According to the remarks of the Archbishop and Primate of the Anglican Church in North America, Robert Duncan, speaking on 21 June:
Our global commitments remain strong and we continue to be seen as “gospel partners” and bearers of “authentic Anglicanism” (South-South Encounter IV) by most of the world’s Anglicans. The GAFCON Provinces accord our Province status as the North American Province and I am seated as a Primate in the Primates Council. I was privileged to be present at Archbishop Ian Earnest’s invitation at the All Africa Bishops Conference (of the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa) last August in Entebbe and was accorded a seat there for public and state events as one of the archbishops of the provinces. It is the greatest of joys to welcome Archbishop Ian Earnest – Archbishop of the Province of the Indian Ocean and Chairman of CAPA – to this Provincial Council as speaker, observer and friend, and to our College of Bishops as Bible teacher and consultor. It is also a privilege to welcome Fr. Thomas Seville, CR, of the Faith and Order Commission of the Church of England here as participant and observer, in partial response to the action of the General Synod of the Church of England in February 2010 regarding consideration of an appropriate form of recognition or relationship with the Anglican Church in North America.
Mark Harris has commented at length about this, in So, explain again just what the Church of England is up to in America?
19 Comments…Participant and observer….sounds like more than just an exploratory visit. What in the world is the Church of England proposing to do “regarding consideration of an appropriate form of recognition or relationship with the ACNA”?
I presume the Archbishop of Canterbury, not in communion with ACNA as yet, knows that the Archbishop of ACNA is not the Archbishop of a Province of anything, much less a Province of the Anglican Communion. So it must be that in sending Fr. Seville over to participate and observe, the CofE is feeding the optimistic fires of ACNA’s Archbishop for recognition…
Tony Baldry MP, Second Church Estates Commissioner, answered five Written Questions from Diana Johnson MP in the House of Commons yesterday (23 June).
They covered the length of time to appoint and then consecrate new bishops, the ratios of bishops to parishes and the powers of PEVs.
The full text of the questions and answers from Hansard is reproduced below the fold. The not entirely appropriate headings are Hansard’s.
12 CommentsToday the Church Times has this leader: Gay bishops again.
After summarising the non-story aspect of last weekend’s reports, it comments on the content:
In May, our view was a negative one, since the document listed several reasons why the appointment of a gay bishop could be blocked. This week’s positive spin has not changed our opinion. As the leaders of the “gay-led” Metropolitan Community Church in Manchester wrote to Dr Williams this week, “We note that [unlike a gay candidate] heterosexual candidates for bishoprics are not asked to repent of any sexual activity with which the Crown Appointments Commission may be uncomfortable.” More than one serving bishop has said that he would have considered it an impertinence had he been asked about his sexual history.
The legal advice has no more weight now than before it was circulated to Synod members. It was not approved by the Bishops when they discussed it in May, not least because, to many, the brief was not how to remove discrimination within the Church, but how to continue it untroubled by the law.
The earlier report in the Church Times was House of Bishops divided on keeping out homosexuals.
Letters to the editor on the subject in the following two weeks are first here, and then here.
4 CommentsUpdated Friday evening
This press release from GAFCON New Anglican Mission Society announced
The Anglican Mission in England (AMIE) held its inaugural event on Wednesday June 22 during an evangelical ministers’ conference in central London.
AMIE has been established as a society within the Church of England dedicated to the conversion of England and biblical church planting. There is a steering committee and a panel of bishops. The bishops aim to provide effective oversight in collaboration with senior clergy.
The AMIE has been encouraged in this development by the Primates’ Council of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (GAFCON) who said in a communiqué from Nairobi in May 2011: “We remain convinced that from within the Provinces which we represent there are creative ways by which we can support those who have been alienated so that they can remain within the Anglican family.”
The AMIE is determined to remain within the Church of England…
This society is, it appears, a renaming of this one.
Update
There is more information, including a list of names of bishops, in this: The Anglican Mission in England – Seeing the Church of England Again for the First time.
Church of England press release:
The Church of England has today submitted its response to the Government’s consultation on Civil Partnerships in Religious Premises.
