of Muslim and Christian activists from the town and elsewhere.

It has won praise from politicians and heads for its work countering radicalization, particularly in schools, following high-profile arrests for terrorism offences.

Archdeacon Gorick's presentation followed a similar one last November given by Dr Khaled Zahir, former Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at the University of Central Punjab, who blogs at Understanding Islam UK. He said there was 'no punishment for blasphemy in Qur'an or the Sunnah which are the two primary sources of belief in the religion.'

Nonetheless, Christian mother of five Aasia Bibi is still on death row in a Pakistan gaol, charged with blasphemy -- an accusation she has denied.

The former governor of Punjab Province, Salman Taseer, was assassinated in 2011, by his bodyguard, Mumtaz Qadri, for defending her.

Three imams in High Wycombe preached sermons during Friday prayers in spring last year, praising Qadri as a 'shaheed' or martyr, and justifying the murder by reference to hadith (alleged sayings of Mohammed) and Islamic jurisprudence.

The CCMR has made strenuous efforts to distance the town's Muslims from the views of the three imams, following an initial complaint by a Muslim.

'We commend the courageous action of the complainant who brought the matter to the attention of the Mosque Committee for investigation,' they said in ta statement published this week, and signed by chair and former town mayor Chauhdri Shafique and vice-chair Revd Hugh Ellis.

Local Conservative MP Steve Baker met the imams who said they had been 'falsely accused'.

It was later established that the imams had used the word 'shaheed' -- described by Baker as 'unwise'. He called for an urgent explanation from the imams.

An 'independent investigator' employed by High Wycombe's elected Mosque Committee concluded the imams had been 'misguided'.

None has been charged.

Scotland

Islamic teachings 'see no place in Islam for the glorification of murder whatever the motive', says the CCMR statement.

The BBC recently reported from Pakistan that the same religious leaders who are promoting the 'martyrdom' of Mumtaz Qadri are also glorifying the murder of 40-year old Glasgow shop-keeper Asad Shah.

His killer Tanveer Ahmed, from Bradford in Yorkshire, travelled to Glasgow to stab his victim to death for his religious beliefs.

Gaoled for 27 years, Ahmed has recently had his mobile phone confiscated. The BBC Today Programme reported he had been 'inspiring hardliners' in Pakistan by calling them from his cell.

He said he believed Mr Shah -- from the Ahmadiyya sect which Sunnis regard as heretical - was committing blasphemy by uploading videos claiming that Mohammed was not the last Prophet.

Former radical and co-founder of Quilliam Foundation Maajid Nawaz says Britain's Pakistanis are getting their religious opinions direct from Pakistan.

Archdeacon Gorick is a Canon of Christchurch Cathedral in Oxford, and has special responsibility in the diocese for interfaith relations, chaplains and new communities.

END

The future of the cathedral is now under threat after plans for a housing development on surplus land that would have raised a £10m endowment were rejected by the council.

The cathedral is losing up to £100,000 a year, with sources saying the relatively modern building, completed in 1961, struggles to attract the donations received by more established churches.

Local church leaders had hoped a proposal by Linden Homes to demolish existing clergy properties on Stag Hill and build 134 new apartments and houses would solve its financial problems.

But the scheme was criticised as overbearing by local residents and overwhelmingly rejected by local councillors.

The Most Rev Justin Welby had previously warned that the Church would not "rescue" the cathedral.

In a letter to the council days before the decision, he wrote: "It is sometimes said that cathedrals are the Church of England's equivalent of the big banks - 'too big to fail' - and that the very serious financial straits that are one of the motivating factors for Guildford pursuing this application are not so serious because the central church would 'rescue' them before total collapse. This is not the case."

He added that as cathedrals are independent bodies within the Church of England, Guildford Cathedral could not rely on help from any central church body.

He said: "Naturally there are ways of offering assistance and advice, but it is extremely unlikely that any part of the church would be able to compensate financially for the effects of this development not going ahead.

"I hope that anyone who has been misinformed on this point will understand that the future of Guildford's Cathedral rests very much in the decision the council makes."

