We reported earlier on the challenge being made in respect of the large financial grant from the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament to the Ordinariate.
There was a further story in the Church Times on Ordinariate finances: Ordinariate describes its £1-million donation as allowing breathing space.
The correspondence columns have had several letters about this, see last week and also two weeks earlier.
This week there is another story, about another society, see President of CU to quit over its exclusion of Ordinariate. And more letters, but these are behind the paywall until next week.
The Church Union website is over here.
64 CommentsVictoria Matthews, the Bishop of Christchurch in New Zealand addressed a fringe meeting (arranged by WATCH and the Open Synod Group) at last month’s meeting of the Church of England General Synod.
Although her address was primarily about Women in the Episcopate, she also spoke about the earthquakes in Christchurch.
The full text of her address is below the fold.
39 CommentsPress release from the LGB&T Anglican Coalition.
Coalition offers assistance in Sexuality Reviews
Tuesday 2nd August 2011 – for immediate use
The LGB&T Anglican Coalition has written to the House of Bishops to offer its help in the forthcoming reviews on sexuality and the church.
Following his announcement of reviews on Civil Partnerships and Guidelines on Human Sexuality by the Bishop of Norwich, the LGB&T Anglican Coalition has written to the Rt Rev Graham James welcoming the reviews, and offering to meet with him in the near future.
The letter states, “We are sure that you will want to consult widely in the review process, and would like to offer our services at an early stage. We hope you will welcome this offer to meet a small team representing the Coalition to discuss how our members can contribute to this work.”
This offer stands in sharp contrast to claims made by Anglican Mainstream that such discussions have already been taking place during the past year.
Chair of the Coalition, Rev Benny Hazlehurst, said, “We are looking forward to the opportunity to engage with the House of Bishops in their work on sexuality, but Anglican Mainstream’s assertion that the reviews have come out of pre-existing discussions with LGBT groups is both untrue and misleading.”
In an open letter to Anglican Mainstream, the Coalition says it read with surprise Anglican Mainstream’s claim that the reviews “followed a year of conversations chaired by the Bishops of Lincoln and Bath and Wells, commissioned by the Archbishop of Canterbury, with leaders of the Lesbian and Gay groups in the Church of England.”
The open letter goes on to say that “Neither the Coalition nor any of its member groups were invited to take part in conversations of this kind.”
If the House of Bishops agrees to such meetings however, they will be in full accordance with Lambeth Resolution 1.10 which calls for a commitment ‘to listen to the experience of homosexual persons’ and the Coalition looks forward to the start of formal discussions.
The full text of the open letter to Anglican Mainstream follows below.
2 CommentsThe questions asked at last month’s Church of England General Synod, and the answers, are now available online.
1 CommentHere are some of the notices of his death that have appeared.
Archbishop of Canterbury Archbishop remembers John Stott
Telegraph The Rev John Stott
Guardian The Rev John Stott obituary
Church Times John Stott: ‘gracious and kind’
New York Times Rev. John Stott, Major Evangelical Figure, Dies at 90
14 CommentsWe reported last December on the proposals of the Dioceses Commission on the four Yorkshire dioceses of Bradford, Ripon & Leeds, Sheffield and Wakefield, and their boundaries with the Diocese of York. In brief the Commission recommended the replacement of the existing Dioceses of Bradford, Ripon and Leeds and Wakefield with a single new diocese, along with some adjustments of its boundaries with its neighbours.
The Dioceses Commission has today published an interim progress report on this review; it is available online here. The accompanying press release is copied below the fold.
Nick Baines, the current Bishop of Bradford, has written about the proposals: New creation?
0 CommentsThe detailed results of the electronic votes at this month’s General Synod are now available.
Item 12 Results
private member’s motion on Mission action planning in the Church of England
Item 13 Results
motion on higher education funding changes
Item 14 Results
motion on report on Anglican-Methodist Covenant
Item 19 Results
diocesan synod motion on House of Laity elections
Item 20 Results
motion on report by the Committee for Minority Ethnic Anglican Concerns
Item 502 Results
motion to finally approve the Church of England Marriage (Amendment) Measure
Item 504A Results
That the Parochial Fees Order 2011 be considered.
The full texts of the motions can be found in the official record of the Synod’s business, Business Done July 2011, which is also now available.
0 CommentsAndrew Goddard at Fulcrum has published a lengthy analysis of the recent document GS Misc 997 (and the earlier GS Misc 992) in a document titled Civil Partnerships & Same-Sex Relationships in the Church of England: What is happening and how should evangelicals respond?