A Church of England spokesman said: “Given the decision that Parliament has already taken to amend the Civil Partnership Act 2004 in the Equality Act 2010, the response focuses on the need to assure that the forthcoming regulations continue to provide unfettered freedom for each religious tradition to resolve these matters in accordance with its own convictions and its own internal procedures of governance.
“That means that there needs to be an ‘opting in’ mechanism of the kind that the Government has proposed. In the case of the Church of England that would mean that its churches would not be able to become approved premises for the registration of civil partnerships until and unless the General Synod had first decided as a matter of policy that that should be possible.”
The full text of the submission that addresses the specific questions raised by the consultation is set out below.
Some key passages relating to whether the Church of England will allow its premises to be so used are copied below the fold (emphasis added).
33 CommentsThe Tablet had an article last week by Francis Davis entitled Players in the public square.
Catholic bishops are often overshadowed in the national debate by their Anglican counterparts, as shown in the furore caused by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s critique of the Coalition Government last week. A Catholic academic and political adviser asks why this may be…
A sample of the analysis:
23 Comments…For a start, there are more than 100 Church of England bishops across 43 dioceses compared with 29 Catholic bishops across 19 dioceses in England. Catholic bishops in these dioceses shepherd around 4,000 clergy in England while the Anglican tally is double that number, bringing with them spouses and children whose joys and sorrows have direct consequences for the success of diocesan ministry.
The Anglicans have more than twice the number of schools – 4,820 with more than a million pupils – giving them greater presence in communities and opportunities for encounter. These schools are mainly primaries while the Catholic Church has far more secondary schools. There are 2,000 Catholic schools altogether in England and Wales educating 860,000 children.
I have also selected for closer examination the 19 Church of England bishops whose dioceses most closely compare with their Catholic counterparts. In these dioceses, Catholic bishops are generally older and remain in post longer than the Anglicans. The average Catholic episcopal age is 66 and their average service a decade at the diocesan helm compared to 60 and just over seven years for the Anglicans. Church of England bishops normally retire a decade younger than their Catholic counterparts.
This contrast in institutional reach and episcopal age is mirrored by matters of formation and experience. Each of the 19 Church of England bishops I surveyed had at least one degree from Oxford, Cambridge, London or another leading university. Only nine Catholic bishops in England have degrees from outside Catholic institutions, with some having pursued all their studies from secondary age in a seminary. Four of the current Anglican bishops have published more books between them than all English Catholic bishops combined since the Second Vatican Council. This is not only a question of class, as half of both groups surveyed were schooled in grammar or other state schools…
Updated twice on Monday evening
There has been an outburst of media reports yesterday all based on the release by the Church of England of a legal opinion prepared by the Legal Office, with this title. Many of them are wildly inaccurate.
The document was officially published here, and an html version is now available here.
As the cover note shows, this is published to synod members for information only. No synodical action is planned in respect of it.
I attach for the information of Synod members a copy of a note on the Equality
Act prepared by the Legal Office in connection with episcopal appointments for
members of Crown Nominations Commissions and diocesan bishops and their
Advisory Groups.
The document is identical to the one leaked over three weeks ago to the Guardian and published in full by them. See the links in this report on TA dated 26 May: House of Bishops tied in knots over gay bishops and in particular this link to “legal document”.
Updated paragraph
The regular pre-synod press briefing is scheduled for this morning. There may be more to report following that event. took place this morning. It was confirmed that this document is being issued for information only (due at least in part to having been previously leaked by the Guardian) and that it presages no synodical action and proposes no change from recent past practice in selecting bishops.
Second update
Reform has issued a press statement: Reform calls for legal advice on Bishops’ Appointments to be withdrawn.
37 CommentsUpdated Monday morning, afternoon and evening
Updated Saturday 25 June
Update: This press release, outlining the contents of the Synod agenda, was released on Monday: Full agenda published for July 2011 General Synod sessions in York.
Online copies of the papers for the July 2011 meeting of General Synod are starting to appear online; they are listed below, with links. I will update the list as more papers become available.
The Report of the Business Committee (GS 1824) includes a forecast of future business, and I have copied this below the fold.
The Church of England’s own list of papers is presented in agenda order.
