Riazat Butt wrote a profile of Martin Dudley for the Guardian.
Barbara Bradley Hagerty did a piece for National Public Radio Angst Bubbles in the Anglican Communion.
Barbara McMahon reported for the Guardian that Gay priests back in New Zealand after wedding row.
GayNZ.com reported that Priest’s Anglican gay marriage “not the first”.
The Times carried an article by Richard Haggis The Church of England starts at home. He argues that “The faithful in London should not allow foreign Anglican bishops to dictate how they should treat gay clergy and their civil partnerships”.
5 CommentsGeoffrey Rowell writes in The Times that Christians read the handwritten word differently.
Christopher Howse writes in the Telegraph about The bare and desolate SPCK bookshops.
Chris Hardwick writes in the Guardian that It’s healthy for Christians to disagree, but we really must learn to ‘quarrel peacefully’.
Also in the Guardian this week:
Rowan Williams wrote about Henry Chadwick.
Riazat Butt wrote about The ‘pope’ of hope.
Giles Fraser wrote about Me and the secular police.
And over in the Church Times he wrote about Saying ‘no’ to distant government.
16 CommentsChurch Services after Civil Partnerships
20th June 2008
InclusiveChurch today publishes a paper by Revd Brian Lewis, a member of General Synod and of IC’s Executive Committee on the law in relation to services after Civil Partnerships. The paper demonstrates that under the laws of the Church of England – especially Canon B5 – clergy have far greater liberty in this area than is commonly thought. They are permitted to carry out services of prayer and dedication following a civil partnership so long as they are not deemed to be “Services of Blessing”. The paper is available here, or here as a PDF file.
Canon Giles Goddard, Chair of Inclusive Church, said “We very much welcome this long overdue clarification of the law. It makes the distinction between marriages and civil partnerships and sets out what is permissible within the terms of Canon B5. We hope it will be helpful for clergy wishing to provide public services which respond prayerfully and pastorally to the needs of their congregations.”
The Revd Brian Lewis makes the comparison with the Service of Prayer and Dedication following a Civil Wedding (popularly described as a “A Church Blessing”). In these services the individuals are blessed without the service becoming “a Service of Blessing”.
3 CommentsUpdated again Saturday evening
The latest official bulletin is this: Still laughing, despite GAFCON trials.
More news reports this morning:
New York Times Laurie Goodstein Conservative Anglicans Plan Rival Conference as Split Over Homosexuality Grows.
This report says that Archbishop Drexel Gomez also had a visa problem:
…The news conference was called in haste, after the conservatives abandoned a preliminary strategy session in Jordan because two of their most influential members, Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria, and Archbishop Drexel Gomez of the West Indies, were denied visas…
The Telegraph has Orthodox sect justified by gay clergy row, say Conservative Anglicans By Tim Butcher and Martin Beckford.
The Times has a much shorter article: Anglican conference moves to Israel after Archbishop of Nigeria ban by Ruth Gledhill.
The ENS report is headlined Conservative Anglicans, former Episcopalians arrive in Jerusalem for GAFCON.
Rachel Zoll of the Associated Press filed this: Anglican Bible conservatives hold strategy summit.
The Telegraph has another swing at GAFCON, in Hard-line bishops make a mess of it in the Holy Land by George Pitcher
And the Guardian had this in the People column.
David Van Biema in Time has Are the Anglicans About to Split? He ends up with this:
What’s more, the GAFcon conference itself has been a bit of a Keystone Kops affair. Several key conservative bishops who were slated to appear chose not to travel to the Mideast, leaving open the possibility that they will attend Lambeth instead. The group even had trouble finding a location for its conference. At first it was scheduled for Jerusalem, but then the Anglican bishop there said he had enough problems without a divisive conference on his turf. The site was switched to Jordan, but on Wednesday the Jordanian border authorities delayed Akinola and another bishop from entering the country. The reasons were not stated, but opponents suggest that the Jordanians finally caught up with some of the remarks Akinola made in Nigeria a few years ago that may have contributed to violence between Christians and Muslims.
