AM read here

PM read here

In light of recent developments, including the letter from 120 clergy in the diocese of London and the Bishop of Salisbury’s comments as reported in The Times, Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Bishop of Rochester and current president of Oxtrad, has made the following brief statement:

"We affirm the value of all friendships and strong relationships between people, whether in the family or with friends. We want a society with such strong friendships and relationships. Marriage, however, is a special kind of relationship and should not be confused with other relationships which have their own integrity. This is rooted in the Bible’s understanding of man and woman being created together and created together in God’s image. This means that men and women are ordered to one another and it is their similarity and also their difference which makes for the complementarity needed for a stable union.

Read here

One of the most influential evangelical leaders in the United States says Christians should go to jail rather than comply with the Obama administration’s mandate to provide all contraception, including abortion-inducing drugs, in their health care plans.

Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), told LifeSiteNews.com “we will not comply” with the Dept. of Health and Human Services’ mandate requiring religious institutions to cover abortifacient products such as Plan B, Ella, and the IUD.

“We want the law changed, or else we’re going to write our letters from the Nashville jail, just like Dr. King wrote his from the Birmingham jail,” Dr. Land said.

Dr. Land wrote an op-ed on Tuesday with Barrett Duke, vice president for public policy and research at ERLC, calling his fellow Southern Baptists and evangelical Christians throughout America to oppose any infringement on the First Amendment.

“The Obama administration has declared war on religion and freedom of conscience,” they wrote. “We consider this callous requirement by the Obama administration to be a clear violation of our nation’s commitment to liberty of conscience and a flagrant violation of our constitutional protection to freedom of religion.”

Read here

The General Synod today voted as follows on a motion that gives the Bishops some space to modify the measure on women bishops.    They voted as follows:

That this Synod,

(a) noting the significant support the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure has received in the Houses of Bishops, Clergy and Laity of diocesan synods, and

(b) desiring that the draft Measure be returned to the Synod for consideration on the Final Approval Stage substantially unamended so that it can be seen if the proposals embodied in it in the form in which it has been referred to the dioceses can attain the level of support required to achieve Final Approval,

request the House of Bishops in the exercise of its power under Standing Order 60(b) not to amend the draft Measure substantially.

The voting was as follows by houses

Bishops   For 26   Against  16   Abstentions  5
Clergy      For 128  Against 64   Abstentions  0
Laity         For  111   Against 85   Abstentions 1

Totals (For interest only) For 265  Against 165   Abstentions  6

In no house was there over a two thirds majority in favour of this motion.  The vote enables the House of Bishops to look at the Measure as it currently stands with a little room for manoeuvre, perhaps along the lines that the Archbishop of Canterbury set out drawing his distinction below between the derivation of authority and the delegation of authority.  The vote still shows unease remains within a substantial number of synod members with the measure as currently drafted.

The Archbishop of Canterbury expressed a possibly way of understanding the distinction between derivation and delegation:

When a person is ordained, they receive authority.  That’s the language we use in our Ordinal. They receive the Church’s authority to preach and to teach and to minister the sacraments.  That’s now part of who they are within the Church.  Its part of how the Church recognises their calling to a specific ministry.  But the Church exists in ordered form—legally and canonically ordered form—and somebody who has received authority in that general sense through ordination, then has (to use a rather crude metaphor) to be ‘plugged in’ to the legal and canonical system.  They have to receive a licence to exercise that ordained authority legally and canonically here, here, or here.  And that’s the cornerstone of the distinction between derivation and delegation.  Any ordained person receives—‘derives’—the authority for preaching, teaching and ministering the sacraments in general as part of who they are before God by the Church’s act in ordination.  Ordained persons also receive in various ways licence to perform those functions in a specific context.  And that’s where delegation comes in.  Because if the context is a diocese where there is a legally, canonically constituted diocesan bishop then that’s the legal authority which lets a deacon or a priest, or another bishop, perform acts within that area.  It doesn’t in any sense qualify the authority they receive from the Church at large.  It gives them intelligible place, a defensible and legitimate place, within the workings of a Christian family within a diocese.  It’s the diocesan bishop in effect saying, ‘Here is my licence to do what I would otherwise do’, and that’s why we say ‘delegation’.

