The Archbishop of Canterbury's headquarters received letters from alleged victims of Peter Ball (pictured with close friend Prince Charles)

Now it has emerged the Archbishop of Canterbury's headquarters received at least six letters from other alleged victims detailing 'potentially criminal' and 'totally inappropriate behaviour' by the former bishop in the early 1990s, but did not pass them on to police until years later.

'The Church appears to have resorted to staggering levels of deceit in order to prevent the true extent of Ball's offending coming to light, said Richard Scorer, a solicitor who is representing victims of Ball.

Details of the letters, all sent to the Church between December 1992 and February 1993, reveal Ball encouraged victims to pray naked, perform sex acts in front of him, and share his bed.

Anglican officials who reviewed the letters in 2009 suggested that had such evidence been given to detectives in 1993, Ball may have been convicted of serious sexual offences rather than merely cautioned. But instead of being made public, the letters were kept in confidential files at Lambeth Palace. It was not until 2012, after several internal inquiries, that the Church finally released documents to police.

In October last year, Ball, now 84, was sentenced to 32 months in jail after pleading guilty to misconduct in public office and indecent assaults on a total of 18 boys and young men between 1977 and 1992.

END

Intense efforts have been made to persuade hardliners to join the two-day closed discussions among almost 500 synod members. It is seen as a critical stage in the church's lengthy and painful consideration of whether to embrace people in same-sex relationships.

Pete Broadbent, the bishop of Willesden, told synod members: "If you are thinking of boycotting the conversations because they will compromise you in some way then I would say we particularly need to hear your voice."

But Susie Leafe, director of the evangelical group Reform, said she was not taking part "because these conversations are based on a false premise. In a context where there is no discipline within the church for its current teaching, or very limited discipline, we are being asked to have a conversation that focuses on us, rather than focusing on what God's word teaches."

Another conservative evangelical group, Christian Concern, planned to distribute "pledge cards" to synod members, aimed at upholding traditional teaching on marriage.

"The church needs to affirm, as clearly as she can, her commitment to biblically defined, historical marriage. Without that, the church will be held to ransom by emotive influence, self-interest, political pressure and lobby groups, forcing it to devise doctrine based on passing and present fads," said Andrea Williams, Christian Concern's chief executive.

On the prospect of "good disagreement", a paper by the Evangelical Group on General Synod (Eggs) said: "There are some things about which disagreement is possible ... However, over more fundamental things, disagreement within the church is never 'good'."

Jayne Ozanne, a leading campaigner for LGBT acceptance within the church, said it was a "terrible shame" that some synod members would be absent from the discussions. "I for one have had long conversations to try to persuade people to stay," she said.

"It's so important that all views are heard and understood in order for us to learn to trust and respect each other more."

Many synod members were approaching the closed process with trepidation, Broadbent said. They have been given detailed guidance on how to conduct themselves during the two days, much of which will be conducted in groups of 20.

Members should refrain from tweeting or using other social media, and "are requested not to communicate information about the conversation by text, email or phone while the conversation is going on," according to the advice.

Clergy are being discouraged from wearing dog collars, and all participants are advised to wear "casual, comfortable clothes".

The document adds: "No one will be forced to disclose any personal information of any kind. If talking about human sexuality as part of your personal faith journey is important to you, please do so. But participants should not disclose anything which they feel unsafe to share."

A separate document, Grace and Dialogue, which was circulated ahead of the synod, urged members to be aware of body language that could indicate boredom or a dogmatic attitude. Members should not try to dominate conversations and to "avoid jumping on answers you don't like".

The discussions will not come to a firm conclusion, but "the process will inform what we do next", said a senior source.

A meeting of bishops in September may consider whether some form of "pastoral accommodation" is possible, which could take the form of a "service of welcome" to same-sex couples who have undergone a civil marriage.

At the moment, the church does not conduct same-sex weddings nor bless same-sex civil marriages. Gay and lesbian clergy are not permitted to be in same-sex marriages and their relationships are expected to be celibate.

C of E officials have acknowledged that some people may leave the church over the issue of same-sex relationships.

David Porter, the archbishop of Canterbury's chief of staff, told reporters last month that success would not be measured on whether or not the C of E prevents a fracture but on "how we fracture".

He added: "Every major church that has sought to address this issue has fractured in a major way. We have taken a different road to try to ameliorate that: a relational road."

Meanwhile, the United Reform Church voted to permit its clergy to conduct same-sex marriages at its assembly in Southport on Saturday, by 240 votes to 21. The URC, which has about 56,000 members in England, Wales and Scotland, will allow clergy to opt out of conducting same-sex marriages.

Quakers and Unitarians already allow same-sex marriage, and the Methodist church last week agreed to revisit its stance.

In June, Scottish Anglicans voted to remove a clause in canon law that states that marriage is a union of a man and a woman. Before the change can be enacted, it must win a two-thirds majority in a second vote next year.

END

Erzbischof und Führer der Kirche von England Justin Portal Welby has ein großes Problem on his hands. The liberals are up in arms. The conservatives have upset their gay brethren and blighted their happy Isle of Lesbos by parading offensive Bible verses highlighted with fluorescent markers. A deluge of biblical theology is flooding their extra-large liberal hearts and like Noah they are preparing to board the ark of General Synod in pairs--male and male, female and female-- praying that the rainbow colours of the new Anglican definition of marriage will soon be flying from the steeple of York Minster.

Merkel knows that her problem is worthy of the mind of Machiavelli in a mitre. So like the Queen of Sheba she makes a pilgrimage to York to observe the wisdom and wizardry of King Justin "Solomon" Welby at the July 2016 session of General Synod. If the lion can lie down with the lamb and gay-activists can dwell peacefully with Bible-bashing conservative evangelicals, surely nudists can live and bathe together in the same pool as the fully textiled.

Synod begins with prayer led by Erzbischof Welby: "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Hegelian Spirit. Amen." This is followed by a reading from the New Revisionist Standard Version of the Bible co-edited by Michel Foucault, Giles Fraser and Jayne Ozanne. The reading is from John's gospel. Jesus said to Pilate, "What is truth?" Jesus did not answer his question. Then Jesus said to the Jews, "If you abide in my word contextualised for the times, you are my disciples, and you will know relative truth, and relative truth will set you free."

The synod mothers and fathers break-up into groups of 20 for a blessed time of shared conversations and good disagreement. They are asked to imagine one of three scenarios: a) Augustine having a facilitated conversation with Pelagius in the fourth century over the issue of salvation by grace vs. salvation by works. 'Consider if the problem may have been cultural,' suggest the facilitator from the United Nations. 'Augustine was a hot-headed African. Pelagius was a tea-sipping Englishman. The Council of Carthage was held in the heat of Africa. Do you think that is why they declared Pelagius a heretic? Do you think this is why most African bishops are opposition to homosexuality?' The groups are then asked to visualise Augustine and Pelagius telling each other their personal stories and listening to the other with a non-judgemental attitude.

b) Arius having shared conversations with Athanasius in the third century over the divinity of Christ. The groups are asked to avoid the use of judgemental terms like 'heresy' or 'heretic'. Such theology is based on a meta-narrative and there is no such thing in the postmodern world, the groups are told. They are then asked to imagine how Arianism would enrich the church if they slept 'in different bedrooms' and Arius was not hounded out of the church as a 'heretic.' A woman bishop suggests that the word 'heretic' should be banned because it border on 'hate speech.' The facilitator makes a note in his I-Pad to appoint a sub-committee and put the item on the agenda for the next Synod to debate.

c) Martin Luther having good disagreement in the fifteenth century with Pope Leo X at the Council of Worms over the sale of indulgences. The groups are asked to discuss how Luther's insistence on the truth of the Holy Scriptures may have been because of his Teutonic Germanic cultural mindset and the invention of Gutenberg's printing press which led to truth being viewed as permanently and authoritatively etched in printer's ink for the whole community rather than as fluid, personal and perspectival. The groups are asked to act out a shared conversation as the Pope and Luther shared their personal faith journeys over large and frothy pints of Bavarian beer.

At this point Frau Merkel bursts into applause from the observer's gallery. Like the Queen of Sheba she is amazed at the Machiavellian wisdom of Welby. He has rescued the Church of England from a cataclysmic split. General Synod ends with a resounding rendition of Beethoven's Ode to Joy and Frau Merkel bids Bruder Welby a tearful auf Wiedersehen. She now knows how she can get liberal nudists and militant Muslims coveristas to swim together in the same pool. Three phrases are dancing Strauss waltzes in her head. Good disagreement! Facilitated conversations! Shared conversations! Who knows what she can now achieve? Muslim women in fig-leaf bikinis. German women in ornate hijabs. Muslim men in Dolce & Gabbana swim shorts. German men in flowing Arabic thawb. A Hegelian dream come true. Thesis. Antithesis. A new synthesis. Turkey joining the EU. World peace.

