Artistic genius has nothing to do with faith – it’s down to God’s profligacy says Stephen Hough in The Times.
The Times also prints an extract from A Heart in My Head: A Biography of Richard Harries by John S. Peart-Binns under the title Inside track on the road to Anglican schism.
Alex Wright writes about images of God in the Guardian’s Face to Faith column.
In the Telegraph Christopher Howse writes about the history of the church in Leicester Square, in Delivered from the Prince of Wales.
This week’s Church Times column by Giles Fraser is What’s right with risk.
In the Tablet, Terry Prendergast writes about marriage, in The best chance to grow.
Over at Comment is free Theo Hobson wrote Mass Exodus in reply to last week’s column by David Self.
10 CommentsFirst, Andrew McClintock lost his Employment Tribunal case.
Sheffield Star Gay adoption row magistrate ‘was wrong’
BBC Magistrate in gay adoption defeat
Second, the Joint Committee on Human Rights of the UK Parliament published a report: Legislative Scrutiny: Sexual Orientation Regulations which is available on the web starting here. A PDF version of the document is here.
From the committee’s press release:
Regulations under Part 3 of the Equality Act prohibiting discrimination and harassment on grounds of sexual orientation are expected to be made soon for Great Britain. In light of the consultation held last year by the Government on these regulations, and the equivalent Northern Ireland Regulations which have already come into effect, the Committee in this “post-legislative scrutiny” Report sets out the human rights issues likely to arise in relation to the Great Britain regulations.
The report’s own Summary is here.
The Lawyers Christian Fellowship is upset over both these developments. Anglican Mainstream has their material, here, and here.
The Evangelical Alliance is also upset about Mr McClintock.
40 CommentsChanging Attitude has published this press release: Changing Attitude England challenges Primate of All Nigeria to protect Davis Mac-Iyalla. It says in part:
36 Comments…Changing Attitude England and Nigeria challenge the Primate of All Nigeria, the Most Revd Peter Akinola, and the CANA bishop in the USA, the Rt Revd Martyn Minns, to issue a statement denouncing those church members who are threatening violence. We ask both the Archbishop and Bishop to unreservedly demand protection for Mr Mac-Iyalla and confirm the sanctity of all human life, whatever a person’s sexual orientation, in conformity with the Lambeth Conference 1998 Resolution 1.10 and paragraph 146 of the Windsor report which states that ‘any demonising of homosexual persons, or their ill treatment, is totally against Christian charity and basic principles of pastoral care.’
The Revd Colin Coward, Director of Changing Attitude England, said:
“Ii is intolerable that no Nigerian Bishop or Archbishop has issued a statement condemning the threats of violence and intimidation against Mr Mac-Iyalla. By their silence, they are tacitly showing approval for those members of the Church of Nigeria who believe they have the blessing of their church to abuse another Anglican and threaten to commit murder by drenching him in acid.”
“Both Archbishop Akinola and Bishop Martyn Minns are now implicated in the deep and destructive prejudice shown towards lesbian and gay people in Nigeria, characterised by the threats against Davis Mac-Iyalla and the Church of Nigeria‘s support for the proposed anti-gay legislation.“
“In Dar Es Salaam, in front of Canon David Anderson and Canon Chris Sugden, I asked Bishop Minns to contact Canon Akintunde Popoola and tell him to cease issuing lies and false statements about Davis. These statements have encouraged Nigerian church members to visit Mr Mac-Iyalla and threaten him with death. I have not yet received confirmation from Bishop Minns that he has done this, nor that such assurances have been given.”
“Time is now urgent. Mr Mac-Iyalla has been forced into hiding yet again. The Primatial and Episcopal leaders of the Church of Nigeria are acting with blind disregard for the safety of one of their own church members. They are deliberately supporting a bill which contravenes basic human rights and justice and renders the listening process impossible in Nigeria.”
Anglo-catholics affirm dignity of difference
Members of Affirming Catholicism made a series of influential contributions to the Church of England General Synod this week, helping the body move in a more progressive direction without alienating conservative sensitivities.
