Over at Fulcrum Graham Kings has highlighted a recent comment made here at Thinking Anglicans in response to the article Church Times on NEAC.
See Rallying Point of Jerusalem Declaration, Diocesan Funds and FCA.
Today, the Church Times has an article on the proposed new province, see Province plan to be unveiled by Pat Ashworth.
The site described as “the new Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA) web site set up by Anglican Mainstream South Africa” can be found here.
8 CommentsAnother of the presentations has been published, this one by Michael Ovey. And this Bible Study.
Still no sign of the one by Christina Baxter.
Other presentations are linked here.
A Church of England Newspaper report of the meeting by Toby Cohen is at present only available here.
And another Church of England Newspaper article about it is A foot in many camps – a reply to Stephen Kuhrt by Chris Sugden.
4 CommentsChristopher Howse writes today in the Telegraph about Anglicans who’ve lost their memory.
Like an unwatched pan of milk, readers of the Church Times have seethed up and boiled over in response to an analysis of the Church of England by the ever-controversial historian Jonathan Clark…
Here are the links to the Church Times pages where this debate has proceeded:
First, Jonathan Clark wrote an article The C of E needs a strong story.
The next week, there were several letters in response, under the headline The new historiography: is an Anglican via media still defensible? from Jeremy Morris, Simon Heans and Andrew Burnham.
The following week, there was a further letter from Christopher Scargill and a response from Jonathan Clark, at The Church of England’s historical identity.
5 CommentsThree items in today’s Church Times relating to the NEAC event last Saturday.
NEAC5 closes in acrimony after claims of ‘set-up’ by Pat Ashworth
Evangelicals cannot serve two masters by Giles Fraser
Leader column, Church parties within parties.
96 CommentsPeter Owen made reference yesterday to the Q and A concerning the cost of the Lambeth Conference. The full text of the relevant Questions and Answers is below the fold.
6 CommentsUpdated Monday afternoon
The resolution considered at NEAC is given in this report. See also this thread on Fulcrum for more about the procedural aspects.
Presentations:
The presentation by Christina Baxter is awaited.
Meanwhile, Graham Kings has written an analysis, which appears on Comment is free as What would Wilberforce do? and also on Fulcrum where it is titled The Restoration of Evangelicalism: Differences without Division.
9 CommentsJonathan Wynne-Jones reported for the Telegraph that Anglican Church lacks leadership, say bishops.
In a speech to conservative evangelicals, who debated proposals for a new “church within a church”, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali said that there has been a lack of discipline.
Traditionalists have been upset that the Episcopal Church escaped punishment despite consecrating Gene Robinson as Anglicanism’s first openly gay bishop.
The Bishop of Rochester told clergy that the new movement was equivalent to the Reformation in the sixteenth century, which led to the establishment of the Church of England…
And Agence France-Presse has a report Church of England Evangelicals dodge homosexuality vote.
Church of England Evangelicals meeting on Saturday refused to vote to establish their position on homosexuality — an issue that has caused deep splits within the worldwide Anglican communion.
The Church of England Evangelical Council met in central London but the 300 attendees declined an opportunity to vote.
“The opinions expressed were a wide range of opinions,” said The Reverend Doctor Richard Turnbull, chairman of the Church of England Evangelical Council.
“People decided that they didn’t actually want to vote on a resolution. The disadvantage of that is you then don’t exactly know what people think.”
The council meets again on December 4…
There is further information about the meeting at Fulcrum see here, and also here.
And now there is also a report there, by Wim Houtman, NEAC 2008: a Evangelical Dutch Report.
25 CommentsTomorrow, there is a meeting, the National Evangelical Anglican Consultation 2008, organised by the Church of England Evangelical Council. There are a number of articles about this already published.
The programme is here.
This week’s Church of England Newspaper has Preventing CEEC from becoming a ‘Rump Parliament’ by Stephen Kuhrt.