James Naughton, a Canon with the Episcopal diocese of Washington and one of his church’s more outspoken liberals, says, “I don’t think these guys have the juice to pull off a genuine schism. I don’t think Archbishop Akinola speaks for Africa. The coalition he once touted as the ‘global south’ has shrunk to three hard-line provinces [Nigeria, Rwanda and Uganda] and [some] Western culture warriors.”
Observers will be counting very carefully the number of bishops who actually shown up in Jerusalem for the conservative conference on Monday. But even if the group does not manage to force Williams’ hand in Lambeth, its statement marks a seemingly irrevocable step toward either a split or a redefined Communion that could have a huge impact on the already turbulent state of Anglican religion in the U.S.
And yet again (is this a record) the Telegraph has an article, this one is headlined Archbishop of Canterbury’s control over Anglicans ‘is ending’ by Martin Beckford.
Saturday
The Living Church has Anglican Leaders Gather for Mideast Conference, in which it says:
20 Comments…A conference spokesman said that contrary to some reports, Jordanian authorities did not bar two archbishops from entering the kingdom from Israel to participate in a pre-meeting planning session. The Rev. Arne Fjeldstad told the Jordan Times that Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria was not denied entry into Jordan on June 18, but that Archbishop Akinola gave up and returned to Jerusalem after remaining in bureaucratic limbo for several hours at the border.
“They claimed that, as a diplomatic passport holder, he had to give advance warning that he was coming,” Fr. Fjeldstad said, as quoted by Reuters.
Because of the densely-packed agenda, leaders decided not to delay the start of the meeting until all participants were cleared to enter Jordan, but decided to move the planning meeting to Jerusalem after they learned that additional rooms had become available there.
Peter Frank, director of communications for the Diocese of Pittsburgh, said that Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh is one of several members of the GAFCON leadership team who chose to remain in Jordan. Bishop Duncan and a handful of other participants to the Jordan portion of the meeting have decided to remain in Jordan until the scheduled end of that meeting on June 22.
“This was really not a big deal,” Mr. Frank said. “For most it meant that they went on a five-hour bus ride on one day rather than on another.”
Presiding Bishop Gregory Venables of the Southern Cone also did not attend the planning session in Jordan because he was remaining with his wife after her recent surgery. He is hoping to join the conference later in Jerusalem, Mr. Frank said.
The Church Times has this news report of the matter, Archbishops reprimand priest who blessed gays by Pat Ashworth.
And it has this leader: Let no man put asunder which starts like this:
THE ARCHBISHOPS are clearly worried about how Anglicans in different provinces might interpret the recent service at St Bartholomew the Great, Smithfield, at which the partnership of two gay priests was celebrated. This can be the only reason they produced their brief but erroneous statement on Tuesday that clerics in the Church of England are “not at liberty simply to ignore” the Church’s teaching on sexuality, which they define, interestingly, as: the 1987 Synod motion, the 1991 Bishops’ statement Issues in Human Sexuality, the 1998 Lambeth Conference motion 1.10, and the House of Bishops’ 2005 statement on civil partnerships…
and ends like this:
16 Comments…The service
is[in] Smithfield is a little thing, not deserving of pronouncements by archbishops. Its only political purpose is to show the impossibility of carving up the Anglican Church into conservative and liberal provinces or dioceses. Or even parishes: some of those interviewed at St Bartholomew’s at the weekend approved of the Rector’s actions, others did not. The challenge for the Lambeth Conference, and for GAFCON before it, is to demonstrate how Christians can disagree profoundly and yet recognise the working of the Holy Spirit in those with whom they disagree.