He also addressed concerns that the development would ruin the view of the cathedral, saying: "I appreciate the striking picture that Guildford Cathedral makes, sitting alone on its hill. However this picture is not one that the cathedral wishes to present; it wishes to be rooted deeply in providing solace and joy to all who live in its diocese. Cathedrals are living building which thrive on welcoming people in; medieval cathedrals are often crowded around with houses, as at Lincoln or York."

The chief concerns expressed by locals were over the height of the development and the loss of green space, as well as increased congestion and pressure on school places from the new homes.

At a planning meeting, Dean Dianna Gwilliams, reportedly told councillors: "There is no plan B.

"We welcome more than 90,000 people a year and the running cost of the building is immense. We believe the development proposal is the only way to raise the necessary endowment."

Bishop of Guildford Andrew Watson told the committee: "Without this planning permission there will be no endowment, no investment income and possibly no cathedral."

However, councillors overwhelmingly voted against the application on the basis that it was out of character for the area.

They also stated that the development would cause substantial harm to the cathedral building and have a negative impact on views of the building from key locations in Guildford.

More than 60 residents had attended Guildford Methodist Church to discuss their concerns.

Olive Edwards, who organised the discussion, said: "There was anger over what appeared to be blackmail by the cathedral to get a housing development approved to raise money for their financial inadequacies.

"The Linden Homes proposal for 134 dwellings is a dense, overbearing development creating significant overlooking because of the proposed height of the buildings combined with the rise in the land and the plans for a large number of balconies."

Howard Moss, chairman of Onslow Residents' Association and chairman of Queen Eleanors School PTA, added: "This development is not at the right time, not the right place and I don't believe the church is that broke."

A spokesman for the cathedral said: "Clearly we are disappointed by the decision reached by GBC.

"As trustees, Guildford Cathedral Chapter have a responsibility to consider all options open to securing the cathedral's long-term future. We will carefully consider the reasons for refusal before deciding the next steps."

"It is clear that the level of feeling is such that my arrival would be counter-productive in terms of the mission of the Church in South Yorkshire and that my leadership would not be acceptable to many."

He added: "There is clearly much to be done on what it means to disagree well and to live with theological difference in the Church of England.

"The highly individualised nature of the attacks upon me have been extremely hard to bear. If, as Christians, we cannot relate to each other within the bounds of love, how can we possibly presume to transform a nation in the name of Christ?"

He would have been the first bishop appointed to a senior role who did not agree with women's ordination since the Church voted to allow women to become bishops in November 2014.

The bishop had withdrawn from public for a period of "prayer and reflection" and had not previously made any statements about the controversy.

Residents of the new diocese had urged him to stand aside over his views.

The controversy stems in part from his continued membership of a Church of England group known as the Society, which does not recognise women priests.

The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, had previously said that the church would support his appointment.

Last week he received support from 36 members of female clergy in the Blackburn diocese, as well as three women bishops.

But local groups in Sheffield had protested his appointment. A new group called Sheffield Action on Ministry Equality wrote an open letter saying it had left them "deeply troubled".

This is the second post he has withdrawn from after withdrawing from a nomination to be Bishop of Whitby in 2012.

An update on the Downing Street website said he had withdrawn "for personal reasons". The Archbishop of York is expected to make a new nomination for the post "in due course".

A brief response.

This is a further indication that Archbishop Justin Welby's call for "radical inclusion" has given a green light for Diocesan Bishops to publicly express a preference for abandonment of more than 3000 years of Judaeo-Christian anthropology and sexual ethics. Chelmsford follows Manchester, Hereford, Portsmouth and Liverpool in recent weeks.

Bishop Stephen's call is the most explicit yet, and comes as part of his Charge to Synod, formal and authoritative, focused on his role as the focus of unity and guardian of apostolic teaching to which he refers at the start of his address.

He expresses lack of confidence that Scripture's teaching can be relied on today. These arguments are not new -- in fact they are restatements of the old heresies which have been refuted over and over again -- but they are, significantly, coming from the Bishop's Chair.

