Friday, 1 July 2011

media coverage of the HoB statement

Updated Sunday lunchtime

Church Times Ed Thornton House of Bishops will review same-sex relations

Associated Press Robert Barr Church of England bishops to review gay policies

Guardian Riazat Butt Bishops review approach to gay relationships and gay priests

ENS Matthew Davies ENGLAND: Bishops call for church review of civil partnerships, same-sex relationships

BBC Church to review same-sex relationships policy

Sunday Telegraph Jonathan Wynne-Jones Church warned of split if it relaxes teaching on gay relationships

Anglican Mainstream Anglican Mainstream welcomes review of Bishops’ Guidelines on Civil Partnerships

We welcome the review of the Bishops’ Guidelines on Civil Partnerships, which we called for when they were first issued. We therefore are reissuing the statement we made then in 2005 and the letter to the House of Bishops signed by over 1700 church members.

Philip Giddings (Convenor) and Chris Sugden (Secretary) for Anglican Mainstream

‘CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS A PARODY OF MARRIAGE: BISHOPS MUST TAKE ACTION’ say many Anglicans

Civil partnerships are a parody of the marriage relationship which is God’s provision for human flourishing, say many Church of England Clergy and lay leaders. They consider the government’s Civil Partnership Act 2005 is deeply ambiguous about whether these partnerships are marriage or not…

Changing Attitude House of Bishops statement on civil partnerships and same-sex relationships

Thirteen years after the Lambeth Conference 1998 launched the listening process the House of Bishops has committed itself to a wider look at the Church of England’s approach to same-sex relationships more generally and will produce a consultation document in 2013.

The bishops intend to draw together material from the listening process which has been undertaken within the Church of England over the recent years and offer proposals on how the continuing discussion within the Church of England about these matters might best be shaped in the light of the listening process.

I feel sorry for Graham James, Bishop of Norwich, to whom fell the lot of speaking on behalf of the House. So the House is going to spend two years producing a consultation document, and only in 2013 will they allow the rest of the Church to engage in ‘continuing discussion’.

The bishops are in disarray. Changing Attitude has been told this by a number of bishops. We know from personal experience that the bishops are in disarray. Some recommend for ministry lesbian and gay people who have contracted civil partnerships (and these people are not celibate). Some license lesbian and gay clergy who are in civil partnerships and some actively encourage them to enter civil partnerships. Other bishops are either ignorant of this practice or naïve…

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Friday, 1 July 2011 at 7:51pm BST | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Church of England
Comments

How long, O Lord? How long? - The consultation or listening process was called for in 1998. Why do we need to wait for 2013 for a review of that process? 15 years to get nowhere and 10 years since the Very Rev'd Dr Jeffrey John was forced to withdraw his acceptance of the suffragan see of Reading. If that isn't pre-empting the decision, then what is?

Williams and Sentamu have lost any credibility and the whole House of Bishops isn't far behind.

Posted by: commentator on Friday, 1 July 2011 at 10:17pm BST

So the House of lords will have seats reserved for bishops, which exclude active homosexuals and women. What a farce, in the light of the discrimination against Catholics in other areas.

One law for the Anglicans and another for us.

It makes a mockery of modern democracy.

Posted by: Robert ian Williams on Friday, 1 July 2011 at 11:18pm BST

If they think they can postpone the Day, they've got another think coming.

This is crisis management, pure and simple. If they were seriously committed to reform, they would scrap the agenda at the forthcoming General Synod and throw it open to debate, allowing everyone to air their views in honest discussion, rather than wrangle behind closed doors.

Church lawyers are behaving like corporate tax experts advising the Board of Directors how to evade tax, exploit loop-holes and get round sound legislation, not representatives of the highest legal principles and jurisprudence.

Although a coterie of heterosexual and closeted gay men is a lonely place for an openly gay person, and a delay until women enter the House may at first sight seem eminently sensible, what they are going to end up with - given that principled heterosexual men are going to turn down any offers of episcopal preferment - is a string of weedy little corporatist yes-men who can balance the books.

Questions will then be asked as to whether the episcopal model is in fact appropriate for the Church of England in the 21st century, leaving them neither root nor branch.

Posted by: A J Barford on Saturday, 2 July 2011 at 6:53am BST

Agreeing with AJ Barford, I just can't avoid pointing out the lack of trust in democratic processes, plain and simple. Contrast with the failure to release the report of the Committee on Constitution and Canons in the US and the way that the Executive Council had to cave in to popular pressure with an apology, because of the way it was failing 'to treat people like adults':
http://bit.ly/kumtvw
http://bit.ly/mr1huf
http://bit.ly/iwsPZV etc.

What say the government refuses to recommend *any* episcopal appointments until 2013 in order not to preempt the outcome of the review?

Posted by: Scot Peterson on Saturday, 2 July 2011 at 10:40am BST

Questions will then be asked as to whether the episcopal model is in fact appropriate for the Church of England in the 21st century, leaving them neither root nor branch.

