Thinking Anglicans

godslot columns in Christian Unity week

on Saturday, 22 January 2005 at 5.40 pm by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as Opinion

Geoffrey Rowell writes in The Times weekly Credo column that In silence and stillness we can seek God. Here’s a portion:

The wisdom of the great Christian teachers of prayer — echoing that found in other religious traditions — places a high value on the discipline of silence, quietening the incessant babbling of outward and inner chatter to allow a settling into a deep and attentive stillness, rooted in a Godgiven inner peace.

Seraphim of Sarov, the 19th-century Russian saint, taught: “Keep your heart in peace and a multitude around you will be saved.” Centuries earlier St Benedict urged his monks: “Diligently cultivate silence at all times,” and, in a vivid image, Diadochus, the 5th-century bishop of Photiki in Greece, cautioned that just as “When the door of the steam bath is continually left open, the heat inside rapidly escapes,” so the desire to say many things through the door of speech dissipates the remembrance of God: “Timely silence then is precious, for it is nothing less than the mother of the wisest thoughts.”

In the biblical story of Elijah on Mount Horeb, the prophet stands in the entrance of his cave, and finds the presence of God to be not in fire, storm and earthquake, with all their terrible physical power of destruction, but in “a still, small voice” — which, literally translated, is “the sound of thin silence”. It is this which awes Elijah so that he wraps his face in his cloak. And the psalmist writes: “Be still — let go — and know that I am God.” Silence and stillness, which require discipline, enable us to be attentive, to listen, not for some external voice, but, as we open ourselves to the presence of God, to that life which is at the source of our being.

Christopher Howse devotes his weekly Telegraph column Sacred mysteries to considering Why should young Muslims tolerate it? which refers to what Mr David Bell, the chief inspector of schools, has been saying.

The weekly Guardian column Face to Faith is devoted this week to a consideration by Catherine Pepinster editor of The Tablet of the question Is Opus Dei at work in Blair’s government?

Michael Brown in the Yorkshire Post writes about the demise of the Mirfield Commem Day in Alas, no more ‘miracles’, whatever the weather

6 ECUSA bishops comment

on Friday, 21 January 2005 at 11.47 pm by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as ECUSA

Earlier I linked to an American TV report on PBS which included (as TV programmes so often do) tiny snippets from several bishops. They have now published an additional page (hat tip to KH) which contains what appear to be longer extracts from the interviews which they conducted. Here is the page:
Read the comments of six Episcopal bishops after the recent House of Bishops meeting, January 12-13, 2005 in Salt Lake City

The bishops are: Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, Edward Salmon of South Carolina, Mark Sisk of New York, Charles Jenkins of Louisiana, Katharine Jefferts Schori of Nevada and Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold.

Reading these longer remarks (total length around 7000 words) is time-consuming but gives a much better understanding of how these bishops view what has happened so far.

Comment

Now that I have read all of this myself, I note that both Bishop Salmon and Bishop Duncan, while making clear their criticisms of the majority, also make some positive comments about the House of Bishops meeting and about the “Word to the Church” statement. Samples of this:

Bishop Duncan:

We had a very good statement come from the House of Bishops today (January 13), but it didn’t promise any action other than to regret what it was that we had done in the Communion by the way in which we did what we did. What a number of us have seen is very clearly necessary was that we actually had to make a statement that says we submit to this, and some of us have done that. This is really all about the rest of the world dealing with the American church, and the rest of the world at this point receives what it is we’ve said today. The words we spoke — they sounded right. Whether the action will follow out of those words is what remains to be seen.

…The statement is better than I would have expected. It at least begins with saying we are deeply sorry for the trouble we’ve caused…

Bishop Salmon:

The Windsor Report is not something that you would have a yes or a no to. There were four significant things that they asked of us, and one of the ones that the English House asked specifically was the issue of moratorium, and what we’ve done is said we will deal with that, but we’re not going to deal with it until March. I think the primates will be looking at what we have decided and draw a judgment on it.

