Two radio reports today:
Same sex blessings
The worldwide Anglican Communion finally gets to see the Eames Report this month. Named after Archbishop Robin Eames, who chaired the commission, it’s meant to chart a way forward out of the crisis over same sex blessings and the election of the practising homosexual Bishop Gene Robinson. Conservatives in Africa and around the world want The Commission to recommend throwing the Episcopal Church USA – or ECUSA – out of the Anglican Communion. And also to reject the man it endorsed as Bishop of New Hampshire. Many predict schism if the American Church isn’t called upon to “repent”. But as Jane Little reports from New Hampshire the break up is already happening. Listen here (9 minutes)
Women Bishops
The long standing row about whether women should be able to become Bishops in The Church of England, and whether one day there might be a woman Archbishop, is coming to a head. Next month the so called “Rochester Report” will be published but its contents have been widely leaked. It will apparently put forward seven options, from which Synod can choose. For Forward in Faith, the organisation which opposes the ordination of women as Bishops, or indeed as priests, there are only two options which they will outline in their own report, to be published next Friday. These are either to maintain the status quo where all Bishops are men, or set up an independent or free province of the Church for those who cannot accept women Bishops. Roger Bolton reports. Listen here (7 minutes)
The BBC Sunday programme talked to the people of Ripon, and others…
Last Sunday in Ripon Cathedral, The Bishop, John Packer, announced the suspension of the Dean, John Methuen. The Dean has protested his innocence. Although it isn’t clear what he is being accused of, there seems to be some concern about his allegedly autocratic style.
Interviews with members of the public in Ripon and the Dean of Southwark Cathedral in London, the Very Rev Colin Slee.
Listen (5m 24s) with RealAudio.
Yesterday, the Telegraph carried Suspension of Dean fails to silence whispering which contains a lot more background detail whispers.
The Church Times has this lovely picture and a report by Pat Ashworth
Dean of Ripon denies ‘conduct unbecoming’
The Church of England Newspaper has
Dean of Ripon to fight ‘autocratic’ charges
Earlier this week Leeds Today had this
Dean in cathedral row could be ‘defrocked’
Update for coverage of the report when published, see main TA blog here
See earlier report here.
The Church Times has a lengthy report by Rachel Harden , which lists
Seven options on women bishops
A chapter from a draft of the report lists seven options:
• maintaining the current status quo, whereby women priests cannot be made bishops;
• drawing up single-clause legislation to allow women to be bishops;
• allowing women priests to become diocesan bishops, but not archbishops;
• allowing women priests to become suffragan bishops, but barring them from diocesan posts and archbishoprics;
• allowing women to become bishops within a diocesan team, which would always include a male bishop;
• creating an extended form of episcopal oversight for those opposed to women bishops;
• establishing a third province within the Church of England for those opposed.
The Church of England has issued a statement Terrorism and Community Relations which is a submission to the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee from the Mission and Public Affairs Division of the Church of England. The press release says:
The threat of terrorism faces governments with the challenge of maintaining security without undermining human rights but some current counter-terrorist measures threaten to aggravate tensions between Muslims and other groups in British society, the Church of England has warned in a submission to the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee enquiry into the effects of counter-terrorism legislation on community relations.
This is partly due to legislation that creates a separate system, criticised by all-party groups, for indefinite detention of terrorist suspects who are not British nationals, says the submission from the Church of England’s Mission and Public Affairs Council. It also points to other measures creating a sense of insecurity and stigmatisation among Muslims. Police, says the submission, should use powers of arrest and search even-handedly and media reporting should reflect more representative and responsible views from within Muslim communities.
The full text of the statement is available.
This has been reported:
Stephen Bates in the Guardian Anti-terror measures ‘alienate Muslims’
Bill Bowder in the Church Times C of E warning on terror law
The CT article has a useful link to the press release from the Institute of Race Relations concerning its recently published study which documents the facts in support of this (full IRR report available as a pdf file here).
Church of England Newspaper
Anti-terror laws harm Muslims, says Church
and also has a highly supportive editorial (text of this saved for posterity, below the fold as usual)
Church of England Newspaper
Editorial: The anti-terror laws
This week the nation has shared the indescribable trauma of the Bigley family as they await news of British hostage Kenneth Bigley. The rise in hostage-taking in Iraq is just one example of the unintended consequences of the high anxiety about terrorism post-9/11 and following the war in Iraq, lead us very often to seek someone to blame. For some it will be political leaders like Blair and Bush, for others, it is the policies of Israel while many more lay the blame entirely at the door of innocent Muslim communities.
Yet if we argue that terrorists are responsible for their actions we cannot then take steps to assign blame to the entire communities from which they come. Just as Muslims are primarily the victims of Islamist terrorism, so Muslims are indirectly the ‘victims’ of anti-terror laws which affect them disportionately. So argues the Church of England’s submission to the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee.
The submission recognises the fine balance of maintaining security without undermining human rights, but argues that current counter-terrorists measures are aggravating tensions between Muslims and other groups in British society. It must however be pointed out that in any particular stop-and-search operations to identify terrorists those who are thought to be Muslim because of their ethnic identity are bound to be disproportionately affected.
The Church of England rightly has conducted a listening exercise for the past two years through the offices of Lambeth Palace. The anxieties of the Muslim community have been heard clearly in this exercise about the heavy-handed effects of the counter terrorist measures especially on non-British nationals, and about everyday problems faced such as stop-and-search policies as well as Islamophobia in British society. In any such listening exercise however, contradictory viewpoints from the communities involved will cancel each other out, and not all fears and concerns will be justified or well-founded.
In fact, since the terror attacks on 9/11 2001 the British public are probably better informed about Islam than ever before. They are more likely to know that not all Muslims are terrorists, despite the fact that terror groups claim to be mainstream in the interpretation of Islamic theology. And in fact, a great deal of sympathy for Muslim communities has followed the attacks, including many supportive measures undertaken by church and other community groups. Furthermore, Muslim leaders are increasingly demonstrating a renewed sense of responsibility in leading the communities to help police in identifying the terrorists who embed themselves in Muslim communities and those who recruit for terrorist groups. The Muslim community is signalling that it is moving away from the role of victim and recovering a confidence that arises from being an important part of British society.
The Church of England’s submission is a welcome support for another faith community in British life, but is in danger of portraying the diverse Muslim communities in Britain as helpless and in need of constant defence. In fact, robust as never before, Muslims in Britain are beginning to rise to the challenge of dealing with the specific problems of terror associated with extreme Islamist beliefs in concert with other faith groups and with the authorities.