He says clearly that the church must change its message to fit in with what non-Christian culture believes and approves of. It is difficult to see how his role as guardian of a distinctive, counter-cultural apostolic truth has not thereby been forfeited.

He devalues the sacrificial lifestyle of celibate singleness displayed by our Lord and many thousands of godly men and women down the ages. By taking "not good to live alone" out of context, he suggests that a sexual relationship is essential for happiness and even being fully human, ignoring the fact that loneliness can be experienced in cohabitation and marriage, and complete fulfillment can be found by single people living in relationship with Christ, in non-sexual relationships of love, friendship and community with others.

He is sending a message to those holding to the traditional position, that while he apparently respects their position, they will not be allowed to block change any more. The implication is that if progress is not made towards celebrating same sex relationships in church, it is the conservatives who are not "listening", and they are the ones responsible for continued conflict by not being willing to live with diversity.

It is now over to the orthodox clergy and laity in Chelmsford Diocese, first, to see what they will do. Some will be talking about looking for some form of differentiation, perhaps alternative oversight, whether informal or more visible. Some, especially laity, will be looking for another denomination. We hope that those who continue to recognize the Bishop's spiritual authority and do nothing, will see the need to join others in taking principled action. This pattern will be repeated in other Dioceses in coming months.

He declined to comment on the move until his six-month waiting time is up.

It comes after the long-standing critic of the Church left his post as Queen's chaplain in January following a row over a Quran reading in Glasgow Cathedral. The Shropshire-based priest criticised the decision by Rev Kelvin Holdsworth, Provost of St Mary's Cathedral, for inviting a reading from the Islamic holy book at the Epiphany service on January 6.

'After a conversation instigated by officials at Buckingham Palace, I decided the most honourable course of action was to resign,' he said at the time pointing to a 'a very important convention that the Queen should not be drawn into publics affairs where she is deemed to be taking a position'.

His decision to leave ministry in the Church could lead others to follow suit. A number of conservative Anglicans have voiced their concern about the Archbishop of Canterbury's call for a 'radical, new Christian inclusion' after a report maintaining a largely conservative stance on sexuality was rejected by the CofE's ruling general synod.

'There is no sign the Church of England is going to reconsider its policy of accommodation with the secular culture,' Ashenden said in a previous interview with Christian Today.

'It has abandoned certain key and apostolic norms,' he added, warning the CofE would collapse within decades because of its refusal to adhere to conservative Christianity.

He contrasted the year-on-year decline in England with the rapidly growing churches in Russia and China and said the difference was they had 'not made an accommodation with the culture'.

He said in the January interview: 'There are two kinds of Anglicanism. A secular Anglicanism and a traditional biblical Anglicanism.

'I see myself and others as very soon having to make a choice.'

He described himself as 'in limbo' between the CofE and other Anglican churches around the world.

'I certainly look at worldwide Anglicanism and I associate myself with some parts of the Anglican church that have kept the biblical faith. And I increasingly disassociate myself with parts like the Church of England.

END

Dr John is in a long-term gay relationship with another Anglican priest and in a strongly worded open letter on Sunday claimed his sexuality was the sole reason why he was blocked.

'The only arguments adduced against my appointment -- in particular by two of the bishops - were directly related to my homosexuality and/or civil partnership -- namely that my appointment would bring unwelcome and unsettling publicity to the diocese, and that it might create difficulties for the future Archbishop in relation to the Anglican Communion,' he wrote in a letter to the senior Welsh bishop John Davies.

The Chapter of Ely Cathedral has now added its 'unanimous support' to the growing calls for the Welsh bishops to reconsider Dr John.

It comes after the Chapter of St Albans Cathedral, without the knowledge of their Dean Dr John, branded his treatment 'wholly wrong'.

Their statement read: 'The fact that it appears Jeffrey's sexuality and civil partnership have been used against him in the selection process is wholly wrong and it is only right that the bishops in Wales review the process before making an appointment.'

