Last Updated Saturday
Fulcrum has issued a statement in relation to all this, Kenya, Chelmsford and Communion: What are the issues?
The Archbishop of Kenya has issued this press statement.
——
The Bishop of Chelmsford, John Gladwin, returned home from Kenya today, and held a press conference.
ACNS carries the press statement that he issued.
Ruth Gledhill attended the press conference and has written about it at some length on her blog, which also has pictures. She has titled the entry Gladwin: I blame the devil. She also has a shorter account on Times Online headlined Bishop stranded in Africa blames the devil.
The newspaper version of this report is Devil of a time for bishop in the bush.
Update East Anglian Daily Times Bishop plays down Kenyan ‘snub’
Update Saturday The latest from Nairobi in the Nation Fresh row over gay-rights bishop
Footnote: the Church of England Newspaper has published this report, written earlier in the week, which most oddly refers to the bishop repeatedly as Mr Gladwin.
Another footnote: in today’s Church Times Giles Fraser refers to the reporting on Bishop Gladwin in his opinion column.
And a third footnote: Anglican Mainstream has published a letter to the Church Times which will not appear on tthe latter’s public website for another week: Kenyan snub to Bishop: don’t blame conservatives.
Simon writes: “Footnote: the Church of England Newspaper has published this report, written earlier in the week, which most oddly refers to the bishop repeatedly as Mr Gladwin.” Hmm, and it does the same to “Mr Harries”. I’ve seen this done before, even to Roman Catholic bishops, in the secular press. I also remember one of the RC papers referring many years ago to “Mr Runcie”, presumably wishing to adhere loyally to the teaching of Pope Leo XIII. But then, now that Lambeth doctorates are gone, how should the CEN refer to prelates who don’t have a real doctorate? “Father”… Read more »
“Mr” is quite correct in respect of Bishop Gladwin. He has not been awarded an earned doctorate. And bishops have not been awarded Lambeth DDs upon appointment since at least the time of Geoffrey Fisher.
Honorary doctorates, which are proliferating in some quarters, do not entitle the recipient to the title of Doctor, but are nevertheless widely abused.
No names.
“the resolution of the 1998 Lambeth Conference that pledged the Church to strictly biblical, conservative stance.”
Ah, the Infamous Gledhill Spin!
Which is more execrable?
That she spins an *advisory resolution* (like ALL of them at Lambeth) as “pledging the Church”?
Or that she spins Lambeth 1.10’s (truly) conservative hate-mongering, as “strictly biblical”?
[It’s a close call, but I’ll go w/ the second as the WORSE of the two. >:-/]
As evidenced above, makes perfect sense that +Chelmsford blames “the Father of Lies” . . .
May I reiterate (and add to) my questions, which clearly belong here rather than in the previous thread?
I see from the report of John Gladwin’s news conference that he clearly implies he doesn’t agree with the views of Changing Attitude: “I was not asked to endorse the views of Changing Attitude when I became a patron.”
(http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2006/06/gladwin_i_blame.html)
Did Changing Attitude realize this when they accepted his Patronage? Do other patrons also take this position? Which of their patrons are in fact known to endorse the views of Changing Attitude?
I found the Fulcrum analysis piece quite helpful, especially this section: “The basis for any such declarations of broken or impaired communion therefore appears to be the two-fold belief that: 1. the bishop does not personally believe I.10 is true and 2. the bishop is supporting the ‘listening process’ in such a way that he seeks to persuade the wider church that I.10 is not true. If that is the basis then it needs to be clearly stated as such and a rationale given as to why declaring communion to be impaired or broken is a proportionate response to this… Read more »
I know that this is the issue most burning on all your hearts. The style “Mr” is not at all odd. The first reference to John Gladwin is “the Bishop of Chelmsford”. In the second his name is prefaced with “Rt Rev” and in future references he is styled “Mr”. This is perfectly in keeping with the conventions for addressing deacons and priests. At no point does a clergyperson cease to be a Mr/Mrs/etc. unless of course they are a doctor or have some other title which takes precedence. One could argue that strictly speaking those subsequent references to him… Read more »
To quote Crockford on the specific point at issue:
“The Bishop of X at the first mention, and the Bishop thereafter. “
No suggestion that Mr is appropriate, and certainly it has not been customary.
