Updated
The 18 January issue of the Church Times carries an eight-page supplement: “women bishops theological debate” with this introduction:
CLEARING the way for women to be consecrated bishops in the Church of England is unfinished business after the defeat in the General Synod last November. In the pause before the fine detail is discussed yet again, we thought to answer readers’ questions about what exactly were the theological objections. We commissioned four main pieces, for and against women bishops, from Evangelical and Catholic viewpoints (encountering a few refusals along the way). We invited the contributors to consult whom they wished, and most filed in time for us to show the pieces to the others, to allow emendations and additions. There are also a few other pieces we thought illuminating. These are, of course, not definitive. As Edward Dowler suggests in the final piece, there are vaster areas of theological reflection about authority and gender with which the Church ought to engage. But, for the time being, we hope that these pages might provide a useful insight into the most pressing issues in the debate.
There is also this related editorial: An issue of unity,
The nine articles themselves are behind the Church Times paywall and so only available to subscribers. But versions of two are available elsewhere: An Ordinary Radical Event is an extended version of the article by Judy Stowell, and Veni Sancte Spiritus – but please don’t tell us anything we’d rather not hear is an earlier version of that by Edward Dowler.
Rachel Weir, the chair of WATCH, has responded to this CT supplement with Last year’s words belong to last year’s language … And next year’s words await another voice…..
In an eight page feature, nine articles are printed only three of which take a positive line on the ordination of women (and only one is actually written by a woman). Many of the rest seem to assume that having women as priests/leaders in the church is an interesting hypothesis to which they would not themselves subscribe!
There is clear bias of content here but there also seems to be a wilful blindness to the fact that women are already ordained as priests in the Church of England. The theological ‘rightness’ of this reform was decided back in 1975 when General Synod decided that there is ‘no fundamental objection to the ordination of women as priests’ and that decision was enacted in 1994 in the first ordinations.
…
So why is it that the Church Times is running a series of articles this week that seem to be trying to re-open the debate?
The offense to women clergy is extraordinary. Since 1994, over 5,000 women have been ordained and have served faithfully in ministries throughout the land. Many already exercise considerable authority and ‘headship’. The Church of England simply couldn’t survive without her women priests.
Another response comes from Miranda Threlfall-Holmes who writes about Loyal Anglicans : A historical view.
60 CommentsA few years ago, the Church of England’s General Synod passed a resolution declaring that both those who agree and those who disagree with the ordination of women are ‘loyal Anglicans’.
Since then, this phrase has been repeatedly quoted by those who disagree with women’s ordination. Look here, the argument runs. We are loyal Anglicans – Synod has agreed – and we cannot be called disloyal just because we don’t support the church’s decision to ordain women. You have to let us have everything we feel we need to flourish. Separate bishops. Separate dioceses, preferably, but failing that certainly separate Chrism masses, separate ordination services, separate selection conferences. It isn’t disloyal or separatist to ask for these things, we are assured: how can it be, when we know everyone involved is a ‘loyal Anglican’?
Let’s leave aside, for a moment, the illogicality of basing your argument on a declaration that both sides are loyal, and then using that declaration as an excuse for disowning your opponents as invalid innovators who are not loyal to the inheritance of faith.
Instead, I want to consider the phrase ‘loyal Anglicans’ as a historian. Because from a historical perspective, this phrase ‘loyal Anglicans’ is a very richly evocative phrase.
It is hardly going too far to say that the entire basis of Anglicanism is loyalty. Loyalty to the Crown over the Pope, mainly. And secondly, loyalty to a prescribed way of doing things rather than to our own ideas.
…
But if Synod’s statements are to be taken as the grounds for argument, there is no getting away from the fact that Synod has said that women can be ordained. That women can and should become bishops, that there are no fundamental theological objections to women’s ordination. And since Synod has declared women can be ordained, there is no grounds for refusing to accept that your (male) bishop is a loyal Anglican, let alone demanding an alternative one with whom you can agree.
We should stop the creeping separation that we have allowed to infiltrate the Church of England since the Act of Synod. Let’s all go to the same Chrism masses, the same ordination services. Let’s enact unity, rather than talking about it. Or let’s stop, please, claiming to be loyal.