Now, I suspect that if we get that distinction right we might avoid some of the confusion that is around which sometimes seems to assume that delegation must mean you derive your authority as an ordained person from the person who ‘lets you do it’.  And just to reinforce that point, you’ll notice that in the draft Measure and in the draft Code it’s quite clear that a diocesan bishop inviting another diocesan bishop to act in his or her diocese, does it by way of delegation.  There’s no suggestion that the other diocesan bishop somehow becomes a ‘subordinate’ (in terms of theological order) to the bishop making the request and issuing the permission.  Likewise it’s the case that in some circumstances the ordinary authority of a diocesan is exercised by someone who isn’t a bishop.  For example in a vacancy-in-see, or in a period between a bishop being confirmed as bishop-elect and being ordained as a bishop.

Read here
 

The Church of England's General Synod is currently looking at the legislative process designed to make it possible for women to be bishops while also making provision for those who, for theological reasons, will not be able to receive their ministry.

The Archbishop of Canterbury made the following intervention during the General Synod debate on the Business Committee’s Report on the Reference of the Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure to the Dioceses.

Read here

General Synod puts off split over ordination of female prelates by delaying legislation for fine tuning until final approval in July

Conscientious objectors are being shown no mercy by the Church’s Militant Tendency

There is now no doubt that the Church of England will consecrate its first woman bishop within the next couple of years. This will happen without any statutory provision for those who in conscience cannot accept women’s episcopacy. The significant minority of clergy and laity who oppose this innovation will simply be told to like it – or lump it and go elsewhere. Thus tens of thousands of traditional and faithful Anglicans will be unchurched.
 
This stinking fish has been a long time on the slab. Back in 1992, the church voted to admit women to the priesthood, but this was only agreed upon the intervention of the then Archbishop of York, Dr John Habgood, who insisted that there were “two integrities” within the church: the one that could accept women priests and the other that could not. Room must be made for both. If Dr Habgood’s agreeable compromise had not been accepted then there would not have been a majority in favour of the ordination of women.
 
The radical innovators, illiberal “liberals,” non-believing secularists and intolerant feminists who together govern the church are determined not to make the same mistake again. They are saying to the opponents of women bishops, “Well, get out then!” – except this injunction is not generally put even as politely as that.

Read here
 

The British public overwhelmingly backs calls to scrap curbs on smacking, a new survey has revealed.

The law on smacking in England and Wales allows parents to smack their children but legislation in 2004 narrowed the defence of “reasonable chastisement”.

Nearly two thirds, 60 per cent, of the public think that the curbs should be scrapped. A similar proportion attributed Labour’s curbs on smacking with a decline in discipline among the young.

And nearly four out of five of the parents surveyed said that they have smacked their children.

According to the survey nearly one third of parents are scared to smack their children because they fear running into trouble with the authorities.

Read here

Watch:  

John Richardson here

SPUC's Anthony McCarthy here

"That this Synod, gravely concerned at the desparate plight of Christian communities in parts of Nigeria, as described in GS 1861, request the Briitsh Government to do all it can to support those in NIgeria seeking to protect religious minorities of all faiths and enable them to practice their religion without fear."

The Archbishop of York said: "Anyone who touches you touches us. Our arm is long."

The Archbishop of Canterbury noted that synod's concern was not simply about the well being of Christian communities but the well being of the entire community.

The Archbishop of Jos in Northern Nigeria was also cited as noting that there is no city or town in the middle belt and southern Nigeria where Muslims are denied a place of worship with large mosques and the guarantee of security and freedom to worship. But there is no reciprocation of this gesture, especially in the North of Nigeria. 

Attention was drawn to the current issue of Newsweek in which Ayaan Hirsi Ali notes that the violent oppression of  Christian minorities has become the norm in Muslim-majority nations stretching from West Africa and the Middle East to South Asia and Oceania.  She notes a regrettable media reticence and indeed a conspiracy of silence surrounding this violent expression of religious intolerance. 

Keith Malcouronne urged that the Nigerian church was hurt that the English church was invaded by materialism, consumerism and sexual infidelity. The church was seen to have lost its first love. Solidarity should be shown by action and self-discipline for the sake of those who are witnessing to the gospel that we hold dear. The Church of England should not do anything to undermine their witness.

The BBC has told its journalists not to call Abu Qatada, the al-Qaeda preacher, an “extremist”.
  
