UK: Church of England church closures accelerate

From the Telegraph (U.K.):

More than 260 churches belonging to the Church of England have ceased to be used for regular worship in the past decade, according to new figures.

The figures, released by the Government in response to a Parliamentary question, show that 29 Anglican churches closed last year, the highest figure since 2004.

Earlier this year, this newspaper disclosed that churches of all denominations were closing at a rate of two a week.

The number of churches is forecast to fall from 48,500 now to 39,200 by 2030. Church leaders have warned that the crisis threatens to devastate parishes and deprive communities of important focal points.

Responding to these concerns, The Sunday Telegraph's Save Britain's Churches campaign is calling for measures to keep churches at the heart of community life, including funding for repairs and grants to help them adapt to community use. . .

Andrew Edwards, the chief executive of the National Churches Trust, said that churches should open themselves up to community use, but they should retain an element of public worship and "remain doing what they were built to do".

Read it all.
H/t to Virtue Online.

Britain's pathway to euthanasia - NHS protocols for dehydrating disabled patients to death

From LifeSiteNews.com [boldface mine]:

A British "end of life" care protocol approved for use by the National Health Service (NHS), has created a systematic, and legal, method of euthanising elderly and disabled patients, even while "mercy killing" remains officially illegal, says a prominent expert in elder care. The "Liverpool Care Pathway" will be used to eliminate patients deemed to be "blocking beds" in the increasingly financially strapped public health system.

For years, Dr. Adrian Treloar, a psycho-geriatrician and senior lecturer at the Greenwich Hospital and Guys', King's and St. Thomas's Hospitals in London, has been sounding the warning that the NHS has an unofficial system in place to authorise the killing of vulnerable disabled patients with an unwritten policy of "involuntary euthanasia" by deep sedation and dehydration.

On April 26, 2008, Dr. Treloar wrote a letter to the British Medical Journal, saying that the protocol known as the "Liverpool Care Pathway" for dying patients, is a blueprint for systematic euthanasia of disabled patients. The Liverpool Care Pathway, which allows for "continuous deep sedation" for patients judged to be incurable, was developed between the Royal Liverpool hospital and Marie Curie cancer hospices in order to standardise the medical approach to dying that could then be used as a template nationally. Combined with withdrawal of fluids, deep sedation leads quickly to death.

In 1999, the NHS dismissed Dr. Treloar's warnings as "ludicrous." But media coverage of families resorting to lawyers to stop the killing of their relatives has made it increasingly difficult for health officials to deny that there is an accepted euthanasia procedure in place. Dr. Treloar maintains that the motivation for killing patients judged to be incurable is not the relief of extreme suffering but the enormous pressure on the socialised health care system to make hospital beds available and the "triaging" of costly tax-sponsored medical care.

Since that time, the government passed legislation in 2005 - the Mental Capacity Act - that, following existing guidelines from the British Medical Association, allows doctors to withhold all "treatment," including food and water, from patients who are judged to be incapable of making decisions for themselves. Under this law, doctors, and not the family and not the patient, have the last say in whether a patient is judged mentally capable. Once this judgement has been made, withdrawal of fluids can be ordered on the grounds that it is in the patient's "best interests" to die. If families try to intervene to save their loved ones lives, social services and police can be, and have been, called to intervene. . .

Read it all. And thank God for people like Dr. Adrian Treloar.
H/t to Stand Firm.

England: Forward in Faith UK council passes resolution for new province

From Virtue Online:

Jul 21, 2008

The following Resolution was recently passed by the FiF Council in Canterbury.

The Council of Forward in Faith, meeting at Canterbury on 21st July, was appalled at the outcome of the recent General Synod debate of 7th July. The Council remains determined to respond to the needs of its members by securing a structural solution comprising discrete dioceses for those in conscience opposed to the ordination of women as bishops.

Stephen Parkinson
Director

Check it out.

The Church of England. . .what now?

The Church of England Synod is meeting this week and Ruth Gledhill is live-blogging it. I haven't really kept up with what's happening there, other than knowing that they refused to vote on a resolution stating that "salvation is through Christ alone" and are voting on women bishops and whether the "Catholic" branch will have adequate (or any) safeguards or be forced to accept what to them would be unacceptable. It looks like the assurances that the Church of England gave in 1994 are being pushed out (sound familiar?) and I thought this quote from the Telegraph article was most appropriate for us in the U.S.:

"There is a majority in the Synod who welcome the idea of women bishops, but we should consider the unintended consequences of this decision," said Mr [Gerry] O'Brien [a lay member of the Rochester diocese].

He said that people had assumed that the dissension would have disappeared within 15 years of women being ordained, but instead it has grown.

So what he's saying is that 15 years ago, when women's ordination was first agreed to in the CofE and promises were made to "traditionalists" that they would never be forced to recognize women priests or bishops, those promises were given just as a placebo with no intention at all of being kept, because after all, the assumption was "that the dissension would have disappeared" eventually.