Andrew Brown asks How can faith bodies provide welfare when their own cupboards are bare?
Andrew Goddard writes for the Church of England Newspaper about The legacy of Rowan Williams to the Church of England.
Christopher Howse writes in his Sacred Mysteries column in The Telegraph about When ravens beat their black image.
9 CommentsDavid Hope, the former Archbishop of York preached at yesterday’s consecration of Glyn Webster as the Bishop of Beverley. The full text of his sermon is online here.
Minster FM has a report of the sermon – Former Archbishop of York Attacks Church Bureaucracy – but there is much more in the sermon than that so do read the full text.
There are photographs of the consecration here, although they are muddled up with ones of the announcement of the appointment last August.
8 CommentsThe Second Church Estates Commissioner, Sir Tony Baldry, answered several questions in the House of Commons yesterday, including these on women bishops and the related topic of how representative is the House of Laity.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab): What assessment he has made of whether the informal discussions amongst General Synod members in February 2013 will lead to significant progress on enabling women to become bishops.
Sir Tony Baldry: I refer the hon. Lady to the letter from the secretary-general of the General Synod, which was placed in the Library of the House on 19 December. I understand that the working group established by the House of Bishops had a good first meeting on 3 January. It meets again next Wednesday. The facilitated discussions in early February will be followed immediately by a further meeting of the House of Bishops. I know that all concerned understand the urgency of the situation.
Diana Johnson: But does the hon. Gentleman accept that the document that was produced and put in the House of Commons Library shows no acceleration of the usual glacial way in which the Church of England operates? Does he also accept that in 2015 we could still find ourselves dealing with an unrepresentative laity stopping the Measure? Surely we can do more something more quickly.
Sir Tony Baldry: The hon. Lady is being uncharacteristically uncharitable. Anyone present at the meeting in the Moses Room with the Archbishop of Canterbury-designate would have been left in absolutely no doubt that the Church is determined to take the matter forward with all due speed and diligence. A working group was set up immediately and facilitated discussions will take place next week. It is important to try, as quickly as possible, to find a way forward that enables fresh legislation to be brought before the General Synod in July.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con): What steps are being considered within the Church of England as to how the House of Laity may be made more representative of church congregations.
Sir Tony Baldry: Last year, the Synod voted to explore alternatives to the present system under which the House of Laity is elected by deanery synod members. I understand that the report, with options for change, will be discussed by the synod at one of its meetings this year.
Martin Vickers: I thank the Church Commissioner for that reply. The unrepresentative nature of the House of Laity is clearly holding the Church back, involving it in interminable, internal debates. Very few congregations are aware of the process of election and very few members of congregations get involved in election. Will he use his good offices to ensure that, as a matter of urgency, new proposals are brought forward?
Sir Tony Baldry: I think my hon. Friend’s comments will be shared by many throughout the Church, which is why it is exploring alternatives to the present system under which the House of Laity is elected by deanery synod members. I am sure that the comments my hon. Friend makes will be borne in mind when that report comes to be debated later this year.
8 CommentsEnough Food for Everyone If is a national campaign, launched today, involving 100 organisations that have come together to make 2013 the year in which we make dramatic progress towards ending global hunger. The Church of England is a member of the campaign and has issued this press release about its involvement.
In today’s age of plenty there is no reason why anyone should go without, IF ….
23 January 2013
The Bishops of Hereford and Derby today challenge governments, companies and citizens to take the necessary steps to reduce the millions currently going hungry, as a coalition 100 organisations come together to make 2013 the year in which we make dramatic progress towards ending global hunger – IF.
Speaking as the Lead Bishop on rural issues, the Bishop of Hereford, the Rt Revd Anthony Priddis, said: “Today, the world produces enough food to feed all seven billion of its inhabitants, but nearly one billion still go without. The growing levels of food insecurity in an age of plenty challenge the Gospel message of abundant life.”
Bishop Anthony continues: “As a Church we are called upon both to feed the hungry and to expose and eradicate the causes of debilitating hunger. This year’s IF campaign provides us all with an opportunity to cast a spotlight on our broken food system and to press governments, companies and citizens to take the necessary steps to reduce the millions currently going hungry.”
