The Archbishop of Canterbury has sent a pastoral letter about the well-being of the Communion and the future of its common discipleship to all Anglican Primates. In connection with the current controversy he wrote “Any words that could make it easier for someone to attack or abuse a homosexual person are words of which we must repent.”
The Sunday Times saw a copy of the letter before its official publication and, picking up on this last point, published this article this morning:
Similar stories have subsequently been carried by the BBC and The Scotsman and many other online newspapers around the world.
Churches warned over ‘gay slurs’ (BBC)
Archbishop’s Bid to Heal Rift over Homosexuality (Scotsman)
Monday morning update
Two articles from this morning’s papers:
Williams’ call for Anglican unity falls on deaf ears (Guardian)
Williams calls for healing in gay rift (Telegraph)
Many commentators appear to be convinced that ECUSA will not accept the specific recommendations made in the Windsor Report which are directed to that body. What ECUSA official bodies have in fact said so far is listed below.
The House of Bishops, immediately prior to the release of the report said, on 28 September, see ENS 092804-1:
The report of the Lambeth Commission will be released in mid-October. We are committed to a gracious reception of the report in a spirit of humility and to a willingness to learn how we might best be faithful and responsible partners in the Anglican Communion. It is our intention to gather as provincial Houses of Bishops during the autumn and then to meet as a House of Bishops early in the new year to study and appropriate the work of the Commission.
Presiding Bishop Griswold issued some preliminary reflections regarding the Windsor Report at the time of the report’s publication on 18 October.
On 5 November, see ENS 110804-3, the Executive Council said:
As the Episcopal Church begins to receive the Windsor Report of the Lambeth Commission on Communion, we invite all congregations, dioceses and provinces of the church to take time to read and discuss the report. The church needs to explore the Commission’s vision of how we are called to a deeper communion with one another as a reflection of the inner communion of the triune God. The church also needs to reflect on the Commission’s recommendations about how the Anglican Communion might function amid differing views.
Our church’s reception of the report will be enhanced as you share your reflections with bishops and members of this Council. The House of Bishops will meet in January, and the Council will meet in February. It is especially important that all orders of ministry, including lay people, contribute to the church’s reflection. The Presiding Bishop would like to be informed by these deliberations as he meets with the Primates in February. We affirm his intention to appoint a group to respond to the Windsor Report’s invitation that the Episcopal Church explain the rationale for consecrating a bishop living in a same-gender relationship.
The consultations of the coming months are just the beginning of our church’s reception of the Windsor Report, for the principal response should be made by the 2006 General Convention. We believe our role as Executive Council is to help prepare deputies, bishops and the church at large for the discussions that will take place at Convention. As we considered the report, we were assisted by Bishop Mark Dyer, the Episcopal Church’s representative on the Commission, and Bishop James Tengatenga of Southern Malawi, who shared perspectives as an African church leader.
Full text of the Executive Council message is here.
Bishop Mark Dyer is the retired Bishop of Bethlehem (Pennsylvania, USA). He currently teaches at the Virginia Theological Seminary and worships at St. Mary’s, Arlington. He was the only ECUSA representative on the Lambeth Commission. Since the publication of the Windsor Report he has been speaking at many venues across the USA.
An audio tape of his remarks to the clergy of the Diocese of Virginia, on 15 November at Richmond, Virginia can be heard here. This is a very detailed analysis of the Windsor Report. Although it is very long, it is well worth listening to in full.
A transcript of his remarks at the Virginia Theological Seminary on 5 November can be found here.
Some of Bishop Dyer’s views have been strongly contested by American conservatives, see for example
Mark Dyer’s Departure from Theology and Faith Criticized
Mark Dyer, The Virginia Report, and the Promise of The Windsor Report.
Dyer Lecture Twists Windsor Report
Readers of TA must form their own views and are welcome to comment here.
Here is the statement from Bishop Mark Dyer issued to ENS at the time the Windsor Report was published.
The new site brings together the three strands of the Commission’s work, including all documentation and materials related to the composition of the Windsor Report 2004, commission news and related articles, and all up-to-date information on the now ongoing Reception Process.
Users of the site are able to submit their own views across a range of categories - general responses, ecumenical comment, and answers to questions posed by the Primates’ Standing Committee - in relation to this Reception Process.
