The reader must decide if the voices of Britain's religious establishment wailing loudly after the tragic and horrific Manchester terrorist attack on Monday are quacks whose words will only serve to anaesthetise further a culture steeped in snowflake sentimentality.

David Walker, Bishop of Manchester, comes across more like a hippie past his sell-by date than a bishop with gravitas and dignity. He is known for relentlessly pursuing former Prime Minister David Cameron to take in more Syrian refugees, but admitted that he would not take any into his own six-bedroom recently refurbished house because of the language barrier and their 'alien culture.'

Bishop Walker is bang in the epicentre of the worst terrorist attack on British soil in recent years. Here are some of his offerings to a shocked and grieving city and nation: 'They are the few, we are the many. We are Manchester.' Will the good bishop translate this into common parlance? In every tyranny it is the few who knife and bomb and lie their way to power over the many. The few in Nazi Germany, the few in Stalin's Russia, the few in Pol Pot's Cambodia, the few in Mao's Red China, and the few in fat-boy Kim Jong Un's North Korea. And what does he mean by 'we are Manchester'? Is he going to play football for the world famous Manchester United football team?

'It cannot defeat us because love in the end is always stronger than hate.' More fluff. Is he referring to the eschatological end? Of course, love is stronger than hate. But how did we defeat Hitler? By singing the Beatles'"All you need is love"? By waving Woodstock banners that read "Make Love Not War"? Doesn't the good bishop know that radical Islam already calls the shots in swathes of metropolitan Britain? There are no-go zones for white people. Sharia courts operate against the law of the land with impunity. Hundreds of jihadists have returned from fighting alongside ISIS. Mosques and imams spew bile calling for a Caliphate in Britain.

A tweet from Michael McDermott lays bare the quackery of the Church of England: 'Every priest and every vicar in the country being dragged out of their homes to appear on TV and talk bollocks.' Richard Moore responds to the tweet: 'Bishop of Manchester on Sky News right now doing just that.' A tweet by Pat Riot states the predictable, 'Yup I was right. Bishop of Manchester appears on TV and defends Islam and other faiths against bomber. Why does Islam not defend itself?'

Bishop Walker is joined by Archbishops Justin Welby and John Sentamu, who offer more arch-platitudes.

Is Bishop Walker and his archbishops saying anything we haven't heard before? Has Bishop Walker put his finger anywhere close to the root of the problem? Does Bishop Walker offer an accurate diagnosis of the problem? Can Bishop Walker even dare to utter the words -- "radical Islamic terrorism?" If he cannot offer a diagnosis, there is no point asking if he has a prescription for a cure. The Bishop of Manchester is offering no greater wisdom or prophetic words than a million tweets from teenagers who are saying more or less what he is saying. Or rather, he is saying what they are saying.

The bishop talks of 'coming together.' Who exactly is meant to be 'coming together?' Bishop Walker's Cathedral under its left-wing liberal Dean Rogers Govender offers its sacred space to rock groups for concerts. Rockers get drunk and vomit in the aisles. In July, Manchester Cathedral will hold a National Transgender Celebration event entitled "Sparkle in the Cathedral." Are devout Muslims likely to 'come together' to 'celebrate' such 'diversity' promoted by the Church of England in Manchester?

The bishop knows that after a few days of mourning, life will return to normal and nothing will really change. Coming together is pitiful and perverse unless we do something about the threat. So apart from dishing out dollops of spiritual goo, the bishop needs to tell us how we stop more children from being blown up in the next act of terrorism.

The biblical prophets offer an alternative to voices of spiritual quackery. The true prophet told you what you needed to hear. The false prophet told you what you wanted to hear. The true prophets preached a message of gloom and doom. Their diagnosis was accurate but pessimistic. The false prophets offered a fraudulent but optimistic diagnosis and prognosis. 'They have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying, "Peace, peace," when there is no peace' (Jer 6:14).

Jeremiah is telling the Israelites that if they don't repent and change their ways, the superpower of Babylon will defeat them in war and deport them into exile. Hananiah is telling the Israelites: 'Don't worry. Be happy. Carry on as before. Everything will be fine' (Jer 28).

Can the bishops of the established Church of England say something that is both pastorally sensitive and prophetically radical -- without slipping into the demonic temptation to be politically correct, obnoxiously superficial and nauseatingly naïve?

First, the bishops can call the Government to account on matters of security. The first duty of government is to protect its citizens. 'Every member of society hath a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property,' states the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776. But this right to protection did not originate in America; it was inherited from English constitutionalism, writes Professor Steven Heyman. Why has the government failed? The bishops need to call the government to account on matters of security, as they regularly do on left-wing issues like immigration and the re-distribution of wealth.

Second, the bishops can call the mainstream media to account. The narrative of radical Islamic terrorism is seriously skewed by the British mainstream media -- especially the BBC. The media must tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Instead, the British media, by and large engages in mass cover-up.

Third, the bishops can begin to create an awareness in the British populace that terrorism is part of everyday life in many parts of the world and Christians, in particular, are its biggest victims. If one has to demonstrate solidarity with the weakest and most vulnerable, then Britons have to be moved to tears and to action by the plight of Christians in the Middle East, Pakistan, Indonesia, and parts of Islamic-dominated Africa.

Last week when the Vice President of Indonesia Jusuf Kalla was invited to the Oxford Centre of Islamic Studies to give a talk on "moderate Islam", not a single bishop supported the protest led by Indonesian and Pakistani Christians outside the venue. Earlier this month, Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, the Christian governor of Jakarta, was sentenced to two years in prison for the crime of blasphemy.

Fourth, the bishops can push Muslim leaders to acknowledge the problems with the interpretation of "texts of terror" in the Qur'an and Hadith through genuine interfaith dialogue. This could be a catalyst for reforming Islam--in concert with reformist Muslims who are not helped by the 'blind guides' of Christianity.

Fifth, the bishops can address issues surrounding the theological and historical claims made by the terrorists. A statement released by ISIS reads: 'The explosive devices were detonated in the shameless concert arena, resulting in 30 Crusaders being killed and 70 others being wounded. And what comes next will be more severe on the worshipers of the Cross and their allies, by Allah's permission.' The bishops need to explain to a religiously illiterate population what this means and why Westerners will continue to be attacked by radical Islamic terrorists who associate Christianity with the West.

But this cannot even begin to happen unless the bishops acknowledge that there is a problem with radical Islam -- and this is something spiritual quacks cannot and will not do. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. If it looks like a bishop, talks like a bishop, and quacks like a bishop, then it probably is a bishop.

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

But liberals said vicars have been forced to devise unofficial services to welcome sex-change worshippers and the Church should demonstrate its unambiguous acceptance of transsexuals.

The motion will be debated by the General Synod in July and comes at a highly sensitive time for bishops, who are struggling to prevent a major split over same-sex marriage.

Conservative Synod member Andrea Williams, director of pressure group Christian Concern, said: 'It is unclear why we are even debating this issue.

'We are sensitive to people who feel uncomfortable with their sex, but Christian teaching is that God made us man and woman.

'The Church should help people to see the beauty of their God-given sex instead of confusing them.'

*****

Church of England faces calls to condemn gay cure and hold transgender renaming services
After a heated debate in February the Church of England's General Synod threw out a report by bishops that kept the status quo on marriage as between one man and one woman

By Harry Farley
CHRISTIAN TODAY
May 26, 2017

The Church of England will be asked to denounce gay conversion, consider special services for transgender people and re-examine its teaching on marriage as between one man and one women in a raft of measures to be debated at its forthcoming General Synod meeting in July.

In its first meeting since the surprise rejection of a bishops' report recommending keeping the status quo on marriage, the CofE's parliament will debate whether to join medical experts and condemn so-called 'gay cures' as 'unethical, harmful' and having 'no place in the modern world'.

Tabled by senior synod member Jayne Ozanne, the private members motion has received strong support from synod members. Supporters say that it is likely to be fiercely opposed by a small segment of hardline conservatives, but opponents suggest that many middle of the road synod members will also be alarmed by the motion.

Ozanne, a gay rights activist on synod, told Christian Today: 'It is incredibly important that religious organisations follow the clear lead set by the health care professions in standing against this highly damaging and unethical practice, which reinforces stigma and prejudice against the LGBTI community.

'The Bible teaches that we are each fearfully and wonderfully made, and we should therefore look to celebrate God's gift of diversity in creation not treat those of us who are non-heterosexual as having mental disorders that need to be "cured".'

If passed, the CofE would co-sign a statement from several professional bodies including the UK Council for Psychotherapy and The Royal College of General Practitioners to say: 'Sexual orientations and gender identities are not mental health disorders, although exclusion, stigma and prejudice may precipitate mental health issues for any person subjected to these abuses.'

The move would be a major symbolic step for the CofE after the Archbishop of Canterbury called on Christians to 'repent' for 'hurt and pain' the Church has inflicted on gay people.

It may also put pressure on the government to ban gay cure therapies after the Prime Minister hinted she was looking into whether to outlaw the practice.