Colin Coward at Changing Attitude has published some comments on this in How to respond to the House of Bishops initiative on Civil Partnerships and Same-Sex Relationships.
Both of these documents contain valuable background information and analysis.
See also extracts from the most recent General Synod Question Time:
Update 10.30 pm
Chris Sugden at Anglican Mainstream has published A response to the House of Bishops’ announcement of a review of its Guidelines on Human Sexuality.
81 CommentsThe Church Times detailed reports of this month’s General Synod are now available to non-subscribers as a pdf download from this page.
There are also these three news reports.
C of E in ‘ticklish’ position over its Murdoch shares
C of E faces demise in ‘perfect storm’ Synod is told
Williams: Focus on South Sudan to prevent genocide
I reported here that the draft Parochial Fees Order 2011 had been defeated at General Synod earlier this month. This order proposed revised fees for weddings and funerals from 1 January 2012.
I wrote then that the current order (the 2010 Order) would remain in force. William Fittall, the Secretary General, has today issued a paper (GS Misc 999) explaining in detail the implications of Synod’s decision. His paper includes topics such as transitional arrangements for incumbents who have not assigned their fees, what PCCs may and may not charge in addition to the statutory fees, and when fees may be waived.
Our html copy of GS Misc 999 is here.
12 CommentsBishop Peter Selby has written When Negative Equity is Social.
The plight of individuals with debts larger than the value of the security that is held for them engages our sympathy, and rightly so. But is there another kind of negative equity that has been at the top of our agenda these last weeks, a kind of social negative equity.
In the middle of the public outrage about the phone hacking scandal (have they hacked into my phone to find out how outraged I am? How do we know the level of public outrage?) there have come to the surface some rather uncomfortable realities that are not being spoken of much.
The fact is that it isn’t just News Corp that has a stake in the negative, in the bad news and the gossip; we all have.
Negativity sells well, and we should not be surprised at how much of it there is. The bad news in which News Corp had such a stake is now overtaken by the stake we all seem to have in the maximum bad news about News Corp and its key players. There aren’t any disinterested players in all this, occupying some principled moral high ground. There are careers and balance sheets at stake – and not just those of the Murdoch empire. Bad news is a good investment…
Canon Giles Fraser delivered this morning’s Thought for the Day on BBC Radio 4. The full text of his remarks is now available here.
7 Comments…The current crisis at News International and deep within the British establishment is much more than the presenting issue of phone hacking. I almost want to say that it’s become a theological issue in so far as it’s become a properly basic question about who gets to wield judgment within our society.
Last Friday the Times headline referred to Rupert Murdoch’s apology as constituting a Day of Atonement. But those who know the Jewish calendar will know that Rosh Hashanah, the Day of Judgment, comes before Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. In other words, judgment comes first, then atonement. And so it is that those media titans who have wielded so much judgment in our society are now to present themselves to the scrutiny of the House of Commons later on today. Those who have judged others will now themselves be subject to judgment…
Colin Coward has posted at Changing Attitude about The problem with (gay) bishops and the CNC.
I want to revisit Colin Slee’s posthumously published memorandum about the Southwark CNC process in the light of the subsequently published paper Choosing Bishops – The Equality Act 2010 issued by the Legal Office at Church House and the conversations I had at General Synod in York.
These documents were both originally leaked to the Guardian in May and reported there by Andrew Brown in this article: Church of England tied in knots over allowing gay men to become bishops. (Earlier TA article is here.)
Andrew reported then:
…The document reveals shouting matches and arm-twisting by the archbishops to keep out the diocese’s preferred choices as bishop: Jeffrey John, the gay dean of St Albans, and Nicholas Holtam, rector of St Martin-in-the-Fields in central London, whose wife was divorced many years ago. Eventually Christopher Chessun, then an assistant bishop, was chosen.
John, an able theologian and gifted preacher and pastor, highly regarded in the diocese and a friend of Williams, is celibate but in a longstanding civil partnership with another clergyman. He was forced by the archbishop to stand down after being appointed suffragan bishop of Reading eight years ago, following an orchestrated protest campaign by evangelicals. Holtam’s promotion had been blocked because of his wife’s divorce but he has since become bishop of Salisbury.
At the same time, the Church Times also reported this story, focusing more on the Legal Opinion, in this report: House of Bishops divided on keeping out homosexuals.
Colin Coward goes on to say:
11 Comments…Colin [Slee]’s memorandum revealed information about the culture of the CNC process and the attitude towards two outstanding candidates for the episcopate, one of whom, Nick Holtam, has now been appointed to Salisbury, thanks be to God. The other, Jeffrey John is now the subject of an attempt to permanently block his preferment by the position outlined and the relevant factors listed in the Equality Act document. It is designed specifically to block any further attempt to nominate and appoint Jeffrey.