In an agenda which included key debates on the replacement of Trident (the UK nuclear deterrent), lesbian and gay Christians and criminal justice, speakers prompted Synod to consider the plight of those who were marginalised in the Church or society.
Mr John Ward, a lay member of Synod, spoke movingly on the place of lesbian and gay people in the Church during a debate sparked by a motion from fellow Affirming Catholic, the Rev’d Mary Gilbert. His speech, which focussed on his own experience as a gay Christian in the Church, received sustained applause from Synod members who eventually passed an amended motion affirming the integrity of divergent views on the issue in the Church, and committing the Church to keep dialogue going.
Speaking of the debate, Mr Ward said:
Being an Anglican means learning to live respectfully with difference. I feel encouraged by the affirmation many have given to me as a gay man this week, and I am hopeful that continued gracious dialogue will allow Church members ultimately to reconcile their differences.
In a debate on the criminal justice system Synod members backed a report urging the Government to invest more resources in preventing crime and rehabilitating offenders, many of whom suffer from social disadvantage or mental health problems. Mary Johnston, a lay member of Synod and a Trustee of Affirming Catholicism, spoke of her own recent experience as a victim of crime and called on the Church to consider especially the terrible impact of violent crime for the families and friends of both victims and offenders.
Summing up the week, the Rev’d Jonathan Clark, acting Chair of Affirming Catholics in Synod, said:
16 CommentsA Catholic vision of the gospel emphasises the dignity of humanity. I’m delighted that Affirming Catholics have played an important part in helping Synod reconcile its own differences as well as focus on the need to welcome and support those whom society has traditionally excluded.
Press Release 2 March 2007
A good day for the Church of England. A bad time for the Church of Nigeria
Members of the General Synod are to be congratulated on the tone and quality of the debates on Wednesday 28th February. In the first substantial debates on issues around human sexuality since the infamous “Higton debate” in 1987, contributions from all positions were characterised by honesty, charity and generosity.
InclusiveChurch hopes that the debates reflect a new understanding and respect for differing theological positions about lesbian and gay people within and outside the Church. We hope too that this new understanding will bring about a greater sense of cohesion between different parts of the Church so that we can now better preach and show the gospel of Christ’s love to those we serve.
John Ward, a member of General Synod and chair of the General Synod Human Sexuality Group, said ‘There are no winners or losers. I am delighted that we can now be in dialogue without fear and that lesbian and gay Christians are affirmed as full members of the Church. I believe that through prayer and communication something changed yesterday in Synod’
As a Church we are once again called to “to engage in an open, full and Godly dialogue about human sexuality…and acknowledge the importance of lesbian and gay members of the Church of England participating in the listening process as full members of the Church.” We hope that process of dialogue will include prayer, together, by people with differing understandings of the issues. Those of us who support a more inclusive position do this with deep respect and love for the word of God in the Bible. That love must be at the heart of the listening process so that all sides can engage with trust and confidence.
The motion on Civil Partnerships was amended to “note the intention of the House [of Bishops] to keep their Pastoral Statement under review”. Clearly the present arrangements are not working. We hope that a review of the Pastoral Statement will begin soon.
We view with concern the demands placed on the Episcopal Church by the Primates, especially as we are very aware that there are lesbian or gay clergy at all levels of the hierarchy of the Church of England, some of whom have entered into Civil Partnerships.
In the context of Synod’s debates we deeply regret the continuing support of the Church of Nigeria for legislation to criminalise lesbian and gay people. This appears to be a breach of Lambeth 1.10 which restates the need to resist homophobia in all its forms. We encourage all who have contact with the Church of Nigeria to make their concerns clear. The Anglican Communion does deep damage to its mission if it is seen to be supporting legislation which is in clear breach of the United Nations Convention on Human Rights. A letter on this from 250 American faith leaders can be found at http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/02/27/nigeri15425.htm
Giles Goddard, Chair, IC
8 CommentsToday’s Church Times has full coverage of the synod (up to the end of Wednesday) available on the website.
Summary:
Synod divided over homosexuality by Paul Handley
Presidential Address in context:
Anglican game is worth the candle, says Williams
Leader Comment Building trust in a broken Church
Synod signals its opposition to a Trident upgrade
Synod detailed coverage:
Civil-partners policy gets a drubbing
Update In relation to this report see also the letter published on 9 March
From Miss Jacqueline Humphreys
Resembling, but not undermining, marriage
Bishops promote qualified support for gays and lesbians
Marriage Measure: a path too wide — or too narrow?