Hey it is Friday, again 🙂
Having grown up in the American Protestant tradition I was used to ministers simply being addressesed as or referred to as Reverend so-and-so. When I came to the Episcopal Church, I found the levels of “reverendness” confusing but yet strangly fitting in that the usage described a sacramental character of the person as an adjective applied in front of a name – The Reverend Mr. (or Dr. when appropriate) so-and-so. So it seems that if the person’s job is what is at issue Crockford’s recommendations makes sense. But if we are jsut talking about the person apart from the job,… Read more »
;-P The point was that the CEN does not follow Crockfords strictly but seems to be following the style for addressing ‘ordinary’ members of the clergy – who would not be slighted were they referred to merely as Mr/Mrs/whatever. Much better than the hideous “Reverend Smith”. Hence they often cite Bishops as “the Rt Rev…” rather than “the bishop of…” which would be the correct Crockfords formula. Last week John Gladwin held full episcopal status in the report though which further suggests inconsistency rather than rudeness is the determining factor (last week it adhered to Crockfords standards): http://www.churchnewspaper.com/news.php?read=on&number_key=5821&title=Kenya%20Archbishop%20pulls%20the%20plug%20on%20Bishop%20Gladwins%20visit Now I… Read more »
This sounds rather unconvincing. If someone agrees to be a patron of an organisation, it is reasonable to assume that they share the basic aims although not necessarily all the detail of the organisation concerned If John Gladwin isn’t in sympathy with those aims, I think it not unreasonableto assume that he would not have agreed to become a patron Having said that, I certainly know that Bishops may choose to make payments to organisations they may personally not be sympathetic to, because they feel that they contribute in a constructive manner to the debate But I can’t see that… Read more »
I think this statement issued after the last Lambeth Conference needs to be re-read in the context of what we are seeing here. For the 189 bishops who signed it see here http://www.lgcm.org.uk/archive/archive2.html PASTORAL STATEMENT MADE AFTER THE LAMBETH CONFERENCE ’98 Episcopal Sponsor of the Pastoral Statement is Rt Rev Ronald Haines(Washington) Dear sisters and brothers, The Lambeth Conference has spent nearly three weeks deliberating issues of human sexuality, among many other vital issues facing our worldwide Communion. We have met in a climate of enormous diversity and have attempted both to articulate our views and listen carefully to those… Read more »
Mention has been made of Bishop Gladwin’s role as preacher at an LGCM service 10 years ago in Southwark Cathedral which drew 2000 people. There was opposition to this service at the time from the likes of the Christian Institute. It is interesting to read their own account of the happenings then from their own website: “At every stage of the debate Archbishop Carey and the hierarchy in general, together with the Church of England press office, seemed to be legitimising the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement and, if anything, opposing their critics. The final insult came on the evening… Read more »
I recall attending a meeting – 10 years ago – of Bishop Penny Jamieson (the first woman diocesan bishop) to the Diocese of Sydney – then a pale shadow of its current manifestation.
Those in favour of women priests addressed Penny as Bishop Jamieson.
Those against addressed her as “Dr Jamieson” – they could not accept her ordination but were willing to accept her education!
Dear Martin, As I remember it, the original 98 1:10 was drawn up by a small sidestream of bishops to be an ‘inclusivity’ resolution, until the mainstream of bishops were able to have a say and made changes to get it back onto a more Scriptural/Traditional basis. The subsequent minority statement by some bishops does not override the main resolution; which is as “authoritative” for the Anglican Communion as anything can be in the hierarchical machinery. I think, though, that it’s main purpose was clearly not to reassure “LGBT” people that they were loved by God and the church (already… Read more »
Perhaps just as pointedly, Martin, when did Dr Carey decide throw in his mitre w/ “pressure groups from” *one* “side”? ;-/
*****
“If someone agrees to be a patron of an organisation, it is reasonable to assume that they share the basic aims although not necessarily all the detail of the organisation concerned”
MM, while I indeed hope that +Chelmsford DOES “share the basic aims” of Changing Attitude, I still assert that, if one views the “patron” role in a *pastoral* light, such agreement would not necessarily be required (but that he not act to impede their basic aims, either)
I can assure everyone here that the CEN never uses the term ‘Mr’ to refer to bishops. Having been on a week’s holiday (and in any case being freelance and less in contact with the daily grind at the newspaper office) I am not aware of any change of the stylesheet. I can only assume that this should be technically referred to as an ‘almighty cock-up’.
