First, Tony Sadler formerly the Archbishops’ Secretary for Appointments, writes to The Times Arch appointment.
Second, Priyamvada Gopal who teaches postcolonial studies at Cambridge University, writes for Comment is free about Orombi: a child of empire?
Third, Will Self, columnist at the Evening Standard, writes It’s your job to stand up to the bigots, Archbishop.
Mr. Sadler is just slightly off target. Bishop Gene Robinson was not elected by his peers, he was elected by a Convention (=Synod) of the Diocese of New Hampshire, with a majority of the clergy and of the elected lay delegates. His election was then consented to by a majority of the House of Bishops and majorities of the Clerical and the Lay Orders of the House of Deputies of the General Convention. (This is a normal but not common procedure, used only when an episcopal election occurs within 90 days of a triennial General Convention. More commonly, an episcopal… Read more »
Good for Wil Self and the Standard ! Self would make a better ABC thats for sure !
“It’s your job to stand up to the bigots, Archbishop.” Will Self
Ain’t that the truth!
Will Self: “[Rowan’s] is an explicitly political church – he owes his own appointment to a prime minister – and Britain is a nation where gay rights are enshrined in law, including the right to same-sex union. If Dr Williams wants his church to remain the official state religion in this country…”
As Rowan Cantuar is trying to impose a “Choose this day” on TEC (and the AngChCanada), he would do well to remember that the CofE may face an ultimatum, too.
Both Sadler and Gopal are brilliant in their critiques of Orombi, particularly Gopal’s understanding of Orombi’s misuse of colonialism to justify and hide his own bigoted, autocratic ends.
Sadler also was succinct and to the point in showing Orombi the result of being elected by one’s peers.
A timely reminder from Ms Priyamvada Gopal. Pitty she strikes such a Sea of Ignorance and Anger in the comments. It seems these commmenters either have never heard of or have since forgotten that 18th and 19th century Colonialism was a pet project (together with schools for the children of the Poor, and Inner and Foreign Mission) of 18th century Liberalism, which in its turn sprung from Calvinism. It would seem that also Religious Tolerance, and a whole lot of opposition as such, sprang from the intolerance/closeness/oppression of Calvinist Congregatonal sectarian life/Government; a famous example is Frederic the Great proclaiming… Read more »
Small History lesson: In fact an Aunt of my Grandfathers had a niece by marriage who married an Englishman (roundhead family from Birmingham) who had inherited two uncles (one Bank in the Argentine and one in South Africa, respectively) whereupon he proceeded to make his pile building railroads in India. Another of his uncles had for a couple of years been the Methodist Pastor of the (very posh) Anglican Congregation in Stockholm, meeting in the Orangery of Count De Geer (Dutch or rather Vallon Calvinist family, which in the 1650ies had been pillars of the Calvinist “German“ Congregation in its… Read more »
“The Anglican church, as constituted, is first and foremost the Church of England, and is charged expressly with ministering to the spiritual needs of all of us, regardless of whether we even believe in God.”
One does wonder how much longer the Archbishop can continue to deny the equality and humanity of atheists by discriminating against them, and we fully expect him to do his duty to the entire nation by providing a suitable contingent of atheist bishops so that all will be ministered to.
With regards to Ms Gopal’s piece, it is well worth reading again Kevin Ward’s article “Same-sex relations in Africa and the debate on homosexuality in East African Anglicanism”, which was published in the Anglican Theological Review in 2002.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3818/is_200201/ai_n9042012
“Orombi must surely be aware that a process of “election by his peers” is not always beyond criticism. And of course this was precisely the method by which Bishop Gene Robinson was selected.” As an earlier poster noted, Mr. Sadler got it wrong about how +Gene was elected. Since that election and consecration was, according to some, an event of Vesuvian scale, you would think that by this time – how many years later? – the manner of his election and consecration would be known even in the wilds of England. Th fact that people who disapprove of TEC and… Read more »
Nice one, Rick Allen. But there lurks a genuine point here: for example, all UK citizens, if they pretend to be nominally Christian, have, by virtue of the C of E’s establishment status, an absolute right to a church wedding. On the other hand, as I said in connection with Stephen Bates, it is an infernal bore when outsiders cheer on liberal Anglicanism without bothering actually to get in there, join us, and FIGHT. Their current stance remains, ultimately, cheap and opportunistic.
