Criticism of what the Anglican Communion Office is doing comes from more than one direction.
On the one hand, Paul Bagshaw of the MCU has this detailed critique of Part 4 of the Anglican Covenant, Questions on the critical clause.
This is a follow-up to his earlier articles linked here.
On the other hand, the Anglican Communion Institute has this detailed criticism of the Anglican Communion Steering Committee. See ACC Standing Committee: Five Things That Should Be Done Now.
29 CommentsLast Sunday’s Observer had a feature in the Magazine section written by Emma John and titled Should women ever be bishops?
It includes the following statistic:
Forward in Faith and Reform between them have a combined individual membership of 24,000; the Church of England has a regular worshipping community of 1.7 million (who attend at least once a month), the majority of whom – 65% – is female.
Monday’s Guardian had an article by Paul Handley titled Rowan turns rough.
Is Rowan Williams finally getting tough? And is he doing so with the right people?
So, here’s the scenario. Rowan Williams, just turned 60, eight years into the job at Canterbury, decides, at long last, to start throwing his weight around. People are always grumbling about the need for some strong leadership, so, right, he says, let’s give it a go…
…Next, women bishops. The General Synod decided in July 2008 to press ahead with women bishops without giving any cast-iron, legal safeguards to those who don’t accept them. There would be a code of practice, but nothing legally binding. Since then has come the Pope’s offer of sanctuary for traditionalists in the Roman Catholic Church.
In the light of this, New Rowan, joined by the Archbishop of York, a fortnight ago concocted their own cunning plan, introducing the idea of co- ordinate bishops for the traditionalists, so that each diocese has a sort of episcopal twin-set. Supporters of women bishops haven’t been overwhelmingly enthusiastic; but hey, says Rowan, I’m an Archbishop. So, there we have it: at long last, the bearded hippy finds his true voice, and it turns out to be a reactionary, authoritarian one…
But, read the whole article. This was a response to the week’s Cif belief question, which is Which way will synod jump?
(The latter article seems to assume that the synod will be considering the Covenant this weekend, which is not correct.)
6 Commentspress release from Affirming Catholicism 6th July 2010
7 CommentsWomen and the Episcopate
Affirming Catholicism welcomed the Report of the Women Bishops Revision Committee published on 8th May 2010. We believe that the draft legislation proposed by the Revision Committee offers a good and balanced means by which the Church of England can legislate to allow women to take their full place within the Church of England’s ministry.
After much consideration, Affirming Catholicism does not recommend supporting the Archbishops’ amendments. Although these amendments claim to retain the authority of the diocesan bishop, they do not clarify what would happen if the diocesan and the coordinate bishop found themselves in disagreement. The Archbishops’ amendments therefore create – through the legislation itself – a situation in which authority is granted to the diocesan bishop in name, but potentially not in actuality if the diocesan bishop is a woman. This is precisely the situation which the Revision Committee sought to avoid. The archbishops have not resolved the tensions between the different views on women bishops, but have merely transferred them into the detail of the Code of Practice, which does not yet exist. The danger therefore remains that by passing these amendments, two ‘classes’ of bishops will be created, a development that would threaten the catholic nature of the Church of England. We share the concerns ably expressed by Fulcrum in their helpful commentary (http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=545).
Many other amendments have been proposed. The two most significant and far-reaching ones attempt to re-write the entire Measure in order to reflect positions which the Revision Committee considered at length and eventually regarded as impracticable – and in the case of separate dioceses, undesirable. The passing of either of these amendments would in our view so compromise the catholic nature of the Church of England, and so hamper the ministry of women ordained as bishop under such arrangements, that they would have the effect of wrecking the primary purpose of the legislation.
The Report documents the Revision Committee’s consideration of a range of structural solutions to arrive at a proposal which will leave the authority vested in the Diocesan Bishop, whilst making pastoral provision for those who cannot recognise that authority in the case that the Bishop is a woman. As the Report notes, the legislation as proposed “will, for the first time, enable women to be admitted to all orders of ministry. By preserving intact the authority of the diocesan bishop it will avoid any changes in the historic understanding of that office and of the episcopate more generally. And by making statutory arrangements for those with theological difficulties it will endeavour to preserve that broad and comprehensive character of the Church of England that is one of its defining and most attractive features” (Report, § 459).