'Being gay or trans is not an illness, and shouldn't be treated as such -- young people should be protected from attempts to change who they are,' Theresa May said in an interview with PinkNews. 'We're looking carefully at the extent of the problem, and the experience of other countries that have introduced bans, to ensure we get the approach to this right.'

Evangelicals on synod, who believe the Bible teaches gay people should remain celibate, agreed that 'gay cure' was 'very damaging' because it suggested homosexuality is an illness.

A statement from Living Out, a group of conservative gay Christians, says: 'Attempting to change someone's sexual orientation assumes that being gay is somehow more problematic than being straight.'

Mike Davidson, a gay conversion therapist from the Core Issues Trust, told Christian Today: 'There is no motion or action from any professional body or denominational governing body that will extinguish the determination many individuals have to leave homosexual practices and desires, nor to dampen the ardour with which their supporters provide care to such persons.'

He added: 'The unholy alliance between gay activists and those within the Church of England who promote the idea of "born gay" is revealing in its lack of respect for personal freedom to choose pathways consistent with belief.'

Under a separate motion the Church will also consider special services to mark a transgender person's transition.

The move could see baptism-style renaming ceremony for people who wish to change gender.

Already in place in some Baptist churches and others, the Church's most senior trans priest, Rev Rachel Mann, Rector of St Nicholas Burnage and a minor canon at Manchester Cathedral, welcomed the suggestion for formal Anglican liturgy.

She previously told Christian Today: 'Trans people feel powerfully called to be recognised in their 'chosen' name. An opportunity to be publicly introduced to God is therefore significant. I think this is what the proposed liturgy aims to do.

'It will be symbolically powerful. The extent to which it is [a form of] baptism will be debated by General Synod of course, but this liturgy is a welcome move to affirm Trans people.'

The CofE's position on transgender people accepts that differing views can 'properly be held' on the subject but the motion is likely to receive opposition from conservative synod members.

Clive Scowen, a senior evangelical on synod, told Christian Today authorising liturgies was not a 'sensible thing to do' and said clergy should be able to devise individual responses for each person.

'People who have gender dysphoria must be treated with the utmost love and pastoral sensitivity, and of course warmly welcomed in our churches,' he told Christian Today. 'I am far from convinced that surgical or medical intervention to try to reassign gender is a loving response. I do not think that scripture supports the idea that gender, which is a physical fact about a person's identity (whether assessed by reference to chromosomes or genitalia), can be changed; rather I do believe that the Holy Spirit can bring change to how a person perceives gender to conform it to the physical facts.'

The main focus of the four-day sitting in July will be a presentation from bishops on the Church's next steps on teaching on sexuality after a report keeping the doctrine of marriage as between one man and one woman was rejected by the synod in February.

A heated question and answer session will follow as synod members try to probe the direction the CofE is taking and what Justin Welby means by the 'radical, Christian inclusion' he has called for.

END

Political parties, multinational companies and newspapers comprise the least trusted three.

Looking further into the data, the Church has 'a great deal' of trust from nine per cent of the public, while 24 per cent of those answering said they had 'quite a lot' of trust -- meaning that a third of the public seen the Church as either very or quite trustworthy.

Nearly three in ten, 28 per cent say they have 'not much' trust in the Church while 30 per cent say they have 'very little'.

The level of trust seems to have been consistent over the last few years. In 2009 the combined total of people who said they had a great deal or quite a lot of trust in the Church was 33 per cent and that figure is exactly the same in the latest figures.

1,000 adults were asked to answer the question, 'Please indicate how much trust you have in each of the bodies' in February this year.

The Catholic Archbishop of the South Sudan, Paulino Loro, had announced that arrangements were being made to welcome Pope Francis and Archbishop Welby on October 15 after a delegation of bishops from both Sudan and South Sudan visited the Pontiff in Rome where they extended an invitation to Francis.

An earlier news report by Il Messaggero said Pope Francis reluctantly cancelled the trip "after the information coming to his desk" from a delegation that went to South Sudan to assess the security situation which eventually "left him with few alternatives."

South Sudan the world's youngest nation was plunged into chaos and crisis shortly after independence in 2011. The ethnic conflict has killed about 300,000 people and displaced over three million. The United Nations report, in April, says government forces have been involved in ethnic cleansing.

Pope Francis is scheduled to visit Colombia on 6-10 September this year and may also go to Bangladesh and India.

The rock star has been posting throughout the week about her experiences of being presented with the Thomas Cranmer Award for Worship by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, last week.

"Still amazed this happened last Friday. Never thought, after coming out as gay, that I would receive an award like this. Means so much," she tweeted on Monday, and shared a link of the official document praising her for her contributions to contemporary worship music.

She also shared several pictures of her mother and father at Lambeth Palace, where the awards ceremony took place.

"Having my Mum and Dad at the Awards meant so much to me. Here's a photo of them & @JustinWelby after the ceremony. A day I'll never forget," she wrote in another tweet on Monday, this time with Welby in the photo with her parents.

Beeching was among over 35 people from around the world who received awards for outstanding service to the church in a ceremony at Lambeth Palace in London on Friday. The awards recognize outstanding service in different fields, including prayer and the religious life, reconciliation, and evangelism and witness.

In honoring Beeching, Welby recognized her for her Christian songs that "have become staples in churches around the globe."

"Her music has brought the Gospel message to many who would otherwise not have heard it. The Guardian called her 'arguably the most influential Christian of her generation' for her progressive impact on the Church, and the Telegraph placed her in their 'Top 100 Britons.' The impact of her songs on contemporary worship has been outstanding."

The Church of England's decision to honor Beeching in such a way drew criticism from some Christians online, who suggested that Beeching is not a Christian for her LGBT activism.

"Dear trolls, I dearly hope that my life shows plenty of evidence of being a Christian.. I certainly try my best anyway. #LoveWins," she wrote in one reply late last week.

"Sorry trolls, but today has been really special & you won't spoil it for me," Beeching wrote in another tweet.

In 2014, she admitted that it took all her courage to come out and say that she is gay before the world.

"What Jesus taught was a radical message of welcome and inclusion and love. I feel certain God loves me just the way I am, and I have a huge sense of calling to communicate that to young people. When I think of myself at 13, sobbing into that carpet, I just want to help anyone in that situation to not have to go through what I did, to show that instead, you can be yourself -- a person of integrity," Beeching argued at the time.

Conservatives hit back against her arguments, however, and said that the Bible only affirms marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

"If 10,000 pastors declared they were gay tomorrow, it would not change the truth of the Bible one iota. If 10,000 worship leaders declared that God had made them gay, it would not change a single scriptural truth," wrote Michael Brown, host of the nationally syndicated talk radio show The Line of Fire, in an op-ed published in The Christian Post.

"As I have emphasized repeatedly, despite the increasing number of professing 'gay Christians' -- by which I mean those who claim that you can follow Jesus and practice homosexuality at the same time -- there are 'no new textual, archeological, sociological, anthropological, or philological discoveries [that] have been made in the last fifty years that would cause us to read any of these biblical texts differently.'"

Robert A. J. Gagnon, associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, added in a separate article that Beeching's "same-sex attractions have features that are common to the human condition generally and can be dealt with accordingly."

"The point is to examine and expose the inauthenticity of desires that contradict the intentional handiwork of our Creator. Not even Ms. Beeching is exempt from that, however many kudos she receives from a Western culture that has become skillful in suppressing the truth about the way God made us (Romans 1:18-27)," he said.

END

Given 'the failure to teach sound doctrine and the refusal to refute, publicly, false teaching and practice, each congregation was asked to consider the current leadership in light of the biblical requirement for bishops', the two vicars said.

The two congregations also declared 'no confidence' in their own Bishop of Chelmsford, Stephen Cottrell, who has called for official thanksgiving services for gay couples.

The two churches said they had no confidence in any of the three leaders to 'uphold publicly biblical and traditional teaching and practice on sexual morality and refute publicly any that oppose this teaching and practice, namely that "faithful sexual relations blessed by God are only those within the boundaries of biblical and traditional marriage between a man and his wife"'.

Bishop Stephen Cottrell said in March the CofE was seen as seen as 'immoral' for its refusal to welcome gay marriage and that it should reach an 'agree to disagree' compromise over gay marriage as it had done over women's ordination.

At the time Hanna told Christian Today Cottrell should repent for his remarks and warned of further action.

'We call all our bishops to public repentance -- both for what they have said publicly and for what they needed to say clearly but haven't publicly said,' Hanna said then.

The latest rebellion against the CofE hierarchy comes after Scottish Anglicans became the first in the UK to allow gay marriage in church.

In response conservatives planted a 'missionary' bishop to oversee traditionalist parishes who disagreed with the move.

The Archbishop of Canterbury rebuked the move and accused conservative bishops of 'cross-border interventions' warning against the 'great disturbances and discords' the move could cause.

Welby's decision not to condemn the Scottish Episcopal Church's move has enraged conservatives and been welcomed by liberals as a sign of the CofE's trajectory.

Lambeth Palace declined to comment on the votes of no confidence. Christian Today has also contacted the Archbishop of York and the Diocese of Chelmsford.