Surprise! Those darn Anglo-Catholics didn't do what they were supposed to and morph into something else, or discover the error of their ways. They actually stuck to their understanding of Scripture and church tradition, and wanted to remain part of the "one holy catholic and apostolic Church." Well, they are going to have some hard decisions to make over the next little while. Prayers for all.

Ruth is reporting that a motion has passed, but I don't know the exact wording - there were so many amendments from the floor, I don't see how anyone could keep track. I hope she will post the complete text of what actually passed. It looks like women bishops are a go, with a "code of practice option" which, to me, means just enough to get the Anglo-Catholics to sign on and then it will gradually disappear (after all, that's what the CofE did with women's ordination). Still, maybe it will be enough for some priests to remain.

Some comments on her blog from Anglo-Catholic priests:

Agree about the great work Mark but what the votes this afternoon mean is that we (Trads as Ruth so succinctly put it) have been sold out.

This will mean the end of my and many others ministry perhaps not today or tommorrow but almost certainly an end as we decide to move on before we are pushed and driven from a church that has clearly indicated it has no place for us or our outmoded fidelity to Revelation and the Scriptures over temporary and changeable secular views.

I hope you manage to get a break Ruth and rest your weary fingers.

I will keep praying because the one thing I am sure of, perhaps the only one, is that the resurrection is at its most powerful in the midst of disaster and death and what we are witnessing here is the death of the Church of England.

What I wonder will God raise up from the dry bones that are left?

Fr Bill

Ruth,

You have done a magnificent job today, albeit rather a depressing one for those of us who are Catholic.

Two sad things to note....

1. The lack of theology... all the talk is on discrimination and fair play, never mind Gospel Principles and the tradition revealed to us, I always believed the Church was a spiritual as opposed to a secular place.

2. Following my evening Mass tonight, one of my parishoners, who has only been confirmed this past fortnight, asking 'Father, what are we going to do now?'

My honest answer was 'i dont know....'

Still the Catholic faith is truly universal, so who knows where the Lord may lead us home to.

Fr James

Look at the tone of the debate and you will see two things the first is no Catholic speaker, as far as I could see is denying the Good work done by women priests or that they should in their own turn be eligible to be Bishops. All we want is something solid to enable us to continue to be faithful anglicans.

From the other side of the debate however there seems to be no concern nor even the basic attempt to understand just how important this issue is to those 1300 priests who signed the letter and, I suspect to many more who didn't as well as many thousands of the laity.

A stronger code of practice is still just that and not enough.

Monday with G.K. Chesterton

Of all the weak-minded manifestations of the modern cowardice, perhaps the most contemptible is this assumption of a collective sensitiveness, this banding of a class together against its critics. If you think the London drama dull, it is an insult to actors. If you think the London streets ugly, it is an insult to architects. If you suggest that the London streets are dirty, it is an insult to the sacred Guild of Crossing-Sweepers. The whole of our moral indignation is to be reserved, apparently, to those who point out an evil; we are never to insult anybody except when we insult the insulter of wrong. We want to get rid of the whole idea of "insult" in this sense. A state of freedom ought to mean a state in which no man can silence another. As it is, it means a state in which every man must silence himself. It ought to mean that Mr. Shaw can say a thing twenty times, and still not make me believe it. As it is, it means that Mr. Shaw must leave off saying it, because my exquisite nerves will not endure to hear somebody saying something with which I do not agree. Freedom means that we cannot oppress each other. But unless we insult each other we shall never do anything.

G.K. Chesterton
The Illustrated London News March 17, 1906

H/t to Binky at Free Mark Steyn!

AAC weekly message from Bishop David Anderson

Via email, from the American Anglican Council [boldface mine]:

Beloved in Christ,

Orthodox Anglicans are under attack from several quarters, with the rise of Islamic militancy in England and the press of homosexual advancement, which affect many areas of everyday life, from the courts to the market place to the schools.

In the first area, we note the disturbing trend in England of Anglican clergy being threatened in their own parishes by militant young Muslims who want to chase them out. We also note that the Church of England freezes like a deer in the headlights of an oncoming automobile whenever Muslim issues are raised. If CofE bishops believe that Jesus is the Way, and the Truth and the Life, and none come unto the Father except through him...and that statement is fairly direct - from Jesus himself, then why will they not allow discussion of evangelization to Muslims at the upcoming Synod? Are they frightened? You would have to think so, but why are the bishops frightened?

Not all are. The bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, has been bold, truthful and prophetic, and many ecclesiastics in England don't want to listen to him. He said there were "No-Go areas" where Christians ventured at their peril. On the other hand, the Archbishop of Canterbury has said that Sharia Law is probably inevitable in some areas. What a contrast!

Now we read of two Christian preachers handing out Christian tracts to Muslims in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham, who were harrassed by the police for allegedly being involved in "hate" activities. My friends, if Western Civilization doesn't get its act together, we will certainly deserve the hell that is visited upon us. Wouldn't you think that someone should have arrested the police officer involved? The West Midlands Police apparently refused to apologize, although an investigation of the officer's actions was promised.