From the Guardian last Saturday:
Guardian Special The World in 2020
Ever wondered who will be holding down Britain’s top jobs - from Labour leader to Queen Vic licensee - in 2020? We canvassed expert opinion to bring you the definitive list. Just don’t hold us to it …
and the article included this:
Archbishop of Canterbury
Who? Canon Dr Judith Maltby
Current job Chaplain of Corpus Christi College, Oxford
Age now 46Nominated by Rev Giles Fraser, vicar of Putney, writer and lecturer in philosophy at Wadham College, Oxford
An awful lot would have to change in the Church of England before Judith Maltby could be enthroned in Canterbury: the church doesn’t currently allow women to be ordained as bishops. She would also be the first American to head the worldwide Anglican communion. She has denied any interest in becoming a bishop, but her admirers would be keen for her to change her mind. “She’s clever, she has a strong sense of social justice, and we need women in positions of power in the CofE,” says Giles Fraser.
(Thanks to Stephen for telling me about this)
Stephen Bates reports in the Guardian
US bishops’ cash threat as split over gays widens
Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is being warned that North American bishops will cut off funds from the Anglican church in Africa if they are disciplined for supporting the election of a gay bishop, in a row which threatens to split the worldwide church.
Update This story is generating a lot of comment from Americans, see for instance Money, sex and power by Doug LeBlanc which has lots of links to related material.
Ruth Gledhill reports in The Times
Carey fights for the palace Batman
THE former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey of Clifton, has spoken out in support of the intruders at Buckingham Palace, arguing that they were “right to draw attention” to their plight.
He said that the actions of the Fathers 4 Justice campaigners were born out of society’s “sad and sorry departure” from traditional marriage and the increasingly commonplace phenomenon of fatherless families. He also called for a radical rethink of the orthodox Christian understanding of marriage, which is based on St Paul’s dictum that “the man is the head of the woman”.
and the story concludes with this:
He said that the Church must also take responsibility for the situation, having for centuries assigned a submissive and compliant role to married women, which no longer bore relation to reality.
The Bishop of Ripon and Leeds John Packer has announced that the Dean of Ripon John Methuen has been ‘inhibited’ (the equivalent of being suspended on full pay) from his clerical duties following the laying of formal complaints against him under the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure.
Under the Measure, formal complaints of ‘conduct unbecoming the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders’ are sent to an independent examiner who can either recommend their rejection or that the matters should be determined by means of trial in a Consistory Court. In a statement made to the Cathedral congregation today, Sunday September 19, Bishop John Packer says that while the Dean is clear that he has a full answer to the complaints, he has decided to inhibit the Dean under the Measure, while the legal process takes place, in order to eliminate, as far as possible, continued pressure and gossip.
Here is the official press release from the Diocese.
Press Association report: Dean Suspended in Church Probe
BBC Dean suspended in cathedral row
Telegraph Dean of Ripon suspended for ‘conduct unbecoming’
Guardian Dean suspended over ‘control freakery’
Update Here is the Yorkshire Post report by Michael Brown and Julie Hemmings Suspended dean faces ‘trial’ over conduct.
In a statement made to the cathedral congregation, Bishop Packer said:
“I regret to have to inform members of the Cathedral congregation that a number of formal complaints against the Dean of conduct unbecoming the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders have been laid before me under the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure.
The Dean is clear that he has a full answer to the complaints.
However under the Measure, and to eliminate as far as possible continued pressure and gossip, I have decided to inhibit the Dean from the exercise of his office until such time as these matters are disposed of, either by a rejection of the complaints by an independent examiner, or by means of a trial in a Consistory Court.
Until that time the Dean will play no part in the life of the Cathedral and Diocese.
For the time being Canon Michael Glanville-Smith, as Senior Residentiary Canon, will take responsibility with his colleagues for the life and witness of the Cathedral. I ask for your prayers at this difficult time for Dean John and his family, and for all members of the Cathedral.”
Update for coverage of the report when published go here
Christopher Morgan in the Sunday Times reports that Women may be bishops but not archbishops. Here are two extracts that list the eight options:
The findings of a three-year inquiry headed by Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, this weekend drew accusations of misogyny after it emerged that three of its eight key options would deny women equal rights with men.
The options propose to allow women to become bishops but not archbishops of Canterbury or York; to deny them the chance to have their own dioceses; or to require them to be part of a team with at least one male bishop to chaperone them.
Of the five other proposals, one would see the church retain the status quo where women are allowed to be ordained only as priests or deacons. Three others anticipate a split in the church or exodus of male priests, while only one would give women the full rights to be appointed to every post in the church.
The report by Nazir-Ali, who was a leading contender for Archbishop of Canterbury two years ago, is an attempt to appease both the supporters of equality in the church and the traditionalist opponents of women bishops. However, this weekend it appeared unlikely to satisfy either camp as it does not come down in favour of any of the eight options.
… Of the three options that would entail a permanent junior role for women, one would allow women to be suffragan bishops but prevent them being a senior bishop in charge of one of the church’s 44 dioceses.
Another option would allow women to become diocesan bishops but not archbishops. This might satisfy the evangelical lobby who believe that within the church women should be under “male headship”. The report points out that this would “still entail the existence of a ‘glass ceiling’.”
Other possibilities could see the introduction of combined male-female teams of bishops in each diocese, or the division of the church to create a “male-only” province. This would provide a third, independent province, overlaying those of York and Canterbury and led by an archbishop catering for all who did not wish to be under a female prelate.
Nazir-Ali warns that if the church opts for straight equality for women bishops, this could mean traditionalists refusing to recognise them and leaving the church altogether. “This would be an extremely grave situation,” warns the report.
A final option would see priests opposed to women bishops being paid off to leave the church.
I’m not sure what’s so special here: for months now we have been told that the report does not make any recommendation but merely sets out the options. Now we have some data about the options listed. Only in the Church of England would it take three years to create a list of options…
Both The Times and the Telegraph report today that more young people in Britain believe in horoscopes than in the Bible.
Ruth Gledhill Horoscopes are new religion
Jonathan Petre The young put their faith in mysticism
Both The Times and the Guardian have columns by Rabbi Jonathan Romain (it is Jewish New Year): God, belief and action and The Bible is not a divine puzzle for our leisure time while the Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks writes in The Times about Compassion has to coexist with a sense of human responsibility
Christopher Howse writes in the Telegraph about St Theodore If anyone should be patron of racial harmony it is Theodore
and the Guardian has a report about another piece of Anglican history:
Defrocked rector was ‘unfairly vilified’
The Observer has a report by Jamie Doward on Eames: Silence of gay bishops ‘will split Anglicans’.