The questions, most of which were first listed in ACNS 3909 ,are reproduced below.
The site also includes a section in which official responses to the Windsor Report will be posted. So far it includes 11 items by Primates and Provinces of the Communion.
There is also now a Summary Guide to the report, available here.
Questions for Consultation with the forty four Churches of the Anglican Communion as formulated by the Primates’ Standing Committee 18 October 2004
1. What in the description of the life of the Communion in Sections A & B can you recognise as consistent, or not, with your understanding of the Anglican Communion?
2. In which ways do the proposals in Section C & D flow appropriately from the description of the Communion’s life in Sections A & B?
3. What do you think are the ways in which the recommendations and proposals of the Report would impact on the life of the Communion if they were to be implemented?
4. How would you evaluate the arguments for an Anglican Covenant set out in paragraph 119 of the Report? How far do the elements included in the possible draft for such a covenant in Appendix Two of the Report represent an appropriate development of the existing life of the Anglican Communion?
Questions on the Windsor Report for dialogue with our ecumenical partners as formulated by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Revd Rowan Williams, and the Secretary General of the Anglican Consultative Council, the Revd Canon John L. Peterson
1. What do you find helpful in the Windsor Report 2004?
2. What questions does the report raise from the perspective of your church?
3. If the recommendations of the Windsor Report were implemented, how would this affect your church’s relationship with the Anglican Communion as an ecumenical partner?
More general questions posed:
1. How can the 44 churches of the Anglican Communion be helped to stay together?
2. How should a Christian behave when another Christian does something which they believe is deeply offensive to the Gospel?
3. Would you like to see Anglican/Episcopal churches moving closer together or going their separate ways?
Los Angeles is a long way from Pittsburgh.
Larry Stammer of the Los Angeles Times reports that Bishop Jon Bruno has said he will observe a personal moratorium on blessing same-sex unions. However, he said his priests were free to continue officiating at homosexual ceremonies. He also wants to seek reconciliation with dissenting parishes.
(There’s also an Associated Press version of the same story here Bishop wants parishes back)
At the same time, the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, bishop of the six-county Los Angeles diocese, called for an international church summit in Los Angeles, including dissenting African bishops who have claimed jurisdiction over the three parishes.
Bruno said he wanted to seek an accommodation in the controversy that erupted in August when the three parishes unilaterally declared that they had left the diocese and the U.S. Episcopal Church over differences involving Scripture and homosexuality. They said they had placed themselves under the jurisdiction of the Anglican Church in Uganda.
But only hours after Bruno disclosed his moratorium and summit proposals Tuesday, they were rejected by Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi, primate of the Anglican Church in Uganda, and Bishop Evans Kisekka of the Diocese of Luweero in Uganda. The Episcopal Church is the U.S. wing of the worldwide Anglican Communion.
The diocesan website also carries this report of local responses to the actions of the three dissenting parishes:
Grassroots support grows as bishop calls for inclusion which also contains the following statistics on how the three parishes held votes on whether to stay in ECUSA:
According to statements by the three rectors, each congregation held a meeting to vote on the question of remaining within the Episcopal Church or joining the Diocese of Luwero. Of the 1,218 members of St. James’ Church, 292 attended the meeting. Of those attending, 280 voted in favor of the motion; 12 were opposed. At All Saints, 141 of 429 parishioners voted, 131 in favor of secession. At St. David’s, the vote was 68 to 12, out of 125 members (membership numbers are taken from the “communicant in good standing” statistics published in the 2003 Journal of Convention, and include children).
The LA Times also says:
Bruno also sent word of his positions to Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the spiritual leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion. Williams, who had written the Los Angeles bishop Nov. 9, called Bruno’s proposal a “generous response” to bring about reconciliation.
Meanwhile, Bruno said Tuesday he would indefinitely delay filing church charges against a retired Episcopal bishop in Texas, the Rt. Rev. Maurice M. Benitez, who is standing in for the African bishops in overseeing the three breakaway parishes. But Bruno is proceeding with the civil lawsuits seeking to regain control over the parishes.
Bruno also disclosed Tuesday that he had authorized another bishop to provide pastoral — but not legal — oversight of Christ the King Church in Santa Barbara, which has also objected to the stands that Bruno and the national church have taken on homosexuality. That church has not seceded and remains under Bruno’s authority.