Rowan Williams seems to have assumed the mantle of defending the medieval prerogatives of religious institutions, both Christian and Muslim against the encroachments of a secular world. We really can’t let this craze for human rights get out of hand. The queen seems less than zealous in holding up her role as defensor fides. Rowan will pick up the slack.
i don’t understand the criticism of Tony Sadler.
Gene Robinson, at the time of his election, was a priest of the Diocese of New Hampshire, and the priests of that diocese, meeting in diocesan convention, voted to elect him. I’m not familiar with the exact rules for clerical membership of that particular body, but presumably those voting constitute the majority of the diocesan clergy, if not the totality thereof.
(So also did the lay members of the diocesan convention.)
Isn’t that what is normally meant by the term “elected by his peers”?
While there are some differences from diocese to diocese in TEC, (in the Diocese of Long Island the Clerical order consists of all canonically resident bishops, presbyters and deacons, while the Lay order consists of lay representatives of individual parishes that were selected by each parish Vestry. The diocesan variations concern the presence of deacons in the Clerical order. In some dioceses deacons are completely excluded, in others their numbers are limited to a representative few.) to say that TEC bishops are elected by their peers is misleading at best. To achieve election a presbyter must get a majority of… Read more »
Don’t you think, Simon, that by Peers they mean Bishops?
Simon –
I believe the substance of the criticism is an irritation with the fact that people not of TEC seem to either not know, ignore, or consider irrelevant that +Gene, indeed all our Bishops, are elected by a 2/3 majority of both clerical *and lay* deputies, voting by orders.
2/3 of the clergy – +Gene’s “peers” before his election – couldn’t do it on their own. He was elected by 2/3 of the laity voting in convention, as well.
+Katharine was elected by her fellow-bishops to be PB, so that may be a source of the confusion.
Not precisely, Simon. Each parish in a diocese has a certain number of representatives to the Diocesan convention — their clergy plus a specific number of lay participants so the Diocesan convention does indeed represent the people of the diocese as a whole, not just members of one group. Diocesan conventions vote on bishops (and resolutions) by order — lay and clerical. In the case of a bishop, a majority as described in the diocesan canons (simple, 75% +1 or whatever) of each house (lay and clerical) must agree to the election of the specific candidate. So Bishop Robinson was… Read more »
This Rowan correspondence affirms his conviction, that same sex relationships are like marriages.
I was heartened to hear of Rowan’s correspondence with Evangelical Christian while he (Rowan) was Primate of Wales. (The Times has it).
This sounds like the Rowan we knew up ( & loved) to his being engulfed as ‘Canterbury’. The Rowan of the Michael Harding Memorial Lecture (The Body’sGrace); and the Rowan who visited the Clergy Consultation in London.
A shame folks are nobled , hemmed in and restricted upon arrival at Lambeth.
The atheist bishops are already in place ! “The Anglican church, as constituted, is first and foremost the Church of England, and is charged expressly with ministering to the spiritual needs of all of us, regardless of whether we even believe in God.” One does wonder how much longer the Archbishop can continue to deny the equality and humanity of atheists by discriminating against them, and we fully expect him to do his duty to the entire nation by providing a suitable contingent of atheist bishops so that all will be ministered to. Posted by: rick allen on Wednesday, 6… Read more »
I think the message I am getting here , is that ‘the laity’ are not his ‘peers’.
But the original writer may have included ‘lay folks’ among his peers. Afterall, if they are not peers, what are they ?
Children ? Inferiors ?
This kind of *paternalistic (unrecognised) assumption is rife* in England, but I am disappointed to find its implication in TEC circles (if indeed, it is, in fact).
* “My organist”, “my PCC”, ‘my lay reader’, my congreagation, ‘my parish’ etc …………
All I can say – about the ‘election’ conundrums being addressed here – is: ‘Thank God for the ACC, which has laity, priests and bishops in its constituency. As a priest of the Church of Aotearoa/New Zealand, which, under the authority of it’s founding Bishop, George Augustus Selwyn, was one of the earliest colonial churches to institute synodical government in the Church; I am thankful that Laity, Clergy and Bishops have an almost equal part in governing the mission of the Anglican Church in our part of the world. I think the present stand-off within the Communion has a lot… Read more »
My peer group is that of all baptized Christians, whether clergy, episcopal or laity.