Anti-Trident motion sharpened up
Synod airs hope and fear on clergy terms
Synod votes to tweak defined-benefits plan
36 CommentsUpdated Saturday
Thursday Morning: official report here.
Thursday Afternoon: official report here.
Church Times for Thursday.
Press reports on Friday morning:
Guardian TV contests humiliate losers, say synod speakers
Telegraph Blame TV for moral decline, says Synod
The Times Church censures rating-chasing TV shows for humiliation factor
And a very detailed report in the Evening Standard Film sex and violence ‘fatally eroding’ society
And a further Guardian organ grinder blog comment that I missed earlier: Who dares to attack TV’s lack of morality?
2 CommentsNo, not those faith leaders.
Matt Thompson reports here on this letter, Faith Leaders Condemn Repressive Nigerian Legislation and this HRW press release, Christian Leaders in US Condemn Nigeria’s Anti-Gay Bill.
Andrew Sullivan writes The Anglicans Out-Sharia Muslims.
An open letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury from LGCM about this is here.
21 CommentsUpdated again Friday evening
The official reports on today’s business, with links to audio recordings, are here: Morning and Afternoon.
Our own accounts of the two private members’ motions are in the preceding two items.
Telegraph Synod rejects church’s gay ‘marriage’ advice and Synod rejects gay clergy policy
Associated Press Anglicans Vote on Gay and Lesbian Issues
Christian Today Church of England Synod Passes Compromise Resolution on Homosexuality
Evening Standard Church tones down motion on gays
Reuters Anglicans lock horns over gays as rift deepens
Guardian Synod disarray over civil partnerships
Times has only a nib here (scroll down)
And the Living Church has reported on the Presidential Address of Monday, in Goodwill and Patience Needed, Archbishop Says.
The Church Times report of Wednesday is now here.
Update Anybody who wants the full text of Paul Perkin’s opening speech in the afternoon debate can find it here.
1 CommentPresiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori conducted a live webcast this morning. You can view a recording of this at varying levels of video quality or in audio only, here.
A transcript of the first part of the broadcast is here.
An ENS news report on this: Presiding Bishop engages in a live ‘Conversation with the Church.
There is also Presiding Bishop’s webcast gets reviews from participants, viewers
15 CommentsThis afternoon Synod moved onto a debate about Civil Partnerships and passed this motion.
That this Synod
(a) acknowledge the diversity of views within the Church of England on whether Parliament might better have addressed the injustices affecting persons of the same sex wishing to share a common life had it done so in a way that avoided creating a legal framework with many similarities to marriage; and
(b) note the intention of the House to keep their Pastoral Statement under review.
The final motion was very different from the original below proposed by the Revd Paul Perkin.
That this Synod, deeply concerned that
(a) in an understandable desire to remedy injustice and remove unjust discrimination, the Government’s Civil Partnership Act undermines the distinctiveness and fundamental importance to society of the relationship of marriage;
(b) the House of Bishops’ Pastoral Statement, while reiterating the Church’s basic teaching on marriage, has produced a recipe for confusion by not stating clearly that civil partnerships entered into under the CP Act would be inconsistent with Christian teaching;
(c) the House of Bishops’ Pastoral Statement has given to bishops the task of ensuring that clergy who enter into these partnerships adhere to church teaching in the area of sexuality without giving the bishops the clear means to do so; and
(d) by declaring that lay people who enter into such partnerships should not be asked about the nature of their relationship, in the context of preparation for baptism and confirmation, as well as for the purposes of receiving Holy Communion, the Bishops’ Pastoral Statement has compromised pastoral discipline at the local level:
declare its support for bishops, clergy and other ministers who continue to minister the godly discipline required by the scriptures and the canons and request the House of Bishops to set up a study of the ways in which that discipline is being applied and the implications thereof for future pastoral guidance and bring a report to Synod by the July 2007 Group of Sessions.
