The Church of England Newspaper reports, in an article Primates in no mood for US compromise that ‘about half of the Anglican primates are prepared to reject compromise solutions’ at the meeting of the primates at Lambeth in October. The primates, it is reported, will call for the Episcopal Church to overturn the election of Gene Robinson, and if it does not do so, to suspend its membership of the Communion, reduce it to observer status, and finally ‘expel’ it, setting up a new Anglican jurisdiction in its place.
It seems hard to determine who precisely can rule which Church is in communion with the See of Canterbury — but I imagine that in England it might require the agreement of the General Synod, whose agreement is certainly needed to bring a Church into communion with the See.
It seems that the running is still being made by the ultra-conservatives. Those desiring a more open, informed discussion — and an open, informed Church — need to ensure that this Gadarene rush is slowed.
1 CommentSubscribers to this month’s edition of New Directions not only get an article by Rowan Williams (considerably more nuanced than the soundbite versions that some national papers took up), they also get Robbie Low and Francis Gardom’s analysis of the research undertaken by Peter Brierley for Cost of Conscience last year. Brierley runs a pretty reputable outfit at Christian Research so it was no surprise when the media picked up on the selective release of statistics by Cost of Conscience last year that appeared to show low levels of assent among liberal Christians to the major doctrinal tenets of the Christian faith. The thesis of Cost of Conscience as presented in the newly released booklet is that those who they would categorise as “liberal” Christians have not only abandoned traditional patterns of worship and gender relationships but are now gently tiptoeing away from the creeds themselves.
We still don’t have the full range of answers to all the questions put by Christian Research. So the first caveat must be that those selected for publication maybe the ones which most strongly agree with the conclusion that Cost of Conscience are trying to direct us towards. But what of what we do have? Well, at the risk of being drummed out of the magic circle, let me show you how the trick is done. Those surveyed were asked to score their assent or dissent from a range of credal statements according to five categories. The first two are plain enough “definitely don’t believe” and “not sure I believe this”. It then gets more tricky. The remaining three categories are “mostly believe”, “believe but not sure I understand” and finally “believe without question”. Cost of Conscience (though probably not Dr Brierley) then makes the bold assertion that we can discount as inadequate all responses apart from “believe without question”. Only this response we’re told “implies a confidence to teach and preach the faith”.
At its most charitable, this must be seen as a deliberate attempt not to understand the way the non-conservative mind works. Not only is there the natural reluctance among many of us, given a range of replies to a question, to tick the boxes at the extreme ends, there is also a strong underlying principle many of us have that questioning is a basic part of belief. Few of us would want to accept the parody of our views that to question means not having sufficient certainty in order to preach and teach the faith. Indeed, we would press strongly the claim that it is precisely through our continuing search and struggle and engagement with the tradition that we gain the depth of faith essential if we are to preach the Good News and pastor the people of God. Cost of Conscience would, I’m sure, have me down as a liberal but I could actually affirm all of the doctrines on which they quizzed their respondents but to believe without question seems tantamount to a dereliction of my responsibility.
There are few sermons I can remember from over a quarter of a century ago but I know I will never forget Basil Hume preaching one night in Great St Mary’s Church Cambridge. At the time I was a young man struggling with his emerging sense of vocation. To hear this great Christian leader speaking of the central role his own doubts played in his faith was inspirational. On those grounds the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster himself clearly failed the Cost of Conscience test of orthodox belief. It didn’t seem to make his preaching any less powerful.
There’s a serious debate to be had about how the Church of England holds together its neo-conservative wing and the mainstream beliefs and experiences of most active church members. Honest research has a part to play in that and Dr Brierley and his team have a pretty honourable record down the years at providing it. What Cost of Conscience have released, however, is not the raw data which could have some value, but a processed, manipulated and twisted version of them sufficient to make even the most hardened government spin doctor blush. We have here not an analysis but a parody of the beliefs and integrity of the great majority of those clergy it is my privilege as a bishop to work with in the cause of the Gospel. A distortion beyond recognition that I would be failing in my pastoral responsibility for them not to defend them against.