…I think that there was an attitudinal change among a number of people who said, “We do not like what has happened to us and the Communion, and we want to keep the bonds of the Communion,” and that came from people who would be in positions exactly opposite where Bishop Duncan and I would be, who would have voted on the other side. I think that what has happened is that in this space of time, the travail we have gone through has had an effect on people. I think when a number of people in that room said, “We are deeply sorry for what has happened and how this has affected the whole Communion,” there were people on all sides of the spectrum who meant that. I think there was progress there. How that is going to work out, I don’t think anybody knows. But it certainly was different from any House [of Bishops] meeting that I have attended before.

6 Comments

yet more on the American bishops

on Friday, 21 January 2005 at 2.38 pm by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as ECUSA

The Church Times carries a report of the American House of Bishops meeting, ECUSA offers its apology for ‘hurt’ caused.

Its final paragraph, on the website, reads:

Bishops in the conservative Anglican Communion Network (ACN) immediately criticised the House of Bishops for “failing to issue a definitive statement on moratoria”. Twenty-one of them signed a statement calling for ECUSA to comply in full with the unanimous recommendations of the Windsor report. Their “statement of acceptance of and submission to” the report, issued through the ACN, concluded with a commitment to “engage with the Communion in our continuing study of the biblical and theological rationale for recent actions”.

In fact, this description of the signatories is not quite accurate. Not all the signers of the statement are bishops whose dioceses are members of the Network of Anglican Communion Diocese and Parishes. There is an analysis of the signatures below the fold. But since the meeting, no additional signatures have been announced, not even that of Terence Kelshaw, Bishop of the Diocese of the Rio Grande, which is a Network member.

Church Attendance and Income

4 Comments

ECUSA HoB: more information and views

on Thursday, 20 January 2005 at 11.28 pm by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as ECUSA

Addition
Here is a report, from The Living Church via titusonenine Special Meeting of Bishops Only a Beginning which includes the following:

In requesting a point of personal privilege to announce that he would be moving to the adjacent hallway to collect signatures for a statement pledging full support for the recommendations of the Windsor Report, the Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon, Jr., Bishop of South Carolina, closed out the special House of Bishops meeting in Salt Lake City Jan. 12-13 in much the way it began: with two somewhat different agendas in evidence.

Bishop Salmon – who emphasized that he will continue to attend future House of Bishops meetings and, while there, reveal his intentions forthrightly to his colleagues – did not stay to vote for the final version of “A Word to the Church From the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church.”
Before the bishops had returned to their respective dioceses, Bishop Salmon had the signatures of 20 colleagues on “A Statement of Acceptance of and Submission to the Windsor Report 2004.”

“I don’t think we are going to get anywhere if we don’t take the Windsor Report seriously,” Bishop Salmon said. “The response of the House of Bishops did not rise to the level expected by the Communion. We heard a call for submission, and we who are unequivocally prepared to submit have responded accordingly.”
—

First, ENS has published a report of the Utah meeting: Bishops sign supplemental statement following ‘Word to the Church’. This includes an interview with Bishop Edward Salmon of the Diocese of South Carolina:

Yet the group of 21 bishops agreed that the response “didn’t go far enough, and that the Windsor Report asked us to deal with three issues directly,” South Carolina Bishop Edward L. Salmon Jr. told ENS in a January 19 telephone interview. He said the supplemental statement — which was neither received nor regarded by the House of Bishops as a minority report — was not intended as an “in-your-face response” but rather as an honest assessment of views shared by the signatories. “What we wanted people to hear is that the bishops who signed this statement were willing to respond to the requests of the Windsor Report.”