Another recent report from the Long Beach Press-Telegram
Church shift protested
25 object to what they say are anti-gay practices at All Saints, which left local diocese.
The feast of Christ the King, celebrated this year with the gospel story of the mocking of “The King of the Jews” as he hung helpless on the cross, is the proclamation of the kingdom in which death has no dominion.
Human authority has used death as a means of maintaining its power. It has demonstrated that it has the last word by killing opposition.
God’s kingdom has nothing in common with this, and God does not seek to impose his will through death. Instead, through the crucified and risen Lord, “the firstborn of all creation” a kingdom based on love and on life is revealed.
We have been slow to model human society on this. In the early days of the Christian Roman Empire, the ruler was often not baptised until old age, because as emperor, he would have to order the death penalty. There was an understanding that a rule of law based on the death penalty and a kingdom based on love were fundamentally incompatible. Later Christian rulers were less scrupulous, though we have never lost sight of this ideal.
Today in most of Europe the death penalty has been outlawed. We recognise that mistakes can be made. Also, as Christians, we acknowledge that ultimate authority belongs to the God of love, not to a despot who enforces order through the death penalty.
But many countries, including the United States, still appear to celebrate their use of death as the sign of the power of the state. Sometimes it is only too clear that the State does this because it needs to appease what might be greater violence by an uncontrollable mob.
Today in Britain we mark one small move in the right direction. We shall not see a baying pack of hounds pursuing a defenceless fox or deer in future. Glorying in this form of killing has been declared unacceptable.
On the other hand, the decision to invade Iraq, which posed no external threat, and the way in which lives and infrastructure have been destroyed in that independent sovereign nation has appeared to the rest of the world to be a glorying in that very culture of death which Christ came to end.
The rest of the world can see it was only done to put American forces close to the borders of a now weakened Russia, and lay claim to the vast oil reserves of the nation. The number of Iraqi lives lost in the process is so high that we dare not even try to count the losses.
It is time Britain and America, with their long Christian heritage, learned turn away from this culture of death and to follow the ways of Christ, the king of love.
…Bishop Duncan has now asserted at the Diocesan Convention that this lawsuit (which seeks to enforce the constitution and canons of the National Church and the Pittsburgh Diocese) could be a basis for expelling Calvary and St. Stephen’s from the Diocese. That assertion has no support in the Diocesan canon providing for dissolution of relationships with parishes, and we are fully confident that such expulsion would never be upheld by either the National Church or the Court. Actually, the Bishop’s very assertion shows the legitimacy of Calvary’s and St. Stephen’s concern that the constitution and canons of the National Church will not be respected in this Diocese…
Canon XV, Sec. 6, Canons of the Diocese of Pittsburgh
“The Convention may, by a two-thirds vote, dissolve its union with any Parish. Provided, however, that . . . notice of said propo sed action shall have be en given in the preceding Annual Convention.”
Below the fold, is a long article by the Rector of Calvary, Harold Lewis published in the current issue of the parish magazine Agape available as a PDF file on the parish site.
“Alea Jacta Est”
Julius Caesar reportedly uttered these words in 49 B.C., when he crossed the Rubicon, the river that divided Gaul from Italy, to wage war against General Pompey and the Senate of Rome. By proclaiming “the die is cast,” he coined a phrase that would forever mean that there is no turning back .
The emperor’s words came to mind as I witnessed the unfolding of events at the 139th Convention of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. It is quite clear that, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, the Diocese is waging war against the Episcopal Church . Soldiers are in full battle gear, their chariots’ wheels are rolling, and there will be no retreat. Whether the diocesan forces prove to be as successful in battle as were Caesar’s legions, however, remains to be seen.
The diocesan military strategy is well thought out. Its first act of war was to declare independence.
This was done through the passage of a resolution which affirmed that the Diocese is no longer bound by the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church or the resolutions of its General Convention, if the Diocese deems that any such canon or resolution is “contrary to the historic Faith and Order of the one holy catholic and apostolic church.” I would suggest that a similar line of reasoning was one of the developments that led to the Civil War. Did not the Constitution of the Confederate States of America purport to establish a union in which each state acted “in its sovereign and independent power?”