Posted by: A J Barford on Saturday, 2 July 2011 at 6:53am BST

Yes, the 'episcopate' is a busted flush. All that remains is institutional inertia ~ and the theoretical justification of 'episcopacy' based on medieval superstition.

Posted by: Laurence Roberts on Saturday, 2 July 2011 at 11:27am BST

I think the bishops had to say something and they seem to be trying to create some space in which to respond to the current situation. But they have a problem in that, when the CofE has seriously addressed the question of same-sex relationships in the past (Gloucester Report 1979 & Osborne 1990), the reports have suggested that same-sex relationships are a possibility for Christians. I seem to remember an even more positive report in the late 70s, by Rachael and Basil Moss, although I forget what it was called and who published it. I cannot think what the bishops will do next. Another report which says the same thing? - When the Osborne report was finsihed the bishops ordered it to be shredded. I don't think they dare face a real debate on this issue.

Posted by: Nigel LLoyd on Saturday, 2 July 2011 at 12:46pm BST

Nigel Lloyd's points are really important in my opinion.

Essential in fact.

I still have my (illicit) copy of the Osborn report, courtesy of LGCM at the time. Maybe it could be more widely circulated -- now ? !

Posted by: Laurence Roberts on Saturday, 2 July 2011 at 8:06pm BST

commentator - I have to agree. Whilst this is about far more than one man, I too realised that 2013 will take us not only to the tenth anniversary of the Jeffrey's appointment to Reading - but also past his 60th birthday.

Posted by: Graham Ward on Saturday, 2 July 2011 at 10:52pm BST

Graham, I wondered about JJ's age. This seems more and more like a further squalid attempt by the Bishops to keep him out.

Posted by: Richard Ashby on Sunday, 3 July 2011 at 8:36am BST

Here's a reaction to the AM letter which I just added to the main article:

The waning power of Anglican Mainstream
http://flockedout.wordpress.com/2011/07/02/the-waning-power-of-anglican-mainstream/

Posted by: Simon Sarmiento on Sunday, 3 July 2011 at 12:09pm BST

Nigel Lloyd

'God's yes to sexuality', by Basil and Rachel Moss, emerged from a British Council of Churches working party.

Posted by: Savi Hensman on Sunday, 3 July 2011 at 1:16pm BST

"So the House of lords will have seats reserved for bishops, which exclude active homosexuals and women. What a farce, in the light of the discrimination against Catholics in other areas."

- Robert I Williams -

Am I the only one wondering what Robert is going on about here? It would not seem to be relevant to the topic on hand - except as another attempt to discredit Anglicanism in the U.K.

However, in trying to construe what on earth he's talking about, may I ask him the question: 'Are you suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church (who actually are 'bishops (who) exclude women and homosexuals') is looking for seats in the House of Lords? News to me!

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Sunday, 3 July 2011 at 5:58pm BST

Thank you Simon for the 'flockedout' piece. A real gift.

Posted by: Edward Prebble on Sunday, 3 July 2011 at 10:51pm BST

Why is JJ the only(?) openly gay dean?

Posted by: A J Barford on Monday, 4 July 2011 at 1:11am BST

I am struggling to understand why conservative church men are making this a stand or sink issue - honestly I fail to understand. Do they have a different version of the Bible? I honestly honestly do not get it.

Posted by: Rosemary Hannah on Monday, 4 July 2011 at 1:17pm BST

¨Williams and Sentamu have lost any credibility and the whole House of Bishops isn't far behind.¨ commentator

So there you have it...simple as that, while +Sentamu leaps out of airplanes and +Williams leaps up and down like a child throwing tantrums, our denomination, and all our hundreds of thousands of LGBTI Anglicans suffer-- true and adult spiritual leadership can´t be found as Dr. Williams can´t deal with reality and so the Lord of York won´t--God only knows it takes both Archbishops decades to think out any ¨inconvenient¨ thought that may put them on the punishing end of their Anglican Covenant plot...if these men weren´t highly educated one might think they were just plain dangerously dim!

Posted by: Leonardo Ricardo on Monday, 4 July 2011 at 3:49pm BST

Not just LGBT Christians - under ++Sentamu some astonishingly hard-line policies are now in place with regard to what sort of married straight is acceptable for ordination.

Posted by: david rowett on Monday, 4 July 2011 at 5:05pm BST

Oh no, David! Just when I was planning a trip over the Humber...

Posted by: A J Barford on Monday, 4 July 2011 at 7:40pm BST

David Rowett:

please expand.

Posted by: lister Tonge on Monday, 4 July 2011 at 10:56pm BST

This press release from Accepting Evangelicals discusses the discriminatory part of the statement.

http://www.acceptingevangelicals.org/media/press-release-1st-july-2011/

Posted by: Simon Sarmiento on Wednesday, 6 July 2011 at 9:08am BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.