END

What was most intriguing, however, was what the Archbishop went on to say next:

"The idea of a 'missionary bishop' who was not a Church of England appointment, would be a cross-border intervention and, in the absence of a Royal Mandate, would carry no weight in the Church of England. Historically, there has been resistance to cross-border interventions and ordinations from the earliest years of the universal Church's existence. Such weighty authority as canons 15 and 16 of the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325 are uncompromising in this regard and make reference to the "great disturbance and discords that occur" when bishops and their clergy seek to minister in this way."

Here, the claim is made that the consecration of Andy Lines, and the episcopal ministry he would exercise, would be contrary to Canons 15 and 16 of the Council of Nicaea. If Welby is correct in his interpretation, then it is indeed a palpable hit - for Canon Lines' ministry, far from strengthening the cause of orthodoxy, would be in direct transgression of that most 'orthodox' of all councils.

This is not the first time that appeals have been made to Nicaea in the context of disputes over Anglican jurisdiction. The Windsor Report (2003), written in the aftermath of Gene Robinson's consecration, condemned (in para. 29.3) similar cross-border interventions as contrary to "some of the longest-standing regulations of the early undivided church (Canon 8 of Nicaea)".

The Archbishop's statement, then, fits within a wider context of reaching back to the canons of Nicaea as a means to critique (and so delegitimise) various attempts by conservative Anglicans to preserve episcopal integrity. The question remains, though - is this appeal to the Nicene canons persuasive?

The Council of Nicaea issued twenty canons, which sought to regulate a range of church practices, and eliminate a number of growing abuses. As practical measures to deal with particular issues of the day, the canons do not claim for themselves a timeless authority - indeed, as one might expect, many of them now have limited direct relevance to the life of the church. Canon 1, for instance, maps out the fine disciplinary distinction between a clergyman who has been castrated by barbarians, and a clergyman who has chosen to castrate himself. Canon 18 forbids deacons to sit on the same bench as presbyters. Canon 19 deals with those who had followed the heretical teaching of Paul of Samosata. The majority of parishioners in the Church of England have probably violated Canon 20 at some point or another, since it rules that prayer on the Lord's Day must be offered whilst standing, and not whilst kneeling.

It is fair to say, then, that although the Nicene canons preserve some helpful theological principles for church governance, they cannot be applied straightforwardly, or without remainder, to the contemporary scene. So what are the theological principles that Canons 15 and 16 embody and commend? Here is their text in full:

Canon 15.On account of the great disturbance and discords that occur, it is decreed that the custom prevailing in certain places contrary to the Canon, must wholly be done away; so that neither bishop, presbyter, nor deacon shall pass from city to city. And if any one, after this decree of the holy and great Synod, shall attempt any such thing, or continue in any such course, his proceedings shall be utterly void, and he shall be restored to the Church for which he was ordained bishop or presbyter.

Canon 16.Neither presbyters, nor deacons, nor any others enrolled among the clergy, who, not having the fear of God before their eyes, nor regarding the ecclesiastical Canon, shall recklessly remove from their own church, ought by any means to be received by another church; but every constraint should be applied to restore them to their own parishes; and, if they will not go, they must be excommunicated. And if anyone shall dare surreptitiously to carry off and in his own Church ordain a man belonging to another, without the consent of his own proper bishop, from whom although he was enrolled in the clergy list he has seceded, let the ordination be void.

These canons address a growing problem in the church of the early fourth century. Some bishops (and, as Canon 16 notes, other clergy too), tempted by the prospect of greater wealth, influence, or prestige, sought to move from less important sees to more important ones. This kind of worldly 'see-hopping' resulted in disruption to diocesan affairs, and brought scandal upon the church. So, for instance, the sleek and upwardly-mobile Eusebius, Bishop of Berytus, wangled for himself the see of Nicomedia, and with it a position of great influence at the imperial court. Subsequently, through further politicking, he managed to migrate to the even more impressive see of Constantinople.

What is condemned in Canons 15 and 16, then, is translation for improper motives, rather than translation per se. This is supported by the evidence of other episcopal 'promotions' around this time that did not result in controversy or criticism - indeed, the translation of Bishop Eustathius from Beroea to Antioch was approved either at the Council of Nicaea itself (as Sozomen claims, H.E. I.2) or a few months earlier at the Council of Antioch (as Schwartz argued, 'Zur Geschichte des Athanasius VI'). When, a few decades later, Gregory of Nazianzus was accused of transgressing this canon simply for taking up the see of Constantinople, he recognised the attack as a deliberate misuse of the tradition (De vita sua, 1810). Writing in the early fifth century, the church historian Socrates gave a long list of eminent bishops who had undergone translations entirely properly (H.E. VII.36). Ironically, were it mere translation being attacked by Nicaea, then Justin Welby himself would come under censure, having moved from the see of Durham to that of Canterbury!

It is just possible, if one squints a bit, to interpret the final sentence of Canon 16 as affirming the principle that, if a clergyman is to be ordained outside his diocese, the ordaining bishop should first obtain the consent of the diocesan bishop. Even if understood in this way, however, the canon cannot be said to bear on the case of Andy Lines. Nicaea's legislation, after all, works on the assumption of a single, genuinely 'catholic' church - it knows nothing of the kind of legitimate overlapping episcopal jurisdictions which have developed in the centuries since. In England, for instance, the Roman Catholic Church, the Free Church of England, the Moravian Church, the British Orthodox Church, and the Church of England, are all episcopally governed, yet not in communion with one another - the fact that the bishops of each denomination cover the same territory is therefore not a cause for strife or disruption. Similarly, Andy Lines will be consecrated into the ACNA, which is not in communion with either the Church of England or the Scottish Episcopal Church - he can thus legitimately minister in those territories without any 'border-crossing', for, from the perspective of the jurisdictional geography of the ACNA, there are no borders to cross.

Finally, it is worth briefly considering Canon 8, since, as we noted above, the Windsor Report claimed that this canon explicitly prohibited cross-border interventions. Canon 8 was written to address a very specific and troublesome sect - the self-styled Cathari ('pure ones'), that is, the followers of Novatian. These were moral rigorists who took a dim view of those believers who had lapsed under threat of persecution. In bringing the Church's discipline to bear upon this group, Canon 8 explains that "there may not be two bishops in the city". It is presumably this comment that got the authors of the Windsor Report so excited. However, the point being made here in Canon 8 is an entirely mundane one - namely, that for the sake of good order, there cannot be two competing diocesan bishops in the same see. Again, the issue of overlapping episcopal jurisdictions is simply not in view.

In short, the Nicene canons to which the Archbishop refers in his letter to the Primates have little, if anything, to say on the issue of Andy Lines' consecration. Not even Canon Lines' sharpest critics have suggested that he is seeking episcopal preferment for worldly gain, which is the fault these canons are primarily concerned to extirpate. It is undeniable that the notion of a 'missionary bishop' for Europe raises genuine ecclesiological questions, but these must be confronted on their own terms, and not through a specious appeal to ancient rulings that neither condemn, nor even envisage, the situation we now face.

Revd Dr Mark Smith is Chaplain of Christ's College, Cambridge and teaches Patristics in the Divinity Faculty at Cambridge.
Photo by Fresco in Capella Sistina, Vatican - http://ariandjabarimchenry.com/first-council-of-nicaea/, Public Domain.

At a press conference with Dame Moira launching the independent report today, Peter Hancock, the Bishop of Bath and Wells and the lead bishop on safeguarding in the Church, confirmed that Archbishop Welby had 'written directly' to Lord Carey asking him 'carefully' to consider his position.

Bishop Hancock said that 'this is now a matter for Lord Carey and the Bishop of Oxford' who have been having conversations on the telephone and are set to meet in the next two days.

Steven Croft, the Bishop of Oxford, said in a statement: 'With reference to the criticism of former Archbishop George Carey in the report, the Archbishop of Canterbury has written to Lord Carey and asked him to carefully consider his position as honorary Assistant Bishop. As I hold responsibility for granting him a licence to enable him to carry out his duties, Archbishop Justin has asked Lord Carey to talk to me and we have agreed to meet in the coming days for that conversation. In the meantime he has voluntarily agreed to step back from public ministry.'

There was no further comment from Lambeth Palace or, at the time of writing, from Lord Carey.

Receiving the report on behalf of the Church, Bishop Hancock said: 'I am truly sorry that as a Church we failed the survivors of Peter Ball; having read the report I am appalled and disturbed by its contents; as Dame Moira says...we colluded, we failed to act and protect those who came forward for help. There are no excuses. We accept all the recommendations and we are working to action them.'

Bishop Hancock added that for the survivors, 'it may feel like this is all too late'. He said that he is aware from his meetings with survivors they 'live with the effects of this abuse for their whole life'.

Bishop Croft added: 'I want to give my heartfelt apologies to the survivors of Peter Ball's abuse. The Church of England has let them down by failing to act on the reports of his actions and there are no excuses for this.

'We must now act on the recommendations put forward by Dame Moira Gibb, and all bishops must demonstrate our accountability for making sure everyone in our church is kept safe. The church set up the National Safeguarding Team in 2015 and since then we have had a range of policies and training alongside new legislation covering clergy and other church officers and their responsibility to protect people.'