The proposed legislation, unlike suggestions for separate structures for those who cannot in conscience accept the sacramental ministry of women, will preserve the parochial structures of the Church of England, preventing the creation of parallel Church of England jurisdictions in the same place. Affirming Catholicism shares the basic assumptions upon which the Draft Measure is based and would therefore recommend that it be supported.
We do, however, have some concerns about certain aspects of the proposals put forward by the Revision Committee:
- We are cautious about the wisdom of allowing bishop’s declarations to be made on the basis of the views of others in the diocese (Draft Measure, § 2.4).
- We believe that the provisions for those in dioceses where the bishop has made a declaration that he will not ordain women to the priesthood are not strong enough (Draft Measure, § 2.5). In particular, they do not ensure that the voice of someone supportive of the ordination of women will be heard on the senior staff of such diocese; neither do they make provision for the pastoral care of laity who are supportive of the ordination of women.
- Whilst Affirming Catholicism respects the reasons why the Revision Committee deemed the Parochial Church Council the proper body to petition on behalf of a parish (Report §§ 236-240), we remain convinced that the legislation needs to include an explicitly stated duty of the PCC to consult widely when seeking to make parochial declarations (Draft Measure, § 3).
Affirming Catholicism supports the legislation as proposed by the Revision Committee, whilst welcoming amendments relating to these three points.
Updated Tuesday afternoon to include comment on the effect of deleting certain clauses
Note: “clause” and “section” are used interchangeably.
The text of all the proposed amendments to the draft Women in the Episcopate legislation was published in a notice paper yesterday.
Here is a simplified explanation of what I think is the intended effect of the various amendments.
The first three make provision for transfer of episcopal functions by right and not by delegation from the diocesan bishop.
512 This set of amendments will create additional dioceses for parishes unable on grounds of conviction to accept the episcopal ministry of women. There will be no women bishops or priests operating in these dioceses. The additional dioceses will exist in parallel with the current geographical dioceses. A PCC will be able to vote for its parish to join or leave one of these additional dioceses.
513 This set of amendments will set up complementary (or transferred) episcopal arrangements (sometimes abbreviated to TEA). There will be suffragan bishops acceptable to those who cannot accept the episcopal ministry of women. Parishes will be able to require that the episcopal functions of their diocesan bishop be transferred to one of these complementary bishops.
514 and 531 These are the Archbishops’ amendments to set up Co-ordinate Jurisdiction.
The remaining amendments leave intact the principle of delegation from the diocesan bishop.
515 This will restrict delegation of episcopal functions to sacraments and other divine services by removing the reference to “the provision of pastoral care to the clergy and parishioners”.
516 This provides that schemes of delegation to a male bishop will also include support for parishes not seeking such delegation.
517 This will set up a Review Commission to regularly review the arrangements for male bishops.
519 This will require PCCs to consult with electoral roll members before requesting episcopal ministry from a male bishop.
520 This will require every PCC to consider requesting episcopal ministry from a male bishop every 5 years.
521 This will require those involved in appointing incumbents and priests in charge to take account the fact that a parish has not requested episcopal ministry from a male bishop as well as the fact that it has.
522 to 527 These will relax in various ways the voting requirements when PCCs vote on requesting episcopal ministry from a male bishop.
530 This will give the House of Bishops complete discretion about what to include (or not include) in the Code of Practice.
531 See 514 above.
535 and 536 These relate to guild churches and are consequential on 523 and 524.
540 This will cause the provisions of the measure (except for allowing women bishops) to expire after 40 years.
541 This will require two-thirds majorities in each house of General Synod to subsequently amend or repeal this legislation.
542 This will require compensation to be made available to those who resign from ecclesiastical service before the measure comes into effect.
Synod procedures require a vote to be taken on the inclusion of each clause in the draft measure, and the relevant motions are also included in the notice paper. Notice has already been given that speeches will be made against the inclusion of clauses 2, 3, 4 and 7. The effect of deleting these clauses (in particular 2 and 3) would be to give the “simplest possible solution” with no provision for those opposed to women bishops and priests other than a code of practice.
There are no proposed amendments to the accompanying amending canon.
20 CommentsUpdated Tuesday morning
Riazat Butt reported in the Guardian on the conservative opposition in Southwark, see Gay bishop for Southwark ‘will split Church of England’. Dr Jeffrey John nominated for Anglican diocese but parishes could seek leadership abroad, conservative clerics warn.