Salmon said the bishops engaged in “some very frank discussion” with each other during the meeting, which spanned 11 hours and was closed to visitors and the media. The South Carolina bishop, whose regular attendance and participation at House of Bishops meetings throughout the 15 years of his episcopate has been praised by his peers, emphasized the importance of clear conversation around issues: “I don’t think people can do business without frank discussion… I don’t think we’re ever going to get anywhere if we’re not willing to talk to each other seriously.”

Salmon said the group of 21 would have preferred the House of Bishops “to respond at the front end” of its recent meeting on matters of moratoria on ordaining additional openly gay bishops, and on blessing same-sex unions. He said that deferring this conversation to the House of Bishops’ upcoming March meeting “sends a message” to the Communion, and asked “what does that behavior mean?”

The majority of bishops voted, however, to wait for the Primates’ response before addressing the moratoria issues, and acknowledged that far-reaching decisions must be put not only to the House of Bishops, but also to the full General Convention. “Obviously, we’re not in agreement,” Salmon said.

Second, there is a report in the Denver Post of remarks by Bishop Rob O’Neill of the Diocese of Colorado: Episcopal cleric lauds apology from bishops:

In a pastoral letter this week to Colorado’s 35,000 Episcopalians, Bishop Rob O’Neill endorses what he called a “heartfelt and sincere” apology from U.S. bishops for failing to consider the global ramifications of elevating a gay bishop.

… “It is evident that the House (of Bishops) as a whole highly values the relationship of the Episcopal Church to the worldwide Anglican Communion, (and) wishes to remain within its fellowship,” O’Neill wrote.

He said in an interview he believes the apology represents “significant progress.”

But conservatives have criticized it as not going far enough.

The Rev. Ephraim Radner of Pueblo, a traditionalist, said the bishops’ meeting in Salt Lake largely put off tougher decisions, and he expressed skepticism about holding the U.S. church and the wider communion together.

Third, there has been further, lengthy criticism of the HoB statement by Andrew Goddard on the ACI website: Fruits of Repentance. In relation to the wording of the apology offered, the issue appears to be the failure of the HoB to quote WR verbatim, i.e. by not including these exact words:

“[to express its regret that] the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached”

What the bishops actually said was:

“we as the House of Bishops express our sincere regret for the pain, the hurt, and the damage caused to our Anglican bonds of affection by certain actions of our church”

A fragment of Goddard’s argument:

But is that not what the Windsor Report sought? Certainly, it is part of what it sought and that is perhaps a sign of hope. However, the gulf between the Pastoral Letter’s construal of regret and repentance and that of the Report is clear when examining the words of the key para 134, cited and accepted in the minority report. In addition to regret for consequences – which is present in the Pastoral Letter – the Report asks ECUSA “to express its regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached in the events surrounding the election and consecration of a bishop for the see of New Hampshire” (italics added). In that key phrase lies the fault-line between the vision of the Communion implicit in the Pastoral Letter and that found explicitly in the minority report and the Windsor Report.

8 Comments

Answerable to Parliament 2

on Wednesday, 19 January 2005 at 9.09 pm by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as Church of England

An earlier post reported on this topic.

Sir Stuart Bell has this explanation of the role of the Church Commissioners on his own website. TheyWorkForYou.com has this explanation of why he answers questions in the House of Commons.

Here is a new batch of his Written Answers.

General Synod

Lottery Funding

Freedom of Information

Windsor report: more views

on Tuesday, 18 January 2005 at 11.26 pm by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as ECUSA

Each of the following items deserves to be read in full. Don’t judge them simply on the basis of my quotes: it’s very hard to represent such articles in summary form.

Revised Item the Anglican Communion Institute has today published two further articles criticising the ECUSA HoB statement, thereby breaking the URL previously listed for the first one.

First, the Anglican Communion Institute has asked Where Is ECUSA on The Windsor Report? ~~(this URL will not last, but I cannot predict what it will change to when this article moves from their front page)~~. Predictably the ACI finds fault with the ECUSA HoB statement.