GS 1805A Draft Church of England marriage (Amendment) Measure
GS 1805Y Report by the Revision Committee
GS 1822 Additional Eucharistic Prayers
GS Misc 983 Guidance Notes
GS 1823 July 2011 Group of Sessions – General Synod – Agenda
GS 1824 Business Committee Report July 2011
GS 1825 The Legal Officers (Annual Fees) Order 2011
GS 1826 The Ecclesiastical Judges, Legal Officers and Others (Fees) Order 2011
GS 1825-26X Explanatory Memorandum
GS 1827 Annual Report of the Archbihsops’ Council
GS 1828 The Payments to the Churches Conservation Trust Order 2011
GS 1829 Constitution of the Legal Advisory Commission
GS 1829X List of Members
GS 1830 Annual Report of the Audit Committee
GS 1831 Appointments to the Archbishops’ Council
GS 1832 Parochial Fees Order 2011
GS 1832X Explanatory Memorandum
GS 1833 The Church of England Funded Pensions Scheme (Sodor and Man) (Amendment) Rules 2011
GS 1834 The Church of England Pensions (Sodor and Man) (Amendment) Regulations 2011
GS 1835 A and GS 1835 B Private Member’s Motion: Mission Action Planning in the Church of England
GS 1836 Higher Education Funding Changes: a report from the Ministry Council
GS Misc 990 Higher Education funding – April 2011 report of the working group chaired by the Bishop of Sheffield
GS Misc 990A Funding ministerial training – background information for the above report
GS 1837 The Anglican-Methodist Covenant: a report from the Council for Christian Unity, to which is appended Moving Forward in Covenant: Interim Report of the Joint Implementation Commission
GS 1838 Generous Love for All: Presence and Engagement for the new Quinquennium: a report from the Presence and Engagement Task Group
GS 1839 The Reorganisation Schemes (Compensation) Rules 2011
GS 1840 A and GS 1840 B Diocesan Synod Motion: Admission of Baptized Adults to Communion
GS 1841 Conversations with the United Reformed Church: a report from the Council for Christian Unity
GS 1842 The Archbishops’ Council Draft Budget and Proposals for Apportionment for 2012
GS 1843 A and GS 1843 B Diocesan Synod Motion: House of Laity Elections
GS 1844 Unfinished Business: A Pastoral and Missional Approach for the Next Decade: a report by the Committee for Minority Ethnic Anglican Concerns
GS Misc 994E appendices
GS 1845 The Church and Education: Into the Next 200 Years: a report from the Board of Education
GS Misc 996 Background to GS 1845
GS1846A and GS 1846B Chichester Diocesan Synod Motion [Contingency Business]
Church Commissioners Annual Report
GS Misc 981 EIAG Annual Review 2010/2011
GS Misc 983 Additional Eucharistic Prayers
GS Misc 984 The Changing Role of Deaneries
GS Misc 985 Dioceses Commission Annual Report 2011
GS Misc 986 Clergy Discipline Commission Annual Report 2011
GS Misc 987 Activities of the Archbishops’ Council
GS Misc 988 Analysis of Mission Funds
GS Misc 989 2012-2014 Fees Order – Rationale
GS Misc 990 Higher Education Funding (electronic distribution only)
GS Misc 990A Funding Ministerial Training (electronic distribution only)
GS Misc 991 Chaplains to the Synod
GS Misc 992 Choosing Bishops – The Equality Act 2010 (Our html copy is here.)
GS Misc 994E Apprendices for GS 1844 (electronic distribution only)
GS Misc 995 Challenges into the new Quinquennium: Next Steps
GS Misc 996 Background to GS 1845
Updated Friday morning
The Telegraph has a report about what the Second Church Estates Commissioner, Tony Baldry MP, has written in this week’s Church Times about the row following the article published last week in the New Statesman by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Tim Ross wrote this: Baldry: Archbishop must stop ‘shouting’ at ministers
The Archbishop of Canterbury should stop “shouting” at the government like a noisy protester in Parliament Square if he wants Church of England bishops to keep their seats in the House of Lords, a senior Conservative MP has suggested.
Here’s an excerpt:
Writing in the Church Times newspaper, he said that “dismayed” Tory MPs and ministers “simply feel monumentally misunderstood by the Archbishop”, who they believe has failed to grasp the scale of the financial difficulties that the coalition inherited from Labour.
