The press release from the Bishop of Southwark is reproduced here below the fold.
Today, in the Guardian Stephen Bates reports on all this, in Archbishop stokes row over status of rebel evangelical.
And, Stephen also has a rather more colourful opinion piece on commentisfree Invertebrates led by a jellyfish.
Fulcrum has published this statement.
A rather confused and incorrect report from the CEN Bishop rebuked over the sacking of vicar
The press release from Richard Coekin is reproduced below:
MEDIA STATEMENT
RICHARD COEKIN WINS APPEAL FOR RESTORATION OF LICENCE
The Archbishop of Canterbury announced today (5th June 2006) that he has allowed the appeal by Revd Richard Coekin against the revocation of his licence by the Bishop of Southwark, so reinstating Revd Coekin to his role as a licensed minister in the diocese of Southwark.
In response Revd Coekin said: “We thank God that my licence has been reinstated. This has been a long and gruelling process. I am grateful to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Winchester for their help in resolving this problem in granting my appeal.
“As the Archbishop has asked, we will want to move on to seek reconciliation with the Bishop of Southwark and all caught up in these events. We continue to pray for them and for the possibility of closer co-operation in the spread of the good news of Jesus.
“There has sadly been a great deal of misunderstanding and some misinformed criticism circulating about our churches and ministries. We hope that in light of this decision that there will now be fresh opportunities to rebuild mutual trust and understanding.
“We organised the ordinations of the staff needed for our congregations because of our temporarily impaired relationship with the Bishop of Southwark. This is due to what we regard as a departure by the House of Bishops from the historic and orthodox moral teaching of the Bible. We continue to pray that the Church of England will remain loyal to its Biblical heritage.â€
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Monday 05 June 2006
Statement from The Bishop of Southwark on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s ruling in the case of The Revd Richard Coekin’s appeal on the revocation of his Licence.
The Bishop of Southwark, the Rt Revd Tom Butler:
1. Welcomes the matter being brought to a speedy conclusion.
2. Notes that the Archbishop, in his judgement, states that “Mr Coekin’s conduct [in arranging an illegal ordination] merited censure”
3. Notes further that the Archbishop, whilst cancelling the revocation of the licence for technical reasons, states that he (the Archbishop) “does not accept that the requested undertaking [for such a cancellation as requested by the Bishop of Winchester’s report] are unreasonable or unjustifiable.” [These undertakings are:
(i) except under the authority of the Bishop of Southwark to refrain from any involvement in:
a. ordination services within the area of the Diocese of Southwark, or
b. the ordination of persons (of whatever Christian church) to serve within the area of that diocese.
(ii) strictly to abide by all general or specific directions given by the Bishop of Southwark, concerning church planting or mission initiatives.]
4. In this, the Archbishop’s report makes it clear that these recommended undertakings fall within Canon Law.
5. The Archbishop’s report further emphasises that if Mr Coekin is to exercise licensed ministry in the Church of England he must “conform to the discipline of the Church.” and “must submit to the Bishop of Southwark’s episcopal authority.”
6. I note that the Archbishop points to the commitment of the whole Church of England to its mission as the national Church. The Archbishop points to the forthcoming Dioceses, Pastoral and Mission Measure, (which places an important emphasis on bishops’ mission orders that govern mission initiatives.)
7. Within these understandings, I will be looking to Mr Coekin to work in partnership with the Diocese and with all of its other clergy.
Dear TA,
this is a comment regarding a different matter than (but in a way related to) the “Coekin affair”. Why has not the address by Cardinal Kasper to the House of Bishops been published on your blog?
Hi Simon
so what do we think? is RW a jellyfish? I have my suspicion that this is not the case. However I find myself wondering how this is going to end. My spidey-senses tell me that danger is on the horizon – closely followed by a rampaging revolt against bishops.
take care out there
Jody
Because I do have a life outside this blog, and have not been at my desk much this week.
