‘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

…whilst it seems happy to be contending with issues of process, and to devote endless air-time to questions of same-sex marriage and minor issues from special interest groups – for example, a crusade for sustainable flower arranging – there is hardly any intellectual energy or attention devoted to debating the fundamental questions of why it seems so difficult to engage the nation with the Christian message, and what the Church should do in response.

If the Church were serious about dealing with the decline in numbers, it would be straining every sinew to reacquaint the nation with the fundamentals of the Christian story and scripture. It would be attempting to re-propagate an inherited culture of hymns and music, choirs, liturgy, poetry and literature which brought the faith to life, and into people’s lives. It would be working boldly to call for the Bible and Christian culture to be a more prominent part of school education and public life, and to remind people of the central importance of this culture.

In the absence of this, people will simply not have the knowledge of Christianity that will allow them to come to faith, even if they have the urge to do it. When Christ and the disciples preached in Galilee and Jerusalem, they were preaching to a people who, although poor, knew scripture and the idea that a Messiah had been promised.

As it is, the Church simply isn’t doing enough. It is underpowered in spreading public knowledge of the faith.

Read it all.

Yes — the CofE must pour its main resources into parishes and into theological education at every level. Otherwise the Gen Z revival (which is certainly real, significantly, amongst youth of high ability and likely influence) could readily lapse without support. @SaveTheParish https://t.co/DNRUJZ3CRF

— john milbank (@johnmilbank3) February 16, 2026

In Uganda, during the eight years in the 1970’s when Idi Amin and his men slaughtered probably half a million Ugandans, “We live today and are gone tomorrow” was the common phrase.

We learned that living in danger, when the Lord Jesus is the focus of your life, can be liberating. For one thing, you are no longer imprisoned by your own security, because there is none. So the important security that people sought was to be anchored in God.

As we testified to the safe place we had in Jesus, many people who had been pagan, or were on the fringes of Christianity, flocked to the church or to individuals, asking earnestly, “How do you prepare yourself for death?” Churches all over the country were packed both with members and seekers. This was no comfort to President Amin, who was making wild promises to Libya and other Arab nations that Uganda would soon be a Muslim country. (It is actually 80 per cent Christian)….
It became clear to us through the Scriptures that our resistance was to be that of overcoming evil with good. This included refusing to cooperate with anything that dehumanizes people, but we reaffirmed that we can never be involved in using force or weapons.

…we knew, of course, that the accusation against our beloved brother, Archbishop Janani Luwum, that he was hiding weapons for an armed rebellion, was untrue, a frame-up to justify his murder.

The archbishop’s arrest, and the news of his death, was a blow from the Enemy calculated to send us reeling. That was on February 16, 1977. The truth of the matter is that it boomeranged on Idi Amin himself. Through it he lost respect in the world and, as we see it now, it was the beginning of the end for him.

For us, the effect can best be expressed in the words of the little lady who came to arrange flowers, as she walked through the cathedral with several despondent bishops who were preparing for Archbishop Luwum’s Memorial Service. She said, “This is going to put us twenty times forward, isn’t it?” And as a matter of fact, it did.

More than four thousand people walked, unintimidated, past Idi Amin’s guards to pack St. Paul’s Cathedral in Kampala on February 20. They repeatedly sang the “Martyr’s Song,” which had been sung by the young Ugandan martyrs in 1885. Those young lads had only recently come to know the Lord, but they loved Him so much that they could refuse the evil thing demanded of them by King Mwanga. They died in the flames singing, “Oh that I had wings such as angels have, I would fly away and be with the Lord.” They were given wings, and the singing of those thousands at the Memorial Service had wings too.

–Festo Kivengere, Revolutionary Love, Chapter Nine

“Archbishop Janani Luwum stood firmly for truth, justice, and the sanctity of human life. At the Uganda Cancer Institute, his courage inspires us to serve our patients with integrity, compassion, and unwavering commitment—no matter the challenges we face.”Dr. Jackson Orem pic.twitter.com/ODfM73Ac1N

— Uganda Cancer Institute (@UgandaCancerIns) February 16, 2026

O God, whose Son the Good Shepherd laid down his life for the sheep: We give thee thanks for thy faithful shepherd, Janani Luwum, who after his Savior’s example gave up his life for the people of Uganda. Grant us to be so inspired by his witness that we make no peace with oppression, but live as those who are sealed with the cross of Christ, who died and rose again, and now liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.O God, whose Son the Good Shepherd laid down his life for the sheep: We give thee thanks for thy faithful shepherd, Janani Luwum, who after his Savior’s example gave up his life for the people of Uganda. Grant us to be so inspired by his witness that we make no peace with oppression, but live as those who are sealed with the cross of Christ, who died and rose again, and now liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Today, February 17, 2026, marks 49 years since the godless regime of Idi Amin charged Ugandan Archbishop Janani Luwum of treason and murdered him. The Archbishop's remains a rare voice in the travesty that is the African nation-state. pic.twitter.com/vqWnfOE3QU

— David *Objection* Ngong (@ProfDNgong) February 16, 2026

Almighty God, who hast shown us in the life and teaching of thy Son that the path of love may lead to the cross, and the reward of faithfulness may be a crown of thorns: Grant us grace to take up our cross and follow Christ in the strength of patience and the constancy of faith, and to have such fellowship with him in his sorrow that we may know the secret of his strength and peace; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord.

#dublin #dublinsunrise pic.twitter.com/ZOsEKeJO2B

— Emma Bullock 🇵🇸🇺🇦🐶🐾 ❤️🏉 (@emmabuk72) February 17, 2026

Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you is not irksome to me, and is safe for you.

Look out for the dogs, look out for the evil-workers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. For we are the true circumcision, who worship God in spirit, and glory in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh. Though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If any other man thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law a Pharisee, as to zeal a persecutor of the church, as to righteousness under the law blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith; that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

Philippians 3:1-11

Good morning from the #WelshMarches. Another cloudless sky. Woodpeckers and goldfinches joining the usual cohorts on the bird feeders. pic.twitter.com/crw4HPRQZx

— Anne O'Brien (@anne_obrien) February 17, 2026