Our main question is this, Does the ECUSA genuinely believe it has a special Communion understanding at odds with that set forth in The Windsor Report? If so, could it state this in clear and unambiguous ways?

Second, Bishop Jack Iker of the Diocese of Fort Worth has published BISHOP IKER’S REPORT on the Response of the House of Bishops to the Windsor Report:

At the conclusion of an all-day special meeting of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church to respond to the Windsor Report, it was decided that little would be said, and even less would be done, to try to resolve the crisis that divides us. In a nutshell, the Bishops expressed their desire to remain full members of the Anglican Communion, while continuing to reject the clear teaching of the Communion on matters of sexual morality.

Third, Bishop Samuel Howard of the Diocese of Florida has published his Response to the Meeting of the House of Bishops but only in PDF format. This includes a statement agreed last December by all the Bishops of the Fourth Province (southeastern U.S.):

“We welcome with gratitude the work of the Lambeth Commission on Communion.

We believe that the recommendations of the Windsor Report regarding expressions of regret and voluntary moratoria with respect to communion-damaging actions are well-considered and appropriate. We also believe that the call for a rigorous communion-wide study and discernment process on the matters of human sexuality that challenge us would strengthen us as a communion. We commit ourselves to full participation in these processes, including the participation of gay and lesbian Christians as called for by the Windsor Report.

To make a right beginning, we as the House of Bishops of Province IV express our own sense of sincere regret for the damage caused to the proper constraints of our Anglican bonds of affection by the consecration to the episcopate of a homosexual person living in a committed relationship and by the perceived authorization of public rites of blessing for same sex unions.We further recommit ourselves to our membership in the Anglican Communion.

We commit ourselves as bishops to refrain from consent to the consecration to the episcopate of any person living in a same sex relationship and to the authorization of public rites of blessing for same sex unions until the General Convention of 2009, subject to reconsideration at that time. Recognizing the authority of the General Convention in our polity, as well as our own Episcopal responsibility for leadership, we invite the General Convention of 2006 to affirm our commitment on behalf of the Episcopal Church as a whole. It is our intention that our voluntary decision to refrain from such actions will allow time for the depth of study and discernment on issues of human sexuality requested by the Windsor Report.

We further commit ourselves to respect the boundaries of provinces and dioceses and call upon our brother and sister Anglican bishops to join with us in this commitment.”

Diarmaid MacCulloch interview

on Monday, 17 January 2005 at 11.25 pm by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as Book review

Big hat tip to KH for finding this:
Summer Season: Reformation – Europe’s House Divided, by Diarmaid MacCulloch

The transcript of an Australian radio interview with Diarmaid MacCulloch, author of a multi-award-winning biography of ‘Thomas Cranmer, A Life’, who was Archbishop of Canterbury under King Henry VIII. Now he’s written an equally distinguished history of the Reformation, or as he says, ‘Reformations’ plural.

This programme was first broadcast on 31 March 2004 and apparently rebroadcast on 12 January 2005.

Telegraph editor admits mistake

on Sunday, 16 January 2005 at 12.05 am by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as Church of England

Update
This story has now also been reported in both The Times and the Guardian:
Telegraph takes blame for Archbishop’s loss of faith by Andrew Pierce
Editor says sorry to archbishop by Stephen Bates
not to mention a further report by Ekklesia
Sunday Telegraph fails to correct misrepresentation of Archbishop.
It had also been covered by Andrew Brown in his weekly Church Times press columns on 7 January, Archbishop’s Doubt
and again on 14 January, Telegraph proles.
—-

Ekklesia reports that Dominic Lawson the editor of the Sunday Telegraph has admitted his paper made a mistake.
Paper admits it misrepresented Archbishop of Canterbury. In summary form:

The editor of a major newspaper, the Sunday Telegraph in the UK, has admitted that his paper misrepresented the opinions of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, by falsely claiming that the tsunami disaster had made the Archbishop doubt whether God exists.