The New Statesman had A discreet wedding… by Brian Cathcart
The Economist has Two weddings and a divorce
America has A Turbulent Priest and the Anglican Headache by Austen Ivereigh
The Evening Standard had The Anglican ‘gay wedding’ and a distinctly turbulent priest by David Cohen
The Daily Mail had Gay priests, marrying, a smirking Prince and this insidious cult of self by Stephen Glover
1 CommentReuters reports that Rebel Anglican summit hit by leader’s visa problem.
Fjeldstad said Akinola was not denied entry into Jordan but gave up after several hours’ delay at the border.
“He was kept in bureaucratic limbo,” he said. “They claimed that, as a diplomatic passport holder, he had to give advance warning that he was coming. He decided to go back to Jerusalem.”
Planned for four days, the Amman meeting “wound up early” when GAFCON leaders learned “that previously granted permission for the Jordan consultation was deemed insufficient”, Fjeldstad said in a statement late on Wednesday announcing the move.
Laurie Goodstein has Rival Conferences for Anglican Church in the New York Times. In her view, the cause of the split is not Robinson but Minns:
The conservatives decided to hold their own meeting after the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, announced last year that he would not send an invitation for the Lambeth Conference to a leading conservative leader, Bishop Martyn Minns, a rector in a Virginia church who was ordained a bishop in the Church of Nigeria. The role of Bishop Minns is to minister to conservatives alienated from the Episcopal Church, but his ordination was seen by the Archbishop of Canterbury as a violation of established boundaries.
In a recent interview, Bishop Minns said of his exclusion by the Archbishop: “I didn’t’ feel it was a well-informed political move. Instead of removing the distraction, as he claimed to do, he’s actually created a massive distraction.”
The Archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, declared that if Bishop Minns could not attend the Lambeth Conference, then none of his bishops would attend.
The Telegraph has a leader: The Anglican Church is divided, but not fatally.
On paper, therefore, the moment of schism in worldwide Anglicanism has arrived. Many of Gafcon’s members will boycott Lambeth, and the Archbishop of Canterbury will therefore preside over a ruptured communion. But, before Dr Rowan Williams runs up the white flag, he should take a closer look at the reality of Gafcon, as opposed to its self-important pronouncements. The truth is that the conference has so far been a shambles. Its leader, the belligerent Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria, has been denied entry to Jordan. Other conservative church leaders are missing because they have chosen not to attend. Significant absentees at Gafcon include the Rt Rev John Chew, Primate of South-East Asia, and Dr Mouneer Anis, Presiding Bishop of Jerusalem and the Middle East and treasurer of the “Global South” group of conservative provinces. And even those leaders who are attending the conference make up a volatile compound. Gafcon, in other words, is far from the united force it claims to be, and it does not fully represent Anglicanism in the developing world.
And it also has this article by Tim Butcher in Jordan and Martin Beckford Anglican church schism declared over homosexuality.
The GAFCON document to which reference is made, entitled The Way, The Truth and The Life, is available as a PDF from this location.
Episcopal Café has some comments, on the book contents, and other aspects in GAFCON gaffes continue.
Paul Handley has a detailed discussion of this book in the Church Times at GAFCON and the parting of the ways.
And the full text of the opening plenary address that was to have been given in Jordan by Bishop Robert Duncan is available in a PDF over here.
14 CommentsRuth Gledhill reports in Akinola ‘barred’ from Jordan that Archbishop Akinola was err, barred from entering Jordan.
Sources at the conference tell me that the Nigerian delegation landed in Tel Aviv and went to the northern crossing point. Archbishop Akinola was travelling on his diplomatic passport. After being questioned for four hours, he was turned back, although the rest of the Nigerian delegation was allowed in. He got his passport back, and apparently was told that they needed a particular clearance on a diplomatic passport which he did not possess.
See also ‘Alternative Lambeth’ conference forced to move to Jerusalem.
The other main Global South leader, Archbishop Gregory Venables, is also not in Jordan because his wife is in hospital after complications following a hip operation. He is hoping to join Gafcon in Jerusalem.
US evangelical blogger David Virtue, who is in Jordan, said the Gafcon leaders were thrown into “dismay” because of Dr Akinola’s role as a key player in the conservative bid to reform the Anglican church from within.