The House of Bishops were not happy with this and, on their behalf, the Bishop of Liverpool proposed this amendment.
Leave out all words after “this Synod” and insert the words:
(a) acknowledge the diversity of views within the Church of England on whether Parliament might better have addressed the injustices affecting persons of the same sex wishing to share a common life had it done so in a way that avoided creating a legal framework with many similarities to marriage;
(b) recognise the House of Bishops’ Pastoral Statement as a balanced and sensitive attempt faithfully to apply the Church’s teaching to civil partnerships; and
(c) note the intention of the House to keep the matter under review.”
Not wishing to accept the implied endorsement of the Bishops’ Pastoral Statement the Revd Paul Collier successful proposed the following amendment to the Bishop’s amendment..
Leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert:
“(b) note the intention of the House to keep their Pastoral Statement under review.”
The Bishop’s amended amendment was then carried to produce the final version of the motion at the top.
There was another amendment to the Bishop’s amendment, but as it referred to a section of text removed by Paul Collier’s motion it lapsed. We give it below for the record.
In paragraph (b) after the words “civil partnerships” insert the words “, in the light of legal advice given to the House of Bishops, which this Synod urge the House to make available to it”.
The background papers to this debate are available online: GS Misc 843A from Paul Perkin and GS Misc 843B from the House of Bishops.
25 CommentsGeneral Synod discussed Lesbian and Gay Christians this morning and, on a show of hands, passed the following motion by a substantial majority.
That this Synod
(a) commend continuing efforts to prevent the diversity of opinion about human sexuality creating further division and impaired fellowship within the Church of England and the Anglican Communion;
(b) recognise that such efforts would not be advanced by doing anything that could be perceived as the Church of England qualifying its commitment to the entirety of the relevant Lambeth Conference Resolutions (1978:10; 1988:64; 1998:1.10);
(c) welcome the opportunities offered by these Lambeth Resolutions, including for the Church of England to engage in an open, full and Godly dialogue about human sexuality; and
(d) affirm that homosexual orientation in itself is no bar to a faithful Christian life or to full participation in lay and ordained ministry in the Church and acknowledge the importance of lesbian and gay members of the Church of England participating in the listening process as full members of the Church.
The motion started as this private motion proposed by the Revd Mary Gilbert.
That this Synod acknowledge the diversity of opinion about homosexuality within the Church of England and that these divergent opinions come from honest and legitimate attempts to read the scriptures with integrity, understand the nature of homosexual orientation, and respect the patterns of holy living to which lesbian and gay Christians aspire; and, bearing in mind this diversity,
(a) agree that a homosexual orientation in itself is no bar to a faithful Christian life;
(b) invite parish and cathedral congregations to welcome and affirm lesbian and gay Christians, lay and ordained, valuing their contribution at every level of the Church; and
(c) urge every parish to ensure a climate of sufficient acceptance and safety to enable the experience of lesbian and gay people to be heard, as successive Lambeth Conferences in 1978 (resolution 10), 1988 (resolution 64), and 1998 (resolution 1.10) have requested.
However the House of Bishops was not happy with this motion, so on their behalf the Bishop of Gloucester proposed the amendment below to completely reword the motion.
Leave out all words after “this Synod” and insert the words:
“(a) commend continuing efforts to prevent the diversity of opinion about human sexuality creating further division and impaired fellowship within the Church of England and the Anglican Communion;
(b) recognise that such efforts would not be advanced by doing anything that could be perceived as the Church of England qualifying its commitment to the entirety of the relevant Lambeth Conference Resolutions (1978:10; 1988:64; 1998:1.10); and
(c) affirm that homosexual orientation in itself is no bar to a faithful Christian life or to full participation in lay and ordained ministry in the Church.”.