Mr Baldry said that when he was appointed to be commissioner last year, he hoped it would be possible to avoid the “disintegration” of the relationship between the Church and Parliament.
“I am disappointed that, less than a year into this Parliament – a Parliament almost certainly of a five-year term – the perception of many MPs sitting on the Coalition benches is that the Church of England is shouting at us from the other side of the street,” he said.
“Later in this Parliament, the Church of England is going to want the understanding of MPs, not least when they debate the place of the Church of England in a reformed, mainly elected Second Chamber.”
He suggested that a further source of friction could develop over plans to consecrate women bishops, which have already caused an internal rift and led hundreds of Anglicans to convert to Roman Catholicism in protest.
Some MPs want the government to strip the Church of its exemption from equality rules and force traditionalists to accept women bishops.
The original is now available to all subscriber-only for one week, but here is one sentence from it that may explain why it is not the substance of the NS article but the reporting of it that is the cause of this response:
They [government ministers] simply feel monumentally misunderstood by the Archbishop. Lambeth Palace took care to circulate the full texts of the Archbishop’s New Statesman editorial to every MP; but, so far as my colleagues are concerned, it is no good responding to criticism by saying that that is not what the Archbishop said. In public life and politics, it is what is heard that matters.
Further update The full text of Baldry’s article is available via this page.
30 CommentsThe latest report from the Joint Implementation Commission under the Covenant between the Methodist Church of Great Britain and The Church of England has been released.
The two churches have issued a joint press release (here and here), which is copied below the fold.
The report is due to be debated at the Methodist Conference and the Church of England General Synod next month.
The Methodist Church has made the full report available for download: Moving Forward in Covenant.
11 CommentsGloucester Diocesan Synod met yesterday evening and debated the legislation to allow women to be bishops. The synod voted overwhelmingly in favour of the main motion (to approve the legislation).
| Main Motion |
For
|
Against
|
Abstentions
|
| Bishops |
2
|
0
|
0
|
| Clergy |
55
|
5
|
0
|
| Laity |
44
|
5
|
0
|
A following motion seeking greater provision for the opponents of women bishops was heavily defeated (8 for, at least 93 against).
St Edmundsbury and Ipswich Diocesan synod also debated the legislation earlier this month, with similar results.
| Main Motion |
For
|
Against
|
Abstentions
|
| Bishops |
2
|
0
|
0
|
| Clergy |
41
|
3
|
2
|
| Laity |
51
|
2
|
3
|
| Following Motion |
For
|
Against
|
Abstentions
|
| Bishops |
0
|
2
|
0
|
| Clergy |
7
|
36
|
2
|
| Laity |
5
|
41
|
9
|
Affirming Catholicism is holding a day conference on Thursday 30 June at St Matthew’s Westminster.
The full title is: Thy Kingdom Come! Prayer and Mission in the building of The Kingdom.
Details can be found here.
Speakers include:
Victoria Coren has written this: Bashing the Bishop.
… Dr. William’s oeuvre has caught the imagination, snatched headlines and triggered a national debate. Maybe we should swap jobs? Except I’d make a terrible archbishop.
It’s exactly what he should be doing, of course: getting stuck in to matters of public ethics, questioning the national conscience, being a strong and relevant voice on issues of social concern. I can understand why some in the press feel obliged to disagree with him – and this is a good thing; we all want to live in a country of robust debate – but the way that some have slammed him for speaking out at all is just embarrassing. It’s like they don’t understand who he is, what he does or what the role’s about…
(The NoTW article she mentions is here.)
Paul Vallely wrote at the Independent on Aid and what the Archbishop should have said.
Those naughty people at the New Statesman. Apparently when the Archbishop of Canterbury arrived to do his week as guest editor he was planning to write the main editorial on aid to Africa. But Rowan Williams was persuaded to offer, instead, his thoughts on the state of the coalition government one year in. The paper got the headlines it wanted but we have been deprived of his thoughts on the place we used to call the dark continent. So what might he have said? And why does it matter?
At least one other bishop has spoken up in support of the archbishop:
John Pritchard of Oxford is reported in the Witney Gazette Bishop John joins attack on ‘disastrous’ Government cuts.
