I think its more interesting to see how divisions within provinces will be dealt with. It seems clear to me that there could be parts of provinces who wish to sign with others not. How will that be dealt with?

It will also take a long time - and it doesn't appear to me that everyone wishes to enter this sort of time consuming, slow-moving project.

The outcome is clearly to try and hold at least some semblance of communion between everyone. I don't know if its possible ornot. I think it will depend on the conservatives, and if those posting here are indicative, they want a church purified of nasty liberals.

Which will mean a split, a schism.

Just a question - are there no women with expertise in these areas in the Church of England?

Very few - the legal profession has been fully open to women for a very long time, but this is not an area of expertise to which they have exactly flocked. I can think of just three: one has recently retired, one is about to, and one is at home having just had her first baby.

I think Cynthia's question was more general than that. All the six names in the list are male. Only two of them are there because they are lawyers.

Three are lawyers - and to produce a document such as a Covenant will require substantial legal knowledge.

But even in more general terms, it is hard to think of women at a sufficiently senior level, lay or ordained, with that kind of expertise. I can think of only one, who is very definitely retired.

There are many parts of church life which have always been open to women, or at least have been so for very many years, but they do not come forward for this type of work which really is open to anyone suitably qualified, despite great efforts to encourage and to promote them.

Yes - it was a more general question. I see that some are active or retired academics or hold advisory positions to senior clergy. Are there not women in similar positions in C of E?

I think about the seniosr staff of the Diocese of Virgnia, and I think that it is about 50/50 men and women. As it happens the women are all ordained but not all of the men are.

I would be curious about the % of men and women in senior staff positions in the C of E - say the ABC's office, the office of the Archbishop of York, etc.

What seems critical here is that we have not yet seen the proposed Covenant Development Group, much less a proposed covenant. Now, personally, that doesn't bother me. I think the possibility of a covenant is interesting, but, as the Report acknowledges, the content of a proposed covenant will really be the topic of discussion.

One question I would have, though, from the report is that the first acknowledgement of a draft covenant would be from the primates. I think it would be much better to have it be from the Anglican Consultative Council. First, it's the only "instrument of communion" that in fact has a constitution and structure. Second, it's the only one that explicitly includes the participation of lay Anglicans, and from clergy who are not bishops. Yes, the primates are part of that, but not enough to swing away too quickly from real discussion and reception.

So, it seems the critical issue is who will be (or has been, although there has been no information on this that I've seen) appointed to the Covenant Development Group. After that, it's simply the recognition that this is not going to be accomplished fast - at the very best only a draft would be available for Lambeth 2008. Any final agreement would probably wait for Lambeth 2018 (Lord willing and it actually happens). Those who are not willing to wait will, of course, have self-selected out by then.

"But even in more general terms, it is hard to think of women at a sufficiently senior level, lay or ordained, with that kind of expertise. I can think of only one, who is very definitely retired."

Well, I note that all of the members listed are UK based. I can think of at least one female Canadian lawyer (and also a number of male lawyers with expertise in Canon Law including Stephen Toope, who was recently appointed as President of the University of British Columbia).

I am sure there are many others in the US and around the world.

I assume Alan is counting Canon Cameron as the third lawyer: he does have a law degree to be sure. But he isn't on the panel for that reason, is he?

In any case, I think it is quite wrong to suppose that the drafting of a covenant should be the exclusive province of lawyers. The report itself suggests that other kinds of covenant may in fact prove to be more appropriate.

Cynthia's question about the proportion of females in senior staff positions at Lambeth or Bishopthorpe or at Church House, Westminster is a very good one. The figures are rather disappointing, I fear. Though the CofE did today appoint a new Finance Director who is female, as was her predecessor. And the Archbishops' Appointments Secretary is female!

Charles, you have perhaps not read the statement, "the drafting group was deliberately kept small and relatively inexpensive, which meant confining membership to those who could come easily to London for two day meetings".