In a podcast released to mark the launch of the IF campaign, the Bishop of Derby, the Rt Revd Alastair Redfern, who will be speaking at the campaign launch, said: “IF is a very small word but it can have enormous consequences and this campaign asks all of us to use the word ‘IF’ for ourselves – our spending, our resources, our praying, our hopes for a better world in 2013.”
Bishop Alastair continues: “It’s a national campaign, an international campaign, drawing people together – IF. IF we can join together then many more people can be lifted out of hunger. Let all of us hear that word: “If you wanted to, you could help me more.” And let each of our hearts reflect on that word: “If we tried harder we could make a huge difference.” And that’s what this year of 2013 is all about and what our endeavours are about as we join with others for this campaign.”
Notes
The Church of England is a member of ENOUGH FOOD FOR EVERYONE IF. This is a national campaign involving 100 organisations that have come together to make 2013 the year in which we make dramatic progress towards ending global hunger. For more about the campaign and its launch please visit the campaign website at www.enoughfoodif.org.
The Church of England will be using the UK Presidency of the G8 to focus on two key concerns: hunger and sexual violence in conflict. To learn more about the Church’s work in both these areas please visit this website.
The Bishop of Derby’s podcast can be found at this link.
8 CommentsThe Government’s Succession to the Crown Bill will receive its second Reading and complete its remaining stages in the House of Commons today (Tuesday 22 January 2013).
The Church of England has issued this briefing for MPs welcoming or agreeing to all the clauses in the bill, and to the way in which it is being fast-tracked.
Law & Religion UK has published a second article by Dr Bob Morris of the UCL Constitution Unit: Succession to the Crown Bill: possible untoward effects?
Amongst other things the article considers the fears expressed by some people that the clause in the bill allowing heirs to marry Catholics without disqualification would somehow open up the Crown to Roman Catholics. But Morris writes
The Bill does not disturb the requirements that no Catholic may succeed, that the heir must be in communion with the Church of England, must make a declaration on accession that swears fidelity to the Protestant faith, and must swear at coronation to uphold the Church of England. It is therefore the case that heirs who become Catholics are still barred from the throne.
I have previously covered this bill here and here.
15 CommentsKelvin Holdsworth offers us 8 Things the Churches Could Learn From the collapse of HMV and Should churches use e-mail? Or indeed blogging?
Valerie Tarico writes for Salon that Religion may not survive the Internet.
Giles Fraser writes in the Church Times about A chance to witness to the vision.
Jody Stowell writes about An Ordinary Radical Event.
Paul Lay writes for History Today about Beyond Belief.
1 CommentThe Church of England website has this press release about this afternoon’s debate.
House of Laity rejects vote of no confidence
18 January 2013The House of Laity, meeting in Church House, Westminster today, rejected a motion of no confidence in its Chair, Dr Philip Giddings, with 47 voting for the motion and 80 voting against.
The motion was brought by Mr Stephen Barney, a lay canon of Leicester Cathedral, who said he had lost confidence in Dr Giddings as Chair of the House of Laity following Dr Giddings’ speech in the debate on women bishops legislation in November. In a letter to all members of the House of Laity before the debate, Mr Barney said, “Whatever we decide, I hope it will contribute to resolving this issue in the long term, for the flourishing of all.”
After the vote, Dr Giddings told the House: “Mr Chairman I am grateful for that vote of confidence but I need to, in a sense, take my medicine. There are clearly a substantial minority of the House who do not have confidence in me. I intend to continue in office but I shall take careful advice from colleagues about how we proceed from here. And in particular I think we need to have some kind of debate about what are the expectations of chair and vice chair in matters of this kind. I hope and pray that we can now put this behind us and the temperature can be lowered and that we can seek to work together for the sake of God’s mission to this country.”
There are several online press reports of the debate.
Madeleine Davies and Ed Thornton in the Church Times House of Laity bid to oust Giddings fails
Sam Jones in The Guardian Female bishops: house of laity chair survives no-confidence vote
Lauren Turner in The Independent Women bishops: Church leader Dr Philip Giddings wins confidence vote
BBC Church of England no-confidence vote defeated
John Bingham in The Telegraph Spectre of gay bishops feud returns amid Church debate on women
Matthew Davies of Episcopal News Service England’s laity rejects ‘no confidence’ vote in their chair
Christian Today Church of England: Philip Giddings survives lay vote
Andrew Brown of The Guardian has this comment: God’s hand in General Synod politics.
