Stuart Townend to hymn butchers: Your changes are not authorized

Well, it would appear that the Archbishop of Canterbury's rank cowardice in the face of the prevailing winds of the zeitgeist is not the only problem plaguing the Mother Church these days. Cranmer's Curate reports on liberal efforts to deface a theologically rich contemporary hymn.

Liberal Anglicans do not like the reference to the wrath of God being satisfied in the hymn 'In Christ Alone', so what do they do? Censor it.

The Copyright version of Stuart Townend and Keith Getty's classic hymn says:

In Christ alone! who took on flesh
Fulness of God in helpless babe!
This gift of love and righteousness
Scorned by the ones he came to save:
Till on that cross as Jesus died,
The wrath of God was satisfied -
For every sin on Him was laid;
Here in the death of Christ I live.

In the unauthorised version in use in liberal Anglican circles, the sixth line of this verse reads: 'The love of God was exemplified.'

As tends to be the case with revisionist changes, this one does violence to the spiritual context and diminishes the wonder of God's saving love. Liberal Anglicans want their merely exemplary view of the atonement to be sung but the line following the sixth - 'For every sin on Him was laid' - flatly contradicts their attempt to airbrush our culpable and hell-deserving sin out of the death of the Lord Jesus.

In response to an enquiry as to whether the authors had authorised the change, a spokeswoman for Mr Townend told Cranmer's Curate that:

Although all copyright/permission enquiries are handled by Stuart's publishers, you are right in thinking that permission would not be granted to change the words to any of Stuart's songs. However, I'm also aware that an unofficial, edited lyric of the hymn has been circling for some time, and some are unaware that it is unapproved. So it may well be that (one Anglican diocese where the liberal version has been used at official services) are not aware that they're breaking copyright by using it.

A similar controversy erupted here in the states last year when the committee developing a new hymnal for the Presbyterian Church (USA) wanted to alter the "offending" lyric to "the love of God was magnified." Townend refused to allow the change and the song was thus excluded from the hymnal.

The fact that liberals -- be they Anglican, Presbyterian, or what have you -- are offended by the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement is itself offensive, and quite indicative of how far they have strayed from the truth of the Gospel. Not only are they placing their souls in peril, they are depriving themselves of some truly uplifting music. It is no wonder they always seem so grumpy.

*** WARNING: THE FOLLOWING IS THE ORIGINAL UNCUT, UNCENSORED VERSION OF "IN CHRIST ALONE." ***

On homosexuality and Christian persecution, Justin Welby drops the ball again

The Most Reverend and Right Honourable Justin Welby, so it seems, never misses a good opportunity to miss a good opportunity. Yesterday, he took to the airwaves, becoming the first Archbishop of Canterbury to take calls from listeners. Predictably, the topic which drew the most attention was homosexuality and, also predictably, he dropped the ball again. The Church of England cannot accept "gay marriage" at the moment, the Archbishop said, because it would lead to persecution of Christians in other parts of the world.

Yes, you read that right. But let's allow His Grace to speak for himself here.

Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, stressed the need for a global focus when considering reform within the Church of England, specifically with regards to gay marriage, according to The Guardian.

As support for same-sex marriage grows in the West, Welby warned during an LBC Radio phone-in that if the Church of England were to accept gay marriages, it could lead to "catastrophic" consequences for Christians elsewhere, particularly in Africa.

"I have stood by gravesides in Africa of a group of Christians who had been attacked because of something that had happened far, far away in America, and they were attacked by other people because of that, and a lot of them had been killed," said Welby.

"We have to listen to that. We have to be aware of the fact," he said, according to The Guardian. "Everything we say here goes round the world."

Were the Church of England to accept gay marriages, he commented, "the impact of that on Christians far from here, in South Sudan, Pakistan, Nigeria and other places would be absolutely catastrophic."

Nonetheless Welby condemned homophobia and said, "to treat every human being with equal importance and dignity is a fundamental part of being a Christian." He shared his particular concerns about the devastating impact of homophobia on gay teenagers, and reiterated the importance of a loving approach.

Welby said that he has been wrestling with the issue of protecting Christians abroad while still having a loving approach to gay Christians for a long time, but stressed the very real dangers that he had personally experienced.

He explained that the reasoning behind the massacre of Nigerian Christians was essentially, "If we leave a Christian community here we will all be made to become homosexual and so we're going to kill the Christians."

"The mass grave had 369 bodies in it," he said. "And I was standing with the relatives. That burns itself into your soul, as does the suffering of gay people in this country."

That the titular head of the worldwide Anglican Communion can be this naive about the plight of the persecuted church is truly mind-boggling. Christians in Africa and the Middle East face death every day because they embody precisely the kind of authentic Christian faith which Justin Welby's Church of England has abandoned in favor of cultural accommodation. To say that Christians in Nigeria were slaughtered by Muslims who feared being "made to become homosexual" (accepting without question an insulting piece of Muslim propaganda) is to trivialize (excuse me, trivialise) the very real persecution such Christians face every day for the very real reason that they are very real and faithful followers of Jesus Christ. A church that accommodates the culture need never fear persecution. A church that takes seriously Jesus' call to be salt and light, however, is a constant irritant to the culture (be it Muslim, atheist, or what have you) and will quite often be sanctified by the blood of martyrs.

Moreover, as the "gay rights" movement continues to push its agenda, faithful Christians in the U.S., England, and elsewhere are being made to pay a heavy price for resisting its advances. Rather than losing sleep over "the suffering of gay people" in his own country, Archbishop Welby needs to wake up to this very real crisis for the church in the West.

The Church of England's oxymoronic gospel of sin management

Among the more benighted pronouncements emanating from the "pastoral guidance" issued over the weekend by the Church of England House of Bishops is this load of sanctimonious gibberish:

We are conscious that within both Church and society there are men and women seeking to live faithfully in covenanted same sex relationships. As we said in our response to the consultation prior to the same sex marriage legislation, “the proposition that same sex relationships can embody crucial social virtues is not in dispute. Same sex relationships often embody genuine mutuality and fidelity…., two of the virtues which the Book of Common Prayer uses to commend marriage. The Church of England seeks to see those virtues maximised in society.

This paragraph sums up precisely the problem not only in the Church of England, but in numerous other ecclesiastical bodies in the West, including some that are avowedly more evangelical in their temperament. What is being propagated here is a half truth gospel of sin management and cultural accommodation, rather than the true Gospel of repentance, regeneration, and new creation.

Paul said, "And such were some of you, but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Corinthians 6:11). He did not say, "And such are some of you, but your genuine mutuality and fidelity makes your transgression permissible because it embodies certain virtues which the church seeks to see maximised in society."

There is never, repeat never, any virtue in rebelling against God. To speak oxymoronically of any sin, sexual or otherwise, as embodying "mutuality and fidelity" is nothing but a feeble attempt to overlook that sin's temporal and eternal consequences.