The finances of these bodies are not limitless, and that is why, it seems, the group was UK based. If someone would like to donate a large amount of money to the Church of England General Synod, no doubt more global-scale activities can be entertained.

Alan
Do you mean Anglican Communion Office rather than Churcb of England General Synod?

I was being less than specific for the sake of those at home and abroad who do not know or understand (why should they?) the arcane way in which the Church of England is funded.

There are two main sources of income for the Church of England nationally. One is the budget of General Synod, levied on all the dioceses (actually the parishes) and the other is the income from the Church Commissioners, which comes through the Archbishops' Council.

The ACO budget is severely restricted, not least because some of those who make the most noise pay the least towards its work. Any increase in its budget would have to come in the first instance from the Church of England, which is already bracing itself for the massive cost of the Lambeth Conference - well over £1m.

The House of Laity of General Synod would take some persuading to provide yet more money for yet another Anglican Communion project, let alone to fly in people to do work which can be undertaken locally.

Many people helpfully remind us from time to time that the Church of England is not the Anglican Communion. But somehow when it comes to picking up the bills we find ourselves strangely alone for much of the time...

Alan

Your comments, in my opinion, only serve to confuse.

The Anglican Communion Office is NO part of the Church of England.

The ACO budget comes from all the member churches of the Communion, but indeed principally from the two wealthiest members, ECUSA and the CofE.

The CofE contribution is provided for in the annual budgets of the Archbishops' Council, for example the 2007 budget figure is £393K. This was recently approved by General Synod.

The total ACO budget in 2006 was around US$ 2.5 million.

Simon, the ACO budget, as you say, comes principally from ECUSA and the CofE. Where do you suppose the CofE gets the money to give to the ACO?

There is no Philosopher's Stone hidden in the basement of Church House. Any increase in budget falls in the final analysis on the parishes of the Church of England and therefore on its parishioners.

Any additional contribution to the ACO (or funding provided for the Lambeth Conference) means that the money comes out of the budget which we approved last week, or from the Church Commissioners. It is then either not available for the work of the CofE, or has to be made up by yet another increase in giving by us laity.

Unless the ACO has that magic stone somewhere in its own basement...

Alan - it may be true that the drafting group was set up in the way you described.

That does not neccessarily make it right.

One of the biggest reasons for the problems we face today is that the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC) and ECUSA have significantly different legal frameworks than the CofE and most provinces of the Communion.

We both set great store on the democratic nature of our Churches.

For instance in my own Diocese (New Westminster - yes, the one that authorised the blessings of monogamous same-gender relationships), our Diocesan Synod requested the Bishop 3 times, over 5 years for the Blessings to be implemented, with ever-increasing majorities, before the Bishop agreed to implement the right.

Our Bishops are elected by the members of the diocese, not appointed by the Government (or an advisory Council).

In the late 19th century, early 20th century our Bishops/Dioceses were so afraid of centralised authoritianism that when the "Church of England in Canada" as it was then called was formed from the constituent dioceses, the National body (and Primate) were given very few powers, most of the legal powers were left in the hands of the Bishops/Dioceses.

If we are going to even consider a Covenant, it behooves the Communion to understand these differences in Church polity.

For instance, many conservative Primates and Bishops have called on the Primate of Canada to discipline our Bishop and Diocese (for implementing the Blessing rite).

The Primate of Canada does not have the power to do this, as there is no oath of loyalty taken by Bishops to the Primate. He/she can only request.

Charles, I am sorry to disappoint you but you are quite wrong about the way bishops are appointed in England. We do not have a "democratic election" because we regard bishops as servants of the Church of God, not just of one diocese.

They are appointed by a Nominations Commission composed entirely of church members, six from the diocese concerned, six from General Synod (3 clergy and 3 laity) and the two archbishops. The government has no say in the matter. Two names are chosen by the Commission, and the prime minister (who still, but only just, appoints members of the House of Lords) sends one name to the Queen, who appoints on his advice.