Andrew Brown has written at Cif belief Sex and the archbishop. Installing the openly gay Jeffrey John as bishop would be a decisive victory for Rowan Williams. But if he’s beaten, he’s finished.
Tuesday’s Guardian Diary column has this:
The issue of gay bishops has them marching as to war within the church and no mistake. How can we have Jeffrey John, an openly gay man, as bishop of Southwark, thundered traditionalist canon Chris Sugden on the Today programme yesterday? Yes, it’s muskets at dawn, and when the hostilities begin, look out for the Rev Paul Perkin, a member of the Church of England General Synod and vicar of the deeply evangelical St Mark’s in Battersea, part of the Southwark diocese in south London. He strongly opposes the proposed candidature of John, and the cut of his jib is such that his parish website programme page is decorated with cartoon graphics of military tanks. “Faith Under Fire,” reads the caption. Those who feel threatened will inevitably fire back.
Martin Beckford at the Telegraph has Traditionalist Church of England groups warn of defections if gay bishop is ordained
14 CommentsA notice paper listing all the proposed amendments to the Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure (GS 1708A) has been published.
It is 37 pages long.
3 CommentsThe Church Times blog has a useful set of links to earlier events at The Telegraph reports that Jeffrey John is the ‘favoured candidate’ for Bishop of Southwark post
Colin Coward has his analysis at Changing Attitude in The new paradigm unfolds on Radio 4 between Chris Sugden and Giles Fraser!
Jim Naughton has an American view at the Episcopal Café in Not entirely baseless speculation about the Jeffrey John situation.
John Richardson wrote at The Ugley Vicar Be very careful before you object to Dr John.
12 CommentsPress Statement from WATCH (Women and the Church) 5th July 2010
20 CommentsWATCH Opposes Archbishops’ Amendment Regarding Women Bishops
The text of the Archbishops’ amendment on women bishops appears innocuously brief and simple. However, their proposed small alterations to the draft legislation hide some changes for the Church that WATCH sees as highly contentious.
In removing the reference to ‘delegation’ we are returned to the idea of ‘transfer’ of jurisdiction: a female bishop will have some of her job automatically removed as soon as she is appointed. This was rejected (as TEA) by the House of Bishops in 2006, and found unworkable in practice after detailed examination by the Revision Committee.
When it comes to having ‘coordinate jurisdiction’, the Archbishops appear to be seeking to create, in effect, two Diocesan bishops in each Diocese: one to minister to those who accept ordained women, and one to minister to those who don’t. This is a step further even than flying bishops. Such an innovation must not be accepted without serious examination of the consequences.
Senior clergywomen have written in the last week to the Archbishops asking them to withdraw their amendment. They say that the proposed amendment ‘brings dismay and despair amongst women priests, and many have voiced their reaction by saying how deeply undermining it is of their ministry as ordained women.’ WATCH remains opposed to the Archbishops’ amendment.
Updated again Monday afternoon
Anglican Mainstream has reproduced an extract from a blog entry by Ruth Gledhill under the (confusing) headline Scholastics v Orthodox: As Jeffrey John story breaks, we have Bishop Marshall’s ACC resignation letter. Ms Ruth Gledhill.
It includes the following:
It is of course possible that the Archbishop of Canterbury has had a dramatic Pauline conversion to the justice argument of gay rights campaigners in the Church of England. More likely is that he was boxed in and had little choice but to approve Southwark’s mandatory candidate. Nick Holtam from St Martin-in-the-Fields is likely to be the other name that goes forward to the Prime Minister. Under the new rules of the Crown Nominations Committee, David Cameron would normally expect just one name but I believe he has on this occasion asked for two.
The Times subscribers can find the whole article here.
Updates
The Australian has reproduced a news article from The Times headlined Gay bishop to divide Anglicans.
Anglican Mainstream has also published the following:
Anglican Mainstream – the full quote in the Times
Urgent Call for Prayer from Anglican Mainstream
20 CommentsUpdated Monday lunchtime
The BBC Radio 4 Today programme carried an item earlier this morning, which you can listen to here.
‘No chance’ gay bishop will split CofE
Canon Chris Sugden and Dr Giles Fraser discuss if the appointment of Dr Jeffrey John as Bishop of Southwark would reopen the wounds of the debate over gay bishops in the Anglican Church.
The interview is 7 minutes long.
Update
The BBC now has a news report, based on the interview linked above, at Appointing gay bishop ‘risks splitting Church’.