3 CommentsUpdated again Friday evening
This is a selection from the huge volume of articles written today (Thursday) in response to the New Statesman article by Rowan Williams.
Church Mouse What Rowan really said in the New Statesman
Nick Baines Feeding frenzy
Andrew Brown Cif belief Rowan Williams is not interested in party politics
Gary Gibbon Channel 4 News Will Archbishop’s criticism spark repeat of 1980s?
Jonathan Wynne-Jones Telegraph Anyone who wants Britain’s Christian heritage preserved must be glad that Rowan Williams spoke out
Cranmer Three cheers for the Archbishop of Canterbury
Friday morning update
Church Times Primate criticises ‘policies for which no one voted’
Giles Fraser Guardian Archbishop of the opposition
Guardian editorial: Welfare reform: Canterbury tales
Financial Times editorial: Pundit in purple
Telegraph editorial The Archbishop should not have played politics
Independent Leading article: Voice in the wilderness
Gregory Cameron interviewed by BBC Wales video Archbishop of Canterbury ‘right to ask questions’
Friday evening update
Daily Mail editorial Politics, morality and a discredited archbishop
Jonathan Wynne-Jones Telegraph Why the Catholic Church stands to gain from Rowan Williams’ outburst
Church Mouse Top five silly things said in the news yesterday
Nick Spencer Cif belief An archbishop who can spark national debate
Stephanie Flanders BBC God, poverty and the government (includes video interview with Ian Duncan Smith)
Simon Barrow Ekklesia Daily Mail tries to launch a ‘holy war’
15 CommentsBy an extraordinary coincidence, Theos has chosen today to publish its report, Turbulent Priests? (link to PDF copy)
2 Comments‘Turbulent Priests?’, by Daniel Gover, examines the political interventions of Rowan Williams, George Carey and Robert Runcie since 1979.
Covering issues as wide ranging as asylum, criminal justice, military conflict and church schools, the report seeks to answer the question: does the Archbishop of Canterbury contribute a moral voice in support of the common good that is much needed in contemporary British politics?
Updated again Thursday noon
Update the New Statesman has now published the full text of the leading article: The government needs to know how afraid people are by Rowan Williams.
I can imagine a New Statesman reader looking at the contents of this issue and mentally supplying: “That’s enough coalition ministers (Ed).” After all, the NS has never exactly been a platform for the establishment to explain itself. But it seems worth encouraging the present government to clarify what it is aiming for in two or three key areas, in the hope of sparking a livelier debate about where we are going – and perhaps even to discover what the left’s big idea currently is…
other updates at the bottom
Tim Ross has a front page story in Thursday’s Telegraph, headlined Rowan Williams condemns ‘frightening’ Coalition.
Dr Rowan Williams will launch a sustained attack on the Coalition in the most outspoken political intervention by an Archbishop of Canterbury for a generation.
He warns that the public is gripped by “fear” over the Government’s reforms to education, the NHS and the benefits system and accuses David Cameron and Nick Clegg of forcing through “radical policies for which no one voted”.
Openly questioning the democratic legitimacy of the Coalition, the Archbishop dismisses the Prime Minister’s “Big Society” as a “painfully stale” slogan, and claims that it is “not enough” for ministers to blame Britain’s economic and social problems on the last Labour government.
The comments come in an article he has written as guest editor of this week’s New Statesman magazine.
His two-page critique, titled “The government needs to know how afraid people are”, is the most forthright political criticism by such a senior cleric since Robert Runcie enraged Margaret Thatcher with a series of attacks in the 1980s.
Lambeth Palace is braced for an angry response but Dr Williams, who became Archbishop of Canterbury nine years ago, is understood to believe that the moment is right for him to enter the political debate…
Damian Thompson adds that Rowan Williams returns to Old Labour sloganising as he desperately tries to distract himself from Anglican meltdown.
The New Statesman itself reports the story this way: Archbishop of Canterbury: “no one voted” for the coalition’s policies.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has launched a remarkable attack on the coalition government, warning that it is committing the country to “radical, long-term policies for which no one voted.” In a leading article in tomorrow’s New Statesman, which he has guest-edited, Rowan Williams writes that the “anxiety and anger” felt by voters is a result of the coalition’s failure to expose its policies to “proper public argument”.