Colin Slee’s memorandum provides an inside perspective on the effect of the secrecy of the CNC process. Colin complied with the rules but was as open as possible with the candidates he nominated and with the Archbishop of Canterbury. He wrote to both Jeffery John and Nick Holtam telling them he had nominated them as mandatory candidates for Southwark in March 2010. The Archbishop replied but did not say, please don’t nominate either of them. Other people had nominated both candidates.
I have subsequently learnt that both Jeffrey and Nick have been deliberately blocked, one for Southwark and the other for Chelmsford. Who does the blocking? Lambeth staff at the Archbishop’s request?
I reported here a week ago that the Bishop of Dover had withdrawn his nomination to be the chair of the General Synod’s Business Committee.
William Fittall, the Secretary General, has today issued a paper (GS Misc 998 Appointment of the Chairs of the General Synod’s Business Committee) explaining the background to the bishop’s nomination. The paper also outlines a proposal from the House of Laity Standing Committee that the chair of the Business Committee should not be a bishop, but should be chosen from a wider pool of clergy and laity than is currently eligible. It concludes by inviting comments on what to do next for consideration by the Archbishops’ Council.
Our html copy of GS Misc 998 is here.
3 CommentsThe Genesis of Anglicanorum Coetibus is the title of a paper which was presented by Dr. William Tighe at the 2011 Anglican Use Conference, which took place recently at the Church of St. Mary the Virgin, Arlington, Texas. It contains some detailed information about its origins, with particular reference to (a) The Traditional Anglican Communion, (b) Forward in Faith/UK and (c) Other Church of England bishops.
The third of these may well be the most interesting. In connection with it, he refers to two other documents:
Updated
The Guardian’s Riazat Butt reports Archbishop of Canterbury dismisses spin doctor.
The archbishop of Canterbury’s spin doctor is to leave after just nine months in the role and following Tory protests over a controversial magazine article condemning the coalition.
George Pitcher, an Anglican priest and former journalist, was hired last October as public affairs secretary at Lambeth Palace and engineered Rowan Williams’s stint as guest editor for the New Statesman last month, which saw the archbishop launch a sustained attack on the coalition.
His criticism, seen by Whitehall as the most outspoken by an archbishop in a decade, pitted him against the government and left Lambeth Palace scrambling to minimise the damage as Conservative politicians and peers berated the archbishop either through the media or through channels at the Church of England.
Sunday, Lambeth Palace confirmed that Pitcher was leaving, but refused to say whether the New Statesmen stint had anything to do with his exit. “George was contracted to advise the archbishop on public affairs issues and that contract expires on 30 September when he will have completed projects he was asked to undertake. “When approached by the Guardian about his departure Pitcher said: “I am returning to journalism, a culture to which I am better suited…”
Later, Tim Ross at the Telegraph had Archbishop of Canterbury fires advisor Rev George Pitcher over outpoken attacks on coalition.
Dr Rowan Williams is understood to have lost confidence in the Rev George Pitcher, his public affairs secretary, and agreed that he should leave his post at the end of the summer.
It is understood the situation came to a head when Mr Pitcher made a crude joke about the Archbishop in the Daily Telegraph’s diary column following criticism of Dr Williams’ attacks on the coalition…
…Lambeth Palace confirmed that Mr Pitcher’s contract would end in September, one year after he started, and would not be renewed.
A Lambeth Palace spokeswoman said: “George will have finished the project he was working on and he wished to return to journalism.”
Mr Pitcher said: “I have decided to bring things to an end but it is true that I would have stayed with the Archbishop for the duration [of his time in the post].”
Here’s his piece in the Sunday Express Church Must Engage Us All (h/t DW)
Updated Wednesday
Jerome Taylor in the Independent has Who will rid us of turbulent PR man George Pitcher?
16 CommentsHis departure will leave Lambeth Palace bereft of a charismatic operator who was keen to see the Church engage with the public on key political issues. In a recent piece for the Sunday Express, he wrote: “The middle classes and MPs are keen to tell bishops to butt out of politics when they’ve something to say about health or education or treatment of our elderly. But our Church isn’t outside politics, only party politics.”
Others say Rowan Williams will now need to find a replacement for Mr Pitcher who will do more to protect him, rather than promote him. “Rowan needs advice, he really does,” said one Westminster lobbyist at a prominent Anglican group.