24 CommentsUpdated Sunday lunchtime
Tomorrow’s Sunday Telegraph has an article by Jonathan Wynne-Jones headlined Gay cleric in line to become bishop in Church of England.
Update
A second article in the Sunday Telegraph by Jonathan Wynne-Jones has now appeared online, see Meeting on appointment of gay bishop will determine future of the Church.
The official document entitled BRIEFING FOR MEMBERS OF VACANCY IN SEE COMMITTEES (version dated November 2009) is available here as a PDF file.
The process of selecting a diocesan bishop is also described here.
The Southwark Diocesan Statement of Needs can be found here. (PDF)
Members of the Southwark Vacancy-in-See Committee are listed here (scroll down).
The national members of the Crown Nominations Commission are listed on this page.
The Southwark nominees to the Commission are listed in this press release.
The meeting “next week” is in fact on Monday and Tuesday 5/6 July.
42 CommentsThe Church Times published a leader column yesterday, Have the Mexicans started a wave?
This argues the desirability of seeking a supermajority of votes in the CofE General Synod:
…The records of the recent House of Bishops meeting, released this week, show that the House agreed not to propose special majorities when it comes to the vote in the General Synod. The decision is surprising, given the impact that the Covenant might have on the Church of England. Although the text contains no mechanical means whereby one province can influence the deliberations of another, it will obviously change matters to know that a decision might result in some form of severance from the Communion mainstream. This might not be a bad thing — greater responsiveness to each other is, after all, the object of the Covenant — but it will be a different thing.
As matters now stand, the implications if a province decides not to endorse the Covenant are unknown. The Covenant Working Group concluded that, in such an eventuality, “there should be the flexibility for the Instruments of Communion to determine an appropriate response in the evolving situation.” In other words, the Anglican Consultative Council, the Primates’ Meeting, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and, if time drags on, the Lambeth Conference would have to make something up. The C of E is not any old province, however, and were it to reject the Covenant, it is hard to see the project surviving. At the very least, the Archbishop of Canterbury would find it hard to support the Covenant without the backing of his Church. As so much rests on the vote, a two-thirds majority in the Synod would provide a clearer endorsement.
Paul Bagshaw has published an article today, Why the Covenant won’t work.
The Covenant will work in all sorts of ways, of course, some intended some predictable if unintended.
What it won’t do and can’t do, is what it says on the tin. It cannot ‘prevent and manage’ disputes:
This Commission believes that the case for adoption of an Anglican Covenant is overwhelming:
* The Anglican Communion cannot again afford, in every sense, the crippling prospect of repeated worldwide inter-Anglican conflict such as that engendered by the current crisis. Given the imperfections of our communion and human nature, doubtless there will be more disagreements. It is our shared responsibility to have in place an agreed mechanism to enable and maintain life in communion, and to prevent and manage communion disputes. (Windsor Report §119)
The reason it cannot ‘prevent and manage’ disputes is simple. If the Covenant mechanisms can be applied retrospectively (which is effectively what is being attempted) then these mechanisms are applied as it were from the outside of the dispute. They step in like courts and police to adjudicate and enforce an outcome – in this case the expulsion (in whole or part) of the offending members of the Communion…
A few days ago, he also published Just what will the Covenant cost?
5 CommentsFulcrum has published this Fulcrum Press Statement.
WOMEN BISHOPS AND THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND
Statement by the Fulcrum Leadership Team3 July 2010
(read the Commentary on this Statement here)The Bible supports ending restrictions on the ministry of women by making women bishops and the mission challenges of our times require it. It is vital that the General Synod debate later this month does not produce a stalemate. We need to move forward now toward women bishops in the life of the Church of England and we need them serving from 2014 and not 2018 or 2025.
We recognise that those who dissent from, as well as those who assent to, the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate are loyal Anglicans. Those who oppose this development need a space and a future in the Church of England. We believe this would be best served by appending a Code of Pastoral Practice to the Measure, not permanent legislation.
We believe the new legislation must not be framed to create what might be deemed to be a second class of bishops based on gender or a “Church within a Church”.
For these reasons we believe the legislation as proposed by the Revision Committee provides the best framework for a practical way forward.
Comment on the relationship between the work of the Revision Committee and the alternatives suggested by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York is posted on the Fulcrum Website.
Do read the full commentary.
14 CommentsRoz Kaveney in The Guardian asks What are demons, really? Christians and Satanists are both divided about the reality of demons. But even liberal believers can be led to silliness by their beliefs.