Before Merkel boards her EU-regulation approved Messerschmitt for Berlin she has one more person to meet. That evening at the Synod dinner she heads for Britain's first female nudist bishop Karen Gorham. After a firm handshake Frau Merkel asks if Bishop Karen will accompany her to Saxony as head of the team of facilitators Frau Merkel is putting together to solve her ein kleines Problem. Bishop Karen immediately agrees. She has only one request. Would Frau Merkel be willing to stop over at Cambridge University and pick up economics lecturer Dr Victoria Bateman from Gonville and Caius College? Bishop Karen would like the anti-Brexit nudist protester to be her associate facilitator at the 'facilitated conversations' around the nudist-Muslim swimming pool in Saxony.

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

"We, the undersigned members of the General Synod, wish to express our lack of confidence in the process of the Shared Conversations. Whatever their stated purposes, the outcome has not led to a greater confidence that the Church will be guided by the authoritative voice of the Scriptures, and its decisive shaping of traditional Anglican teaching, in any forthcoming discussions."

Rosemary Lyon -- Blackburn
Stephen Boyall -- Blackburn
Kathy Playle -- Chelmsford
Mary Durlacher -- Chelmsford
David Banting -- Chelmsford
Debbie Woods -- Chester
Jeremy Harris -- Chester
Lorna Ashworth -- Chichester
Andrea Minichiello Williams -- Chichester
Rachel Bell -- Derby
Giles Williams -- Europe
Helen Lamb -- Ely
William Belcher -- Gloucester
Chik Kaw Tan -- Lichfield
Shaun Morris -- Lichfield
Chris Gill -- Lichfield
Debbie Buggs -- London
Sarah Finch -- London
Clive Scowen -- London
Charlie Skrine -London
Margaret Parrett -- Manchester
Caroline Herbert -- Norwich
Graham Caskie -- Oxford
Andrew Bell -- Oxford
Andrew Presland -- Peterborough
Mark Lucas -- Peterborough
Ian Dobbie -- Rochester
Angus MacLeay -- Rochester
Jane Patterson -Sheffield
Brian Wilson -- Southwark
Susie Leafe -- Truro
Chris Fry -- Winchester

END

2). The Anglican Church of Kenya is known for its orthodox biblical stance on human sexuality and its opposition to practising homosexuality. The former chairman of the orthodox Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans was the recently retired Archbishop of Kenya, the gentleman giant of the Anglican Communion, Dr Eliud Wabukala.

If these two considerations were in the minds of the civil servants who have blocked the Kenyan Archdeacon, what an extraordinary reflection on the British politically correct establishment that is. Socially Marxist activists at the heart of government will collude with Islam to prevent a Christian preacher from entering the UK on the ground that he is homophobic.

Have they never read the Koran?

Christian MPs and sympathisers who have been informed of this fiasco will hopefully raise it with the new Home Secretary and, aware that Kenya is a vital ally in the war on terror, she will overturn such a shameful decision, allowing a faithful, gracious and loving minister of the Lord Jesus Christ to come and preach the true gospel of God's saving love in our country.

Lord knows we need it.

Julian Mann is vicar of the Parish Church of the Ascension, Oughtibridge, South Yorkshire

"Michael" -- whose identity is known to the Guardian, but who wishes to remain anonymous -- filed the complaints under the CofE's clergy disciplinary measure (CDM) against John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York and second highest-ranking figure in the church; Peter Burrows, the Bishop of Doncaster; Steven Croft, a former Bishop of Sheffield, and now Bishop of Oxford; Martyn Snow, the Bishop of Leicester; and Glyn Webster, the Bishop of Beverley.

All five have contested the complaints because they were made after the church's required one-year limit.

Spokespersons for Sentamu and the four bishops said they could not comment on a matter that was the subject of an internal church process and a police investigation.

Sentamu has previously said he was "deeply ashamed" that the church failed "both to watch and to act, where children were at serious risk" in a separate abuse case concerning a CofE dean.

Michael has made a further complaint against Roy Williamson, a former bishop of Bradford, for failing to take action to bring the alleged perpetrator to justice at the time of the abuse.

He has also filed a misconduct complaint against the alleged rapist, who is currently the subject of a police investigation into Michael's claims. He continued to work as a CofE priest for at least a decade after the alleged offences. Although now retired, he is still licensed to officiate as a priest.

A West Yorkshire police spokesperson confirmed the force was investigating a report of a historical serious sexual offence and that a 69-year-old man had been interviewed.

Cases of sexual abuse that have emerged in recent years have prompted claims that the Anglican church has a track record of ignoring or covering up sex crimes committed by its clergy. The most high profile case concerned Peter Ball, the former bishop of Lewes, who was jailed last October, 22 years after the church became aware of allegations against him. The church commissioned an independent inquiry into how it dealt with the case.

This week, the inquiry by Dame Lowell Goddard into child sex abuse will hold a preliminary hearing into the way the C of E has handled allegations of abuse by its clergy.

According to Michael's account and the complaint papers he has submitted to the C of E, he first disclosed the rapes to Burrows, the Bishop of Doncaster, in July 2012 following a meeting about an unconnected child sex abuse allegation in Michael's parish.

It was the first time in 28 years that Michael had told anyone about the repeated rapes he said he endured over a period of weeks as a vulnerable teenager. He says he was silent because he feared he would not be believed and was ashamed.

But a plea for help from the mother of two boys who said they were being abused by a member of staff at a CofE school led Michael to seek a meeting with Burrows. He told the bishop he believed abuse at the school was being covered up or ignored.

At the end of the meeting, he disclosed the allegations of his own abuse to Burrows. "That bishop did nothing," said Michael. "Nothing."

He later told other church figures about the alleged abuse, and reported the alleged crimes to the police.

In December 2012, Michael told Croft, the Bishop of Sheffield, about the alleged offences. In February 2013, he repeated the disclosure to Croft and, separately, to Snow, who was then an archdeacon but now the Bishop of Leicester. Neither acted on the information, according to Michael.

Soon after, Snow made a complaint against Michael for his failure to inform the diocese that he had given shelter to a newly released prisoner for three nights. The man had been convicted of child pornography offences and was on the sex offender register.

The Bishop of Sheffield decided to take no action on the complaint. By then Michael had resigned as a vicar.

After his resignation, Michael wrote to Croft in June 2013 to comment on his decision not to proceed with the complaint. In the letter, Michael referred again to the alleged rapes.

He said: "You will never know of the courage it took me to tell you both [Croft and Burrows] and you will never know of the hurt and stress it has caused me that you have both failed to support me in any way.

"It is obvious to me that ... the abuse I suffered at the hands of a priest when I was a youngster [is] of no interest to you and sweeping it under the carpet or covering it up is much more important."

The letter was copied to Sentamu and Webster. Only Sentamu acknowledged receipt 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.

No action was taken to offer Michael support, nor was Michael advised to report an alleged crime.

A spokesperson for the Archbishop told the Guardian that Sentamu had simply acknowledged a copy of a letter addressed to someone else. "The original recipient of the letter had a duty to respond and not the Archbishop," the spokesperson said.

The Archbishop could not take any action "without consent ... to do anything without their consent would be abusive".

According to Michael, "not one of them did anything to support me. Not one of them even said they were sorry it happened".

Last year, Michael formally reported the alleged rapes to the police. Earlier this year, he instructed David Greenwood, a lawyer specialising in child abuse, to make a claim against the CofE. In May, he filed his formal CDM complaints.

However, under the CDM procedure, complaints must be brought within a year of the alleged misconduct. As Michael's complaints fall outside this period, the church must first rule whether the complaints can be considered.

The archbishop of York and the four serving bishops have contested Michael's request to make a complaint out of time. Williamson, the retired bishop, and the alleged rapist have not contested the request, so these complaints will be considered.

Michael, whose case is being put forward to the Goddard inquiry by his solicitor, said he was disgusted with what he describes as continued attempts by the church to cover up abuse and discredit survivors. "I feel like I've been abused all over again," he said.

In an interview with the Guardian, he recalled being repeatedly raped as an "immature and naive" teenager who was placed in the care of a vicar following family difficulties. He says he suffered both physical injuries and long-term psychological damage that meant he could not be intimate with anyone.

"I feel extremely ill, exhausted all the time, physically in pain, I can't sit still, I can't sleep. I'm very cautious about who I trust," he said. "I've never had a proper relationship in my life."

Michael rejected the church's claims that it had put in place proper safeguarding procedures. "They're lying. How many times have they said that? And nothing changes."

A spokesperson for the four bishops said they were unable to comment on the specifics but added: "If this complaint goes forward, our bishops will make a full response to the various allegations made in due course. In the meantime, we continue to hold all victims of sexual abuse and exploitation in our prayers."

A spokesperson for the Diocese of Southwell & Nottingham, where Williamson is now an honorary assistant bishop, said: "The diocese places great emphasis on the protection of children, young people and vulnerable adults and is committed to making church a safe place for everyone.

"We cannot comment during a live investigation except to say that if approached by the authorities we will offer them every cooperation. We continue to pray for all victims of sexual abuse."

END

The allegations were made as the complainant, now an associate priest, was giving evidence during the trial of retired clergyman, formerly known as the Venerable Granville Gibson.

Eighty-year-old Mr Gibson, from Darlington, the ex-Archdeacon of Auckland, denies eight counts of indecent assault and one further serious sexual assault.

All the alleged offending stems from the late 1970s and early eighties, when the defendant was vicar at St Clare's Church, in Newton Aycliffe.