Changing Attitude Cymru, a Welsh LGBT Christian charity, has also added its voice to calls for a review after Dr John said he was told bishops were 'just too exhausted' to deal with the problems they believed his appointment would cause.

'We would be alarmed if fears about adverse publicity and reactions from other parts of the Anglican communion, in relation to questions of sexuality, have persuaded the bishops to discount his candidacy,' the pressure group said on Tuesday. 'This would be particularly unfortunate, considering that the bishops gave no indication, when calling for names to be submitted during the consultation period, that candidates already considered by the Electoral College would not be included in the bishops' new shortlist.'

The statement added: 'We are saddened that reports of alleged homophobia in the present process of the election and appointment of the next Bishop of Llandaff, is harming the progress that has been made in bringing about changing attitudes towards LGBT+ people in the Church in Wales.'

The mounting pressure was sparked after Dr John told Bishop Davies in his open letter: 'To ride roughshod of the very clearly expressed, unanimous view of a diocese in this way is extraordinary, unprecedented and foolish,' he wrote

'You decided, arbitrarily, to ignore the submissions that you had asked for, and to declare that those who were discussed at the Electoral College were now, in fact, no longer to be considered. This is a clear and ludicrous breach of process, and a further insult to the people of the diocese, and very many others who took the trouble to contribute their view.

'I trust there will now be an open and honest examination of this process in the light of day, and that you will not attempt to appoint a bishop for Llandaff until it is completed.

But there also needed to be a physical memorial to those murdered.

'There needs to be a memorial because remembering helps us not repeat. But the best memorial we can build is a country at peace with each other and at peace with itself,' he said at a prayer vigil at Westminster Abbey with leaders representing Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Archbishop Welby was in Lambeth Palace when he heard the news.

'My first thoughts were prayer and pain for those who were suffering. I'm a Christian. I believe in Christ who died on the Cross and rose from the dead, and in that resurrection demonstrated the triumph of love and self sacrifice over evil and despair and desperation,' he told Christian Today.

Archbishop Welby led the faith leaders in a minute's silence, just yards from where Khalid Masood mowed down pedestrians with his car and murdered PC Keith Palmer on Wednesday.

He said: 'Two days after the attacks across the road behind us, we are still all of us deeply shocked by what has happened, and beginning the process of thinking about the consequences and the future, quite rightly.

'As we come together today a number of people are particularly in our minds. Those who were killed, especially PC Keith Palmer, their families, the police whose consistent courage and observance of duty is an extraordindary example to all of us. Those who are waiting at hospitals and bedsides and praying or hoping or seeking to comfort one another. Also the wider community wondering what this event means as a sign for our future.'

He described it is a moment of sad reflection 'but also a moment of determination for our naton together'. In standing there together, the three Abrahamic faith communities were showing their deep commitment to a peaceful future.

He said Islam, Judaism and Christianity hold together the Psalms.

He quoted Psalm 42: 'Why are you so heavy my soul, why are you cast down? Put your trust in God.'

In the stories that Christians believe of the death and resurrection of Jesus, there is to be found God who conquers the despair and destruction that these events speak of, he said.

With him were Chief Rabbi Ephriam Mirvis, Sheikh Ezzat Khalifa, Head Imam of the London Central Mosque, the Shia leader Sheikh Mohammad al Hilli and Cardinal Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster.

'As Christians what we do is take anger and worry and bring it to Christ in prayer. What we don't do is turn against other people who we know are innocent of anything to do with this event.'

WATCH: The faith leaders talk and pray about the London terror attack.https://www.periscope.tv/RuthieGledhill/1YpKkdVnXWAGj?t=11s

WATCH: The Archbishop of Canterbury talk about what he was doing when the attack happened, and how Christians can still have faith.https://www.periscope.tv/RuthieGledhill/1RDGlRqZOpoxL?t=12s

'The recent events surrounding the nomination of Bishop Philip North as Bishop of Sheffield, including his withdrawal from the process, have understandably raised great concern amongst many in the Church of England,' they said on Friday.