On this reading, whilst the “Cost” is a matter of commercial confidence between Dr Brierley and those who commissioned him, we may conclude that the “Conscience” went west some time ago.
2 CommentsThis story about the attempt to expel ECUSA from the Anglican Communion (or at least punish it in some way) is growing.
Today’s Telegraph contains two more pieces by Jonathan Petre:
Anglican conservatives fight to expel US liberals over gay issue and
Williams says Church faces disintegration
while Ruth Gledhill in The Times has
Archbishop gives warning of Church split over gays
Part of this comes, it seems, from an article authored by RW in the new issue of New Directions, the monthly Forward in Faith magazine. This issue of ND is not yet on the web.
Question
Do British Anglicans care about this? Or will it be a rerun of the JJ debacle when the majority of English bishops were supportive but kept silent? One bishop who has spoken about this is John Gladwin, whose statement on the New Hampshire election can be found here.
I’ve been going to Greenbelt for most of my adult Christian life. This year’s had a higher impact on me, probably because I needed it more than in other years. These days I spend most of the time chewing the fat with old friends who I meet up with each Greenbelt, especially among those who have, like me, been involved in ‘Alternative’ Worship. A number of seminars and talks this year sought to bring together thinking from Alternative Worship groups and what is becoming known as ‘Emerging Church’ – neither of which is an exclusively Anglican phenomenon.
2 CommentsTheo Hobson, writing in today’s Guardian, says that “We are witnessing the end of the Church of England”. This is not for the reasons normally given, such as conflicting views on homosexuality, but because of differing understanding of the concept of the church. “The evangelicals, ever since the reformation, have been lukewarm about the church’s institutional authority. They see it as a means to an end” – and that is all.
0 CommentsThe Economist has on 14 August, published in its regular Bagehot column, a piece titled Archbishop Major which asks With the Anglican Communion on the verge of schism, can Rowan Williams learn anything from John Major?
Note: Back in July, the Economist wrote about the Jeffrey John affair, and quoted Peter Akinola of Nigeria as saying: “I cannot think of how a man in his senses would be having a sexual relationship with another man. Even in the world of animals, dogs, cows, lions, we don’t hear of such things.” The Economist then said:
“Why should the Archbishop of Canterbury pay any attention to such on outburst? First, the Nigerian Primate has powerful allies, both at home and abroad. Social conservatives in the Church of England, who are fast becoming expert organisers, had by June 25th set up a new network, Anglican Mainstream, to lobby against the appointment of gay clergy…
“The second reason why… has to do with the increasing centralisation of the Anglican communion… George Carey… has bequeathed… an institution in which decisions taken in one diocese are subject to global scrutiny and comment, and in which the head of the church is expected to answer for the whole.”
This new article is available electronically only to those who subscribe to the magazine, and I cannot reproduce it here in full without breaching copyright. But there is a summary below.
I think the comparison with Major has some merit, although obviously RW and JM are leagues apart, not least in IQ. Certainly, the claim that there is no chance of a “miraculous reassertion of the good manners and tolerance that have been the traditional hallmarks of Anglicanism” seems pretty accurate to me when reviewing the recent remarks of African and American conservative anglicans.
0 CommentsFirst, two newspaper columns commenting on recent ECUSA events:
When the Archbishop Calls by Colbert King in the Washington Post.
A Divided Episcopal Church? by Peter Steinfels in the New York Times.
Second, here is a pastoral letter written by the Bishop of Arizona to his diocese. (Arizona is a diocese which voted in all three orders in favour of the confirmation of the Bishop-elect of New Hampshire and in favour of the compromise resolution on same-sex blessings.)
I found all of these helpful in understanding how mainstream Americans view recent ECUSA events.
0 CommentsRabbi Lionel Blue talked about acceptance of gay people in Tuesday’s Thought for the Day on BBC Radio 4.
1 CommentMatthew Parris, in a bizarre article in The Times on Saturday says that the Church should not change its view on homosexuality.
1 Comment