John Richardson has responded here to that article.
This week’s Church Times has Is NEAC5 really representative? by Graham Kings, currently subscription-only, but another copy is available here at Fulcrum.
Also, Andrew Goddard wrote Hopes for NEAC 2008: A Personal Reflection.
10 CommentsFrom the latest InclusiveChurch newsletter (available as PDF here) and online here.
23 CommentsWrite NOW in Support of Women Bishops
(There is still work to be done!)
We have heard that Archbishop Rowan is receiving huge amounts of mail from those opposed to women as bishops and to having a Code of Practice. The opponents of inclusion are still fighting and believe that they can still change or influence Synod’s decision.
Please write to the Legislative Drafting Group (who are creating the legislation to include women as Bishops in the Church of England). We should also write to Rowan as Chair of the House of Bishops making similar and related points.
We need to act quickly because the Legislative Drafting Group meets next on 14th November and the House of Bishops meets next on 12th December.
It is vital to mobilise ALL those in the Church who want to have women as bishops, and who think a Code is an acceptable way forward.
Once again, reactionary conservatives / fundamentalists have pulled out all the stops to try to shake Rowan’s confidence that going ahead is the right thing at this time and that a Code will suffice.
We need to be able to show that we speak for the vast majority of Anglicans in this country.
Some points that could be made in a letter include:
• We know that the Church is ready for and wishes to have women as bishops
• General Synod is competent to decide on having women as bishops
• General Synod in July showed some of what Synod did not want. This must not be put into the Code.
• A Code of Practice CAN work (Forward in Faith is saying it cannot work).
• There must be no separately consecrated bishops. In other words, no more ‘flying’ bishops, and those men who are currently flying bishops should be invited to become ‘proper’ assistant bishops, ministering to all in their area, not just to those who oppose women’s ordained ministries.
• Most of all, we must act in faith based on what we believe about what baptism in Christ means for all people, our mission imperative (over the past 2000 years women have been excluded from different types of ministry because of how it would affect the mission of the Church in the context of the surrounding culture. We need to be asking, what will help our mission now?), and trusting in where God has led us so far.
If you write nothing else, please reassure Rowan that there are many thousands of people in the Church who long to have women as bishops and who see this as God’s guidance and direction for the Church. He needs to be supported in his position as Archbishop of Canterbury and encouraged that the vast majority of the Church are behind him and the bishops in moving forward with consecrating women.
Letters to the Legislative Drafting Group should be sent to: The Rt Revd Nigel McCulloch, Bishopscourt, Bury New Road, Manchester, M7 4LE
Letters to the House of Bishops should be sent to: Jonathan Neil-Smith, Secretary to the House of Bishops, Church House, Great Smith Street, London, SW1P 3NZ
With thanks to Christina Rees (Chair of WATCH)
Further to the recent announcement reported here, today Martin Dudley has a letter to the editor published in the Church Times. The original is subscriber-only at present, but it has nevertheless been reproduced in full by other websites and so can be read here, and is further copied here.
Martin Beckford has written about it on his Telegraph blog under the title Gay wedding: Dudley insists there was no apology and no frank discussions.
Martin Dudley was also nominated for the Stonewall Hero of the Year, but didn’t win. He did however get his picture taken with the winner.
5 Commentsupdated Friday afternoon
The latest Church of England statistics, for 2006/2007, have been released. These are now only published online, although some are usually published later in the Church of England Year Book.
The official press release states Statistics show increased ordinations, vocations and giving.
Bill Bowder in the Church Times reports Clergy numbers up, but laity down.
The statistics cover a lot more than is picked up in the press release and the Church Times article, and a full list is below the fold.
Statistics for earlier years are also available.
Update
David Walker has covered this story in his Church Times blog where he draws our attention to an analysis by David Keen: Fewer and Older: New Church of England stats on clergy, ordinations, schools and finance.