The bishops we have are therefore, for better or worse, chosen by the whole of the Church of England, for service in the Church of God. It does tend to rule out the more interesting type of candidate familiar to older generations, but it does avoid the election by a small group of people of bishops who should never make it into the purple. And our system does mean that they are answerable to the law.

And in my book, "democratic" would mean that someone elected by a diocesan synod could be sacked in the same way - but it never seems to happen.

Alan
I am not aware of any request from the Anglican Consultative Council to the Church of England for additional money beyond what has already been agreed. The ACC finances remain quite separate from those of the CofE.

Of course, if the Americans were for whatever reason excluded, and stopped contributing, then - never mind increases for covenant drafting - that would be a very severe problem for the ACO in general and the Lambeth Conference in particular.

If that is your point, then I am in total agreement with you: I can see no reason why the CofE should subsidise the Lambeth Conference, or any other ACC budget, any more extensively than what is already budgeted. If American money ceases to flow then severe cutbacks, even the cancellation of the Lambeth Conference, would ensue.

Charles:

Here in the United States in the Episcopal Church are also servants of the whole Church, and not just of the individual Diocese. Thus, both the decision to hold an election and the results of the election must be confirmed by a majority of bishops and a majority of diocesan Standing Committees (elected clergy and lay leadership; note that confirmation by General Convention is the exception, and not the rule). However, we also believe in the priesthood of all believers, based on the presence of the Holy Spirit in the believer from baptism. So, we have both local participation by those believer whom God has placed in that diocese at that time (election by local delegates) and provincial participation (by bishops and Standing Committees). I don't intend to imply that the C of E procedure doesn't accomplish the same ends. We would hold, however, that involving more Christians in the process, and especially those most involved in living with the results of the process, allows that much more opportunity for us to hear God speaking, to feel the Spirit moving.

As for bishops being accountable to the law: they are accountable to civil law, of course; but in reaction to ecclesial establishment we have minimal civil law respecting religious practice and religious institutions. They are also accountable to canon law, and there are provisions for allegations and for due process. They can be cumbersome, and aren't entered into lightly. Some may look at past instances of allegations and the results, and fear that "there's no point;" but that may or may not be true in fact, and the same sentiment is a problem in civil life as well. American bishops can be more independent that bishops in other provinces of the Communion, largely because of the limited authority of the Primate. That doesn't mean they aren't and can't be held accountable.

Dear friends,

The exchange of postings between Charles and Alan regarding the appointment, or election, of bishops is helpful. I am glad to have Alan state the CofE's understanding that their polity is one of appointing a bishop "for the whole church".

At the same time, Charles quite clearly states the very difference in polity between us in the U.S.A. and in Canada and that of much of the rest of the Communion. And our polity is not going to change. It is appropriate, just as the polity of the CofE is appropriate, in our varied circumstances. And so, do we in the U.S.A. and Canada now have yet another issue - polity - for which to be condemned, or at least to be held culpable?

What Charles did was to voice our fear in the North Americas that a convenant is going to be crafted with which it will be impossible for our North American polities to comply, because neither our bishops nor our primates have the same kind of power as their counterparts elsewhere in the communion. I still wait to hear what it is that does commend us to the rest of the Communion, as it seems there is nothing in us, Canada and the U.S.A., as we are constituted, which will fit into the mold into which the Communion seems intent on crafting itself.

So what shall we do? For my part, I will continue to do ministry, to concentrate on the everyday work of a parish priesthood, to serve God in Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit, to preach, and teach, and visit and care for those in need, to bury the dead, to baptize, and to preside at Eucharist. And pray, in all things. Rather than despair, I choose to live as faithful a life as I can. And pray that in the end God will sort out a church that for so long witnessed, in my view, to the fullness of God's mercy, love, joy and peace/shalom/shalem, which I bid you all, as we continue to share our views with one another.

Faithfully,
The Reverend Lois Keen

Simon, thank you - we are back where we began, and the answer to the question why the group concerned was drawn from people easily able to make two day meetings in London. It might not include representatives of North and South, male and female, black and white, Catholic and Evangelical, etc etc etc - but the UK rail fares are very modest compared to the cost of air fares.