'Some of those concerns relate to whether the nomination itself, and the procedure leading up to it,' they say in a letter to Sir Philip.

But 'others are about what happened once the nomination had been announced'.

Bishop North is from the Church's Anglo-Catholic wing and deeply opposed to women's ordination.

His promotion prompted a senior Anglican theologian Martyn Percy, Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, to urge him to withdraw, accusing a Church grouping North to which North belongs of 'fogeyish, sacralised, sexism'.

After a sustained campaign against him North announced he would step down, citing the 'highly individualised nature of the attacks' against him which had been 'extremely hard to bear'.

He said: 'It is with regret and sadness that I have decided that I am unable to take up the nomination as Bishop of Sheffield.'

He added: 'The pressures of recent weeks have left me reflecting on how He [God] is calling me to serve him.'

Responding to the events the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, rebuked North's critics and told them to learn to 'disagree Christianly, remembering at all times that our identity is in Christ alone'.

He said: 'What has happened to Bishop Philip clearly does not reflect the settlement under which, two and a half years ago, the Church of England joyfully and decisively opened up all orders of ministry to men and women. It also made a commitment to mutual flourishing.'

The Church of England voted to allow women bishops in 2014, after years of division and hostility over the issue.

But the compromise deal insisted those with theological objections to women priests must still be given an equal place within the Church. Dubbed 'mutual flourishing', the agreement was supposed to reconcile the two deeply entrenched factions.

An official reviewer was appointed as part of the declaration to oversee any investigations and address grievances.

The Archbishops insist the deal remains intact but North's withdrawal raised questions about its longevity. North said at the time: 'There is clearly much to be done on what it means to disagree well and to live with theological difference in the Church of England.

'If, as Christians, we cannot relate to each other within the bounds of love, how can we possibly presume to transform a nation in the name of Christ? I hope though that this conversation can continue in the future without it being hung upon the shoulders of one individual.'

In pointed remarks announcing the review, the Archbishops say: 'We call on all those in the Church to pray openly for the flourishing of those with whom they disagree, to demonstrate the mutual love which we are called to share and to proclaim confidently in word and deed that in Christ we find our true identities, and the overcoming of those things which in ourselves we find so divisive.'

Sir Philip Mawer will examine the events and publish a report within two months.

*****

Bishop of Sheffield: Joint statement by Archbishops of Canterbury and York
Justin Welby and John Sentamu made this joint statement on the recent events surrounding the nomination of Bishop Philip North as Bishop of Sheffield

Lambeth Palace
March 24, 2017

"The recent events surrounding the nomination of Bishop Philip North as Bishop of Sheffield, including his withdrawal from the process, have understandably raised great concern amongst many in the Church of England. The status of the House of Bishops Declaration of June 2014 has been questioned by some and its meaning has also been challenged.

"We have therefore written to Sir Philip Mawer, the Independent Reviewer under the Declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests, (Resolution of Disputes Procedure Regulations) 2014, to address the concerns that have arisen in the Church following these recent events. We attach our letter to Sir Philip, in which we reaffirm clearly our commitment, and the commitment of the House of Bishops, to its Declaration, to the principles contained in it, and to the overriding principle of mutual flourishing.

"Finally, in this period of Lent, as part of our preparation for the glorious celebration of the extraordinary grace of God in the events of Holy Week and Easter, we call on all those in the Church to pray openly for the flourishing of those with whom they disagree, to demonstrate the mutual love which we are called to share and to proclaim confidently in word and deed that in Christ we find our true identities, and the overcoming of those things which in ourselves we find so divisive."

+ Justin Cantuar

+Sentamu Eboracensis

Despite his or her title, the new bishop will be based mainly in Leicester, one of the first majority black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) cities in the UK. In the 2011 census, only 45% of the city's population identified as white British.

"The diversity of the city is not reflected in our churches," Martyn Snow, the bishop of Leicester, told the Guardian. "The majority of people going to Anglican churches are white British, while there are more than 100 BAME churches, mostly neo-Pentecostalist."

