Comments: Rachel Treweek and Sarah Mullally consecrated bishops

I should be overjoyed at the end of institutional sexism in the mother church of Anglicanism, but when the women being consecrated refuse to speak out against the other great injustice in the church, institutional homophobia -- worse, when they justify it -- it leaves a sour taste.

For them, it seems, this was never about justice, only self-interest.

What should be a joyous occasion becomes, instead, hollow approval in principle, of a just change tainted by the hypocrisy of its beneficiaries. I feel much the same way as I'd feel defending the free speech rights of, well, of people like them, and how sad is that.

If there was ever proof that we're sinners by nature, the refusal of one group that's been oppressed to go to bat for another is it.

Posted by James Byron at Wednesday, 22 July 2015 at 6:03pm BST

Did the Bishop of London join in with the laying on of hands?

Posted by Geoff at Wednesday, 22 July 2015 at 6:18pm BST

And the clapping went on and on and on. Until Justin stopped it by carrying on with the service. A joyous occasion with hardly a spare seat anywhere. A wonderful afternoon and a privilege to be there. Something to talk to our grandchildren about. It really felt as though we were making history.

Posted by Anne at Wednesday, 22 July 2015 at 7:05pm BST

Glad for you but we have just been celebrating 25 years since Penny Jamieson was consecrated bishop of Dunedin. While she has retired, Aotearoa/New Zealand currently has 2 women Diocesans out of 8 Pakeha Dioceses and even Australia has one, despite the malignant influence weighed by Sydney.
The children are well ahead of the parent.
Like James Byron, I find no joy in a church which has finally been dragged by the world to remove institutional sexism and even in my country still lags bhind in its institutional homophobia.

Posted by Brian Ralph at Wednesday, 22 July 2015 at 8:12pm BST

James, it is such a shame when posts on TA bring any topic back to sex/sexuality/homophobia. Please allow Rachel and Sarah and the church as a whole to celebrate the end of institutional gender injustice. Whatever you might say, this afternoon in Canterbury cathedral WAS a joyous occasion. And how dare you say it was about self interest. Your post is a classic example of self interest. Yes of course we in the church need to address institutional homophobia, but please don't muddy the waters with sour comments. They do not serve you well. I and thousands of others are celebrating today. Some of us have worked long and hard, have sweated blood and many, many tears, so please allow us to celebrate. We will then be able to join with you to address the issues which concern you.

Posted by Anne at Wednesday, 22 July 2015 at 8:18pm BST

Please James, allow these women and those who rejoice in their new ministries just a few hours of unalloyed celebration.

Posted by ExRevd at Wednesday, 22 July 2015 at 9:56pm BST

No - ExRevd. James makes a good point. Celebration yes maybe for some - but unalloyed? I think not.

Posted by Neil at Wednesday, 22 July 2015 at 10:56pm BST

Wonderful to be there - quite wonderful.

Posted by David Runcorn at Wednesday, 22 July 2015 at 10:59pm BST

Geoff: I do not believe that Bishop Richard laid on hands

Posted by Graham Williams at Wednesday, 22 July 2015 at 11:00pm BST

Wonderful day for the Church of England and the Province of Canterbury. And wonderful to see full communion again on display with women from the USA and NZ taking part in the laying on of hands, especially Bishop Barbara Harris, now 26 years a bishop.

Posted by Peter S at Wednesday, 22 July 2015 at 11:04pm BST

I thought hard about posting that, Anne, and would've gladly kept my own counsel, if I didn't believe that a great justice is being misused by the church to mask a great injustice. As I made clear, I'd love nothing more than to celebrate.

How dare I say that it's about self-interest on their part? I dare say it because it's hard to draw any other conclusion from female bishops justifying homophobia on the basis of scripture, while disregarding scripture when it stands in the way of their career.

Since I have no desire or likelihood of donning the purple, no, my post isn't an example of self-interest. Unless you're due to be consecrated while justifying institutional homophobia, I'm certainly not accusing you of self-interest. As for my concerns, surely they're yours too, and equality across the board already concerns you as much as it does me.