…Ekklesia associate Simon Barrow wrote to the editor, saying “Your headline… makes me question not Dr Williams’ faith … but the capacities of your headline writer and sub-editor.”

He continued: “Did they choose simply not to read the Archbishop’s article, which nowhere states what they attribute to him? Or do they and you now regard news reporting as the creative art of sidestepping facts in order to produce a more sensational story?”

The Sunday Telegraph chose not to apologise editorially last week, though it published letters critical of the headline, and also critical of Dr Williams’ article. Its weekday sister paper, The Daily Telegraph, also published a leader excusing the mistake and accusing the Archbishop of being unclear.

This is evidently not a viewpoint shared by Dominic Lawson. Replying to Simon Barrow, he wrote: “I share your sentiments… It grieves me that we should let down our readers who have the right to expect the highest standards.”

In his personal letter to the Archbishop, Mr Lawson straightforwardly recognises that the headline, “apart from misrepresenting the nature of your argument, was also theologically obtuse.”

columns from the British press

on Saturday, 15 January 2005 at 3.58 pm by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as Opinion

Christopher Howse writes in the Telegraph about Rowan Williams visiting Westminster Cathedral yesterday: Williams harks back to Anselm. (The BBC also carries a report on this visit, Archbishops pray for tsunami dead.)

In the Guardian the godslot is written by John Newbury The Christian centre cannot hold.

The Bishop of Colombo in Sri Lanka, Duleep de Chickera writes in The Times about the tsunami disaster: Our solidarity after the tsunami shows the way to a lasting peace. Part of this reads:

“What have you to say about the kingdom of God?” ( “now” clearly implied) was the question fired at me by a Buddhist from a leading local NGO as soon as I sat down next to him at a lecture in Colombo. This forthright (theological) question centres on God in the tsunami. For the churches of South Asia, steeped in poverty — and within living memory of dominant colonial Christianity — the “vulnerable God” theory is relevant.

A powerful dominant God is distasteful and alien to the poor and powerless. Much more, the “vulnerable God” theory flows very much from the text as well. The incarnation clearly conveys a God of love who deliberately takes on vulnerability to identify and save.

As waves ravaged humans, the vulnerability of this creator God of both waves and humans was sensed in the deafening silence. God is love and the freedom that love confers imposes inherent restrictions on controls on all creation. Human relationships, between parent and child or among spouses, bears this out. So the loving, liberator, parent God who was not in the wind, earthquake and fire was certainly not in the tsunami.

The vulnerable God however is not a passive God. This distinction is essential for faith to be kept. To borrow a phrase from Bishop Geoffrey Rowell’s recent pastoral letter to his diocese, this God is an insider. In Christ God took human form to stand with humans in our suffering and loss. The incarnation is historical fact as well as a telescope into the ways of the same God in past and future history. As God was in the historical incarnation, so God has been with those who suffer grief and loss. This God invites God’s people to do and become likewise.

The usually gentle waves of the sea are soothing to tired Asian feet that stand in poverty and bear an immense burden. The vulnerable servant Lord touched and washed feet. This was more than an act of humility. This was an enacted parable highlighting that relevant ministry begins from where people are placed — where they stand — and addresses suffering.

Large killer waves destroy all within their path. Dominance, whether in our theologies about God, leadership, aid or attitudes, is anti-Christ and counter productive to peace, justice and reconciliation. The way forward for all, South Asians who grieve as well as the world at large, is mutually to touch and wash each other’s feet.

Also in The Times Michael Binyon writes about The struggle to keep the faith in Bethlehem.

WR ECUSA: more press reactions

on Saturday, 15 January 2005 at 8.39 am by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as ECUSA

Further Update Sunday
The BBC Sunday programme has 4 minutes of radio interview with Mark Pinsky discussing the HoB meeting this week.
Listen here with Real Audio.