Justin Welby: The harsh reality sets in

If you still had any lingering doubts that Justin Welby is an unmitigated disaster as Archbishop of Canterbury, the events of the past week should clear them all up. First came a press release bearing his name in which he heaped praise upon Madam Oven Mitt on the occasion of her "richly deserved" honorary doctorate from Oxford. It was a statement which, to the many victims of the Presiding Bureaucrat's "intellect" and "compassion," came across as hurtful, insensitive, and mean-spirited.

As Canon Phil Ashey observes:

How can Justin Welby ascribe “remarkable intellectual gifts dedicated to the service of Christ” to a leader who has been challenged time and again over the last ten years by the Windsor Process itself, who has ignored the moratoria begged of her and TEC, and whose acceleration of those innovations was the very cause for the response of the Anglican Churches in Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda and elsewhere in the majority Global South which offered pastoral care and covering to those Episcopalians, now Anglicans, who would not submit to her innovations as a matter of conscience and fidelity to Biblical teaching and Lambeth Resolution 1.10?

Is such conduct really an expression of remarkable intellect in the service of Christ?

What possessed Justin Welby to say that Jefferts Schori “richly deserves” an honorary award for her “remarkable gift of compassion which she has dedicated to the service of Christ,” in the face of the following facts:

On February 17, 2011, The American Anglican Council published a documented report of how Bishop Jefferts Schori and the leadership of TEC had violated the very text of its canons, due process and natural justice to inhibit and depose (at that time) 12 bishops and 404 deacons and priests. Since then, the estimate of total inhibitions and depositions of bishops, priests and deacons has risen to 700. This represents the largest exercise of penal discipline by any Presiding Bishop in the history of the TEC—and perhaps in the history of any Church in the Anglican Communion.

In one notable case, Bishop Jefferts Schori deposed Bishop Henry Scriven of the Church of England! In another notable case, her “compassion” led her to inhibit retired Bishop Edward MacBurney (VII Quincy) on April 2, 2008. On April 4, his son died, leaving the grieving father and bishop unable to conduct his son’s funeral rites.

Through her Chancellor, Bishop Jefferts Schori authorized and continues to authorize litigation against volunteer vestry (parish council) members and other volunteer leaders in church property cases. Although volunteers do not hold title to the property of the departing congregations, we documented at least 48 instances (as of the date of our report) where such volunteer vestry members have been sued by TEC or the diocese—in some cases, seeking the personal assets of these volunteers for monetary punitive damages in excess of the value of the property at issue. Such claims represent a position by Episcopal bishops and attorneys that a volunteer vestry member‘s vote to leave TEC is oppressive and malicious illegal behavior that justifies the forfeiture of a volunteer‘s personal assets. In addition to suffering the intentional infliction of emotional distress at the possibility of losing their personal assets, volunteer vestry members and other leaders have suffered damages by the mere filing of such claims including difficulty in refinancing their homes, difficulty in obtaining security clearances for new jobs, and prejudice to their credit reports.

When “Christian compassion” might have moved Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori and the leadership of TEC to accept the Primates call for a moratorium on litigation at their 2007 meeting in Dar es Salaam, Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori chose instead to accelerate the litigation. In 2009 when TEC cut staff and program by 30%, it increased the line items in the budget for litigation. We documented at least 56 complaints filed by TEC and its Dioceses against individual churches, clergy and volunteer vestry members. Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori led a delegation of bishops to Lambeth 2008 who demonstrated reckless indifference to the truth by telling other Anglican bishops in their “indaba groups” that TEC was being sued by local churches—when precisely the opposite was true. The Episcopal Church has continued to stonewall every request for an accounting of the funds it has expended on such litigation, and conservative estimates based on public records indicate that the cost is already in excess of $30 million.

Really-Is this “compassion dedicated to the service of Christ?”

Next came the Archbishop's speech to the Church of England General Synod, presented with that typical winsomeness which British clerics seem to think can cover a multitude of sins. Matt Kennedy, however, was not fooled.

This speech by Justin Welby could have easily been given by Rowan Williams or, indeed, any number of revisionist Episcopalian bishops. It is, of course, about women bishops and how those who rightly oppose the move to make them ought to open themselves to the “perfect love” that casts out all that curmudgeonly concern for biblical fidelity which as we all know inhibits “human flourishing”. But this speech is not only about women bishops. The language he uses here is “precisely” the language he uses to push reconciliation with those leaders in the Communion who want to mainstream and bless homosexual behavior. This subtext breaks to the surface quite clearly in the paragraph below

“This sort of gracious reconciliation means that we have to create safe space within ourselves to disagree, as we began to do last summer at the Synod in York, and as we need to do over the issues arising out of our discussions on sexuality, not because the outcome is predetermined to be a wishy-washy one, but because the very process is a proclamation of the Gospel of unconditionally loving God who gives Himself for our sin and failure. It is incarnational in the best sense and leads to the need to bear our cross in the way we are commanded.”

Note here that Welby identifies the gospel with the “very process” of creating a “safe place” to disagree about human sexuality.

No. That is not the gospel. The gospel is the truth that God became Man to save sinners from the consequences of sin and its enslaving power. God did not become Man to make peace with those who lead people into sin. To those who do such things, quite contrary to the Archbishop’s claim, Jesus suggested millstones and deep lakes would be far more bearable compared to what he has planned for them apart from repentance.

Remember, if you will, the constant revisionist refrain beginning in 2003: “These issues do not have to divide us. We still gather round the same table and worship the same Jesus. Let us work on being brothers and sisters despite our differences…”

But these very pleasant sounding coaxings only obscured the truth. The “differences” that divided us then and continue to divide us now are gathered around two options: 1. teach the biblical truth about sexual sin and call people who experience with same sex attraction to live lives of repentance and faith resulting in eternal life or 2. teach people with same sex attraction that the behaviors the bible says will keep people out of the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9) are really no sins at all.

There is no “middle road” here. There is no reconciliation ground between these two viewpoints. None. If those who believe #1 above are correct, then then those who believe #2 are leading people God loves to hell. These leaders must be called to recant or be subject to discipline and expulsion. What Archbishop Welby wants to do, and he does it clearly in this speech, is re-cast the question as if it were tantamount to “should Christians drink wine?” or “What is the appropriate length for women’s skirts?”. He wants to reduce the question to “adiaphora”, to the level of a matter about which God does not speak. This is a lie as anyone equipped with reason, a bible, and the ability to understand human language ought to know. To promote this notion is to sully and obscure the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

It is time for orthodox, evangelical Anglicans to face the harsh reality about Justin Welby. He is no better than Rowan Williams, and possibly even worse.

Lord have mercy. Christ have mercy. Lord have mercy.