*****

MY STORY WAS POSTED LATE LAST NIGHT BEFORE THE STORY BROKE IN ENGLAND. I WAS ASKED TO TAKE IT DOWN AND DID SO. I AM NOW REPOSTING IT.

Justin Welby calls on George Carey to resign as Assistant Bishop of Oxford over Ball Affair

By David W. Virtue, DD
www.virtueonline.org
June 21, 2017

The Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby has called on the former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey to resign as Assistant Bishop in Oxford over allegations that he knew about Bishop Peter Ball's sexual activities with young boys and failed to act on the information.

Ball, the former Bishop of Lewes, in the Diocese of Chichester, was jailed for abusing 19 young men after being identified by an individual, Neil Todd, who first complained in 1993, about the horrific sexual and sadistic abuse he had suffered at the hands of Ball.

The Church of England went into cover-up overdrive. Leading establishment figures in the nation, including senior clergy, colluded to protect Bishop Ball. A BBC report said that "another person in the church who helped one of Ball's victims tried to raise concerns with 13 different bishops who appeared to take no action." It was only through the heroic persistence of priests like the Rev. Graham Sawyer, one of Ball's victims, that Ball was sentenced in October 2015 to 32 months in prison for the grooming, sexual exploitation and abuse of 18 vulnerable young men between 1977 and 1992.

At the time of Ball's arrest Lord Carey admitted he deserved "explicit criticism" over his handling of the ex-bishop's sex abuse.

Lord Carey, was a friend of Ball's. "Clearly the Church didn't handle it well and Lord Carey was naive in trusting Peter Ball. The acknowledgment now is he wasn't doing the Christian thing by the victims of Ball. He would accept he didn't discharge the pastoral duties to the victims very well," according to one newspaper report.

However, the Church of England has been fraught with other "false accusation" cases recently brought against bishops for failing in their duties in which proper support was found to be lacking for the bishop in the firing line. These have not been handled well by church authorities. Carey could hardly be accused of being the first accused of not doing due diligence and also seems like others to be being hung out to dry. "It seems the church is running scared of any possible guilt by association rather than offering pastoral support for those who have been duped by others", according to one source.

The deeper question is, of what or whom is Justin Welby afraid in seeking the removal of Carey from what is essentially an honorary position?

"There was a knee jerk reaction from Lambeth in standing the Very Rev Robert Key down as Dean of Jersey when questions were raised about his handling of a matter. That was actually beyond his pay grade because the Dean of Jersey is a crown appointment. Robert Key was eventually completely exonerated and reinstated but not after a lot of grief," a source told VOL.

The deeper question is, "Whose back is being covered?" Is Lord Carey being made a scapegoat for someone else?

END

George Carey has stepped down. So why is Sawyer is still facing 'cruel and sadistic treatment by the very highest levels of the church'? Is he pointing his finger at the current archbishops Justin Welby and John Sentamu? In that case, should Justin and John swallow their cyanide pills and walk the plank?

All abuse--sexual, emotional, physical or psychological--is an abomination. The victims of abuse cry out to heaven for vindication. When institutions collude to silence them, heaven weeps. When bishops perpetrate the most perverse of abusive acts, and other bishops protect them, covering up their sins under cope and mitre, heaven bleeds.

The Church of England smears saints, and shields scoundrels. I addressed the Ball scandal in a column this time last year, and pointed out how while the CofE was eulogising Bishop Ball and protecting his image, it was demonising Bishop George Bell of Chichester. Ball, the pervert, was busy fiddling with boys, while Bell, the hero, was standing with Dietrich Bonhoeffer against Adolf Hitler.

Justice has been done. That's what Welby wants the world to believe. Two previous archbishops have apologised. But somewhere there is a smelly dead rat. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. The ghost of King Hamlet is hovering over Lambeth Palace. It is the ghost haunting Wobbly Welby for his hypocrisy. "Hypocrisy in the highest! Pietas ficta in excelsis!" it wails in a shrieking tremolo, pointing a shaking finger at wavering Welby.

"Hypocrite" is made up of two words--hupo (under) and krino (to judge). It literally means, "to judge under" as a person judging someone from behind a screen or mask. The true identity of the person is covered up. In Greek drama, actors held over their faces oversized masks painted to represent the character they were portraying. The 'hypocrite' is one who plays a part on the stage. 'You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye,' says Jesus.

Welby's blatant hypocrisy came to the fore when he dished out bonuses of £1 million to the Church of England's 10 senior fund managers last month. 'The payments brought charges of hypocrisy from City critics who say the CofE has opened a gap between what it tells other people to do and what it does itself,' wrote journalist Steve Doughty.

So why did Welby preach hellfire and brimstone against the bonus culture when he was on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards? 'What is it essentially about bankers that means they need skin in the game? We don't give skin in the game to civil servants, to surgeons, to teachers,' he said in 2013. So why did Welby not give bonuses to hardworking vicars in inner-city parishes? Ironically, at that time Welby 'accused banks of "hypocrisy" in continuing to pay their staff big bonuses while insisting they are undergoing a cultural overhaul.'

Welby's hypocrisy took a quantum leap forward earlier this month when he wrote to the Primates of the Anglican Communion criticising the appointment of Canon Andy Lines as the new missionary bishop for GAFCON. Welby dusted off the ancient Canons of the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), claiming that the creation of such missionary bishops was a grave violation of Canons 15 and 16. Andy Lines was about to commit the mortal sin of "border crossing" (trespassing into another bishop's diocese).

Here, Welby is being a hypocrite on two counts. First, on BBC Radio 4 he blamed terrorism on religious scriptures that have 'been twisted and misused.' Isn't this precisely what he is doing with the Canons of Nicaea? Second, Canon 15 forbids the transfer of bishops, presbyters and deacons (not just bishops!) from one diocese to another. In that case, Welby needs to return to the diocese where he was first ordained as deacon and step down as Archbishop of Canterbury! Or at least return to the See of Durham, where he was bishop before he made his career move to Canterbury, which was precisely the reason why Canon 15 was framed! It was to prevent bishops falling into the trap of careerism. If a bishop moved to another bishopric, the council decreed, he must go back. A council in Alexandria called a bishop who moved to another diocese an "adulterer."

Above all, Welby's rank hypocrisy stinks to high heaven regarding his own presence at the camps where the pervert John Smyth was abusing Christian boys. Initially Welby denied any knowledge of the abuse even though he was dormitory officer at the Iwerne Christian camp during the mid-1970s where John Smyth, the camp's chairman, had groomed and beaten more than 20 boys and young men. Welby said that he had 'no contact' with the organisation between moving to Paris in 1978 and his return to the UK in 1983. However, this month Welby changed his tune after fresh evidence emerged that he had indeed had come back to the UK and given a talk in 1979 to people at the camp, which was also attended by Smyth.

Numerous questions remain unanswered. The Gibb Report also points a finger at former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams. If Welby has asked Carey to step down as assistant bishop, why has he not asked Williams to surrender his licence to practise as an Anglican priest? Moira Gibb also states nine other bishops who were part of the cover-up. Why are they not named? Are they still in ministry? Will Welby ask them to step down as well?

Yes, Lord Carey and other leaders of the Church of England behaved very poorly by the standards of today. The Gibb Report shows that this was as much about confusion as collusion. Other arms of the State responsible for enforcing the law against Ball colluded with him and covered up his crimes by handing him a slap on the wrist and not a hefty custodial sentence. But time and time we discover that in every institution of the State, the church and the voluntary sector and even the BBC and footballing authorities handled victims of abuse appallingly.

Gibb herself admits that the Church of England had no safeguarding policy at the time that Peter Ball's crimes came to light. It was a year later that such a policy came forward. Now we are weighed down by policies. And yet, clergy are abused, bullied and harassed, often by their own bishops. But Welby chooses to ignore the unanswered questions that constitute the heart of darkness in his church. Instead of addressing the state of the Church of England, Welby and Sentamu have deployed a weapon of mass distraction and are using special powers to call for an emergency debate on the 'unanswered' questions about the state of the nation at the Church of England's ruling general synod next month. General Synod's agenda has zero mention of the Gibb Report. However, its farcical agenda, which borders on the script of a Peter Rogers'"Carry On Church" movie, will discuss reaffirmation of baptismal vows for transgender people and banning therapy for homosexual people who are seeking to become heterosexual. So it is okay for a male to become female but it is not okay for a homosexual to even seek to become heterosexual? Sheesh!

The Gibb Report has very strong words that the Church of England will need to take very seriously if there is to be any change at all. 'We were struck during this review by a manifest culture of deference both to authority figures in the Church, particularly bishops, and to individuals with distinctive religious reputations--or both. This deference had two negative consequences. Firstly, it discouraged people from "speaking truth to power." Then, on the few occasions where people did speak out and were rebuffed by a bishop--the summit of the hierarchy--there was nowhere else to go.'

The actor's mask hiding Welby's face is slipping. Some day he will have to go. Unless Welby goes, there will be nowhere else to go.

But he warned that it would be a "disaster" if the UK's negotiators went into bat against the "united determination of the EU" without having the "confidence" that they have the full backing of Britain.