At the other end of the faith spectrum is the press of global homosexual activism. In the US, California's Supreme Court has ruled that the state must provide for homosexuals to marry legally. Meanwhile, a voter-led referendum has been qualified for this autumn's ballot which would put a change into the California Constitution that would limit marriage to between a man and a woman. In California, it often happens that laws and major changes have to be implemented by popular referendum of the people, since most of the public representatives and officials are in the grip of the homosexual lobby. Power to the people!

In England the government enforcement of pro-homosexual rules on adoption threaten to close the Roman Catholic adoption agencies. An article covering this issue points to some new options, however, if the agencies stipulate that their operations will be based on the religious and moral principles of the Catholic Faith. We pray that the RC's strategists will prevail and their agencies' good work will continue.

In the Episcopal Wars in the USA, the national Episcopal Church (TEC), has launched both a legal and public relations attack on the departed diocese of San Joaquin and the diocesan, Bishop John-David Schofield. Upon discovering that the Diocese of San Joaquin and Bishop Schofield, now affiliated with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, were in the process of moving assets into a Merrill Lynch account, they promptly named Merrill Lynch in the lawsuit already underway. Merrill Lynch, as most brokerages and banks in that position would do, froze the accounts until the court determines who the "rightful" owner is. San Joaquin's mistake was several fold: waiting so long to reposition the assets; putting them in a brokerage or bank that did not already understand the risk of litigation; and putting them in an account where TEC could so easily apply pressure.

Many churches departing TEC have learned the hard way that the first thing that hostile TEC operatives do is to visit the bank of record and present new signature cards. The bank panics and freezes the account until the court tells them which signature cards are the valid ones. Meanwhile the true owners of the bank accounts are unable to access their own money. There are ways to avoid this, of course, if care is taken to prevent this type of seizure, but it involves anticipating what TEC is going to do before they do it.

All of this is accompanied by slanted news releases from the official Episcopal Church party organ, Episcopal News Service (ENS). They are fond of referring to Bishop Schofield as "former bishop John-David Schofield," to convey the idea that their irregular attempt at deposition of Schofield successfully changed his status to that of a layman in the church. TEC seems unwilling to acknowledge that Bishop Schofield was accepted as a bishop into the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, and thereby his status as a bishop was moved from TEC to the Southern Cone. Even if their deposition is finally held to have been effective, they lost jurisdiction over him before the "trial," and could at best only extinguish his right to function as a bishop in TEC. The Province of the Southern Cone holds the jurisdiction over his functioning as a bishop, yet the ENS continues to refer to him as "former bishop Schofield," and then as "Mr. Schofield." Although titles in themselves aren't that important, TEC actually puts great stock in them, and their refusal to use the title of bishop for Schofield, and instead insist on using "Mr." tells us that TEC must think that this is really important. Unfortunately, that makes them not only wrong, but petty.

Midway between those who have left The Episcopal Church and hard-core TEC'ers, a new Anglican group has formed. Communion Partners is made up of those not wishing to or unable to leave TEC, but believing that good things could still come of working with the Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, primus inter pares. The new group says of itself, "The Communion Partner bishops will work together according to the principles outlined in the Windsor Report and seek a comprehensive Anglican Covenant at the Lambeth Conference and beyond." Three or four years ago this would have sounded better to us, but our observation is that neither Presiding Bishop Schori nor Archbishop Williams can be relied upon for any agreement, any implementation, or any safety for those of orthodox faith. We wish the Communion Partners well, and pray that God will protect them from harm and from the duplicity and deceit that many of us have encountered coming from TEC and Lambeth Palace. The Windsor Report was actually a flawed document from the beginning, but we think we could have lived with it if it were fully and strongly enforced across the board... failing that, we would look elsewhere for a better Anglican future.

Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus,

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council

American Anglican Council weekly update

Via email, a message from AAC president, Bishop David Anderson [boldface mine]:

Beloved in Christ,

Although the besetting sins of the American Episcopal Church have been teaching paths to God other than through Jesus Christ and playing down the authority of Holy Scripture, the aspect that most people see is the relentless pushing of the homosexual agenda. We read in the Los Angeles Diocese's "Episcopal News" Update from May 25, 2008, that Episcopalians are encouraged to join in the Los Angeles Gay Pride parade on June 8. We quote: "The Bishop's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Ministry invites the diocesan community to join them and Bishop J. Jon Bruno to march and pray in this year's Los Angeles LGBT Pride parade on Sunday, June 8." It goes on to say that "Episcopalians will gather for a celebration of the Eucharist at 9 am in the Bank of America parking lot at the northeast corner of Santa Monica Blvd and Crescent Heights in West Hollywood before moving elsewhere to line up for the parade."

Doesn't that just warm your heart, knowing that not only are misguided clergy and laity supporting Gay Pride, but Episcopal/Anglican bishops are, too - even riding on a float. This is not a new occurrence in the LA Diocese, because each year the bishops take turns participating. The real question is, "When will Katharine Jefferts Schori be photographed riding on a float for Gay Pride?" And it isn't just in Los Angeles; the Episcopal Church bishops and priests are often represented in Gay Pride parades around the country.