“His background is thoughtful academia and he doesn’t really spend enough time working out how his words will be perceived in the mainstream press. But at the same time his press team should be encouraging him to get out there and talk about issues, not duck behind safe headlines.”
The Church Times has a news article by Ed Beavan headed C of E in ‘ticklish’ position over its Murdoch shares.
During Church Commissioners’ questions, however, the First Church Estates Commissioner, Andreas Whittam Smith, admitted that premature sale of the shares would be “very bad”. It was “a ticklish area”.
The EIAG had been quick to consult James and Rupert Murdoch, he said, but the situation “won’t be easy, and I won’t volunteer to be part of the team”. Mr Whittam Smith was founding editor of The Independent.
The statement issued earlier by the Ethical Investment Advisory Group is available here.
Other churches also have embarrassments. The Tablet has two items about the links between James Murdoch and the recent papal visit, but neither is available online. However, Riazat Butt reported some of it in her article for the Guardian James Murdoch’s six-figure gift to UK papal visit.
A shorter version of the comments by Catherine Pepinster who is Editor of The Tablet is available here.
At Ekklesia Simon Barrow has some reflections on all this, see Church investments in the spotlight again.
This tidbit from the Church Times article:
3 CommentsThe Archbishop of Canterbury’s spokeswoman said that it was unlikely that Dr Williams was a victim of phone-hacking. Dr Williams does not own a mobile phone.
Richard Coekin has written a long article, titled We rejoice in the emergence of the ANGLICAN MISSION IN ENGLAND.
In this piece he explains in detail about the purpose of AMiE and why it was/is unhappy with both the previous and current bishops of Southwark. It needs to be read in full.
…For example, in the liberal Southwark Diocese where I work as a senior pastor and director of the Co-Mission church-planting network, we have been pushed into “temporarily impaired communion” with our Diocesan Bishop since 2005. This is because, despite Lambeth Resolution 1.10 (declaring that homosexual activity is wrong) he would offer us no assurance that he would teach that homosexual practice is sin and therefore something not to be tolerated among the clergy. As a matter of conscience under the Biblical command to “contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” with those “who change the grace of our God into a licence for immorality”, we cannot accept the oversight of a Bishop who refuses to teach such fundamental Biblical doctrine. The Bible is clear that un-repented wickedness (including homosexual practice) prevents us from inheriting the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). The refusal of church leaders to teach this truth with compassion and clarity imperils the salvation of gay people we seek to love in our community by suggesting that repentance isn’t necessary. In this conviction we have enjoyed warm fellowship within many Evangelical networks but have longed for orthodox Episcopal oversight within the Church of England that will support Biblical teaching in our church-planting movement…
Richard Perkins, of Christ Church Balham has written at The Urban Pastor about AMiE. This article reflects on a BBC radio interview from last week.
Robert Piggott, the BBC Religious Correspondent, got it about right on Saturday on Radio 4. In his piece on the Today Programme he commented that, in launching the AMiE, conservative evangelicals had parked their tanks on the front lawn of Lambeth Palace.
It’s obviously the case that the establishing of this new mission society is seen by some as unnecessarily provocative. Even by some of those who are orthodox on the issue of human sexuality. But it’s worth asking why some evangelicals thought that such a drastic move was necessary. A ‘conversation’ is supposed to be taking place between, if I may simplify, the liberal revisionists and the evangelical reformers. But clearly one side doesn’t feel that they’re being listened to. They are now, I’ll wager…
Some historical background can be found in this presentation by John Richardson.
32 CommentsThree Questions were asked at General Synod last Friday about the Legal Opinion issued as GS Misc 992. They were answered together.
Question 7
Mrs Sue Johns (Norwich) to ask the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Q. Has the House considered the issues addressed in GS Misc 992?
Question 8
The Revd Canon Simon Butler (Southwark) to ask the Chairman of the House of Bishops”
Q. Given the legal opinion offered in GS Misc 992 (‘Equality Act’) can the House indicate the following:
a. Which individuals or bodies are responsible for weighing and, if appropriate, adopting this opinion as policy;
b. The process by which this opinion shall be weighed and, if appropriate, adopted;
c. How these deliberations will be communicated to this Synod and candidates for episcopal appointment?
Question 9
The Revd Dr Rosemarie Mallett (Southwark) to ask the House of Bishops:
Q. As we have in effect debated paras 14-18 of GS Misc 992 regarding divorce and remarriage at the February Synod, what process does the House envisage to ensure that a debate on the complete paper takes place, recognising that the circulation of a paper to Synod by the Legal Office does not create policy?
