Read about this in the Guardian today, University to ban gay marriages on campus by Jessica Shepherd.
The heads of a university closely aligned to the Church of England plan to ban civil partnership ceremonies on campus. The vice-chancellor, chair of governors and deputy pro-chancellor of Canterbury Christ Church University argue that the church’s position on homosexuality makes it wrong to conduct lesbian and gay “marriages” on the university’s premises…
…Canterbury Christ Church currently offers its premises for civil marriages at its campuses in Canterbury and Tunbridge Wells. From spring 2007, it is likely that new legislation will forbid institutions licensed for civil marriage ceremonies to refuse to conduct civil partnership ceremonies. There is unlikely to be a clause allowing them to opt out on religious grounds…
Earlier reports from the Guardian here, and from the BBC here.
34 CommentsThe Church of England held its press briefing for this month’s General Synod yesterday. Synod will be meeting in the newly refurbished Assembly Hall, at Church House, Westminster, from February 26 to March 1. There are a few press reports this morning.
Stephen Bates in The Guardian Church of England to debate tighter controls on pornographic material
Ruth Gledhill in The Times Send for missionaries to halt church decline, bishops told
Manchester Evening News Church may debate BB racist bullying claims
The CofE’s own news item on the Synod agenda is here and is headlined “Key debates on Trident, criminal justice, schools, the media, issues in human sexuality, clergy pensions, clergy terms of service, marriage law and other legislative proposals on Synod”.
Our list of online papers is here and the CofE’s is here.
Tuesday afternoon update
Ekklesia Prisons and opposition to Trident replacement on C of E agenda
Papers for this month’s sessions of the General Synod of the Church of England are starting to appear online and are listed below. The list will be updated as more papers become available.
Last updated: Thursday afternoon
Agenda
outline agenda
Monday 26 February
Tuesday 27 February
Wednesday 28 February
Thursday 1 March
Agenda for Legislative Business
Papers
(with the days on which they are scheduled to be debated or otherwise considered. Business may be rescheduled, particularly legislation, marked #.)
GS 1597B Draft Dioceses, Pastoral and Mission Measure Part I (pages 1 to 15); Part II (pages 16 to 30); Part III (pages 31 to 45); Part IV (pages 46 to 62) (Tuesday#)
GS 1598B Draft Amending Canon No 27 (Tuesday#)
GS 1599B Draft Vacancy in See Committees (Amendment) Regulation 200- (Tuesday#)
GS 1597-9Z Report by the Steering Committee (Tuesday#)
GS 1616A Draft Church of England Marriage Measure (Tuesday#)
GS 1616Y Report by the Revision Committee (Tuesday#)
GS 1635 Report by the Business Committee (Monday)
GS 1636 Electronic Voting: Report by the Business Committee (Wednesday)
GS 1637 Draft Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Measure (Tuesday#)
GS 1638 Draft Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Regulations (Tuesday#)
GS 1639 Draft Amending Canon No 29 (Tuesday#)
GS 1637-9X Report and Explanantory Memorandum (Tuesday#)
GS 1640 Resolution under Paragraph 17 of the Schedule to the Church Funds Investment Measure 1958 confirming the appointment of a successor body corporate to act in place of the Central Board of Finance of the Church of England (Wednesday#)
GS 1641 The Draft National Institutions of the Church of England (Transfer of Functions) Order 2007 (Wednesday#)
GS 1641X Explanatory Memorandum (Wednesday#)
GS 1642 Draft Amending Canon No 28 (Thursday#)
GS 1642X Explanatory Memorandum
GS 1643 Parsonages Measure (Amendment) Rules 2007 (Thursday#)
GS 1643X Explanatory Memorandum (Thursday#)
GS 1644 The Future of Trident: Report from the Mission and Public Affairs Council (Monday)
GS 1645 The Future of Clergy Pensions: Report from the Archbishops’ Council (Tuesday)
GS 1646 Achieving the First Two Hundred Years: Report by the Board of Education (including the Dearing Report: Five Years On) (Wednesday)
GS 1647 Taking Responsibility for Crime: Report from the Mission and Public Affairs Council (Thursday)
GS 1648 Fresh Expressions (Tuesday)
GS Misc 842A Lesbian and Gay Christians Background Note from the Reverend Mary Gilbert (Wednesday)
GS Misc 842B Lesbian and Gay Christians Background Note from the House of Bishops (Wednesday)
GS Misc 843A Civil Partnerships Background Paper for General Synod debate on Civil Partnerships proposed by Paul Perkin (Wednesday)
GS Misc 843B Civil Partnerships Background Note from the House of Bishops (Wednesday)
GS Misc 844A Media Standards: Their Effect on Individuals and Society A background paper from the Diocese of Lichfield (Thursday)
GS Misc 844B Media Standards: Their Effect on Individuals and Society Paper prepared by the Archbishops’ Council Communications Office (Thursday)
According to Jonathan Petre in the Telegraph this morning, headlined Drive to bar liberal from Church’s crisis summit:
…But in a humiliating blow to the Archbishop’s authority, senior conservative leaders privately wrote to him last month warning that he had no right to invite Bishop Schori to the summit without their consent.