As a result he has backed calls for a cross-party approach to Brexit talks.

Writing in the Mail on Sunday the Anglican leader contrasted the inspiring "spirit of Grenfell" which has been shown in the wake of the tower block fire with the divisive "zero-sum, winner takes all" rows over Brexit in Westminster.

He said: "We need the politicians to find a way of neutralising the temptation to take minor advantage domestically from these great events.

"We must develop a forum, or commission, or some political tool, which can hold the ring for the differences to be fought out, so that a commonly agreed negotiating aim is achieved.

"The future of this country is not a zero-sum, winner takes all calculation but must rest on the reconciled common good arrived at through good debate and disagreement."

Referring to the prospect of a commission, which has been floated by a number of senior politicians, the Archbishop said: "It would be under the authority of Parliament, especially the Commons.

"It would need to be cross-party and chaired by a senior politician, on Privy Council terms.

"It could not bind Parliament, but well structured it could draw much of the poison from the debate."

The archbishop warned that failure to arrive at a consensus on the UK's Brexit aims risked turning the UK "inwards" and could "forfeit the opportunity to be a country the world admires".

But Priti Patel, the International Development Secretary, rejected the Archbishop's stance.

She told BBC Radio Five's Pienaar's Politics: "I think the point is, this isn't about commissions. The public voted last year to leave the European Union.

"Our job as Government now is obviously securing the right deal for the country and not re-running those arguments of Remain and Leave from last year."

END

They require approval from both the Church of England and Methodist governing bodies.

The Methodist Church claimed 195,000 members last year, compared with 263,000 in 2007, while numbers attending Church of England services have fallen by 12% in the last decade.

The proposals are included in a report produced by both Churches called "Mission and Ministry in Covenant".

Under the plans, a new Methodist "president-bishop" would join Anglican bishops to ordain Methodist ministers to serve in the Church of England.

Ministers and Anglican priests would then be able to serve in either Church.

Some local congregations already share premises, but these plans represent the first time since the death of John Wesley that Anglicans and Methodists will be able to share ministry.

Wesley was an Anglican whose teaching led to a split in the Church of England, after his death in 1791, and the foundation of the Methodist church.

The Rev Gareth Powell, the secretary of the Methodist conference, said: "Methodists and Anglicans urgently need a set of proposals to enable the two Churches to move towards fuller communion, sharing more profoundly in mission and ministry.

"The model of a president-bishop in these proposals... is a deeply Methodist way for John Wesley's people to engage at every level with the Church of England in mutual planning for pastoral oversight and Christian mission."

The Rt Rev Christopher Cocksworth, the Bishop of Coventry, said the plans were "workable".

He said: "The solution is built on the centrality of the historic episcopate and the bishop as minister of ordination.

"The scheme as proposed will enable dioceses, districts and local churches to engage in creative pastoral planning for the good of the mission of God in this country."

The plans will need to be approved by the Methodist conference and Church of England General Synod before any changes are made.

More from the Church Times: https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2017/30-june/news/uk/new-unity-scheme-proposes-methodist-bishops-and-anomalous-priests#.WVOoH1Zdy4A.email

Child abuse in the Church is not only seriously distressing, it is eternally consequential: "If anyone causes one of these little ones -- those who believe in me -- to stumble," said Jesus, "it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."

The Church of England has already thrown Bishop George Bell into a very deep pond. It has also just hurled former Archbishop George (Lord) Carey into a reservoir of excrement. In the case of Bell, the solitary, uncorroborated testimony of 'Carol' was deemed sufficient to trash his reputation -- some 70 years after the alleged abuse took place. In the case of Carey, the report of Dame Moira Gibb was sufficient for the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, to demand Lord Carey's resignation as an honorary assistant bishop in the Diocese of Oxford, for apparently 'colluding' in child abuse some 20 years ago. There is more than a whiff of scape-goating.

Contrast the swiftness and severity of these judgments with the harrowing account below. This story has been circulating in the media for a number of years, not least because the alleged abuser -- a priest by the name of Trevor Devamanikkam -- committed suicide before the case against him could be heard. His victim has hitherto remained anonymous -- often named 'Michael' in the media. He has lodged complaints of misconduct against the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, and four other serving bishops, claiming they had failed to act on his disclosures of rape. Nothing happened: apparently, a CDM (Clergy Discipline Measure) has to be issued within 12 months of the alleged misconduct. This might be appropriate if your vicar is filching hymn books, but it is woefully inadequate for dealing with the cover-up of chronic child abuse, the effects of which may take the victim many, many years to process.

Funny, isn't it, how long-dead and retired bishops can be summarily and expediently thrown to the wolves some 20-70 years after their alleged moral shortcomings or professional failings, but those who are still in active ministry and in senior positions are shielded by a non-statutory 12-month limitation, within which narrow window proceedings for 'cover-up' or 'collusion' must be initiated, or they fall.

Michael's real name is Matt Ineson -- or Fr Matthew Ineson, to give him his formal style, for (amazingly) this molested, raped and tortured boy went on to be ordained into the ministry of the Church of England. The abuse he endured around the age of 16 has naturally affected his whole life, but that suffering has been compounded by the sheer delinquency of the Church of England in its competence and ability to let justice be done and be seen to be done. Matt Ineson remembers everything, but all the church seems to want to do is forget that he even exists. They have put the phone down on him numerous times. A few have written with assurances of 'prayer' and 'concern'. He asserts his case with abundant evidence, but they sit in judgment upon themselves. Read his own words, and weep:

You can read the full story here: http://archbishopcranmer.com/child-abuse-church-england-hypocrisy-inconsistency-cover-up/

ALL OF THESE BISHOPS SHOULD RESIGN OR BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE, Says Cranmer

Devamanikkam had been due to appear before Bradford and Keighley magistrates charged with three counts of buggery and three counts of indecent assault in the 1980s. The charges were brought under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and related to a time when the homosexual age of consent was 21.

Last year, Michael, whose has now waived his anonymity and whose real name is Matt Ineson, lodged complaints of misconduct against the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, and four serving bishops, claiming that they had failed to act on his disclosures of rape.

The complaints, made under the C of E's clergy disciplinary measure, were dismissed because they were filed outside of the one-year limit required by the Church.

According to Ineson, he disclosed the allegations of rape to Peter Burrows, the bishop of Doncaster, and Steven Croft, the then bishop of Sheffield and now bishop of Oxford, in 2012. The following year he disclosed to Martyn Snow, the then archdeacon of Sheffield and Rotherham, now bishop of Leicester.

In his letter to Welby, Ineson pleaded for the dismissal of the bishops in question.

A spokesperson for the Church of England's NST said: 'When Matthew wrote to Lambeth earlier this year, it was copied into a range of people and it was immediately taken up by the National Safeguarding Team, on behalf of the Archbishop, who have been in personal contact with him on a range of occasions since then to offer relevant support and talk through issues.

'The Archbishop takes all safeguarding issues very seriously and met with Matthew at the end of last year. Since the police investigation has come to a close the Bishop of Oxford has also been in touch to offer to meet with him and discuss his case.'

Ineson referred to the report last month into historical sex abuse by the former Bishop Peter Ball by Dame Moira Gibb, which concluded that the Church 'colluded' with Ball and resulted in Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, being forced to resign as an honorary Bishop in Oxford.

'In [Dame Moira's] own words 'speaking truth to power', I will speak the truth. I have no deference to any of you,' Ineson wrote. 'Why should I have? Only the truth will set you free. Why are you afraid of it? 'Power' is only real power when it is used for the good. You may think you are above the law, you are not. You are most certainly not above God's morality.'

A letter Ineson wrote to Croft in 2013 about the rapes and the church's alleged failure to act was copied to copied to Archbishop Sentamu and Glyn Webster, the bishop of Beverley.

Sentamu acknowledged receipt of the letter with a four-line response, saying he had read the letter. 'Please be assured I will keep you in my prayers through this testing time for you,' Sentamu wrote.

In 2014, Ineson formally reported the alleged rapes to the West Yorkshire police, who subsequently launched an investigation. Last year, he instructed a lawyer specialising in child abuse to make a claim against the C of E.

Devamanikkam continued to work as a C of E priest for at least a decade after the alleged offences.

In his latest letter to Archbishop Welby, on 26 June, Ineson began: 'I write concerning the rape and abuse I suffered at the hands of Trevor Devamanikkam.'

He outlined the complaints made against the Church hierarchy and complained about what he called an 'appalling' statement issued by the Church last month from the Bishop of Bath and Wells, Peter Hancock, the Church of England's lead safeguarding bishop, who said: 'We have been alerted by police that Trevor Devamanikkam has been found dead at his home. Our thoughts and prayers are with everyone affected by this sad news and we have offered Michael pastoral care and support.'

Bishop Hancock added: 'We will look carefully at how we responded, as we do in all serious safeguarding situations' and pointed out that support had been offered to Michael by the National Safeguarding Team.

The statement also pointed out that 'Michael had a private, pastoral meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury at the end of last year'.