The official GAFCON explanation of this event is here.
The pre-GAFCON preparatory consultation in Jordan wound up early, and the participants moved to Jerusalem on Thursday, 19th June. Hotel and meeting rooms previously unavailable in Jerusalem became available at the same time GAFCON leaders learned that previously granted permission for the Jordan consultation was deemed insufficient.
The time in Jordan was very valuable for prayer, fellowship, and networking. The group made pilgrimages to Mt. Nebo and the Baptism Site of Jesus. GAFCON Chairman Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria, and Archbishop Greg Venables of Southern Cone, were for different reasons unable to be in Jordan. Both are, however, expected to play significant roles at GAFCON in Jerusalem.
Dave Walker reminds us of why they went to Jordan in the first place: GAFCON moves to Jordan after row.
Jim Naughton reminds us of one reason why this might have happened.
Those attending GAFCON will have this additional opportunity while in Jerusalem 🙂
40 CommentsGuardian Riazat Butt Priest rebuked for ‘marrying’ gay vicars in church
Telegraph Martin Beckford Bishop of London issues stern rebuke to vicar who conducted gay ‘wedding’ and
Gay ‘wedding’ row reveals Church’s true source of conflict by George Pitcher
Times Ruth Gledhill on her blog has Gay blessing: ‘Four bishops in the sanctuary’
and later, Bishop of London Richard Chartres attacks gay priests’ ‘wedding’
8 CommentsSent: 18 June 2008 12:02
Subject: Communication from the Bishop of London re St Bartholomew the Great
To:
Clergy in the Diocese of London
Diocesan Readers
Churchwardens
PCC Secretaries
PCC Treasurers
Deanery Lay Chairs
Members of the Diocesan Synod
Members of the Bishop’s Council
Please find attached two letters which the Bishop of London has asked me to circulate.
With best wishes
Robert Hargrave
Diocesan Communications
———-
PDF original
18th June 2008
Dear Friends,
Many of you will have seen the publicity over the weekend around the service which was held at St Bartholomew the Great on May 31st. I attach a letter I have written to the Rector which sets out the situation as I understand it.
So much good work is being done both nationally and internationally by the Church as it seeks in the spirit of Jesus Christ to address some of the global issues of peace, justice and poverty that confront the peoples of the world. It would be a tragedy if this episode were to distract us from the big agenda.
With thanks for our partnership in the Gospel.
The Rt Revd & Rt Hon Richard Chartres DD FSA
———
PDF original
18th June 2008
The Reverend Dr Martin Dudley,
St Bartholomew the Great Parish Office,
6 Kinghorn Street,
London,
EC1A 7HW.
Dear Martin,
You have sought to justify your actions to the BBC and in various newspapers but have failed more than two weeks after the service to communicate with me.
I read in the press that you had been planning this event since November. I find it astonishing that you did not take the opportunity to consult your Bishop.
You describe the result as “familiar words reordered and reconfigured carrying new meanings.” I note that the order of service, which I have now received, includes the phrase “With this ring I thee bind, with my body I thee worship”.
At first sight this seems to break the House of Bishops Guidelines which as I explained in my letter of December 6th 2005 apply the traditional teaching of the Church of England to the new circumstances created by the enactment of Civil Partnerships.
The point at issue is not Civil Partnerships themselves or the relation of biblical teaching to homosexual practice. There is of course a range of opinion on these matters in the Church and, as you know, homophobia is not tolerated in the Diocese of London. The real issue is whether you wilfully defied the discipline of the Church and broke your oath of canonical obedience to your Bishop.
The Archbishops have already issued a statement in which they say that “those clergy who disagree with the Church’s teaching are at liberty to seek to persuade others within the Church of the reasons why they believe, in the light of Scripture, tradition and reason that it should be changed. But they are not at liberty simply to disregard it.”