There is also a report on the anniversary of “9/11” which leads with RW’s visit to Cairo, Christians ‘should show more respect’.
The Telegraph clearly disagrees with this idea, and reports on its own poll of clergy who found for them that Clergy vote Rowan Williams as ‘one of the least effective’ modern archbishops (read the story carefully to see what the questions and answers were).
And it carries an opinion column by Peter Mullen Don’t blame God, Dr Williams.
The same paper carries a news report, not by its religious affairs specialists, which says that Half of gay ‘marriages’ are conducted in church. This will be unwelcome reading to many conservatives.
And a story from yesterday that I missed:
Guardian Stephen Bates Churches should take yellow brick road to reaching people
The Church Times has looked at the new statistics published on the web this week, and found the claim of 3 million a bit weak.
THE CLAIM was made this week that the size of the Anglican Church in England is “approaching three million”, rather than the often quoted figure of about one million.
The claim comes in the introduction to the latest set of statistics, for 2002, released by the Church of England’s research and statistics department on Tuesday. Its presentation is upbeat, despite the picture of widespread, measurable decline in almost every category.
Read the whole article C of E is three (or one) million strong which has the following useful table:
Three religion stories:
Yesterday, Hywel Williams had an opinion column The trouble with George which is about George Carey. None of it is complimentary, here is a sample:
Never keen on his successor, Carey is as blunt as the present archbishop is opaque. Now he seems determined to give a voice to the church within the church, a movement that rejects not only liberal tolerance but also the church authority that once gave him a career. For the striking thing about the gay-phobic evangelicals of the US and Britain is that they are not really Episcopalians. They reserve the right to follow bishops they approve of and then to withdraw diocesan subscriptions if the local bishop fails to toe their line. They are, in effect, Congregationalists running their own churches and selecting their own theology.
Today, Stephen Bates reports on the new CofE statistics that were published yesterday (see Peter Owen’s announcement here).
Church counts its blessings. This report shows that credibility on this subject will not recover quickly from the past perceptions of statistical manipulation:
The church claimed yesterday that other statistics published this year, showing attendances continuing to decline well below 900,000, were wide of the mark and that a “more precise figure” showed an average of 1.7 million people attending church over the month (though only a million attending on Sundays).
and, a report on what Rowan Williams and others said at St Paul’s Cathedral:
UN ‘should listen to campaigners’.
Information about this series is available here.
“Anglican Mainstream” claims to have support from conservative catholics as well as evangelicals.
However, in the latest issue of the Forward in Faith magazine New Directions Geoffrey Kirk has this to say (you can read the whole article here):
Anglican Mainstream is a well-intentioned group of serious-minded Evangelicals. But it is a group which seems to have no tactical ability, strategical sense or basic ecclesiology. It claims fidelity to scripture as its salient principle – and yet many of its members have already departed from scripture in the matter of the remarriage of divorced persons and the ordination of women. In the first instance they are ignoring one of the most categorical dominical injunctions, and in the second they are setting aside Pauline texts arguably more comprehensive and definitive than those against homosexuality.
Mainstream has a lot of questions of answer. Why not, if a man’s sexual acts are more ecclesially significant than his expressed opinions, accept Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading in the first place? Why refuse to receive the ministry of Christopher Herbert and not also refuse Richard Harries, Stephen Cotterell and Rowan Williams? Why was it more serious to appoint Dr John as Dean of St Alban’s than to appoint him as Canon Theologian of Southwark? And why was it more objectionable for him to be Dean of St Alban’s than for his self-appointed defender and advocate, Colin Slee, to be Dean of Southwark?
The English revisionists are, for the moment, very polite about all this. They have no need to be aggressive when they are winning so easily and so comprehensively. But American revisionists have begun, with great effect, to cast the same in the Evangelicals’ teeth. ‘You have already swallowed two things which scripture forbids and the tradition has comprehensively condemned,’ they point out. ‘Why are you gritting your teeth now at what is merely a consequential amendment?’
It is an accusation, of course, which implicitly suggests that, by making opposition to homosexual practice the cynosure of orthodoxy, Evangelical traditionalists are motivated more by homophobia than faithfulness to the Bible And, alas, it is an accusation which the incoherent behaviour of Anglican Mainstream and similar groups, makes it very difficult to refute.
In the same issue, Michael Heidt comments from America on the problems FiFNA has being part of what he refers to as NACDAC (with the final C standing for “congregations” rather than “parishes”). So perhaps these difficulties are not only an English issue.
The morning newspapers just can’t get enough of it.
This picture comes from PA via The Times which runs four stories:
Archbishop stands aside to be a humble parish priest
Journey from palace to rural parish
Ascetic priest declined full pay
Rise of a reluctant archbishop
and a leading article On Ilkley Moor baht mitre
The Telegraph has two stories:
Archbishop seeks the simple parish life
and a leader comment with a similar title to the Times one: Ilkley Moor baht mitre
Two stories even in the Guardian
Archbishop of York to swap riverside palace for ministry in a local parish and
Father to 200 and no time for long walks
and again a leader comment A lesson to us all
The Independent has but one entry:
Archbishop of York quits for future as parish priest
And yesterday, Jane Little on the BBC Radio programme Sunday had this piece (Real Audio) about David Hope which includes an interview with Stephen Bates.
Today, David Hope announced his resignation as Archbishop of York, to take effect from 28 February next year, and his plan to then become the Vicar of St Margaret’s Ilkley in West Yorkshire, in the Diocese of Bradford from early March 2005.
Here is the Diocese of York announcement.
Here is the Diocese of Bradford announcement.
The Press Association had Archbishop Returning to ‘Real Ministry’ of Parish Life
and the BBC had Archbishop of York to step down
The picture of him talking with some of his new parishioners comes from AP via the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
Here is a picture of the Norman Shaw church from the parish website, which sadly is a year out of date.
And if anybody reading this wonders where Ilkley is, the answer is here
Today, the Church Times carries a news report on the Reform statement discussed here earlier, Reform is ‘estranged’ in 11 dioceses, it declares, and also has a leader part of which comments directly on the matter:
Reform has issued a fresh statement that publicly declares impaired communion with bishops of named dioceses, and sets out its ominous intention of soliciting “adequate” episcopal ministry, and of requiring bishops to assent to three propositions in order to gain acceptance. This does seem, on the face of it, to take matters a step further. “We believe”, say its authors frankly, “it would be wrong to countenance delay and possible inaction.”