The ACO's funds are very stretched already. If it had to have an international, representative group for every purpose, it would have to come back to its sponsoring churches for more money.

It COULD do much more given the funds: but those who are supposed to contribute are falling short already. And as you note, the departure of ECUSA would be a very expensive loss.

Well, maybe I was not complete in my description of the electoral process in Canada.

The elected Bishop (as in the US) still has to be approved by the provincial House of Bishops - we have 4 eclesiastical provinces similar to the 9 Provinces in ECUSA, and the elected Bishop IS considered to be a Bishop of the whole church.

This difference, between us and ECUSA (Canada's bishops only requires approval of the HOB of the Province, ECUSA from the National HOB, and other Diocesan Standing Committees), is again due to the distrust I mentioned earlier.

The dioceses of the West/Prairies did not trust the dioceses of Central Canada (Ontario/Quebec) who were bigger and more numerous. So they would only "join" a National Church if their regional autonomy was maintained.

I am not claiming that our system is any better - just that it is different, and I used the example of Episcopal election vs Appointment to emphasise our differences.

The point I am trying to make is this - I am not sure that the ACC (Anglican Church of Canada) has the authority to sign up to any covenant - I think that would have to be a decision of the 30 dioceses at their Synods, as the covenant is not Doctrine - the only real power that the dioceses ceded the National Church on creation.

One of the major funding sources to the Anglican Communion is the "Compass Rose Society", whose membership is almost exclusively drawn from ECUSA and the ACC (Anglican Church of Canada).

If that source together with the ECUSA and ACC contributions to the Anglican Communion were lost, due to the loss of ECUSA and the ACC, then the CofE would be left to carry the can.

"The government has no say in the matter. Two names are chosen by the Commission, and the prime minister ... sends one name to the Queen, who appoints on his advice."

Uh ... am I missing something here? Is the PM not part of the government? Or is the PM in some way not part of the government when she or he picks a name to send to the Queen?

Given that they make so much noise, the so-called Global South will simply have to put their money where there mouths are and cough up - after all, wouldn't want to be tainted with that nasty liberal American money, would they? (rolls around the floor in hysteria....)

Cynthia,

The prime minister can not choose candidates. He is given two names chosen by the Church of England, as I have explained, either of whom is perfectly acceptable for the vacant see having been approved by the Church's own Nominations Commission, which includes six representatives of the vacant diocese.

The Queen has no say whatsoever. She is a constitutional monarch who acts on the advice of the PM. The PM in this matter is also acting constitutionally. He can only forward a name which has been approved by the Church.

The residual right of the PM to choose between names continues simply because all House of Lords appointments are made by him, and 26 of our bishops at any one time, in order of seniority, have seats in the Lords. They do not belong to any party and are there as spokesmen for the Christian faith, not for the government. They are often the sharpest critics of government, and at times the Church is the only effective Opposition in this country.

It is likely that in the near future the PM will lose the right of appointment to the Lords. He will then, I would expect, be given one name to forward to The Queen.

You may call that a role for the government. I would describe it as delivering a letter.

"You may call that a role for the government. I would describe it as delivering a letter."

I see what you're saying. I am so wedded to the separation of church and state - as Jefferson termed it in his letter to the Rhode Island [I think] Baptists - the wall of separation - that any such involvement is suspect. I think that that wall has been extremely healthy for both church and state here.

And I don't see that his choosing between two equally OK candidates does NOT have consequences, unless said candidates are clones.

We'll have to agree that we don't see this the same way.

I think the only known time when the No. 2 choice was picked was in the case of John Habgood, who lost out to a far inferior first choice in the person of Carey, simp[ly because of Thatcher's loathing for Habgood.

The Crown Nominations Commission (formerly the Crown Appointments Commission) works entirely confidentially, so in principle it is hard to know quite when the PM has chosen the second name rather than the first, Rarely, apparently. The PM has a residual right too: to reject both names and ask for a further two names. This is reputed to have happened in the appointment of the present Bp of Liverpool.

