The Anglican Church in North America has chosen to retain Lathrop GPM to conduct a restricted and nontransparent review of the Title IV proceedings surrounding Bishop Stewart Ruch, and in that choice the truth of the matter is already disclosed, not at the end of the process but at its beginning. The terms will not be released. The findings are not promised to the light. The scope has been drawn with a care that ensures the most decisive questions will never quite arrive where they must be answered. One need not wait for conclusions. The arrangement itself speaks with sufficient clarity.

What presents itself as sober inquiry carries the unmistakable grammar of preemption. There will be interviews, reports, careful language, and the appearance of discipline, yet all of it unfolds within limits that have already been secured against the possibility that the truth might actually do what truth does, which is to judge, to expose, and to reorder. The structure is not neutral. It is already an answer. It ensures that whatever is said will be said in a way that does not require the institution to become something other than what it presently is.

The choice of Lathrop GPM makes this plain in a way that no further argument can improve. A firm known for defending institutions against claims of abuse has been entrusted with examining an institution under precisely such a shadow. One might search for a more transparent declaration of intent and fail to find it. This is not a tension to be resolved. It is a coherence to be recognized. The task is not to discover a truth that might unsettle the body under examination but to render events intelligible within a horizon that preserves that body’s continuity. While the conclusion has not been written in detail, its boundaries have been drawn with precision.

Even the most modest traditions of law would find this intolerable. The idea that judgment must be free from the control of those who stand to be implicated is not an advanced refinement. It is the bare minimum required for justice to exist at all. 

Read it all.

Re: Ruch trial aftermath: The Ex. Committee has appointed a subcommittee to "oversee a third-party review of the provincial administration" of the Ruch matter. They have not yet determined the scope of the review but will "retain a qualified firm or individual to complete it." pic.twitter.com/U1CXTUnENM

— Arlie Coles (@ArlieColes) January 17, 2026

The province’s intent to exclude the trial court’s processes from the coming review represents a source of “deep concerns” for the Anglicans for Truth, Renewal, and Accountability (ATRA), a grassroots group formed in 2025. A December open letter issued by ATRA, which gathered over 200 clergy and lay signatures, called for an independent post-trial review with a clear scope and a promise of eventual publication.

In a March 25 statement, ATRA echoed the Diocese of South Carolina in calling for the Executive Committee to publish its contract with Lathrop GPM “to answer some important remaining questions.”

“Who will have control over the final report? Will the final report be made public? Does the firm hired have a fiduciary duty to the Province, meaning ‘a legal duty to act solely in another party’s interests,’ which constrains the firm’s ability to pursue truth independently? Who will have access to and control over the information gathered by the firm?” the ATRA statement asked.

According to Harris, the province intends to publicize the findings of the report, though has not determined in what format. It does not intend to publish its contract with Lathrop.

ACNAtoo, the advocacy group formed in 2021 in response to allegations of abuse in Bishop Ruch’s diocese, criticized the denomination’s choice of Lathrop to conduct the review. The group called Lathrop’s participation “inappropriate” in light of the firm’s “deficiencies” in investigating sexual misconduct allegations against Mike Bickle, former leader of the International House of Prayer in Kansas City; its legal defense of Roman Catholic bishops and dioceses in civil sexual assault cases; and its use of “scorched earth” tactics against victims described by the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.

Roes, VandeHei, and Price also stated concern to TLC regarding Lathrop’s “track record of defending religious institutions in sexual abuse lawsuits,” and expressed a desire for those overseeing the post-trial review to work to earn the confidence of the church’s members.

Read it all.

New for @Livng_Church: Lathrop will review the process that ended in a controversial acquittal of Bp Stewart Ruch, but the court record of the ACNA's chaotic trial will remain under wraps.https://t.co/kFRSWZZjbx

— Arlie Coles (@ArlieColes) March 27, 2026

In a surprising move, the Scottish Parliament this week voted to reject assisted suicide. And it wasn’t even close – 57 for and 69 against, with every party except the Lib Dems and the Greens having a majority voting against. Why did this happen? Especially when at the first two stages of the bill it comfortably passed. 

And therein lies the answer. As MSPs got to look more closely at what was involved, they realised that the bill itself was badly worded and had insurmountable difficulties – like compelling staff and organisations who did not want to participate in ‘mercy killing’ to do so.  

Like the threat of people feeling coerced. The bill would have made the treatment available to terminally ill, mentally competent adults who have been given less than six months to live – but opponents said there were not enough protections against coercion.  

Like the government admitting that money would have to be taken from other frontline NHS services to provide for assisted suicide.  The irony of taking money from the sick in order to kill people was not lost on some MSPs. 

Read it all.