If this remains Reform’s considered view, then it will be obliged to act accordingly. But we wonder whether Reform is not in fact distancing itself from a large and fairly conservative constituency that would take an altogether more cautious line, and includes congregations no less thriving and zealous than those led by some of Reform’s supporters.
The appointment of Jeffrey John to the deanery of St Albans is one thing, and in many minds not at all the same thing as the elevation of Gene Robinson to the episcopate in New Hampshire. But there may well be an element of summer silliness not only in the timing of Reform’s statement, but in taking it as more than a message to the Lambeth Commission drafted in terms designed not to be ignored. Since it has set up a panel to offer Anglican leaders advice, Reform may also be willing to listen to the Commission’s advice when it comes.
The dioceses named by Reform are at least eleven because they mention
Hereford, Leicester, Newcastle, Ripon and Leeds, St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, Salisbury, Truro and Worcester [those who signed a letter in support of Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading; of course the Bp of Hereford in question has since retired, has Reform noticed?]
Oxford and St Albans (whose diocesans have sought to promote Canon John to senior office)
some other dioceses where bishops have publicly supported the “gay-agenda” [an unknown further number]
and Canterbury, where the Archbishop holds that homosexual relationships can be compatible with Christian discipleship.
The full text of the paper published by Reform today and referenced in the adjacent news item can be found below the fold.
Update
The same paper can now also be found here and now even here on the Reform website!
REFORM
Ways Forward in the Present Crisis for the Church of England
“ … we have reached a crucial and critical point in the life of the Anglican Communion.” (Statement from Anglican Primates, 16th October 2003)
The crisis that is upon us has been precipitated by some Episcopal churches in the USA and Canada approving certain same-sex relationships. However, that crisis is not simply about the consequences for the wider Anglican Communion. It has also brought to a head a crisis within our own Church of England. Although the Church of England has not itself yet taken any formal steps towards the approval of relationships involving same-sex intercourse, and while a number of bishops have courageously spoken out against such developments, it is clear that a significant number of our church leaders – both bishops and clergy – promote an outlook which is not substantially different from the one held by those who have provoked the present crisis in the USA and Canada. We believe this has happened because there has been a move away from trusting the authority and sufficiency of the Bible, and towards accommodating secular ideas of credal diversity; and also because both bishops and clergy have failed to “drive away” false doctrine. This diversity is demonstrated by a recent survey finding (Christian Research 1998) that 49% of clergy do not believe that faith in Jesus Christ is the only way by which we can be saved.
How should Church of England evangelicals respond to this crisis? Some believe we should wait for the Eames Commission to report, since this might make disciplinary action within the wider Anglican Communion possible and have helpful spin-off effects for the Church of England. While we acknowledge that the Primates have recognised the seriousness of the present position, most notably in their statement of October 2003, we are not confident that the present approach matches the urgency of problem we face. We believe it would be wrong to countenance delay and possible inaction in the face of such clear defiance of God’s Word by some of our leaders. This paper therefore outlines the case for action and has been prepared as a basis for consultation with members.
1. A fundamental issue
Sexual intercourse within same-sex relationships is not a matter for debate. Bible passages such as 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 list this amongst various forms of sexual activity that, if they are lifestyle choices and not lapses subsequently confessed as wrong, will preclude people from entering the Kingdom of God. Clarity about this is therefore a salvation issue. What is at stake here is the very gospel of Christ, since if we will not accept the Bible’s definition of sin, it is difficult to explain which of God’s standards we intend to take seriously and on what basis; why salvation is needed; or what were the reasons for Christ’s propitiating sacrifice on the cross. We need to recognise this as a fundamental issue if we are ever to resolve the disunity that its emergence has caused. Jude 4 speaks of “godless men, who change the grace of our God into a licence for immorality”. Issues of immorality were fundamental then as they are for us now.
Some Christians believe that the issue of same-sex intercourse has become too charged. They are prepared to concede that the Bible could be interpreted as affirming the commitment of a faithful and exclusive same-sex relationship rather than condemning the sinfulness of any sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage. However, this is not compatible with serious biblical exegesis as Robert Gagnon has shown in his exhaustive study: ‘The Bible and Homosexuality (The Texts and the Hermeneutics)’. The recent discussion document from the House of Bishops Group on Issues in Human Sexuality itself reaches a not dissimilar conclusion: “ … the hermeneutical principles … and the consensus of biblical scholarship, still point us in the direction of the Church’s traditional reading of the biblical material.”
2. Discipline is needed
Canon A5 makes it clear that the whole church is under the authority of Scripture. Clergy are specifically charged by the Ordinal to “provide for the Lord’s family, to search for His children in the wilderness of this world’s temptations and to guide them through its confusions so that they may be saved through Christ for ever.” Under Canon C18, bishops have the duty of “driving away strange and erroneous opinions”. All of this implies discipline about what is taught in the church. We fully accept that this will mean engaging in a careful and gentle process pastorally with individuals as well as firmness where needed. However, there is no room for compromise in our teaching and necessary action. Our unity in the church is primarily confessional – ie we are united by what we believe, not by how much we are prepared to compromise.
The Bible says that special care should be taken to ensure that those with teaching roles in the church should avoid error and that believers should be on their guard against those who are ‘false’ teachers (eg 2 Peter 3:17). We are warned against tolerating teachers whose teaching leads to sexual immorality (Revelation 2:20) and urged to keep away from those who cause divisions by teaching contrary to apostolic teaching (Romans 16:17). Wherever we find such false teaching, whether among bishops, theologians, or even synods, we have no option but clearly to distance ourselves from it both by our teaching and by our practice.
3. We will not willingly secede
The authority of God’s Word lies at the heart of the Church of England’s confession. The Church of England is therefore a natural home for evangelicals and we will not willingly surrender it to a revisionist minority. It is this same commitment to God’s Word that aligns us with the mainstream majority in the worldwide Anglican Communion. We recognise that the Bible emphasizes the primacy of the local congregation, as does the Church of England, but this does not mean we are Congregationalist. We rejoice in the fact that we are a connectional church and thus look forward to the possibility of deepening our links with faithful brothers and sisters throughout the Communion and beyond.
We, therefore, see no reason why we should leave our church. However, we do believe it is incumbent on each congregation to stand firm in this current crisis and to safeguard their Anglican heritage. Our primary interest is not so much in the formal structures, as in our commitment to the Church of England ‘by law established’ and what that means doctrinally. Even so, we realise that maintaining that commitment may well involve action that others find uncongenial.