In addition, the PM has his own representative on the Commission -- his own Appointments Secretary. It is naive to think that the PM's views, if he should happen to have any on the matter, are not made clear to the Commission as it does its work for a particular diocese. The PM still has plenty of opportunity to ensure that his favoured candidate is considered, or that his less favoured candidate does not get chosen as one of the two names. Ultimately, however, the Commission does not have to listen to the Secretary (who has no vote); but equally the PM can ask the Commission to think again.

So it is not quite as separate as disestablishmentarians might wish -- but it does give the Church very considerable influence in the appointment, and no one can be nominated without the Church's agreement.

Friends of mine who have taken part in the appointment of a bishop very recently assured me that there was no question of being told what to do by the Crown Appointments Secretary. The Commission members are encouraged to submit the names they wish to be considered, and only the members of the Commission vote on the names. Finally the six diocesan representatives are asked if they approve of the two names finally selected, and if not, the process begins again.

Both names must be acceptable to the diocesan representatives - not clones but equally regarded as appropriate choices by the Commission.

The two instances of rumoured political interference are only rumour, and the system has changed considerably since those appointments were made, quite some time ago.

In an extremely hypothetical situation, the candidate nominated to The Queen could still be rejected by the Dean and Chapter, who hold a formal "election" for the person named. If the six diocesan representatives made it known that the PM had misbehaved, the Dean and Chapter could reject an unwelcome candidate.

This is how the English constitution works, by creating many checks and balances along the way, and constantly refining the system. I still think it better than allowing a very small group of people to vote for a bishop, who is then held up as the democratic choice, however unsuitable to serve as a bishop in the Church of God.

Democracy is just fine for a politician who faces re-election in five years' time. More care and a wider balancing of the needs of the whole Church is required IMO when choosing someone who will be a bishop for perhaps many years to come, not only for the diocese concerned, but for the whole Church.

"[Bishops] are appointed by a Nominations Commission composed entirely of church members, six from the diocese concerned, six from General Synod (3 clergy and 3 laity) and the two archbishops."

"The bishops we have are therefore, for better or worse, chosen by the whole of the Church..."

"And in my book, "democratic" would mean that someone elected by a diocesan synod could be sacked in the same way - but it never seems to happen."

"I still think it better than allowing a very small group of people to vote for a bishop, who is then held up as the democratic choice, however unsuitable to serve as a bishop in the Church of God."

So Alan Bates wrote in two posts.

I've extracted quotations from two of your posts. In the earlier one, I count exactly 14 people involved in the nomination process, not counting the PM and the monarch.

This is in contrast to say, the Diocese of Virginia, in which all clergy and lay delegates elected by local parishes, and apportioned to represent the parishes fairly [mine has one delegate - a larger church would have more] vote on a slate of nominees drawn up by a committee of a dozen representative lay and clerical members, from names submitted by anyone in the diocese who cares to. That bishop to be is then either approved or not at General Convention or in a longer process by the bishops and standing committtes [elected] of the dioceses, depending on timing.

This is as you characterize it "a very small group of people?"

Our diocesan elections are ratified [or not] by the whole of TEC.

And there are mechanisms for dealing with bishops who prove unsuitable - they are complex and slow, but they are there. They are also seldom invoked.

If you want to the process at work, go to and scroll to the page dealing with the election of a new bishop. The URL is for the Diocese of Virginia, and I think I have it right.

When I raised the issue of election vs appointment of Bishops it wasn't my intention to discus the merits of the differences, just to indicate that there are differences in polity, that will make a covenant unworkable without significant input from throughout the communion.

One quick afterthought - given the importance within the US Constitution of the US Supreme Court, why is it that the nine judges are not elected, but appointed for life by the President in office at the time?

It is quite a precise analogy - except that the PM has had only a vestigial part to play in the appointment of bishops since 1976.