Justin the Unremarkable on the wrong side of history, again

A person of average intelligence, upon reading the article cited below, might reasonably conclude that it is a parody from The Onion. Unfortunately, it is an actual press release from the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury who, only a few days ago, issued a joint statement with his cohort from York, scolding and bullying the three largest provinces in the Anglican Communion for their unshakable adherence to biblical standards of sexual morality. Today, however, Justin Welby is singing quite a different tune with regards to the Presiding Bureaucrat of a province that is largely irrelevant and utterly unrecognizable as a legitimate Christian body.

Archbishop Justin has welcomed news that the Presiding Bishop [sic] of the Episcopal Church [sic], Bishop [sic] Katharine Jefferts Schori, is to be awarded an honorary Doctor of Divinity by the University of Oxford.

He said: “I am delighted by the news that the Most Revd Dr [sic] Katharine Jefferts Schori is to receive an honorary Doctor of Divinity from the University of Oxford. This award, richly deserved, reaffirms Bishop [sic] Katharine’s remarkable gifts of intellect and compassion, which she has dedicated to the service of Christ. Prior to becoming ordained, Bishop [sic] Katharine pursued a career in oceanography, and her enduring deep commitment to the environment has evolved into a profound dedication to stewardship of our planet and humankind, especially in relieving poverty and extending the love and hospitality of Christ to those on the edges of society. As Archbishop Desmond Tutu once said of Bishop [sic] Katharine, "In her version of reality, everything is sacred except sin." It must be noted, too, that Bishop [sic] Katharine’s achievements serve – and will continue to serve – as a powerful model for women seeking to pursue their vocations in the church.”

One might well ask the Archbishop if he can actually produce even one marginal example of Mrs. Schori's "remarkable gifts of intellect and compassion." Certainly, this "sermon" of hers, preached at All Saints, Curacao last May, does not offer much in the way of intellect . . .

There are some remarkable examples of that kind of blindness in the readings we heard this morning, and slavery is wrapped up in a lot of it. Paul is annoyed at the slave girl who keeps pursuing him, telling the world that he and his companions are slaves of God. She is quite right. She’s telling the same truth Paul and others claim for themselves. But Paul is annoyed, perhaps for being put in his place, and he responds by depriving her of her gift of spiritual awareness. Paul can’t abide something he won’t see as beautiful or holy, so he tries to destroy it. It gets him thrown in prison. That’s pretty much where he’s put himself by his own refusal to recognize that she, too, shares in God’s nature, just as much as he does – maybe more so! The amazing thing is that during that long night in jail he remembers that he might find God there – so he and his cellmates spend the night praying and singing hymns.

An earthquake opens the doors and sets them free, and now Paul and his friends most definitely discern the presence of God. The jailer doesn’t – he thinks his end is at hand. This time, Paul remembers who he is and that all his neighbors are reflections of God, and he reaches out to his frightened captor. This time Paul acts with compassion rather than annoyance, and as a result the company of Jesus’ friends expands to include a whole new household. It makes me wonder what would have happened to that slave girl if Paul had seen the spirit of God in her.

. . . and, as those of us here in South Carolina can tell you firsthand, compassion is definitely not her strong suit!

As for Mrs. Schori's purported commitment to environmental stewardship and "relieving poverty and extending the love and hospitality of Christ to those on the edges of society," again, what examples can Archbishop Welby offer to warrant his praising her in this regard? He would be hard pressed to find anything but hard evidence to the contrary.

Desmond Tutu's praise for Mrs. Schori is also off the mark. Contra Tutu, in Schori's version of reality, nothing is sacred but sin!

In praising an unremarkable woman for an unremarkable career, on the heels of his chiding three of the truly remarkable leaders from growing African provinces, Justin Welby proves once again that he is himself a most unremarkable archbishop on the wrong side of history in an otherwise most remarkable era for Anglicanism around the world.

UPDATE: Peter Ould questions the authorship of the Welby press release. Whether or not he actually wrote it or even saw it, however, it purports to be from the Archbishop himself, so I wouldn't let him off that easily.

The arrogance, hypocrisy, and sheer hubris of Canterbury and York

Bishop David Anderson of the American Anglican Council well describes the recent communique on homosexuality from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to the Provinces of Kenya, Uganda, and Nigeria as "spiritual bullying." The two top clerics of the Mother Church have literally scaled new heights (or, perhaps better stated, sunk to new depths) of arrogance, hypocrisy, and sheer hubris in presuming to lecture the three largest provinces of the Anglican Communion on the subject of human sexuality while, within their own house, they have failed miserably and scandalously to uphold the biblical teaching concerning the same.

Bishop Anderson pulls no punches, also pointing out other failures of the Mother Church's ostensible leadership.

The English Archbishops of York and Canterbury have fired the equivalent of a broadside into the respective Anglican Provinces of Kenya, Uganda and Nigeria, and naturally it has to do with the Western hot button issue of homosexuality. While this subject seems to be causing the implosion of Anglican Provinces in America, Canada, England, Wales, and Scotland, the English Archbishops, rather than stand their Biblical ground against unnatural acts between individuals, choose rather to lecture and caution the three largest Anglican Provinces on the laws their civil governments are enacting.

When the head, nominal though he be, of the Anglican Communion lectures and cautions any Province, the implications and threat cannot be missed. It is odd that this lecture and caution would be directed toward the orthodox Anglicans of the Communion and not against the heterodox Anglicans both in North America and indeed within the Church of England itself. It seems that the Pilling Report may define the path that the Church of England will actually take. The Anglican Communion will soon have to face the prospect of a Mother Church which is spiritually unable to lead the worldwide flock of Anglicans. Interestingly, both the Archbishop of Kenya and now Uganda have responded to this English broadside and, commendably, they understand exactly the kind of spiritual bullying that is being directed toward them.

Archbishop Stanley Ntagali of Uganda, reminds the English Archbishops that, “….as they lead their own church through the “facilitated conversations” recommended by the Pilling Report, that the teaching of the Anglican Communion from the 1998 Lambeth Conference, from Resolution 1.10, still stands. It states that “homosexual practice is incompatible with Scripture,” and the conference “cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions.” And then, in a direct and clear statement Ntagali says, “We sincerely hope the Archbishops and governing bodies of the Church of England will step back from the path they have set themselves on so the Church of Uganda will be able to maintain communion with our own Mother Church.”

I would not be surprised if the Church of Nigeria, Anglican Communion, doesn’t respond as well. These three Anglican Provinces are the largest in the Anglican Communion, with a combined total of some 40 million, and these are people they can actually find on Sunday. I think it is fair to note that no longer should the mice dictate to the elephants on matters ecclesial.

There you have it. The primus inter pares, the Archbishop of Canterbury can no longer convene a full Primates Meeting, or a successful Lambeth Conference, and the orthodox Anglican Primates of GAFCON can convene two Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans conferences, in 2008 and 2013, and see a huge turnout and success. As additional responses to Canterbury surface we will post them.