2 CommentsUpdated
The Times carries two articles on this:
Should the Church be disestablished? Yes, says Dr Sean Gabb
Should the Church be disestablished? No, says Rt Revd Christopher Herbert
Update Saturday
There is a letter to the editor from Augur Pearce Should Church and State be kept separate?
2 CommentsThe Diocese of London website carries this Statement on the Service at St Bartholomew the Great signed by Bishop Pete Broadbent. (Hat Tip to Ruth Gledhill who has published a fuller version of Martin Dudley’s letter on her blog under the heading Dudley pulls it off! and also wrote about it under a more sedate headline on The Times website as Vicar who performed ‘wedding’ ceremony for two gay clergy expresses regret.)
14 CommentsThe Assistant Bishop of London has issued the following statement regarding the service that took place at St Bartholomew the Great on 31 May.
Dear Colleagues,
I am contacting you all on Bishop Richard’s behalf since, as you know, he is currently away on holiday.
Earlier this year, the Bishop wrote to you regarding a service held at St Bartholomew the Great on May 31st, which had generated considerable publicity and consternation.
Since this time, under the Bishop’s instructions, the Archdeacon of London has carried out an investigation into the matter, alongside the Chancellor of the Diocese. This has involved a series of frank discussions with the Rector, Revd Dr Martin Dudley.
As a consequence, the Rector has made expressly clear his regret over what happened at St Bartholomew the Great and accepted the service should not have taken place. Bishop Richard has considered the matter and has decided to accept the Rector’s apology in full. The matter is therefore now closed.
To avoid any uncertainty over what has been said, I have enclosed below, with the Rector’s permission, his statement of apology to the Bishop:
“I can now appreciate that the service held at St Bartholomew the Great on 31 May 2008 was inconsistent with the terms of the Pastoral Statement from the House of Bishops issued in 2005. Whilst the precise status of this pastoral document within the Church of England generally and the Diocese of London in particular may be a matter of differing interpretations, I ought to have afforded it far greater weight. I regret the embarrassment caused to you by this event and by its subsequent portrayal in the media. I now recognise that I should not have responded positively to the request for this service, even though it was made by another incumbent of your Diocese, who is a colleague, neighbour and friend of us both nor should I have adopted uncritically the Order of Service prepared by him and his partner. I had not appreciated that the event would have been attended by so many nor that it would have attracted the publicity and notoriety which it did.
“I share your abhorrence of homophobia in all its forms. I am profoundly uneasy with much of the content of the House of Bishops’ Pastoral Statement which anecdotal evidence suggests is being widely, though discretely, disregarded in this Diocese and elsewhere. Nonetheless, I am willing to abide by its content in the future, until such time as it is rescinded or amended, and I undertake not to provide any form of blessing for same sex couples registering civil partnerships.”
As I say, following the Rector’s full and frank apology, the Bishop considers the matter now closed.
With best wishes and prayers
Pete Broadbent
Assistant Bishop of London
There has been a lot of material in The Times about this.
Alice Thomson and Rachel Sylvester interviewed Phil Woolas on 18 October. At the very end, he is reported thus:
But he also warns Christians that they need to be more accepting of other faiths. The Church of England will, in his view, be disestablished in the end. “It will probably take 50 years but a modern society is multifaith.”
Rachel Sylvester wrote There’s a God-shaped hole in Westminster. Towards the end, she said:
When Alice Thomson and I interviewed Phil Woolas last week, his comments on immigration hit the headlines – but it was his suggestion that the Anglican Church would be disestablished that got Downing Street in a jitter. The minister’s claim that the link between Church and State would be broken within 50 years because “a modern society is multi-faith” was potential dynamite, with implications for the monarchy, the armed forces and the judiciary as well as Parliament. In fact, Mr Brown has already started to break the link between Church and State – he has given up the power to appoint bishops and is considering a plan to abolish the Act of Settlement, which ensures that only a Protestant can succeed to the throne – but he had hoped to move to the point of disestablishment by stealth.