The new bishop will focus on encouraging BAME representation across the diocese "from people in the pews to clergy and senior leadership", and working with other churches and faith groups.

Snow is conscious of sensitivities. "This is not about proselytising. We're not actively doing that, but if people approach us they will get a very warm welcome."

He acknowledged this has not always been the case. "In the 1950s and 60s, when immigrants came from the Caribbean and elsewhere, they did not get a warm welcome in the C of E. We have to hold our hands up to that. They went off to set up other churches and we're now facing the legacy."

He added: "We're going to have to make some cultural adjustment. The C of E is seen as quintessentially English, but we have a lot to learn from other cultures."

Only 3.4% of C of E clergy were non-white in 2015, and there are a handful of BAME people in senior ranks -- archdeacon or above. This month, the first black bishop to be appointed by the church in 20 years, Nigerian-born Woyin Karowei Dorgu, was consecrated as bishop of Woolwich.

"The figures [for BAME clergy] are small compared to the wider population. It is increasing a little, but not to the extent we'd want it to be," said Rosemarie Davidson-Gotobed, the C of E's first national minority ethnic vocations officer, who has been in post for five months. "We're looking at what are the speed bumps, blockages, stalling points. They are many and varied."

Her role is to assist BAME members of the church who are considering ordination and to tackle unconscious bias. "We can all slip into unconscious bias," she said. "We have to recognise it in ourselves and how it might hinder someone's journey to ordination."

Davidson-Gotobed acknowledged frustration among "those of us who've been on this journey for a long time. Often the discourse is 'we don't have a problem', and we have to deconstruct that." But there was "discernible movement. I know 20 years passed between appointing black bishops, but I hope the next one will be sooner."

According to the bishop of Leicester, eradicating unconscious bias, both in the C of E and in wider society, might take a generation. The church was rolling out training programmes and research projects and creating new posts, such as the bishop of Loughborough, he added.

"I don't want to put too much weight on one position," said Snow. "My hope is this will be one of a number of appointments, part of a growing cohort of senior leadership tackling this issue."

No, thank you very much, Welby Sahib! I don't need another postcolonial foreign aid handout from you. Your white guilt doesn't make me feel good. I am not a victim and don't you dare call me one. I refuse to be labelled an ethnic minority--like a bird species about to fall extinct. I am a full member of British society and don't you deny me that privilege.

I played God Save the Queen on my violin at the age of six, I grew up reading Enid Blyton and P G Wodehouse, I speak the Queen's English, for my degree in English literature I read from Chaucer to Eliot, and I have a doctorate from the University of Cambridge--which was awarded to me based on merit and not on my skin colour. I find it bloody cheeky that you would try and push me into a racial ghetto where you want to define me based on what you and your fellow bishops assume is my ossified cultural identity as an immigrant from India.

Second, this dim-witted strategy only serves to entrench further the idea that Christianity is a Western religion. No, Archbishop Welby, it is not! Jesus was not an English Etonian who 'reached out' to benighted Asians and Africans. Forensic anthropology has confirmed that Jesus was a 'dark and swarthy Middle Eastern man' who 'looked a great deal more like a darker-skinned Semite than westerners are used to seeing him pictured.' Dear Welby Sahib, when we have a dark-skinned Jesus, what need have we for a bland, establishment-type manager who represents a decaying church steeped in corporatism and identity politics?

Third, Christians of Asian and African origin have planted their churches in Leicester and London for reasons that the head-in-the-sand hierarchy of the C of E simply does not recognise. It's not simply because the C of E refused to give us 'a warm welcome' in the fifties and sixties, as Martyn Snow, Bishop of Leicester, points out. It is because most Asian and African Christians are conservative!

As a cleric, I meet scores of such Christians who feel alienated from the C of E not because it is 'quintessentially English'--something which Bishop Martyn seems to be ashamed of--but because it is rabidly liberal and reeking of cultural Marxism. Ironically, one reason people of other cultures are drawn to the C of E is that it is 'quintessentially English.' Where in the world can one find such sublime transcendence than at Evensong with a boys' choir singing Tallis or Byrd? Or the soaring prose of the Book of Common Prayer with its theology so eloquently phrased and so firmly anchored in the truths of biblical Christianity?