Update
The Associated Press has a further story quoting Bishop Robert Duncan Episcopal bishop says letter lacks remorse over same-sex clergy:

One of the leaders of conservative Episcopal clergy said that a signed statement of “sincere regret” by U.S. bishops fell short of what was needed to heal a rift in the church over the consecration of a gay bishop.

“It certainly didn’t go far enough, but it was a move in the right direction,” said Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh.

The Daily Telegraph has a report on ECUSA by Jonathan Petre US bishops refuse to back down on gays
(it’s not clear whether this made the paper edition, as this squib version also exists).

Kevin Eckstrom’s report for Religion News Service appears in a somewhat longer form in the Winston-Salem Journal The Great Divide

National Public Radio had this report Episcopal Bishops Won’t Halt Gay Ordination This includes the following quote from Bishop Robert Duncan:

“This is really all about the rest of the world dealing with the American Church. And, the rest of the world, at this point, receives what it is we said today. The words we spoke were … they sounded right. Whether the action would follow out of those words is what remains to be seen.”

PBS (the American public TV network) had a news feature Episcopal Bishops’ Meeting in Utah. This report concludes with the following:

One sign of efforts to prevent gay ordination and same-sex marriages from splitting the Episcopal Church was the announcement that the two priests leading the campaigns for equal rights for gays and lesbians have been invited by the Archbishop of Canterbury to come to London for consultations.

Update This is now confirmed by the following press release (original only in PDF format)

15 January 2005
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

INTEGRITY INVITED TO LONDON FOR CONVERSATION

Integrity is pleased to have been invited by the Revd. Canon Gregory K. Cameron, Deputy Secretary General of the Anglican Communion Office, to London for a conversation on practical ways in which a Communion-wide dialog on human sexuality might be moved forward. The meeting will take place in early February. Integrity will be represented by its president, the Rev. Susan Russell, and its immediate past president, the Rev. Michael W. Hopkins. We understand that several other Anglican LGBT groups have also been invited to participate.

No detailed agenda for the meeting has been enunciated and Integrity has no preconceived notions about its outcomes. Nevertheless, we are deeply appreciative of the opportunity to engage in this conversation and are hopeful that constructive, concrete next steps will emerge.

The Windsor Report rightly reminds us all that “Lambeth Resolution 1.10 calls for an ongoing process of listening and discernment, and that Christians of good will need to be prepared to engage honestly and frankly with each other on issues relating to human sexuality. It is vital that the Communion establish processes and structures to facilitate ongoing discussion” (¶146). Integrity has continuously called for such dialogs during the past three decades of its ministry and we stand ready to help make them a reality.

(The Reverend) Susan Russell, President
president@integrityusa.org
714-356-5718 (mobile)
626-583-2740 (office)
Doug Ball, Executive Secretary
info@integrityusa.org
800-462-9498

DEPO: an example

on Saturday, 15 January 2005 at 8.26 am by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as ECUSA

This report from the Diocese of Massachusetts is very encouraging and suggests that the proposed arrangements in the Episcopal Church USA for extended oversight can be made to work but require goodwill on both sides.

Boston Globe Episcopalians compromise to avoid split

Another longstanding example, also in New England, mentioned briefly in the above article, was featured in the Church Times last November. A theology of rubbing along

Other examples, anyone?

WR: the exact responses

on Friday, 14 January 2005 at 11.54 pm by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as ECUSA

This note compares what the Windsor Report requested with what the ECUSA House of Bishops said.

WR wording in italics.
HOB wording in bold.
My comments in roman.
Numbering of points as in earlier posting (some points listed there do not require a corporate ECUSA response).

1. To ECUSA as a corporate body:

…the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to express its regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached in the events surrounding the election and consecration of a bishop for the See of New Hampshire, and for the consequences which followed, and that such an expression of regret would represent the desire of the Episcopal Church (USA) to remain within the Communion.