The Scottish parliament has rejected a bill that would have seen the country introduce assisted suicide, in what is the latest victory for the vulnerable the world over in recent weeks, writes JASON OSBORNEhttps://t.co/PdDInXhp1z

— gript (@griptmedia) March 19, 2026

Social media interactions are, by definition, public and social, and not private. Clergy are held to a
higher standard of responsibility in their use of these platforms. Being clergy is an honor, privilege,
and responsibility that comes with influence, but also requires discretion and often sacrifice of our
rights, obligating us to wise self-censorship and self-control. I expect all social media posts by our
clergy to adhere to the highest standard of Christian decorum. All that we do reflects on our Lord,
His Church, our Diocese, and our ministry.
To that end, I first offer five (edited) questions that Archbishop Emeritus Foley Beach requires his
diocese to ask before posting anything…

1. Is it the truth? Along with that, ask: Why is it my responsibility to speak this truth or address
   this situation?
2. Have I talked to the person before I post about the person?
3. Will it benefit all concerned?
4. Do my words reflect well on Jesus Christ and on His Church?
5. Will I someday need to apologize and confess what I have written as a sin?
   These helpful questions can serve as a beginning point and a filter for online interactions. From
   there, I offer a few wise policies, developed by my friend and fellow bishop, Alex Farmer, for the
   clergy of the Gulf Atlantic Diocese. (Again, I have edited these for our situation.)
6. Never post, repost, favorably comment on, or like content that reflects poorly on Christ
   Jesus and his Church, other clergy, or yourself.
7. Follow the same rules of courtesy and mature behavior you would observe in any face-toface interaction.
8. Think about consequences and how your message might be perceived before you post.

Read it all.

I used to think the main damage from social media was to youth mental health. Now I believe that the global destruction of the human ability to pay attention may be even larger.

A meta-analysis shows the damage, to adults as well as teens, from TikTok+https://t.co/YS0dkQTdj0 https://t.co/a8bSMQyW60

— Jonathan Haidt (@JonHaidt) November 15, 2025

The Scottish Parliament’s rejection of a Bill to legalise assisted dying has been welcomed by the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the Rt Revd Rosie Frew, and by Christian campaigners in the country.

On Tuesday evening, Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) rejected, by 69 votes to 57, the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, which had been introduced by Liam McArthur MSP. The Bill sought to allow an assisted death for terminally ill adults who had decision-making capacity and had six months or less to live.

In a statement issued shortly after the vote, Ms Frew said: “I recognise that the outcome will be a disappointment to many, but it was clear that the safeguards included did not offer sufficient protection.

“We have been consistent in our position that we need to prioritise the development of excellent palliative care services that are universally available and fully funded. Without that, had the Bill passed, we would fear that many vulnerable people might have seen an assisted death as their only realistic option.”

Read it all.

The Scottish Parliament’s rejection of a Bill to legalise assisted dying has been welcomed by the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the Rt Revd Rosie Frew, and by Christian campaigners in the country#churchnews #churchtimes https://t.co/NhNTeIZ6GR

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) March 18, 2026

A senior adviser to the Nigerian president has rejected claims that Christians are being specifically targeted in violence across Nigeria, insisting the country is facing a broader security crisis rather than religious persecution.

Bayo Onanuga, special adviser for information and strategy to President Bola Tinubu, made the comments to Premier Christian News as he began a state visit to the UK, the first by a Nigerian leader in almost four decades.

The visit comes amid growing international scrutiny over attacks on Christians in Nigeria. More than 200 MPs have urged Keir Starmer to raise concerns about religious freedom when he meets President Tinubu in Downing Street on Thursday.

Last month, a US government report described Nigeria as the most dangerous place in the world to practise the Christian faith, warning that jihadist networks exploit weak enforcement and limited accountability to carry out sustained violence.

Meanwhile, the persecution watchdog Open Doors says nearly 3,500 Christians were killed in Nigeria last year, out of the 4,849 killed around the world.

However, Onanuga strongly rejected the idea that violence is targeted specifically at Christians.

Read it all.

When the former Archbishop of Canterbury the Rt Revd Justin Welby spoke recently about his mental health (Quotes, 6 March), his honesty was striking.

Speaking to Gyles Brandreth on the podcast Rosebud, he reflected on the failures surrounding the Church of England’s handling of abuse allegations, and revealed that he had sought professional help. “I’ve been seeing a psychotherapist for a considerable period of time, and a psychiatrist: very helpful,” he said. He went on to say that therapy was not about excusing mistakes, but about confronting them honestly: “It’s not about saying, ‘Oh, it didn’t matter,’ . . . quite the reverse. How does one live with such a failure?”

That candour should have been welcomed. Instead, it prompted a deeply damaging column in The Daily Telegraph by Celia Walden, who asked: “What’s the point of God if even Justin Welby is seeing a therapist?”

Reading her article left me shocked, distressed, and very upset at such ignorance about mental health. I felt shamed and triggered. As a serving clergyman who has lived with serious mental-health challenges, I felt guilty and embarrassed simply for seeking help. Her column was extremely damaging, heartless, and cruel, and lacked any compassion for clergy and people of faith who live with mental illness. It implied that faith alone should replace therapy: a view that is both wrong and pastorally reckless.

Read it all.

"I have never told someone with cancer to refuse chemotherapy and to 'just pray'. I have never suggested that insulin betrays belief. So, why is mental health treated differently?" ✍️ Mark Edwards #mentalhealth #JustinWelby https://t.co/FTUYk6BqKd

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) March 13, 2026

In my lifetime, American society has been transformed by widespread accommodation of vice. Marijuana has been legalized in many jurisdictions, as has addictive online gambling. Not surprisingly, pot use and regular gambling have increased. In 2025, 17 percent of adults report smoking pot daily, up from 8 percent in 2020. Less than a decade ago, nobody had a sports betting app on his smartphone; today, half of American men between eighteen and forty-nine have opened accounts. And pornography is readily available on the internet, protected as free speech by the Supreme Court.