Fourth, there is virtually nothing people from diverse ethnic minorities share in common--except darker skin pigmentation--and that too in wildly varying degrees! My wife and I are mascots for this lack of commonality. She originates from Maharashtra, while my ancestry is Goan. Geographically, we are neighbours; culturally, we hate each other. Maharashtrians think the Goans are Indo-Portuguese bastards; our women are loose because they wear mini-skirts and our men are drunken layabouts. Goans despise Maharashtrians because we think they are arrogant, lazy, and uncultured.

Guess what unites us in marriage? A common bond in the gospel of Christ and a common love for English literature! She did her MPhil on William Faulkner (yes, yes, I know he's American!). So how is Welby Sahib's episcopal albatross of a Tamil (Tamils can't stand each other because of caste differences) or Rwandan bishop in Leicester going to 'reach out' to us?

Oooh! And what about the Polish, Lithuanian and Romanian ethnic minorities? Don't they qualify for this charity shop bishopric? Or are they not ethnic enough because they have less melanin in their epidermis? Are the C of E bishops doing theology or dermatology?

So what's Welby's hidden agenda? The bishops are desperate to have fresh bums on rotting pews. They've done everything possible to lure in the white bums--dumbed-down Messy Church, circus-like Family Services, 'wimmin' vicars with pudding basin haircuts--they have tried every brand of tomfoolery. The fish are not biting. Just down the road, the black church is full. The Mar Thoma Syrian Church of Malabar, which is technically in full communion with the C of E, quietly ignores the organ-grinding Anglican monkeys and goes ahead full-steam planting new and thriving churches full of bright doctors, nurses and computer programmers from Kerala. They don't need the C of E! The C of E needs them!

Bishop Martyn sheepishly admits to this catastrophic failure. 'The majority of people going to Anglican churches are white British, while there are more than 100 BAME churches, mostly neo-Pentecostalist,' he says. But while he denies that the bishopric is being created with a view to poaching black and brown bums, he is forced to admit that 'we're not actively doing that, but if people approach us they will get a very warm welcome'--Anglican-speak for we're desperate for new members!

This was precisely one of the reasons given for ordaining women. If only we ordain hordes of priestesses, multitudes of women will flock to our churches. This is exactly one of the reasons behind the pansexual agenda. If only we have gay bishops, lesbian bishopettes, and transgender archdeacons, masses of LGBTIQ people will flood the church and halt the decline and death of the pale, stale and female C of E. So how about creating a bishop for white people? After all, the Diocese of Chichester has just appointed the Rural Dean of Brighton (where else?) as the first Bishop's Liaison Officer for the LGBTI community.

But the dark and dirty secret is that the C of E does not want to appoint more black and brown bishops to already existing bishoprics. Why? Because most Christians of Asian and African origin stubbornly refuse to genuflect at the altar of the new pansexual agenda, which is now the true religion of the C of E. They just won't feature in the secret X-files of the archbishops' secretary Caroline Boddington, who according to a senior Anglican clergyman, is well known to be a 'corporate type' intent on feminising and liberalising the C of E in her image and likeness.

The new bishopric will not draw a single BAME church into the C of E. It stinks of racism! Martin Luther King Jr defined racism as a 'doctrine of the congenital inferiority and worthlessness of a people.' When you treat some Christians as victims, who, based on skin pigmentation, need to be ghettoised and patronised as needing a form of Christian leadership that is already available to everyone, the C of E is furthering the racism it claims to be eliminating.

The new bishopric will be not only racist but also profoundly divisive. St Paul would be excoriating in his condemnation of the Diocese of Leicester's new policy. Surely he was not wasting his time reprimanding the churches in Galatia and Colossae not to divide the church on the basis of identity politics? Because, as he wrote, there is 'neither Jew or Greek, slave or free, circumcised or uncircumcised, male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus!'

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