And John Casey writes in The Tablet about Talk of the Devil: Satan in Catholic theology.
Mark Vernon writes in The Guardian about The eroticism of the Church of England. The BBC’s new sitcom, Rev, is a surprisingly realistic picture about the sexual undercurrents of normal Christianity.
Alex Klaushofer writes in The Guardian about New wine in old church buildings. All over the country small churches are growing while the large buildings that once housed them decay.
And Ian Jack writes, also in The Guardian, about Saving churches for their history – not religion. These buildings are an important part of our landscape – even if they are not used for worship.
Symon Hill writes in The Guardian about Queer, Christian and proud. Ultra-conservative anti-gay Christians are a just a noisy minority. That’s why this coming Pride, the rest of us should raise the roof.
Peter Stanford has this Face to faith article in The Guardian: Christianity, arrogance and ignorance. After decades of discussion on world faiths, how could I know so little of their core beliefs?
Giles Fraser writes in the Church Times about The football babies come home.
Jay Michaelson asks in Religion Dispatches Does the Bible Really Call Homosexuality an “Abomination”? This word, used for centuries to justify an anti-gay posture, has been badly translated and even more poorly understood.
This week’s The Question at The Guardian’s Comment is free belief is Should religions compete? Would the world be a better place if religions concerned themselves only with the crimes and follies of their own?
Here are the responses.
Monday: Alan Race Conversation demands mutual respect. Without trust we cannot talk about God, but to build trust we must avoid trying to convert or lecture people
Thursday Maggi Dawn Religions should not compete for power. The call for peace at the heart of most religions contrasts with the way they behave as competing communities.
Friday Mehdi Hasan
Islam should not be missionary. Muslims must shun the divisive idea of a marketplace of religions which all compete for believers.
The Times has now hidden itself behind its paywall.
8 CommentsACNS reports two further resignations: Archbishops Henry Orombi and Justice Okrofi.
But the headline reads: Two new members to be welcomed onto the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.
The forthcoming Standing Committee meeting will welcome two new members from Asia and Africa: Bp Paul Sarker (Moderator of the Church of Bangladesh and Bishop of Dhaka) and Revd Canon Janet Trisk of South Africa (Rector of the Parish of St David, Prestbury in Pietermaritzburg, in the Diocese of Natal).
The two new additions and the existing members face a packed agenda for their July meeting that includes reports on finance, mission, the Anglican Relief and Development Alliance, evangelism and church growth, and unity, faith and order including the progress of consideration of the Anglican Communion Covenant by the Provinces.
They will also be discussing Standing Committee membership issues including electing a successor to Bp Azad Marshall, Bishop of Iran, and noting the resignations of Archbishops Justice Akrofi and Henry Orombi.
Outside of Committee business, the members’ agenda includes visits to Lambeth Palace, its library and Westminster Abbey.
The then current list of Standing Committee members as given in a recent ENS report on the resignation of Bishop Azad Marshall was:
[old list deleted]
Update
While I was writing the above, ENS published a new article, Standing Committee membership, resignations confirmed by Anglican Communion Office
The Anglican Communion Office has announced that two new members will serve on the Standing Committee beginning with the July 23-27 meeting in London: Bishop Paul Sarker, moderator of the Church of Bangladesh and bishop of Dhaka; and the Rev. Canon Janet Trisk, rector of the parish of St. David, Prestbury, in Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.
Trisk was elected at the last Standing Committee meeting to replace Nomfundo Walaza, also from South Africa, and Sarker is the elected alternate for Middle East President Bishop Mouneer Anis, who resigned his membership in February saying that his presence has “no value whatsoever” and that his voice is “like a useless cry in the wilderness.”
The July 2 release also confirmed that Archbishop Henry Orombi of Uganda and his elected alternate, Archbishop Justice Akrofi of West Africa, have resigned from the Standing Committee.
And giving an updated membership list (quoted verbatim):
The Church Times has a report headlined Slash spending on bishops’ houses, says task group.
EXPENDITURE on bishops’ houses is out of control, an official task group has concluded.
The funding for see houses is set every three years. The total spent in 2002-04 was £11 million. In 2008-10, it is forecast to be £21 million. The average maintenance cost of some bishops’ houses is now well over £50,000 a year.