In an atmosphere of growing distrust, they have now demanded a change to the agenda so they can decide whether to admit her at all…
and:
…As part of a power struggle with Dr Williams, they also accused him of a “fait accompli” by deciding to include the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, at the primates’ meeting for the first time.
Dr Williams argued that as he had to chair the meeting, Dr Sentamu was needed to represent the Church of England. But the conservative group, led by the Primate of Nigeria, Archbishop Peter Akinola, claimed that Dr Williams was adopting authoritarian powers rather than acting as “first among equals” among his fellow leaders.
They may try to bar Dr Sentamu from the five-day summit in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The conservatives refuse to attend Holy Communion with liberals at the summit. The group, who make up more than 20 of the 38 primates, will finalise their strategy before the summit starts on February 15. They will present a blueprint for a “parallel” Church to accommodate a range of conservatives in America, but this is unlikely to be acceptable to the American Episcopal Church…
In another development, the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) has convened a special meeting of its (normally triennal) General Synod which will meet from 6-8 February, see SOKOTO TO HOST GENERAL SYNOD IN FEBRUARY:
“It is going to be a history making event. It is expected that there will be an amendment of the constitution of the Church of Nigeria at this meeting. So it will be on record that this amendment was made in Sokoto.”
See this 2005 press release for background on the amendment.
The Telegraph takes this seriously: it has a leader today, Challenge for the Church which says:
83 CommentsThe question now is how much damage the end of the Communion would do to the Church of England. That depends partly on Dr Williams. The Established Church is founded on an English pragmatism that finds space for Catholic and Protestant, liberal and conservative. Alas, that pragmatism cannot be exported.
The Anglican Communion is one of several supra-national bodies (such as the Commonwealth) whose ambitions no longer correspond to reality. Dr Williams should let it fade away, and instead apply his intellect to holding together our national Church.
From the Church of England Newspaper
Turbulent Times: Continuing our series in which campaigning groups outline their future for the Church. This week: Inclusive Church.
Why it is time to focus on the positive aspects of the Church
by Brian Lewis
The Anglican Communion is a truly remarkable phenomenon, an extraordinary kaleidoscope of churches each embodying its own particular history and engaging with its local community in its own distinctive way. The existence of the Communion has meant that churches that are very different from each other have been able to work together as partners, partners in mission sharing spiritual gifts, and partners in material assistance and development.
Inclusive Church hopes that through the work of the Primates’ meeting and the actions of the other “instruments of unity” the Anglican Communion will come to a renewed understanding of its worth and a deeper historical perspective on its differences. There is much talk of the fractures in the Communion but not enough recognition of the works of partnership and the expressions of unity that still go on in very many places; churches from “the North” (including TEC) and “the South” (including in Africa) are still working as partners in mission, poverty relief and development. We hope for a communion that recovers a broader perspective on the issues of the current day and we dare to hope that the Church of England will contribute to this by developing its own understanding of what it means to be an inclusive church. The Church of England will, by a more honest and tolerant recognition of the divergent views within itself, contribute to the wider Communion discovering ways to hold differences without irrevocable division.