Its second tactic has been to seek and identify new allies. This has been done through the Diocese’s affiliation with both the Network of Anglican Dioceses and Parishes and the bishops of the “Global South.” This latter group was represented at Convention in the personage of Henry Luke Orombi, Archbishop of Uganda, who has declared that the members of the Network are the only American Anglicans with whom he and his province are in communion. Another essential strategem in the Diocese’s bellicose activities is to hit the national church in its pocketbook. This was accomplished by simply removing the “National Church” line item from the diocesan budget that was approved by Convention.
Next, the Convention succeeded in dissociating itself from policies, programs and people associated with the National Church. A resolution supporting the work of Episcopal Relief and Development (formerly the Presiding Bishop’s Fund for World Relief) was tabled indefinitely. This was not surprising since Bishop Duncan had launched the rival Anglican Relief and Development to provide an avenue for the Primate of Uganda and others to receive funding from sources outside of ECUSA’s structure. As one delegate described it: “When I give a dollar, I want the name of Jesus to travel with that dollar until it arrives at its destination. If you give to the National Church, the name of Jesus does not travel with that dollar.” A resolution supporting women priests met a similar fate, as delegates, including several women priests, argued that passage of the resolution would be offensive to those (e.g., many in the Network of Anglican Dioceses and Parishes) who oppose women’s ordination. In what Leslie Reimer described on the floor of Convention as the most poignant example of the Diocese’s break from the National Church, the delegates failed to elect the Very Reverend George Werner as a deputy to General Convention, in which he has represented the Diocese of Pittsburgh since 1979. This means that Dean Werner, president of the House of Deputies through the 2006 Convention, will be ineligible to run for re-election.
But no military campaign is complete without a surprise attack. That came in the last five minutes of the business session. After Bishop Duncan prayed that God would “give us grace seriously to lay to heart the great dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions,” he announced that he may invoke a diocesan canon (XV, Section 6) which would have the effect of dissolving the relationship between Calvary Church and the Diocese and between St. Stephen’s, Wilkinsburg and the Diocese. The reason we were singled out was that our parishes are plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the Bishop and other diocesan officers. Bishop Duncan has said that in filing suit against him we were being unfaithful to the Biblical injunctions contained in I Corinthians 6:1-8 and Matthew 5:25-26. It is not possible to delve into thorough exegeses of these passages here, but suffice it to say that in citing these passages out of context, the bishop succumbs to what Father Roger Ferlo, Biblical scholar and sometime rector of Redeemer, Squirrel Hill, describes as a “blinkered Scripturalism.”
As the Windsor Report admonishes us: “We can no longer be content to drop random texts into arguments, imagining that the point is thereby proved.” Moreover, the bishop’s statement that “Scripture is the ultimate rule” is distinctly un-Anglican. While many Reformers, like Calvin, espoused a doctrine of sola Scriptura (only by Scripture) Anglicans since Richard Hooker have always understood Scripture to be one leg of the three-legged stool of Scripture, tradition and reason.
Finally, I find it ironic that Bishop Duncan should challenge our right as Christians to participate in court proceedings. In 2001, Jane Dixon, bishop of Washington, sued the Reverend Samuel Edwards, rector of Christ Church, Accokeek, Maryland, demanding that he step down as rector because he had refused to recognize her as a bishop and because he would not give her a guarantee that he would keep the parish in the Episcopal Church. At that time, Bishop Duncan, although not named in the suit as a party to either plaintiff or defendant, filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of Father Edwards. (The court decided in favor of Bishop Dixon.)
The attack against Calvary and St. Stephen’s is consistent with the anti - National Church theme of diocesan convention, because the sole basis of our lawsuit was and is to uphold the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. Specifically, as has been widely reported, we objected to the decision on the part of the Diocese to defy those canons, giving to congregations who leave the Episcopal Church the right to take their property with them. It is this flagrant flaunting of church law that Bishop Duncan dismisses as “whatever the leadership’s purported errors may be.”
This development is fraught with questions. It is not entirely clear why the canon in question was created in the first place. Although the bishop has stated that “the diocesan canons provide that the Convention may dissolve its connection to a parish in cases where there are egregious breaches of church faith or church order,” these words are found nowhere in the canon itself [see wording above] What is the status of a parish thus dissolved? Of what larger entity, if any, would it become a part? Can two-thirds of the diocese vote us “off the island” simply because we are in disagreement? Is there any due process? As these matters are being sorted out, we have made an initial response in a press release, the text of which is found elsewhere in this issue.