Ineson acknowledged the meeting but claimed: 'I...had a meeting with you in November 2016 during which you would not discuss the matter in any depth and you have not offered me any support whatsoever since. At our meeting you did not even know Devamanikkam's name. So much for your interest.'

He added: 'I wrote to you personally 12 times in 2016 and received no reply and was ignored. Why was that? Considering the serious content and the church's bad reputation on handling sex abuse cases and especially ignoring victims, why was that?'

The Church said that the Archbishop could not respond during the police investigation into the case.

Ineson called for an independent review into the handling of his case. 'If The Church of England is, as it appears from their own statement, intent on looking carefully how they responded to my disclosures and a review into its handling of the case is to be undertaken then the question must be asked - who will undertake this investigation and review? It must not be done internally by The Church of England or its employees themselves or this would open to extreme bias in the same way as it would be inappropriate for me to undertake such an investigation and review for the same reasons.'

Ineson wrote: 'The Church of England has made me fight at every step to try and achieve both justice and the further prevention of abuse by my abuser. By doing this you have added to my abuse.'

He added: 'In my last letter to you I promised very clearly I would, once the legal process is over, reserve my right to waive my anonymity and speak out publicly about what happened to me and the way I have been systematically treated by The Church Of England. You ignored that letter.

'Now the legal process against Mr Devamanikkam is over. If you have a heart at all I ask you give me some peace. The Bishops involved should be removed from office/give their resignations...and I mean all of them. Unless you have a complete clean slate the safeguarding failures will never go away.'

Ineson has sent details of his case to all members of the General Synod, which meets in York this weekend, and Ineson himself will be protesting in York during the Synod -- the C of E's equivalent to a parliament.

This week, the conservative religious affairs blogger 'Archbishop Cranmer' wrote: ['You] must address the legal hypocrisy...which demands the resignation of Lord Carey after more than 20 years, while these bishops remain in office, shielded by an arbitrary, non-statutory, 12-month CDM limitation.'

END

Buses carrying Christians in Egypt are being attacked, and children slaughtered. Christian girls in Cairo are being kidnapped. Christians in Syria are being abducted. Christians in Pakistan are being subjected to false accusations of blasphemy, and being summarily dealt with: Asia Bibi has been languishing in a Pakistani prison since 2010. Churches are being torched and Christians taken hostage in the Philippines. In Iran for Christians have been sentenced to 10 years imprisonment each for engaging in missionary activities and "conducting activities against national security".

Pastor Zhang Shaojie in China is barely alive after suffering torture in prison. In Eritrea Christians are being routinely rounded up and detained. In Iraq, many Christians have been wiped out; thousands are now displaced.

But fear not, the General Synod of the Church of England is profoundly concerned about these matters...

Of the 85 listed Synod questions, not one -- not one -- is concerned with the plight of the persecuted church worldwide. There are questions about sex, sexuality, sex, LGBT, sex, LGTBQIA (what?), sex, LGBTI, sex, same-sex marriage, sex, 'gay cure' conversion therapy, sex, sex, and sex. O, there's a question on 'Monitoring air quality', too. That's diversity of obsession.

Welcome to the General Sex Synod of the Church of England.

The Very Rev'd Kelvin Holdsworth set out the LGBT strategy last year: "This can only be won in the Church of England in the General Synod of the Church of England. Notwithstanding anything else I say below, it can be won no-where else. That means building up a formidable synodical operation that works vote by vote for inclusive policies. The key here is that getting permission to marry gay couples in church unlocks all the other things you want too. Yes, it is worth making every debate about pensions, the forces chaplaincies, schools etc. all debates where LGBT issues are paramount -- these are all things where LGBT rights need to be talked about. However, equal marriage is the goal. And deliciously in a synodical system it is possible (difficult admittedly, but possible) to get things on the agenda. Oh, and don't forget that the best way to provide jollity to a diocesan synod is to get enough people elected onto it and propose a motion or two about the national policy of the C of E when it comes to LGBT people. Don't forget that it was in Diocesan Synods that the dreaded covenant was defeated in England. Synods are your friends."

Some would call this 'entryism' -- infiltration and influence with the objective of subversion and domination. All democratic organisations are vulnerable to it, but most have mechanisms to mitigate it. In the case of the General Synod of the Church of England, is it too much to ask that those elected to it ought to swear to uphold the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Church of England? Or is that all in the eye of the beholder? Might members assent to such an oath, but like anti-Monarchist MPs in Parliament, cross their fingers as they swear it? Would God smile at that, or applaud it? If heretics are lauded as prophets, where is discernment?

If Synod is the Church of England's supreme law-making body, and if it may be crammed with activists who have their own crusades and personal agendas which are at variance with the Catholic and Reformed foundation, what is there to guard the church against ever-expanding circles of concentric permissiveness, under the guise of 'radical inclusion'? If the answer is nothing, what makes the Church of England different from the world?

Should we not, at the very, very least, be witnessing boldly and forcefully to the world that we care about our brothers and sisters around the world who are being persecuted, tortured and murdered for their faith? Should we not convey in our agendas and propagate in our schedules that we care deeply about the voice of the martyrs? 'Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body' (Heb 13:3).

Or is it that the bonds, suffering and adversity of the LGBT community in England should truly eclipse the suffering of Christians in India, Pakistan, Kenya, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea, Nigeria, Mali, Somalia, Afghanistan, Sudan, Syria, Yemen...?

It certainly seems so.

END

We also need to recall that Peter Ball operated in a period when it was seriously advanced on behalf of abusers of children that 'all children lie', that they did so for trivial advantage, and quite seriously by some psychiatrists, that all little girls fantasise about having sex with their fathers. These were times of a very different mindset, and Ball lived and operated in a church which simultaneously condemned gay orientation and acts, yet comprised of men like George Carey who felt compassion for their plight and vulnerability.

Like Jimmy Savile, Ball's professional reputation and successes within the Church conferred upon him a degree of untouchability which he knew, understood, and exploited. Like Savile, Ball worked within a large institution where many developed collective amnesia, willing to acknowledge 'rumours' but without a sufficient structurally rigorous safeguarding regime to collect all the evidence and force the key question to be asked: 'What does all this mean?'

The comparison with Savile needs to go a stage further.

Both he and Ball were able, by force of personality, to only to dominate their victims initially, but to hold them, isolate them and silence them beyond the time of direct influence. For many, it was only upon Savile's death that the spell was broken and they were finally able to tell those closest to them what had happened. We rarely speak of the power of evil in the modern world, but even the sceptical secularist struggles to explain such a phenomenon in any other way.

If you have never encountered such glib, plausible, manipulative abusers, it is almost impossible to fully grasp the way in which they successfully operate. It was especially rare for their brand of charismatic evil to be appreciated in the public sphere during the period when Ball was working on Carey.

The first point of defence is to note not simply how naive Carey was, but how many people were taken in -- not only by Carey, but Ball's own bishop brother who joined his brother to re-write the narrative. Carey had two of them working on him over a prolonged period of time exploiting an innate Christian kindness.

It was not only the Archbishop but nine further bishops who were ensnared, and countless others. Carey was being pressurised without independent advisors cataloguing the story, keeping him on the straight and narrow. The closer you let Peter Ball get to you, the less chance you had of seeing him for what he was. It is striking that it is mainly the remoter figures in the story, such as Deacon K, who actually got his measure at the time. Peter Ball's brother defended him from first to last.

Even some of Ball's victims spoke of the 'spiritual benefits' they experienced from his methods of distorting and corrupting spiritual exercise into abuse. He fooled a Lord of Appeal -- Lord Lloyd -- one of the most astute judges of his day, together with countless school headmasters, members of the gentry, and possibly members of the Royal Family. He persuaded a diocesan registrar to imprudently interpret the rule against conflict of interest in order to represent him in a personal capacity whilst simultaneously advising the church. These are not naive people, but all succumbed in various ways alongside George Carey.

If you want a model for Carey's ensnarement, think of the abused wife who is always making excuses for her abuser, or even Esther Rantzen, who was simultaneously setting up Childline and suppressing her doubts about Jimmy Savile as all the rumours reconfirmed everything she 'heard' but did not 'know'. Even now she honestly struggles to explain it. We used to convict wives who stabbed their abusive husbands because we reasoned that they could always walk away rather than resort to murder. Now we have a better understanding of the corrosive power of the emotional entrapment exercised by the manipulative abuser.

Once having 'got' Carey, Ball would have regarded him as a prize asset and not let him go.

There are two striking parts of the story that resonate from my own experience of such abusers.

First, Ball accepts a caution of gross indecency with a 17-year-old boy. That was plainly an offence at the time. Later he presents it as accepting a caution involving a 19-year-old, which would not have been a crime against a minor. That is clever and subtle. It refocuses the mischief from the plainly criminally abusive to the culturally unlucky. He implants the notion in a context where it may not matter enough for Carey to instantly go and check, and having re-ordered the narrative, Ball can then return and build upon its minimising implication at a later time. This is textbook manipulative behaviour, like a conjuror 'forcing' an idea or a choice upon a victim.

