Giles Fraser writes in the Church Times that It’s the poor what gets the pain.
And Robin Gill writes No reason to fear the slippery slope.
Last week, Elaine Storkey wrote that The C of E’s theology on weapons is hidden under a bushel. See What does the Church stand for?
Martin Robbins writes in the Guardian that Christian and Islamist extremists in Nigeria are exporting dangerous ideas.
At The Times Roderick Strange writes about Feeding the five thousand, day after day, for ever.
Martin Beckford reports in the Telegraph that Gordon Brown insists Britain is still Christian country. Church Mouse is not impressed.
4 CommentsUpdated again Monday morning
News coverage of this statement by 13 groups has been interesting.
First was Ruth Gledhill with New push for same-sex marriage, gay ordination in Church of England on her blog and Liberal Anglicans declare war on conservatives in the Church in The TImes .
Then there was Liberals question Archbishop on gay response from Toby Cohen at Religious Intelligence.
This was followed by ‘Not in our name’ pro-gay groups by Pat Ashworth at the Church Times.
Now Jonathan Wynne-Jones on his blog at the Telegraph has written Americans planning to start a civil war in the Church of England.
The Episcopal Café points out in One plus one equals six hundred sixty six, that only one American is identified.
His recent blog posting here is essentially a republication of an earlier article from last November.
Sunday update
Geoffrey Hoare has this further blog entry: The Blogosphere.
Monday update
And Mark Harris has noted what Bishop Anderson of the American Anglican Council said, first here, and then over here. And he also draws attention to the poll Should TEC set up in the UK? at Religious Intelligence.
Andrew Brown wrote Covenant and Schism.
There may be some good reasons for the Church of England to sign up to the Covenant. But the bishop of Croydon’s are absurd.
Lionel Deimel wrote No Anglican Covenant. He has even produced a logo for this, in small and large sizes.
Mark Harris and the ACI have been holding a dialogue.
First, ACI wrote Communion And Hierarchy.
Mark Harris… makes a number of observations and comments, some more accurate and apposite than others. However, one observation/comment in particular stands out and deserves thoughtful consideration, namely his claim that the position about the nature and structure of the Anglican Communion articulated by the Archbishop of Canterbury implies a form of global governance and hierarchy that runs all the way down. Fr. Harris’ claim deserves careful consideration because it has become already the default position of progressive defenders of TEC’s recent actions, and will without doubt stand near the center of TEC’s defense of the actions of its General Convention…
Then Mark wrote Why direct diocesan sign-on now to the Covenant is a bad idea.
The Archbishop of Canterbury said… “the question is becoming more sharply defined of whether, if a province declines such an invitation, any elements within it will be free (granted the explicit provision that the Covenant does not purport to alter the Constitution or internal polity of any province) to adopt the Covenant as a sign of their wish to act in a certain level of mutuality with other parts of the Communion. It is important that there should be a clear answer to this question.”
The Anglican Consultative Council determined that it was asking Provinces to consider the Anglican Covenant. That, of course, is appropriate, for the ACC is an “organization of organizations,” that is, its members are Churches. So the ACC asks its members (the Provinces) to respond to the Covenant. At that point the ACC is clear – it is Provinces, not dioceses, that are being asked to sign-on…
The ACI felt it necessary to respond to this, with More On Communion And Hierarchy.
Mark Harris responded again with Followup on Communion and Hierarchy, my article “Why direct sign on..,” etc.
Cif belief has this as Question of the Week: Who cares about the Anglican schism?
Dr Rowan Williams’s characteristically long and ruminative piece on the Anglican schism, or, as he would have it, the futures of Anglicanism, leaves one quite obvious question unanswered: what difference will any of this make?
The responses come from:
Harriet Baber Churchgoers don’t care
Graham Kings Federation isn’t enough
Davis Mac-Iyalla The church must recognise us
and, today, my own contribution: The English care about their clergy
27 CommentsIt makes no sense to split over same-sex unions, when we are in communion with churches that already sanction them. And we will not let our LGBT clergy be hounded out.
Bruce Anderson wrote a column for the Independent earlier this week titled The great ethical questions that society chooses to ignore, in which he discusses assisted suicide and related topics. But he concludes with this passage (emphasis added):
26 CommentsThe arguments are finely balanced. But that brings us to another problem. There is no argument. The level of moral debate in modern Britain is pathetically, contemptibly low. That is another undeniable sign of decadence, and we should all be ashamed. This applies a fortiori to the churches, which should be taking the lead. Instead, they appear to be suffering from a collapse of intellectual and theological self-confidence. That is especially true of the Church of England, which has ceased to offer any coherent moral leadership.
Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is said to be clever. The main evidence for this is his ability to dress up accessible thoughts in incomprehensible prose. Not many years ago, if a question such as attempted suicide had arisen, everyone would have wanted to know what the Archbishop thought. Now, no one is interested, and he is probably too busy anyway, writing another speech about homosexual clergy. He must be the most ineffective Archbishop of all time. Under his lack of leadership, his Church is giggling its way to oblivion.
Other sources of moral guidance must be found. The Roman Catholics have a difficulty: their version of the homosexual imbroglio is still causing difficulties and undermining their self-confidence. Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi, is an impressive figure, though less good at publicising himself than his predecessor, Lord Jakobovits. If it had not been for a couple of millennia of disputes, Margaret Thatcher would have loved to make him Archbishop of Canterbury.
But even if the Anglicans were in better shape, the churchmen cannot do everything, while too many philosophers are solely concerned with the meaning of meaning. If one wants to find contemporary intellectuals who are capable of addressing the big ethical questions, the best source is the judiciary. We need a Royal Commission, chaired by the retiring senior law lord, Tom Bingham.
Updated Thursday morning
First, there is Tobias Haller. See Reading Rowan — Part the First and also Reading Rowan — Part the Second.
Next, thanks to Malcolm, there is Tim Chesterton. See Why This Particular Line in the Sand?
Then, there is Jeremy Pemberton’s Sermon preached last Sunday in Southwell Minster about the Archbishop’s Reflections on GC.
Maggi Dawn wrote Dying in Politeness, and then Nick Baines wrote Covenant and politeness. The latter includes:
I think it is unlikely that Maggi would find anyone who is not exhausted by all this – other than Chris Sugden (& co) who has made it his life’s work to break the Communion apart and, I think, gets energised by conflict. Yet the complexity she recognises is more complex still – hence the problem. Many of us would like to walk away from it, but that doesn’t solve anything for the world the Church is there to serve. It is the ecumenical element that most imposes itself on my own consciousness…
And finally (for the moment) Episcopal Café drew attention to the excellent article off the cuff: Homosexuality and the Anglican debate at The Immanent Frame.
Update
(from the comments) Southwark Cathedral sermons:
Colin Slee on 19 July
Andrew Nunn on 2 August
22 CommentsLGCM has published a briefing document on the Equality Bill.
You can find the full text of this document over here.
2 CommentsA little while ago, the response of the Church of England to a letter from the Church of Sweden was published in connection with General Synod Questions.
This was also reported on in the Church Times and elsewhere.
The full text of the letter from Sweden to which the reply was being made was not available at that time. But it is now, and, with the approval of the Church of Sweden, is reproduced in full below the fold.
12 CommentsOn the Archbishop’s Reflections
4th August 2009
A joint statement by 13 groups working together in the Church of England
We have read and reflected upon the Archbishop’s response to the Episcopal Church of the USA “Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future” and have a number of questions about the consequences of his response. We question whether the voices of those within the Church of England who are or who walk alongside lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people have been adequately heard within the recent discussions. These discussions have gone on in various places around the Communion, and we believe it is important in this context that the LGBT faithful and those who work alongside us speak as well.
We wish to reaffirm our loyalty to the Gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in the scriptures, our commitment to the Anglican way, and our celebration of and thanksgiving for the tradition and life of the Church of England. Above all, our concern is for the mission of the Church in our world. We have no doubt that the Church of England is called to live out the Gospel values of love and justice in the whole of its life; these values are intrinsic to the calling of Jesus Christ to follow him and it is out of this context that we speak.
While we acknowledge the intention of the Archbishop of Canterbury to seek a way forward for the Anglican Communion, we have grave concerns about the implications of his reflections in “Covenant, Communion and the Anglican Future.” For example, we consider that references to same-sex unions as a “chosen life-style”, and assertions that those who have made such a commitment are analogous to “a heterosexual person living in a sexual relationship outside the marriage bond” to be inconsistent with the Archbishop’s previous statements on committed and faithful same sex relationships (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4473814.ece) and are at odds with our reading of the message of the gospel. Whilst we applaud his assertion that we are called to “become the Church God wants us to be, for the better proclamation of the liberating gospel of Jesus Christ” we find no indication of how that can be achieved for those who are not heterosexual.
We acknowledge, once again, that there are and always have been many loyal, committed and faithful bishops, priests and deacons – properly selected and ordained – and many lay people who are LGBT or who work alongside LGBT people with delight and thanksgiving. We know ourselves to be part of the church of God in England and we work, together, to bring about the reign of God in this part of God’s creation. We pray earnestly that the Church of England will continue to select, train, ordain and deploy LGBT people and enable them to exercise their calling from God in the Church of England.