It appears, if an article by Hilary White for LifeSite News is true, that now the British Government will officially, though covertly, push the homosexual agenda using all of their embassies and chancery offices around the world, even if that subverts the law of the nation they are in. This is truly breathtaking news, and raises a profound question if true: is there in fact an organized international effort to corrupt the moral climate of the entire world? If the story is true, this public exposure of the British diplomatic agenda will have far-reaching consequences. Within England, the governments' pro-homosexual legislation has caused the Roman Catholic Church to begin pulling out of the adoption ministry, because all agencies will have to handle adoptions for homosexual couples as well as for married heterosexual ones. Lost will be a vital ministry which helps both small children and couples desiring a child, along with the millions of pounds sterling poured into these agencies by Roman Catholics for buildings and services.

Word has reached us of Islamic attacks in northern Nigeria, and churches being burned. Apparently the Islamic tactic of kidnapping young girls, forcing them to convert to Islam, and then marrying them off to Muslim men, has finally resulted in police action. Although the girls in this case were rescued by the police and taken out of the area for safety, this is something that many in our Christian Anglican family have to deal with when they are a minority in Islamic Sharia Law areas. Is England ready for this? The Archbishop of Canterbury has already said that Sharia Law is "probably inevitable" in England. Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali has a better idea - why not introduce Muslims to the real Christian faith and give them the opportunity to be freed from misunderstandings and become an inheritor of eternal life through Jesus Christ? In the meanwhile, let us pray for those Christians in northern Nigeria whose lives and property are today at risk.

Moving from the global back to the local, the number of dioceses that are protesting the form and manner of the depositions of Bishops Cox and Schofield, done at the last House of Bishops' meeting, continues to grow. South Carolina and Central Florida have been joined by Springfield, Northern Indiana, Western Louisiana, and more may follow.

Blessings and peace in Christ Jesus,

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President and CEO, American Anglican Council

Post-GAFCON meeting in London

Interesting, very interesting.

From the Chelmsford Anglican Mainstream [boldface mine]:

Global Anglicanism & English Orthodoxy?
1st July 2008 10.30am–4.30pm
All Soul’s Church, Langham Place, London

A briefing for Incumbents and local Church Leaders

You are invited to a gathering of incumbents and local church leaders (eg., staff, church wardens, lay readers) to hear first hand from some of those involved and to stand with some of our gospel partners who have struggled to uphold orthodox Anglicanism.

Speakers

• Henry Orombi (Archbishop of Uganda): Orthodoxy and Effective Mission


• Greg Venables (Archbishop of the Southern Cone): Orthodoxy and Wider Connections


• Jim Packer (St John’s Shaughnessy, Canada): Orthodoxy and Personal Experience


• Peter Jensen (Archbishop of Sydney): Orthodoxy and True Anglicans

Tickets

£10 to include refreshments but please bring your own lunch

For a ticket please send a cheque for £10 payable to “All Souls Church” to Miranda Lewis, All Souls Church Langham Place, 2 All Souls Place, London W1B 3DA together with your name and address, name of church and email address. . .

Check it out.

Abortion: the largest cause of death in Europe

From Cranmer, a European perspective on the abortion debate in light of Europe's declining population [boldface mine]:

“We condemn torture, rape - anything that uses another's body for our own purpose. Shouldn't we show embryos similar respect?”

So asks the Archbishop of Canterbury.

As the Government's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is debated in detail in the House of Commons, they shall consider ‘saviour siblings’, and animal/human hybrid embryos. And some shall ask why ‘religious bigots’ should seek to impose their irrational views on the enlightened part of society, while those of a religious hue (joined undoubtedly by many concerned non-believers) shall ask why science presumes to instruct legislators and dispense with the conscience.

Dr Williams asserts: ‘Conscientious objections about the Bill are not a matter of blind superstition. They arise from serious concerns about where the direction of some sorts of research might lead society.

"Slippery slope" arguments don't settle the question, but they can't be ignored. And I, for one, am grateful that both scientists and politicians are willing to recognise there is a serious debate to be had on these matters of conscience, and more is at stake than just a set of irrational prejudices.”

The Archbishop also notes ‘the pressure from some quarters to take this opportunity to reduce the time limits for abortion’.

And this is to be a very interesting battle, and one which is worthy of cross-party support. But in the blue corner is Nadine Dorries MP with her demand for a reduction to 20 weeks, and in the red corner is a Labour counter-amendment, demanding a reduction to 22 weeks. Never has a division on a point of morality assured such mutual destruction, and it is madness. One might think, if Labour members were really concerned with this, that they would have supported the Dorries amendment, but no. They have made the issue party political, seeking to bring in their own (much less effective) amendment, and a house divided against itself cannot stand.

And this comes amidst a report that establishes that there is a marital breakdown and an abortion in Europe almost every 30 seconds:

‘Marriage and birth rates are falling dramatically, pensioners now outnumber teenagers, and more and more people are living alone, says the Institute for family policy in a survey of life in the 27 EU countries.’

And perversely ‘one in every five pregnancies ends in abortion’, which amounts to 1.2 million a year - equivalent to the population of Slovenia. This makes abortion the largest single cause of death in Europe. . .