No one relishes engaging in lawsuits. No one’s idea of fun is fighting for our right to remain part of the Diocese.
But on the other hand we cannot sit idly by while our Anglican birthright is sold for a mess of pottage of rather dubious nutritional value. As I write this, the church observes the feast of Leo the Great, bishop of Rome, a man who was no stranger to conflict, having had to defend Rome against Attila and his fellow Huns as well as the Vandals. In today’s epistle, Paul admonishes Timothy: “God did not give us a spirit of cowardice, but rather a spirit of power, of love and self-discipline” (II Tim. 1:6).
For most of our lives, we have taken the church for granted. It has always been there for us, “a shelter from the stormy blast, and our eternal home.” But that is a luxury we can ill afford at the dawn of the twenty-first century.
The church is under siege, and there are those who would make it into little more than a sect, made up of people who believe that they and they alone can “profess and call themselves Christians.” We must, as Paul further exhorts Timothy, relying on the power of God, be willing to bear testimony to the Lord while suffering, if necessary, for the sake of the Gospel. I believe that this is the mission to which Calvary Church is called at this time. What better way to mark our Sesquicentennial Year!
There has been a interesting development in the lawsuit to which Robert Duncan took such exception recently. The official court website has published the most recently filed papers. Unfortunately they are in the format of a 3 Mb PDF file. If you have broadband, you can read the whole thing for yourself here.
It contains as attachments a number of documents written by NACDAP people. Andrew Grimmke at CESLD has kindly extracted several of these into smaller files, which anyone should be able to read with Adobe Acrobat Reader. For full details of all of these go here.
First, here is an exchange of emails between Bob Duncan the bishop and Hugo Blankenship the lawyer concerning the latter’s discussions in England in December 2003 with John Rees who was the legal edviser to the Lambeth Commission.
The Network was initially established at a gathering of mainstream Anglican leaders in London on November 20, 2003. The leaders included several bishops, including four Anglican Primates and Bishops Edward L. Salmon of the Diocese of South Carolina, James B. Stanton of the Diocese of Dallas, Jack L. Iker of the Diocese of Ft. Worth, and Robert W. Duncan of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. At the meeting, the U.S. bishops drafted a Memorandum of Agreement that outlines the process for establishing the Network. In keeping with the Preamble to the Constitution of ECUSA, the Memorandum of Agreement pledges to “uphold and propagate the historic faith and order, fulfilling the Church’s apostolic mission”.
Third, here is a Draft Proposal for Overseas AEO dated 3 March 2004 and authored by Alison Barfoot.
There is more in the original file.
Here are the further Church Times articles published on 5 November that were not available on the web at that time:
Adding another obstacle to unity By Jonathan Baker
No more half measures by Stephen Trott
When God calls us, it is as humans by Jane Shaw
Also some summaries of what the report says:
I think that women should be eligible to be bishops in the Church of England, that this is a natural corollary of women’s priesthood, and that it should happen sooner rather than later. As one of the promoters of the ‘Priests for Women Bishops’ petition, I would say that, wouldn’t I?
So why do I find myself so unmoved by the Rochester report? I should be caught up in a exchanges about the theology, the principles, the options. I did try to give the report serious consideration when it came out last week, but it was a very busy week, with lots of not-quite-prepared teaching to be done, and I found my emotions far more caught up in the outcome of the US presidential election than in the reading of several hundred pages of CofE prose.
That the report has been produced means that the issue is being taken seriously, and I welcome that, of course. The timetable for the debate is being respected, and there is no attempt, so far, to lose ‘women bishops’ in the mire of endless committees. That it is so long speaks of the thoroughness of the working party. It also provides a vivid illustration of the diversity of the English Anglican inheritance: at the extremes we have very different understandings of episcopacy, and we have lived with that difference, as with so many others, for centuries.
Once we move from the extended treatment of episcopacy in scripture and tradition, it becomes a ‘what if…?’ piece of thinking. Scenarios are laid out before us (or rather, are to be laid out before General Synod), actions and consequences suggested. At some level, most people who have any interest in the matter will have already have understood how different decisions might play, and I doubt whether the report will do much to change hearts and minds. It was not intended to.