But Mr John Ward thought this went too far so he proposed the amendment below to the Bishop’s amendment.
(i) After paragraph (b) insert as a new paragraph
(c) welcome the opportunities offered by these Lambeth Resolutions, including for the Church of England to engage in an open, full and Godly dialogue about human sexuality;
and re-letter the remaining paragraph accordingly; and
(ii) at the end of paragraph (d) as re-lettered insert the words “and acknowledge the importance of lesbian and gay members of the Church of England participating in the listening process as full members of the Church.”
Both the amendment and the amendment to the amendment were carried by Synod so that the final motion put to Synod was as shown at the top.
Immediately after the opening speech of the debate there were motions to move to next business and then to adjourn the debate but Synod wanted to proceed with the debate and defeated both these procedural motions.
There was another amendment, but it was heavily defeated. We give it below for the record.
At the end insert as a new paragraph:
(d) (or (e) as the case may be) in the light of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Presidential Address given on Monday 26th February 2007 ask the Mission and Public Affairs Council to research, prepare and publish missiological ideas for clergy and parishes seeking to share faith with and disciple those who are lesbian and gay.
The background papers to this debate are available online: GS Misc 842A from Mary Gilbert and GS Misc 842B from the House of Bishops.
22 CommentsTelegraph Bishops raiding funds to spend on homes
and
Church could relax rules on wedding venues
The Times Bishops raid funds to pay for palaces
Guardian Church plans cuts to pay for bishops’ homes
ekklesia Mission budgets may be cut to fund C of E bishop’s palaces
The Church of England sought to rebut the above reports with this press release:
Statement on the Church Commissioners’ expenditure on mission
Associated Press Anglicans to vote on issues regarding gays and lesbians
8 CommentsUpdated and republished Tuesday evening
While the General Synod meets, Political Spaghetti continues to report on the progress of the legislation that is officially supported by the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion).
daily episcopalian reports the latest development affecting gay Anglicans in Nigeria here:
Pray for Davis, and write to Lambeth.
In a later report, Matt Thompson tells us that:
The Catholic Bishop Conference of Nigeria (CBCN) just announced their public support of Peter Akinola in a press conference in Abuja, condemning any group that might wish to make same-sex marriage lawful in Nigeria.
And in an even more recent posting, he reports that
The Nigerian Senate is expected to vote on the legislation this Thursday (less than 48 hours from now). The Nigerian House is ready to vote as well.
and provides a long list of contacts in Nigeria, the USA, and the UK (including Lambeth Palace) for those who wish to express their concern.
25 CommentsThis morning’s business is reported officially here.
This afternoon’s business is here.
Church Times Synod report: Tuesday.
For an explanation of what happened, or rather didn’t happen yet, in the debate on the draft Church of England Marriage Measure read Alastair Cutting’s report here. He had better internet access than the press this afternoon. He also has some pictures.
For another view of Questions yesterday, see Synodical goings-on.
2 CommentsUpdated
Lionel Deimel, Joan Gunderson, and Christopher Wilkins have published a detailed analysis of the statistics previously discussed here.
A Modest Analysis of NACDAP’s “Anglicans in the United States”.
Here is part of it:
…We now turn to the Coalition numbers. It is virtually impossible to verify the 48,000 number of “Network Parishes in Non-Network Dioceses.” The 194,312 number of members for “Network Dioceses” is consistent with the declared Network dioceses and their numbers shown in TEC statistics. This is an over count, however. There is opposition to the Network in all Network dioceses, and, in most of them, the opposition is highly organized. Moreover, the Network is not equally strong in all Network dioceses. In Pittsburgh, the 13 parishes that have formally declined membership in the Network have 6,200 members, including the 2nd and 3rd largest parishes in the diocese. This is just over 30% of the diocese. Pittsburgh’s diocesan dynamic is by no means unique. Typically, at least 25% of the Network diocese membership shown actually opposes the Network, and many more parishioners find the entire conflict distracting and would prefer a system that minimized diocesan division instead of exacerbating it. Some parishes are quite divided, and in almost every parish will have some parishioners that disagree with its stance (whatever that is), but 25% dissenter seems a fair guess, accounting for all the intermixing of partisans of anti-Network sentiment in the typical Network diocese. Applying this analysis would mean that reducing the 194,312 number shown for Network dioceses to 145,734 would be realistic.