One final thought. To be clear, the American Anglican Council does not support any law that unjustly targets people based only on sexual orientation. We agree with the 2008 resolution of the Ugandan House of Bishops to the effect that the church should offer “counseling, healing and prayer for people with homosexual disorientation” and that the church should be a safe place for anyone seeking help and healing.

Many westerners tend to use public pressure and media outlets to influence governments, churches and other groups. Those tactics don’t always work. If we have differences with our brothers and sisters in Christ, private, respectful but direct conversations are called for more often than not.

Also notable is the response from Archbishop Wabukala, who is not only Primate of Kenya but also chairman of GAFCON.

The good advice of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York would carry much more weight if they were able to affirm that they hold, personally, as well as in virtue of their office, to the collegial mind of the Anglican Communion. At the moment I fear that we cannot be sure.

Regrettably, their intervention has served to encourage those who want to normalize homosexual lifestyles in Africa and has fuelled prejudice against African Anglicans. We are committed to biblical sexual morality and to biblical pastoral care, so we wholeheartedly stand by the assurance given in the 1998 Lambeth Conference resolution that those who experience same sex attraction are ‘loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ.’

We anxiously await Nigeria's response.

GAFCON Chairman responds to "gay" communique from Canterbury and York

This week, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York sought to remind the leadership of the Anglican Communion and the Presidents of Nigeria and Uganda of the importance of friendship and care for homosexual people.

Christians should always show particular care for those who are vulnerable, but this cannot be separated from the whole fabric of biblical moral teaching in which the nature of marriage and family occupy a central place.

The Dromantine Communiqué from which the Archbishops quote also affirmed (Clause 17) the 1998 Lambeth Conference Resolution 1.10 which states that ‘homosexual practice is incompatible with Scripture’ and that the conference ‘cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions’.

Yet earlier this week, the English College of Bishops accepted the recommendation of the Pilling Report for two years of ‘facilitated conversation’ because at least some of the bishops could not accept the historic teaching of the Church as reaffirmed in the Lambeth resolution.

Indeed, in making the case for such a debate, the Pilling Report observes ‘In the House of Lords debate on same sex marriage, the Archbishop of York commended that the Church needed to think about the anomalies in a situation where it is willing to bless a tree or a sheep, but not a faithful human relationship.’ The anomaly only exists of course if it really is the case that a committed homosexual union can also be Christian.

The good advice of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York would carry much more weight if they were able to affirm that they hold, personally, as well as in virtue of their office, to the collegial mind of the Anglican Communion. At the moment I fear that we cannot be sure.

Regrettably, their intervention has served to encourage those who want to normalize homosexual lifestyles in Africa and has fuelled prejudice against African Anglicans. We are committed to biblical sexual morality and to biblical pastoral care, so we wholeheartedly stand by the assurance given in the 1998 Lambeth Conference resolution that those who experience same sex attraction are ‘loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ.’

May God in his mercy grant that we may hold to the fullness of his truth and the fullness of his grace.

The Most Rev’d Dr Eliud Wabukala
Archbishop, Anglican Church of Kenya and Chairman, GAFCON Primates Council.
30th January 2014

Archbishop Ntagali warns Mother Church about hypocrisy over homosexuality

Archbishop Stanley Ntagali Comments on Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill, the Church of England’s “Pilling Report,” and the Open Letter from the Archbishops of Canterbury and York

The Church of Uganda is encouraged by the work of Uganda’s Parliament in amending the Anti-Homosexuality Bill to remove the death penalty, to reduce sentencing guidelines through a principle of proportionality, and to remove the clause on reporting homosexual behaviour, as we had recommended in our 2010 position statement on the Bill. This frees our clergy and church leaders to fulfill the 2008 resolution of our House of Bishops to “offer counseling, healing and prayer for people with homosexual disorientation, especially in our schools and other institutions of learning. The Church is a safe place for individuals, who are confused about their sexuality or struggling with sexual brokenness, to seek help and healing.”

Accordingly, we are grateful for the reminder of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to fulfill such commitments as stated in the 2005 Communique of the Primates Meeting held in Dromantine, Northern Ireland.

We would further like to remind them, as they lead their own church through the “facilitated conversations” recommended by the Pilling Report, that the teaching of the Anglican Communion from the 1998 Lambeth Conference, from Resolution 1.10, still stands. It states that “homosexual practice is incompatible with Scripture,” and the conference “cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions.”

It was the Episcopal Church USA (TEC) and the Anglican Church of Canada’s violations of Lambeth 1.10 which caused the Church of Uganda to break communion with those Provinces more than ten years ago. We sincerely hope the Archbishops and governing bodies of the Church of England will step back from the path they have set themselves on so the Church of Uganda will be able to maintain communion with our own Mother Church.

Furthermore, as our new Archbishop of Canterbury looks toward future Primates Meetings and a possible 2018 Lambeth Conference of Bishops, we would also like to remind him of the 2007 Primates Communique from Dar es Salaam, which says that there are “consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion” for TEC and those Provinces which cannot

“Make an unequivocal common covenant that the Bishops will not authorize any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through” their governing body;

“Confirm…that a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent.”

It is clear that the Episcopal Church in the USA and the Anglican Church of Canada have not upheld these commitments, and so we do pray for the Archbishop of Canterbury as he considers whether or not to extend invitations to their Primates for the next Primates Meeting or to their Bishops for the 2018 Lambeth Conference. To withhold these invitations would be a clear signal of his intention to lead and uphold the fullness of the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10.

The Most Rev. Stanley Ntagali

ARCHBISHOP OF CHURCH OF UGANDA.

Indaba daba doo! Church of England College of Bishops responds to Pilling Report

The Mother Church's slide toward irrelevancy continues. The College of Bishops has issued the following statement in response to the infamous Pilling Report.

The College of Bishops met on 27th January, 2014 to begin a process of reflection on the issues raised by the Pilling Report (GS 1929). The College expressed appreciation to Sir Joseph Pilling and to all members of the working party for the work they have done on behalf of the Church.

We are united in welcoming and affirming the presence and ministry within the Church of gay and lesbian people, both lay and ordained. We are united in acknowledging the need for the Church to repent for the homophobic attitudes it has sometimes failed to rebuke and affirming the need to stand firmly against homophobia wherever and whenever it is to be found.

We are united in seeking to be faithful to the Scriptures and the tradition of the Church and in seeking to make a loving, compassionate and respectful response to gay men and women within Church and society.

We recognise the very significant change in social attitudes to sexuality in the United Kingdom in recent years.

We recognise also the strongly held and divergent views reflected in the Pilling Report, across the Anglican Communion and in the Church of England. We acknowledge that these differences are reflected also within the College of Bishops and society as a whole.