I think Alan is right about the CofE appointments procedure. Thus it was that one Dr.J. John came to receive the Royal Assent as Bishop Suffragan of Reading. So the procedure, though essentailly ersatian, can work extremely well, at times.

I think it is clear comparing the C of E with ECUSA / TEC which system works the better....

About the Supreme Court - am no great student of constitutional history - but I think the idea was to have one branch with longer term continuity, and one that is NOT subject to election vagaries. Federal judges also are appointed, not elected. But note, the nomination to the federal court is subject to confirmation by the Senate.

It's part of the checks and balances, which doesn't always work out in practice.

As our political system has developed, it has gotten more democratic in some ways [senators are no longer appointed by state governors but are elected] and less in others [with no term limits, some in house and senate have virtual life tenure - Ted Stevens of Alaska, a senator who has delivered pork by the ton, also Byrd of W. VA.for the same reason - many in the house whose districts are so drawn that opposition is futile].

There are elected judges within states - and that varies state by state. Some judgeships are appointed by governors, some are elected on partisan tickets, some without party label. You can argue the merits/disadvantages all day long, I expect.

As for how C of E does bishops and how TEC does - it is not, as someone has said, who is better, but that different polities have come to be in differing historical circumstances. That will inevitably result in results that may not be comprehensible to outsiders.

Again, since my own diocese has just begun the process for electing a co-adjutor who will eventually succeed our current diocesan when he retires, I invite the curious to look at the Diocese of Virginia website for our process which is not the same - in minute detail - as any other diocese - these are governed in general by TEC canons and in detail by diocesan ones.

Cynthia, I note you use the term "election vagaries", and that is my concern with the system you describe.

It is entirely possible and frequently happens that an organisation can be taken over by a small but determined group of activists, and its leadership swiftly replaced according to one ideology or another. The Scottish Episcopal Church (which allows the diocese to elect its bishops) has been radically changed by a faction which took control some 20 years ago. The result is that it has been abandoned to the radicals in many places, and is facing extinction.

It is also possible when an election takes place that the local concerns of one diocese may take such priority over the needs of the whole church, that it elects someone solely to address local issues.

One has to ask whether the polity which you and Charles are discussing here has the property of a law of the Medes and the Persians? Is it immutable? It seems that everything else can be changed in ECUSA, even the name and the title deeds. Why not the method of choosing bishops?

I would not wish to insist on doing things the CofE way - it is a vestigial relic of a very long history, and peculiar to the Church of England, but it works because it has evolved and will evolve. Can the TEC polity evolve?

Laurence, suffragan bishops are a very different matter in England, They are appointed by The Queen on the advice of the PM, who receives two names from the diocesan bishop concerned, rather than from the Crown Nominations Commission, which chooses diocesan bishops.

We don't have co-adjutor bishops here: suffragans have no right to succeed the diocesan concerned.

The Jeffrey John fiasco came about because the Bishop of Oxford failed to recognise the difficulties which his candidate posed: in an already tense situation, he proposed John, a partnered gay clergyman who had published a volume arguing for gay marriage.

The debacle which followed has led to calls for reform of the senior appointments system, to ensure that suffragan bishops are not the choice of one diocesan bishop, but more representative of the wider church.

Having the Royal Prerogative Dr. John needed none other. Not Phillip Giddings.

If only John had stood firm, so much good would have come. This is the Church by Law Established. This is the Church with civil partnerships for all==lay and ordained. All incoporated into Church Law. The CofE 's Law means, it treats my partner as my---well, partner and in due course, as my widower.

So lets hear no more about the difficulties Dr. John's candidacy posed. He was no cadidate but the Church and the State and the Queen's choice.
QED

Laurence, I am afraid it is not so. He was Bishop Harries' choice, but was unacceptable both to sections of the diocese of Oxford and of the Church of England.

The Church of England accepts that the state has created civil partnerships but does not endorse the concept. It is obliged by law to pay pensions to surviving civil partners, but it would have wished to extend the concept of civil partners to include siblings, carers, friends etc - all of which was rejected by the government which insisted on GAY civil partners to the exclusion of anyone else.