The Bishop of Norwich to reply:
A. With permission, I shall answer this and the related questions from Simon Butler and Rosemarie Mallet together.
The Legal Office note was produced in December and made available to members of successive Crown Nominations Commissions and to all diocesan bishops in connection with episcopal appointments. It explains the implications of the legal framework created by the Equality Act so that those making appointments understand the parameters within which they now have to operate. It offers no policy advice. The relevant policy documents are the well known texts referred to in the document, to which must now be added last Friday’s modest supplement from the House.
The policy issue on civil partnerships is now for the review of the 2005 statement and the Church’s stance on same sex relations more generally will be addressed in the consultation document that the House will produce in the light of the listening process in 2013.
Supplementary Question from Simon Butler:
While I welcome the House of Bishops clarity that GS Misc 992 isn’t the policy of the Church, nevertheless it is the legal opinion of the church’s lawyers. Can the Bishop confirm then what freedom the House of Bishops has to depart from this legal opinion?
A. Well, I think what the legal opinion seeks to do is to explain for those involved in episcopal appointments what the law permits. It simply refers back to formal statements of the Church of England’s policy, including statements by the House of Bishops on divorce and civil partnerships, and of course that’s been amended in the light of what the synod decided last February, but it actually offers no policy advice. And the House of Bishops statement is about policy reviews, not prejudging their outcome.
Supplementary Question from Rosemarie Mallett:
Again, we thank you for the clarity of your answer. As part of the review process that will be now ongoing, can we be assured that the House of Bishops will consult with members of the House of Clergy and the House of Laity, before bringing the final consultation document to synod in 2013, so that we have a truly dialogic as well as listening process between now and 2013.
A. Well I think that what we hope for in the 2013 review, which will cover matters related to human sexuality, is to try and create an account of what’s gone on in the listening process, which has included clergy and laity over the course of the past decade or more. And there is a sense in which quite a lot of that work of course has already included clergy and laity, and how that review group will go about its work I can’t say, but it would be very surprising if it did not include consultation with clergy and lay people, to produce the sort of document that we hope would be representative of the mind of the church as a whole.
3 CommentsA Question was asked at General Synod last Friday about this. (The deadline for filing Questions was several days prior to the issue of GS Misc 997.)
Question 6.
The Ven Jan McFarlane (Norwich) to ask the Chairman of the House of Bishops:
Q. What consideration has the House given to the eligibility for the episcopate of those in civil partnerships?
The Bishop of Norwich to reply:
A. As Synod members will now have seen from GS Misc 997, which was issued last Friday, the House of Bishops has decided to review the pastoral statement on civil partnerships that it issued in July 2005 before the Civil Partnership Act came into force. That review will, among other things, address an issue on which the 2005 statement was silent, namely whether those in civil partnerships should be eligible to become bishops. To avoid breaking new ground while the review is in progress the House has concluded that clergy in civil partnerships should not at present be nominated for Episcopal appointment. The review will be concluded next year.
Supplementary Question from Mr John Ward (London):
In welcoming GS Misc 997 most sincerely and the review of the civil partnerships statement, will the House engage with the whole People of God when reviewing this statement, including lesbian and gay people in civil partnerships, and if so how?
A. Well, that will be a matter for the review group when it is established, how it goes about its work, and I think I wouldn’t want to say more than that. But your point is well made.
2 CommentsSeveral Questions were put down for answers at Question Time last Friday relating to the Anglican Church in North America. Only one of them was reached during the session, but the written answers prepared for the others were issued afterwards (and are reproduced below the fold).
Question 40.
Ms Susan Cooper (London) to ask the Chairman of the Faith and Order Commission:
Q. Father Thomas Seville CR, ‘of the Faith and Order Commission of the Church of England’ was welcomed as a ‘participant and observer’ at the Provincial Council 2011 of the Anglican Church of North America in Long Beach, California. What was the status of his attendance from the point of view of the Faith and Order Commission?
The Bishop of Chichester to reply as Chairman of the Faith and Order Commission:
A. Fr Seville attended the ACNA Provincial Council as an observer at my request following a resolution of the General Synod in February 2010.
The Archbishop of Canterbury had subsequently highlighted certain questions on which he and the Archbishop of York would value the thinking of the Faith and Order Commission in preparing the requested report.
As Fr Seville is one of the two members of the Faith and Order Commission most closely associated with its work on “continuing churches” in the light of a resolution of the 1998 Lambeth Conference, he attended as an observer on behalf of and reporting to the Commission in order to assist our work in advising the Archbishops.
Supplementary Question by Ms Cooper:
Would the bishop clarify how the visit… was funded?
A. It was entirely funded by the Anglican Church in North America.
8 Comments