We accept the recommendation of the Pilling Report that the subject of sexuality, with its history of deeply entrenched views, would best be addressed by facilitated conversations, ecumenically, across the Anglican Communion and at national and diocesan level and that this should continue to involve profound reflection on the interpretation and application of Scripture. These conversations should set the discussion of sexuality within the wider context of human flourishing.

We have together asked the Archbishops to commission a small group to design a process for these conversations and additional materials to support and enable them. We hope that the outline for the process and the additional materials will be approved by the House of Bishops in May.

We acknowledge that one of the challenges we face is to create safe space for all those involved to be honest about their own views and feelings. This has not always happened and it must do so in the future. We recognise that we will not all agree and that this process is in part committed to seeking good disagreement that testifies to our love for one another across the church in obedience to Christ

As the Archbishops noted in November, the Pilling report is not a new policy statement from the Church of England and we are clear that the Church of England's pastoral and liturgical practice remains unchanged during this process of facilitated conversation.

No change to the Church of England's teaching on marriage is proposed or envisaged. The House of Bishops will be meeting next month to consider its approach when same sex marriage becomes lawful in England in March.

We are grateful to the whole Church for their prayers for our meeting today and for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We recognise that on many occasions in the past the Church has faced challenging questions. It is vital in these moments to take counsel together, to read and reflect upon the Scriptures and to continue to discern together the mind of Christ.

Translation: We are so very sorry that, for the past two thousand years or so, the church has robbed itself of the rich diversity of gifts offered it by those who find pleasure in homosexual activity because we have considered such activity sinful. We will strive to do better by them in the future as we continue to seek the mind of Christ, which we think may have changed with regard to sexual expression in recent years. After all, the world has changed its mind. Why shouldn't Jesus do the same? In the meantime, we're going to keep on talking because the more we talk about sex, the less we talk about such quaint and arcane subjects as repentance and forgiveness of sins.

In other words, it's another extraordinary opportunity for Continuing Indaba!

Cue the tape . . .

The Church of England and the rubric of stupid

The liturgy is one of the church's most valuable pedagogical tools. Disciples are formed and nurtured through the recitation of, and participation in, the grand narrative of God's redemptive work. The baptismal liturgy is of particular significance. It serves not only to introduce the newly baptized to the faith but also to remind the already baptized what it means to live out that faith, especially in accepting the responsibility to nurture the newly baptized.

Any baptismal liturgy which makes short shrift of the sacred vows to be taken by the candidates and/or sponsors and the equally sacred vows repeated by the congregation should not be used by a church which is serious about making and forming disciples for Jesus Christ. In light of the proposed changes to the Church of England's baptismal liturgy, it is reasonable to question the Mother Church's seriousness in this regard.

Parents and godparents no longer have to ‘repent sins’ and ‘reject the devil’ during christenings after the Church of England rewrote the solemn ceremony.

The new wording is designed to be easier to understand – but critics are stunned at such a fundamental change to a cornerstone of their faith, saying the new ‘dumbed-down’ version ‘strikes at the heart’ of what baptism means.

In the original version, the vicar asks: ‘Do you reject the devil and all rebellion against God?’

Prompting the reply: ‘I reject them.’ They then ask: ‘Do you repent of the sins that separate us from God and neighbour?’, with the answer: ‘I repent of them.’

But under the divisive reforms, backed by Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby and already being practised in 1,000 parishes, parents and godparents are asked to ‘reject evil, and all its many forms, and all its empty promises’ – with no mention of the devil or sin.

The new text, to be tested in a trial lasting until Easter, also drops the word ‘submit’ in the phrase ‘Do you submit to Christ as Lord?’ because it is thought to have become ‘problematical’, especially among women who object to the idea of submission.

The rewritten version – which came after reformers said they wanted to use the language of EastEnders rather than Shakespeare in services – is designed as an alternative to the wording in the Common Worship prayer book, rather than a replacement.

But insiders predict this draft will become the norm for the Church’s 150,000 christenings each year if, as expected, it is approved by the General Synod. It may discuss the issue as early as this summer.

But the idea has angered many senior members of the Church, who feel it breaks vital links with baptisms as described in the Bible.

Writing in The Mail on Sunday, former Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali said the reform should be scrapped before it further reduced Christianity to ‘easily swallowed soundbites’.

And one senior member of the General Synod, who did not wish to be named, said: ‘This is more like a benediction from the Good Fairy than any church service.

‘The trouble is that large parts of the Church of England don’t believe in hell, sin or repentance. They think you can just hold hands and smile and we will all go to Heaven. That is certainly not what Jesus thought.

‘There is so much left out that one wonders why do it at all? If you exclude original sin and repentance there is very little substance left.

‘It doesn’t just dumb the service down – it eviscerates it. It destroys the significance of the rite by watering down the concept of sin and repentance.

'A humanist could say “I renounce evil.” If you take out repentance you immediately strike at the heart of the whole idea of needing to be baptised.

‘John the Baptist only baptised those who came and were repentant. This rite is saying to people you don’t need to be particularly repentant. Just come and join the club.’

Alison Ruoff, a lay member of the General Synod from London, said the new version was ‘weak and woolly’ and lacked conviction.

She said: ‘By removing all mention of the devil and rebellion against God, we are left to our own vague understanding of what evil might or might not mean.’

The draft was drawn up by the Church’s Liturgy Commission to redress fears the current version was too off-putting for lay people who only go to church for baptisms, weddings or funerals.

The Bishop of Wakefield Stephen Platten, who chairs the commission, said repentance was implied in phrases urging people to ‘turn away from evil’, and defended the omission of the devil by saying it was ‘theologically problematic’.

He said: ‘We are certainly not dumbing down. Far from it. What we are concerned about is to make sure that people who are coming to baptism understand what is being said.’

Other changes do away with the cleric saying: ‘Do not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified,’ to which the congregation replies: ‘Fight valiantly as a disciple of Christ against sin, the world and the devil, and remain faithful to Christ to the end of your life.’

The new version – which refers to sin once in an optional prayer – replaces this with: ‘Do not be ashamed of Christ. You are his for ever,’ to which the congregation answers; ‘Stand bravely with him.

Oppose the power of evil, and remain his faithful disciple to the end of your life.’

The baptism ceremony had not been altered for more than 400 years until it was changed in 1980. This is the third revision in 30 years.

There really can be no word for this revised rubric other than stupid! It is the bitter fruit of over a generation of weak, ineffectual, and theologically vacuous church leadership. Worse, however, it appears intentionally designed to perpetuate such innocuousness for generations to come.

As usual, the voice of reason crying out in this wilderness of stupidity is Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali.

Since at least the 1970s there has been a fashion in the Church of England to minimise depth and mystery in its worship because of the alleged need to make its services ‘accessible’.