I will catch up this topic soon
RW has himself said that he is not a good strategist. Granting that a poor board player could be expected to sustain some missteps, from time to time to time to time? – we also might have to factor in RW’s noted intellect. He is not Canterbury for Dummies. Why is he acting so consistently like Canterbury for Three Monkeys – See no evil, Hear no evil, Speak no evil? What is keeping this brilliant mind so apparently bowed and sequestered? As an Instrument of Unity he has little keen edge of mind when it comes to facing down Realignment… Read more »
I think you will reap havoc and mayhem from this – and what is worse – I think you deserve it.
Dr Dan offers another very interesting analysis and poses stimulating questions. I hesitate to speculate as sometimes these are picked up and twisted by others and these are times for careful consideration, but let’s have a go regardless! There are those who say that Windsor and all that has happened in the last few years have been a “victory†for those who think the American Church overstepped the mark when they ordained Gene Robinson to the episcopate. Many thoughtful (even somewhat moderate) Anglican of a certain disposition might be happy and content at the way things seem to have turned… Read more »
DDF said, “Perhaps RW is shellshocked when faced with Militant Traditionalists, after having had his own career bashed successfully by Lord Carey exactly over the queer stuff”
He only made it as far as Canterbury, then?
It seems to me, after Mr. Coekin’s statement, that perhaps it’s time for Bishop Butler to begin assembling a clear case, and begin again to discipline Mr. Coekin, this time with careful, detailed procedure. Yes, it’s painful and tedious, and it will take time. However, it seems likely that Mr. Coekin will provide plenty of occasion. All the bishop needs to do is watch, wait, and record.
The Bishop Winchester’s words: –
“My findings are that the procedure leading up to the Respondent’s decision under Canon C12(5) was seriously flawed (paragraph 29) and that summary revocation of the Appellant’s licence was inappropriate.”
The Bishop of Southwark, “Notes further that the Archbishop, whilst cancelling the revocation of the licence for technical reasons,…”
Such spin of the latter bishop is regretable, lamentable and does not bode well for the cultivation of any respect.
What’s so great about “barely disguised contempt”? I doubt that it has helped Stephen Bates to grasp what has been going on in Southwark and beyond. So I’ll take his claims with a pinch of salt. While I can well believe that some in the Church of England will uphold what is right only when threatened with litigation, I like to believe that the AB has more backbone than this. Tom Butler has acted in a heavy-handed, autocratic manner and it is indeed lamentable that he still seems to think the fault lies all on the other side. Some comments… Read more »
I think RW was wise to avoid escalating a conflict with conservative evangelicals that nobody can gain from.
I believe border crossings are not appropriate with what we call the Anglican Community. The fact that this isn’t even a church in communion the ABC makes Coekin’s folley even more reprehensible. Of course this is happening a lot in ECUSA. Welcome to the caring world of the Anglican Communion.
I think he was frightened…not at all wise, a nd quite why the Bishop of Southwark accepted the Bishop of Winchester as an arbiter in the process is mystifying! His line is well known…
Re Thomas Renz…’seriously violated principles’???
What world is the Bishop of Winchester living in? In any other job, Richard Coekin would have been summarily dismissed immediately! What nonsense to suggest (and Rowan Williams to hide behind) that the poor sensitive soul should only have had had his license suspended. Treason USED to incur rather severe penalties.
drdanfee – please believe me, the issue is not to do with any group, “queer” or not.
The issue is the authority and interpretation of the Bible.
It is sad that discussion is focussed on one particular group too much. The “queer” (your word) sin is no greater than any other. What “conservatives” want is the Bible to be taken seriously in its clear antipathy to all sin including greed, oppression etc etc.
Dr Butler may not think so, but even non-stipendiary assistant ministers (a very low form of ecclesiastical life, in the mind of the establishment) are entitled to a fair hearing and a proportionate judgement, rather than summary dismissal by Fiat of the bishop.
But the new rules from the start of this year mean that bishops cannot do this any longer. So any future Coekins will be dealt with by a properly designed legal procedure.
And no, there is no “abandonment canon” in the Church of England.