Read it all.

"But as for me, I trust in You"

Rule Britannia no more: St. George's parade scrapped

From the Daily Star (U.K.):

A MARCH to celebrate St George’s Day has been axed – because the authorities fear it could spark race riots.

About 1,500 children were due to take part in a parade to commemorate the patron saint of England on Wednesday.

But council bosses in Bradford, West Yorks, have ditched the event over concerns it could upset the Asian community, many of them Muslim.

They feared a repeat of riots that hit the city in 2001, when an Asian man was stabbed by National Front supporters and 300 police were injured. Officials suggested making the route shorter to avoid areas where the riots took place. . .

Read it all.
H/t to Gateway Pundit.

AAC weekly message from Bishop David Anderson

Via email [boldface mine]:

Beloved in Christ,

This week I want to start with the good news. Judge Bellows, who is trying the Virginia litigation between the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia (EDV) and the Anglican District of Virginia (ADV), has issued a ruling, finding in favor of the departing parishes with regard to the Virginia 1867 Division Statute. As one of our readers commented, "...the Court found that a division within the meaning of the Virginia Division Statute occurred in a church or religious society to which the CANA Congregations were attached. It is now a court finding that there is a division within the worldwide Anglican Communion, The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia." This is a most important and favorable ruling for the orthodox Anglicans in Virginia, and if it holds up through the Appeals Court process, important for the orthodox in many other states as well.

When other judges read the opinion, even though the overall statute at stake may not be directly relevant to another state, the body of evidence and findings within the case and the 88 page ruling are informative and useful. You can find the full ruling on our AAC website. The next stage of the same trial will deal with a second challenge that the Episcopal Church (TEC) has raised, and that is the constitutionality of the Virginia statute - whether it unconstitutionally interferes with the right of churches to order their own internal affairs. This right of churches is not absolute, however, for obvious reasons. An organization calling itself a church could decide to do things internally that violate public safety or contravene reasonable state law. You cannot, for example, reconstitute the Old Order Aztec Church, complete with daily human sacrifice, even if the victims are willing.

If churches and religious denominations wish to own property which is tax exempt because it is used for religious purposes, and have their offering income be tax exempt, and their donors receive tax exemption for those donations, then churches have already intertwined themselves to a degree with the government. This is seen as permissible because no one church is favored, and the benefits are available to all of the organizations which are formed as churches. In the same vein, it would seem that the Virginia statute, which is applicable to all churches and denominations that might find themselves in this situation, does not encroach on the U.S. Constitution's non-establishment clause, because it does not favor any one church. We will follow the development of the arguments in this case with great interest.

One of the sad things is that the litigation - initiated by the EDV under pressure from Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori - is not only using up valuable EDV mission dollars but is also forcing the ADV to spend corresponding amounts. Although the ADV has been raising its money as the case proceeds, the EDV has been borrowing the money for its legal offensive, and has now gone through approximately two million dollars. If there were promises of financial aid made to Virginia to push them into the litigation battle, apparently they have not materialized. Other TEC dioceses take note: it's not what she says, it's whether she gives you the money to litigate up front and lets you bank it in advance - otherwise you might wind up like Virginia and Los Angeles, paying for it all yourself. For those dioceses which haven't yet commenced litigation against departing parishes, you may wish to seriously consider mediation, and make some money instead of spending huge amounts you don't have.

While we are speaking of legal issues, Katharine Jefferts Schori and her chancellor, David Booth Beers, have been put on notice by an attorney representing Bishop William J. Cox, with a letter demanding that she publish a correction of her announcement concerning his deposition. Since she failed to achieve the canonically required majority of "the whole number of bishops entitled to vote," the vote was invalid. In legal terms, it was null and void. The letter goes on to require several things: first that Schori cease defamation of character of Bishop Cox by saying and distributing assertions that are not true and are injurious to him; and then right the wrong by withdrawing the pronouncement of deposition and publishing it in the same manner that she did the deposition. If she doesn't (or perhaps, when she doesn't), the implications are clear. The letter was a legal demand letter which precedes further action. This is one to watch also.

On the West Coast of the USA, the battle of San Joaquin is still in the formation stage. There appear to be three Standing Committees: the one that belongs with the Diocese of San Joaquin/Southern Cone; the Standing Committee that claims it never resigned and never left TEC; and the Standing Committee that Schori cobbled together as part of her "rump" Diocesan Convention of San Joaquin/TEC reconstituted. To our knowledge, Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori is the first Presiding Bishop to run roughshod over Canons, both diocesan and national, yet at the same time invoking them as gospel whenever she finds one that is useful to her. Since eventually the orthodox will leave TEC, become revisionists themselves, or die of old age, those who will eventually be left to enjoy this legacy of tyranny are the revisionist bishops, clergy and laity themselves. Pity them, for they shall finally inherit the poisoned fruit of their labor, and it will be bitter unto them.