It is a tool for the synod to use in achieving a decision. Clarion calls for inclusion, for justice, for the wholeness of the church will come from other sources: as will those for the preservation of a particular tradition and pastoral care of tender consciences. And so I return to my emotional focus of last week. I can identify some steps I can take to further inclusion, justice, and wholeness within the Church of England; but that’s a small corner of a world which seems dangerously hostile to such a vision.
Anglicans Online has reports in its News Centre today of some of these extraordinary events, but here is more detail.
The Diocese of Pittsburgh has issued three press releases:
Constitutional amendment overwhelmingly approved
The amendment gives the diocese the constitutional foundation needed to differ with the national church when the diocesan convention determines the national body’s decisions “to be contrary to the historic faith and order of the one holy catholic and apostolic church.” In those cases, the amended constitution makes clear that “the local determination shall prevail.”
To be approved, the resolution had to be passed by majorities of both clergy and lay delegates. Among clergy, 79 voted in favor, 14 against, and 8 abstained. Lay delegates also passed the constitutional amendment by a lopsided margin, with 124 in favor, 45 against and 3 abstentions.
Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan asked two parishes of the Diocese, Calvary Episcopal Church in East Liberty and St. Stephen’s Church in Wilkensburg, to reconsider their 13-month-old lawsuit against both bishops and 16 other clergy and lay leaders of the Diocese on November 6.
In order to encourage that process and bring the issues involved to resolution, Bishop Duncan gave notice that the union of those congregations to the diocese might properly be considered the next time the Convention of the diocese meets. Diocesan canons provide that the Convention may dissolve its connection to a parish in cases where there are egregious breeches of church faith or church order. The Bishop said that it was the deepest hope of the Standing Committee that invoking this provision might help everyone understand the gravity of what is at issue, and that there must be some better way than Christians suing one another in court. The bishop stated in making the announcement that he hoped this would actually move forward a process of reconciliation and restoration.
Unfounded speculation, printed in the November 4 Pittsburgh Post - Gazette under the headline “Episcopal diocese ponders future,” is not only untrue, but damaging to the unity and mission of Pittsburgh Episcopalians, said Bishop Robert Duncan.
Dealing with the last one first, here is the newspaper report:
Episcopal diocese ponders future
Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh issued two press releases, each dealing with one of the other two items:
Here is the report from Episcopal News Service
Pittsburgh convention approves nullification of national actions
The Church of England has a new website. You’ll not be surprised to know that things have moved. Here are updated links to some of the items that I have linked recently.
In the issue of 29 October, there was a further news report:
Windsor report: more views.
The following articles appeared:
The Windsor report is not enough to hold Anglicans together
by Peter Jensen Archbishop of Sydney
How to quench the Spirit
by Marilyn Adams
‘But I have a lot of gay friends’
by Giles Fraser
Further letters to the editor appeared.
Since our earlier reports of news coverage, a number of comment articles that were published in the Church Times have become available online without subscription.
The Church Times editorial is That the world may believe
There is also a series of analyses:
Has Robin Eames done it again? by Peter Lee, Bishop of Virginia
A chance for relationships by Njongonkulu Ndungane Primate of the Church of the Province of Southern Africa
Counting the cost of unity by Giles Fraser
Two cheers for ECUSA by David Edwards
It’s not enough for healing by Robert Duncan Bishop of Pitsburgh
You don’t need to call in the law by John Rees
We can all celebrate diversity by Tom Wright Bishop of Durham
The paper also reprinted an extract from Rowan Williams’s address to the1998 Lambeth Conference, When Christians disagree.
There are First responses from our readers to the Windsor report and in his Press column Andrew Brown discusses the initial newspaper reports.
‘Bush is back’ — Brian Draper at LICC writes about this week’s news from the USA.
Bush is back. And many Christians are rejoicing. The president’s thinking is driven both by a theology of personal morality, and the conviction that he and his country can act globally and unilaterally, on God’s behalf, for good.
Yet any Christian who worries — as many do — about the past and future consequences of this combination is now faced with a choice.
Either they surrender to the sense of disempowerment that swept both coasts of America and much of the world on Wednesday. Or, more positively, they seize the opportunity to ensure that practical theology is not monopolised by the Religious Right for the next four years.
Continue reading at LICC to see Draper’s response to President Bush’s re-election.