The figures come in a document prepared by a task group on spending, chaired by the Bishop of London, the Rt Revd Richard Chartres. Other members include the Bishop of Birmingham, the Rt Revd Andrew Urquhart, and the First Church Estates Commissioner, Andreas Whittam Smith.
The group acknowledges that a number of the houses are Grade I and Grade II listed. It also accepts that much of the expenditure is a result of work on office space in many of the houses, which are used by diocesan staff as well as by the bishop. Such expenditure seldom adds to the value of the house.
It concludes, none the less, that the money allocated in 2011-13 should be capped at £15 million, with a view to bringing it down to no more than £10 million in 2014-16. “There is a compelling need to bring control over this area of expenditure,” the group says.
This all comes from GS Misc 946 Archbishops’ Task Group: Report on Spending Plans 2011-2013, a document with lots more interesting information, which is among the General Synod papers, but has not yet appeared on the CofE website. It might perhaps appear on this page when it does.
3 CommentsThis is an attempt to explain in plainer English what the amendments, that the two archbishops are proposing to make to the Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure, are trying to do.
First, they remove from the wording of the measure the explicit reference to “delegation”.
for the exercise by
way of delegation toa male bishop
This is because the concept of “delegation” has proved to be a stumbling block for some of those who are opposed to women bishops. See for example the discussion in this earlier TA thread from last October, when for a brief while it appeared that the Revision Committee was going down a path towards “statutory transfer” which is exactly what this amendment now seeks to restore. See also the earlier (2006) proposals which were for Transferred Episcopal Arrangements (shortened to TEA) and from the debate in July 2008, look at Amendment 72, which is reported on here, and which sought to insert the words:
“either by way of statutory transfer of specified responsibilities or”;
The vote on that amendment was relatively close, compared to the others, but it failed in the House of Clergy.
This point is summarised in the press release from the archbishops as follows:
Second, they make an assertion that this change:
shall not divest the bishop of the diocese of any of his or her functions.
From the press release:
Third, they insert into the section about the Code of Practice, an explicit requirement that the code must include guidance about the
arrangements for co-ordinating the exercise of episcopal ministry under section 2(1), (3) and (5) by the bishop of the diocese and any other bishop who exercises episcopal ministry in accordance with those subsections.
This is intended to ensure that the Code of Practice does cover the topics mentioned in those subsections.
From the press release:
So, to summarise, the amendments do exactly, but no more than, what the press release from the archbishops said they would do. They are a reversion to the principle of “statutory transfer” which was voted down by synod in 2008, and abandoned by the revision committee last November.
21 CommentsUpdated to include (below the fold) the text of the measure after amendment
Updated Thursday evening to correct extent of struck through text below the fold
The Archbishops have today released the text of their proposed amendments to the Women in the Episcopate legislation. We have copied this below.
We have put the text of the draft measure online here. There is also a pdf version available from the CofE website.
We linked to the Archbishops’ original announcement of their proposals here.
General Synod Draft Legislation: Women in the Episcopate amendments
Thursday 01 July 2010
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York have submitted the following amendments to the Draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration and Ordination of Women) Measure, GS1708A, to be considered at the forthcoming July sessions of the General Synod of the Church of England.
DRAFT BISHOPS AND PRIESTS (CONSECRATION AND ORDINATION OF WOMEN) MEASURE
Draft amendments to omit reference to delegation
Co-ordinate Jurisdiction
Clause 2
1. In subsection (1) leave out the words “way of delegation to”.
2. After subsection (1) insert –
“(2) The episcopal ministry referred to in subsections (1), (3) and (5) shall be exercisable by virtue of this section and shall not divest the bishop of the diocese of any of his or her functions.
Clause 5
In section 5(1)(b), at the end, insert the words “and, in particular, arrangements for co-ordinating the exercise of episcopal ministry under section 2(1), (3) and (5) by the bishop of the diocese and any other bishop who exercises episcopal ministry in accordance with those subsections”.
+Rowan Cantuar +Sentamu Ebor
We show below the fold the effect of these amendments on the text of the measure.
34 CommentsSavi Hensman writes today at Cif belief about The Anglican power play.
The proposed Covenant is the culmination of a conservative and homophobic drive for power in the Anglican Communion
The Church of England’s House of Bishops is urging it to accept an Anglican Communion Covenant. This would give top leaders of overseas churches more power over the C of E and (strictly in theory) vice versa. The Archbishop of Canterbury has been a champion of greater centralism among Anglicans worldwide, supposedly to strengthen unity. But recent events have exposed the tawdry reality behind talk of “interdependence” and “bonds of affection”.