Social norms have likewise shifted. Open use of ­illegal drugs is widely tolerated. Silicon Valley titans use ketamine and other substances, making a mockery of the restriction of these drugs to medical use only. The New Yorker publishes essays cheering “throuples” and other sexual arrangements. Activists campaign to remove the stigma from “sex work,” which few local governments make efforts to prevent. 

Writing in National Affairs (“The Case for Prohibiting Vice”), Charles Fain Lehman observes that social conservatives have been routed in recent decades. Large-scale social trends run against us. But Lehman thinks we share some of the blame. Too often, those who wish to sustain moral codes accept the dominant terms of public debate, which rest on the notion that people should be free to do as they wish in their private lives, as long as nobody else is harmed….

Lehman advises social conservatives to stop trying to shoehorn their moral judgments into liberal arguments that rest on proofs of harm. We need to talk more frankly about what it means to have a good society, one that promotes human flourishing. And we should not shy away from the obvious truth that a good society discourages vice because it is vicious.

Read it all.

“For most of American history, a libertarianism in private life, restrained only by the harm principle, did not hold sway. American constitutional law accords ‘police power’ to the states, allowing them to pass laws to protect and promote the health, safety, and morals of their… https://t.co/jvv02FoYXU

— First Things (@firstthingsmag) March 10, 2026

The BBC reported on Monday that 100 Labour MPs had written to the Prime Minister arguing that, if assisted dying legislation does not pass, trust in politics will be undermined.

But the Labour MP Jessica Asato, who opposes the Bill, told the BBC: “The sponsor of the Bill has rejected 99 per cent of suggested improvements and amendments in the House of Lords and so it still contains all the same faults and issues. Any MP that voted to push this Bill through would do so knowing that it is unsafe and would harm vulnerable people.”

A new Whitestone poll of more than 2000 UK adults for Care Not Killing shows that the public wants Parliament to prioritise safety over choice.

Asked if they would support a law that enabled patient choice, but was implemented in a way that put other patients and vulnerable people at risk, respondents opposed the move by 42 per cent to 35 per cent. The proportion of those who “strongly” backed putting safety over choice was more than double the proportion of those who said the opposite (26 per cent to 12 per cent).

Read it all.

As the assisted-dying Bill runs out of debating time in the House of Lords, the Christian Labour peer Lord Rook on Friday tabled three amendments on protecting vulnerable people from coercion and safeguarding young people#HouseofLords #debate https://t.co/2Q3MhOVc5N

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) March 16, 2026

The question then becomes what status we should give to the acceptance of same-sex sexual relationships by some Anglican churches today.

In the words of C S Lewis, the traditional rule of the Christian Church with regard to sexual ethics has always been ‘either marriage, with complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence’[9] (marriage here means marriage between a man and a woman). This is the consensual teaching about marriage and sexual ethics that, as Vincent of Lerin puts it, has been held ‘always, everywhere and by everyone’[10] from biblical times onwards, in the same way that belief in the divinity of Christ and his bodily resurrection have been universally taught and accepted.

In the words of Darrin Belousek in his book Marriage, Scripture and the Church:

‘Scripture, consistently, presents a single picture of marriage and approves a single pattern of sexual relations: male- female union. Jesus summarizes this witness: ‘the two’ of ‘male and female’ joined into ‘one flesh.’ The Holy Spirit has woven this pattern of holy union throughout Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, in the form, function, and figure of marriage. Tradition, East and West, also has consistently taught a single standard of sex and marriage: marriage is man-woman monogamy; all sex outside man-woman monogamy is sin. This doctrine has been taught always by the church, beginning with the apostles’ testimony to Jesus teaching; It has been proclaimed throughout the worldwide church, among all people in every place and epoch, as God’s will for sex and marriage; it has been articulated by apologetic writings and theological treatises, transmitted through baptismal catechesis and canonical discipline, celebrated in monastic vows and nuptial rites.’ [11]

Judged against this standard, the acceptance of same-sex sexual relationships (and even same-sex marriages) by some churches in the Anglican Communion has to be viewed as a ‘gross and grievous abomination,’ since it constitutes a departure from a key part of the Catholic and apostolic faith and an endorsement of sin. To put it plainly the churches involved have supported both heresy and immorality.

Furthermore, as the Church of England Evangelical Council report ‘Guarding the Deposit’ notes, the apostolic witness in the New Testament, which has also been accepted ‘everywhere at all times and by all,‘  teaches that:

‘…the Church should make a separation in this world between the people of God and those who practise sexual immorality (1 Cor 5: 1-13).

As Tom Wright notes, Paul teaches that the Church has the ‘God-given right and duty to discriminate between those who are living in the Messiah’s way and those who are not’.

Read it all.

Martin Davie–Assessing two different visions for the future of the Anglican Communion https://t.co/F3so2u4TtA 'The difference between the two views of the future of global Anglicanism put forward by the Nairobi-Cairo Proposals and The Abuja Affirmation is that the former holds… pic.twitter.com/LXTgMmiuOZ

— Kendall Harmon (@KendallHarmon6) March 16, 2026

The Bishops’ Conference said it strongly disagrees with the Government’s position, noting that every organization has guiding values that shape its mission and practice.