4. Continued gospel work is vital
The gospel remains the power of God for salvation (Romans 1:16). Millions in this country are without Christ and perishing. The task of preaching the gospel is as urgent and, under God, as effective as ever. In the New Testament, Paul’s letters (eg 1 Thessalonians 2) show that in the face of much opposition, he persevered in preaching the gospel and training teachers. We must do the same even if their training and subsequent placement in full-time ministry prove controversial.
5. Principled action is required
The crisis facing us is not just that of doctrinal confusion over human sexuality, but a surrender of significant parts of the Church of England to a liberal unscriptural agenda, thus creating a huge gulf between those parts and what is at the heart of the Church of England’s confession. This has led to a serious decline: between 1989 and 1998, church attendance fell by nearly a quarter. “Slow death” is a situation not unknown in large secular corporations and industries. Management consultants identify three possible responses for those involved:
a) Peace and pay. This is where people maintain the status while hoping that the organisation will survive until their retirement when others can deal with the problem.
b) Active exit. In the church, this would mean leaving the ordained ministry or changing denomination.
c) Deep change. This is the only solution to “slow death”. It means caring enough to exercise the courage to confront issues. It can involve a) ‘breaking the rules’ (some of which may be strangling the organisation to death) – in the church this means not any, but principled irregularity; b) risking jobs; and c) driving forward into an uncertain and unplanned future.
6. Alternatives
Some evangelicals believe this is too gloomy an assessment and that other options are available. In practice these are:
a) Believing the issue will be resolved. In many cases, while people in this category may be avoiding wider engagement with the current controversy, their energies may be concentrated on actively furthering the gospel by outreach, church planting and internal growth. The drawback to this position is that it can be congregationalist in outlook. If we believe in a connectional church, we should act in the interests of others. Furthermore, as things currently stand, confidence in the ability of the church to resolve matters satisfactorily may be misplaced. As the February 2004 meeting of the General Synod demonstrated, many are now moved more by sentiment than consideration of the Biblical position.
b) Believing the issue is ‘important’ rather than ‘fundamental’. Many who believe this join with us by engaging in debate and working within the structures of the church in the hope of winning hearts and minds to the Biblical position. Many such would also support the 1998 Lambeth statement on Biblical authority and human sexuality. However, it is difficult to see how this approach can stop the general drift towards liberalism that is taking place in the churches of the Northern hemisphere. Support for Lambeth ’98 did not stop the consecration of Gene Robinson, or prevent the Bishop of Oxford proposing that Jeffrey John become a bishop.
By contrast, Reform regards the issue of homosexual relationships as fundamental. We do not believe that the scale of the present crisis can be adequately addressed through the processes of synodical government, although we still intend to participate. We believe the time has now come for churches and individuals to take a stand on this issue and to work for ‘deep change’ within the Church of England.
7. Initiatives For ‘Deep Change’
On 9th February 2004, 13 Primates from the global south issued a statement saying that by its actions ECUSA had separated itself from the rest of the Anglican Communion. The statement continued:
‘We ask you to join in our repentance for failing to be sufficiently forthright in adequately addressing this issue in the past, and we invite you to stand with us in a renewed struggle to uphold the received truth found in Jesus and His word.’
If we believe a fundamental crisis is upon us, we must act in a way that adequately addresses the issue. The time has now come to join our brothers and sisters elsewhere in the Anglican Communion who are having to decide where their communion lies, or what happens when there is ‘Impaired Communion’.
8. Impaired Communion
Impairment of communion is already a reality in the Church of England and within other Provinces of the Anglican Communion. ‘Impaired Communion’ is a term coined by the Lambeth Conference. It is a form of principled estrangement,where a church is no longer able to accept the ‘spiritual’ oversight of its bishop on principled biblical grounds. Impaired communion means a refusal to accept the bishop’s ministry in ‘sacred things’ (as distinct from ‘non-sacred things’ – the ‘temporal’ oversight, for example, in faculty matters). Nor is this an innovation. Under the liberal Bishop Barnes of Birmingham (1924-53) there was a serious impairment of communion in the Birmingham Diocese. Both Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical churches refused his spiritual ministry. When the Bishop then would not institute a man to St Mark’s, Washwood Heath, the Archbishop of Canterbury instituted him in Lambeth Palace Chapel on 7 July 1931. (A.Vidler, Scenes from a clerical life. ) More recently Anglo-Catholics have had serious ‘impairments’ over the ordination of women. For evangelicals the positive toleration of, or the teaching of, the rightness of sexual relationships outside marriage, including homosexual relationships however “stable”, is an ‘error too far’ (1 Cor 6.9-11; Rev 2.20-25). Nor is this a fixation with sexual sins. Were Bishops to teach (or tolerate the teaching) that theft, greed, alcohol abuse, slander or fraud (cf 1 Cor 6.10) were compatible with Christian discipleship (and on occasion to be celebrated), there would be a similar outcry and calls for alternative oversight.
9. Practical implications
The practical evidence of impaired communion may include the refusal to accept the bishop’s ministry in preaching, confirmation or ordination; non-attendance at certain diocesan meetings and services; or the re-routing of financial giving away from diocesan funds towards more orthodox uses.
Impaired communion is a reality in varying degrees in those dioceses whose bishops publicly supported the appointment of Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading (Hereford, Leicester, Newcastle, Ripon and Leeds, St Edmunsbury and Ipswich, Salisbury, Truro and Worcester); in Oxford and St Albans, whose diocesans have sought to promote Canon John to senior office; and in some other dioceses where bishops have publicly supported the “gay-agenda”. Sadly, there are also problems in Canterbury, where the Archbishop holds that homosexual relationships can be compatible with Christian discipleship.
10. A simple way
Members of Reform, if they have not done so already, should seek to establish where their diocesan bishop stands on the issue of human sexuality. Where they are unable to hold to orthodox biblical teaching, churches should declare that they are in ‘impaired communion’ - such is the crisis in the Church of England and the Anglican Communion.
The simplest way to discover where our bishops stand is to ask them whether the propositions that Reform agreed at its National Conference in October 2002 command their assent. The propositions were:
1) The received teaching of the church is that all its members are to abstain from sexual relations outside holy (heterosexual) matrimony;
2) There is a need for appropriate discipline* within the church where there are sexual relations outside holy (heterosexual) matrimony;
3) Only those should be ordained who themselves will teach, and seek to model in their own lives, the received teaching of the church that all its members are to abstain from sexual relations outside holy (heterosexual) matrimony.
*“appropriate discipline” can be exercised by private discussion with the person concerned, by public denunciation of such behaviours when there is no repentance, and, extremely, by church legal action if judged “appropriate”.