When we speak of our hope for an inclusive church we mean a church that will live out the promise of the Gospel. A church that will celebrate the diverse gifts of all members of the Body of Christ, and in the ordering of our common life open the ministries of deacon, priest and bishop to those so called to serve by God, regardless of their gender, race or sexual orientation. The just ordering of the Church’s common life will strengthen its proclamation of the Gospel. Our failure to be inclusive is a real barrier between the church and the wider society we seek to serve and evangelise.
A theology of inclusion is not in opposition to theology that values conversion and sanctification. For us inclusion means that we recognise that God desires salvation for all regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation and that we are all called to lives that are faithful, honest, other enriching and socially responsible again regardless of our race, gender or sexual orientation. It is the church’s task to help the Christian discern a pattern of holy living in response to that Gospel challenge. That response will be based on the serious reading of, and attending, to Scripture in a way that does not confuse the Gospel with either the presuppositions and exclusions of the first century, or an uncritical acceptance of the mores of the culture of today.
The ordination of women to the priesthood is not the church giving up obedience to God and following the culture of the day, it is the church joyfully recognising the leadership gifts God has given to women as well as men and bringing that into the life of our church in our world today. We believe that Scripture teaches us God intends men and women to work in partnership, a partnership expressed in ministry, lay and ordained. This is not a departure from biblical truth it is the church coming to understand it more fully over time, a process encouraged and authenticated by women responding faithfully to God’s call as the church has increasingly opened its lay and ordained ministries to women.
The society in which we live and proclaim the Gospel accepts the right of women to full participation at all levels. So deeply is this part of our society that we have legal sanctions to prevent individuals or organisations denying women the opportunity to advance to all levels of leadership. Yet we have only managed to hesitantly and conditionally recognise what women in the priesthood have brought to the church. Our failure to move easily and speedily to bring women into the episcopate has made us appear strange, irrational, and frankly unwell to the society we hope to evangelise.
We hope for a church that will have the courage to say Yes to women in ministry and leadership. We believe that when our church finally admits women to the episcopate in a way that does not diminish the fullness of that ministry this will not change the essential nature of the episcopate but rather remove an artificial cultural barrier that excludes those whom God has called. It is an uncomfortable truth that some of reactions to the election of Katharine Jefferts Schori to the position of Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church revealed how superficial the Communion claim to agreement on women in the episcopate is. Women bishops in the Church of England will be an encouragement to those parts of the Communion where this is not yet a reality and strengthen the place in the Communion of those churches in which women already take their rightful place.
If attitudes to women bishops (especially primates!) are one apparent challenge to the Communion’s unity, differing approaches to homosexuality seem to be an even greater threat. Then again we are told that the principal cause of division is not homosexuality but the proper place of Scripture in determining the theology and ethical position of the Church. But first let us note that the same level of division has not come from divergent views of how the Bible should determine the church’s position on other issues. For example some churches in the Communion allow those previously divorced to marry in their churches, others regard that as a betrayal of the clear teaching of the Bible but there is no talk of dividing the Communion over it. We are left with the question of why the issue of homosexuality has produced the visceral response, the violence of language and the depth of division that it has.
The issue of homosexuality is not new – not even to the bishops of the Anglican Communion. Nearly thirty years ago, in 1978, the Lambeth Conference resolved:
“While we reaffirm heterosexuality as the scriptural norm, we recognise the need
for deep and dispassionate study of the question of homosexuality, which would
take seriously both the teaching of Scripture and the results of scientific and
medical research. The Church, recognising the need for pastoral concern for those
who are homosexual, encourages dialogue with them.”
With the notable exception of a few (the Churches in Canada and the USA for example) this study has not been carried out and where it has the results have been ignored in the other parts of the Communion.
The Lambeth Conference of 1988 resolved
“This Conference:
1. Reaffirms the statement of the Lambeth Conference of 1978 on homosexuality, recognising the continuing need in the next decade for “deep and dispassionate study of the question of homosexuality, which would take seriously both the teaching of Scripture and the results of scientific and medical research.”
2. Urges such study and reflection to take account of biological, genetic and psychological research being undertaken by other agencies, and the socio-cultural factors that lead to the different attitudes in the provinces of our Communion.
3. Calls each province to reassess, in the light of such study and because of our concern for human rights, its care for and attitude towards persons of homosexual orientation. “
Could a Lambeth Resolution have been more carefully and studiously ignored?