“For many faith‑based organizations, including Catholic hospices and care homes, these values are fundamentally incompatible with the introduction of assisted suicide,” said Bishop John Keenan of Paisley, the President of the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland.

“The Bishops’ Conference maintains that no organization should be compelled by the State to participate in the deliberate ending of life when doing so would violate its ethical or religious principles,” the bishop said.

Anthony Horan, the Director of the Scottish Catholic Parliamentary Office, said the Scottish Government and Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) must accept that Catholic hospices and care homes cannot, in good conscience, provide any services under the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, nor can they be expected to refer anyone to such services.

“Assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the Gospel,” he told Crux Now.

Read it all.

Ahead of a key vote, the bishops of Scotland, along with pro-life leaders, have made a passionate plea to politicians to reject a proposed assisted suicide bill because it is “unsafe.” https://t.co/Jl3aGGoLhL

— Catholic News Agency (@cnalive) March 6, 2026

Although private in his own religious convictions and skeptical of fanaticism, in his Farewell Address (1796), Washington’s clarion, prescient warning to contemporary and future Americans — on national and international affairs — definitively emphasized that “[o]f all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” Moreover, to “subvert” such “great pillars of human happiness” — like the freedom of religious expression — would be considered unpatriotic.  

Indeed, Washington believed religiosity served as a bedrock for national stability and individual virtue, and a lack thereof would cripple cohesion, writing: 

“And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” 

He was not the only Founding Father to stress religion’s intrinsic importance to the new republic. John Adams once reflected, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Benjamin Franklin, likewise, considered religious practice important for developing virtue, and believed “[God] ought to be worshipped” and “the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children.” 

Even Thomas Jefferson, the most notable deist among the Founding Fathers, warned about the consequences of abandoning religious conviction entirely. 

Read it all.

George Washington’s Warning About Religion Still Matters https://t.co/Wlhmss8SoB #history #religion #usa #worldviews #faith #ethics #presidency #culturewatch

— Kendall Harmon (@KendallHarmon6) March 10, 2026

 Financial controls were dismantled, and trustees were “disempowered”, in Bangor diocese, a review of the situation over the five years before the previous Archbishop’s resignation has found.

The independent governance review of Bangor Diocesan Board of Finance (BDBF) and Bangor Diocesan Trust (BDT), published on Friday, was told by trustees that it had became apparent that “they should not challenge what was being done because it was already agreed, and dissent would not be appreciated.”

During the period studied — the five years leading up to the retirement as Bishop of Bangor and Archbishop of Wales of the Most Revd Andy John, in 2025 — several serious-incident reports were sent to the Charity Commission relating to Bangor Cathedral (News, 14 May 2025).

A Visitation and safeguarding audit heard about “weak financial controls” and was told that there was “no protection for those raising concerns” (News, 3 May 2025). Archbishop John announced his retirement in the wake of its publication, apologising for “errors of judgement” (News, 27 June 2025).

Read it all.

Financial controls were dismantled, and trustees were “disempowered”, in #Bangor diocese, a review of the situation over the five years before the previous Archbishop’s resignation has found#churchinwales #churchnews #churchtimes https://t.co/BrgXlgwQC6

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) March 9, 2026

The future shape of the Global Anglican Communion is being debated this week in Abuja, Nigeria. At the GAFCON conference, more than 400 bishops and global leaders are working through the logic of the proposal that could lead to a new Global Anglican Communion — a fellowship grounded in the authority of Scripture and historic Anglican doctrine.

On Day 2 of the conference, Dominic Steele speaks with key leaders including Vaughan Roberts (Oxford), Julian Dobbs (ACNA), and Richard Condie (Tasmania), along with presenters from Uganda, Brazil and Nigeria.

They discuss: • The implications of the Church of England’s current trajectory • The logic behind a reordered global communion

• The mission opportunity for global Anglicans • What this could mean for churches in the UK, North America and Australia

Watch and listen to it all.

Key Takeaways

1. The combined US-Israeli force has designed its campaign to destroy Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities before the force depletes its interceptor stockpiles. The destruction of missile launchers mitigates the risk that either the United States or Israel will run out of interceptors by limiting Iran’s ability to launch missiles in the first place.  The decrease in Iranian missile attacks against Israel and the UAE strongly suggests that the effort to destroy ballistic missile launchers has had considerable success.
2. The IDF struck key decision-making institutions on March 3, including the Assembly of Experts building in Tehran, as part of an effort to disrupt senior decision-making. The Assembly of Experts is an 88-member clerical body that is responsible for appointing and supervising the Supreme Leader, according to the Iranian constitution. Strikes that disrupt or prevent the Assembly of Experts from fulfilling its constitutional duty to select the next Supreme Leader would undermine the legitimacy of the regime. The regime is based on the principle of Velayat-e Faqih, in which a jurist, the Supreme Leader, controls Iran. 
3. Iranian leaders have devolved powers to lower-level officials in response to the combined force’s strikes targeting senior officials and central decision-making institutions, likely to ensure continued state functions despite disruptions to central Iranian leadership.
4. The IDF continued to strike sites associated with Iran’s nuclear program, including facilities linked to weaponization research conducted by Iranian nuclear scientists.
5. Iran continued to conduct drone and ballistic missile attacks targeting US forces and sites in Gulf countries, which has prompted two US embassies to close.
6. The United States and Israel continued to strike Iranian-backed Iraqi militias on March 2 and 3 to degrade their ability to conduct retaliatory attacks against US forces and Israel.