Together, we reaffirm our commitment to working for the full inclusion of all people at all levels of ministry. We will continue to work towards liturgical and sacramental recognition of the God-given love which enables many LGBT couples to thrive. We will seek to strengthen the bonds of affection which exist between those in all the Churches of the Anglican Communion who share our commitment to the full inclusion of all of God’s faithful. We will also continue to work closely with our brother and sister churches, especially those with whom we have mutual recognition of orders such as the Nordic churches.
We will work to ensure that if the Church of England is to sign up to the Covenant, it has potential for rapid progress on this and other issues. We find the notion of a “two track communion” flawed in the way that the Act of Synod is flawed, and we commit ourselves to continuing the effort to find ways forward through which those who disagree profoundly on this and on other issues can continue to celebrate their common membership of the Church of England and unity in Christ.
Signed by representatives of the following groups working together in the Church of England
Accepting Evangelicals
Changing Attitude
The Clergy Consultation
Courage
Ekklesia
Evangelical Fellowship of Lesbian and Gay Anglicans
General Synod Human Sexuality Group
Group for the Rescinding of the Act of Synod
Inclusive Church
Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (Anglican Matters)
Modern Churchpeople’s Union
Sibyls
WATCH National Committee
52 CommentsHere are a few more items of this kind.
Malcolm at Simple Massing Priest has written If you meet the Anglican Communion on the road . . .
But I am becoming ever more convinced that Dr. Williams’s sincere attempts to save the Anglican Communion will, if allowed to come to fruition, ultimately destroy it.
There are a number of problems with the document. I’ll try to hit the main ones point by point…
Lionel Deimel has written Reflecting on the Archbishop’s Reflection.
…Episcopalians need to take a very close look at CCAF to understand better their problematic relationship to the Anglican Communion and their possibly even more problematic Anglican future. They need to recognize the ways in which the thinking of the Archbishop of Canterbury and other Anglican leaders is dysfunctional or mistaken…
Jonathan Hagger aka MadPriest has responded to what Andrew Brown wrote with Politeness and the Death of the Church of England.
38 CommentsThe Grand Tufti’s response to the votes taken at TEC’s general convention understandably resulted in many of my American friends saying “Well, stuff them all. We’ll go it alone.” As my main fear in this ongoing battle is that the US church will adopt an isolationist policy and leave the rest of the world’s progressives high and dry, I called them to task on this. Their reply was to ask the question, “What are English progressives doing to stop the imposition of a covenant that, if accepted by the Church of England, would lead to its complete theological stagnation for centuries to come?”
At this point I was just assuming what Andrew Brown assumes – that it would never get passed Synod. But I thought I better check before making this point on my blog…
Three developments which though not directly related to the Church of England are relevant to the general topic of such legislation in the UK.
Third Sector reports in Charity takes gay adoption case onward to High Court that:
The Catholic adoption agency that was told by both the Charity Commission and the Charity Tribunal that it could not restrict its services to heterosexual parents will take its case to the High Court.
The tribunal granted permission for the appeal by Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) earlier this month (Third Sector Online, 8 July), but the charity was unsure at the time whether it would go ahead.
Mark Wiggin, chief executive of Catholic Care, told Third Sector the charity would pursue the appeal, but he was unable to give any details about how the case would be funded. Taking the case to the Charity Tribunal cost the charity about £75,000…
Last week in the Tablet the RC Archbishop of Cardiff, Peter Smith wrote about the Equality Bill. His article is titled Voice that must be heard.
English and Welsh Catholic bishops warn that equality legislation currently before Parliament poses a threat to religious freedom. Here the chairman of their Christian Responsibility and Citizenship Committee explains why it is so important to challenge the secular status quo.
And, the RC bishops responded formally to the UK Consultation on the European Commission Proposal for an Equal Treatment Directive. They issued a press notice, and published their response in full, as a PDF. In it they assert that:
…the Church is not seeking special provisions which exempt it from universally applicable requirements.
They do however argue that:
11 Comments…in the Church’s view an additional sub-paragraph is needed confirming that differences of treatment shall not constitute discrimination where such differences are required to enable a religious body to function in accordance with its ethos. A provision of this nature would go a long way to ensure that competing rights are balanced, rather than religious sensibilities being ignored or becoming the subject of tendentious claims.
Jane Shaw wrote in last week’s Church Times about it. See Mission was behind the US vote.