It is in the context of these resolutions and the complete failure of the Communion to respond to them that we should see the more widely quoted resolution 1.10 of 1998.
We are however, where we are, and Inclusive Church is determined to journey in hope. It is not too late for the Primates to listen to each other with a greater spirit of generosity than they appear to have found in the recent past. The “Windsor process” might achieve greater success if it is broadened to involve the whole Communion at deeper levels. At present it seems to depend on the Bishops indeed the Primates alone. The Lambeth Commission was mandated to report to the Archbishop of Canterbury in preparation for the meetings of the both Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council. It was perhaps a lost opportunity that the Primates acted at Dromantine without waiting for the ACC to meet and bring its wisdom to the table. Their call for members of the ACC to voluntarily suspend their own membership was particularly damaging. The ACC is after all the duly constituted representative body of laity, clergy and bishops in the Communion. When the ACC did meet with the “voluntary” self-suspension of the North American churches it was notable that the suspension was confirmed by a margin less than the votes of the excluded provinces. The Primates decision to exclude would not have been confirmed by the ACC if it had met with its properly constituted membership. May we hope that the Primates will seek ways of acting that are less about determining who may come to the ACC and the Lambeth Conference and more about listening to what might come from those bodies if they are allowed to have their own integrity and purposes.
If the ACC has been somewhat sidelined, how much more the Church of England. With the Archbishop of Canterbury engaged in his delicate role as the “fourth instrument of unity” and choosing to exercise that role in the manner he has, the Church of England has been effectively voiceless. The recent decision to add the Archbishop of York to the Primates meeting may help but it is late in the day and with due respect to the Archbishop of York he was not the one chosen by the due process of the Church of England to represent it.
It is our hope that the Church of England will make a more positive contribution to bringing reconciliation to the Communion by modelling a more irenic and constructive model of debate than we have seen within the Communion to date. At its next meeting General Synod will consider a private members motion that calls for recognition of the diversity of views within the Church of England and the honest and sincere nature of those views. It is a serious attempt to set the ground for a genuine intelligent conversation within the Church of England about the nature of homosexuality, how we read and attend to scripture and how we proclaim the gospel afresh in the society in which we are set. This is not a naive expression of the view that if we can just talk to each other we will discover that we all really agree. We might, but its also very possible we won’t. If we can not come to agreement we still owe it to the people of the church and to the mission of the church to get past caricatures of each other and come to a deeper understanding of what it is the other is really saying. We do not yet know what we might achieve by sitting down to understand the others context, nor should we imagine that we have already heard all that the other has to say, or that we each understand what the other means by the language used. This is not a romantic call to sentimentality it is an invitation to the hard work of dialogue.
The Archbishops’ Council report “Into the New Quinquenium” (General Synod Feb. 06) speaks of the life of the Church being expressed “in its transforming engagement with the society in which it is set”. We journey in hope to the day we become an inclusive church, ordering our common life with justice and celebrating the gifts God has given all his people; while we remain hampered by the cultural presuppositions of a previous age we can not hope to engage and speak to the society in which we are set.
The Rev’d Brian Lewis is a member of the Inclusive Church Executive, a member of General Synod, a parish priest and chairs the Newham Faith Communities Forum.
22 CommentsThe Church of England has been reviewing the conditions of service of its clergy. General Synod has received and debated two reports and an implementation group has been set up to put the reports’ proposals into effect. This will involve legislation and a draft measure will be introduced when General Synod meets at the end of this month. This is scheduled for debate on Tuesday 27 February.
The Church of England has added a section to its website about the legislation: The Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Legislation. As well as links to the two reports and other material there is a very useful set of frequently asked questions which are well worth reading.
3 CommentsThe House of Bishops of the Church of England has indicated that it will move a substantial amendment to each of the two Private Members Motions scheduled for debate on Wednesday 28 February.