I'm not denying you the chance to celebrate, or disparaging what you did to make it happen. My comments were directed solely at the women consecrated, not at you personally. If anything, what these bishops are doing insults most the principled campaigners who fought for change. Not to get ahead, but because it was right.

Posted by James Byron at Thursday, 23 July 2015 at 12:29am BST

Well ahead of the parent, Ralph?

No woman bishop in Aotearoa or Polynesia and as for the Pakeha, it took over 23 years to elect a second woman bishop after Dunedin...both ladies being British and not Kiwi. Incidently Australian anglicans have two women diocesans.

Posted by robert ian williams at Thursday, 23 July 2015 at 4:45am BST

HAPPY FAMILIES
Why is the ABC looking so quizzically at the Patriarch of Londinium? Is it because he is not wholeheartedly joining in with the Happy-Clappy applause as the new Head Girl is appointed?
Geoff, as the Bishop of London is one of the very few (almost an extinct species within the C of E) bishops who refrains from the ordination of priests of either gender, then I very much doubt if + Richard participated in the laying on of hands at the consecration of two female bishops? I suspect that the best ABC that we never had (consider for a moment his masterly oration delivered recently at the 10th anniversary of the 7/7 commemoration) exercised "gracious restraint" at a significant moment in the Liturgy on the Feast Day of Mary Magdalene. If Bishop Chartres was joining in with the prolonged round of applause, the above photographic evidence seems to suggest that he was doing so with clenched fists.

Posted by Father David at Thursday, 23 July 2015 at 6:44am BST

"to celebrate the end of institutional gender injustice." Anne

But it isn't the end of institutional gender injustice. The right to discriminate against women bishops is enshrined in law and is to be allowed to "flourish" with the appointment of Bishops such as Rod Thomas.

Posted by Laurence Cunnington at Thursday, 23 July 2015 at 7:40am BST

I rejoice, it is a first, but it won't make history, at least not the blindest bit of change. It has not in denominations that have already done it. Plus this 'women's particular gifts' thing is but the liberal version of complementarianism.

Posted by Lorenzo at Thursday, 23 July 2015 at 7:52am BST

Bath and Wells rejoices with you, lets pray for God's blessing on +Rachel and +Sarah in their ministry. I'm glad the CofE is consecrating so many female bishops so quickly, it saves the first one or two being a 'curiosity' whilst they wait for the rest of the church to catch up.

The first rule of Thinking Anglicans is that any thread on any topic, ends up being about homosexuality if it passes 20 comments. But this is a record.

Posted by David Keen at Thursday, 23 July 2015 at 8:58am BST

I agree with Anne that we should celebrate the consecration of women bishops.I also feel sad with James that we cannot ordain openly gay people.Some of the women made Bishop never supported our campaign for women bishops but many gay men did. When at meetings of General Synod in York I tried to organize people to hold the WATCH banners or distribute leaflets most of the WATCH members made excuses ( often valid) but I could always rely on Colin Coward and members of Changing Attitude. When the Northern Province WATCH had a pilgrimage to Whitby Abbey it was two gay men who carried the banner up all those steps from the town and then helped with all the practical arrangements for the Eucharist in the ruins.
I repeat I am glad we have women bishops for whom I campaigned for 50 years ( I am now 79) but I cannot be content until the church is fully inconclusive and consecrates as bishops openly gay men such as the current Dean of St Alban's and also allows them to marry in Church.

Posted by Jean Mayland (Revd) at Thursday, 23 July 2015 at 10:53am BST

Well as someone has disagreed with my comment perhaps I could elaborate. The joy in these consecrations should be unalloyed because depending on your taste, it is a calling to serve God's people or a sacrament, or both, a wonderful invitation and gift. Something to be glad and excited about, because it expresses grace, generosity, hope and potential in ways that ALWAYS outstrip the human actors involved. Their worthiness in no way diminishes the invitation, the gift.

Posted by ExRevd at Thursday, 23 July 2015 at 11:18am BST

"James, it is such a shame when posts on TA bring any topic back to sex/sexuality/homophobia."

But for more than a decade, that has been the "presenting issue" as to whether Anglicanism is "Thinking" or not.