YMMV.
Don’t know why Rick Allen is worried about atheist bishops. The letter announcing my suspension from one well-known conservative forum makes it clear they are not interested in prophesy, biblical passages or making them relevant to current world events. Unedited letter content “Hi Cheryl, A few members have raised concerns about the content of your contributions of late, specifically your last post today in the “Jesus in perspective” thread, which I’ve removed. As Craig mentioned in the thread, I think the people in our community have been very gracious and accommodating, we all welcome newcomers and look forward to their… Read more »
And just in case you think it was a mistake. Previous email received 8 July 2005. Content of similar email received 6 Sept 2005 is here: “Hi Cheryl, Unfortunately I’ve had to temporarily suspend your account again as I felt your posting in the New Orleans thread was a step beyond the boundaries we have discussed. While I am prepared to reinstate your account if you can tell me honestly you will stay within the boundaries we have discussed and not post about the connection between God/the bible and world events, anything that may be considered prophetic, the battle between… Read more »
“The letter announcing my suspension from one well-known conservative forum makes it clear they are not interested in prophesy, biblical passages or making them relevant to current world events.”
Unless, of course, they can use them against those they disagree with.
Um, this may be a minor point, but it is well to keep in mind that in the Christian mythology, and I use that word in its old meaning, not the same at all as “fairy tales”, bishops are not chosen by a democratic election at all. Thus, it is not strictly correct to say that a 2/3 majority of this or that house or of “the People”, or of anything else “voted for” Gene Robinson. They each expressed what they believed the Holy Spirit was calling the ecclesia, manifested by the gathered delegates of the various parishes of the… Read more »
Ford, how many times do I have to challenge the claim that the UK government chooses Church of England bishops?
This simply is no longer true. The current Prime Minister even decided he did not wish to receive a second name from the Church.
Please try and keep up…
As the author of the first post in this thread, I’d like to comment on Ford Elms’ posting: Ideally, of course, he is right. Episcopal elections in TEC are not “democratic elections” in quite the same sense as the selection of our political leaders. Formally, of course, they are “democratic elections,” in which the selected candidate receives the requisite number of votes in both the clerical and the lay orders. (In some dioceses this is a simple majority of the votes cast; in others a larger supermajority, e.g. two-thirds, is required by diocesan canon.) But having myself been a participant… Read more »
One poster says that the American PB is chosen by the bishops. Surely not? Since the office is elected at the General Convention, doe the House of Deputies not have a role?
In Canada, the House of Bishops chooses three to five of their number – essentially acting as the nominating committee. The Primate of All Canada is elected by the lay and clerical houses (requiring, I believe, a majority in each).
Simon, the point was not who chooses, but how that choice is done. Personally, I am far more comfortable with the process as it is in Canada and the US. The point, all the same, is that by continually speaking of “democratically elected” bishops, we are in danger of seeing episcopal selection as nothing more than a political process. It is idealistic to claim that it is all about discrerning the will of God, there’s always politics, but what’s wrong with idealism? I do not subscribe fully to the Sapir-Whorff hypothesis that the words we use shape the way we… Read more »
Ford writes:
You are correct, though, the British process is not merely a matter of government selection. I’ll try to be more precise in future.
Just to be even more precise (nay, pedantic), this is the English system. The other provinces in the British Isles have other arrangements – Scotland uses an episcopal synod to select the bishop. The Primus is elected by the College of Bishops (using lots if necessary).
Kennedy
It is hardly a transparent process. And therefore, we cannot be sure what transpires.
‘Ford, how many times do I have to challenge the claim that the UK government chooses Church of England bishops?
This simply is no longer true. The current Prime Minister even decided he did not wish to receive a second name from the Church.
Please try and keep up…
Posted by: Simon Sarmiento on Thursday, 7 August 2008
Well, whatever the actual mechanism of choosing the occupant of the Chair of Saint Augustine of Canterbury; it could have been much worse:
One of the candidates for the last election was actually The Rt. Reverend Dr. Nazir-Ali! How disastrous it could have been if he was chosen!
Surely, the Holy Spirit did actually save us from the possibility of supremacy by the Global South?