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 CommentsUpdated Sunday afternoon
Jonathan Wynne-Jones reports in the Telegraph about what the drafting group is now proposing.
The first version of this story published online on Saturday afternoon is Bishops to serve male clergy only in plans to avert exodus from Church of England.
The second version, which is presumably what is going into the Sunday paper edition, was published online this evening as Church of England clergy ‘flying bishops’ opt-out proposed to aid move to women bishops
And there is this “Analysis” piece, Church of England ‘flying bishops’ plan offers traditionalists new hope with a very out-of-date picture of the General Synod chamber as it used to be.
Update
Religious Intelligence has published Church of England still divided over women bishops vote.
This includes the following from the Bishop of Blackburn:
28 CommentsThe Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Rev Nicholas Reade, has agreed that the relationship between Synod and the episcopacy needs to be clarified. He said: “Synodical government served us well in the early days but it’s been a kind of juggernaut. I think it’s got totally out of control.”
Bishop Reade spoke against the Synod becoming parliamentary with two competing sides: “Ideally I think the House of Bishops should be there, and we should be listening to the debate, and we should go away and make the decisions.”
He said the clergy and laity should vote, but that it should simply be used as information for the bishops.
The Church Times reports today on the case of The Reverend Mark Sharpe.
See Diocese accepts priest in harassment case is ‘worker’ by Shiranikha Herbert with some additional material by me.
A CHURCH OF ENGLAND cleric is a “worker” who is entitled to bring a claim against the Church, the diocese of Worcester conceded as a preliminary point in a claim brought in an employment tribunal at Birmingham by the Revd Mark Sharpe, Rector of Teme Valley South.
Mr Sharpe, who is 41, a former police officer who was ordained in 2001, claimed that during his three-year tenure he had been subjected to constant verbal abuse, his pet dog had been killed, faeces had been smeared on his car, and his tyres had been slashed. He also claimed that the vicarage where he lived with his wife and four children was infested with mice and frogs, the heating and electrical systems were danger ous, and deadly asbestos had been found.
He applied for damages for economic loss, injury to health and to his feelings, and aggravated damages for his time in the parish, which, he said, had a 40-year history of vicars, including his two immediate predecessors, who had left in controversial circumstances…
There is a further report on the Charity Finance website headed Church denies union claims of employment rights revolution.
The Church, however, says that the tribunal case has no impact on the status of any clergy outside the case itself. Agreeing to consider Revd. Sharpe a ‘worker’ was a requirement to allow the case to move forward, said Sam Setchell, a spokesperson for the Diocese of Worcester.
“The Unite union is making much of a legal technicality that is part of the normal preliminaries to a tribunal. It does not have the wide-ranging implications claimed,” said Ben Wilson, a spokesman for the Church of England. “As the union themselves concede, this case is still in its preliminary stages.”
The tribunal is hearing a case brought against the Diocese of Worcester by Revd. Sharpe who alleges that over his three years at the parish he has been subject to verbal abuse and harassment. The Reverend claims that his living conditions were extremely poor; that asbestos was found at his accommodation and that its electricity and heating systems were dangerous. The Diocese of Worcester denies the allegations, but has refused to make further comment while the case is ongoing.
The claims made by the Unite trade union can be found in its press release.
For more links and background to this case, see the Church Times blog article headed ‘Clergy set for biggest boost in employment conditions in 500 years’, according to union.
16 CommentsI reported in February on the award made by the employment tribunal in the case of John Reaney. See Reaney awarded £47K and also Hereford: Church Times report.
At the time, we all thought that was the end of the matter. But it was not. As I reported in the Church Times last week:
3 CommentsHereford ends fight against pay-out
by Simon Sarmiento
THE Hereford Diocesan Board of Finance has withdrawn the notice of appeal it filed in March in the employment discrimination case involving John Reaney. Mr Reaney will now receive the full award, exceeding £47,000, directed by a Cardiff employment tribunal in February (News, 15 February).