LESBIAN AND GAY CHRISTIANS
The Revd Mary Gilbert (Lichfield) to move:
700 ‘That this Synod acknowledge the diversity of opinion about homosexuality within the Church of England and that these divergent opinions come from honest and legitimate attempts to read the scriptures with integrity, understand the nature of homosexual orientation, and respect the patterns of holy living to which lesbian and gay Christians aspire; and, bearing in mind this diversity,
(a) agree that a homosexual orientation in itself is no bar to a faithful Christian life;
(b) invite parish and cathedral congregations to welcome and affirm lesbian and gay Christians, lay and ordained, valuing their contribution at every level of the Church; and
(c) urge every parish to ensure a climate of sufficient acceptance and safety to enable the experience of lesbian and gay people to be heard, as successive Lambeth Conferences in 1978 (resolution 10), 1988 (resolution 64), and 1998 (resolution 1.10) have requested.’
124 Signatures (February 2006)
ITEM 12 LESBIAN AND GAY CHRISTIANS
The Bishop of Gloucester to move:
Leave out all words after “this Synod” and insert the words:
“(a) commend continuing efforts to prevent the diversity of opinion about human sexuality creating further division and impaired fellowship within the Church of England and the Anglican Communion;
(b) recognise that such efforts would not be advanced by doing anything that could be perceived as the Church of England qualifying its commitment to the entirety of the relevant Lambeth Conference Resolutions (1978: 10; 1988: 64; 1998: 1.10); and
(c) affirm that homosexual orientation in itself is no bar to a faithful Christian life or to full participation in lay and ordained ministry in the Church.”
The background note issued by the House of Bishops concludes:
The House of Bishops does not believe that it would be in the interests of the Church of England or the Anglican Communion for the Synod to attempt to pass a motion that was either so ambiguous as to cause confusion and misunderstanding or so clear-cut as to exacerbate the polarisation that already exists. A member of the House will, therefore, be moving on behalf of the House a substantial amendment which, if carried, would enable the Synod to make a positive statement without creating fresh divisions.
Details of the second PMM are below the fold.
29 CommentsThe Tablet has this leader: Faith’s place in public life and also this feature article by James Freestone Church 1, State 1.
The leader includes this:
14 Comments…But more broadly even than this, politicians need to consider whether they are dealing a fatal blow to the policy, now promoted by both main parties, of drawing the religious and voluntary sector deeper into the functioning of the welfare state. Ministers have seen that the voluntary sector has a lot to offer; not just expertise but compassion and dedication beyond the call of duty between the hours of nine and five. But those qualities arise precisely because the motivation comes from deep religious commitment. With that religious commitment comes religious convictions, not all of which are likely to be compatible with a monolithic liberal-progressive orthodoxy. In short, the Government may be beckoning the voluntary agencies on board with one hand, and waving them away with the other. And this will be made worse if the perception grows that even politicians with deep religious convictions are no longer welcome in public life. Religion has long had a place in British public life, although as an influence rather than as a protagonist…
Paul Roberts has published a series of articles on his own blog under these headings
Three posts on clergy life (1) – clergy stress
Three posts on clergy life (2) – “If you meet George Herbert on the road, kill him”
Three posts on clergy life (3) – visiting
Three posts on clergy life – coda – you get the priests you plan for
Don Cupitt writes Face to Faith in the Guardian: In the post-Derrida world, church leaders are now recognising that they are in a fix.
In The Times Jonathan Romain writes that Clergy need help to love their congregants as themselves.
Christopher Howse writes about RH Benson in the Telegraph.
The Church Times has a column by Giles Fraser that talks about blogs and those who comment on blogs: Poisoning the wells of open debate. He doesn’t mention this blog.
Giles also wrote this book review article for the New Statesman Blind Faith. The book is American Fascists: the Christian right and the war on America and the strap line is Christian fundamentalism offers America’s underclass hope and security – at the price of total obedience. Now it is threatening the Church of England. The article ends this way:
The challenge for the mainstream churches in this country is to recognise that fundamentalism is now beginning to get a grip over here, even within the traditionally liberal and inclusive cloisters of the Church of England. The gay debate is just the beginning of a takeover bid for the soul of the church. And given the way this country’s church and state are joined at the hip, it is no surprise that some are predicting a constitutional car crash. The leadership of the C of E, caught in the oncoming headlights, does little to resist. The quotation from Karl Popper’s The Open Society and its Enemies with which Hedges opens his book, ought to be written in letters of fire on the bedhead of the Archbishop of Canterbury:
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend the tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
And on the same theme, Simon Barrow wrote this splendid paper for a consultation convened by the Church of England, Facing up to fundamentalism: A description, analysis and response for the perplexed. It’s worth reading in full.