The new alternative service for baptism, which has been sent for trial, continues this trend. Instead of explaining what baptism means and what the various parts of the service signify, its solution is to do away with key elements of the service altogether!

From ancient times, the structure of the service has included the renunciation of sin, the world and the devil and the turning to Christ as Lord and Saviour.

If a child is being baptised, it is on the basis of the faith of the parents and the godparents, as well as the faith of the community.

There is, finally, a commission both to hear and to proclaim the Gospel.

In all of these aspects, the new service falls short of what has usually been required. At a time of high interest in supernatural evil, the traditional renunciation of the devil and all his works has been replaced with an anodyne rejection of evil in its ‘many forms’.

The very first baptisms of the Church took place after St Peter’s call at Pentecost to ‘repent and be baptised .  .  . for the forgiveness of sins’ (Acts 2:38).

The Church has always regarded repentance as necessary for beginning the Christian life and, for children, a cleansing, if not from actual sin, then certainly from the sinfulness of the whole race since the original sin.

Because of its anxiety to make everyone feel welcome and its desire not to offend anyone, the new service, almost entirely, does away with sin and the need to repent from its personal and social manifestations and consequences.

The whole thrust of the service of deliverance from sin, protection from the devil and regeneration by water and the Holy Spirit, based on the teaching of Jesus himself, has been set aside and replaced by a ‘welcome’ which seems to have no basis in the promises of God, the faith of the parents and godparents or of the Church as a whole.

Indeed, there seems to be ambivalence about the Church itself with such circumlocutions as ‘God’s family’ being used. We are not told anything about the Christ in whom we are to put our trust.

There is no acknowledgement of him as Lord and Saviour. In general, there is a reluctance to declare that the Bible sees the world as having gone wrong and needing to be put right.

This is done by the coming of Christ. Baptism is nothing less than taking part in this story of salvation, no part of which can be sold short.

Rather than the constant ‘dumbing down’ of Christian teaching, whether for baptism, marriage or death, we should be spending time preparing people for these great rites of passage.

When it comes to the service itself, the need is not to eliminate crucial areas of teaching but to explain them.

It is best to call a halt to this perhaps well-meant effort before it further reduces the fullness of the Church’s faith to easily swallowed soundbites.

Unfortunately, the Mother Church as too many Justin Welby's and not nearly enough Michael Nazir-Ali's.

Kyrie eleison.

This . . . is . . . just . . . plain . . . stupid

There . . . is . . . simply . . . no . . . other . . . word . . . to . . .  describe . . . it.

Never mind the cassocks – vicars could soon be conducting services in shell-suits, shorts or even football shirts under radical plans to overturn centuries of Church tradition.

Rules requiring the clergy to don traditional vestments are set to be swept aside as part of a ‘makeover’ designed to make services more relevant to modern congregations.

If the Church of England Synod approves the reforms, vicars could wear whatever they deem appropriate for all their services – including weddings, baptisms and funerals.

Although most are likely to favour smart jackets, some have indicated they would adopt a ‘dress-down Sunday’ approach.

The proposals, drawn up by a London vicar, the Rev Christopher Hobbs, have already garnered the support of about a quarter of the Synod, who will debate the issue in February.

But conservatives warn that changes would dilute the identity and authority of the Church.

The Rev Andrew Atherstone, a senior theologian, welcomed the move, saying that garments such as cassocks and surplices were a relic from a ‘bygone age’ and a form of ‘power dressing’ that was a barrier to getting the Church’s message across.

And the Rev Peter Owen-Jones, a TV clergyman and self-confessed ‘old, long-haired hippy’, said he would be prepared to wear his normal garb of jeans, shirt, waistcoat, beads and battered hat for baptisms and weddings if that’s what his parishioners in East Sussex wanted.

He added: ‘The time has come to end the blanket requirement for everyone to wear robes, but I would be very sad to see that tradition go entirely.

'We must be sensitive to the fact that the majority of people still enjoy the fact that priests dress up in this Roman clothing, which is what it is.’

He said clergy had ‘very poor dress sense’ and the idea of them turning up in ‘smart casual’ clothes sent a shiver down his spine.

Bishop Graham Cray, who is in charge of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s efforts to lure people back to the pews, said he would be prepared to don jeans and T-shirts at certain services ‘when it was appropriate’.

He added: ‘There are people for whom vestments are profoundly helpful and those for whom they are a real obstacle. If we are putting on a service for those who find such things an obstacle, robing is crazy.’

But traditionalists are enraged by the proposals, with one senior Synod member saying it could lead to clergy conducting services in tracksuits.

He said: ‘Some clergy already won’t wear a clerical collar. Soon they will be wearing shell-suits in the sacristy. We need to keep a sense of identity as Anglicans, and the robes are a way of providing that.’

Even leading liberal and Thought For The Day contributor the Rev Giles Fraser, whose normal attire is jeans and a T-shirt, said: ‘It’s outrageous. Is nothing sacred?

What will they do next? Maybe we will have Jaffa Cakes and Coca-Cola instead of bread and wine at Holy Communion.

‘What I really hate is the trendy vicar. They are like trendy teachers. No one really believes in them.

‘Vestments are a very ancient part of the Church’s tradition and they bring dignity to worship.

‘What we have here is an attempt to make worship all terribly chummy and I would choose dignity over chumminess every time.’

Image consultant Veronique Henderson, of Colour Me Beautiful, said the Church should keep a uniform but it ought to be modernised, suggesting scarves decorated with crosses..

‘They need to show their authority, but the full robes can be very intimidating,’ she said.

Ecclesiastical robes, which have their origins in the Roman Empire, have been enshrined in laws since 1604. The current rules date from the 1960s and say clergy conducting communion must wear a surplice – a white outer garment – or a longer version called an alb, with a scarf or stole around the neck.

Other garments such as copes (long cloaks) may also be worn. Formal robes are required for occasional services such as marriages and funerals.

The new motion says that clergy will be able to dispense with all vestments if they have the agreement of their parochial church councils and bishop.

There is already no Church law that requires clergy to wear a dog collar, but they tend to do so because they are urged to dress appropriately as a mark of their office.

Memo to the Archbishop of Canterbury and all others trying "to lure people back to the pews": You might try dusting off those old Bibles and Prayer Books which you obviously aren't making much use of these days. If all you have to offer the people is the same kind of worldly pleasures they can find in the tavern down the street, they're going to stay in the tavern.

Global South statement on the Pilling Report

GS Statement on the Pilling Report

Archbishop Duncan responds to the Pilling Report

There is a reason that the Most Reverend Robert Duncan is the Archbishop and Primate of the Anglican Church in North America. His ability to stare into a cesspool of moral relativism and find a way to speak words of grace and charity is matched only by a few others who hold, or soon will hold, similar positions of spiritual leadership. Those of us in the trenches are often given to hyperbole and snark when commenting on the present state of certain provinces or Anglicanism in general. As standard bearer for the truth as revealed in the Gospel, however, Archbishop Duncan is unswervingly measured in his critique of those who stray from it, yet firm in his resolve to defend the faith of the church and the historic teachings of Christian orthodoxy.