The alleged victims include two male teenagers and a church novice, in his mid-20s at the time.

That complainant took to the witness stand on the third day of the trial, at Durham Crown Court.

He said he initially found Mr Gibson "charming" and "friendly", but within two months began having concerns, particularly with his "embarrassingly long hugs".

The witness said today (Wednesday, July 27) in one incident in the church hall, Mr Gibson grabbed him, pressed himself up against the young churchman, who said the vicar was in an obvious state of arousal.

He told the court: "I thought 'Oh my God, what's going on here', and pulled away.'

"He acted as if nothing had happened and said: 'Are you okay', and I didn't know what to do.

"It was like an invitation that you had turned down."

He said he complained to Mr Gibson, who told him he was concerned as he was having same sex affairs, but he later claimed, "the demons of homosexuality had been cast out of him."

The young churchman complained to the Bishop of Durham, at the time, John Habgood, but was later told that Mr Gibson denied doing anything inappropriate and that was the end of the matter.

He was given the choice of either continuing to work with Mr Gibson or transferring parishes.

But having refused to do either he retired from the Church.

Asked in cross-examination by defence counsel, Andrew Stubbs: "Your narrative now is that there has been a massive cover up by the Church of England?

He replied: "Yes. I did my duty and paid the consequences of that."

The trial continues.

This is the tale of two bishops: Bishop Bell and Bishop Ball. Bishop George Bell was the Bishop of Chichester and a great friend and supporter of my hero Dietrich Bonhöffer in his resistance to Adolf Hitler. Were it not for his principled opposition to the blanket-bombing of Dresden, Bell would have been elevated to the See of Canterbury. 'To despair of being able to do anything, or refuse to do anything, is to be guilty of infidelity,' he wrote. His words have pricked my calloused conscience when I have been tempted to cower before power. I got to know Bell a great deal more when I read Eric Metaxas' biography of the German pastor who dared to defy the Nazis--Bonhöffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy.

Bishop Peter Ball? Bishop who? I had never even heard the name until newspaper headlines screamed it out in 2015. Only then I learned that Ball was suffragan Bishop of Lewes and diocesan Bishop of Gloucester.

That's when the story takes a Kafkaesque twist. In the case of George Bell, an unidentified woman, known only as 'Carol' first complained in 1995 that Bell had sexually abused her when she was five. Carol is now 70. But it was only when she wrote to Archbishop Justin Welby in 2013 that the C of E went into safeguarding overdrive and its sainted bishop was pronounced a paedophile overnight. Carol received £15,000 as compensation. The Child Protection Gestapo went on a cleansing spree and adopted a scorched earth policy to buildings, schools and other institutions named after Bell.

In the case of Bishop Ball, an identified individual, Neil Todd, first complained in 1993, about the horrific sexual and sadistic abuse he had suffered at the hands of Peter Ball. The C of E went into cover-up overdrive. Leading establishment figures, 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.

If there is one institution that ought to be a beacon of justice it ought to be the church. This is because its foundational text, the Bible, has justice at its very heart. It is the Bible that was instrumental in giving birth to many of the principles of Western jurisprudence.

Most prominent is the principle of equal justice under the law. 'You shall not be partial in judgment. You shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not be intimidated by anyone, for the judgment is God's,' declares Deuteronomy. Exodus backs this up. 'You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice'. Leviticus echoes this. 'You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbour'.

Equally important is the principle of evidence. Rabbinic exegesis on the Tower of Babel story in Genesis points to the verse where 'the Lord came down to see the city and the tower' which the citizens of Babel had built. Rashi, the great eleventh-century rabbi, used this as a basis for evidence in a trial: 'And the Lord came down to see--He really did not need to do this, but Scripture intends to teach the judges that they should not proclaim a defendant guilty before they have seen the case and thoroughly understood the matter in question.'

Other legal texts in the Bible take this further when discussing the role of witnesses. 'A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established,' states Deuteronomy. 'Do not admit a charge against a presbyter except on the evidence of two or three witnesses,' writes the apostle Paul to Timothy.

So why did at least one archbishop and a number of bishops allegedly close ranks and collude in an act of partiality to protect Ball when there were so many witnesses against him? On the other hand, why did the C of E pronounce Bell guilty when a single uncorroborated witness testified against him?Why has the evidence not been made public? Bell could not defend himself from the grave. Has the politics of expediency replaced biblical principles and the ethics of a fair trial in the way the church conducts its legal and disciplinary procedures?

After much pressure from a cadre of eminent lawyers, commentators, writers, and members of the House of Lords, the C of E finally agreed to an independent review of the Bell case at the end of June 2016. A gaggle of incompetent and frightened bishops who have tarnished Bell's reputation now have to contend with historian Andrew Chandler's meticulously researched and recently published biography George Bell, Bishop of Chichester: Church, State, and Resistance in the Age of Dictatorship. Chandler ends on a note that any historian, judge or journalist would be wise to heed when judging Bishop Bell.

'The allegation of 2015 is anomalous. Indeed, it seems to exist in its own world, evidently uncorroborated by any other independent source. It also remains unique, for apparently no other such accusation has arisen. In sum, we are asked to invest an entire authority in one testimony and to dismiss all the materials by which we have come to know the historical George Bell as mere figments of reputation. The corollary of such a method may now be witnessed in the hasty removal of his name or image from public institutions and commemorations. It may simply be observed here that such iconoclastic activities are not unknown to historians of other, far darker, times and contexts.'

For the Church of England, it is indeed, the worst of times.

The Rev. Canon Dr. Jules Gomes is Vicar of Arbory and Castletown and Canon Theologian on the Isle of Man. He holds a Ph. D. in Old Testament from the University of Cambridge. Jules taught at the United Theological College, London School of Theology and Liverpool Hope University. He also served as Chaplain to the Old Royal Naval College, University of Greenwich and Trinity College of Music. Before coming to the Island, he was Dwelly Raven Canon and Artistic Director at Liverpool Cathedral. Jules enjoys motorcycling, rifle shooting, playing an occasional round of golf, classical music and jazz.

...a man with inborn graciousness and a compassionate nature who exudes a special, spiritual charisma. His respectful eminence is a paragon of virtue that walks in humility and with utmost humbleness. Whenever an individual meets with him on the veranda of Eidgah Shareef, whether it is the US Ambassador or an illiterate laborer, warmth and love radiates naturally from his smiles and greetings, engulfing the guests in its embrace. He is like a river of generosity and kindness that compels people from all walks of life to come and share their problems with him. They seek his blessed wisdom, regardless of the nature of their individual problems, whether worldly or spiritual.

That's obviously the face of the Shaykh the Archbishop was meeting. His other face isn't so gracious and compassionate:

The Muslim clerics have led a high-profile campaign in Pakistan in praise of assassin Mumtaz Qadri, who was executed in January after murdering liberal Pakistani politician Salmaan Taseer in 2011. The Punjab governor had criticised Pakistan's strict anti-blasphemy laws, and Qadri claimed it was his religious duty to kill him.

Shahbaz Taseer, son of the assassinated governor who has himself been a victim of Pakistan's militant Islamists, is understandably upset. "These people teach murder and hate," he said. "For me personally I find it sad that a country like England would allow cowards like these men in. It's countries like the UK and the US that claim they are leading the way in the war against terror, setting a standard. Why are they allowing people that give fuel to the fire they are fighting against?"

His brother, Shehryar, added: "They supported and incited my father Salmaan Taseer's murder. The UK government should deport them and Pakistan should prosecute them for the incitement of violence under the terrorism act. I find it disrespectful that a man like this has been entertained by the Archbishop. My family has been on the front lines when it comes to inter-faith harmony and these people disrespect anyone and everyone who speaks about religious harmony."

The Home Secretary has the power to bar hate-preachers from entering the country if their presence represents a threat to national security or is otherwise deemed to be not conducive to the public good. Presumably, Shaykh Muhammad Naqib ur Rehman and Hassan Haseeb ur Rehman presented no such concerns. But Siobhain McDonagh MP isn't so sure: "It's no exaggeration to say that current Home Office policies are putting our country's national security in danger," she said. "Muhammad Naqib ur Rehman and Hassan Haseeb ur Rehman are just the most recent in a long line of radical preachers who have been allowed to enter this country and spread their hate."

Of course, the Archbishop of Canterbury has to shake hands with all sorts of unsavoury characters -- Robert Mugabe, for example. But one can't quite see him tweeting: "Great to welcome President Mugabe at Lambeth Palace today." It wouldn't strike quite the right tone, would it? So why is it "great to welcome" Muslim clerics who hail Islamist assassins as holy warriors?

Haseeb ur Rehman declared: "..every single person who loves Islam and Prophet (Mohammed) is in grief for the martyrdom of Mumtaz Qadri because he has been hanged last night." Is it really "great to welcome" those who incite murder? Is it "great to welcome" those who conflate murder with martyrdom? Is it "great to welcome" those who propagate an ideological cult which demands absolute submission to a vision of Islam in which blasphemy and apostasy are punishable by death, and the duty of all followers is Jihad -- the struggle against all that corrupts the world of Allah and all that offends the precepts of Mohammed?