I opposed the women bishops compromise because it formalises and institutionalises sexism within the Church of England. A single-clause measure would have been far better.

As the new women bishops are unfortunately about to find out, misogyny now has an honoured place in the Church. Perhaps that will radicalise these new bishops a bit.

So far they seem to be Welby's safe votes in the House of Bishops on the presenting issue.

We can rejoice in this day while at the same time understanding this as a strategic retreat, designed to delay justice for others.

Posted by Jeremy at Thursday, 23 July 2015 at 12:03pm BST

No +London didn't, nor +Chichester... But both were robed acc to their office, the Bp of London acting with the Abp and Bp of Winchester throughout the service. .both on edge of the Episcopal scrum at the laying on of hands. Chichester certainly said amen to the Ordination prayer..both clapped...
I wonder what a RC or esp an Orthodox sacramental theologian would say about the mere keeping hands off in relation to the whole rite?

Posted by Perry Butler at Thursday, 23 July 2015 at 1:30pm BST

We must not bemoan this 'becoming about sexuality' — simply because that issue is inextricably linked to this. All inclusion is the same inclusion; there is no inclusion at all until all are included. This is what it is to build the commonwealth of G*d.

Posted by DBD at Thursday, 23 July 2015 at 2:57pm BST

And indeed further to my comment that all inclusion is the same inclusion, I would like to add to James Byron's first observation that these bishops (let alone the men) "refuse to speak out against the other great injustice in the church, institutional homophobia" — that they all refuse to do anything about racism or discrimination against persons who are disabled.

All injustice is the same injustice — all of these are insults to our common humanity and therefore to the One who created us all.

Posted by DBD at Thursday, 23 July 2015 at 4:21pm BST

Is the sermon preached by +Stepney available?

Posted by Malcolm Halliday at Thursday, 23 July 2015 at 4:30pm BST

And by the way David, we all know that isn't the first rule of Thinking Anglicans; the first rule of Thinking Anglicans is don't talk about Thinking Anglicans.

Posted by DBD at Thursday, 23 July 2015 at 5:35pm BST

My name is Brian, Williams. And in your haste to correct you have ignored Bishop Victoria Matthews, yes a Canadian and already a bishop, who was elected to Christchurch in 2008. I am not concerned with where they were born but their gender. I tried to discover the number of women diocesans in Australia, having a feeling there might be another, but unlike England they no longer make much news and, having migrated to NZ, I prefer to forget I was once a member of the church in Sydney.

Posted by Brian Ralph at Thursday, 23 July 2015 at 8:10pm BST

I'm not a fan of the bishop of London, but he was doing his job. There was no requirement on him to lay on hands. He was there. It's fine.

Posted by John at Thursday, 23 July 2015 at 8:15pm BST

No David Keen it is about equality.

Do you no know, how offensive many of us find the term 'homosexuality' with its history of oppression ?

Posted by Laurence Roberts at Thursday, 23 July 2015 at 9:05pm BST

Ignoring the TA diversion, the answer to the questions is that the Bishop of London did not join in the laying-on of hands, which is his consistent position. However, since he was majorly responsible for Rachel's calling to be an Archdeacon, which led her to work with me as Archdeacon of Northolt and then with Adrian as Archdeacon of Hackney, he has been a crucial guiding force in her journey. More than that, he put her name forward for the episcopate. And liturgically he presented her to the congregation and led the applause with Justin. The picture was taken at the end of the applause (you can see people stopping) and I was watching this all the way through (back of my head in bottom right hand corner).

So let's have no more nonsense about Richard being against the ministry of women priests and bishops. Two new female Archdeacons in London, and I'd lay odds on the next Area Bishop appointment being a woman (when one comes up).

Posted by Pete Broadbent at Thursday, 23 July 2015 at 9:55pm BST

Wonder no longer Perry ..an orthodox Roman catholic theologian would dismiss the service as heretical and the rite incapable of transmitting Holy orders to either sex within the context of an Anglican rite. No doubt there was a Roman Catholic bishop present in the Cathedral, under the sad pretext of pretending to promote Christian unity. Remember the idle threats before the vote on women bishops..