It would be wrong to suggest that Britain is any longer a Christian country in terms of the population – only 7 per cent of people regularly attend an Anglican church. Yet neither is Britain a secular State like France. Its history, culture and constitutional settlement are based on the link between Church and State. Earlier this year, Nicholas Sarkozy criticised the French republic’s obsession with secularism and called for a “blossoming” of religions. “A man who believes is a man who hopes,” he said. It is ironic that politicians in this country have abandoned belief – at the very moment that the people need hope.
Then, there was this report by Richard Ford and Ruth Gledhill that enlarges on the point. Phil Woolas contradicts government policy over position of Church of England:
Phil Woolas, the new Immigration Minister, was again at the centre of controversy last night after contradicting official government policy over the position of the Church of England.
The outcome of the Government’s attempt to reform the House of Lords would be to strip the Church of its privileges, he said. Within 50 years the Church of England would have lost the special position it has held in English life since the Reformation.
Mr Woolas told The Times: “Disestablishment – I think it will happen because it’s the way things are going. Once you open debate about reform of the House of Lords you open up debate about the make-up of the House. It will probably take 50 years, but a modern society is multifaith.”
His remarks caused consternation in Whitehall: the Government has no intention of igniting a political row over the issue, which has consequences for the monarchy…
The Times has also published a leader on this, titled Church and nation. This concludes:
…Disestablishment would in a sense allow the Church of England to be more Christian. Its concerns would be less expansive, and a more distinctive voice might thereby emerge. Whether that is the right course for the Church and for the nation is a conversation worth holding. It should, however, be conducted with an eye to posterity, if not eternity. While a national church might appear an anachronism, changing its status must not be undertaken lightly.
Above all, this is an issue on which the Church itself should deliberate. Politicians have transient authority, whereas the Church has existed for centuries. For a decision that would be irrevocable, there is no need to adopt a timetable.
A sidebar in the Ford/Gledhill article says this:
26 CommentsDisestablishment would put at risk
— The presence of a parish priest for every community
— The right of all, unless there is a separate legal inhibition, to be married, baptised or given a funeral at their parish church
— The Church’s central role in helping the nation to mark important events, such as royal weddings
— The role of the Church as an education provider through church schools
— The public enactment of church legislation. The laws of the Church are part of the laws of England – measures passed by General Synod also need to be passed by Parliament – and therefore the Church’s courts are part of the English legal system
— The role of the Sovereign as supreme governor of the Church
— The role of the Crown in appointing bishops and other senior clergy
— The presence of bishops in the House of Lords – they are not there to protect self-interest but to represent communities in a non-party-political way
In addition to this earlier report, Religious Intelligence has published two more items about the FiF conference, written by Michael Brown.
Traditionalists warn church of evangelism threat:
An extraordinary claim that if traditionalist Anglicans are “destroyed”, the Gospel in England “will suffer” because no one else is evangelising, was issued by the Bishop of Fulham, the Rt Rev John Broadhurst, last weekend…
General Synod accused of ‘ignoring the wider church’:
The Church of England’s General Synod was roundly accused by a “flying bishop” last week of being determined to “go against the corporate mind of the Church Catholic”.
The accusation came from the Bishop of Beverley, the Rt Rev Martyn Jarrett, in a sermon at a Mass at St Alban’s, Holborn, for members of Forward in Faith, the traditionalist Anglican body, who were attending their annual assembly in Westminster.
The September issue of New Directions carried this article by Christina Rees titled A mutual challenge:
The result of the debate in General Synod on 7 July should have come as no surprise. The outcome was consistent with how General Synod has repeatedly voted on the subject of opening the episcopate to women. And yet for some, there was surprise, and more than that, a sense of shock, even disbelief…
The Autumn issue of Forward! Plus, available here, has an article on page 3 titled The Women Bishops Vote – An Obituary for Anglo-Catholics? and another article on page 7 which is largely a response to the New Directions article linked above.