Most questionable is the 201,501 figure shown for “Non-Network Windsor Dioceses.” PEP has been unable to verify this figure. It does not correspond to the number of members in various dioceses whose bishops attended the Camp Allen meetings, and there seems to be some confusion about just who is or is not a “Windsor bishop.” Among the bishops who attended the first meeting were two who retired (Salmon and Herlong) and were thus no longer diocesans. Another bishop (MacDonald, of Alaska) left his TEC see for Canada. The diocese of a fourth (Wolf, of Rhode Island) has steadfastly refused to endorse any resolutions supportive of the Windsor Report. A fifth bishop is on medical leave from his diocese (Lipscomb), and his successor, who has already been chosen, has not joined this group. Five bishops did not return for the second meeting at Camp Allen in January. Four new bishops attended that meeting (Jenkins, Gray, Jacobus, and Parsley). Bishop Parsley has been adamant that those in his diocese should not join the Network!
Mark Harris has posted Numbers, we’ve got numbers, we’ve got lots and lots of numbers. and more recently More on the Moderator’s Numbers.
epiScope has useful links to the sources of statistical data used.
14 CommentsUpdated
Church Times Synod report: Monday
Ekklesia C of E strengthens opposition to Trident
Reuters Anglicans appear “obsessed with sex”
Telegraph Williams: Church appears ‘obsessed with sex’
Guardian Public view us as sex obsessed, archbishop tells Anglican synod
The Times People think we are sex-obsessed, says Archbishop
Somerset County Gazette Bishop slams Government’s Trident renewal plans
Three reports from Monday:
BBC Church seeks unity on gay rights
Telegraph Anglicans to review stance on gay clergy
Yorkshire Post Michael Brown: A tale of two archbishops as a Church is torn apart
The full list of Questions can be found here.
A few of the prepared written Answers are below. The full audio, including the supplementary questions and their answers, can be found here. We will transcribe more written answers, and a few of those supplementaries later on, when time permits.
The Archbishop of Canterbury to reply as Joint President of the Archbishops’ Council:
Mr Andrew Presland (Peterborough) to ask the Presidents of the Archbishops’ Council:
Q17. Does the Council regard the transitional period proposed to be given by the Government for the Roman Catholic adoption agencies “to adapt” to the requirements of the Sexual Orientation Regulations as:
1. a time in which faith groups are expected to rewrite their teachings so as to conform with the Government’s own agenda;
2. time to fall in line with the idea that the Government has reversed the long-standing principle that it should not be illegal for someone to act in accordance with his or her conscience; or
3. something else?
Mrs Alison Wynne (Blackburn) to ask the Presidents of the Archbishops’ Council:
Q18. In the light of fears that the introduction of the proposed Sexual Orientation Regulations for England, Wales and Scotland will severely hinder freedom of conscience, what representations has the Archbishops’ Council made, or will it now make, to the Government concerning those regulations?
Mrs Sarah Finch (London) to ask the Presidents of the Archbishops’ Council:
Q19. In view of the threat to freedom of conscience posed by the introduction of Sexual Orientation Regulations, is the Archbishops’ Council pressing for urgent further consultations with the Government, in order to preserve one of the most precious freedoms we enjoy in this country?
Mrs Sarah Finch (London) to ask the Presidents of the Archbishops’ Council:
Q20. What consultations is the Archbishops’ Council having with other faith groups in the United Kingdom, with a view to joint discussion with the Government to preserve our freedom of conscience?
Answer
With permission I shall answer this with questions 18, 19, and 20.
