Tuesday, 19 October 2004

Morning news

After the rush of yesterday, and now that people have had a chance to read the report we hope to see some slightly more considered comment.

But real understanding will take a little longer. As The Archbishop of Canterbury comments:

I hope that everyone with the well being of our Communion at heart will now take time to study the report — and to pray and reflect upon its proposals which, as the Commission has made clear, offer neither easy nor simple solutions to real and demanding challenges. If we are serious about meeting those challenges, as I know we are, then we have to do all we can to continue to travel this road together.

That is what we intend to do, and as usual we will continue to point to a range of other commentators, as well as adding our thoughts.

Other coverage this morning includes:

The Anglican Communion had a relatively minor crisis as new consciousness about homosexuality struggled to be born in the face of ancient prejudice. This commission has taken this minor crisis and turned it into a major revolution that will move Anglicanism toward the literal-mindedness that now threatens not just Christianity, but religious systems all over the world.

Dr Robin Eames, charged with averting schism in the Anglican Communion, has come up with a new liturgical gesture. The primates and churches who have split the communion are to apologise to one another - but with their fingers crossed.

The prospects that the report would find a compromise for the 78 million-strong worldwide communion looked bleak last night as factions began to digest its findings. One senior primate told the Guardian: “It’s very, very black, very grim. We are hell-bent on division. It’s all down to the grace of Almighty God now.”

Robin Eames may see his commission’s report into the Church’s stance on homosexuality as part of the Anglican Communion’s “pilgrimage towards healing and reconciliation”, but it is unlikely that the two opposing sides in this ill-tempered dispute will share that optimism. And it is unlikely that yesterday’s report will prevent hostilities flaring up again, since it fails to address the fundamental issues behind this crisis of Anglicanism.

Posted by Simon Kershaw on Tuesday, 19 October 2004 at 10:10am BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: News
Comments

A GS colleague of mine has pointed out that Gene's consecration was legal, unlike the first ordinations of women. So why should the US participants in the deed be forced to apologise?

Posted by: Penny on Tuesday, 19 October 2004 at 11:25am BST

The Windsor Report suggests that all future Bishops in the Communion must be such that their ministry will be "received and recognized" by all Anglican Provinces.

This must mean no more women bishops, then, as women bishop cannot legally confirm or ordain in the Church of England. And no more homophobic bishops, or bishops whose views on the role of women in society would be unacceptable to ECUSA.

If I'm wrong (as I obviously am), why doesn't the report explain why it's only the bishop's sexuality that matters?

Posted by: Russell on Tuesday, 19 October 2004 at 1:13pm BST

Is the Windsor Report somewhat Fulcrumesque?

The Fulcrum initial statement on it, and the submission, are up on the Fulcrum site


www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk

Posted by: Graham Kings on Tuesday, 19 October 2004 at 1:33pm BST

The 'literal'/'non-literal' debate resurrected by Spong is an old chestnut.

Plenty of parts of the Bible (notably, laws, narrative parts and letters) are obviously intended to be taken literally. The alternative is MontyPythonesque. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John saying 'Well of course we didnt mean that Jesus literally died.' Paul saying 'Well, of course I don't mean that you are literally justified by faith'.

Dr Spong must know this really. We all know it. We have all told the story of events in our lives, and (while interpretation and shaping are inevitable) we take it for granted that these will be taken literally. We have all written letters, and we also take it for granted that these will be taken literally.

Of course, there are some parts of the Bible (imagery in the Song of Songs) that do not intend us to take them literally. But these are not the parts germane to the present debate, for which the main relevant biblical genres are laws, gospels and letters.

Posted by: Dr Christopher Shell on Saturday, 23 October 2004 at 2:04pm BST