In this spirit of intentional practice, we affirm that all need to repent, as the Archbishop of Canterbury reminded us in his Advent Letter 2004. We repent of the ways we as bishops have sometimes treated each other, failing to honor Christ’s presence in one another. Furthermore, too often we have also failed to recognize Christ’s presence fully manifest in our sister and brother Anglicans around the global communion. We honor their full voice and wisdom. We desire mutuality. We recognize our interdependence in the Body of Christ.

Moreover, we as the House of Bishops express our sincere regret for the pain, the hurt, and the damage caused to our Anglican bonds of affection by certain actions of our church. Knowing that our actions have contributed to the current strains in our Communion, we express this regret as a sign of our deep desire for and commitment to continuation of our partnership in the Anglican Communion.

This response appears to fulfill precisely this particular WR request. As I said previously, constitutionally speaking, only General Convention is able to represent ECUSA in making (or not making) this response and although the House of Bishops meeting this week can give a lead, it cannot answer formally for ECUSA as a whole, just as the English HoB cannot speak for the General Synod of the Church of England. So:

We note here that our decision-making structures differ from those in many parts of the Anglican Communion and that our actions require conciliar involvement by all the baptized of our church, lay and ordained. Therefore we as bishops, in offering our regrets, do not intend to preempt the canonical authority of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church. At the same time, we are keenly aware of our particular responsibility for episcopal leadership.

12 Comments

CofE statistics: more

on Friday, 14 January 2005 at 4.08 pm by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as Church of England

The Church Times today has an article about the church statistics previously mentioned here and on which some comments here are overdue.
Church sees an increase in its attendances

Two tables from the report are rendered as graphics:

The Church of England Newspaper also has a report:
More people now going to church

David Hope interviewed

on Friday, 14 January 2005 at 3.54 pm by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as Church of England

The Yorkshire Post today has a splendid interview of David Hope by its Religious Affairs Correspondent Michael Brown.
Faith, Hope and lots of charity

A quite ordinary – but to some surprising – thing happens to His Grace the Lord Archbishop of York, Primate of England and Metropolitan, as he walks down the long gravel drive of his palace at Bishopthorpe and into the village street. A cyclist chummily calls out, “Hello, David”.
Such matey familiarity has happened a lot to David Hope since he became Archbishop of York 10 years ago. It even happens in the village’s Co-op supermarket where he frequently does his smaller shop, and in Tesco’s at Dringhouses, the venue for his more occasional bigger trolley-pushing exercise.
Not only does he never mind, he quietly enjoys the chumminess. David Hope has never been one to expect in his clergy what the 19th-century divine, Sydney Smith, called a dropping-down deadness of manner. He would certainly not welcome any display of obsequiousness by lay people, and would doubtless be embarrassed if fawning were shown by chaps on bicycles or by girls at supermarket check-outs.

It gets better, read it all.

press reports on ECUSA bishops

on Friday, 14 January 2005 at 8.50 am by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as ECUSA

So far, this is heavily dependent on the wire service reports recorded here last night.

Here again is Rachel Zoll’s initial report for Associated Press
Episcopal Bishops Regret Gay-Bishop Angst
which also appeared in the Minneapolis Star Tribune as U.S. Episcopal bishops regret consecrating gay bishop
and in the Boston Globe, in shortened form, as Episcopal bishops ask Anglicans to forgive a slight
while the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ran it with some local additions as Episcopalian bishops express ‘regret’. In the Salt Lake Tribune it ran as Episcopal bishops ‘regret’ gay ordination furor and in the Chicago Sun-Times as Episcopal leaders: We’re sorry gay bishop caused tension

Here again is Reuters first report:
U.S. Anglicans, Lutherans Struggle with Gay Issues
The Reuters story was repeated elsewhere with various headlines, for example:
Washington Post Churches Take Steps on Issue Of Marriage Between Gays

Other reports:
From the Deseret News in Salt Lake City, Episcopal bishops apologize for ‘pain’ over gay ordination