Why are these clerics even allowed into the UK to preach in British mosques? What, exactly, was Shaykh Muhammad Naqib ur Rehman here to preach? Maybe "warmth and love radiates naturally from his smiles and greetings" at Lambeth Palace, but one wonders how many potential suicide bombers in Bradford, Luton and Tower Hamlets are inspired to become "holy warriors" if they hear that Mumtaz Qadri is a role-model martyr; a beautiful pattern of conduct for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day.

It is one thing to come to the UK and tell the BBC and Channel 4 News that you bring a message of "peace, love and tolerance, which the essence of Islam is". But surely that essence must be consistently expounded in Pakistan, too? How can we eradicate Islamic extremism from our shores if the Government grants visas to jihadist prophets and Lambeth Palace rolls out the red carpet and tweets how great it is to welcome them? How can we condemn Pakistan's blasphemy laws and then laud those who glorify the murder of the man who tried to reform those laws? How can we condemn the appalling persecution and incarceration of Christians like Asia Bibi, sentenced to death by a court under those laws, and then say how great it is to welcome those who oppose justice, mercy and religious liberty?

Unless..

The Archbishop of Canterbury uses such meetings as an opportunity to understand, glean information and make intercession on behalf of Christians like Asia Bibi. You may be sceptical that he would so, but Justin Welby is no fool. It is important to forge diplomatic relationships with other religious leaders who can provide insights into what is going on in a particular country or region. Pakistan is one of the Archbishop's priority countries, and the Shaykh is a leading Sufi leader.

But "great to welcome" such people it most certainly is not. Such ovations ought to be reserved for worthy dignitaries, or for real victims like Shahbaz and Shehryar Taseer, or Asia Bibi herself, should she ever be freed. Perhaps Lambeth Palace might extend its Twitter house style to incorporate a different kind of salutation for those whose salaam isn't quite as peaceful, gracious and compassionate as their spiritual charisma radiates.

And that corresponds with a one point fall in the number of so-called "nones" -- those who describe themselves as having no religion -- from 49 per cent to 48 per cent.

The variations in the last year are too small to be regarded as statistically significant in themselves but will some offer comfort to those praying for an end to the seemingly relentless decline in Christianity.

Perhaps most strikingly, there was three-point fall in the number of adults under 25 identifying themselves as non-believers.

But religious belief is very much a minority view among younger people, with 62 per cent describing themselves as non-believers, down from 65 per cent a year earlier.

"No religion" became the biggest faith group in the survey seven years ago, when it reached 51 per cent of respondents but has since drifted lower.

The proportion describing themselves as Christian now stands at the same level as it was seven years ago.

But experts on religious trends warned that the levelling off could just be the "pause at the edge of the cliff" before the oldest, most devoutly religious generation dies.

While non-believers outnumber the religious two to one among young people the proportions are almost exactly the opposite among pensioners.

And younger pensioners -- a group which now includes members of the baby-boom generation -- are more than 40 per cent more likely to be non-religious than those over 75.

Ian Simpson, Senior Researcher at NatCen Social Research, which carries out the BSA survey, said the findings did indicate at least a temporarily "halt" in the decline of religion in Britain.

"The proportion of people saying they have no religion peaked at 51 per cent in 2009 and has plateaued since then," he said.

"It appears that the steady decline of religion in Britain has come to a halt, at least for now.

"This is partly due to a stabilisation in the proportion of people describing themselves as a Christian of some kind, since 2009.

"However, this also appears to mask a small increase in the number of those with a non-Christian religion offsetting a small decrease in the number of Anglicans".

The biggest change within the different religious groups in recent years has been a drop in the numbers of people identifying themselves as Church of England or Anglican, from 22 per cent in 2006 to 17 per cent when the most recent data were collected last year.

Experts believe many people who even recently would have ticked Church of England on surveys almost unthinkingly have steadily migrated into the non-religious category, often without noticing.

Prof Linda Woodhead, one of Britain's leading experts on the sociology of religion, who recently co-authored the book "That was the Church that was" charting the decline of the Church of England, said the long-term trajectory is still downward.

"The decline of religion particularly Christianity and the rise of no religion has always been a very slow, long-term process," she said.

"It probably goes back a century, although we don't have the data.

"We shouldn't be looking to see a collapse in numbers in a few years, we have got to look at the long-term picture.

"But I can't imagine any factor that would lead this long-term trend to change.

"If you look at the things that really matter to people -- what they do with their babies, how they get married and how they deal with their dead -- the rise of non-religious funerals, civil weddings and non-church baby-namings is very steady as well."

She suggested that the pattern could most clearly be seen by analysing the Anglican and "no religion" categories together.

A decade ago Anglicans still accounted for a third of the combined share of the two groups but now only constitute a quarter.

"The move from CofE to nones continues," said Prof Woodhead.

Dr Abby Day, a sociologist and expert on religion in society at Goldsmiths, University of London, argued that the churches, particularly the Church of England are facing a "demographic time bomb" because of their heavy reliance on the oldest generation.

"There is a huge difference between the pre-war and baby-boomer generations," she said.

"I think this could be the pause at the edge of the cliff.

END

We are grateful for the opportunity that was recently given to the General Synod to engage in a consideration of Scripture. However, we believe this was of an initial nature only and that much more biblical study is needed before we will be able as a Synod to make theologically informed decisions about human anthropology and sexuality. In particular we believe it is essential to clarify what it means to 'honour God with our bodies' (1 Corinthians 6v20) in order that we do not find ourselves praying for God's blessing on that which is contrary to His will.

We are committed to building a church that is genuinely welcoming to all people, irrespective of the pattern of sexual attraction which they experience. We would welcome initiatives to help local churches do so in a way that is affirming of and consistent with Scripture and would hope to support suggestions you might wish to bring to Synod to that effect.

As you prepare to meet in the College and House of Bishops, we urge you not to consider any proposals that fly in the face of the historic understanding of the church as expressed in 'Issues in Human Sexuality' (1991) and Lambeth Resolution 1 .10. To do so -- however loud the apparent voice for change -- could leave the Church of England adrift from her apostolic inheritance, undermine our ability as members of General Synod to offer support and lead to an unwanted fracture within both the Church of England and the wider Anglican Communion.

We note the injunction of James that wisdom is to be found in seeking God (James 1v5). We thank God for you and commit ourselves to asking God to grant you His wisdom as you endeavour to offer episcopal leadership to the Church of England at this time.

Signed by the following General Synod members (Diocese):

The Rev Canon Jonathan Alderton-Ford (St Edmundsbury & Ipswich)
The Rev Sam Allberry (Oxford)
The Rev Dr Andrew Atherstone (Oxford)
The Rev Andrew Attwood (Coventry)
Mrs Emily Bagg (Portsmouth)
The Rev Canon David Banting (Chelmsford)
Dr William Belcher (Gloucester)
Mrs Rachel Bell (Derby)
Dr Andrew Bell (Oxford)
Mrs Liz Bird (Hereford)
Mr Peter Boyd-Lee (Salisbury)
The Revd Peter Breckwoldt (Salisbury)
Mr James Cary (Bath & Wells)
Mr Graham Caskie (Oxford)
The Rev Preb Simon Cawdell (Hereford)
The Rev John Chitham (Chichester)
The Rev Canon Jonathan Clark (Leeds)
The Rev Canon Charlie Cleverley (Oxford)
Dr Simon Clift (Winchester)
Mrs Ann Colton (Chelmsford)
The Rev Canon Andrew Cornes (Chichester)
Miss Prudence Dailey (Oxford)
The Rev Barney de Berry (Canterbury)
Mrs Gill de Berry (Salisbury)
Brigadier Ian Dobbie (Rochester)
The Rev Dr Sean Doherty (London)
The Rev James Dudley-Smith (Bath & Wells)
The Rev John Dunnett (Chelmsford)
Mrs Mary Durlacher (Chelmsford)
Mr Carl Fender (Lincoln)
Miss Emma Forward (Exeter)
Mrs Chris Fry (Winchester)
The Rev Canon Sally Gaze (Norwich)
Mr Chris Gill (Lichfield)
The Rev Graham Hamilton (Exeter)
Mr Jeremy Harris (Chester)
The Ven Simon Heathfield (Birmingham)
Mr Carl Hughes (Southwark)
The Rev Canon Gary Jenkins (Southwark)
Mrs Carolyn Johnson (Blackburn)
The Rev Peter Kay (St Albans)
Mrs Helen Lamb (Ely)
Mr David Lamming (St Edmundsbury & Ipswich)
Capt Nicholas Lebey (Southwark)
Mr James Lee (Guildford)
The Rev Mark Lucas (Peterborough)
Mrs Rosemary Lyon (Blackburn)
The Rev Angus MacLeay (Rochester)
Mr Sam Margrave (Coventry)
The Rev Alistair McHaffie (Blackburn)
The Rev Shaun Morris (Lichfield)
The Rev Dr Rob Munro (Chester)
Miss Margaret Parrett (Manchester)
Miss Jane Patterson (Sheffield)
The Rev Dr Ian Paul (Southwell & Nottingham)
Mrs Kathy Playle (Chelmsford)
The Rev Dr Philip Plyming (Guildford)
Mr Andrew Presland (Peterborough)
The Rev Dr Patrick Richmond (Norwich)
The Rev Dr Jason Roach (London)
The Rev Dr Ben Sargent (Winchester)
Mr Clive Scowen (London)
Mr Ed Shaw (Bristol)
The Rev Charlie Skrine (London)
Mr Colin Slater (Southwell & Nottingham)
Dr Chik Tan (Lichfield)
The Rev Martyn Taylor (Lincoln)
The Rev Chris Tebbutt (Salisbury)
Mr Jacob Vince (Chichester)
Dr Yvonne Warren (Coventry)
The Rev Canon Giles Williams (Europe)
Mr Brian Wilson (Southwark)

END

This strategy involves a massive diversion of funds away from struggling rural parishes -- traditionally the church's backbone -- towards new evangelical congregations in city centres. This is a do-or-die attempt to reverse the church's catastrophic decline -- the latest figures and forecasts predicting that within thirty years only 1% of the population will attend church. Percy comments: "It will take more to save the Church of England than a blend of the latest management theory, secular sorcery with statistics and evangelical up-speak."