52 CommentsThe motion before the House was:
That this House have no confidence in Dr Philip Giddings as Chair of this House.
Immediately before the vote was due to be taken, a motion to pass to next business (and thereby cancel the vote on the main motion) was moved, but overwhelmingly lost.
The main motion was defeated with 47 votes in favour, 80 votes against and 13 recorded.
After the debate Dr Giddings said that he would continue in office, but that there was a need for a debate on the role of the chair of the house.
18 CommentsThe Anglican Mainstream website carries this editorial (reprinted from New Directions): Special meeting of the House of Laity. It starts:
We are appalled by the news that there is to be a special meeting of the House of Laity of the General Synod to have a vote of no confidence in the Chairman of the House of Laity, Dr Philip Giddings. Dr Giddings spoke up for proper and fair provision for those who in conscience cannot accept the ordination of women to the episcopate. He has been accused of impartiality, a charge not levied against those leaders in other Houses who spoke out firmly in favour of the legislation and indeed in one case against any provision whatsoever for us.
and later continues:
In response to Bishop Jonathan Baker’s fine reflection on the vote in synod the website ‘Thinking Anglicans’ has been awash with misconceptions and in some cases simple untruths. Many commentators have become fixated with the idea that there is a See of Ebbsfleet. Given that Ebbsfleet is a suffragan see of the Archbishop of Canterbury and on the official advert declaring a vacancy in the see it was called the See of Ebbsfleet, one wonders why people are getting so irate. It is of course because they dislike what the See of Ebbsfleet and indeed the other Catholic sees stand for. They dislike the sense of coherence around a bishop that has grown up in our constituency. They cannot understand the world in which we operate, supporting one another and meeting together, because we share a common faith and a common vision. [emphasis added]
Unlike the Anglican Mainstream website, we are open for comments.
20 CommentsDavid Pocklington of Law & Religion UK looks ahead to tomorrow’s meeting with these Questions for the House of Laity (and the Church), and suggests that members of the House of Laity might ponder the following:
But do read the whole article.
6 CommentsUpdated
As Friday’s meeting of the House of Laity of the General Synod approaches with its motion of no confidence in Dr Philip Giddings as Chair of the House, James Townsend looks ahead to the meeting with Philip Giddings – the mood of the House is yet to settle.
Townsend is a lay member of Synod from the diocese of Manchester. He predicts “a reasonably high turnout of between 75% and 79%”, and his soundings suggest that the voting on the no confidence motion will be close.
Update
Anglican Mainstream has published House of Laity Meeting on Friday January 18 with views from Bishop Jonathan Baker, Canon Stephen Barney, Peter Ould, Tom Sutcliffe and Stephen Trott.
26 CommentsMark Vernon writes for The Guardian Spiritual, but not religious? A dangerous mix.
Miranda Threlfall-Holmes writes about Normality and Deviance.
Jill Segger writes for Ekklesia about Much ado about bishops: time for a more humane dispensation?
Mark Beach writes for the Church Times about New ecumenism at work.
Paul Vallely writes in the Church Times that They want people to be ashamed.
3 CommentsMadeleine Davies in the Church Times looks ahead to next week’s meeting of the General Synod’s House of Laity with Lay rebel explains his Giddings challenge.
Another letter to members of the House of Laity about next week’s meeting has reached us; this time from Tony Berry, a lay member from Chester diocese.
Dear Fellow member of Synod;
We are to debate a motion of no confidence in the chair of the House of Laity at our meeting on the 18th of January.
There appear to be three areas of concern; Leadership, Representation and Accountability. The debate on the Women Bishops measure provides a kind of critical incident through which these may be viewed. The comments below follow the three issues.
It may be that the chair of the House of Laity is not expected to be a leader or to exhibit leadership. In the debate the chair (having as I understand it) voted in July 2010 for the clause defining the principle of provision by delegation (itself carried by 393 to14) and voted to send the measure to the dioceses, then chose to be led by the minority in speaking and voting against the measure. This after the measure had had a ringing endorsement from the dioceses and the support of more than 2/3 of lay people.