In July 2007, the tribunal decided that the diocese had unlawfully discriminated against Mr Reaney because of his sexual orientation, when the Bishop of Hereford, the Rt Revd Anthony Priddis, refused to confirm his appointment as Diocesan Youth Officer in July 2006 (News, 20 July 2007; News and Comment, 27 July 2007).
The diocese did not appeal against this finding, and said in a statement in February: “We are glad we can draw a line under this unhappy situation.” Nevertheless, in March the diocese filed a notice of appeal against the major portion of the Remedies judgment.
Mr Reaney, who had been employed by the Weston Spirit charity, was made redundant earlier this year, as had been forecast in his submission to the Remedies hearing last December.
Update – early Sunday evening
The new website (more accurately a new section of the CofE website) is now online: On the origin of Darwin.
There is an accompanying press release Church of England marks Darwin’s contribution to science as bicentenary approaches.
———
There are reports in today’s papers that the Church of England will apologise to Charles Darwin for rejecting evolution in a new website to be launched tomorrow.
Jonathan Wynne-Jones in The Telegraph Charles Darwin to receive apology from the Church of England for rejecting evolution
Alexandra Frean and Lewis Smith in The Times Anglicans back Darwin over ‘noisy’ creationists
Jonathan Petre in the Mail Church makes ‘ludicrous’ apology to Charles Darwin – 126 years after his death
Updated Friday morning
A month ago, we provided a brief update here on the SPCK bookshops saga.
Recently, the bankruptcy petition filed in Houston was rejected.
Today, there are further developments:
A Motion For Sanctions Against J. Mark Brewer and the Law Firm of Brewer & Pritchard, P.C. has been filed. Read the full text of it here.
Matt Wardman has written about this in US Court Motion for Sanctions against Mark Brewer: Is the dam breaking at last?
Another recent post shows how the bookshops have not had the SPCK logo removed.
By an extraordinary coincidence, a meeting is being held today between ex-SPCK staff and suppliers, see agenda here.
Friday morning update
The Church Times has a detailed report by Pat Ashworth Bookshop employees will air grievances at tribunal:
THIRTY former employees of SPCK Book shops are taking their case to an employment tribunal, in a legal process that begins in Bury St Edmunds next Thursday.
Their represen tatives from USDAW, the shopworkers’ union, will meet the tribunal chairman at an admin istrative hearing that is the first stage in grievance proceedings against the St Stephen the Great Charitable Trust (SSG) and its directors, Mark and Phil Brewer.
In the light of the bankruptcy proceedings (see panel, below), USDAW’s legal office said on Tuesday that one key and complex task at the hearing would be to work out who was the employer at the time of dismissal, and whether appropriate responses had been made to the claims…
The article also includes a timeline of events.
0 CommentsMadeleine Bunting wrote an article on Comment is free headed Faith schools can best generate the common purpose that pupils need.
Theo Hobson has written another article there, headed Throw open the doors which responds to her, noting that:
More recently, Madeleine Bunting wrote an excellent piece in support of Oasis, a Christian charity that runs new academy schools. It renounces the right to use selection by church attendance, and is thus in accord with Accord.
I agree with Bunting that this is the way forward. Unlike church schools in general, this organisation has grasped the crucial point: it is only possible for Christians to do good in the field of education if they reject a system that privileges the pushy and rewards hypocrisy. If Oasis changes the churches’ mind, it could be a real breakthrough in our broken education system. It will take courage and humility for the Church of England to admit that it has erred, and to recommend that all its schools open their admissions policies. There’s nothing stopping it, but pride and love of power.
Hobson also responds to the article by John Hall, Dean of Westminster, linked earlier, saying:
0 CommentsWhat is perhaps most objectionable about Hall’s article is the implication that a positive ethos is unlikely to be found in a non-faith school:
“Ethos in a school context is about the values the school espouses and the behaviour that results. A school built on the conviction that every member of its community is an individual made and loved by God and with an eternal destiny in God’s purposes will be one in which people treat each other with mutual respect and regard”.
I would like to invite Hall to an assembly at my children’s community primary school in Harlesden, where children of all faiths and none celebrate what they have in common, and are taught “mutual respect and regard” by dedicated staff (some of whom are religious believers – this is not about atheists v believers). The school community is no organic idyll – there’s lots of people with different cultural baggage coming into tentative contact with each other. But it’s here that real community is difficultly born.