11. Adequate Episcopal Oversight
As impaired communion can only be temporary, what is now being called in the Anglican Communion ‘Adequate Episcopal Oversight’ will, therefore, be sought during the absence of spiritual oversight. There will be appeals to bishops elsewhere in the Communion who, like the 13 Primates from the Global South, are willing to take a stand.
‘Impaired communion’ presents particular challenges for churches when it comes to proposing candidates for training to the ordained ministry and then subsequently placing them in title posts. This brings us to an important proposal: the establishment of a panel of reference.
12. Establishing a Panel of Reference for recognition of ministry within the wider church
Where a parish is in impaired communion with a Diocesan bishop, many of the normal diocesan legal and administrative arrangements will temporarily have to continue. However, when a parish in impaired communion wishes to put forward a candidate for training for the ordained ministry or to have a curate, new arrangements will be required. There will be difficulties in not being able to turn to the Diocesan bishop. We therefore propose the establishment of a panel of reference. Potential candidates could then be referred to this panel to evaluate their suitability for training. At the end of the training, the panel can advise those bishops willing to provide alternative oversight, on a candidate’s suitability for ordination.
We see a panel of reference as providing an essential form of accountability within the wider orthodox church in relation to the discernment of ministry, albeit on a temporary basis until the present doctrinal confusion is resolved. It will provide a degree of confidence that parishes and individuals are not taking advantage of the unusual situation of impaired communion to promote the personal interests of individuals who may be unsuitable for ordination while at the same time encouraging necessary action.
13. Implications for Reform
After a period of reflection and consultation which we believe demonstrates both a steadiness of purpose and a commitment to address the present crisis ,we now intend to present these matters to the National Conference where they can be discussed. Issues relating to impairment of communion and the establishing of a panel of reference can be considered as we seek to discern God’s will for the future.
July 2004
Today’s issue of The Times has an article by Ruth Gledhill
Bishops face cash boycott for supporting gay priests which says in part:
Evangelicals in the Church of England are planning to boycott and withhold funds from bishops who support gay priests.
The plans, published yesterday, have been drawn up by Reform, the influential conservative evangelical grouping that represents up to a third of the 9,000 stipendiary clergy in the Established Church.
If the proposals are endorsed, as expected, at the Reform conference in October, evangelical parishes whose bishops support the liberal gay agenda will refuse to allow them into their churches to perform confirmations and other services. They will also channel funds away from the diocese and into Reform’s evangelical mission.
… The plans make clear the growing fears among evangelicals around the world that the Lambeth Commission, set up by Dr Williams to resolve the crisis, will fail adequately to discipline provinces such as the US and Canada, which have taken the lead on the gay issue.
I don’t understand the quoted figures, since clergy membership of Reform is generally held to be no more 5% of the total number of clergy.
There is also a squib about this in the Telegraph.
Again the “1700 members” number is quoted, but this is total membership claimed, and even if it were all clergy it would be nowhere near one third of the total.
The Reform press release is not yet on Reform’s own site, but can be read in full below the fold.
PRESS RELEASE FROM REFORM
REFORM CHARTS WAY AHEAD FOR EVANGELICALS IN CHURCH CRISIS
The present crisis in the Anglican Communion over whether or not to accept the Bible’s authority on matters of human sexuality now demands action in the Church of England, concludes a new paper from REFORM, the nationwide network of Anglican evangelicals.
The paper, written in preparation for its national conference in October, has been circulated to all 1700 members of REFORM today. It says that the same attitudes to the Bible that have caused splits in the Anglican Communion are now present within the Church of England. It argues that church unity must always be based on the Word of God – something the Church of England has always stood for. It therefore urges members to find out where their own bishops stand. If their bishops are unable to support the Bible’s teaching on human sexuality then parishes should act to express their ‘impaired communion’. In some cases this may involve churches changing the way they fund their own and others’ ministries, effectively by-passing their dioceses; refusing to invite their bishop to conduct confirmations; and seeking ‘oversight’ from other, biblically –faithful, bishops elsewhere in the Anglican Communion, as Primates from the Global South are already offering according to their Nassau Statement and submission to the Eames Commission.
The paper proposes that REFORM sets up a ‘Panel of Reference’ to act as a source of advice and support for churches in a state of ‘impaired communion’. The panel, made up of senior evangelical clergy, could also advise overseas bishops on the need for their involvement.
The paper is the result of months of consultation among evangelicals in the Church of England. Put together by a special working group of REFORM members, it has been extensively discussed at three regional conferences – in London, Sheffield and Exeter – during 2004. It will now be debated at the full national conference which takes place from 11th to 13th October.
Commenting on the paper, REFORM chairman David Banting said: “ We know that hopes for resolving the present crisis rest on the Eames Commission which will report the week after our conference. However, unless the Commission reaffirms our Anglican commitment to the Word of God by isolating the false teachers in the Episcopal Church of the USA and Canada, then the Anglican Communion will disintegrate. We cannot assume we are immune in the Church of England. Many of our bishops either endorse the liberal agenda or are allowing it to progress unchecked. We believe that evangelicals must act now to prevent disaster. We are not looking for uniformity – simply for all our members to take one step forward – whatever they judge that to be in their own dioceses; and we are hoping to set up instruments of support.
We are delighted that one of the leaders of the Anglican Primates of the Global South – Archbishop Greg Venables – is going to be with us at our conference in October and that we will also hear from Phillip Jensen, the Dean of Sydney Cathedral. We are looking forward to a conference that will help us set our sights on how to carry forward gospel work as Anglicans who wish to stay faithful to their Biblical heritage.”
Note To Editors
The full text of the paper ‘A way forward in the present crisis for the Church of England’ is attached to this press release. Further copies may be obtained from the REFORM office at PO Box 1183, Sheffield S10 3YA, or downloaded from the REFORM web site at www.reform.org.uk
For Further Information
Contact:
David Banting (chairman): 01708 342080
Rod Thomas (press officer): 01752 402771(office) or 07906 331110 (mobile) END
Top news today is that Rowan Williams will observe the third anniversary of 11 September, 2001 by speaking at Al-Azhar University in Cairo. This was reported today in the Sunday Times by Christopher Morgan.
Williams to praise Islam on Sept 11
Part of the report:
Rowan Williams has accepted an invitation to speak at Al-Azhar University in Cairo. He will speak to his Muslim congregation of the common ground between Christianity and Islam with their shared inheritance as “children of Abraham”.