St Bartholomew’s is not a personal fiefdom. You serve there as an ordained minister of the Church of England, under the authority of the Canons and as someone who enjoys my licence. I have already asked the Archdeacon of London to commence the investigation and I shall be referring the matter to the Chancellor of the Diocese. Before I do this, I am giving you an opportunity to make representations to me direct.
Yours faithfully.
The Rt Revd & Rt Hon Richard Chartres DD FSA
53 CommentsBroadcast on Radio 4 this morning
A few weeks ago, two Anglican clergymen celebrated their civil partnership at a service in a famous London church. Newspapers last weekend called it a gay wedding. A number of friends of mine were at the service and told of a happy and wonderful occasion. But there are those who have been deeply upset; people who would quote scripture to argue that it threatens the very fabric of marriage itself.
So what, then, is the Church of England’s theology of marriage?
Back in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as the Book of Common Prayer was being put together, marriage was said to be for three purposes:
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children …
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication ..
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.
How do these three concerns relate to the prospect of gay marriage?
The third priority insists that marriage is designed to bring human beings into loving and supportive relationships. Surely no one can deny that homosexual men and women are in as much need of loving and supportive relationships as anybody else. And equally deserving of them too. This one seems pretty clear.
The second priority relates to the encouragement of monogamy. The Archbishop of Canterbury himself has rightly recognised that celibacy is a vocation to which many gay people are simply not called. Which is why, it strikes me, the church ought to be offering gay people a basis for monogamous relationships that are permanent, faithful and stable.
So that leaves the whole question of procreation. And clearly a gay couple cannot make babies biologically. But then neither can those who marry much later in life. Many couples, for a whole range of reasons, find they cannot conceive children – or, simply, don’t choose to. Is marriage to be denied them? Of course not.
For these reasons – and also after contraception became fully accepted in the Church of England – the modern marriage service shifted the emphasis away from procreation. The weight in today’s wedding liturgy is on the creation of loving and stable relationships. For me, this is something in which gay Christians have a perfect right to participate.
I know many people of good will are bound to disagree with me on this. But gay marriage isn’t about culture wars or church politics; it’s fundamentally about one person loving another. The fact that two gay men have proclaimed this love in the presence of God, before friends and family and in the context of prayerful reflection is something I believe the church should welcome. It’s not as if there’s so much real love in the world that we can afford to be dismissive of what little we do find. Which is why my view is we ought to celebrate real love however and wherever we find it.
36 CommentsBBC Archbishops regret gay ‘wedding’ and also Robert Pigott What will Church do about ‘gay wedding’?
Guardian Riazat Butt Archbishops criticise gay clerics’ ceremony
Daily Mail Steve Doughty Archbishop of Canterbury warns clergy not to ‘disregard’ law of the Church after wedding service for gay clerics
Telegraph Martin Beckford Archbishop of Canterbury greatly concerned by gay ‘wedding’
Independent James Macintyre Anglican leaders attack ‘gay marriage’ priests
7 CommentsUpdated Wednesday morning
It’s hard to keep up with the flow of material on this topic.
Guardian Riazat Butt Priests in civil partnership blessing were reckless, says bishop
New Zealand Herald Gay New Zealand vicar lying low after exchanging vows
New Statesman Martin Dudley Why I blessed gay clergymen’s relationship
The Times Ruth Gledhill To any outside observer this gay marriage was a traditional church wedding
Daily Mail I’d do it all again, says vicar after row over Britain’s first gay ‘wedding’ in an Anglican church
For further links to commentary etc. please refer to Dave Walker’s article at the Church Times Blog The Anglican same-sex blessing service.