MANY RESPONSES to last week’s decision by the Episcopal Church’s General Convention to allow (again) the possibility of gay bishops and same-sex blessings, have spoken of schism. Worse, some suggested that the Convention’s decisions were deliberately provocative.
Nothing could be further from the truth. As one of a number of international visitors at the General Convention, I witnessed the care and thought with which laity, clergy, and bishops deliberated on these issues. As the dust settles, we can ask more soberly: why did the votes go the way they did?
Meanwhile, from Global South Anglican we have Statement by Province of Southeast Asia Standing Committee.
8 CommentsFace to Faith in the Guardian has an article by Steve Parish, a Warrington vicar, on how Westminster Abbey’s corona is not the first ‘how the other half lives’ issue to have split the church.
Justin Lewis-Anthony has responded to the Cif belief Question of the week, Do we need saints? with an article titled Closer to God.
Malcolm Evans explained in last week’s Church Times why we are witnessing not discrimination against the Church, but a move towards equality with other faiths. Read Christianity is losing its privileges.
Also, Jill Segger writes that Faith gives no right to be offensive.
John Shepherd writes in The Times that Religions are different streams leading to a single sea.
Giles Fraser asks in this week’s Church Times Are you Anglican or C of E?
9 CommentsStephen Bates at Cif belief Anglicanism’s one-track mind
The Anglican church is once again mired in a debate about sexuality. Why does it remain such an obsession?
Bishop Tom Wright at Anglican Communion Institute (in partnership with Fulcrum and now also available there) Rowan’s Reflections: Unpacking the Archbishop’s Statement
In the two days since the Archbishop released his ‘Reflections’ on TEC’s General Convention, they have already generated widely differing responses. We always knew, say some conservatives, that the ABC was a hopeless liberal, and this has confirmed it. Not so, declare many horrified radicals: he has obviously sold out to the conservatives. Some have warmly welcomed the statement and hailed it as paving the way forward. Cautious voices in between are trying to discern strengths and weaknesses. In my view, there is much to welcome, and much whose implications need further unpacking. The two main sections of this paper deal with these two aspects…
Changing Attitude Changing Attitude response to Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future
67 CommentsThe Church of England is already a church which incorporates the ministry of partnered lesbian and gay lay people, priests and bishops. Hundreds of LGBT people in the ordained ministry, including the episcopate, act in a representative role in apparent contravention of the Church’s teaching…
Updated Thursday
Andrew Brown writes at Cif belief Rowan’s road to schism
Has Rowan Williams just set the Church of England on the road to disestablishment? Or does he envision it as standing outside the central body of Anglicanism that he is trying now to erect? I have just read carefully through his response to the American Church’s recognition of equal gay rights, and there are two things that are really striking about it…
From IT writing at Friends of Jake Rowan Williams then and now
…He argued that scriptural prohibitions were addressed to heterosexuals looking for sexual variety. He wrote: “I concluded that an active sexual relationship between two people of the same sex might therefore reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage, if and only if it had about it the same character of absolute covenanted faithfulness.” Dr Williams described his view as his “definitive conclusion” reached after 20 years of study and prayer…..by the end of the 1980s he had “definitely come to the conclusion” that the Bible did not denounce faithful relationships between people who happened to be gay…
From Thanksgiving in all Things Christopher writes of Analyzing Rowan Williams’ Rhetoric About LGBT Persons
In his body of theological work, Mark D. Jordan reminds us repeatedly to pay attention to rhetoric, especially the rhetoric of Christian leaders about lgbt persons.
In his most recent letter, Williams weaves a story of willful choice on the part of lgbt Christians. And we are to get what we deserve in consequence…
Update And the previous day, had also written The Fundamental Problems with Archbishop Williams’ Ecclesiology and Many Who Wring Their Hands About Catholicity
75 CommentsThe fundamental problem with the working ecclesiology of the Covenant, of Archbishop Williams, and of the anxieties that somehow we hold together Christ’s Body is that it is a “pipeline theory of grace” rather than an eschatology of Christ’s Presence present to us in every age, and time, and place, wherever we call upon the Name of Jesus, proclaim His Person and work, celebrate the Dominical Sacraments, and go forth to serve the world’s needs. Ironically, such a supposed “catholic” approach to Christ or the apostles’ ministry is memorialist of sorts, always harkening to the past rather than to His Presence, or becomes Pelagian as we try to do it ourselves, rather than rely on Christ…
CHICAGO, IL., July 28, 2009 — The Chicago Consultation released this statement from its co-convener, Ruth Meyers, in response to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s reflections on the Episcopal Church’s General Convention. Meyers is the Hodges Haynes Professor of Liturgics at Church Divinity School of the Pacific:
During General Convention, the Episcopal Church was pleased to welcome many international visitors, including the Archbishop of Canterbury. We are glad that he felt generously welcomed and are grateful that he experienced first-hand the Episcopal Church’s deep and abiding commitment to the worldwide Anglican Communion.