46 CommentsThe Living Church has an interview with Bishop Martyn Minns: Bishop Minns: CANA No Different Than Diocese of Virginia.
The document filed by the diocese in the case of Truro Church can be found here.
An amazing collection of links relating to this legal dispute can be found here (hat tip titusonenine).
The Church Times this week published a whole series of articles about Virginia, most of which are not available on the web. This one, by Paul Handley, is: Virginia tells secessionists: see you in court.
6 CommentsIn today’s Church Times Mark Hill, Chancellor of the diocese of Chichester and the diocese in Europe, writes that the Civil Partnership Act allows more government control of the Church.
The delicate constitutional relationship between the Established Church and the state has been dealt a body blow by the Civil Partnership Act 2004. It has nothing to do with homosexuality or the nature of marriage. Indeed, the media furore about gender orientation and its implications for Anglican unity has probably served to obfuscate an assault on the self-governance of the Church of England, which has been surreptitiously effected by two obscure sections in the Act…
Read Uncivil partnership with the state?
26 CommentsPat Ashworth has two significant reports in today’s Church Times on African views of the Anglican Communion.
LOUD voices from Africa, aided by the “almighty dollar” and internet lobbyists, are distorting the true picture of what Africa’s 37 million Anglicans really think about sexuality and the future of the Anglican Communion, says the Bishop of Botswana, the Rt Revd Musonda Mwamba.
The Bishop, by background a lawyer and social anthropologist, was giving the keynote address to senior judges, lawyers, bishops, and clergy at the Ecclesiastical Law Society conference “The Anglican Communion: Crisis and Opportunity”, in Liverpool at the weekend. The minds of most African Anglicans were concentrated on life-and-death issues, and they were “frankly not bothered about the whole debate on sexuality”, he said…
Read the full report at ‘Listen to the majority African voice of grace’.
THE Bishop of Central Tanganyika, the Rt Revd Godfrey Mdimi Mhogolo, has dissociated his diocese from the statement issued in December by the House of Bishops of Tanzania, the province where the Primates Meeting is to be held this month.
The Bishops declared a “severely impaired” relationship with the Episcopal Church in the United States (ECUSA), and announced that Tanzania would not knowingly accept any money from dioceses, parishes, bishops, and individuals that “condone homosexual practice or bless same-sex unions”. They described ECUSA’s response to the Windsor report as “a failure to register honest repentance for their actions” (News, 15 December).
In a long and reflective letter to the Anglican Communion, dated 26 January, Bishop Mdimi sets out Tanganyika’s position on matters of faith: “We try to express Jesus Christ in the sufferings and challenges of our communities. We cry with those who cry, and bring hope for a better future to those who suffer…
Read the report in full at Gay question is ‘not central to faith’ says Tanzanian bishop.
And the Church Times also has a leader commenting on this: Medicine or surgery? which includes:
23 Comments…The Windsor process is not yet finished; and so the mechanism for expelling provinces or dioceses from the Communion is not in place — even though, at present, the Archbishop of Canterbury can withdraw his recognition. Judging by the pre-meeting rhetoric, the Global South Primates are not inclined to wait for the bureaucracy to catch up with them. Since their last meeting, the province of Nigeria has developed its mission in the United States — in contravention of the Windsor report. Archbishop Akinola and others believe that they can shun the US Presiding Bishop, Dr Katharine Jefferts Schori, and thus enlarge the gulf between the Episcopal Church in the United States and the rest of the Communion.
It would be helpful if these Primates confirmed whether they are working to kill or cure. The one thing on which those on both sides of the homosexuality divide seem to agree is that the energy this dispute absorbs could be better spent. The analogy of a divorce is often used: the wrangling between two fundamentally incompatible people can cause such grief that they are better apart. The expressions of relief by those on both sides of the split in the diocese of Virginia attests to this…
Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh has issued a press release, Revised Appeal Reveals Coup Plans against Episcopal Church which starts:
The release, on January 29, 2007, of the text of a third version of the request for alternative primatial oversight (APO) advanced by the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh should dispel any doubts about the goals and strategy of its leaders. The Rt. Rev Robert Duncan is clearly attempting an ecclesiastical coup against both The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion…
The text to which reference is made can be found here. Links to the earlier versions are in the press release.