Has the CEN become the Grauniad of religious titles? I’ll get back to you when the office is open on Monday am.
Yours,
Andrew
Dave
Your recollection of Lambeth 98 is remarkably inaccurate. I was actually present, and reported this matter at the time, see
http://justus.anglican.org/newsarchive/lambeth98/sjn14.html
which shows how the text of the resolution was built up from the original proposal. That proposal came from the subsection which had been studying the matter for weeks. A list of the subsection membership, which I cannot put my hand on this moment, would show that it was not a small group.
See also
http://justus.anglican.org/newsarchive/lambeth98/sjn12.html
http://justus.anglican.org/newsarchive/lambeth98/sjn15.html
I think the great dilemma we tend to have nowadays is caught nicely by the ambiguities of Dave’s comment, i.e., “The subsequent minority statement by some bishops does not override the main resolution; which is as “authoritative” for the Anglican Communion as anything can be in the hierarchical machinery.” One can read this sentence as consistent with the notion that no Lambeth or any other Anglican Communion statement is authoritative beyond its constituencies and its generative contexts and its reception among other believers (if there is any). Different provinces have quite different institutional machineries for making their own authoritative statements,… Read more »
Dear drdanfee, the trouble is that if you want to be in communion then you have to either agree on all important matters, or be able to agree to disagree. As +Chelmsford and ++Nairobi have found, same-sex sex is not an area where either form of agreement is possible.
Dear Simon, thanks for the links. The reports I read differ from your recollections, but some of it might be an issue of perspective. I don’t know who were in the group working on the Human Sexuality theme either, but I do note that ++Ndungane drafted the original reflections and proposed a “third way” (otherwise known as opening a back door) on issues like cohabitation, same-sex partnerships and divorce. And that Kenya was one of the protagonists to roll back to a more conservative resolution. The original resolution *was* pretty much based on the third way approach. To demonstrate what… Read more »
Dave
Those reports are not “recollections”. They were written at the time of the conference, which I attended. You can read the entire set of my reports from this link:
http://justus.anglican.org/newsarchive/lambeth98/
The original resolution is right there, you don’t have to reconstruct it.
Dear Simon, Sorry I meant that the analysis of the events in other reports differed from what I took to be your analysis – that the initial proposal came about from an open forum. I think that your original reports show how various “perceptions” of what happened at Lambeth ’98 were possible, depending on your position on homosexuality and your expectations in terms of who sets the agenda in the Communion. I certainly think that it clearly highlights the forces and issues that were at play then… the same ones that are still working themselves out today (even in the… Read more »
So what is the remaining option(s) – if any – if both agreeing to agree, and agreeing to disagree are simply not possible as forms of ethical and faithful communion among believers? And is this dilemma the reason why Gladwin and Nazimbi are no longer communing on one planet in the same Anglican Communion?
It has been observed that ‘a text without a context is a pretext.’ So, as the context of Lambeth 1.10 has been raised, here’s what Professor David Ford of Cambridge University, who was at Lambeth, says about it. It’s a quote from his March 2005 lecture ‘Reading Scriture with Intensity’ available at http://www.ptsem.edu/Publications/psb/VXXVIn1/v26n1p22.htm [QUOTE FROM LECTURE BEGINS] “I was part of a group that organized the opening and closing plenary sessions with a focus on the Bible through drama, video, discussion, and addresses. This later led into my participation, as leader of the Bible studies and theological adviser, in four… Read more »
drdanfee writes: “So what is the remaining option(s) – if any – if both agreeing to agree, and agreeing to disagree are simply not possible as forms of ethical and faithful communion among believers?” The important question is: “believers” in what? Thirty-nine articles? The Bible? An historic institution? Something called “unity” based on a desire not to see very different groups go their own way? There are Anglican articles and resolutions but even people in leadership positions seem to pick ‘n’ mix what they want to believe, despite their vows etc…..and that is before we come to the Bible. There… Read more »
Nersen–I think the simple answer here is: Jesus. That’s who Anglican “belivers” of all parties believe in. Unfortunately, as the Gospels record Jesus tended to deal with clear answers in unconventional ways–even when they were Scripture to begin with.