In order to avoid making a “value judgment”, the corporation’s managers have ruled that he can only be described as “radical”.

Journalists were also cautioned against using images suggesting the preacher is overweight.
 
A judge ruled this week that the Muslim preacher, once described as “Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man in Europe”, should be released from a British jail, angering ministers and MPs.
 
Adding to the row, Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, yesterday insisted that Qatada “has not committed any crime” and said his release has nothing to do with the European Court of Human Rights.
 
A British court has called Qatada a “truly dangerous individual” and even his defence team has suggested he poses a “grave risk” to national security.

Read here
 

Morning Session here

Afternoon Session here

The Government is sending out mixed messages about the rights of fathers after divorce. David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Iain Duncan Smith all believe that dads should be given greater access to their children. Children's Minister Tim Loughton, who has long favoured a presumption of shared parenting, is to lead a ministerial group to work out how to change the law to make this happen. But Justice Secretary Ken Clarke thinks the status quo is about right, and that the family courts are not in fact skewed against fathers.

So who is likely to win the battle for custody of this policy? Last March, when the Norgrove Review (of the family justice system) put out its first, interim, report, a strong hint was given that it would recommend a presumption of shared parenting. But its final report, in November, knocked that idea firmly on the head. Equal access for both parents was rejected on the grounds that it might not be in a child's best interests. A more important reason for coming to that conclusion was the fear that reaching a shared parenting arrangement might prolong court proceedings and increase costs.

Read here

• Devices temporarily prevent pregnancy by releasing hormones into the blood
• In 2011, 1,700 girls aged 13/14 were fitted with implants
• Under 'patient confidentiality' rules, school staff are banned from seeking permission of parents beforehand

Girls as young as 13 are being given contraceptive implants at school without their parents’ knowledge.

Nurses insert devices into their arms which temporarily prevent pregnancy by releasing hormones into the blood.

Last year 1,700 girls aged 13 and 14 were fitted with implants, while 800 had injections which have the same effect.

The 2010/11 NHS figures also show that 3,200 15-year-old girls were fitted with implants, and 1,700 had injections.

But under strict ‘patient confidentiality’ rules, staff are banned from seeking the permission of parents beforehand – or even informing them afterwards.

Read here

The Church of England’s governing body has heard that more work needs to be done on draft legislation to allow women bishops.

General Synod is considering legislation making provision for those who cannot in conscience accept a woman bishop, including an amendment that would grant greater authority to clergy providing alternative oversight.

The Manchester motion is based on an amendment put forward by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York in 2010 and proposes ‘co-ordinate’ jurisdiction in dioceses where a parish has requested male oversight.

This would make the intervening male bishop less subject to the authority of the female diocesan bishop than under the ‘delegated’ jurisdiction being proposed in the draft legislation as it stands.

The Rt Rev Nigel Stock, the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, told Synod that the committee on the draft Code of Practice, which he chaired, had sought to enable “consistency” and “avoid confusion” in the application of the scheme.

Canon Chris Sugden, of orthodox group Anglican Mainstream, questioned whether the Code of Practice would be able to achieve this.

He said: “They produced a code for two bishops to work together, neither of whom believes in principle in what they are called to do – one to receive delegation from a person they might not regard in episcopal orders, the other to give delegation to which they in principle object.

“This disagreement needs to be addressed and this gap reached across. Is the code of practice strong enough to bridge this principled disagreement?”

Read here

By Ben Johnson, LifeSite News

This morning, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled by a 2-1 vote that a California constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is unconstitutional.

In an 89-page ruling that cited William Shakespeare and Marilyn Monroe, Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote, “Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.”

In 2008, California voters approved the state constitutional amendment defending marriage by a margin of 52.5 percent to 47.5 percent. U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who is in a long-term homosexual relationship, ruled in August 2010 that the measure “both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.”

The Ninth Circuit court panel upheld Walker, ruling that since same-sex couples once had the right to call their unions “marriage” in that state reversing it constituted unconstitutional discrimination. Same-sex marriage was briefly legalized in the state after the state Supreme Court ruled in favor of it in March 2008. “Had Marilyn Monroe’s film been called How to Register a Domestic Partnership with a Millionaire, it would not have conveyed the same meaning as did her famous movie, even though the underlying drama for same-sex couples is no different,” Reinhardt wrote.

Read here