By the way as an addendum to my New Zealand response..no native New Zealand woman has been made a bishop..only two Brits and a Canadian.

Posted by robert ian williams at Thursday, 23 July 2015 at 10:21pm BST

Malcolm - the sermon is on the WATCH Facebook page: www.facebook.com/WomenAndTheChurch - this is the penultimate paragraph: "I’ve always loved the notion of the court jester – the outsider who is nonetheless welcomed in to the court of power because they are the only one who can speak truth to the King. Every society, secular or religious, needs a way of allowing non-conformity. I hope that women in the college of bishops will raise non-conformity to new heights in the way they exercise leadership among us. I hope they will disturb our conventions, and unmask the unconscious bias which constrains our models of leadership within the dominant cultural norms that are so powerful that we hardly even notice or question them".

Posted by Julia Redfern at Thursday, 23 July 2015 at 10:33pm BST

I don't see how this can be seen as acting out of self-interest any more than their male counterparts, none of whom (with one honourable exception) have done anything much to advance the cause of gay people. That's not to say there aren't self-interested groups at work in these appointments, male or female. They would have been carefully vetted to ensure compliance with Pilling and the Valentine Day statement.

Will the official line be maintained, though, now that the newly consecrated women have triumphed over the sexist doctrine of subordination in both their ministries and their marriages, and replaced it with a complementarianism based on equality? Where James is coming from, I think, is the heterosexual triumphalism seemingly on display in Canterbury cathedral with all the assembled episcopate. But that can only generate more urgent debate the Church than if they'd held out for a more perfect union. The contradictions are now fully exposed. WATCH should therefore have the guts to campaign forcefully for LGBT equality.

Posted by Andrew at Friday, 24 July 2015 at 12:24am BST

In the photo of the laying on of hands, the Bishop of London seems to be standing rather far back.

Posted by Richard at Friday, 24 July 2015 at 12:55am BST

'No woman bishop in Aotearoa or Polynesia and as for the Pakeha, it took over 23 years to elect a second woman bishop after Dunedin.' You rarely seem to miss an opportunity to take a pop at ACANZP, robert ian williams.
Our first women priests were ordained in 1977, 17 years before the C of E got round to agreeing it.
If you would like to launch an affirmative action campaign for the episcopacy for Tikanga Maori or Pasifika, I'm sure they'd be pleased to receive your input.
As for Tikanga Pakeha, a quarter of our serving bishops are female and there has been at least one woman on each of the slates of candidates in recent episcopal elections.
We have women serving in senior positions across our dioceses, including as Deans, Archdeacons, vicars general and theological college principal.

Posted by Simon W at Friday, 24 July 2015 at 6:03am BST

If TA is indeed a single issue web site, may I enquire when the "Facilitated Conversations" come to an end and when the talks are concluded what will be the next step thereafter? At a staggering cost of a third of a million pounds to host the same, we should know that we are getting value for our money. So many commissioned Church Reports in recent years following their launch are just left to gather dust on the bookshelf and nothing really seems to happen thereafter.

Posted by Father David at Friday, 24 July 2015 at 7:10am BST

"I'd lay odds on the next Area Bishop appointment being a woman (when one comes up)". Seems to me that the current long standing Bishop of Willesden is making a prediction about his own successor. I wonder what his predecessor - Bishop Graham Leonard would make of that?

Posted by Father David at Friday, 24 July 2015 at 8:20am BST

Father David,
the time table for the Shared Conversations is on the CoE website, a link to it can be found in the TA archives.

Is £360,000 a staggering amount of money? That depends on whether you believe the conversations are worth having.
They're not actually that expensive if you take into account that each has to be held in a hotel large enough to accommodate 50+ people with breakout rooms for small discussion groups, with restaurant facilities that enable the groups to be fed at set times away from normal restaurant traffic to ensure that conversations can continue uninhibited.
If you take into account the costs of developing the process and of the professional team of facilitators.

What will happen afterwards?
We know that officially, the conversations will not be part of the formal discernment process of the CoE.
But the facilitators provide general feedback to the HoB, many (all?) groups that had conversations so far have met with their bishops afterwards for extended, detailed feedback.