In his response to the Church of England's Pilling Report, Archbishop Duncan exhibits this humble yet courageous spirit yet again.

December 4th, 2013

The Pilling Report, a document presented to the Church of England by its “Working Group on Human Sexuality,” is reflective of the season in which Anglicanism in the West finds itself. There are certainly elements of the report that are to be commended:

In a day when the temptation is to partisanship and easy answers, there is a balance of views and perspectives within the report that is commendable.

The report rightly emphasizes that fear and hatred have no place in the Church’s response to any persons, and calls upon Christians to show Christ’s love to those living with same-sex attraction.

The report recognizes that appeals to genetics and behavioral sciences in sorting out the roots of homosexual desire are not as conclusive as many claim.

Finally the report notes the challenge of evangelizing—especially the next generation—as the disconnect between the Church’s teaching and the prevailing culture continues to grow.

Unfortunately, the Pilling Report also contains elements that are potentially destructive to the Church’s life and witness.

While an “open ended process of facilitated conversation” is advised, the ‘end’ of affirming same-sex unions is already recommended, and this bias affects the trajectory of both the report and the conversation.

Underpinning this call for ‘facilitated conversation’ is the controversial claim that the argument for the Church’s traditional teaching about marriage and sexual intimacy is “inconclusive.”

Inviting the church to discover a new consensus about sexual relationships beyond those of a lifelong union of one man and one woman in Holy Matrimony is not helpful.

Concerning these matters, I am in complete agreement with the Right Reverend Keith Sinclair, the Bishop of Birkenhead, and a member of the Working Group, in his dissent from the Report. The Church must not waiver from its received teaching. Scripture and the catholic consensus must be treated as givens, the attitude of the signatories not withstanding. Those who would re-construct the received moral order in the 21st century to respond to a culture bent on self-actualization, rather than dying to self, will do no better than those who—quite unsuccessfully but with much damage—in the 20th century sought to re-define the doctrines of the Trinity and the person of Christ.

Our prayers are with the House of Bishops of the Church of England as the Pilling Report is received, considered and acted upon. Our prayers are with the entire Church of England as she seeks to be a faithful Church in a secular and post-Christian age. Our prayers are with the Archbishop of Canterbury as he leads in this most challenging time, not least in relationship to the Anglican Communion, whose majority cannot support the trajectory the Pilling Report countenances as concerns accommodation of sexual relationships outside of Holy Matrimony. Our prayers are also with those experiencing same-sex attractions, and with their families and friends, and with all those who have been injured by any kind of bigotry by members of the Church or the society. ‘By this will all men know that you are my disciples, that you have love for one another.’ [John 13:35]

The Most Reverend Robert Duncan

Bishop Venables says all that needs to be said about the Pilling Report

Bishop Venables

New Anglican Ink has wall to wall coverage of the already infamous Pilling Report, the Church of England's new working document on human sexuality. Suffice it to say, the report recommends near total surrender to the spirit of the age, with the dissenting Bishop of Birkenhead being the lone voice in the wilderness crying out for sanity.

Of all the responses which have been issued, however, Bishop Gregory Venables of Argentina has issued a brief statement, in English and Spanish, which says all that needs to be said.

Regarding the Pilling Report:

Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 2 Timothy 3:12-13

You can't make this stuff up . . .

. . . and continuing to try only makes you look all the more foolish.

A panel of bishops is set to spark a fresh row over homosexuality by paving the way for the Church of England to relax its stance on gay clergy.

Sources said the group will recommend that clerics wanting to enter civil partnerships should no longer have to promise their bishops that they will abstain from sex.

Four bishops have been examining the Church’s teaching on sexuality as part of an official commission and will hand over their conclusions in a report to the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby next month.

They will argue that gay clergy should not be treated any differently than other clerics who do not face intrusive questioning about their sex lives - and that they should be able to follow Church teachings without having to make a solemn vow.

Yes, you read that right. This august "panel of bishops" is apparently going to recommend that clergy engaging in sodomy "should be able to follow Church teachings without having to make a solemn vow."

Cue the tape . . .

Rev. Paul Perkin addresses GAFCON about state of the church in England

Haven't we been here before? Church of England gives up on evangelism

 

Winston Churchill once famously said, "I did not become His Majesty's First Minister so that I might oversee the liquidation of the British Empire!" Justin Welby, conversely, appears to be resigned to be the Archbishop who oversees the liquidation of Christianity in the British Isles. Underneath yet another unflattering portrait of His Grace in his oversized "dolphin" mitre is written the following lede by Ruth Gledhill:

The Church of England has admitted that the country has become a nation that knows almost nothing about Christianity and that there is no point any more attempting to convert anyone.

To read the entire article, you have to subscribe to The Times, which is a bit difficult if you don't have access to British currency. Ms. Gledhill was kind enough to e-mail me a copy of the whole piece but I will not reprint it here since that would be violating a trust. Suffice it to say it doesn't get any better as the article unfolds. Apparently, the Mother Church, or at least its beleaguered leadership, is chafing under the withering attacks of atheism and secular humanism.

It is hardly earthshaking news that the Church of England in its current state is not the most vibrant expression of the Christian faith in the twenty first century, but such a state of spiritual dullness is hardly unique to its history. There was nothing particularly vibrant about eighteenth century Anglicanism, either. It was in danger, so it seemed, of being eclipsed by deism and rationalism until a peculiar band of field preachers led by John Wesley, his brother Charles, and George Whitefield arrived on the scene. All they did was start proclaiming again a simple truth which much of England knew almost nothing about at the time: the message of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. The result was a spiritual awakening which not only spared England a fate similar to the disastrous French Revolution, but also crossed the Atlantic and ignited the fires of faith on the shores of America.

The Mother Church today is not likely to produce another Wesley or Whitefield. Such a person is more likely to emerge from the global Anglican diaspora. The awakening will come, however, in God's time and on God's terms. Whether it begins in a small parsonage in Epworth or a remote village in Kenya, you can rest assured it will find its way back to Canterbury, and the half-hearted elites who were so willing to accommodate a godless culture will be shamed either into repentance or obscurity.

Canterbury snubs GAFCON II: Intentional or unavoidable?

To the surprise of just about no one, Justin Welby will not be attending GAFCON II later this month.

The Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby will not be attending the GAFCON II Conference in Nairobi this month, a spokesman tells Anglican Ink, due to a schedule conflict.