A cure for the failing church, he says, "would require a much deeper ecclesial comprehension than the present leadership currently exhibits. There seems to be no sagacity, serious science or spiritual substance to the curatives being offered. The church is being slowly kettled into becoming a suburban sect, corralling its congregations, controlling its clergy and centralising its communication. Instead of being a local, dispersed, national institution, it is becoming a bureaucratic organisation, managing its ministry and mission -- in a manner that is hierarchically scripted. But those who declare themselves to be non-religious will not be won over to return to the church by increasingly organisational, theologically narrow and vogueish sectarian expressions of faith. Instead there needs to be a broad church -- capacious and generous. Narrow Anglicanism is a contradiction in terms. It is breadth that defines Anglican polity. And it is breadth that will save it."

Percy claims his scepticism is shared by a largely silent majority in a church increasingly dominated by evangelicals of a particular hue. His criticisms go to the root of the problem. Supporters of the Archbishop's programme point to the spectacular successes produced by church-planting which funds and promotes trendy charismatic-style worship in unconventional settings -- disused warehouses, factories and the like. True, this is growth of a sort, but it only shows isolated flourishing in a vast wilderness. To the enthusiasts, the sight and sound of several hundred mainly young and terrifically excited people waving their arms about and belting out so called "worship songs" is proof that Renewal and Reform is reviving the church. But it is an illusion. For these antics alienate far more people than they attract and most people see it as a sort of holy club for the likeminded. And they shun it. This conspicuous performance of trendy, sectarian zeal is a fatuous in-group and the very opposite of what our national church is meant to be.

Sustainable church life -- like agriculture - requires a continuous historical tradition, but this new project is merely a phenomenon, a sensation and a flash-in-the-pan. The comparison is with factory-farming. It is all so one-dimensional and one-track. The enthusiasts who operate it have things in common only with those of a particularly restricted ethos which is frothy, trivially emotional and anti-intellectual. It is the pop festival planted in the nave. Only now the show is being organised by an elite of ecclesiastical bureaucrats, really a managerial clique of Welby groupies. It might look good to those who think such things look good, but it lacks substance and organic roots. Yes, here and there, it is drawing the crowds. But what is it for?

I'm not suggesting that the answer to the church's relentless decline is Sung Matins at 11am, with the solemn elevation of the collecting plate, or even High Mass with all the trimmings to Byrd a-5. But no one except a cultural zombie could be sustained by the doggerel choruses, the Lloyd Webberish music- as-pap and the latest rap version of the Bible. A people without history is not redeemed from time, but where is the connection between this screaming drivel and the church of George Herbert and Richard Hooker, or even C.V. Stanford and Harold Darke? We do not have to aspire to the Academy before we are allowed to enter church and say our prayers, but a rudimentary appreciation of what will go into ordinary English and pass for a tune that is a measure or two above the plinky-plonky banalities is necessary for the conduct of worship and the communication of the faith. Christian realities are not encountered in the mush perpetrated by Renewal and Reform.

So what will happen to the Archbishop's project? If the past is anything to go by, it will be a nine days' wonder, something bad to be succeeded by something worse. Today's adherents will fade away, looking for something even more exciting and immediate. It will all be just the latest phase in the unstoppable dumbing down of the last fifty years. The analogy is with cricket: one day games are preferred to the county championship and these are followed by Twenty20 -- a mindless parody of cricket interspersed with fireworks and blasts of pop music; the whole thing fuelled by binge-drinking on cheap lager.

Why should Justin Welby imagine that the church can be revived and nurtured on stuff that is anathema to the church? Because he is that perfect mixture of excitable trendy and management guru.

May we have out church back, please?

The paper, seen by The Telegraph and confirmed as genuine, advises bishops to use "careful drafting" to "effectively apologise" without enabling victims to get compensation.

Joe tried to contact the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Survivors said it showed there was a culture of denial, dishonesty and "blanking" victims in ways which had heightened their pain and ultimately failed to tackle the roots of the abuse crisis.

It follows a damning independent review of the Church's handling of sadistic abuse by Garth Moore, a priest and top canon lawyer, in the 1970s.

It highlighted how the teenager -- known as "Joe" -- revealed his ordeal to a string of leading clerics, three of them later ordained as bishops, who then claimed not to remember anything.

They should say we need to stop this nonsense but they wash their hands like Pontius PilateJoe

The report singled out the way in which the Bishop of Durham, the Rt Rev Paul Butler, the Church's then head of safeguarding, cut all contact with Joe, following advice from insurers, after he began legal action. The review condemned this as "reckless".

Meanwhile Lambeth Palace brushed off around 17 requests for a meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, without any "meaningful" reply, it shows.

Joe said the newly revealed document "made total sense" in light of his own experience.

"This finally exposes the culture that has been followed," he said.

"The approach to survivors is often a corporate model and this document supports that - it shows a church led by lawyers and insurers, you get the impression that these people are really their masters.

"A diocese is deferential to their bishop and the bishop is deferential to a bunch of lawyers.

"The Church will say 'our hands are tied' but they are paying the people who are tying their hands.

"They should say we need to stop this nonsense but they wash their hands like Pontius Pilate.

"Every part of this nexus [the bishops, the lawyers and insurers owners] washes its hands of every other part of it but the nexus is joined at the hip."

The advice, by the Church's top legal advisor, Stephen Slack, explains how bishops could find themselves being sued over the actions -- or inaction -- of their predecessors.

Because of the possibility that statements of regret might have the

unintended effect of accepting legal liability for the abuse it is important that they are approved in advance by lawyers, as well as by diocesan communications officers (and, if relevant, insurers)Legal advice to bishops, 2007

While accepting that they might "understandably want to express their regret", it adds: "Because of the possibility that statements of regret might have the unintended effect of accepting legal liability for the abuse it is important that they are approved in advance by lawyers, as well as by diocesan communications officers (and, if relevant, insurers).

"With careful drafting it should be possible to express them in terms which effectively apologise for what has happened whilst at the same time avoiding any concession of legal liability for it."

On the possibility of bishops meeting victims, it adds: "This may be the right course in some circumstances but great care will be needed to ensure that nothing is said which inadvertently concedes legal liability."

One of Britain's leading child abuse lawyers, David Greenwood of Switalskis, who represented Joe, said: "With Church organisations you expect a higher standard than just a legalistic approach.

"This is a naïve document, it is legalistic and doesn't take into account the needs of survivors of child sexual abuse.

"I think this is more naivety than nastiness - but the effect definitely can be nasty."

The pastoral response to alleged victims and survivors is of top priority, and needs to be separated as far as possible from the management processes for the situation, and from legal and insurance responsesChurch of England guidance 2015

Richard Scorer, another leading lawyer representing more than 50 victims in the ongoing Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, said: "This confirms what we have long suspected which is that when they would offer apologies they were deliberately constructed in a way to avoid any meaningful responsibility.

"I'm sure they will be embarrassed at the language here but it reflects a reality that we have come across time and again with the churches that they will take an apologetic tone but that is combined with an unwillingness to admit responsibility."

New guidelines produced by the Church of England in June last year effectively repudiate the earlier advice, insisting that the "pastoral response" to victims should be the top priority and must be separated from legal and insurance responses.

But it goes on to add that apologies should be discussed with insurers, communications officer and ecclesiastical lawyers.

A Church of England spokesman said: "The Church of England published new guidance in 2015 emphasising that: 'The pastoral response to alleged victims and survivors is of top priority, and needs to be separated as far as possible from the management processes for the situation, and from legal and insurance responses.'

This is a naïve document, it is legalistic and doesn't take into account the needs of survivors of child sexual abuse, said David Greenwood, lawyer

"That superseded all previous advice and ensures that the pastoral needs of survivors must never be neglected and pastoral contact can continue whatever legal issues exist."

He added: "Bishop Sarah Mullally is working closely with the National Safeguarding Team to implement the recommendations of the Elliott Review which have been fully endorsed by the House of Bishops.

"When Bishop Sarah received the review on behalf of the Church of England, as requested by the survivor, she offered an unreserved apology for the failings of the Church towards the survivor.