Not only have Schori and her TEC assistants set up a Potemkin Village San Joaquin Diocese, claiming it to be the real thing, but they have now taken over the website of the real Diocese of San Joaquin/Southern Cone. Since the website was hosted by an Anglican organization, the Society of Archbishop Justus, which is friendly to TEC, they reassigned the address to Schori's group. Can they really do this? They did. If your website is hosted by any group friendly to either TEC or the Anglican Communion Office (ACO), you might wish to investigate moving to an orthodox-friendly site, or to a neutral independent provider. It is a nasty thing to wake up and discover that your internet identity has been stolen.

Adding insult to injury, the London Anglican Communion Office (ACO), which operates hand in glove with the TEC top leadership, is quite naturally listing the Diocese of San Joaquin as VACANT, to underscore Schori's contention of a deposition. It is understandable when one considers how much money flows from TEC to the ACO to keep their doors open and the lights on. Previously when we checked, one of the major ACO staffers, Fr. James Rosenthal, is actually being funded by TEC using Missionary dollars. If Jim is a missionary, we might inquire what is his message, and who is his target for conversions? Is this what TEC Mission Dollars were intended for? It appears in many ways that the Anglican Communion Office is 'TEC East'.

In the international scene the issue of free speech and freedom of religion are becoming issues in the Western world. Who would ever have thought that an English bishop would be convicted by a court for REFUSING to employ a practicing homosexual in his diocese's youth services? The Bishop of Hereford was fined 47,000 GBP (a bit over 90,000 USD) and made to attend a re-education course. We might wonder how long we can read the Bible out loud in church, especially certain passages that deal with sinful conduct. How long can we preach the 2000-year-old message from the pulpit before we are handcuffed and dragged away?

Maybe not as long as you think. Bob Unruh, writing in WorldnetDaily, reports that the Canadian government has ordered a Christian ministry which teaches doctrine and the differences between Christians and cults shut down because its reference materials were "critical" of the beliefs of those who are not Christian. The organization, MacGregor Ministries, has had to move to the USA and be re-created under the name MM Outreach Media Ministries.

With the European and British governments passing onerous legislation supposedly banning "hate speech" (but in reality banning Christian free speech about sin and its consequences), it becomes illegal not only to say certain things, but to write them, publish them, post them on the internet, etc. Is it now possible that something written in one country halfway around the world, where it is protected and legal, may be read in another far distant country and cause someone to be offended, and thus become an infraction of the law? Is the law broken where something is done or where it is received, or both? Are you ready to go to jail over free speech and free expression of the Christian religion?

And across the pond in England we are aware that the General Synod will be meeting just before the mini-Lambeths, and Lambeth itself. We have heard rumors that the Presiding Bishop of TEC and a few other liberal USA bishops might "independently" be planning trips to "accidentally" be in the neighborhood of the General Synod. Not on purpose of course, but then things being what they are, if any of them might bump into an English bishop that they know... well it would, under those circumstances, only be neighborly to ask her or them to say a word or two, to bring greetings from TEC-land to the Synod. Are these rumors true? In the past we have found that their reliability is better than half, but we shall have to wait and see. Any volunteers for Katharine spotters?

Now finally, the American Anglican Council has been assisting the Global Anglican Future Conference and Pilgrimage (GAFCON) with registration and other administrative tasks that need some attention, and we are pleased to see the number of paid registrations adding up, hotel reservations filling up, and planning shaping up. Nigeria has checked in already with its full allotment paid for by monies raised within Nigeria. Scholarships are being sought for bishops in other provinces who can only raise part of their costs to attend, and if you are able we encourage you to assist this gathering of orthodox bishops, clergy and laity who will help shape the future of Anglicanism in the century ahead. You can do this on the AAC website or at this link.

Blessings and Peace in Christ Jesus,

The Rt. Rev. David C. Anderson, Sr.
President & CEO of the AAC

We have created human-animal embryos already, say British team

From the Times Online:

Embryos containing human and animal material have been created in Britain for the first time, a month before the House of Commons votes on new laws to regulate the research.

A team at Newcastle University announced yesterday that it had successfully generated “admixed embryos” by adding human DNA to empty cow eggs in the first experiment of its kind in Britain.

The Commons is to debate the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill next month. MPs have been promised a free vote on clauses in the legislation that would permit admixed embryos. But their creation is already allowed, subject to the granting of a licence from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA).

The Newcastle group, led by Lyle Armstrong, was awarded one of the first two licences in January. The other went to a team at King’s College London, led by Professor Stephen Minger. The new Bill will formalise their legal status if it is passed by Parliament.

Admixed embryos are widely supported by scientists and patient groups as they provide an opportunity to produce powerful stem-cell models for investigating diseases such as Parkinson’s and diabetes, and for developing new drugs.

Their creation, however, has been opposed by some religious groups, particularly the Roman Catholic Church. Cardinal Keith O’Brien, the head of the Catholic Church in Scotland, described the work last month as “experiments of Frankenstein proportion”.

The admixed embryos created by the Newcastle group are of a kind known as cytoplasmic hybrids, or cybrids, which are made by placing the nucleus from a human cell into an animal egg that has had its nucleus removed. The genetic material in the resulting embryos is 99.9 per cent human. . .