"Cynthia, I note you use the term "election vagaries", and that is my concern with the system you describe.

"It is entirely possible and frequently happens that an organisation can be taken over by a small but determined group of activists, and its leadership swiftly replaced according to one ideology or another."

It would be very hard for a determined minority to elect a bishop, although such a group might be able to frustrate the will of the majority, depending on the precise election system used.

I'd rather take my chances over the long haul with democratic process, vagaries and all. Does that mean all of the bishops we elect are perfect? Nope. In the Diocese of Southern Virginia, their bishop, once in office, turned out to be unsatisfactory in a number of ways, including quarreling so badly with his sufragen that he would not speak to her. He has been persuaded to take an early retirement.

On the other hand, we have steller bishops like our own Peter Lee [with whom I have had and have serious disagreements], Bishop Curry of North Carolina, Bishop Chane of Washington DC, and many others, inlcuding, from all I have read about her, our PB elect. Oh, and I would include Gene Robinson in that group of excellent bishops.

TEC is evolving, Alan. Indeed, there are some who think everything should evolve except theology!

Funny, that.

NO, no,no, Alan !

The CofE bishops could have with-stood Tony blair to his face, and showed unto him the better way.
But being too gutless, to take on the State and disobey the Law for the sake of the gospel, they followed the line of least resistance. It was SO much easier to sacrifice Jeffrey John, to the wolves baying for his blood,as they always make lgbt people pay the price. They could have faced the Courts for the sake of the truth. John completely fit the kind of queer endorsed by 'Issues'--but was still hypocritically turned on. Nonetheles, he WAS endorsed by the Crown and having the Royal Assent needed none other. This is the State Church, remember.

Either anti-gay practices are against the gospel or they are not. Which is it (to be)? I know the answer does change,and will continue to change according to what is expedient to the HoB, and that no prophetic or loving stand can be expected from them, any day soon. However, in 'Issues' they did endorse same-sex relationships for lesbian and gay members of the CofE ( who are not ordained). I've noticed the beginnings recently, of attempts in some quarters to back-track, and assert that 'it's only a discussion document' and unendorsed by GS'. But you can't play around with people's lives and feelings in such a cavalier fashion, without being held to account--if only by the press. Some people like Jeffrey & Grant have been ordering their lives around 'Issues'--the so-called 'teaching of the Church'.

Well, MY relationship was recognised and indeed, endorsed, Alan,by the CofE years ago, when the staff of Salisbury & Wells Theological College, recommended me / us for ordination and the Bishop of Southwark, & DDO accepted me for a Title; and the pp accepted me to serve my Title, and my accepted my then (& now) partner into the parish. In fact, I have never applied for, or taken on any church post, without telling them, at the start, that I have a partner, coming with me. It's a bit late years later to try to backtrack, or to say that we are bound for Hell.

BUT please bear in mind that the original CofE Report --the Osborne Report --was suppressed by George Carey. The Report by June Osborne did not toe George's line, but was a creative and deep study and exploration of the issues. 'Issues' was later imposed cuckoo-like, instead of the Osborne Report. (The parrallel with 'Haumanae Vitae' is unmisable !). Later Lambeth 1.10 was to re-place the suppressed work of the Lambeth Committee appointed to work on the issues.

Suppresseion of the honest endeavours of others, and the truths discovered seems widespread. Don't forget what was reported here about a goood process in Liverpool at grassroots level , which was then suppressed from the top.

*********************************************

The attempt to include siblings, and others, as civil partners was, I regret to say a cynical attempt to wreck the State's provision of marriage for same-sex couples.

It is now shown to have been a shameless manipulation, by the fact that those bishops, peers and others (the Christian Institute, etc) who pushed for this, have now given up on it. Or rather given up on the 'spinster sisters' whose need remains as real, but whose POLITICAL capital has fallen to nil, again.

My reluctant conclusion :-

I regret: there is nothing very moral about our very own moral minority.