"Following the publication Bishop Sarah met with him and two members of MACSAS [Minister and Clergy Sexual Abuse Survivors].

"This was an opportunity to apologise in person for the failings of the Church towards him and the horrific abuse he suffered."

END

The letter is likely to reignite the heated debate on the issue, which has divided the church since same-sex marriages were legalised in England and Wales in March 2014.

Following the change in the law, church leaders, headed by the archbishops of Canterbury and York, Justin Welby and John Sentamu respectively, decided that clergy must not enter into a same-sex marriage and that those in a gay marriage would not be ordained.

While canon Jeremy Pemberton had his permission to officiate revoked after marrying his partner in April 2014, Foreshew-Cain was not removed from his post as vicar of two churches in north London after openly marrying his partner, Stephen Foreshew in June 2014.

Foreshew-Cain told the Guardian there were an increasing number of clergy and lay people in same-sex marriages. "Our marriages are legal, celebrated and widely accepted in society," he said. "Yet the Church of England behaves as if they are somehow dirty and imposes penalties on clergy and refuses to acknowledge the marriages of those who wish to make lifelong faithful commitments."

"This has to stop and the element of fear and hypocrisy around our marriages has to end," he added.

Foreshew-Cain also said that many faithful Anglicans accept and want to support same-sex relationships and be able to "to celebrate all that is good in them".

"There is a clear and pressing need for a way forward that acknowledges the new reality of how Christians think about this issue in England," he said. "Those parishes and communities that wish to celebrate and support lesbian and gay couples should be able to do so."

Over the past two years, more than 1,300 members of the church have taken part in a process called "shared conversations" to discuss the issue in regional and national settings, said Steve Jenkins, a spokesperson for the church of England.

"Through those conversations, deep convictions have been shared and profound differences better understood," he said. "It is our hope that what has been learned through the relationships developed will inform the way the church conducts whatever further formal discussions take place in the future."

Foreshew-Cain said that the signatories had written the letter, which will be sent to the House of Bishops in September, to "support our bishops as they meet to consider what next after the shared conversations".

The letter asks for bishops to use the next meeting of the general synod in February to press for gay couples to have their marriages recognised and blessed in a special service, rather than a complete change in the doctrine of marriage.

"We're simply asking for action to back up the rhetoric of the Bishops about welcome and acceptance for LGBTI people," Foreshew-Cain said.

"We accept not all are ready so we're urging them to make a bold step, while accepting that it isn't yet time to ask for the removal of the 'quadruple lock'blocking same-sex marriages in Church of England churches."

Although the letter has yet to be sent, the signatories have already been met with criticism. Andrea Williams, chief executive of Christian Concern, told the Sunday Times: "They [the signatories] are trying to undermine the authority of the teaching of the church."

END

Other increasingly influential voices would say "yes" to the first question, but "no" to the second. Default orthodoxy is not conducive for church survival in the 21st century. The majority of those who call themselves "C of E" in our country are not evangelical, the argument goes; they are embarrassed by enthusiastic religion, they do not believe many biblical theological dogmas or traditional teaching on sexuality. As a result of sticking to traditional Christian beliefs rather than adapting to where people really are in terms of their worldviews, emotions and felt spiritual needs, the Church has "lost" the majority of the nation; in order to win people back, the C of E needs to be light on religion and theology, strong on community, heritage and the latest social media memes.

The call for the Church to abandon Christian orthodoxy as a way of re-connecting with ordinary people was articulated by a Church Warden in a Church Times article last year (reported here), and has more recently been championed by Oxford College Principal Martyn Percy (in February, as reviewed here, and in August, here.) A much-publicised newly published book, 'That was the Church that was' by Linda Woodhead and Andrew Brown, continues and develops the argument that orthodox faith has turned the church into a tiny weird religious sect, alienated from society. This review supports the book's thesis, saying that "it is impossible to be a conventional Christian in the 21st century...agnosticism in the only honest approach".

So both views agree that the C of E is orthodox; one says these basic beliefs should be retained, the other that they should be abandoned. What to do? Can both views be accommodated in a generous Anglicanism, through 'good disagreement'?

Concluding his own polite but critical review of "That was the Church that was", theologian Andrew Goddard makes the following assessment:

"The key question the book raises for me is in what sense, if any, those committed to two such contrasting understandings of the church can genuinely walk together in the same institutional structure. Might it not be the case that, if either is to flourish, each needs to grant the other a distinct ecclesial space and identity to pursue two very different, probably irreconcilable, visions of...the church..."

This is significant, because Andrew Goddard has for many years been at the forefront of influential leaders within the C of E who hold to an orthodox evangelical understanding of Christian faith (particularly in regard to sexual ethics), but who support solutions to the problems of disagreements over doctrine and ethics based on institutional unity rather than confessional separation. So for example, Goddard was one of the leading advocates for an "Anglican Covenant" and always opposed GAFCON, saying that it was contributing to the divisions in the Anglican communion.

More recently, Goddard has been a supporter of Archbishop Welby's "good disagreement" policy; he was one of the first to convene a day of discussions on sexuality between revisionists and conservatives before the official "Shared Conversations" began; and co-edited a book of essays exploring how "grace and truth" can be maintained together in a divided church.

Archbishop Justin Welby has said many times that the unity of the church is a given, and no-one has the right to "chuck out" those family members with whom one disagrees. Goddard's article says clearly, contra Welby, that there must be limits to diversity -- there comes a point when for contradictory views and values to exist in the same church is no longer a sign of generosity and peacemaking, but chaos and incoherence. The solution is not one side assuming power to "chuck out" the other, but a negotiated separation between those who want to continue to hold to the basic beliefs of the Church of England as spoken week by week in our worship, and those who want to let go of these beliefs and concentrate on other aspects of the church's heritage, spirituality and community engagement.

But going back to the question with which we started, is the C of E basically orthodox? The words of the Prayer Book, the Scriptures, and the hymns and songs of our regular worship clearly teach historic Christian doctrine, but do the leaders of the institution believe it? Here are some recent examples which suggest that more and more of the controlling power within the C of E has already aligned with the values of the liberal culture:

A prominent post on the Church of England website invites people to "become a tourist on your own doorstep by going to church", and portrays 'church' entirely in terms of heritage and art, with no mention of anything spiritual.

Gay pride marches are being openly welcomed and 'blessed' by significant church leaders. Very Revd June Osborne, Dean Of Salisbury Cathedral, enthusiastically declared God's blessing on Salisbury Pride standing next to a man dressed in skimpy women's clothes and a pink Stetson (report and video footage here). While this is not surprising given Ms Osborne's track record, it has been more of a concern for evangelicals to hear that a large church aligned with Holy Trinity Brompton took part in the Brighton LGBT celebration event.

Before the July General Synod, some Bishops who identify as 'evangelical' were prepared to go into print arguing for a change in the church's teaching on sex and marriage, and a month later 72 members of Synod were sufficiently concerned about the real possibility of the House of Bishops authorizing some kind of liberalization of pastoral practice that they wrote an open letter urging the Bishops not to consider such proposals.

Examples demonstrating that a revisionist version of Christianity is increasingly being accepted and promoted at the highest levels of the C of E are becoming more commonplace. Perhaps the most serious is the thinking behind the Shared Conversations and the way 'good disagreement' itself is interpreted in official documents and pronouncements. As many articles on this site over the past years have argued, the premise of the Shared Conversations is not compatible with Christian orthodoxy, because it assumes either that the truth of God's view on sexuality cannot be known for sure, or that it doesn't matter, or that this is really not about discovering truth at all, or even building relationships, but breaking down the convictions of the orthodox in order to bring about 'reconciliation'. Because it is these convictions which are seen as standing in the way of a brave new church, embedded in the culture and sharing its values.

Many clergy and laity are now asking: If my theological views, nominally considered 'orthodox' by the church of which I am a member, are in reality seen as the problem by that institution, then how can the church be seen as 'orthodox', and what are the options for me and others like me who want to remain Anglican, but orthodox?

In an episcopal denomination such as the Church of England, the Bishop of a diocese has the responsibility under God to hold public ministers to account for their life and teaching.

Two things in relation to the Church of England's public teaching are noteworthy about Dean Osborne's action at Salisbury gay pride.

Firstly, she pointedly did not pray for the parade in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. That is of course a relief on one level. At least, the precious name of our Lord Jesus was not dragged into this ungodly gesture. But Dean Osborne's decision to omit Jesus effectively avoided a specifically Christian note in front of a crowd of politically correct activists. A prayer to God in general projected a more multi-faith, populist appeal.

But for an Anglican minister not to mention the Lord Jesus falls far below the spiritual level of the Church of England's gold standard public liturgy, the Book of Common Prayer. The BCP is careful to frame its public prayers and collects through Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord.

And such an omission also falls below the doctrinal standard of the Church of England's 39 Articles of Religion, which teach clearly that salvation is to be found exclusively in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Secondly, Dean Osborne's attempt to invoke God's approval on a parade celebrating sexually active relationships outside heterosexual marriage runs contrary to the biblical moral standards of the Church of England. For example, the Book of Common Prayer, faithfully reflecting the teaching of the Bible, unequivocally describes sex outside man-woman marriage as sinful.