Waikato Times Bruce Holloway Gay cleric one of the city’s `best’
Letters to the editor of The Times Church bickering over gays is unchristian
2 CommentsSir, Christians who are not Anglicans are dismayed by the endless bickering in the Church of England (“Church in meltdown over gays and women”, June 16, and letters, June 17) because of what it is doing to the reputation of the Chistian faith. The issues which divide the established Church have nothing to do with the gospel we are all here to declare. Little wonder the pagan world looks on with cynical disbelief…
from Lambeth Palace and Bishopthorpe
Tuesday 17th June 2008
For immediate use
Joint statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York regarding St Bartholomew-the-Great
“We have heard the reports of the recent service in St Bartholomew the Great with very great concern. We cannot comment on the specific circumstances because they are the subject of an investigation launched by the Bishop of London.
On the general issue, however, the various reference points for the Church of England’s approach to human sexuality (1987 Synod motion, 1991 Bishops’ Statement- Issues in Human Sexuality- , Lambeth motion 1:10, House of Bishops’ 2005 statement on civil partnerships) are well known and remain current.
Those clergy who disagree with the Church’s teaching are at liberty to seek to persuade others within the Church of the reasons why they believe, in the light of Scripture, tradition and reason that it should be changed. But they are not at liberty simply to disregard it.”
ENDS
27 CommentsUpdated again Wednesday evening
The Liverpool Daily Post has Bishop was branded ‘a liar who dislikes Liverpool’
and also Tribunal judgment accepted – but claims against Bishop ‘completely rejected’.
Another version of the first of these articles is here.
Mr Johnston also worked as a priest in the Manchester diocese, so the story has been picked up by the Bolton News in Sacked Horwich vicar’s job appeal victory.
And Bishop Jones formerly worked in Yorkshire, so the story has been covered in the Yorkshire Post where the headline is Former Hull bishop branded ‘liar and hypocrite’.
The Times David Johnston, sacked vicar who called Bishop a liar, wins £14,500
The diocesan statement quoted in the paper is:
“It appears that our processes were in some way deficient, and we are looking into this as a matter of urgency.
“That said, we now want to put this matter behind us and concentrate on the important work of the Diocesan Board of Finance and support our clergy and congregations in their work pursuing the mission of God in the Diocese of Liverpool.
“Allegations made against the Bishop of Liverpool at the employment tribunal have been made by a former employee of the Diocesan Board of Finance. They did not form the basis on which the judgment was awarded.
“The Diocese rejects these allegations completely.
“As far as the Diocese is concerned, any close examination of the Bishop’s work over the last 10 years shows an outstanding level of commitment. Bishop James was, is and will continue to be a key voice in and excellent ambassador for the City and Diocese of Liverpool.”
The Liverpool Echo has two more articles:
Sacked cleric: Why I say Bishop of Liverpool must quit
and
Wednesday’s Guardian had this in the People column:
1 CommentFor a man of God, the Rt Rev James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool, seems to be spending a lot of time conceding that institutions he heads have treated employees badly. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, to lose one employment tribunal may be accounted a misfortune, to lose two looks like carelessness. Earlier this year Wycliffe Hall, the Oxford theological college whose governing council he chairs which under the new principal he appointed, conservative evangelical Richard Turnbull, has lost 11 of its 13 academic staff in a year admitted it acted unlawfully in sacking theologian Elaine Storkey, a fellow Radio 4 Thought for the Day presenter, for no good cause.
Now, it has taken another tribunal just 15 minutes to decide the way he cast off his Liverpool diocesan press officer, David Johnston, after false rumours about the break-up of his marriage also amounted to unfair dismissal. The bishop, who regards himself as something of a media operator, was said by Johnston to be a liar who did not like Liverpool – a clear calumny according to a diocesan statement. Johnston says there was “no grace or mercy; no humanity” in the bishop’s dealings with him. Jones joins Hereford’s Bishop Anthony Priddis in defeat: Priddis also lost a tribunal this year after refusing to employ a youth worker on the grounds he might one day enter a gay relationship. They’re costing the church a lot of money.
The Liverpool Echo reports Bishop’s former ‘spin doctor’ David Johnston wins unfair dismissal case.
The BBC has Diocese worker unfairly dismissed.