Every single individual is free to take the positive experience into their own churches and Deaneries - often with the ready help of people who have just been waiting to be able to do something positive.

Some of us hope that the lgbti Coalition will send all the reflections participants have written to every single member of the new General Synod as background material.

And between the "too little, too late, totally pointless window dressing" shouts on one side and the "why are we even wasting money talking about this as if there would ever be any change" brigade on the other, there is a lot of movement in the middle. More and more people are hearing about this, begin to talk about the issues, form their own opinions.

Ultimately, whatever this coming General Synod may or may not decide, it's grassroot change that will tip the church into a more wholesome and moral way of being church.
And grassroots are changing.

Posted by Erika Baker at Friday, 24 July 2015 at 9:12am BST

While I agree with James's sadness I also agree wholeheartedly with Anne to let us fully rejoice and also, for heavens sake, give them a chance to do what none of the male bishops have had the guts to do (bar one perhaps and my goodness he is paying the price!). The Bishop of Stepney's sermon was quite outstanding (I have downloaded it on the WATCH facebook page and will also be on the WATCH website:www.womenandthechurch.org). He was saying out loud and publicly what so many of us have been saying for a very long time and we thank him for it BUT, reflecting on it later, I did wonder why there is the expectation that it should now be the women bishops who "will disturb us...challenge the conventions of the CofE which continues to be led by people like me...white male, middle-aged professionals". Isn't this something the all-male bishops should have been doing for themselves (and us) years ago. Why wait for women to mop up the mess?

Posted by Sally Barnes at Friday, 24 July 2015 at 10:01am BST

I loved this part of Adrian's sermon, as he homed in on the theme of subversion:

encouraging the bishops "to strip away the stifling effects of the dominant culture and liberate an altogether more vibrant expression of life...

to "subvert the patterns of an ordered, controlled society where a powerful elite constrains and limits the cultural norms of belief and behaviour... challenging convention and unmasking the unconscious bias of an unexamined orthodoxy...

"It’s hard to escape the fact that Jesus chose the outsiders of his world to share his life with, those whose very existence was disturbing and disruptive to the accepted norms of belief and behaviour. He lived and preached a gospel of radical inclusion, and it upset the apple-cart of conventional religion...

"Filled with the Spirit of the radically inclusive Jesus, and touched with the spirit of the enigmatic Mary of Magdala, please be a little bit dangerous."

The Bishop of Stepney is a civilising voice in our Church. I know, personally, how accepting and inclusive he is. If a new intake of female bishops can challenge and subvert, on the basis of their own experience of exclusion, perhaps the long, hard journey towards radical inclusion is not over.

Posted by Susannah Clark at Friday, 24 July 2015 at 11:10am BST

I do apologise to Brian...I genuinely thought Ralph was your Christian name. I am not attacking the Anglican church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia. I make a valid observation that there is no New Zealand born woman bishop, and your electoral system ( as in TEC) is more biased against women than the crown appointment system in the Church of England. From my New Zealand days I caould name quite a few talented Anglican women who have lost out. May I suggest all women short lists. Williams

Posted by robert ian williams at Friday, 24 July 2015 at 11:41am BST

Pete: "I'd lay odds on the next Area Bishop appointment being a woman (when one comes up)"

Or perhaps even the diocesan See! Think how overjoyed the acting bishop would be to hand over to the first female successor to Mellitus ;)

Posted by DBD at Friday, 24 July 2015 at 12:33pm BST

Is robert ian williams a real person? The person posting here under that name would seem to be from my Church their comments sadly seem rather bitter and somewhat trollish. I have noticed an increase in embittered people in our flock over recent years most would once been Anglicans.
When I was a young priest in Liverpool we would keep count of the villages in Ireland whence came the bishops for England and Wales, we made something of a game of it! Hardly a one was native born.

Posted by Fr Alan at Friday, 24 July 2015 at 12:57pm BST

May I add my congratulations with regard to the beautifully crafted sermon delivered in Canterbury cathedral by the Bishop of Stepney - give that man a diocese.