The Church Times carried two items this week:
A news report by Margaret Holness Faith groups slam ‘ignorance’ of new schools campaign and a comment article by Paul Vallely Beware the erosion of faith schools.
The Guardian had a leader column earlier in the week, which I failed to list previously, Testing faith.
Others writing there were: Savitri Hensman in support of the Accord position in Schooled to be neighbours and in support of the status quo, Henry Grunwald Have faith in our schools.
Two pieces of research which Accord cites in support of its position are:
National Foundation for Educational Research The impact of specialist and faith schools on performance
London School of Economics London faith secondary schools cater for affluent pupils
4 CommentsUpdated Thursday evening
Continuing the report from Monday:
Andrew Brown wrote on Comment is free taking issue with Simon Barrow, in Faith schools: is there really a better option?
Simon Barrow has now replied at Wardman Wire with Faithfully schooled for debate?
The Church of England Newspaper has published an editorial headlined Religious schools: open up or call time? That URL will only be valid for a week, but Ekklesia has reproduced the full text over here.
This mentions the Cantle report of 2001. You can find that as a PDF here. And the Church of England press release in response here.
Update
Jonathan Romain also wrote at Comment is free under the title I’m for faith, not faith schools.
The Dean of Westminster, formerly the Church of England’s chief education officer, replied to him, see Schooling for tolerance.
And the Economist weighed in with Religious rights and wrongs.
4 CommentsA new coalition was launched today, which aims to change the agenda on faith schools in Britain. The Accord website is here. The group’s aims are stated as follows:
We believe all state-funded schools should:
1. Operate admissions policies that take no account of pupils’ – or their parents’ – religion or beliefs.
2. Operate recruitment and employment policies that do not discriminate on the grounds of religion or belief.
3. Follow an objective, fair and balanced syllabus for education about religious and non-religious beliefs – whether determined by their local authority or by any future national syllabus or curriculum for RE.
4. Be made accountable under a single inspection regime for RE, Personal, Social & Health Education (PSHE) and Citizenship.
5. Provide their pupils with inclusive, inspiring and stimulating assemblies in place of compulsory acts of worship.
Advance press coverage of this, see for example New pressure over faith schools at the BBC and Faith schools accused on employment from the Press Association and Campaigners fight to stop schools recruiting staff based on religion in the Guardian produced some strong reactions, notably Melanie McDonagh: Faith schools work. Until you take the faith away at the Independent.
A counter-coalition called the Faith Schools’ Providers Group issued a press release reported in Mainstream religious leaders unite to defend faith schools.
And the Catholic Education Service also issued its own press statement: Catholic Education Service rejects ‘spurious’ claims of group opposing faith schools.
Today, Simon Barrow has written repeatedly about what Accord is really seeking:
Ekklesia A Christian case for Accord
Open Democracy Changing the agenda on faith schools
Comment is free Changing the faith schools’ agenda
8 CommentsThe report to General Synod (GS 1685A) from the House of Bishops on the legislation for women bishops was clear. A majority of that house wished to avoid the creation of any new structures, and considered that a national code of practice was both necessary and sufficient to protect the consciences of those unable to accept the ministry of women as bishops.
We knew before the 11 July debate that “a significant minority within the House” was opposed to the approach embodied in the draft resolution submitted. But we did not know the size and composition of the majority or the minority. Now we do. The results of the electronic voting in the House of Bishops are available, either here, or over here.
The final outcome saw 68% of the bishops present, and 72% of the House of Clergy voting in favour of a motion that had been amended only slightly from the text the House of Bishops had originally put forward. The laity were less enthusiastic with a majority of only 61%. (Overall, exactly a two-thirds majority.) So the Synod accepted the view of the episcopal majority, and rejected all attempts to adopt any of the other options that the Manchester Report had proposed.