Last June the Archbishops Council submitted a carefully argued response to the Government’s consultation paper on the proposed regulations. The Government had already accepted the principle that some special provisions were needed to safeguard the manifesting of religious convictions. The issue at stake was how widely those provisions should be drafted to reflect a proper balancing of conflicting rights. Since then, Archbishops’ Council staff have stayed in close touch with the representatives of other churches and religious organisations. There has also been a series of exchanges with Government ministers and advisers.
The Regulations for Great Britain have yet to be published and will in some respects be different from those already approved by Parliament for Northern Ireland. It remains to be seen therefore, precisely what the impact will be on churches and religious organisations generally. But the decision already announced in relation to Roman Catholic adoption agencies has rightly caused concern about the State’s willingness to impose requirements on voluntary organisations that are in conflict with the religious convictions and consciences that are the inspiration for their work. Whatever view is taken of the Roman Catholic policy on adoption, there are deeper issues here about the rights, liberties and dignities of independent bodies in relation to the State. To use the law to make it impossible, after a transitional period, for a religious organisation to carry on doing work that is manifestly for the common good is a new and troubling development.
17 CommentsThe February General Synod was opened, and Rowan Williams delivered this Presidential Address.
Audio of this here.
Church of England official page for all this. Go there for more audio links.
The outcome of THE FUTURE OF TRIDENT debate was that the following motion was carried by 206 votes to 38:
‘That this Synod recognising the fundamental responsibility of Her Majesty’s Government to provide for the security of the country:
1. welcome the response from the Mission and Public Affairs Council to the House of Commons Defence Select Committee’s inquiry expressing serious questions about the proposed renewal of the UK’s minimum deterrent;
2. call on Christian people to make an informed contribution to the issues raised in The Future of Trident in the light of Christian teaching about Just War; and
3. suggest to Her Majesty’s Government that the proposed upgrading of Trident is contrary to the spirit of the United Kingdom’s obligations in international law and the ethical principles underpinning them.’
Some key items from Questions will be reported in a separate article here shortly.
36 CommentsSee earlier report of statistics used by Bishop Duncan, referred to by the Bishop of Winchester (“something over a quarter of its bishops and dioceses”) and mentioned by the Archbishop of Canterbury (“perhaps amounting to nearly one quarter of the Bishops”).
Who are these bishops? And do they each speak with the authority of their diocesan conventions, or only as individuals? Does having a “Windsor bishop” automatically create a “Windsor diocese”? And if so what is the extent in each diocese of dissent from that position?
Let’s start with the simplest question, the numbers of bishops.
As best I can tell, and I welcome corrections and comments on this:
All ten Network bishops are to be included in this list. OK, right now South Carolina doesn’t have a diocesan bishop in office, but it’s safe to assert that the bishop-elect should be included.
Outside the NACDAP, the following fourteen bishops appear to be candidates:
The Rt. Rev. Jim Adams, Bishop of Western Kansas
The Rt. Rev. Duncan Gray Diocese of Mississippi
The Rt. Rev. Samuel Johnson Howard, Bishop of Florida
The Rt. Rev. Russ Jacobus Diocese of Fond du Lac
The Rt. Rev. Charles Jenkins Diocese of Louisiana
The Rt. Rev. Gary Lillibridge, Bishop of West Texas
The Rt. Rev. John Lipscomb, Bishop of Southwest Florida
The Rt. Rev. Edward Little, Bishop of Northern Indiana
The Rt. Rev. D. Bruce MacPherson, Bishop of Western Louisiana
The Rt. Rev. C. Wallis Ohl, Jr., Bishop of Northwest Texas
The Rt. Rev. Henry Parsley Diocese of Alabama
The Rt. Rev. Michael G. Smith, Bishop of North Dakota
The Rt. Rev. Don A. Wimberly, Bishop of Texas
The Rt. Rev. Geralyn Wolf, Bishop of Rhode Island
I omit:
The Rt. Rev. Mark L. MacDonald, of Alaska, because he has subsequently accepted a post in the Anglican Church of Canada.
So we have a total at present of 24 (including South Carolina).
There are I believe 109 established posts in ECUSA for bishops with jurisdiction, and a quarter of that number would be 27+.