I do not make false equivalence between the Archbishop and his victims, whose abuse is infinitely deeper and longer lasting, but Carey is also a victim of Ball. Many of Ball's victims were persuaded to ignore what they thought and knew, and by the power of his charisma were induced to adopt and trust the narrative that has been implanted and developed.

Another familiar technique of the manipulator was his use of the Diocesan Registrar. Being close to his legal advisor, he might better hope to avoid receiving clear distanced advice of a challenging kind. He could build on the respect developed in happier times and thereby retain a measure of control. He gets the firm to mislead the CPS on detail about what is agreed, and they refer to a Royal reference which is never produced: it is easier to suggest that the church should 'pay the Diocesan Registrar' rather than 'pay my independent solicitor'. If the Diocesan Registrar is fighting his corner, the Church of England is also fighting his corner. Drip, drip, drip.

Later, when he decides the time is ripe to challenge the caution -- which he had been very lucky to receive -- he is happy to throw his solicitor under the bus, claiming that the Registrar was incompetent and let him down. Ball presents himself as the victim of advice he should never have accepted. Each step of the way he is exploiting the proximity, and rightly assumes that neither Carey nor anyone else will go back, read all the notes and remind themselves, reconnecting to the actual facts. Carey is only human. There is no computer to say 'No'.

This is classic behaviour which I have seen and encountered many times from such people.

He develops the tyranny of small concessions. You are hooked and weary, and just want to get on with other more important things. He wants to do confirmations? He tells you he's already done some, nothing went wrong, where's the harm? You can either go through it again or just give in because it probably doesn't matter, and he is a great inspirer of vocations and it was only a police caution: if it had been serious they would have prosecuted him over that 19-year-old... ( see what I did there?).

His brother Michael is a bishop who described his brother's behaviour as merely 'silly' and, according to the report, behaved in a way 'close to perverting the course of justice'. He tried to secure the status of an assistant bishop for his brother, petulantly declining one for himself if his brother were not similarly honoured.

Michael Ball has not suffered a penalty akin to that of George Carey, although his role in keeping Peter Ball within the church fold was crucial.

Archbishop Carey was ultimately responsible, but his brother bishops and the church structures of the time gave him scant help. Every institution of the time was making similar catastrophic judgements. Individualising the responsibility is not helpful because the very function of the scapegoat is to remove the sin from others. To coin a current phrase, the inadequacies from this time were of the many, not the few.

We must be careful to ensure that such reports continue to usefully inform us. George Carey co-operated with the Gibb Inquiry, and so, to his credit, did Bishop Michael Ball. These reports are improved by the frank and willing engagement of those who remember, though when there is delay, several of those who could have added perspective have died. They will include some who might have added to the indictment of George Carey, but also those who might have aided his defence. Justice delayed is indeed justice denied.

I offer the suggestion that it may be best for society if these kind of inquiries are regarded as more akin to the South African 'Truth and Reconciliation Commission'. Used in this way, we gain better insights and have a better chance of understanding how to avoid these problems in the future.

George Carey has been forced to resign. If he is now prosecuted, as some are now demanding, what message will that give future potential witnesses, and how might that distort our future ability to be informed and to learn? Pour encourager les autres has some coercive value, but it is not an obviously moral impulse when applied to a witness who has agreed to engage with his failures, only to find that his honesty paves the way to prosecution. We gain more from George Carey and Michael Ball testifying than from Peter Ball 'taking the Fifth Amendment'.

The Gibb Report is but the start of the problem from the Church of England's point of view. The Carlile Report into errors of the church in its handling of historical abuse in the case of Bishop George Bell will almost certainly add to our woes and the clamour for reform. The two reports deal with separate issues, but they have one thing in common: the current Bishops shaped the agenda. I say that as a structural point and in no way to personalise criticism of people doing their very best. That may not, of course, be enough in this context.

Very few in the Church want or wanted abuse to go undetected. That included George Carey.

The lesson that surely screams from the pages of the Gibb Report is that those who manage complaints must be much more professional, organised, and above all must not retain any personal connection with the person under consideration. The case for the out-placing of the investigations is becoming unanswerable. Unfortunately, if we direct our ire at the hapless Archbishop, we are almost certainly taking our eye off a much bigger picture.

Conversion therapy is usually described as an attempt to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. Some churches in the C of E and other denominations have encouraged LGBT members to take part in prayer sessions and other activities to rid them of their "sin".

Proposing the motion, Jayne Ozanne -- who underwent conversion therapy resulting in two breakdowns and two spells in hospital -- said conversion therapy was "abuse from which vulnerable adults need protecting".

It was "discredited by the government, the NHS, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of General Practitioners and many other senior health care bodies," she said.

Quoting from a statement issued earlier this year by the UK Council for Psychotherapy and other bodies, she said: "Exclusion, stigma and prejudice may precipitate mental health issues for any person subjected to these abuses."

Ozanne quoted an online survey she recently conducted in the LGBTI community, in which just under 40% of her 553 respondents said they had undergone some form of conversion therapy.

More than two-thirds said they had chosen to do so because they believed their sexual orientation to be "sinful". Just under three-quarters were under the age of 20 when they began conversion therapy.

Ed Cox, of the C of E's youth council, struggled to maintain composure as he spoke of his personal experience of being told his sexual orientation was a lifestyle choice or phase and needed prayer.

"This fundamentally says I was made wrong," he told the synod. As a result of what he described as spiritual abuse, he suffered severe depression.

John Sentamu, the archbishop of York, said conversion therapy was "theologically unsound, so the sooner the practice of [it] is banned, I can sleep at night".

Paul Bayes, the bishop of Liverpool, said LGBT orientation was neither a crime nor a sin. "We don't need to engage people in healing therapy if they are not sick."

Fenella Cannings-Jurd, a student at Durham university, said she found it hard to believe that "in 2017 we are seriously debating the pros and cons of conversion therapy". It was "by and large" seen as a violation of basic human rights, she said.

Some synod members expressed concern that the motion would limit the church's ability to offer pastoral care and prayer for people struggling with issues of sexual desire and orientation.

The final vote, after a complicated series of amendments, was 298 to 74, with 26 abstentions. The motion had the backing of all three houses of the synod, the bishops, clergy and laity.

Speaking before the debate, Ozanne said she wanted the church to make a clear public statement. As the established church "we can encourage other denominations and faiths to consider their positions on this", she said.

Conversion therapy was particularly prevalent in minority ethnic Pentecostal denominations, and in some extreme cases young people were sent back to their family's country of origin for "corrective rape".

In a letter to members of synod, Sonia Soans, the editor of Asylum magazine for democratic psychiatry, recounted the case of Esther, a British lesbian and Anglican, who was taken to her parents' native country on the pretext of a holiday a few years ago.

"Very quickly, Esther learned she was being forced into a marriage with a man she did not know. Her conversion included some religious rituals, with prayers for her conversion being offered by those around her," wrote Soans.

When Esther protested, she was locked in her house, but managed to escape. "She lives in hiding now, as she fears her family will track her down and perhaps kill her." She suffers from panic attacks and sleeplessness.

Ozanne quoted from a letter she had received from a 90-year-old C of E priest, who said: "I am a celibate homosexual and have suffered a lifetime of reactive depression resulting from my inability to accept my sexual orientation ...

"I was brought up an evangelical Christian. The trouble started for real when in my early 20s a fundamentalist Christian sought to exorcise my 'demon' as he called [it], but failed to do so. This resulted in a breakdown and hospitalisation where I was administered electric current therapy. After that I had testosterone injections for a year administered by my local GP.

"There followed two years of Freudian analysis in the hope that my sexual orientation would be redirected. I was then given lithium ... followed by no end of personal counselling, therapy and prayer, all of which totally failed to make one jot of difference to my sexual inclinations ... On two occasions, I have contemplated suicide."

HOW THEY VOTED:
Members voted by houses on the amended motion.
The votes in the House of Bishops were 36 for and one against, with no abstentions.
In the House of Clergy 135 backed the motion with 25 against and 13 abstentions.
In the House of Laity 127 supported the motion with 48 opposing and 13 abstentions.

END

The intention, he added, was to "map, to set out clearly where we agree and where we disagree, to help us understand better the issues and the points of conflict".

He said he hoped a document would be available for discussion at the synod in early 2020 "though on a process this complicated we cannot be pinned down relating to time".

Welby was challenged from the floor of the synod on whether bishops were "sufficiently aware of the urgency of this matter". Joyce Hill, a lay member of the synod and former pro-vice-chancellor of the University of Leeds, said: "There is a lot of long grass potentially growing."

In response, the archbishop of Canterbury said: "Many people think it should take a lot longer, many think we should come to a quick decision now. All of us would like a magic wand to wave ... [but] there's no magic wand.

"We believe very firmly that a timescale of two and a half to three years both does justice to the depth and range of questions that need to be addressed ... and to the need to begin to draw some conclusions for the church. This clearly will not satisfy everyone."

The working groups were established after February's synod meeting narrowly threw out a bishops' report that upheld traditional teaching on marriage.

In response, the archbishops said a "radical new Christian inclusion in the the church" was needed, founded in scripture, tradition and faith while also based on "a proper 21st-century understanding of being human and being sexual".