Episcopal opposition turned out to be almost entirely limited to a core group of only twelve bishops. These included five who later signed the 15 August letter (see below) and who also have votes in Synod, i.e. the Bishops of Blackburn, Chichester, Europe, Burnley and Beverley. There were also seven others: the Bishops of Birmingham, Exeter, London, Rochester, Winchester, Dover and, significantly, the Archbishop of Canterbury.
At the end of the debate, the Archbishop abstained, and the other eleven all voted against the substantive motion. The only other bishop who voted “No” was the Bishop of Durham, whose earlier motion to adjourn the debate had support from only 46% of the synod. He had consistently opposed every amendment throughout the debate.
The group of twelve also supported several amendments that would have moved the outcome in a conservative direction.
First, all twelve voted in favour of an amendment proposed by the Bishop of Winchester. Only two other bishops joined in this action: Bradford and Southwell & Nottingham. This amendment sought to do two things:
Next, a small wording change, proposed by Prebendary David Houlding, to change “wish” to “wish of the majority” [for women to be admitted to the episcopate] was narrowly approved, by 62% of Bishops and 51% of Laity but by only by a single vote in the House of Clergy. Curiously, the Bishop of Rochester voted against this.
Ten of the twelve then voted in favour of Fr Simon Killwick’s amendment that sought to allow new dioceses to be considered. London opposed this and Canterbury abstained. No other bishop voted for it. The amendment was defeated by 71%, 68.5%, and 61% margins in the three houses.
Eleven then voted for the Bishop of Exeter’s amendment, which aimed to allow a structural solution based on existing rather than new dioceses. Again London voted against, but two others (Bradford and St Edmundsbury) added support. It also was defeated by margins of 64%, 64% and 59%.
Finally, ten of them voted for the Bishop of Ripon & Leeds’s amendment to keep open the possibility of “statutory transfer of specified responsibilities”. Altogether 21 bishops supported this, but amazingly both Chichester and Birmingham opposed it, leading to a 21-21 tie in that House. (The chair of the drafting group, the Bishop of Manchester, abstained on many though not all votes.)
The amendment did obtain a 53% majority in the House of Laity, but failed in the House of Clergy where it obtained only 47% support. Had the vote not been by houses, the amendment would have passed by the slim margin of 203-200, with 3 abstentions.
For completeness, I should also note that two other amendments were both voted down by huge margins. The Reverend Steven Trott’s amendment, to keep open all the options of the Manchester report, was voted down by huge margins in all houses: 89% of bishops, 82% of clergy, and 78% of laity. Among all the bishops, only Chichester, Rochester and Beverley voted “yes”.
To match this, the Reverend Miranda Threlfall-Holmes’ amendment to adopt the “simplest statutory approach”, and exclude even a national code of practice, was also voted down by large margins, though smaller than in the previous case. The figures against were 82%, 59%, and 62%. Seven bishops were in favour of this, namely Southwark, Bristol, Liverpool, Bath & Wells, Hereford, Derby and Portsmouth. The Bishop of Ripon & Leeds abstained.
The net effect of all this is that the view of the overwhelming majority of the House of Bishops was accepted by the whole synod. The recent letter from fourteen traditionalist Anglo-Catholic bishops, only five of whom have votes in General Synod, highlighted that the House of Laity vote was below the two-thirds level that will be needed for final approval of the women bishops legislation. It also pointed to close voting on the amendment offered by the Bishop of Ripon & Leeds as another indicator of less than overwhelming support for legislation without “new structures”.
However, the final approval vote will not occur in the life of this Synod, but only after new elections have been held in 2010. This issue may well dominate those elections. The House of Bishops, to whom the letter writers are explicitly appealing, does not meet again until October. By that time, the Legislative Drafting Group should be halfway through its task of preparing a draft for the General Synod to consider in February. General Synod has clearly instructed the group to do so only on the basis of a statutory code of practice. The strength of support for that in the House of Bishops is now clearly on the record.
Note: Sheffield and Truro were vacant sees at the time of the vote, and there were six bishops who were either not present or who never voted at all (Coventry, Chester, Sodor & Man, Ely, Salisbury and Leicester).