Read it all.

NEW: The combined US-Israeli force has designed its campaign to destroy Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities before the force depletes its interceptor stockpiles. The destruction of missile launchers mitigates the risk that either the United States or Israel will run out of… pic.twitter.com/btsumD6mAY

— Institute for the Study of War (@TheStudyofWar) March 4, 2026

Professor Helen King has put forward a private members motion for debate at the Church of England’s General Synod that runs as follows:

‘That this Synod affirm that there are no fundamental objections to being in a committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationship, and that such a relationship can be entirely compatible with Christian discipleship.’[1]

The Church of England website states that this motion had 161 signatures on 18 February, which is the second largest number of signatures of the four motions listed, and if the number of signatures continues to increase there is the possibility that it could be selected for debate at the General Synod in July.

The language of King’s motion deliberately echoes the language of the motion passed by General Synod in 1975 ‘That this Synod considers that there are no fundamental objections to the ordination of women to the priesthood.’ This motion paved the way to General Synod passing legislation allowing women to be ordained as deacons in 1986, as priests in 1992 and as bishops in 2014. The purpose of King’s motion is an attempt to pave the way in similar fashion for those in same-sex relationships to be allowed to be ordained in the Church of England.

The motion would not in itself make such ordination lawful, but it would provide the basis on which a measure to allow those in same-sex relationships to be ordained could then be brought forward for debate. The argument would go that because General Synod had voted for King’s motion it had established the principle that ‘such a relationship can be entirely compatible with Christian discipleship’ and this would in turn mean that it was entirely compatible with the exercise of ordained ministry.

This being the nature of King’s motion, the question that arises is whether it would be right for members of Synod to vote for it should it be put forward for debate in July. In the remainer of this post I shall set out the two reasons why I think members of Synod should not vote for it.

Read it all.

I have just published a new blog post 'Why faithful Christians should reject Helen King's private member's motion.'https://t.co/bXjhSyRYsT

— Martin Davie (@MartinBDavie) March 2, 2026

Assisted suicide campaigners have repeatedly claimed that just seven Peers have been blocking the Bill by tabling lots of amendments.

A new analysis by Right To Life UK’s Public Affairs team has, however, confirmed that this spin from assisted suicide campaigners paints a deeply misleading picture of the actual situation in the House of Lords.

The analysis shows that nearly 80 Peers have so far tabled or signed amendments highlighting concerns with the Bill and that 131 Peers have either spoken against the Bill or signed amendments raising such concerns during its passage through the Lords.

This is significant because Bill supporters are seemingly attempting to persuade MPs to revive the Bill in the next parliamentary session and force it through using the Parliament Acts, on the basis that a small number of Peers have inappropriately blocked its passage. Our analysis shows this claim to be wholly untrue.

131 is an exceptionally high number of Peers opposing a Bill, particularly one where debates are reserved for Fridays when Peers are often not expected to be in Parliament. It is even more remarkable given that the Bill has not yet completed Committee Stage or reached its Report Stage or Third Reading. In addition to these 131 Peers, it is likely that more Peers will speak out during future sittings and it is known that many more Peers are opposed to the Bill. Others have already spoken out in the media or expressed concerns via written parliamentary questions.

Read it all.

BREAKING: UK Bill to Legalize Assisted Suicide Fails After Massive Opposition https://t.co/rSU7BExTq4 pic.twitter.com/XyZHW46dcu

— LifeNews.com (@LifeNewsHQ) February 26, 2026

Christopher Wild, a lay Anglican, is a former Professor of Molecular Epidemiology at Leeds, with a particular interest in the relationship between environmental and genetic factors in the development of cancer.

Appointed, leaving Leeds, director of the prestigious International Agency for Research on Cancer at Lyon, he is now excellently qualified to give an overview of ethical issues arising from recent developments in genetic science. He does so with commendable clarity: someone useful for the new Archbishop of Canterbury to consult.

He repeatedly emphasises — as others have done, following the late, great Ian Barbour — that (genetic) science can be used for good or ill: “As with so much of genetics, honourable and dishonourable aims run side by side, employing the same tools. This is ‘dual use’ at its most dangerous. While some seek to overcome disease by genetic engineering, others seek to weaponise biology.”

Read it all.

Robin Gill reviews Unravelling DNA: Applying Christian values to a genetic age by Christopher Paul Wild 🧬📚#Bookreview #DNA #churchnews #churchtimes 📖https://t.co/1nTZv19uVi

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) February 25, 2026

Now in similar manner, the Church of England Canon law on Marriage is cast as ‘unjust’ by an appeal to subjective feelings and desires. This is the basic thrust of Thompson’s argument which calls for acceptance of same-sex civil marriage.