Turning faith in, obedience to, and worship of God into a laundry list is precisely one of the things that seemed to annoy him most…
Thanks NP for clarifying from your point of view. I take it then that: (1) Two legs of the historical 3-legged Anglican stool must be lopped off in favor of what sounds like Sola Scriptura? (2) An essential function of all good Christian conscience and effective discernment must serve to absolutely and vigorously condemn anybody who is not already conformed to its standards? (3) Other target groups are soon to come in for just the same/similar (poor) treatment as objects of defamation and controversy as LGBTQ folks so recently have among us? Who? Women? World religion believers? Non-believers? Scientists? (4)… Read more »
Derek – what does believing in Jesus mean? The devil “believes in Jesus†because he knows what happened – as James tells us. Jesus Christ himself was not, from his words and actions, an “anything goes†kind of man or God. Faith and actions have to go together to be credible to God – his view (before you say it is mine, see John 14 or James.) drdanfee – please read what I said because I referred to belief in the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Bible and not me or my beliefs. I am certainly not the standard for anyone!… Read more »
“I never understand why a hundred years ago, “liberals†did not set up their own church with “liberal” articles which all agree……” And I can’t understand why you, NP, who evidently share “more respect to popes and the RC church” don’t just go *there*. What you diss as a new “liberal religion” is nothing more nor less than *Anglicanism*, as has been formed and nurtured since Hooker (if not Good Queen Bess!). Of course, the RCs saw Anglicanism as “new religion” then, too. So again I ask, NP: why don’t you join them? You’ll then get some of that “liberal… Read more »
What is clear is that the two ‘sides’ will never be able to agree, and the sheer venom between them is increasing.
Although I do not think I have agreed with a word NP has contributed, he is right on one level – there needs to be two separate churches.
There must be a limit to how long this unpleasantness can continue.
JCF, I am glad that Blair, Brown, Kinnock and Healey did not leave the Labour party when it was being hijacked by “Militant”, a parasite destroying the party from the inside, even though they were a group with different aims and beliefs to the core Labour party. Rowan Williams might turn out to be like Neil Kinnock in the Labour party – the man who came from “the left” but had to cut out a small, extreme “left” group that was destroying the party, pursuing its own agenda. It seems to me that “Anglicanism” is going back to its Biblical… Read more »
Merseymike, sorry to you and everyone else if you have felt anything I have written contains “venom.”
It is not my intention to hurt anyone even if we are engaging in frank exchanges. It is good to say what we think but on the basis that none of us are taking things as venomous, personal attacks.
I have enjoyed getting robust responses from drdanfee and JCF. The interaction is good and appreciated.
NP
Merseymike, sorry to you and everyone else if you have felt anything I have written contains “venom.”
It is not my intention to hurt anyone even if we are engaging in frank exchanges. It is good to say what we think but on the basis that none of us are taking things as venomous, personal attacks.
I have enjoyed getting robust responses from drdanfee and JCF. The interaction is good and appreciated.
NP
But I hardly think that liberals could be equated with the Militant tendency! For a start, liberals have been within the Anglican church since the beginning of the development of liberal theology. They continue to provide a significant part of the leadership of the Church This could hardly be said about Militant within Labour. Who do you define as the ‘small, extreme left’ group? The sort of people who run this board? Anyone who happens to be gay or lesbian or those who support them? And I see anything but a wish to expel liberals within the Church – surely… Read more »
Merseymike We seem to agree that pretending we are all singing from the same hymnsheet is pointless and damaging to all involved. There would be more integrity in walking apart because you consider The 39 Articles to be a “relic†I consider them to be based on living, Biblical truth. Who do I think the “liberals†are? The term is not perfect, I know. Well, those who think the The 39 Articles etc be a “relic†probably are “liberalsâ€, in my view. I do not define “liberal†by reference to any moral issue but on the attitude to the authority… Read more »
There are many people outide the organised church who are interested in spirtuality, Nersen- I think the place of the church should be to imaginatively and creatively develop those opportunities in all sorts of ways – moving past orthodox Christianity. I think many have adopted that position. I certainly have and am pleased to be called a liberal in your terms. The conservative church will always attract a small number of people, but in reality it isn’t ‘growing’. Numbers aren’t even being sustained and if you removed immigrants to the Londonn area the picture would be even more depressing. Just… Read more »