The Dean of Salisbury should therefore be held to account for her action at gay pride. The fact that no criticism of her conduct has emerged from the Bishop of Salisbury is reflective of a disturbing accountability vacuum in the Church of England, which is deeply damaging to the spiritual and moral integrity of its public ministry.

Episcopal responses to bad ministerial behaviour, however necessary, will not of course properly address the problems in the national Church. A deep work of divine grace is needed for that. The Church of England will only recover its lost spiritual authority if its ministers become full of the Holy Spirit like Barnabas, as described in Acts 11: 'He was a good man and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord' (v24 - Authorised Version).

Julian Mann is vicar of the Parish Church of the Ascension, Oughtibridge, South Yorkshire: www.oughtibridgechurch.org.uk

The advance publicity notes that there will be "an increase in marginalisation, irrelevance and disengagement" of the new Christian church if it maintains its strict and counter-cultural code of sexual ethics. "There is widespread acceptance and normalisation of a great variety of sexual practices across the Roman Empire and the near East. Christians and Jews who still cling to an outdated and unworkable model are simply not engaging theologically or missiologically. They are finding themselves marginalised".

The hosts argue that this has been felt more acutely in the Church of Corinth, which contains a complex and lively mix of national, civic, social, and religious identities.

The Project Directors said "There is a real danger that the church will be seen as atheistic, disrespectful to the gods of the people around it, phobic of those different from them, and disloyal to Caesar and the state. However much Christians talk about and demonstrate love, they will just be seen as judgmental, hateful and treasonous. While this is itself no reason for the church to change its teachings, it is important to understand the implications for mission if the church persists in being seen as opposed to the sexual freedoms most people take for granted".

The second planned Open Forum for the Sexuality and Corinthian Identities Project, 'New Directions in Sexualities and Christianity,' will be discussing the future of sexuality debates, and present the theological challenges that may emerge beyond current controversies. The programme notes argue that: "the old idea of one God, Lord of all, but with me in every moment, is considered restrictive, and the concept of many deities on a spectrum revolving around my psyche much more exciting. In the same way, the old idea of two genders corresponding to physical sex as a given reality is increasingly shown by people's experience to be oppressive, and the concept of many genders on a spectrum, centred around my emotions and needs, much more liberating. It is probably the case that the particular issue of homosexual relationships will appear relatively straightforward in comparison.

"As we, as a society, begin to take seriously the experience of transgender and intersex people, and rediscover the ancient and profound theological insights of the Canaanites in this area, it may appear that the claim, foundational to Christian understandings of gender, 'male and female he created them' is undermined," predicted the project directors.

"If this is indeed the case, it seems that the whole edifice of the Judaeo-Christian traditional understanding of gender and sexuality could be built on a less than secure foundation, ie the words of the author of Genesis, Jesus, and that troublemaker Paul who is on death row where he belongs. It is simply impossible that this narrow, implausible ethic of sex and marriage will survive beyond a tiny, irrelevant sect.

Christians have to learn to re-read the Bible in a different way", they said, " not as an authoritative and unchanging word from God, but as a text which came out of a particular society. If we can deconstruct the text, analysing the power agendas of the authors, then that will help us to see which bits we can safely reject, and which parts we can adapt to fit subserviently with contemporary society".

END

The old-fashioned practice of a heartfelt apology, deeply rooted in the Christian theology of repentance and reconciliation, has now been turned into an episcopal Punch and Judy show with lawyers, bureaucrats and managers on fat cat salaries pulling the strings while their purple-clad puppets dance to their dirges, desperately clutching at mitre and crosier.

Deep in the spin-doctoring factory of episcopaldom, the ecclesiastical equivalents of Sir Humphrey Appleby are teaching their bishops to play the game of Catch Me If You Can while Sir Jeffrey Archer's techniques on the 11th Commandment Thou Shalt Not Get Caught are being honed to perfection. It is part of the managerial double-speak dominating all forms of damage control discourse in the C of E.

The puppeteers advise their bishops to use 'careful drafting' to 'effectively apologise' and to 'express regret' only using wording approved by lawyers, PR advisers and insurers. 'Because of the possibility that statements of regret might have the unintended effect of accepting legal liability for the abuse, it is important that they are approved in advance by lawyers, as well as by diocesan communications officers (and, if relevant, insurers),' warns the Orwellian document from the Ministry of Truth.

When is an apology a genuine apology? When it is neither as slippery as a banana skin nor as shallow as the paddling pool of a typical Anglican sermon. In his ground-breaking book, On Apology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.) Aaron Lazare, Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, offers profound insights into the anatomy of an apology. Lazare traces the history of the world's most humbling act, from Lincoln's apology for slavery to Arnold Schwarzenegger's mea culpa after allegations of breast-groping. 'Why do certain apologies succeed or fail to elicit forgiveness and bring about reconciliation?' he asks.

'There's a right way and a wrong way to apologise. There are several integral elements of any apology and unless they are accounted for, an apology is likely to fail.' The four components for an effective apology are 'acknowledgment of the offence; explanation; expressions of remorse, shame, and humility; and reparation. Of these four parts, the one most commonly defective in apologies is the acknowledgment,' he writes.

'The offender (or the one speaking on behalf of the offender) must clearly and completely acknowledge the offence. People fail the acknowledgment phase of the apology when they make vague and incomplete apologies ("for whatever I did"); use the passive voice ("mistakes were made"); make the apology conditional ("if mistakes have been made"); question whether the victim was damaged or minimise the offence ("to the degree you were hurt"); use the empathic "sorry" instead of acknowledging responsibility; apologise to the wrong party; or apologise for the wrong offence,' says Lazare.

The psychologist and pastoral counsellor Carl Schneider defines apology as 'the acknowledgement of injury with the acceptance of responsibility, affect (felt regret or shame--the person must mean it), and vulnerability--the risking of an acknowledgement without excuses.'

There is a double irony here. All this, of course, is firmly grounded in the biblical tradition of repentance and in the Book of Common Prayer's injunction that we should 'acknowledge and confess our manifold sins and wickedness; and that we should not dissemble nor cloke them''but confess them with an humble, lowly, penitent, and obedient heart.'

But all this business of confession and contrition is intensely counter-intuitive to the managerial culture in the C of E. This is reflected in the dumbing down of its modern prayers of repentance to 'politically correct prayers which sound as if they were written by a committee made up of Tony Blair, Karl Marx, and Noddy.' What can you expect when the Archbishop's Council produces an idiots'Guide to Common Worship, which re-titles "Confession" as "Doing the dirt on ourselves"?

The other ironical twist is that apologies actually prevent lawsuits altogether and increase the likelihood and speed of settlement for those that do arise. This is evident from recent research both in the UK and the US. For example, one British study found that many plaintiffs who sued their doctors said they would not have done so had they received an apology and an explanation for their injury (Jeffrey S. Helmreich, 'Does "Sorry" incriminate? Evidence, harm and the protection of apology,'Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 21 (2012) 574).

Consistent with this view, legislatures in American states have enacted statutes that make certain apologies inadmissible in court thus encouraging more people to offer genuine apologies. Contrary to the recommendations of the C of E mandarins, a new secular culture of confession and contrition is seeking to encourage apologies by explicitly denying their admissibility as evidence.

In some instances the bishops have refused even to tender a doctored apology. Earlier this month Sussex police apologised to the living relatives of the late Bishop George Bell and the BBC admitted that some of its reporting on the allegations against Bishop Bell was wrong. However, the C of E is still refusing to apologise for smearing Bell's reputation and for the way it handled the case.

The comparison of the bishops with Pontius Pilate made by the survivor of abuse is apt, not just for its powerful metaphor of Pilate 'washing his hands' but also for its portrayal of Pilate as the puppet in the pantomime. Pilate is weak-minded, spineless, gutless, easily led and irresolute. The cleverly crafted literature of John's gospel portrays him as constantly vacillating back and forth as he listens to the crowd. Perhaps it is time the panjandrums in purple stopped listening to the men in pinstriped suits and learned how to say the two most humbling words in the English language: 'I'm sorry.' It would be even better if they learned to say the three greatest words in the biblical language of forgiveness and reconciliation: 'I have sinned.'

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

Bishop Chamberlain says he obeys Church guidelines which say gay clergy must remain celibate.

The archbishop also said: "His appointment as Bishop of Grantham was made on the basis of his skills and calling to serve the church in the Diocese of Lincoln.

"He lives within the Bishops' guidelines and his sexuality is completely irrelevant to his office."

'Not secret'

A Church of England spokesman said: "Nicholas has not misled anyone and has been open and truthful if asked. The matter is not secret, although it is private as is the case with all partnerships/relationships."

Bishop Chamberlain made the disclosure in an interview with the Guardian, and it has been reported that he gave the interview because his private life was about to be exposed by a Sunday newspaper.

"It was not my decision to make a big thing about coming out," he told the newspaper.

"People know I'm gay, but it's not the first thing I'd say to anyone. Sexuality is part of who I am, but it's my ministry that I want to focus on."

It's thought no serving bishop has ever before gone public about their sexuality. The former archbishop of York, Lord Hope, said in 1995 that his sexuality was a "grey area".