The Telegraph has Vicar wins £14,000 over relationship with colleague.
And there is an earlier Echo report, Diocese under fire at tribunal.
In an unusual approach to employment tribunal reporting, the Claimant has published a great deal of documentation at a purpose-built website, Thomas David Johnston vs Liverpool Diocesan Board of Finance, see here.
7 CommentsEarlier reports here and here.
Riazat Butt at the Guardian has Gay priest resigns after furore over church blessing.
The headline refers to the New Zealand priest, David Lord, about whom there is also this report from New Zealand on Stuff, NZ priest in gay marriage row gives up licence.
Concerning the legal situation in England, Riazat reports this:
38 CommentsDudley is the freeholder of St Bartholomew’s, making it virtually impossible for him to be ousted. But he could face procedures which would involve someone proving there had been an irrevocable pastoral breakdown or that Dudley had acted in a manner unbecoming of a clergyman of the Church of England.
Nigel Seed, a church lawyer, said there was no prohibition on having a service after a civil partnership, provided it was not contrary to church doctrine.
“If you do not purport it to be a service of blessing there is nothing to stop couples from having prayers, hymns or a service of prayer and dedication,” he said.
A recent press release from Uganda has now been followed by another, What is GAFCON?
An excerpt:
20 Comments…Are the Bishops from the Church of Uganda going to Lambeth?
No. The Church of Uganda Bishops decided together not to go to Lambeth this year. Their decision has been supported by the governing body of the Church of Uganda, the Provincial Assembly Standing Committee. The reason the Church of Uganda is not going to Lambeth is because the purpose of Lambeth is for fellowship among Bishops, and our fellowship has been broken with the American church. We broke fellowship with them for three reasons:
1. In direct violation of the Bible and historic Christian teaching, they consecrated as a Bishop a gay man living in a same-sex relationship
2. After five years of pleading with them, listening to them, and giving them many opportunities, they have not repented of that decision.
3. The Archbishop of Canterbury did not follow the advice given to him by his own appointed Commission to not invite to Lambeth those responsible for the confusion and disobedience in the Anglican Communion. The Bible says, “Do two walk together unless they have agreed to do so?” We have not been in fellowship with the Americans who have violated the Bible since 2003, so we are not going to pretend by going to Lambeth that we are in fellowship. We are not. What they have done is a very serious thing, and what the Archbishop of Canterbury has done in inviting them is grievous and we want them to know that.
Is the Church of Uganda seceding from the Anglican Communion?
No. We are simply not going to the Lambeth Conference. We are still part of the Anglican Communion, and the vast majority of the Anglican Communion opposes what the American Church has done and the Archbishop of Canterbury’s tacit support for it…
The Provost of St Mary’s Cathedral, Glasgow has announced local plans to mark the Lambeth Conference.
Read An Announcement.
The plans include having the Primate of Canada as guest preacher on the morning of Sunday 13 July. And another is:
… Finally, it seems to me to be desirable to have someone at the end of the conference to come and preach to us. But who would the best person to have be? After all, all the bishops of Communion will be busy with Rowan Williams in Canterbury at the Conference. Well, all bar one. I’m delighted to announce that the Rt Rev Gene Robinson, the Bishop of New Hampshire has agreed to come and celebrate the Eucharist and to preach the gospel on 3 August 2008 at 1030 here in St Mary’s.
The Bishop of New Hampshire will also preach at St. Mary’s, Putney in London on Sunday July 13 at 6 p.m.
15 CommentsUpdated again 11 pm Sunday
Further reports:
BBC Anger at Anglican gay ‘wedding’ and a full report on the radio programme Sunday. Interviewees include Martin Dudley, Colin Slee, and David Banting. Permanent URL now available: go here. (12.5 minutes)
Associated Press Anglican Church: Gay ‘wedding’ broke rules
Press Association Gay ‘marriage’ for Anglican priests
Reverend Martin Dudley, who led the ceremony, said he disagrees with the official guidance.