The Communion has long been a family of churches in different parts of the world, with a common heritage of faith but able to make their own decisions. The 1878 Lambeth Conference resolved that “the duly certified action of every national or particular Church, and of each ecclesiastical province (or diocese not included in a province), in the exercise of its own discipline, should be respected by all the other Churches” and “no bishop or other clergyman of any other Church should exercise his functions within that diocese without the consent of the bishop thereof” .
This was repeatedly affirmed at international gatherings, as were the value of freedom and human rights. (While the Archbishop of Canterbury, the most senior C of E cleric, was expected to convene such events, he had no authority over other provinces.)
Adrian Worsfold wrote for the Daily Episcopalian a little while ago about The slow-motion car crash.
…Once again, and to be clear: if you don’t want the consequences, don’t vote for the document. To remove the Covenant is to finish Windsor too. This applies far wider than for The Episcopal Church and The Anglican Church of Canada, the latter of which is dragging its feet somewhat in its aching movement from its desire to be agreeable in the Communion and its realisation that this document is a disaster.
The Archbishop of Canterbury believes in the bishops as people of a body, as in traditional authority, so policies are in the end sacred and personal. He is attached to this road, the only road, and in detail. I see him as a person, let’s say, in the passenger seat of a rally car with all the maps, the details and the documents, handed to him by the bureaucrats on the back seat according to tasks he set them. And then he’s the one who gives the instructions to his Secretary General, whose foot is slammed on the accelerator and whose hands are held fast on the steering wheel. They are in a rally and they are deciding the route for all the following Anglican cars. The fact that everyone sees this in slow motion should not alter the reality that there is an almighty car crash about to take place, with the lead car, and every other car following behind, generating a pile up for which ambulances are to be needed in numbers. Some rally driver, somewhere behind, needs to apply the brakes and radio the others.
And yesterday, Marshall Scott wrote in the same venue about Cowboy poker and the Anglican Communion.
4 CommentsSeveral years ago I began describing our Anglican struggles as “cowboy poker.” For those who have never heard of it, cowboy poker is a unique game. It’s a competition held in some rodeos in the United States, and perhaps elsewhere (yes, there are rodeos elsewhere). A card table and chair are set in the middle of the arena. Contestants sit around it playing poker. There is money on the table, but it isn’t won by playing cards. In fact, the cards aren’t the game. Instead, a fighting bull is released into the arena, looking for something to attack. The expectation is that the bull will charge the table, and the pot will go, winner-take-all, to the last person seated at the table.
I’ve had that thought again and again through the past few years. There have been many ways of looking at our struggles – differences over the limits of welcome and inclusion, over the interpretation of Scripture, over theological anthropology. However, it has also been a family argument over patrimony. That has included arguments over who would be the “true heirs” of the Anglican tradition; but also who would be recognized as Anglican by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The difference would fall between those who measured it by official recognition by the Church of England and the Anglican Consultative Council; and those who measured it by invitations to the Lambeth Conference, the Primates’ Meetings, and “representative bodies.” Granted, there have been, as I said, disagreements about interpretation, but those have been in the context of remarkable agreement, included even in the draft Covenant, that Scripture and the Prayer Book tradition are fundamental to the Anglican tradition. So, I think there’s something to be said for the thought that this is about being recognized – being accepted, officially if grudgingly – by Canterbury (and if possible by the current incumbent)…
Mexico has become the first Communion Province to adopt the Anglican Communion Covenant following its VI General Synod in Mexico City on 11 and 12 June.
Secretary General Kenneth Kearon said he was delighted at the decision and labelled The Anglican Church of Mexico’s decision as a “significant step” in the life of the Communion.
The Anglican Communion Covenant, a document that outlines the common life and values of the Communion, was described by Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams as “Something that helps us know where we stand together and also helps us to intensify our fellowship and our trust.” It includes a section that proposes how to address significant disagreements within the Anglican Communion.
The idea of a Covenant was first raised in 2004 and member churches are currently reviewing the latest and final version. “We are delighted to hear that Mexico has agreed to adopt the Covenant,” said Canon Kearon. “Provinces were asked to take their time to seriously consider this document, and we are glad to hear from recent synods that they are doing just that.”
Read the press release here: Mexico adopts the Anglican Communion Covenant.
10 Comments