The Dean of St Albans, the Very Revd Jeffrey John, withdrew from the race to become Bishop of Reading in 2003 after an angry reaction from traditionalist Anglicans about his sexuality.

Bishop Chamberlain's revelation is likely to cause further tension among Anglicans.

Last month 72 traditionalist members of the church's ruling general synod wrote to all bishops, encouraging them to abide by biblical teaching on sexuality.

Last week the Archbishop of Canterbury said in an interview that he "couldn't see the road ahead" when it came to sexuality.

END

And in surprisingly frank comments about same-sex relationships, Welby said that he "can't see the road ahead" for the Church.

Before the banter-filled question and answer session, Welby was introduced by Christian Today's Andy Walton who said: "One of [our guests] is the most high profile Christian in the country... and the other is the Archbishop of Canterbury".

The Archbishop joked that "the fact that I'm Archbishop of Canterbury is one of the things that makes me seriously doubt the infallibility of God."

Welby said "there is only one way to overcome" the self-doubts, "and that's prayer and the Bible -- it's being part of the family of Christ... with all kinds of problems and issues and you've got a role in that family".

The Archbishop told of a visit last week to the Demelza hospice in Canterbury, of which he is patron and where he was showed around by an eight-year-old blind boy. An emotional Welby described sitting with with the parents of a young boy who had died, and told of how, having asked the parents if they wanted him to pray, he did not know what to say until words came to him. "Jesus, this is all wrong," he prayed. "We shouldn't be here."

Welby said that when his own seven-month-old daughter died in a car-crash, "God just showed up. We can never remember a time when He was closer... It felt like the Lord just reached out and took her. It was that real."

Asked by Bottley what his "biggest frustration" was and what made him angry, Welby said: "Me. That's the thing I get most angry about -- me... My own failings." The Archbishop, who praised his "wonderful" staff, gave the example of "when I get narked with people and show it," adding: "I have to not send emails a lot... The best friend of Christian unity is the draft box". He told of how he sleeps on some emails and shows them to others before sending them, and said that he no longer monitors Twitter because "if [what people write about me] is nice you get a bit up yourself and if it's nasty you get cross and either way you have to repent".

Welby joked that one of the nastiest things he had been called on Twitter was the "deputy anti-Christ -- that really got to me: why am I the deputy? Talk about adding insult to injury."

He said that he found it "overwhelming" to address the crowd at Greenbelt, but frequently drew applause from the largely progressive audience.

Asked by an audience member who was due to enter a civil partnership when the Church would be in a position to bless the union, the Archbishop simply said that he did not know. "I don't have a good answer to it," he said. "If we were the only Church here and [there were] no other Churches, and if division didn't matter it would be much easier to answer".

Welby said that the inclusion of gay people and safeguarding against abuse were the two issues which he lies awake thinking about at night.

"Do I know when there will be a point when the blessing [of the civil partnership] will happen? No. I don't and I can't see the road ahead". He added that the Church started from a traditionalist position, moved on to out of touch and then "vicious" and "now we just look odd".

He said "we have to find a way to love and embrace everyone who loves Jesus Christ" but he added that this included people who feel -- or come from societies which believe -- that same-sex relationships are "deeply, deeply wrong".

The Archbishop joked that "the fact that I'm Archbishop of Canterbury is one of the things that makes me seriously doubt the infallibility of God."

Welby talked of an "incredible clash that is so important to so many people and goes to the heart of the identity of so many people". He added: "There isn't a simple solution... I haven't got a good answer." To applause, he said "I am constantly consumed with horror" at the way in which the Church has treated the gay community.

Asked about the dangers of ego in the job, Welby said: "You start assuming that things will happen without you asking all the time and that can get dangerous, really dangerous".

On the press, he said: "Oh, I've stopped worrying about that... I hate to say this but I quite like a lot of them," adding that he increasingly likes politicians who often "do an incredibly difficult job".

He went on: "The future of the Church is resurrection... The future of the Church in this land is amazing because God is God -- he's not going to turn away. He will make sure that the name of Jesus is proclaimed in this land come what may."

*****

Welby has more to worry about than the Church's treatment of gays

COMMENTARY

By Jules Gomes
http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/
Sept. 4, 2016

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull. The Archbishop of Canterbury did just that at the Greenbelt Festival last week when interviewed by 'vicar of Gogglebox' Kate Bottley. The interview made news headlined with a classic "Wonga" Welby sound bite: 'I am constantly consumed with horror' at the way the Church has treated gay people.

Greenbelt is a Christianised Glastonbury or Woodstock, attracting holy hippies sporting Hare Jesus Hare Krista T-shirts and hairy-lefties with piercings and ponytails. It features "HaLOL" Muslim comedians like Imran Yusuf, psychedelic rock groups like the Mourning Suns and artists who exhibit a potty under the title 'This isn't a potty.' So naturally they invited the Arch of Cant.

Welby was a one-trick pony. If you can't impress them with substance, smother them with synthetic sincerity, manufactured authenticity, and carefully calibrated righteous indignation. In short, substitute stuff with bluff.

Welby said that he spends 'a lot of time feeling a fraud.' Wherever he went, he found people who could do his job 'infinitely better' than he could. Regarding same-sex relationships, he said that he 'can't see the road ahead' for the Church. So let's get this straight, Justin. You're CEO of a worldwide corporation--the Anglican Communion. Your company--the church--has been around for 2000 years. You've got directions in a SatNav--the Bible. You've got a gilt-edged promise that the Holy Spirit will 'teach you all things'. Your boss is God. Millions are looking to you for direction. You're the shepherd--with a crook.

And you're telling us you can't see the road ahead? And others can do your job better? Well, if you sincerely mean that then why don't you call it a day and let the better person do your job? If you can't see the road ahead don't sit in the driver's seat. You might crash and take the entire Church of England with you. Or perhaps you don't really mean what you say.

Thumping your audience with carefully calibrated righteous indignation got you a round of applause at Greenbelt. You knew spitting fire and brimstone at how 'constantly consumed with horror' you are at the way the church has treated homosexuals would get you a terrific headline, didn't you, Justin?

Can we ask you what you mean exactly? In what horrific manner has the church treated gays? We know Catholics and Protestants in the Middle Ages enjoyed an occasional bout of barbequing each other at the stake. We know how shamefully black and Asian immigrants were treated by the Church of England in the Sixties--literally shown the door and told to find the Pentecostal church down the road.

I've served a variety of churches in India. I've seen lower caste Christians treated abominably by upper caste Christians. I've served a variety of churches in the UK. I've seen Christians from ethnic minorities marginalised at every level in the Church of England despite more than 30 years of campaigning and phony assurances of inclusion. When it comes to the church's treatment of gays, we both know that openly gay clergy now live with their civil and married partners (the latter in open defiance of the church's rules) in deaneries and vicarages, with a nod and a wink from the top brass.

A good number of the churches in London would close if gay clergy were hounded out. Homosexual clergy openly and freely minister as deans of prestigious cathedrals and even a bishop who has just been 'outed'. Such a privilege is unthinkable for ethnic minority clergy who face the most demeaning exclusion within the monochrome Church of England. And you're telling us you are 'constantly consumed with horror' at the treatment of gays by the church?

Can we ask how you've arrived at this conclusion? Perhaps you've seen studies and statistics, reports and research I know nothing of? Perhaps like Tony Blair you've had sexed-up intelligence dossiers of gays being served poisoned wine at Holy Communion or forced to pump bellows on pipe organs when the electricity fails or a system of apartheid with gays allowed only in segregated choir lofts?

Maybe you are right. But can you honestly say that the biggest issue facing the church that constantly consumes you with horror is the treatment of gays? In the last hundred years, more Christians have been murdered for their faith than in all the 2,000 years of church history. Christians are facing genocide in some parts of the world. In 2015, 7,000 Christians were killed for their faith. These are conservative estimates and exclude North Korea, Syria and Iraq, where accurate records do not exist. Why are you not 'constantly consumed with horror' at the images of ISIS crucifying Christian boys, burying their parents alive and selling their daughters as sex slaves, Archbishop? Closer to home, why are you not 'constantly consumed with horror' by the sexual abuse of minors by your clergy?

You then say that we have to find a way to love and embrace people who come from societies that believe same-sex relationships are 'deeply, deeply wrong.' But, hold on, you've just turned a theological issue into a cultural one. People who come from Africa, say, don't find same-sex marriage to be 'deeply, deeply wrong' because they run around half-naked in grass skirts and are hoodwinked by fakirs and snake charmers, and sadhus sleeping on spiked-beds.

People from 'backward' cultures--the implication is clear--are not 'progressive' on the issue of same-sex marriage because they believe that God has spoken fully and finally in Holy Scripture. It is the Bible that is our ultimate authority, not our culture. We don't decide doctrine by democratic franchise. But aren't there people even in Western culture, like the quintessentially English and nominally Anglican novelist Frederick Forsyth, who says he is 'not in any way homophobic' but 'does have an aversion to sodomy'? Don't you think people from other cultures would find your statement deeply, deeply patronising and offensive?

'In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible,' George Orwell famously said. The entire Anglican Communion would sincerely hope that your discourse at Greenbelt was a symptom of anarchic impulsiveness rather than your attempt to defend the indefensible.

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