With specific reference to David Cameron’s health and education reforms, the Archbishop says that the government’s approach has created a mixture of “bafflement and indignation” among the public…
Updates
The Telegraph also has these:
Rowan Williams: timeline of Archbishop’s political views
Friction between Church and State: a history of outspoken Archbishops of Canterbury
Guardian Downing Street hits back at archbishop’s broadside
Telegraph Archbishop of Canterbury defended by Lord Tebbit
New Statesman Philip Pullman on what he owes to the Church of England
24 CommentsTwo recent articles on this topic:
Diversity and democracy: Reforming the Lords by Patrick McGlinchey at Left Foot Forward.
The inclusion in the white paper of a 20 per cent appointed chamber option is a cause for concern. However, it is the proposal to allow 12 Church of England bishops to retain their seats as Lords Spiritual that could fundamentally hold the House of Lords back from democratisation and diversification.
To give special law-making privileges to one faith group over all others is almost unheard of among democratic nations
Indeed, the only global equivalent is the ‘Islamic Consultative Assembly of Iran’, which gives Islamic clerics similar privileges to Church of England bishops. In modern Britain, this system is clearly an outdated one which does not enjoy the support of our citizens.
An ICM poll commissioned by the Joseph Roundtree Reform Trust as part of the Power 2010 political reform initiative found that two-thirds of the public think anyone who sits in the House for Lords and votes on laws should be elected, and 70 per cent of Christians believe it is wrong that some Church of England bishops are given an automatic seat in parliament…
Their Lordships should beware: there is an overwhelming consensus behind Lords reform by Alan Renwick at Reading Politics (A blog of the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Reading.)
7 CommentsThe government launched its proposals for reform of the House of Lords two weeks ago. At the time, there were widespread rumours that senior Labour and Conservative peers were gearing up to scupper the plans. A survey of peers reported in The Times this week appears to confirm this: 80 per cent of the peers who responded said they opposed a wholly or largely elected second chamber.
As The Times points out, if peers do indeed choose to oppose the government’s plans, they will be acting counter to the manifestos of all three main parties in last year’s general election. Labour promised “to create a fully elected Second Chamber” (in stages). The Liberal Democrats, similarly, pledged to “replace the House of Lords with a fully-elected second chamber”. The Conservatives were only slightly less reformist, saying, “We will work to build a consensus for a mainly-elected second chamber to replace the current House of Lords”.
But peers tempted to flex their muscles on this issue should be aware that the consensus across the parties surrounding House of Lords reform runs much deeper than this…
Updated Saturday
Giles Fraser has written in today’s Church Times The Bishops are seeking to enshrine gay exclusion.
…This advice shows how much the Bishops have been straining every legal sinew to exclude openly gay bishops — even celibate ones — from their number. Do we really think that straight bishops have been challenged to repent of whatever they might have got up to at university, as it were? Of course not. And this double standard is a clear symptom of the fact that what is really going on here is prejudice, pure and simple.
The other weasel construction that those who pick bishops have alighted on is that a bishop must be “a focus of unity”. No: first and foremost, a bishop must be a man or woman of the gospel. Sometimes this means arguing for the right not to bring peace, but a sword.
To insist that bishops must be “a focus of unity” is a recipe for having bishops whose primary identity is that they are unobjectionable. Indeed, there is something almost heretical about this phrase; for it makes the quest for a quiet Church more of a priority than that of the preaching of the gospel.
The trouble is that, at the moment, a whole world of grammar is being invented with the express purpose of keeping gay people out of senior church positions. From the dreaded Anglican Covenant (whose purpose seems to be much the same) to this new advice, our Church is constructing its ground rules specifically to exclude homosexuals. And there is another phrase for that: institutionalised homophobia…
And the Guardian has published a series of articles this week, under the title How should gay bishops be chosen? which are all linked in this earlier post More discussion on appointing gay CofE bishops which has been regularly updated, but which has fallen down the page due to the number of other news stories since the start of the week.
The most recent (third) item was this one by Colin Coward: Homophobia has infected the Church of England. Earlier items were by Lesley Fellows and Peter Ould.
Saturday update
The Guardian series has now been completed with this fourth piece from Mark Oakley Gay or straight, allow clergy to reflect the rest of us.