Al-Azhar is considered the most important religious university in the Muslim world and is attended by 90,000 students.The university, founded in the 10th century, is also thought to be the oldest and contains the most prestigious school of law in Sunni Islam.
Muslim leaders say there is huge significance in the invitation. Zaki Badawi, founder of the Muslim College in London, said Williams’ address would strengthen the links between the two faiths. He said: “It is a very significant moment in the history of our two faiths and especially coming from a man of his stature and learning.
“This will cement the relationship between Christianity and Islam because he will point out those aspects which unite the two religions. The Muslims throughout the world feel beleaguered and a comforting word from Archbishop Williams will assure our people they are not alone.”
Williams will commit himself to extending Christian dialogue with Islam and stress his own belief in the need for a peaceful solution to the conflicts of the Middle East. He is expected to discuss the spiritual relationship that exists among the children of Abraham.
Earlier in the week, in the Telegraph Jonathan Petre reported under the silly headline Bishops plan his and hers Church about plans for dealing with women bishops. The essence of the story is that David Hope prefers an extension of the existing system for dealing with those who oppose women priests to the adoption of the “third province” approach:
Dr Hope is keen to encourage a compromise between die-hard traditionalists and middle-of-the-road Anglicans that will minimise the structural divisions within the Church.
The diehards are demanding a “third province”, a church-within-a-church with its own archbishop, bishops and training colleges operating in parallel with the remainder of the Church, but with no female clergy.
…But Dr Hope prefers a scheme which, rather than creating parallel structures, enshrines the rights of traditionalist parishes that could find themselves in dioceses headed by women bishops or liberals.
Under such a scheme, parishes opposed to women’s ordination would be able to reject the pastoral care of their diocesan bishop if they found them unacceptable.
Such parishes could choose to be ministered to by a like-minded traditionalist bishop, who could visit them, if necessary, from outside the diocese.
Parishes can already opt for “flying” bishops under provisions introduced for traditionalists when women were ordained priests 10 years ago.
At present, diocesan bishops retain their authority over their dioceses and operate a “gentleman’s agreement” that they will not block flying bishops from operating in their territory. Although this system has worked satisfactorily, Dr Hope fears it will come under such strain when women are consecrated as bishops that it will need bolstering. Critically, diocesan bishops would lose their right to block traditionalist bishops if parishes opt for them.
What is confusing about this news report is the suggested extension of the scheme to cover not only “traditionalist” parishes in dioceses that have women bishops, but also those that are in dioceses that have “liberal” bishops whatever that might mean in this context. Unless it relates directly to the issue of women bishops, this is outside the remit of the Rochester commission.
A new group has announced its existence:
Accepting Evangelicals
… is a new open network of Evangelical Christians who believe the time has come to move towards the acceptance of faithful, loving same-sex partnerships at every level of church life, and the development of a positive Christian ethic for gay and lesbian people.
Accepting Evangelicals
… is open both to
people who believe that the Bible does not condemn loving, faithful same-sex relationships which are built on mutual commitment and self-giving love.and to people who, although they do not personally hold this view are willing to accept the integrity of those who do.
One thing I notice on the membership page is this:
Confidential Membership [ is available] to those who fear that their public support would put them at risk of prejudice or discrimination.
How sad that this is necessary.
On Monday, the Guardian carried a leader about the Dean of St Albans under this title.
The concluding paragraph says:
Dr John’s beliefs are reasonable, moderate, and right. To ask whether a good Christian can believe what he does is like asking whether the archbishop is an Anglican. But this is precisely the point that his opponents are trying to make. They don’t just think he’s wrong. They think that the church will be destroyed if it admits the possibility that he might be right. What they are trying to do is to put the matter beyond debate, and their chosen weapon may yet destroy the Church of England altogether. The institution is lumbering towards bankruptcy, and sustained entirely by voluntary contributions. Evangelical threats to withhold money from liberal bishops and their organisations will be popular. If enough take up this tactic, they will one day look around a wasteland and say that there is no such thing as a church: only individuals and their parishes.
More on the archbishops’ letter to Tony Blair:
Church Times report Abuse hurts our integrity, say Primates
Guardian leader last Thursday in support History is on his side
The Times you may recall had a critical leader. Today Tom Wright has a critical letter, see below for text.
And in this connection, see also Bush poll campaign courts religious right in today’s Guardian.
From the Bishop of Durham
Sir, Though you raise interesting points on the archbishops’ letter to the Prime Minister (leading article, June 30; see also letters, July 1), I dispute your description of the “coded attack” on Christian Zionists as “a cheap shot”.I believe their letter points with deadly accuracy to a phenomenon which few Americans would deny. It isn’t a matter of a few individuals who may or may not be sophisticated. Nor is it a matter of ignoring “the wider context of current US politics”. It is precisely within that context that the point is valid.
There is a close, well-documented alliance between the “dispensationalist” brand of fundamentalism, which sees the modern state of Israel as part of the necessary prelude to the Second Coming, and the present White House and its supporters. I think it unfortunate that these things seem opaque to those politicians (and journalists) in countries like our own who persist in thinking that religion can have nothing to do with politics.
Yours, etc,
TOM DUNELM,
Bishop of Durham,
Auckland Castle,
Co Durham DL14 7NR.
July 1.
Today the Telegraph has a report by Jonathan Wynne-Jones that reports Money row over gay Dean could ruin Church.
Guidelines on how to protest against controversial appointments, such as the promotion tomorrow of Canon Jeffrey John, a homosexual, to be Dean of St Albans, have been drawn up by Anglican Mainstream, an influential network of orthodox churches.
The report is based primarily on the publication yesterday by “Anglican Mainstream” of this web page: Financial Options for Parishes.
Dr Philip Giddings, the “convenor” of “Anglican Mainstream” is quoted as saying:
“This is not blackmail. If parishes are sufficiently concerned about what a diocese is doing or not doing to contemplate this form of action we would expect there to be serious and meaningful conversation about the way forward.”
The AM web page says (emphasis added):
We have received a number of requests for advice on the range of financial options open to parishes wishing to take financial action, such as withholding some or all of their payments to the diocese, in response to unbiblical and unorthodox teaching. Anglican Mainstream does not advocate any of these particular options but recognizes that parishes are increasingly seeking advice in this area. We are therefore providing these Questions and Answers to help parishes think through the issues.
Update
And unsurprisingly, a similar report is in today’s CEN headlined Parishes plan to turn the financial screw. This article asserts that “Reform” represents 2000 parishes, which is rather a startling claim. Philip Giddings is quoted as saying:
“I have no doubt that a growing number of evangelical churches are considering their position. It is not the maverick churches, but the larger, more mainstream ones that have a track record of high involvement with church structures who are now feeling alienated.”