22 CommentsThe Bishop of Ely, Anthony Russell has written On returning home from Lambeth.
Paul Richardson, Assistant Bishop of Newcastle, has written Analysis: Will the Lambeth Conference bring peace to the Anglican world?
The Bishop of Oxford, John Pritchard has written Bishop John reflects on Lambeth.
12 CommentsThis time from the Bishop of Gloucester, Michael Perham.
Read Bishop Michael’s account of the Lambeth Conference.
Earlier entries in this series:
Christopher Hill, Bishop of Guildford.
Michael Scott-Joynt, Bishop of Winchester.
Updated again Friday afternoon
The text of the letter from fourteen English bishops to the signatories of the open letter from 1,400 clergy to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York concerning the ordination of women to the episcopate is copied in full below the fold.
Original reports of the earlier letter, and a link to the original with signatures, are here.
Today’s Telegraph report by Jonathan Wynne-Jones is headlined ‘Substantial number’ of clergy will leave over plans for women bishops.
Update Friday
Church Times report Bishops offer lead to Catholics: Wait and be charitable by Pat Ashworth
Church of England Newspaper report English bishops dismiss Code of Practice proposal by Matt Cresswell
The Bishop of Gloucester, Michael Perham has set out his thoughts on the latest General Synod debate on the ordination of women to the episcopate.
49 CommentsSavitri Hensman has written an article on Comment is free which is titled Too big a tent with the strapline:
Rowan Williams preaches tolerance, but the Anglican church would rather pander to bigots than fight homophobia.
Her article concludes:
36 CommentsMeanwhile, at the Lambeth conference, the Archbishop of Canterbury appealed for a “covenant of faith” that would “promise to our fellow human beings the generosity God has shown us”, and suggested “a Pastoral Forum to support minorities”. But to him, those needing greater generosity and pastoral care were mainly Christians with strong objections to same-sex partnerships. While he is a humane man, his priorities seem strange. If Anglicans are to remain relevant, and a force for good, bishops need to listen more carefully to people like Michael Causer’s family.
This one is from the Bishop of Guildford, Christopher Hill.
Read the transcript of his audio interview in this PDF file: Lambeth Conference 2008 Mark Rudall talks to Bishop Christopher Hill, Bishop of Guildford.
The audio itself is linked from this page.
2 CommentsUpdated Thursday evening
Today, the Bishop of Winchester has published a lengthy article, The Lambeth Conference 2008 – and the future of the Anglican Communion A Report to the Diocese of Winchester although I cannot at present find it on the Winchester diocesan website, but only on the Global South Anglican website, and, in part, on the Anglican Mainstream website.
Anyway you can read it all here.
Update
Jonathan Wynne-Jones has written about this letter, see Senior bishop predicts Anglican battle ahead.
The Church of England issued this press release today:
13 CommentsLambeth Conference: Funding
11 August 2008The Board of Governors of the Church Commissioners, and the Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England have both met within the past few days to discuss an approach from the Lambeth Conference Company* for financial help. The Board met this morning (August 11th) and the Council on Thursday August 7th.
The Company has assured the Board and the Council that it is continuing to make further approaches throughout the Anglican Communion to meet the full cost of this year’s Conference. It cannot, however, be confident that these will generate funds sufficiently quickly for it to meet all of its obligations as they fall due over the coming weeks and months.
The Board of Governors of the Church Commissioners and the Archbishops’ Council have therefore each agreed to make available to the Company up to £600k as required to enable the Company to honour its commitments while fundraising efforts continue. At this stage both bodies regard these amounts as interest free loan facilities.
They will be considering these matters again at their September meetings when they expect a further report from the Company about the progress of its fundraising efforts.
Notes
There has already been generous support from the Church of England for the Lambeth Conference. Parishes and dioceses have made donations towards the costs of overseas bishops attending and the Church Commissioners have met the fees of the English bishops and their wives attending the Lambeth Conference, the costs of some of the conference organising staff, and some of the hospitality offered by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
More information about the Lambeth Conference is available at www.lambethconference.org.
*The Lambeth Conference Company is the body given responsibility for managing the finances and administration of the Lambeth Conference 2008.