In his statement, the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke to the entire Communion, including provinces in parts of the world where gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) people face serious criminal penalties and even death. We hope and pray that the Archbishop’s strong condemnation of prejudice against GLBT people, and his call to penitence for our inconsistencies on these issues, will embolden Anglicans across the world to stand against hatred and discrimination when they encounter it in their midst.
We also urge all Anglicans, including the Archbishop, to regard the full inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in the body of Christ as nothing less than a Gospel mandate and a requirement of our baptismal vows. To understand this issue as simply one of civil liberties or human rights — to which the Gospel also calls us — does grave injustice to our sisters and brothers in Christ and our fundamental understanding of baptismal theology.
The Archbishop raises important questions about how the Anglican Communion can best structure itself and continue to develop Anglican doctrine. The Episcopal Church has a long, albeit imperfect, history of developing theology and doctrine to support fully including women, people of color, and GLBT people in the life of the church. We can contribute this valuable experience to the Communion, and we look forward to working together with our fellow Anglicans around the globe as we continue discerning God’s call for our common life and mission.
The Chicago Consultation, a group of Episcopal and Anglican bishops, clergy and lay people, supports the full inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Christians in the Episcopal Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion. We believe that our baptismal covenant requires this.
The Chicago Consultation believes that, like the church’s historic discrimination against people of color and women, excluding GLBT people from the sacramental life of the church is a sin. Through study, prayer and conversation, we seek to provide clergy and laypeople across The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion with biblical and theological perspectives that will rid the church of this sin.
153 CommentsUpdated Tuesday evening
From blogs:
Changing Attitude Archbishop’s Reflections impossible for Changing Attitude supporters to accept
Integrity Integrity Responds to Archbishop of Canterbury’s post-GC2009 Statement
A. S. Haley Ex Cathedra
The Anglican Scotist Archbishop Williams’ Latest Missive
Tuesday evening update
Nick Knisely What is Rowan Williams thinking?
Savitri Hensman at Cif belief The archbishop’s response falls short
Sam Candler The Notion of “Choice” in Anglican Communion Matters
And Episcopal Café has a roundup including several more worth reading.
17 CommentsUpdated Tuesday morning
Media coverage:
The Times Ruth Gledhill Archbishop of Canterbury attempts to paper over Church schism and also on her blog: Archbishop Rowan and TEC: Two-track communion the way forward.
Guardian Riazat Butt Archbishop warns ordination of gay clergy could lead to two-tier church
Telegraph Matthew Moore Archbishop of Canterbury foresees ‘two-track’ church to avoid gay schism
ENS Canterbury reflects on General Convention
Associated Press Meera Selva Anglican Church may have ‘two track’ structure
Blog coverage:
Episcopal Café Reactions to +Rowan’s essay vary
Adrian Worsfold The Real Archbishop of Anglicanism
Jared Cramer The Blindspots in Archbishop Rowan’s Perspective
Scott Gunn Parsing Rowan: Catholic, Covenant, and “chosen lifestyles”
Tuesday morning update
Los Angeles Times Duke Helfand Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams speaks of ‘two-tier’ church
Washington Times Julia Duin Anglican leader foresees two paths
Christianity Today Timothy C. Morgan Just Shy of Schism, Anglicans May Sub-Divide
Religion News Service Daniel Burke Williams Suggests Secondary Role for Rebel Episcopal Church
Living Church Archbishop: Two-Track Communion Possible
USA Today Cathy Lynn Grossman Restructuring, not schism, ahead for Anglicans
New York Times Alan Cowell Archbishop Sees ‘Two-Track’ Anglican Church
62 CommentsFrom Lambeth Palace comes Communion, Covenant and our Anglican Future.
Reflections on the Episcopal Church’s 2009 General Convention from the Archbishop of Canterbury for the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Anglican Communion.
85 CommentsThe Bishop of Rochester wrote about it, in the Washington Times, a rather odd place for a CofE bishop to write, you might think. His article is titled Episcopal gay moves risk schism.
(This provoked Adrian Worsfold into a spoof version.)
A much more useful article, by somebody who was actually there, can by found at Anglicans Online. See Pierre Whalon What Didn’t Happen at General Convention 2009—and What Did?
19 Comments