Posted by Father David at Friday, 24 July 2015 at 1:34pm BST

Thank you Erika for supplying information to my questions, most grateful.
Continuing another thread - when a male bishop is consecrated does + Richard participate in the Rugger Scrum and the laying on of Hands or does he exercise "gracious restraint"?

Posted by Father David at Friday, 24 July 2015 at 2:59pm BST

Can we stop having these silly little outbursts about money? The fact is the CofE is fortunate in having the financial resources to invest in projects. £360,000 seems to be equate to approximately £30,000 per regional conversation, and probably not much more than £500 per participant, so not exactly Chewton Glen and arriving by helicopter. This sum is little more than 0.05% of the Church Commissioners current funds. The Shared Conversations deserve to be taken seriously, not ridiculed on the grounds of their cost.

Posted by Anthony Archer at Friday, 24 July 2015 at 8:57pm BST

What is the Bishop of London's position, exactly?

He will attend the ordination of women bishops, but won't lay on hands himself?

And this is supposed to keep him free him of taint?

Do I have this right?

Posted by Jeremy at Friday, 24 July 2015 at 11:02pm BST

Glad to hear the C of E is awash with cash. Don't remotely believe Father David is 'homophobic'. Pity C of E 'wealth' doesn't remotely equate to 'people wealth'. Nor indeed the 'wealth' of individual parishes, many of which will disappear shorthly because they're not financially viable.

Posted by John at Saturday, 25 July 2015 at 8:13pm BST

Honestly Jeremy, I think everyone's been asking that same question for a number of years... +Richard has the habit of sitting on the fence with a number of things.

+Richard has stated as part of the London Plan that he will not ordain any woman or man to the Priesthood as a means to preserving the Unity of the Diocese. In regards to his personal integrity, I am aware that he is a non-ordainer and has stated in a interview (if I remember rightly) that he doesn't believe in the ordination of women - This may have changed.

Posted by Graham Williams at Sunday, 26 July 2015 at 12:09am BST

That was the point I was trying to make Jeremy. A certain sort of Anglo catholic would focus entirely on an actual laying on of hands ..I suspect Roman Catholic and certainly Orthodox sacramental theology would focus less on a hand on a head but participating as part of the Episcopal college vested according to your order.Just as at an Orthodox liturgy the priests" concelebrate" but don't say the words of institution or the epiclesis How far is this emphasis on actually touching Catholic?

Posted by Perry Butler at Sunday, 26 July 2015 at 8:35am BST

+Londin has been consistent on his position throughout and held that with integrity. He does not ordain men or women as priests but tends always to ordain them as deacons. His record in supporting the ministry of women (through appointments etc.) is excellent, +Gloucester included. His focus is the need of the diocese of London and maintaining unity. Hypothetically, might he have been willing for the unity of the Church of England to change his position? Had he been so willing, he might have been a candidate for ++Cantuar at the point ++Rowan was appointed. What will the historians make of all this!

Posted by Anthony Archer at Sunday, 26 July 2015 at 10:55pm BST

One wonders, reflecting on the tenor of the conversation here about the Bishop of London's unwillingness to ordain any to the priesthood - rather than ordain only the men he believes are exclusively called to that order. This inaction seems hardly to conform to the positive 'action' that surely is required to maintain the unity of the Church.

If ecclesial unity is only obtained through our inaction; then what positive action could be done that might better facilitate the Coming of The Kingdom of God?

Herein, I guess lies the basic problem of the relative value of the exercise of personal conscience in matters of discrimination, for or against a particular course of action. How best can the Church exert a Christ-like influence on issues that involve the implementation of justice for all people?

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Monday, 27 July 2015 at 1:05am BST

I seem to remember when Cantuar was last vacant +Richard made some comment or other to the effect that he might be willing to change his position with regard to the ordination of women to the priesthood, although I cannot remember exactly chapter and verse.
Answer came there none as to whether or not he lays on hands at the consecrations of male candidates to the episcopacy.
Thank you John for your kind words on the latest Opinion Blog.
With regard to the suggestion that I am "homophobic", I can assure whoever made such a scurrilous suggestion that I am most certainly NOT. It is to the eternal shame of the Church that we love and serve that Jeffrey John is not a Diocesan Bishop, the repercussions of this are still being felt in the failure to appoint the next Bishop of Oxford.
2020 seems to be the make or break crunch year for the Established Church. I agree with John that come Twenty - Twenty those parishes which are not financially viable by then, like the seagulls of Cornwall may, quite possibly have to be culled.