In his speech he (three times) used the phrase “there must be a better way” without giving any indication of what he might have had in mind. It would have been an act of leadership (given the lay votes in the dioceses to at least given some indication of what a better way might be. Instead there was emptiness, an emptiness that was widely shared.
[continued below the fold]
17 CommentsNews from Canterbury
The link (a 3 MB pdf file) also includes photographs.
TO ALL AND SINGULAR CHRISTIAN PEOPLE whom the underwritten shall or may in any way concern ROBERT ANDREW WILLIS DL, DCL, DD DEAN of the Cathedral and Metropolitical Church of Christ Canterbury GREETING in the Lord Everlasting
WE DO MAKE IT KNOWN to you universally by these presents that the See of Canterbury being vacant by the resignation of The Most Reverend and Right Honourable Rowan Douglas Williams late Archbishop and Pastor thereof We the College of Canons aforesaid by virtue and authority of The Queen’s Licence granted to us for the Electing another Archbishop and Pastor of the said Church assembled together in our Cathedral on this Tenth day of January in the year of Our Lord Two thousand and thirteen and making a College of Canons there and observing the Laws and Statutes of this Kingdom and the ancient customs of the Cathedral Church in this behalf to be observed did elect THE RIGHT REVEREND JUSTIN PORTAL WELBY, Master of Arts, by Divine Permission Lord Bishop of Durham, to be Archbishop and Pastor of the said Cathedral and Metropolitical Church of Christ Canterbury
[signed] Robert Willis
DEAN
Readers are referred to the Appointment Of Bishops Act 1533 for the background to this news. They may also find this press release from Lambeth Palace helpful: Bishop Justin now Archbishop of Canterbury Elect.
21 CommentsArchbishop Cranmer has written on his blog an article entitled The revenge of the liberal laity. In it he quotes the full text of a letter from Gavin Oldham, a lay General Synod member from the diocese of Oxford. In it Oldham explains why he will be voting for the vote of no confidence in the chair of the House of Laity at the meeting of the House next week.
Here is the letter.
Dear friends in Christ,
On 18 January the House will be debating a ‘No Confidence’ motion in its Chair, a motion which has arisen directly from the General Synod debate on women bishops in November. I have given my support to the motion being debated, and it is my intention to support the motion on the day unless by the grace of God there is clear evidence of change.
I owe it to my friends in the House who voted against the women bishops’ legislation to explain why I have given my support, and how my views have changed since that day in November. Let me first explain that I have been a member of the General Synod since 1995 representing Oxford diocese: as does Philip Giddings, who I have been fortunate to regard as a friend over these last 17 years. I am also a member of EGGS, as he is and, although I have been a consistent supporter of women bishops, I regard myself very much as an Evangelical, albeit one who places a high importance on the place of reason alongside scripture and tradition.
This is not in any respect a personal issue.
[continued below the fold]
65 CommentsUpdated to add yesterday’s Questions in the House of Commons
Frank Cranmer and David Pocklington of Law & Religion UK have published a follow-up article on the Succession to the Crown Bill: La Reine (ou le Prince) le veult?. We covered the earlier article here.
The new article looks at the proposal that an heir to the Crown should be allowed to marry a Roman Catholic, and what the Canons of the Roman Catholic Church have to say about such a mixed marriage. It also includes links to press reports that the Prince of Wales and the Bishop of Leicester (convenor of the Lords Spiritual) have expressed their concerns about the proposal.
However The Telegraph reports that Nick Clegg reassures Prince Charles and Church of England over royal succession. This refers to an answer that the Deputy Prime Minister gave in the House of Commons yesterday. It was one of several Topical Questions (and answers) that can be read in Hansard. I have extracted the ones about the Succession to the Crown Bill below.
7 CommentsSir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD): I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing forward legislation on the succession to the Crown. However, does he think that it is necessary to push it through in one day as if it was emergency terrorism legislation, when Parliament has a job to do to ensure that it is correctly drafted and that any concerns or unforeseen difficulties are addressed properly?