3 CommentsUpdated again Wednesday afternoon
Reform has been holding its annual conference in Central London.
The programme for the conference is here (PDF).
Reports are coming in.
Ruth Gledhill has written on her blog England’s ‘Pittsburgh’ unfolds as parishes seek new bishop and for The Times she has written Church of England schism over gays.
Martin Beckford has written for the Telegraph that 3,000 Church of England worshippers may defect to overseas provinces, Reform warns.
A large part of Mr Thomas’ speech is reproduced on Ruth’s blog entry.
Updates
Riazat Butt has written for the Guardian Evangelical leader urges Anglicans to break away.
The complete text of the speech by Rod Thomas is now available here.
83 CommentsThe Church of Ireland Gazette reports in Inquiry established into Lambeth Conference finances that:
13 CommentsFollowing reports of a £1.2m shortfall in the funding of this year’s Lambeth Conference, the Church of England’s Archbishops’ Council and Church Commissioners have set up a review, under the independent chairmanship of John Ormerod, a former senior partner of Deloitte, to examine the financial management of the Lambeth Conference.
The team has also been asked to make recommendations regarding the future involvement of the Council and the Board of the Church Commissioners in assisting the financing of meetings of the Lambeth Conference. A spokesman for the Church of England told the Gazette: “The inquiry is due to report back to the Council and the Board early in 2009 with a preliminary report on the financial difficulties and how these arose. A final report, examining the way forward, will be produced in summer 2009. The Council and Board have indicated that the inquiry’s report should be published.” The membership of the inquiry will be: John Ormerod; the Rt Revd Tim Stevens, Bishop of Leicester, and Christina Baxter (both Archbishops’ Council); and Timothy Walker, Third Church Estates Commissioner…
Martin Beckford reports in the Telegraph on a speech made by the Bishop of Fulham: Church of England’s parliament is ‘sinful’ over women bishops vote, says Bishop of Fulham.
…In a keynote address to the annual meeting of Forward in Faith, the church’s Anglo-Catholic wing of which he is chairman, Bishop Broadhurst told members that the Synod’s decision had been wrong and urged them not to leave the church as the outcome of the dispute could still be changed.
He said: “The General Synod is presuming to change things as it wills, presuming to decide doctrine separate from the tradition, separate from scripture, separate from the universal brief and practice of the church. Sinful presumption, sinful.
“This is not a vote we’ve lost, this is sin. This is human beings presuming to tell God in Jesus Christ he got it wrong, presuming to tell the majority of Christians we know better.”
He went on to say the Synod is “unfit for purpose” because it does not consider God first and added to applause: “The sooner it is trimmed, culled, sorted or even destroyed, the better.”
Bishop Broadhurst, who earlier in the year accused liberals of “institutional bullying” and warned of legal battles over churches if traditionalists defect to Rome, added that the Synod’s decisions can be undone and reiterated that he wants it to create a separate jurisdiction enshrined in law for opponents of women bishops, not a “ghetto for bigots”…
You can hear the whole of this speech, by going to this link.
At the same page, there is also a presentation on what happened in the July General Synod debate by David Houlding.
Jonathan Wynne-Jones has also commented on this here.
The Church of England Newspaper had a report by Toby Cohen about the recent meeting of the House of Bishops. Religious Intelligence carries English Church discusses ‘complementary’ bishops plan.
38 CommentsAs the English House of Bishops met to discuss the Church of England’s future, a Synod insider revealed that plans are already in place to provide ‘flying bishops’ for those who cannot accept women bishops.
The bishops gathered in London earlier this week with a series of momentous debates to be thrashed out, on topics including women bishops, complementary or ‘flying’ bishops, Anglican governance, and the broken state of the Communion following the divisions in The Episcopal Church. The agenda for the discussions is supposedly kept private, but several of the debates have already spilled out into the public domain.