And the CEN also carries an open attack on the Bishop of St Albans in a feature entitled Trouble in St Albans: a worm’s-eye view.
John Henson, editor of the book Good as New that indirectly caused the blogriot was interviewed today by Martin Reynolds. Part of that interview is reproduced below. The full interview will appear in the next issue of Lesbian and Gay Christian, and the material is © LGCM.
When shown the blog comments about the book, John Henson said:
For someone who is uncomfortable with the telephone, perhaps old-fashioned in preferring to look people in the face when I talk to them, the web and blogriots is a little beyond me. It seems all too easy to snipe at people and deprecate them, very little Good News - from our rendering of Philippians 2:
Don’t throw your weight about, or scheme to get your own way. Regard everyone else as someone to cherish. Spend your time seeking to other’s needs rather than your own.
MR - Tell me, John, about the history of this translation?
JH - The text has been published over the last 12 years in serial form. These little booklets have had a very wide circulation, used as a tool for evangelisation for people who would not read the Bible or grasp the language if they did.
One of the reasons we did that was to have feed-back on the work. We have had a lot, from a wide range of people, bishops and inmates of Dartmoor Prison, all have helped contribute to this rolling translation.
In some way, it was not my choice to do this, it had a momentum of its own - but others kept the pressure up on me when I was slacking otherwise it might never have been finished.
I said “finished” and that’s not quite true - the publishers make it clear that this continues to be a rolling translation, we are looking for people to contact us with improvements and comments, there will be a second and third editions and hopefully each will be enriched by those who have read it.
This version is:
An inclusive translation
A cultural translation
A contextual translation
any of these is likely to cause something of a controversy for those who love the KJ version, all three……….
MR - What do you think you have achieved with this translation?
JH - I think people will have a sporting chance to understand Romans and maybe even Hebrews! We also think that John Ch 1 is more accessible. We are pleased with 1 Corinthians 13, Philippians 2, the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes.
Someone commented Mark “reads like a novel” - I think Mark would be pleased about that.
Baptists will be over the moon at translating baptism as dip! (smile)
I think people have been told there is more about sex in the translation! I’m afraid they will be disappointed, but they may be gripped by the text all the same.
MR - Tell me about yourself?
I am a Baptist, a retired Minister (65) an Evangelical, teetotal, the son of a Baptist Minister. My only purpose, the thing that drives me is proclaiming the Good News. For the moment there seems to be a lot of emphasis on misery and hidden guilt in Evangelical circles, but that will pass, I see signs it has already had its day. I suppose I can be as bigoted as the next man, but I have chinks in my armour windows of opportunity for change. What frightens me is the people who cannot possibly be wrong, strangely, even after they have changed their mind!
MR - You say this is an inclusive translation - how do you understand that?
JH - Passages that have been used with a homophobic slant have been widened to include all forms of abuse - here the homophobic glasses have been taken off.Some people want a Bible to hit homosexuals on the head, while at the same time taking a relaxed view of say,…..the allied abuses in Iraq, they will find no comfort here.
MR - Rowan Williams has come in for some criticism for his foreword.
JH - Well I did see the Times article, atrocious piece, using the book to attack Dr Williams - I am responsible, if anyone should be criticised it should be me. It is a fair translation of the Greek, the idea put about that it advocates more sex is not true. All the early work on Romans was done by a Calvinistic Fundamentalist scholar.
As to the foreword, that was originally written for my book “The Other Temptation of Jesus” - that book used this translation for its Biblical passages. The publisher asked if he could use the same foreword and that was approved.
As the texts have been circulating for 12 years I’m not sure how much Dr Williams has read or used them. They have constantly been refined so I am not sure even if he saw the final work.
This is a piece of work aimed at primary evangelism, it is hardly surprising a bishop should approve it.
As to the omission of seven books and the inclusion of the Gospel of Thomas, that was my editorial choice. There were good reasons for that, even Luther wrote a “health warning” for Revelation, but this is not a completed work, its in progress, maybe it will come later. Those for whom the Canon of Scripture is a sacred cow will perhaps have had problems with the serialisation of the separate books, it is not an issue for me. This is a work for a 1st time reader, it has already moved people and changed their lives, it is achieving its goal. We can all be happy with that.
MR - A lot of people will buy this book just to pull it apart.
JH - I am looking forward to all constructive criticism, I hope they share it with me.
MR - Some people seem to want to burn it.
JH - People who burn books, burn people.
Today The Times published the full text of a letter sent privately to Tony Blair last Friday by the archbishops of both Canterbury and York, on behalf of all the bishops of the Church of England.
In The Times Ruth Gledhill has two stories: one on the front page Archbishops accuse Blair of double standards reports the content of the letter. Th other Blair floored by right and left from Church gives background on the House of Bishops meeting etc.
And The Times has a leader which comments editorially on the letter Epistle to Rowan.
Other news reports about the letter:
Press Association Archbishops Warn Blair over Iraq Prisoner Abuse (from Scotsman site)
and Archbishops condemn Iraq jail abuse (from Guardian site)
and Archbishops condemn Iraq jail abuse (from Telegraph site)
Reuters Archbishops attack Blair over Iraq abuse
BBC Archbishops slam Iraq jail abuse
ITV Archbishops warn Blair over Iraq
From The Archbishops of Canterbury and York:
Dear Prime Minister,
During their annual meeting earlier this month, the bishops of the Church of England discussed recent developments in Iraq and the Middle East. It was the wish of those present that we should write to you to put on record a number of the points made during the discussion.
At the same time as we were meeting, the United Nations Security Council unanimously endorsed Resolution 1546. We warmly welcome the clear international consensus this now expresses on the importance of the transfer of sovereignty to a transitional Iraqi government.
There are bound to be further testing times before elections can be held there and the future arrangements for governance established. Sustaining a wide measure of international support, under the auspices of the United Nations, should be a key objective during this period.
We believe that the priority now must be to do everything possible to help the Iraqi people to rebuild their own country after many years of oppression and hardship. The establishment and maintenance of the rule of law are clearly prerequisites for stability and eventual prosperity.
Yet, the credibility of coalition partners in advocating respect for the law and the peaceful resolution of disputes will, we fear, be undermined unless the necessary moral authority is clearly demonstrated at every level. It is all the more important and challenging as a task when murderous and arbitrary violence, which we condemn utterly, is being used against westerners and others in Iraq.
It is clear that the apparent breach of international law in relation to the treatment of Iraqi detainees has been deeply dama