13 Comments…If the bishops were to follow their lawyers’ checklist in deciding on new colleagues, history will repeat itself as religious leaders make themselves both inhumane and hypocritical.
Why inhumane? Well, gay people have no choice as to their sexual orientation but, when recognised, they do as the rest do – try to find someone to love and grow old with. Although some are drawn to a celibate life, most feel that it is not good for them to be alone and they seek intimacy and a togetherness that, as married people know, is easier to make stable when celebrated and supported publicly and without fear. Priests and bishops are no different. To stop such people being ordained because a group doesn’t like the fact that some people will always be homosexual would be as unjust as not having made John Sentamu the Archbishop of York because there was a theological argument going round for a white man. If talk of unity is to have any authenticity there has to be diversity and bishops should be signs and enablers of both. Instead, to make gay Christians even more afraid to be honest about who they are, and their need to love and be loved by someone, is not only inhumane but shameful.
Why hypocritical? Putting aside the fact that the present bishops were not questioned on their own sexual pasts, it would be an extraordinary policy to pursue this checklist when so many bishops know and privately support gay clergy in partnerships as well as those who are single who have been partnered at some stage. It would be equally duplicitous to imply that such gay bishops would be an innovation. Truthfulness would be the innovation…
Last week’s special feature in the Church Times is now available to non-subscribers for a while.
Glyn Paflin reviews the history in detail in Hoops and hurdles — the long search for agreement.
And there is a note about The Measure and the Code: not yet fixed.
The arguments against are put in two articles:
David Houlding Sacramental assurance: any man won’t do
Jonathan Baker This is not about justice and equality. We agree on those
The issue of male headship is discussed by two evangelical women, Clare Hendry and Lis Goddard in Male headship: two opposing views
John Saxbee is in favour of the legislation, as it stands There is no need to tread on any toes.
Pat Ashworth talks to four women who are serving as bishops in Women in post: the news from overseas.
Paul Handley has a report on a woman bishop already ministering in Britain, Only an issue when it comes to Anglicans.
And finally, there is a Leader: At this stage, it’s not about women.
13 CommentsUpdated Friday evening
From the Diocese in Europe website: Diocese votes on women bishops.
Members of the Diocese in Europe Synod have voted to accept the draft proposals for women to become bishops – despite the scheme being rejected by the House of Bishops in the Diocese.
The debate, referred to the Diocese from General Synod, was spread over three sessions during the 4 day Synod meeting in Cologne. First two keynote speakers. Bishops Peter Selby and Martin Warner introduced the topic offering different viewpoints but each sensitive to the effects of any change which would allow women to become bishops.
The following day Synod members met in groups to consider the issue. These groups reported back at a final session during the afternoon of Thursday 2nd June before the formal motion was debated. After that debate there was a short time of silent devotion and prayer before voting, by houses. The result was
Bishops – in favour 0 against 2
Clergy – in favour 11 against 10 abstentions 1
Laity – in favour 15 against 6 abstentions 3
And this:
After the main vote Mrs Ann Turner proposed a following motion that “this Synod desires that all faithful Anglicans remain and thrive together in the Church of England and therefore calls upon the House of Bishops to bring forward amendments to the draft Bishops and Priests (Consecration of Women) Measure to ensure that those unable on theological grounds to accept the ministry of women bishops are able to receive Episcopal oversight from a bishop with Authority (i.e. ordinary jurisdiction) conferred by the Measure rather than by delegation from a Diocesan Bishop.”
This was not accepted by Synod (17 votes to 23 with 6 abstentions)
But also:
Important note:- Due to the unique Constitution of the Diocese in Europe the formal response to General Synod must come from the Bishop’s Council (which is a smaller body composed of members of Diocesan Synod – and which will meet in late October).
Go to the diocesan website for audio files relating to this.
Friday evening update
Bishop David Hamid has written on his own blog about this: The decision of Diocesan Synod regarding Women in the Episcopate:
13 Comments…I am in favour of women in the episcopate, but I do not believe that the provision for those who are opposed to this development, contained in the measure, are sufficient to maintain the highest degree of unity in our Church. I therefore had to vote against the motion. I explained my position in a speech which I post below…