An anonymous bishop revealed last weekend that flying bishops would be provided for those who could not accept the authority of women bishops. Synod lay member, Paul Eddy, has now confirmed to Religious Intelligence that the reports were true, although he was not at liberty to reveal the identity of the Bishop.
He said the Church was preparing to offer oversight for traditionalists who could not accept the authority of women bishops: “It will happen, there’s no doubt about it. That’s why we need to stop playing politics with it, and actually unite and do something about it.
“There are conversations going on already, I know at least 12 parishes and two key dioceses where people have come together and have already sorted out the oversight.”
The Telegraph has a report by George Pitcher today, Women bishops face ‘flying bigots’, which follows up on the recent reports of national proposals with an account of what the Diocese of London did on Friday:
Some priestly women activists had urged a boycott of the event, fearing a mugging from the Anglo-Catholics. In the event, they had nothing to fear. The oppressive St Paul’s felt like that foreign land where women did things differently, but it was unmistakably of the past.
Dr Chartres, too, was playing an open hand. He acknowledged that, for some, the gender issue is one of justice, over which there can be no compromise.
The London Plan, first devised by Dr David Hope as Bishop of London, offers an Episcopal oversight, in the shape of the Bishop of Fulham, for those who cannot accept women as bishops. The question is whether it can be a paradigm for the wider Church. My guess is that the women’s faction will accept such provision for male traditionalists if it’s from an area bishop, like Fulham, within the diocese (whose diocesan bishop may well be a woman) and within a simple code of practice, but not flying bishops effectively from a “third province” founded in law. As Dr Chartres affirms, there can be no “episcopacy-lite” for women.
But that takes no account of the real-politick in evidence in St Paul’s on Friday. Some of the men-only camp are set on legal protection by the back door, after Synod voted clearly for a code of practice. One or two of them were indulging on Friday in what Canon Winkett called “competitive vulnerability”, invoking a term coined by novelist Sara Maitland for those who believe their pain must be bigger than that of others.
There are important further details on his blog at Language of women bishops and ‘flying bigots’.
41 CommentsUpdated again Tuesday afternoon
The chaplain to the London Stock Exchange, Peter Mullen is in trouble.
According to the Evening Standard , in a report by Robert Mendick and Simon Kirby Chaplain: Gay men should have sodomy warning tattoos
The chaplain to the London Stock Exchange is under pressure to quit today after demanding gay men should be forced to have “sodomy” warnings tattooed on their bodies.
The suggestion is contained in a series of comments on the internet blog of the Rev Peter Mullen.
The Bishop of London today branded Mr Mullen’s comments “highly offensive” and Stonewall, the gay rights charity, said he should resign…
…the bishop today also rebuked Mr Mullen for his remarks.
In a statement issued to the Evening Standard, a spokesman said: “While clergy are entitled to their own personal views, we recognise that the content of this text is highly offensive and is in no way reflective of the views of the Diocese of London.”
A source at the Diocese said the chaplain may now face a disciplinary inquiry over his comments. The source said: “These comments are now being looked at internally within the Diocese and he faces disciplinary procedures.”
Other newspapers are following up:
Telegraph Aislinn Simpson Homosexuals should carry warning tattoos, says chaplain
Guardian Riazat Butt Vicar could be disciplined for blog slurs against gays and Muslims
Press Association via the Independent Rector condemned for ‘sodomy’ remarks
BBC Tattoo gay people, priest writes
Andrew Brown has noted this item at Comment is free in A taxi-driver, oops, vicar writes.
Ruth Gledhill has Peter Mullen should have his bottom spanked!
And Times Online finally has a report, Chaplain’s blog calls for homosexuals to be tatooed.
Now, after a day of this, second stories:
Press Association Clergyman apologises over call to tattoo gay people
BBC Priest ‘sorry’ for gay comments
32 Comments