Read it all.
H/t to Anglican Mainstream.

Royal college warns abortions can lead to mental illness

From the Times Online (thanks, Judith L.) [boldface mine]:

Women may be at risk of mental health breakdowns if they have abortions, a medical royal college has warned. The Royal College of Psychiatrists says women should not be allowed to have an abortion until they are counselled on the possible risk to their mental health.

This overturns the consensus that has stood for decades that the risk to mental health of continuing with an unwanted pregnancy outweighs the risks of living with the possible regrets of having an abortion.

MPs will shortly vote on a proposal to reduce the upper time limit for abortions “for social reasons” from 24 weeks to 20 weeks, a move not backed by the government. A Sunday Times poll today shows 59% of women would support such a reduction, with only 28% backing the status quo. Taken together, just under half (48%) of men and women want a reduction to 20 weeks, while 35% want to retain 24 weeks.

Some MPs also want women to have a “cooling off” period in which they would be made aware of the possible consequences of the abortion, including the impact on their mental health, before they could go ahead.

More than 90% of the 200,000 terminations in Britain every year are believed to be carried out because doctors believe that continuing with the pregnancy would cause greater mental strain.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists recommends updating abortion information leaflets to include details of the risks of depression. “Consent cannot be informed without the provision of adequate and appropriate information,” it says. . .

Dr Peter Saunders, general secretary of the Christian Medical Fellowship, said: “How can a doctor now justify an abortion [on mental health grounds] if psychiatrists are questioning whether there is any clear evidence that continuing with the pregnancy leads to mental health problems.”

Read it all.

Maggi Dawn: Blogging the archbishops

From Maggi Dawn (Chaplain and Fellow in Theology at Robinson College Cambridge), interviews with Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, and John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, on blogging and the new media. Interesting stuff - currently a 4-part series with more to come [boldface mine]:

The Archbishops of Canterbury and York spent three days in Cambridge the week before last, to take a leading role in the first of six events called “A World to Believe In: The Cambridge Consultations”. . .

I arrived at the agreed time to fire your blog-questions at the Archbishops, but some of the organisation of the day had come slightly unstuck and the interview time was about to be squeezed out. The Archbishops overheard my protests, though, and they and their teams created a small space for me. So I sat with them over lunch, laptop at the ready, with an Archbishop on either side of me. I began by asking them how much they knew about the blog-world, and what kind of effect – positive or negative – they thought blogging, facebook and similar media are having on Church life and spiritual concerns.

“They are clearly part of the whole knowledge economy”, said Archbishop Rowan. “They have encouraged people not to take in passively what’s produced – it has opened up a more interactive environment for the sharing of knowledge – a democratisation of knowledge. And clearly that is bound to affect the Church at every level.”

Is the democratisation of knowledge always a good thing, though, I asked him? Does it flatten a desirable level of expertise?

“It can certainly flatten expertise,” he replied. “But perhaps the more worrying issue is that i[t] can in some ways encourage unreflective expression – it’s possible simply to think it, and say it, without any thought. When that happens in personal conversation, there is a humanising effect. But on the screen, it’s less human.”

Then the Archbishop of York chipped in: “On the other hand, people have found real friendships through blogs, who would never have otherwise met each other – it’s a worldwide connection, people really do “meet” you on your blog. When I cut up my collar the response online was enormous – that’s when I realised just how many boundaries can be crossed with blogs.”

He thought for a minute, and then added, “But you know, when people write without thinking, it can get very difficult; it can be offensive and troublesome. The best of what’s there on the blogs is from those who take a little time to reflect before they publish. But there is no choice about whether we engage with this new media. It’s the world we are in – the Church has to engage with it!”. . .

“But look at the blog-world,” I said. “It reveals a fairly large number of people who self-identify as Christian but who do not regularly attend a place of worship in the formal sense. Spirituality and faith are clearly alive and well, but there are plenty of people who believe the Church in a fatal decline. Is there really a future for organised religion?”

“Human beings, by nature, always need a home,” said Archbishop Sentamu. “Whatever else happens to organised religion, if it’s providing a place of safety and identity, then future is very bright. If not, the future is bleak. The Church should be a home where the stranger finds love, and the lonely a welcome. When it loses those things, then it’s just an institution, and it’s bureaucratically passive. But organised religion is ambiguous. It can be a source of great good, or of evil.”. . .

So I asked the Archbishops whether they think the time is approaching, for the good of the Church and the State, for the Church of England to begin divesting itself of its historic position as a national church.

Archbishop Sentamu smiled. “The church I grew up in – the Church of Uganda – is not established! So this idea of an established Church was something new for me when I came here. In England, though, this is a serious constitutional question, more complex than people usually realise. It’s easy to say it’s just an anachronism that gives privileges that don’t fit in the modern world. But in fact disestablishment would not principally address those issues – they are side issues. Disestablishment would call for a complete rearrangement of the English constitution. You can’t disestablish without rethinking the political and social structure of the nation at the same time.”. .

Read it all - Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4, so far.

Cranmer: Since when has church-going on a Sunday become a form of child abuse?