35 CommentsEkklesia reports in Evangelical leader welcomes UK equalities legislation that:
A prominent evangelical Christian, the Rev Malcolm Duncan, who heads up the Faithworks movement – which is involved in public service provision – has welcomed the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs) that some Catholic and Anglican leaders have described as compromising their consciences.
In a statement on the Faithworks site and in an extended article, Mr Duncan declared: “Much of the mainstream media has portrayed this as a defeat for the Church. We strongly believe this is not the case.”
The extended article can be found here: Wrong debate, wrong language by Malcolm Duncan.
28 CommentsUpdated Thursday morning
ENS reports Virginia diocese files suits against property claims of separated congregations.
This ENS article also includes a second story Province III bishops issue statement in support of diocesan leadership. You can read about the latter in more detail at daily episcopalian: More support for Bishop Lee. And the text of the main diocesan press release is available there also: Virginia goes to court.
The Living Church report is headed Diocese of Virginia Files Suit Against Departing Congregations.
Updates
Washington Post Diocese Sues 11 Seceding Congregations Over Property Ownership
Richmond Times-Dispatch Episcopal leaders eye title to property
Washington Times Episcopal diocese sues breakaways for property
Falls Church News-Press Episcopalian Diocese Files in Court for Removal of Defectors from F.C. Site and Editorial: The Real Falls Church.
Updated again Saturday morning
The Anglican Communion News Service has published Anglican Communion Leaders to meet in Tanzania. There will be several new faces: from Ireland, USA, Scotland, Brazil, Australia, Korea, Japan, Indian Ocean, Aotearoa, New Zealand, Southeast Asia and Burundi.
More official material is here. An official list of the primates with biographies can be found here or another unofficial set of profiles can be found here.
A highly informative article by Graham Kings, originally published in the Church Times about Singapore: Intellectual Centre of a Movement can be found at Fulcrum’s site.
Another Living Church article Nigerian Primate: Consensus on Sexuality Necessary Before Lambeth Conference suggests that the outcome of this meeting may affect the willingness of some to attend the 2008 Lambeth Conference.
Update
George Conger has a report in the Church of England Newspaper reproduced at titusonenine: Primates will spend only four hours discussing Windsor. This includes the following detail:
The Primates will also travel to the Cathedral Church of Christ, also known as the Cathedral of the Universities Mission in Central Africa, in Zanzibar. In deference to the theological divisions within the Primates’ ranks, the Cathedral service will be a choir office. A daily Eucharist will be held at 12:15 during the week, but these have been designed as optional services, as the members of the Global South coalition stated in their September communiqué from Kigali they would not break bread with the American Presiding Bishop.
And this paragraph from George’s earlier report in the Living Church should not be overlooked:
59 CommentsWhether the primates will follow the agenda crafted in London by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is uncertain. The agenda for the 2005 primates meeting underwent significant changes as the meeting progressed, and similar changes are anticipated for this meeting. A pre-meeting strategy session for the African primates and other American and international church leaders will be held Feb. 10 in Nairobi, Kenya.l
Press release from InclusiveChurch
An interactive network for the voice of liberal Anglicans.
InclusiveChurch responds to adoption debate
The debate on gay adoption highlights an increasingly serious problem within the Church of England.
We have been called to bear witness to the gospel of generous, redemptive love and justice, but time and again we are perceived to be more concerned with rejection than welcome, with bunker-digging rather than dialogue.
The collective sigh of relief that was breathed and the profound joy that was felt across the country when women were ordained to the priesthood, from those outside as well as those inside the Church, has now been overshadowed.
Instead, the Church is now associated more and more strongly in the public mind with another form of discrimination – homophobia. We are now in a situation where, however carefully public statements are worded, the Church’s of England’s grudging response to the Equality Act, and to last year’s civil partnerships legislation, only encourages the belief that ‘the Church has a problem with gays’.