He added: “I was asked by a friend and colleague to bless their civil partnership. I said ‘of course I will’.
“Peter is a dear friend and I have gay friends and one respects them for who they are. It seemed perfectly reasonable.
“I certainly didn’t do it to defy my bishop or to make a statement, I did it as a matter of pastoral care for someone for whom I have a very high regard.”
Mr Dudley said the traditional marriage liturgy was significantly altered for the occasion, which he described as ‘glorious’.
There were around 300 guests, including a number of clergy and Cowell’s mother who read the lesson.
Dudley added: “I know about the bishops guidelines and I disagree with them. It just seems to me to be utter hypocrisy to deny the fact that there are significant numbers of gay men and women within the church and significant numbers of gay clergy.
“It seems to me that Jesus would have been sitting in the congregation.”
He said differing opinions in the church are fine as long as people disagree “in love and understanding”.“You can’t allow the cultural and theological prejudices of the Bishop of Uganda for example, to govern how we are going to go forward in a very diverse community where the law and society accepts homosexual relationships in civil partnerships.”
From the comments on the Telegraph site:
19. Posted by The Revd Dr Martin Dudley on June 15, 2008 08:54 AM
As the Rector of St Bartholomew the Great, who officiated at this service, I would like to add a little clarity to the story.First, it was not a wedding or a marriage but the blessing of a civil partnership. Mr Wynne-Jones was well aware of this from his conversation with me today. If others construe it as a wedding, than they do so deliberately in order to ferment division.
Second, it was not and was intended to be a provocative act. It was not undertaken in defiance of the Bishop of London and there was no plea from him that I should not officiate at the service.
Third, we should remember that this service celebrated the love that the two persons involved have for each other. I officiated at it because Fr Peter Cowell has been my friend and colleague for many years. 300 people joined in the service; nearly 200 received communion, and there were dozens of other clergy present. It was not a rally or a demonstration. If other people want to turn into a loveless battlefield for the future of the Church of England, then it is they who will carry responsibility for the consequences.
Fulcrum reports a communication from Lloyd Ashton, Media Officer to the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia which reads:
…News reports in the United Kingdom have described a London Anglican church blessing for two male Anglican clergy, one of whom is a New Zealander.
The New Zealand priest involved has felt it appropriate to lay down his clergy license, in the light of Anglican Communion processes and discussions in the area of same gender Blessings and ordination.
Both the bishops to whom the priests were licensed, one in New Zealand and the other in the United Kingdom, were not aware of the ceremony.
The Bishop of Waikato and the Waikato priest concerned have released this joint statement. They will make no further comment on this matter.
The Associated Press reports that:
London’s bishop said Sunday he would order an investigation into whether two gay priests exchanged rings and vows in a church ceremony, violating Anglican guidelines.
The priests walked down the aisle in a May 31 service at one of London’s oldest churches marked by a fanfare of trumpets and capped by a shower of confetti, Britain’s Sunday Telegraph reported.
The bishop, the Right Rev. Richard Chartres, said such services are not authorized in the Church of England. He said he would ask the archdeacon of London to investigate.
And also that:
Church of England spokesman Lou Henderson said the archbishop of Canterbury, the Anglican Communion’s spiritual leader, was unlikely to make any public comment about the controversy.
Channel 4 News had a report this evening, which you can watch by going here.
From New Zealand, the local angle in Anglicans incensed by gay ‘wedding’:
… The fallout for Dr Lord, who was ordained at Waikato Cathedral Church of St Peter in December last year, had been swift. In a joint statement with the Bishop of Waikato yesterday, he said he “felt it appropriate to lay down his clergy licence”. This means he is unable to work as an Anglican priest…
There are further stories on the newspaper websites:
The Times Anglican church in meltdown over gays and women
Daily Mail Rector faces the sack after holding Britain’s first gay ‘wedding’ in an Anglican church
Telegraph Controversial vicar investigated after Anglican church’s first gay ‘wedding’