From Cranmer (U.K.):

Homosexuality – good; Church – bad

This is the essence of the judgement of Labour-controlled Derby City Council, who have banned a Christian couple from fostering young children because they refused to abide by the new Sexual Orientation Regulations. Social workers rejected an application by Eunice and Owen Johns, who have been married for 39 years and have four grown-up children, to be foster parents because they refused to agree to tell any children in their care that the homosexual lifestyle was acceptable.

But, even more significantly, the adoption panel was also unhappy that the couple wished to take any child in their care to church with them on Sundays. Mrs Johns, a retired nurse, is a Sunday school teacher.

Yet the Johns’ application was to offer weekend respite care for foster children under the age of 10. As Mrs Johns said: "I would love any child, black or white, gay or straight. But I cannot understand why sexuality is an issue when we are talking about boys and girls under the age of 10."

Quite so.

There is obviously not a prejudiced bone in her body; just a sincere expression of the Christian faith with an outpouring of good works in her altruistic desire to do some good and give sacrificially of herself.

But Derby City council responded: "Our first duty is to the children in our care, some of whom are very vulnerable."

Since when has church-going on a Sunday become a form of child abuse? And since when were children under the age of 10 so sexually aware that they have to be told that homosexuality is acceptable?. . .

There is, of course, humour to be found in this story, not least in its irony and absurdity, but it represents a development on the previous case. While the Sexual Orientation Regulations have previously proved a hurdle to Christian foster parents refusing to acknowledge the acceptability of homosexual practice, this is the first time that church-going has been adduced as a reason for declaring a couple to be unsuitable for fostering.

Cranmer can hardly wait for Derby City Council to inform a Muslim couple that their mosque-going renders them unsuitable, or a Sikh couple that their gurdwara-going is unacceptable. And, for that matter, he awaits with bated breath to hear of the first homosexual couple to be rendered unsuitable for fostering because of their refusal to take the children in their care to the local mosque or church. This is as blatant an example of religious discrimination as these regulations could be employed to yield, and the decision must be challenged in law. If not, it may not be long before married, heterosexual Christians – who are all, of course, invariably bigoted and prejudiced - may have their children forcibly removed and handed over to a couple in a civil partnership – who are all so utterly reasonable, progressive and enlightened.

As the ever-impressive Bishop of Rochester says in The Sunday Telegraph: ‘There are times when Christian leaders have to speak out.’ Indeed there are, and this is one of them. So where is the Archbishop of Canterbury?

He is nowhere to be heard. So it is left to Dr Nazir-Ali to ask:

"Do the British people really want to lose that rooting in the Christian faith that has given them everything they cherish - art, literature, architecture, institutions, the monarchy, their value system, their laws?". . .

Read it all.

Threat to take new-born over emotional abuse

From the Telegraph (U.K.) :

A pregnant woman has been told that her baby will be taken from her at birth because she is deemed capable of "emotional abuse", even though psychiatrists treating her say there is no evidence to suggest that she will harm her child in any way.

Social services' recommendation that the baby should be taken from Fran Lyon, a 22-year-old charity worker who has five A-levels and a degree in neuroscience, was based in part on a letter from a paediatrician she has never met.

Hexham children's services, part of Northumberland County Council, said the decision had been made because Miss Lyon was likely to suffer from Munchausen's Syndrome by proxy, a condition unproven by science in which a mother will make up an illness in her child, or harm it, to draw attention to herself.

Under the plan, a doctor will hand the newborn to a social worker, provided there are no medical complications. Social services' request for an emergency protection order - these are usually granted - will be heard in secret in the family court at Hexham magistrates on the same day.

From then on, anyone discussing the case, including Miss Lyon, will be deemed to be in contempt of the court.

Miss Lyon, from Hexham, who is five months pregnant, is seeking a judicial review of the decision about Molly, as she calls her baby. She described it as "barbaric and draconian", and said it was "scandalous" that social services had not accepted submissions supporting her case.

"The paediatrician has never met me," she said. "He is not a psychiatrist and cannot possibly make assertions about my current or future mental health. Yet his letter was the only one considered in the case conference on August 16 which lasted just 10 minutes."

Northumberland County Council insists that two highly experienced doctors - another consultant paediatrician and a medical consultant - attended the case conference.

The case adds to growing concern, highlighted in a series of articles in The Sunday Telegraph, over a huge rise in the number of babies under a year old being taken from parents. The figure was 2,000 last year, three times the number 10 years ago.

Critics say councils are taking more babies from parents to help them meet adoption "targets". . .

And a throw-away line at the end of the story:

A recording of social workers threatening to take a newborn into care has been removed from the YouTube website after Calderdale Council in West Yorkshire started legal action, claiming the Data Protection Act was breached.

Vanessa Brookes, 34, taped social workers telling her and her husband that they would seek to place the baby, due next month, in care, while admitting there was "no immediate risk to the child."

H/t to Relapsed Catholic.

Read it all. Somehow, I can't help but think that the abortion and birth-control culture has contributed to children as commodities, as well as increased fertility difficulties, thereby necessitating "adoption targets."