A spokesman from the Lambeth Press Office said the Archbishop had been invited to address the 21-26 October 2013 meeting of centrist and conservative Anglican leaders set for All Saints' Cathedral in Nairobi. However, he "is unable to attend because of a long-standing commitment on the same date. He will be sending a pre-recorded video greeting," the spokesman said.

At first glance, however, his "long-standing commitment on the same date" does appear to be significant enough to warrant Welby sending his regrets.

Their Royal Highnesses The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are pleased to announce the christening of Prince George will take place on Wednesday, 23rd October at The Chapel Royal, St James’s Palace.

Prince George will be christened by The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Reverend Justin Welby.

The Archbishop of Canterbury does, after all, have the spiritual care of the royal family in his job description. However, some might raise the question of whether the "schedule conflict" was intentional. October 23 is a significant lesser feast (St. James of Jerusalem) and, thus, an appropriate day for a royal baptism (in St. James's Palace, nonetheless), but GAFCON II does not conclude until October 26, leaving the Archbishop three days in which he could have at least put in an appearance in person. In other words, if Justin Welby really wanted to attend, it would not have required a monumental shift of his schedule to make it so.

Is the snub, then, intentional or unavoidable? Perhaps you could say it is intentionally unavoidable, or unavoidably intentional.

Th-th-th-th-that's all folks! The unmitigated disaster that is Justin Welby

When Justin Welby was named Archbishop of Canterbury, there were some, myself included, who genuinely hoped, or perhaps wildly dreamed, he would be a breath of fresh air. After all, he came from the "evangelical" wing of the Church of England--the one that actually takes the Bible seriously, or so we were told.

Well, so much for hopes and dreams. As Sir Cedric Willingham said to King Ralph, today's breath of fresh air can easily become tomorrow's ill wind. Unfortunately, tomorrow is here and that wind is quite ill, indeed.

The Most Rev Justin Welby told an audience of traditional born-again Christians that they must “repent” over the way gay and lesbian people have been treated in the past and said most young people viewed Christians as no better than racists on the issue.

Archbishop Welby, who as a young priest once opposed allowing gay couples to adopt children, said the church now had to face up to what amounted to one of the most rapid changes in public attitudes ever.

While insisting that he did not regret voting against same-sex marriage in the House of Lords, he admitted that his own mind was not yet “clear” on the wider issues which he was continuing to think about.

And he admitted that, despite its strong official opposition to allowing same-sex couples to marry, the Church is still “deeply and profoundly divided” over gay marriage.

The Archbishop, who comes from the evangelical wing of the Church, which takes a more traditional interpretation of the Bible, publicly opposed the Government’s Same-sex Marriage Act while it was being debated earlier this year.

But he told the General Synod in July that the strength of feeling he encountered in support prompted him to reassess his own beliefs and urged them to face up to a “revolution” in attitudes on sexuality.

Yet his comments, at a meeting to dedicate a new headquarters for the Evangelical Alliance, an umbrella group representing hundreds of thousands of Christians, are by far his most outspoken intervention on the subject so far.

Noting the fact that it is the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech, he urged Christians to speak out about what they are in favour of rather than simply what they are against.

He praised the Alliance’s work tackling social problems by promoting food banks, working in social care or recruiting adopters and said that it was time for the Church to make “an alliance with the poor”.

But he went on: “One of things that I think is most noticeable where we make a bad impression in society at the moment is because we are seen as against things, and you talk to people and they say I don’t want to hear about a faith that is homophobic, that is this that that, that is the other.”

Asked later whether this meant that he regretted voting against gay marriage, he said he stood by his vote because he did not believe “rewriting the nature of marriage” was the best way to end discrimination against gay people.

He said: “The Bill was clearly, quite rightly, trying to deal with issues of homophobia in our society and ... the Church has not been good at dealing with homophobia.

“It is one of the areas where in fact we have, at times, as God’s people, in various places, really implicitly or even explicitly supported it.

“And we have to be really, really repentant about that because it is utterly and totally wrong.”

He added: “That discussion [about gay marriage] is continuing and the Church is deeply and profoundly divided over the way forward on it.

“I am absolutely committed not to excluding people who have a different view from me, I am also absolutely committed to listening very carefully to them.

“We are not going to get anywhere by throwing brickbats at each other.”

He went on to describe the shift in public attitudes to homosexuality as one of the biggest social changes of recent history.

“I’m continuing to think and listen very carefully as to how in our society today we respond to what is the most rapid cultural change in this area that there has been, well, I don’t know if ever, but for a very long time,” he said.

“And we have seen changes in the idea about sexuality, sexual behaviour, which quite simply [mean that] we have to face the fact that the vast majority of people under 35 think not only that what we think is incomprehensible but also think that we are plain wrong and wicked and equate it to racism and other forms of gross and atrocious injustice.

He added that polling suggests that the majority of Christian young people, including born again evangelical young people, also disagree with the Church’s traditional line on homosexuality.

“We have to be real about that, I haven’t got the answer and I‘m not going to jump one way or the other until my mind is clear about this," he said.

“I’m not going to get into the trenches on it.”

The archbishop seems perfectly content to "go limping between two different opinions" (1 Kings 18:21) and be "tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes" (Ephesians 4:14). In other words, he is apparently quite happy being a spiritual child! Unfortunately for him, and the church, he is the titular head of a worldwide Communion of 80 million members. As a spiritual shepherd to so vast a flock, he is nothing short of an unmitigated disaster.

How such a man could become an archbishop, even in the famously waffling Church of England, will likely be one of the great mysteries church historians of future generations will spend long hours discussing. At least Rowan Williams, Welby's much maligned predecessor, had a marginal talent for making mushiness sound like conviction. Welby stutters and stammers and speaketh nothing. Try reading again this utterly incoherent mishmash of words and phrases:

“One of things that I think is most noticeable where we make a bad impression in society at the moment is because we are seen as against things, and you talk to people and they say I don’t want to hear about a faith that is homophobic, that is this that that, that is the other.”

Now, ask yourself where you've heard anything like it before.

Here's one hint:

Canterbury's ignorance of history: "See how they compromise with one another!"

Matt Kennedy takes Justin Welby to task for his latest rambling address about the crisis in the Anglican Communion. Whereas the "new" Archbishop of Canterbury worries that the global body over which he ostensibly presides is "coming perilously close to plunging into a 'ravine of intolerance,'" ++Welby himself appears to have already crossed the perilous threshold from major disappointment to unmitigated disaster. Moderating the truth of the Gospel in the interest of making peace with false teachers is bad enough. His apparent motive, however, is even worse.

Note also his appeal to “what people outside the church will think” as a reason for our finding ways to compromise. Jesus never worried about such things and never suggested his disciples do so. Such considerations are for propagandists and advertizing agencies, not the Church founded by Jesus Christ, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

One must lament the Archbishop's woeful ignorance of history. No one in ancient Rome ever spoke derisively of the Christians by saying, "See how they compromise with one another!"