But Alan Wilson, the bishop of Buckingham, accused his bishop colleagues of "well-meaning temporising waffle" while society moved on. "The fact is we've been going round this mulberry bush regularly for almost 30 years. Each new iteration consists of a grand announcement that the bishops will lead the way forward," he said.

"The only way forward is mutual personal respect that acknowledges difference. Instead, the House of Bishops attempts to synthesise a single grand approach to impose top-down. People aren't looking for bishops to teach about this. They want us to shut up for a change, listen to someone other than ourselves and learn."

Speaking after Saturday's synod session on "next steps in human sexuality", Hill said that "while the bishops need to be thorough about developing a clearer understanding on these issues, there is a lot of potential for things to be sidelined, postponed and delayed".

Society had moved on in its understanding of sexual relationships, and the state had followed by legalising same-sex marriage, "but the church doesn't seem to adequately address these issues in a way that can be understood by the nation".

The church's difficulties in moving forward was "damaging, especially in relationship with the younger generation -- people in their 20s, 30s and 40s. We have a real problem."

Acknowledging the profound disagreements within the C of E and global Anglican communion on sexuality, Hill added: "Every now and then, if you can't get consensus, you have to say: 'Let's provide leadership.' If it causes division, that's sad but sometimes necessary."

There was a growing anxiety among lay members of the church that bishops were stalling on the issues, she said, "and I hear a lot of impatience in the pews".

The issue of same-sex relationships and whether the church should allow same-sex marriage has dominated synod proceedings in recent years. Conservative Anglicans have threatened to leave the church if it changes its traditional teachings.

Last month, Scottish Anglicans voted overwhelmingly in favour of allowing same-sex couples to marry in church in a historic move that set their church on a potential collision course with the global Anglican Communion.

Two months ago, in Civilisation sleeps while a Christian Holocaust takes shape, a response to A Manifesto for Persecuted Christians launched by Barnabas Fund, I set out how Christians today are the world's most persecuted religious group. The statistics are truly shocking: A Christian is killed every six minutes and 500,000 Christians around the globe are unable to practice their faith freely. No, these are not alarmist statistics provided by advocacy groups. These are understated figures supplied by The Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR) an independent international network that engages in scholarly research and provides accurate information to the public on new religious movements. That is the considered assessment of the liberal Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs at Georgetown University.

In the Book of Revelation the great enemy of the church is personified as the Whore of Babylon. This is the whore who seeks to destroy the church. She is portrayed as 'drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs' (Revelation 17:6). Does this knowledge make the slightest difference to General Synod? Do Archbishops Welby and Sentamu, the over 80 bishops and bishopettes, the archdeacons and deans, priests and priestesses, and the laity at the heart of the 80 million strong Anglican Communion attending this bi-annual shindig, even raise an eyebrow over the genocide of their fellow-Christians?

The nitpicking left-wing hierarchy of the British church even seems to have difficulty when it comes to using the word 'genocide' to describe the persecution of Christians. Last year, neither the Church of England nor the Catholic Church in the UK were willing to openly advocate for the use of the word. Paul Butler, Bishop of Durham, said it was 'complicated as many Muslims had been killed too.' Welby was willing to concede the reality of Christians facing 'elimination' at the hands of ISIS but refused to use the word 'genocide.'

Yet when it comes to defending Muslims in a BBC Radio 4 response to the London Bridge terror attack, Welby was quick to highlight the massacre of Muslims in Srebrenica as evidence for the Christian equivalent of Islamic terrorism. Although the Genocide Convention came into force in 1948, this was the first-ever conviction by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) for genocide. The massacre was designated as 'genocide'. It was a contested and controversial decision even though the numbers killed amounted to between 7,000 to 8,000 military-aged Bosnian Muslim men. By comparison to this, the 'shy' Archbishop might note, some 90,000 Christians were murdered for their faith in 2016.

The British House of Commons does not share his reticence. They voted unanimously (278-0) in favour of declaring the attacks against Christians as genocide. Similarly the US House of Representatives made a unanimous declaration in March, and likewise the European Parliament did so in February 2016. The Church of Ireland also unanimously adopted a motion at its General Synod in Dublin expressing solidarity with persecuted Christians across the world.

What has the Church of England done? Nothing.

While their Christian brethren-- bishops, priests, nuns, evangelists and congregation members - are raped, stoned, crucified or machine-gunned to death, while their churches are bombed or burned down, while modern day Neros are throwing Christians to the lions, what the members of General Synod are suffering from is a preoccupation with sex.

As the veteran conservative blogger Adrian Hilton observed earlier this week regarding this week's Synod: 'Of the 85 listed Synod questions, not one -- not one -- is concerned with the plight of the persecuted church worldwide. There are questions about sex, sexuality, sex, LGBT, sex, LGTBQIA (what?), sex, LGBTI, sex, same-sex marriage, sex, "gay cure" conversion therapy, sex, sex, and sex. Oh, there's a question on 'Monitoring air quality', too. That's diversity of obsession. Welcome to the General Sex Synod of the Church of England.'

'Sex' is to General Synod what the 'bell' was to the Russian psychologist Ivan Pavlov's salivating dogs. The Church of England has sex on the brain. Four African nations face one of the worst famine crises since World War II yet all the Church of England can obsess about is what lies below, not above, the belt.

So why this fixation on sex? And at a time that Justin Welby is facing serious questions regarding two of the most significant sexual abuse scandals in recent archiepiscopal memory? Could this be another diversionary virtue-signalling media tactic as was scapegoating the former conservative ABC George Carey, while letting the former liberal ABC Rowan Williams get away with a rap on the knuckles?

Last week, another skeleton came tumbling out of the C of E closet when 'Michael,' a victim of sexual abuse shed his anonymity and revealed his identity as Fr Matthew Ineson. Fr. Ineson says he was molested, raped, and tortured by an Anglican priest, that he complained to a whole platoon of bishops, including Bishop of Oxford Steven Croft, Bishop of Leicester Martyn Snow and Archbishop of York John Sentamu, and finally that. he wrote to Archbishop Justin Welby 12 times in 2016, all ignored,' he states. Fr Ineson will make his protest in full view of General Synod this weekend. The media will be agog - but not perhaps if Welby feeds them a diversionary sex agenda.

There is perhaps another more disturbing reason. The Church of England in recent years has begun to worship at another altar - the Unholy Trinity of Nietzsche, Marx and Freud. 'It's all about power,' said Friedrich Nietzsche. 'It's all about sex,' said Sigmund Freud. 'It's all about class warfare,' said Karl Marx. General Synod is all about power politics.

Discussing pansexuality in a manner that would frazzle even Freud, the mania with sex keeps General Synod stimulated. The Marxian thesis of class warfare has morphed into a cultural Marxism of identity politics where the division is not so much between bourgeois and proletariat but between pansexualists and those who prefer the traditional position on sex.

Instead of having Bibles in the pew, it is likely members of General Synod will be given an illustrated copy of the Kama Sutra! Watching the antics of the General Synod Sex Circus, the Hungarian-born British journalist George Mikes, would have to rewrite the chapter on sex in his very funny book How to be an Alien. 'European men and women have sex-lives; English men and women have hot-water bottles,' he wrote in 1946. Not any more! And certainly not if you are on General Synod! You are more likely to get a sex therapy session.

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

It was moved by the Revd Christopher Newlands on behalf of the Blackburn Diocesan Synod.

Opening the debate, he said: "I hope that we can make a powerful statement to say that we believe that trans people are cherished and loved by God, who created them, and is present through all the twists and turns of their lives."

Speaking during the debate the Bishop of Worcester, Dr John Inge said: "Our response needs to be loving and open and welcoming and the passing of this motion would be a very important factor in that."

An amendment to the motion, moved by Dr Nick Land of the Diocese of York, calling instead for the House of Bishops to consider the theological, pastoral and other issues around gender transition, was rejected by all three houses of Synod.

The votes in the House of Bishops were 30 for and two against, with two abstentions.
In the House of Clergy 127 backed the motion with 28 against and 16 abstentions.
In the House of Laity 127 supported the motion with 48 opposing and eight abstentions.

The motion passed reads:

FOR THE TRUTH ABOUT THE TRANSGENDER MOVEMENT click here: http://www.virtueonline.org/truth-about-transgender-movement

He did not collude with Peter Ball, who was cautioned by the police, resigned as Bishop of Gloucester and was in due course imprisoned. Lord Carey's mistake, for which he has apologised, was failing to put Ball, by then a sick man, on the Lambeth Caution List, because he did not think there was any chance of his ministering again. The provincial Registrar concurred. It is hard to escape the conclusion that Lord Carey has been made a scapegoat, and Dr. Welby's ban is not only unjust but petty.

The whole thing seems to have been very badly orchestrated. Archbishop Welby's letter to Lord Carey came out of the blue -- the same day as the press conference. It has been suggested that George Carey should have looked after the numerous victims of Peter Ball, but this is unrealistic. It is not the job of an Archbishop to be chasing round for the care of unknown individuals. Care in the C of E is delegated to the parish priest, if necessary under the guidance of the bishop.

Sincerely,

Dr. Michael Green,
Oxford