Anglican divine Richard Hooker stated unequivocally that human authority in the sphere of law was totally subject to the moral law of scripture.  “Laws human are of force so far forth as they are agreeable to the law of God.”[x]Biblical law must always inform issues of justice, and the 39 Articles of Religion asserts this principle, “… it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.”[xi]

Christ definitely does not embody a law based on democratic human decisions which is in total opposition to God’s holy law. The people’s voice cannot take the place of God’s voice. After all, the people’s voice all too quickly turns into a baying for blood – as in, “Crucify him”^[xii].

Christ as the second Adam[xiii] points us back to the Creator’s original intention for human beings, as described in Genesis. His purpose for human sexuality – to bond a man and a woman in lifelong marriage so that children may be brought up in the knowledge and fear of the Lord[xiv]. Certainly, without knowing the purpose of humanity, we cannot know what justice is.

Read it all.

Is the penny dropping? Is clergy same-sex marriage a step too far for the CofE?https://t.co/81lNU3o0A5

— Anglican Futures (@AnglicanFutures) January 24, 2025

The Archbishop of Canterbury has suspended the Bishop of Lincoln, the Rt Revd Stephen Conway, from ministry, while a complaint to the National Safeguarding Team is investigated, it was announced on Friday.

A statement on the diocese of Lincoln’s website said that the complaint had also been referred “to the appropriate statutory authorities”.

Bishop Conway has been Bishop of Lincoln since 2023 (News, 24 May 2023). For more than a year beforehand, he was Acting Bishop of the diocese, in addition to being Bishop of Ely.

His suspension by the Archbishop of Canterbury follows the House of Bishops’ Code of Practice. The Suffragan Bishop of Grantham, in Lincoln diocese, Dr Nicholas Chamberlain, will be performing the function of the diocesan Bishop in Bishop Conway’s absence.

Read it all.

The Bishop of Lincoln has been suspended pending investigation; Dr Nicholas Chamberlain will serve as Acting Bishop. #LincolnDiocese https://t.co/qNlWmLqumE

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) February 20, 2026

In his first speech on the Senate floor, in November 2015, Sasse essentially gave a lesson on the Constitutional order and on the abject failure of modern-day Congress to assert its authority against the administrative state and the executive branch. It’s a remarkable speech, given only after he’d spent a year in the chamber and spoken with many of his colleagues to understand what was going on. 

No one in this body thinks the Senate is laser-focused on the most pressing issues facing the nation. No one. Some of us lament this fact; some are angered by it; many are resigned to it; some try to dispassionately explain how they think it came to be. But no one disputes it. 

As a result, he also said, “The people despise us all.” 

The point of the Senate’s long terms, Sasse concluded, is to “shield lawmakers from obsession with short-term popularity to enable us to focus on the biggest long-term challenges our people face.” And the character of the chamber matters, he explained, “precisely because it is meant to insulate us from short-termism . . . from opinion fads and the short-term bickering of 24-hour-news-cycles. The Senate was built to focus on the big stuff. The Senate is to be the antidote to sound-bites.”

Read it all.

Former senator Ben Sasse is battling cancer.

Losing him would be one more sign that a certain kind of conservatism—and a certain kind of politics—is disappearing, writes @MikeCosper.https://t.co/5clU0XfODE

— Christianity Today (@CTmagazine) February 20, 2026

Starting with the 2024 decision that gave President Trump substantial immunity from prosecution and continuing through a score of emergency orders provisionally greenlighting an array of his second-term initiatives, Mr. Trump has had an extraordinarily successful run before the Supreme Court.

That came to a sudden, jolting halt on Friday, when Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for six members of the court, roundly rejected Mr. Trump’s signature tariffs program. It was the Supreme Court’s first merits ruling — a final judgment on the lawfulness of an executive action — on an element of the administration’s second-term agenda. It amounted to a declaration of independence.

It also served as another in a series of clashes between the leaders of two branches of the federal government cut from very different cloth: the controlled, cerebral chief justice and the biting, brazen president.

Read it all.

The Supreme Court’s Declaration of Independence https://t.co/c3j3a7tlnQ via @NYTimes

— Luba Howard 🇺🇦 (@marynlm) February 20, 2026

those universal values are not what we’re teaching people today. I was recently in Cleveland doing a television show. The audience was composed of students from six different Cleveland high schools. And the students were of different races, ethnicities, socioeconomic backgrounds, and religions. I asked them a question: “If you really wanted a certain item, would you shoplift if you were sure you could get away with it?”

Nearly all those kids said yes. And even the handful who would not shoplift were not prepared to say the others were wrong. Why? Because, they said, everything is a matter of opinion.

The great moral tragedy of our time is that feelings have replaced values. And they shouldn’t. Feelings are beautiful. Feelings are wonderful. It’s good to cry, it’s good to laugh, it’s good to love, it’s good to care, it’s good to have compassion. Feelings are what make us human. But values must always come first.

Hitler felt that Jews should be destroyed. Whites in South Africa felt that apartheid was right, that blacks shouldn’t be allowed to use white bathrooms or white restaurants or go to white businesses or live in white neighborhoods. Feelings cannot determine what is right.

In fact, the Bible repeatedly warns people not to rely on their hearts. If you want to know why so many people reject Bible-based religions, there it is: Most people want to be governed by their feelings and not have anyone—be it God or a book—tell them otherwise.

The battle in America and the rest of the Western world today is between the Bible and the heart.

Read it all.