Meanwhile, the country has moved on. Civil partnerships have been warmly welcomed by gay and lesbian people and their friends and families, with uptake take-up far in excess of Government predictions. And around the country gay couples are getting on with the tough and uniquely valuable vocation of bringing up adopted children.
The Church is certainly called to be counter-cultural. We are certainly called, for example, to challenge trade injustice, to question policy on the international arms trade, to resist consumerism – not least its trivialisation of God’s precious gift of sexuality – in short, to try to work for the good of all people under the eyes of God.
But sometimes our resistance to lessons learned in the secular world appears to be a denial of the possibility of progress.
We cannot control God’s outrageously inclusive Gospel. We should, rather, be asking what God is teaching us through our lesbian and gay brothers and sisters who have heard the Gospel message of salvation and redemption, and become part of the Christian community.
To this end, the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement has organised a conference on “Faith, homophobia and human rights” on February 17th.
And the Church of England’s General Synod is preparing to discuss a motion on February 21st which includes the following:
‘That this Synod acknowledge the diversity of opinion about homosexuality within the Church of England and that these divergent opinions come from honest and legitimate attempts to read the scriptures with integrity, understand the nature of homosexual orientation, and respect the patterns of holy living to which lesbian and gay Christians aspire…’
We support these initiatives. As a church, we are in danger of becoming like sheep bleating in our little fold while real life goes by on the road outside. We acknowledge the diversity of opinion within the church. But it is our hope and prayer that the conference and the debate may be occasions to move away from rejection, so that we can jointly preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ’s love for God’s world to which we are all committed, trusting that the Spirit will through dialogue and mutual respect lead us into all truth. .
Revd Briony Martin, Vice Chair, InclusiveChurch
50 CommentsCardinal Murphy-O’Connor writes in today’s Telegraph that Regulation must not trump conscience.
This is presumably the first step in the campaign reported by Jonathan Petre Church to fight to defend role in public life.
As Ekklesia reports in Church accused of getting its facts wrong on faith-based welfare the National Secular Society is ready to respond.
The leader column in the Independent Leading article: New morality? If only… is unequivocal in its summary of the position:
… The affair has also shown how social attitudes have changed in most of Britain. A few decades ago, the prospect of officially sanctioned gay adoption would have caused outrage. But few people today take the view that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt. The debate has focused instead on whether Catholic[s] agencies have a right to exempt themselves from the law of the land.
But perhaps most significantly, the affair has shown the limits of organised religions to influence political power. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, the head of Catholics in England and Wales, wrote to every Cabinet minister to demand an exception for Catholic agencies. He was supported by the Church of England and the Muslim Council of Britain. It was a formidable coalition. But it failed.
Now the Cardinal accuses ministers of trying to impose a “new morality” in Britain. If this new morality means it will henceforth be impossible for religious groups to discriminate against people simply because they happen to be homosexual, we fail to see the problem with that.
Two links to the past that may be helpful to put all this in context:
First, this solution to the RC adoption agency problem is not original: see this report dated August 2006 from the San Francisco Chronicle SAN FRANCISCO Catholic agency finds way out of adoption ban Alliance with other groups gets around same-sex parent issue.
Second, this July 2006 Ekklesia report: Redeeming Religion in the Public Square.
Addition: Jonathan Bartley had this Thought for the Day on the radio this morning.
13 CommentsThe BBC interviewed Cardinal Murphy O’Connor on the radio this morning, see report (with link to audio): Cardinal warns of ‘new morality’.
Ekklesia has a news article on all this: Cardinal raises debate about church-government relations after adoption row and also this here.
Ekklesia has also published a comment article, Conscience and justice by Savi Hensman in which she analyses some of the implications of the Anglican archbishops’ recent letter.
The Telegraph has published an article claiming that Opt-out refusal ‘bans church from public life’.
Tom Wright’s rant to Ruth Gledhill (also summarised here) about the decision drew scorn from Jim Naughton who in a piece titled …or weird by Michael Jackson said:
…But being called arrogant by N. T. Wright, is like being called ugly by Jabba the Hutt.
This remark is a reference to an earlier critique of NTW which was titled N. T. Wright: Le Communion c’est moi.
And Savi Hensman has also sent an open letter to NTW which is reproduced below the fold.
27 Comments