Church of England Newspaper
Church report gives options to allow women bishops
Plus three comment articles, not yet available online except to paid subscribers, by Stephen Trott, Jane Shaw and Jonathan Baker.
And the editorial column A solution must be found
The Guardian’s Stephen Bates reports that Church may have woman bishops in 2009
In the Telegraph Jonathan Petre says that Church may split to clear way for female bishops
and a sidebar notes that Protagonists cite Bible as evidence
The newspaper has a leader column Anglicans’ third way?
In The Times Ruth Gledhill has a different timescale: Women set to be bishops within next seven years
and the newspaper also has a leader entitled A broader church
The longer timescale assumes that Parliamentary approval of what General Synod decides could take an additional full year and that the Crown Nominations Commission (here erroneously referred to by its old title) could then take a year to actually make its first female nomination.
The report does not contain any recommendations. It merely sets out all the possible options and lists the pros and cons of each, so that General Synod can decide what if anything to do.
The report will be discussed initially at the 14-18 February 2005 meeting of General Synod in London. No decisions will be made until the 08-12 July 2005 General Synod in York, at which a decision in principle whether to proceed or not will be made.
There will then be an election, and the new General Synod will first meet on 14-16 November 2005. This would be the earliest date at which legislation could be introduced. William Fittall, Secretary General of the General Synod and the Archbishops’ Council, said today that the minimum time to complete the legislative process would be four years, so that 2009 would be the earliest date at which any woman could be chosen as a bishop in the Church of England. The main reason given for the four year period was the need for the legislation, once approved by General Synod, to then be considered by each of the 44 diocesan synods. This part of the process was thought to require 18 months. A majority of the 44 (i.e. at least 23) diocesan synods must approve the legislation (they cannot amend it) by a simple majority of both Clergy and Laity. In the General Synod itself, the Final Approval stage requires a two-thirds majority in each of its three houses.
The main lobbying groups are at this stage arguing for the extreme options from those listed: those in favour of women bishops are pressing for single clause legislation. Those opposed are pressing for a third province approach. The problem about the single clause legislation is that Parliament might well not approve it without provisions for financial compensation for those conscientiously opposed. Concerning the third province approach, the Rochester report lists a large number of practical issues as well as theological difficulties. A detailed draft proposal by FiF for a third province is contained within the recently published book Consecrated Women?
First press reports, following the publication today of the report Women Bishops in the Church of England?
Anglicans consider men-only branch by Paul Majendie for Reuters
Church of England moves a step closer to accepting women bishops by Nicholas Pyke in the Independent
Church considers men-only option by Jackie Dent in The Times
‘Men-only’ Church proposal in bishop’s report in the Telegraph
Press releases by lobbying groups:
Forward in Faith Forward in Faith reacts to Rochester Report
Inclusive Church Yes to women bishops. No to a third province
Church Society press release not yet on their website so reproduced below the fold here.
A response to the Rochester Report from the Council of Church Society.
If the Church of England proceeds to consecrate women as Bishops then it will act ultra vires. The doctrines, canons and legal establishment of the Church mean that it has no power to establish something that is contrary to Holy Scripture.
The New Testament clearly teaches that leadership in the churches should be exercised by men.
This pattern is not a result of prejudice or inequality. It is an expression of the fact that God has made men and women with different yet complementary gifts and roles.
Leadership in the churches should not have anything to do with importance, power or prestige; rather it is about service and should be modelled on Christ.
Following, and we believe partly as a result of, the innovation of ordaining women as priests, decline in the Church of England accelerated. In the last decade the number of men going into full-time ministry has more than halved, and the numbers of men and children in congregations has fallen by around twenty percent.
The consecration of women as Bishops will exacerbate the problems. Numerous clergy and parishes will be unable in conscience to accept their ministry because it is self evidently against the teaching of Scripture. This will disenfranchise and victimise ordinary Anglicans who believe the Bible.
It is vital to be faithful to the Word of God. For the Church of England to have any value in the modern world it must teach the Bible faithfully.
Anglicanism requires the oversight of Bishops who are men of God, and who through the power of the Holy Spirit teach and live in accordance with God’s Word. In the absence of such Bishops loyal Anglicans will take whatever steps are necessary to remain faithful to the plain teaching of Scripture.
Addition the official Church of England press release about this report can be found here.
Synod members have recently been sent copies of
both of which can be downloaded.