The Deputy Prime Minister: Making a small, concise amendment to an Act that has been on the statute book since 1701 is hardly acting hastily.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): 1700.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I am being corrected by the historians on the Opposition Benches. None the less, this is something that has been on the statute book for more than 300 years. Let us remember that this is a very specific act of discrimination against one faith only. The heir to the throne may marry someone of any religion outside the Church of England—Muslim, Hindu and so on—but uniquely not a Catholic under the terms of the Act of 1700 or 1701. This is a precise change and it is being co-ordinated precisely with all the other realms that have to make the identical change in their legislation.
…
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): Can the Deputy Prime Minister assure the House that the Succession to the Crown Bill will give the public confidence that the relationship between Church and state will be unaltered, even if a future monarch should marry a Roman Catholic and the ensuing child is a Catholic?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I can give the hon. Gentleman complete reassurance that the provisions in the Bill will not in any way alter the status of the established Church in this country and the monarch as head of that Church. We have had monarchs who have married Catholics. I think Queen Anne of Denmark was married to James I of Scotland—I may be corrected by our historian, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), from a sedentary position. There is absolutely nothing in the provisions that will alter the status of the Church in the way feared by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner).
…
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): I wish the Deputy Prime Minister a happy new year. Was one of his new year resolutions to decide that, if he thinks a policy is right, it should be rushed through in a day? Will he answer properly a question he has been asked before? Why will the succession Bill be rushed through in a day under emergency legislation procedures? Those procedures should be used only for emergency legislation, which the succession Bill is not.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I wish the hon. Gentleman a happy new year too—and Mrs Bone. It is important to stress that the Bill is not a capricious legislative initiative on behalf of the Government. It was solemnly agreed at the Commonwealth summit in Perth by all the Commonwealth realms. It has also been subject to extensive discussion between officials in the Cabinet Office and the royal household, and between Governments and officials of this country and of the Commonwealth realms. We have said that we will take the lead in setting out the legislative provisions for the other Commonwealth realms. The legislative change is very precise, which is why we are keen to proceed as quickly as possible.
The website for the Archbishop of Canterbury has been updated to refer to Justin Welby.
The content from the time of his predecessor Rowan Williams has been archived here. I’ve tried a few old links and it looks as if they all correctly redirect to the archive site.
2 CommentsThe BBC reports on a Mixed response to CofE decision to allow gay bishops.
Emily Dugan writes in The Independent that a Fresh storm hits C of E after move to allow gay bishops.
Barbara Ellen writes in The Observer that Gay sex is in the closet, but don’t blame the church.
Victoria Wright in The Independent has these useful Dos and Don’ts for gay Bishops in the Church of England.
On BBC Radio 4 yesterday Norman Russell and Peter Selby debated the issue on the Today programme, and later Giles Fraser and Lynette Burrows debated it on the PM programme (between 17 min 23 sec and 24 min 20 sec).
And this morning there was Richard Harries and Michael Lawson on the Sunday programme (between 34 min 28 sec and 43 min 32 sec).
Jerome Taylor writes in The Independent that the Primate of Kenya hits out at Church of England lifting of gay bishop ban.
The primate’s full statement can be read on the Anglican Mainstream website.
Alan Wilson writes A chink in the walls of Kafka’s Castle?
For Ekklesia Symon Hill writes Gay bishops: C of E offers crumbs from the table
and Savi Hensman writes The Church of England and gay bishops – has sexuality policy shifted?.
Taylor Carey writes for Lay Anglicana about Men in Pink: The Church of England’s Gay Bishop Decision.
Carrie Pemberton writes No sex please, we’re gay British bishops.
Archbishop Cranmer writes that Homosexuality is an issue blown out of all proportion.
28 CommentsHannah Meltzer in the New Statesman asks What makes a gay vicar stay in the Church of England?.
Lynne Tuohy of Associated Press writes First Gay Anglican Bishop Reflects on Tenure in NH.
Anglicans Online offers us 12 reasons to be a cheerful Anglican.
Jerome Taylor writes for The Independent: Happy, clappy, and out of the closet: Evangelicals who say being gay is OK.
Giles Fraser writes for The Guardian that St Paul’s ‘body as a temple’ didn’t have today’s calorie obsession in mind.
1 Comment