Dennis Prager: Right and Wrong Are Not a Matter of Personal Opinion https://t.co/a3iSGBzxis

— The Free Press (@TheFP) February 19, 2026

‘There are three ideas currently supported by those in the Church of England who take a liberal approach to marriage and sexual activity (including members of the House of Bishops) and which are being pushed as part of the Prayers of Love and Faith process that cannot rightly be seen as a development of the Church of England’s doctrine…

The first idea is that it would be right to bless same-sex couples who are in a sexually active relationship either in normal church services or in special ‘standalone’ or ‘bespoke’ services.

The reason that this would not be a development of doctrine is that the doctrine of the Church of England, as we have seen, is that all forms of sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage are forms of the sin of fornication which all Christians are called to avoid committing (and for which those Christians who have committed it are called to repent, confess and receive absolution as they would with all other forms of sin). It is not an explanation of the Church’s doctrine on this matter to say that those who continue to be in a relationship involving the sin of fornication should be able to have this relationship blessed by the Church. Rather, saying this would contradict the Church’s doctrine in one of two ways. It would involve saying either (a) that fornication is not a sin or (b) that sin does not need to be met with a call to repentance, confession, absolution and amendment of life but can instead be the object of prayers of blessing.

The second idea is that those who are in same-sex sexual relationships should be admitted to, or allowed to continue to exercise, ordained ministry.

The reason that this would not be a development of doctrine is that the Church of England’s doctrine, as set out in the 1662 Ordinal is that it is an integral part of the calling of those who are ordained to be: ‘diligent to frame and fashion your own selves, and your families, according to the doctrine of Christ; and to make both yourselves and them, as much as in you lieth, wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Christ.’  It is not an explanation of the Church’s doctrine to say that being in a same-sex sexual relationship is compatible with providing a wholesome example and pattern to the flock of Christ. As in the previous example, it would instead contradict the Church’s doctrine by in this case suggesting either (a) that being in a same-sex sexual relationship is in accordance with ‘the doctrine of Christ’ or (b) that the requirements for ministerial conduct set out in the Ordinal no longer matter.

The third idea is that the Church of England should accept that marriage can rightly be between two people of the same sex as well as two people of the opposite sex. This again would not be an explanation of the Church ‘s doctrine, but rather a contradiction of it. One cannot say both that ‘The Church of England affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent and life-long, for better or worse, till death do them on the part of one man and one woman’ and also say that a relationship between two people of the same-sex is a marriage. The only way one can consistently say that a relationship between two-people of the same-sex is a marriage is if one has a different understanding of the nature of marriage. The idea that a doctrine of marriage that teaches that marriage is between two people of the opposite sex could be ‘spacious’ enough (as the bishops put it) to include same-sex relationships simply does not make sense.

What all this means is that the development of doctrine, rightly understood, rules out rather than permits these innovations which liberals wish to introduce, and which members of the House of Bishops are proposing.

Read it all.

How can we know what God is like and what his will is for our lives? Dr. Martin Davie, author and Anglican theologian, will explain how a careful reading of one of the Thirty-Nine Articles can provide us with answers. Register for this free event at https://t.co/2GO6OL0uPr. pic.twitter.com/Q5GTHbbswA

— Trinity Anglican Seminary (@TASeminary) September 6, 2024

It’s hard to recall a regulator who has done as much damage to medical innovation in as little time as Vinay Prasad. In his latest drive-by shooting, the leader of the Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine division rejected Moderna’s mRNA flu vaccine without even a cursory review. This is arbitrary government at its worst.

The FDA rarely refuses to review a drug or vaccine application. Our sources say the FDA has rejected only about 4% of applications without a review, typically when they are missing important information. That wasn’t the case with Moderna.

Dr. Prasad spiked Moderna’s flu vaccine because its Phase 3 trial was putatively not “adequate and well-controlled.” He quibbled that the control group in Moderna’s late-stage trial didn’t receive the “best-available standard of care.” He decides what is “best.”

Moderna launched a global randomized controlled trial in September 2024 with 41,000 participants, half of whom received its vaccine. The other half received a standard flu vaccine as a control. The FDA blessed its trial design, and agency staffers gave Moderna a thumbs up to apply for approval last August based on the results. Its vaccine was 27% more effective at preventing symptomatic cases of flu and 49% more effective against hospitalization than the standard flu vaccine.

Read it all.

The WSJ Editorial Board weighs in:
“It’s hard to recall a regulator who has done as much damage to medical innovation in as little time as Vinay Prasad. In his latest drive-by shooting, the leader of the Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine division rejected Moderna ’s mRNA flu…

— Amy Siskind 🏳️‍🌈 (@Amy_Siskind) February 13, 2026

A new approach to outsourcing church safeguarding to an independent body was endorsed overwhelmingly by the General Synod on Wednesday afternoon.

Despite some speeches that called for a greater sense of urgency, or urged the Synod to revisit the idea rejected last year of also moving diocesan safeguarding teams to a new external organisation, members overall welcomed the latest thinking on independent safeguarding.

Dame Christine Ryan, the independent chair of the Safeguarding Structures Programme Board, which is piloting this work, said that, after months of conversations and consultation, it had become clear to her that the Church of England was “ready to change” and had a “deep commitment” to doing “what was right”. Nevertheless, actual change was happening far too slowly, she concluded.