The New York Times mentions it towards the end of Lutherans Recommend Tolerance on Gay Policy (The NYT website also carries the AP report)

Washington Times Episcopal bishops ‘regret,’ dissent over gay issues

Newark Star-Ledger U.S. bishops apologize for electing gay prelate
This is by Kevin Eckstrom of Religion News Service

ECUSA bishops: additional response to Windsor Report

on Thursday, 13 January 2005 at 9.16 pm by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as ECUSA

A group of 21 ECUSA bishops, so far, have signed a statement
Group of Bishops Issue “A Statement of Acceptance of and Submission to the Windsor Report 2004”
which is also reproduced in full below. [original link no longer working]

ECUSA HoB Letter on Windsor Report

on Thursday, 13 January 2005 at 9.00 pm by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as ECUSA

The House of Bishops of ECUSA has issued this Letter
A Word to the Church – From the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church
The full text is also given below.

Here is Rachel Zoll’s report for Associated Press
Episcopal Bishops Regret Gay-Bishop Angst

Here is Reuters first report:
U.S. Anglicans, Lutherans Struggle with Gay Issues

Resolution I.10 of 1998

on Thursday, 13 January 2005 at 12.20 pm by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as Anglican Communion

I have been reviewing the history of Lambeth Conference 1998 Resolution I.10. In the course of doing so I came across my own words, written on 6 August 1998. The original can be found here:

Following the debate, an official press conference, chaired by Lesley Perry, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s press officer at Lambeth Palace, was asked what practical effect this action of the bishops would have. The answers given seemed to be: not a lot. Robin Eames, Archbishop of Armagh, who had chaired the two and a half hour debate, compared the situation now to the situation ten years ago relating to women bishops and the process that had occurred with the Eames Commission, and he also referred to the Virginia report and its remarks on the theory of reception. He also said that the Primates would be meeting on Sunday, after the end of the Conference itself, and might well address the issue further at that time. It was also noted at this press conference by Duncan Buchanan, Bishop of Johannesburg, that ten years ago the then Bishop of New York had been hounded off the floor of the conference when he tried to raise the issue of homosexuality, whereas today the subject had been a major discussion topic. He also noted that at the start of this conference, his sub-section had refused to listen to the voice of homosexual people whereas today the conference had passed a resolution which required such listening. He considered this to be progress.

The debate was noticeable for the absence of American speakers. The only ECUSA bishops who spoke were the Bishop of Maryland, Robert Ihloff, and Suffragan Bishop of New York, Catherine Roskam, both of whom spoke against the amendment to clause (d) from the Archbishop of Tanzania. Bishop Roskam said that to adopt this amendment would be “evangelical suicide” in New York and San Francisco, leading to a pyrrhic victory and a divided church. Bishop Russell of Grahamstown, South Africa was the only other bishop that spoke against the amendment although twice as many people opposed the amendment as voted against or abstained on the overall motion…

…The unsolved mystery of yesterday is why 100 or so bishops attending the Conference apparently did not vote at all.

In fairness to Americans I should add that the Bishop of Indianapolis, Catherine Waynick had spoken earlier to propose an alternative version of the resolution but had withdrawn it before any vote could be taken on it. Her text can be found here.

The voting on the resolution was: 526 in favor and 70 against, with 45 abstentions, and as I noted about 100 absentees. (The total number of bishops participating in the conference was in the region of 740.)

Much was made at the time, and has been since, of the acrimonious debate and the many amendments which were made. However, the original version of the motion, as drafted by the sub-section on Human Sexuality was quite firmly worded. I show below the line a marked-up copy together with notes on the sources of the various amendments. This all comes from my reports at the time, which can be read here. (The link at the foot of that page is broken, try this instead)

Italics denote additions to, and ~~strike-through~~ denotes deletions from the original version. [Square bracket] references are to amendment numbers on the order papers, see footnotes below.