Posted by Father David at Monday, 27 July 2015 at 10:39am BST

Thank you, Father David. I never fail to note your stalwart support of Jeffrey John.

Posted by John at Monday, 27 July 2015 at 9:53pm BST

Fr David and Anthony Archer, the Chartres revelations that he 'would ordain women if necessary as the office of Archbishop of Canterbury required it' came from 'friends' as quoted in the Daily Telegraph early in 2002 prior to the selection of Rowan Williams as Archbishop. This leak was later disowned by Chartres, but it may have damaged his credibility.

In March 2013, also in the Daily Telegraph, it was reported that the Russian Orthodox had warned the Bishop of London not to ordain women as priests as it would damage prospects of unity.

The Orthodox are important in the life of Richard Chartres as is his concern to keep his large and disparate diocese together. So just as 'Paris vaut une Messe' was to Henry VI of France, I guess Richard CXXXII of London does not have his heart in disrupting his diocese for pragmatic and personal reasons.

Posted by Concerned Anglican at Monday, 27 July 2015 at 10:12pm BST

With "friends" like these who needs enemies? I had not realised that the remarks were made so long ago as 2002. Thank you Concerned for that clarification. I still maintain the + Richard is the best Cantuar we never had, although in a self deprecating manner at the time of Rowan's succession it was said that he had already, as it were, been ABC when he was Robert Runcie's Chaplain and in this role contributed considerably to Runcie's many excellent speeches and sermons, I look forward to the Bishop of London's autobiography as it will make for fascinating reading. In the meantime, does + Londinium fully participate in the laying on of hands when male bishops are consecrated? This is for the third time of asking!

Posted by Father David at Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 5:05am BST

I think he has up to now Fr David...it will be interesting to see what he does in the future.I imagine SWSH bishops will probably never attend consecration of women bishops..will they continue to play on hands on male bishops?

Posted by Perry Butler at Wednesday, 29 July 2015 at 6:45am BST

It seems rightfully to be a joyful event. But it is reasonable for people to reflect on the cost. The anti-women contingent get far more than generous pastoral provision, they get major seats at the table to promote the misogynistic view in seeming perpetuity.

As for gay inclusion (I agree that using the word homosexual and homosexuality are loaded), inclusion is inclusion.

Each trip to Haiti leads me in more radical directions. The Anglican Communion has adopted the Five Marks of Mission and this should be the focus of our attention. Alas, it is impossible to address injustice when your institution is actively doing injustice. In Haiti one clearly sees the legacy of slavery and colonialism in the New World. In Bristol, I walked the slave trade walk recommended by the Guardian. Certainly, much wealth in the UK and the US was built on this horrific practice. CoE and TEC should be working together and leading the way to address our shared responsibility for the ongoing misery. The inclusion issues in CoE are an impediment to the proclamation of the Gospel.

Posted by Cynthia at Wednesday, 29 July 2015 at 10:33am BST

"Fr David and Anthony Archer, the Chartres revelations that he 'would ordain women if necessary as the office of Archbishop of Canterbury required it' came from 'friends'"

Thank you Concerned Anglican. The Canterbury CNC of 2002 (of which I was not a member) took place before the days of interviewing. That being the case the commission members needed to know how 'candidates' stood on issues, and in the case of +Londin the question of whether he would ordain women to the priesthood as ++Cantuar was obviously relevant. As I understand it, the CNC arranged to take soundings as to how this change would play in practice and, presumably, the Archbishops' Appointments Secretary would have discussed this personally with Bishop Chartres. The question is of course academic now, but as Father David points out '+ Richard is the best Cantuar we never had' and there was considerable support for his nomination for Canterbury.

Posted by Anthony Archer at Sunday, 9 August 2015 at 8:21am 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.