Regulators, Parliament, and the public would no longer tolerate incremental improvements, she warned. She had, therefore, drawn up a new model for independent safeguarding which would simplify matters, restore trust, and end the “invidious” situation in which the Church acted as both “pastor and judge” in safeguarding cases.

Read it all.

A new approach to outsourcing #churchsafeguarding to an independent body was endorsed overwhelmingly by the General #Synod on Wednesday afternoon#churchnews #churchtimes https://t.co/hdXsDti9jm

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) February 11, 2026

‘In large corporations and administrations, justification and self-protection have become the primary motive in place of achievement. In this world, intuition is not talked about openly, but relied on surreptitiously.’

–Gerd Gigerenzer, The Intelligence of Intuition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023)

Gerd Gigerenzer:

Why simple rules of thumb often outperform complex models.https://t.co/FrPo8Csqfd

— GuruAnaerobic (@GuruAnaerobic) March 2, 2021

I am not given to sentimental displays of patriotism. I own a Team U.S.A. soccer jersey because I love the sport, but that may be my only apparel featuring the flag. I have been to my fair share of Fourth of July parades and fireworks displays, but I am also familiar with Frederick Douglass’s 1852 speech, “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” which was delivered on July 5 to acknowledge those not included in the freedoms celebrated on July 4.

Douglass contrasted the lauding of freedoms won while enslaving large portions of the populace. He said, “The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought light and healing to you has brought stripes and death to me.” This Fourth of July, he said, “is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn.”

Like many of us, I know well our country’s contradictions.

Despite this, I am a sucker for the Olympics. Seeing our athletes decked out in the red, white and blue during the opening ceremony, or witnessing their tears on the podium as the anthem plays, stirs even my heart, almost despite myself. I experience something approaching national pride when my fellow citizens accomplish feats far beyond my ability.

With the Winter Games kicking off, this year feels different. The shame I feel for how our country is treating its citizens — and those who long to be its citizens — is hard to ignore….

Read it all.

I wrote an article about cheering for the USA Olympic team while opposing many of the actions of team MAGA for @nytopinion https://t.co/Tcv0jvHqOY

— Esau McCaulley (@esaumccaulley) February 6, 2026

[Fox] Varian, who adopted the name Fox at 18 and is now 22, is one of thousands of minors who underwent gender-transition surgery over the past decade. And she is just one of the young people who have come to regret permanently addressing what was only a temporary identity shift.

Three years after her mastectomy, Varian stopped identifying as transgender and began a process known as detransitioning. In May 2023, she filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the two principal Westchester County, New York, care providers who oversaw her gender transition: her longtime psychologist, Kenneth Einhorn, and Dr. Simon Chin, who performed the mastectomy.

On Friday, a jury in White Plains, New York, awarded Varian $2 million in damages. Varian’s case is the first malpractice suit from a detransitioner to go before a jury, and I was the only reporter to attend the entire three-week trial. Represented by personal-injury attorney Adam Deutsch, Varian said she had been injured by the defendants due to their deviation from standard practices and a lack of informed consent. While there are no guarantees in medical malpractice lawsuits, legal experts believe Varian’s victory could inspire a wave of similar cases that would significantly disrupt pediatric gender medicine.

The trial was anchored by emotional testimony from Varian and her mother, Claire Deacon. Varian testified that Einhorn served as an enabler, repeatedly assuring her that the mastectomy she desired would greatly improve her well-being. Deacon testified that Einhorn browbeat her into consenting to her daughter’s surgery, threatening that she would otherwise commit suicide. 

Read it all.

A Legal First That Could Change Gender Medicine by @benryanwriter https://t.co/yAv9DOK6c9

— The Free Press (@TheFP) February 5, 2026

The U.S. birthrate has declined to record lows in recent years, well below population replacement rates. So the news that the vice president and second lady are having a fourth child is welcome—and significant—news indeed, for several reasons.

First, there is a great cultural importance to influential people having more children. Even in local communities, pregnancy can be “contagious” because humans are social animals. When one lives in a career-minded metropolis where couples having only one or two children (if any) is the norm, there can be intense pressure to fit in and focus on careers, nights out, travel, accumulation of goods, and so forth to avoid having children. Conversely, visit any thriving church community and observe how, when large families are the norm, people who join that community are more likely to have more children themselves.

The effect could very well work at scale. When our leaders (from statesmen to idolized celebrities) do not marry and have children, there is a message coming from the top that avoiding children is a behavior to be imitated. So when our most visible leaders make the choice to be open to life and welcome new children, there could be a meaningful cultural effect. JD Vance is the vice president, likely the next Republican candidate for president, and therefore the soon-to-be leader of the post-Trump GOP. Perhaps a public announcement welcoming a fourth child coming from one of the most prominent and powerful people in the country will start to change the cultural norm back to welcoming more children. As Katy Faust said in response to the news, “four is the new two.” 

But there is another important takeaway from the Vance baby announcement. The Vance family draws a stark contrast to what the vice president has long lamented: a disturbing trend of a childless ruling class. 

Read it all.

Goodbye, Childless Elites
by Frank DeVito @therightfrankd https://t.co/SCHzpso7MG pic.twitter.com/5ZZwSCF32C

— First Things (@firstthingsmag) February 3, 2026