A meeting was held at All Souls Church, Langham Place, in London yesterday evening on Global Anglicanism & English Orthodoxy?. Speakers included three of the (arch)bishops who had attended GAFCON last week: Henry Orombi (Archbishop of Uganda), Greg Venables (Presiding Bishop of the Southern Cone) and Peter Jensen (Archbishop of Sydney).
Riazat Butt at The Guradian Church of England crisis: Mass defections loom as rebel faction appeals to English clergy
Hundreds of English clergy appear poised to defect from the Church of England to join a new conservative movement after a conference led by rebel archbishops was swamped with delegates in London yesterday.
George Pitcher at the Telegraph Anglican Church crisis: Phoney war becomes an invasion
The phoney war declared on the The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, in the Holy Lands last week has turned into an invasion.
Ruth Gledhill at the Times Evangelical Christians sign up to a ‘Church within a Church’
Nearly 800 clergy and lay leaders from the Church of England took the first steps yesterday towards forming a “Church within a Church” to be an evangelical stronghold against the ordination of gay people.
Andy McSmith at The Independent Anglican rebels ‘punched gay rights activists’
30 CommentsThree gay rights protesters say they were punched while being forcibly removed yesterday from a conference at which rebel bishops were trying to attract recruits to a network for Anglicans who believe all same-sex relationships should be condemned.
Some press articles are now referring to both women bishops and the fall-out from GAFCON so we list them together.
Theo Hobson in a Comment is free article for The Guardian The Evangelicals are moving in for the kill subtitled “Foca doesn’t want to form a breakaway church; it wants to take over the Anglican Communion, and depose Rowan Williams”.
George Pitcher in the Telegraph Archbishop of Canterbury braves the crossfire
Riazat Butt and Peter Walker in The Guardian Archbishop of Canterbury hits out at breakaway Anglicans
WATCH issued a press release “Women Bishops: the Church should move ahead in faith, not fear” yesterday; it is reproduced below the fold.
Tom Butler, the bishop of Southwark, writes in The Guardian Anglicanism’s militant tendency must be resisted with the subtitle “The Gafcon rebels are unrepresentative ultras – and I, for one, am glad Rowan Williams has lost patience with them”.
11 CommentsUpdated to include Ruth Gledhill’s blog entry
Reports today of both those in favour and those against.
George Pitcher in The Telegraph Church of England faces split over women bishops
This is actually a report of a news conference held by supporters of the ordination of women as bishops as this pargraph shows.
Leading figures supporting the women’s campaign from politics and the Church gathered at Westminster Abbey to warn legislators that the time has come to consecrate women as bishops, with no formal provision in law for traditionalists who object to the move on grounds of conscience.
Ruth Gledhill in The Times Church of England clergy plan mass exit over women bishops
She writes about those who against.
More than 1,300 clergy, including 11 serving bishops, have written to the archbishops of Canterbury and York to say that they will defect from the Church of England if women are consecrated bishops.
Ruth Gledhill in her blog at The Times Trads threaten walk-out over women
This includes this link to the open letter to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York threatening to leave the Church if women are consecrated bishops with no legal provisions for opponents. The letter contains the names of all 1300 signatories.
And a brief report from the BBC
Quit threats over women bishops
Ruth Gledhill in her Times blog reports that the Bishop of Guildford has said Give trads their own diocese. This refers to an open letter from the bishop which is online here and is copied here below the fold.
35 CommentsReligious Intelligence has Bishop of Liverpool in call to resign after tribunal ruling by Toby Cohen
Church Times has Press officer who accused bishop of lying wins case by Pat Ashworth
Earlier reports here and also here.
0 CommentsRiazat Butt wrote a profile of Martin Dudley for the Guardian.
Barbara Bradley Hagerty did a piece for National Public Radio Angst Bubbles in the Anglican Communion.
Barbara McMahon reported for the Guardian that Gay priests back in New Zealand after wedding row.
GayNZ.com reported that Priest’s Anglican gay marriage “not the first”.
The Times carried an article by Richard Haggis The Church of England starts at home. He argues that “The faithful in London should not allow foreign Anglican bishops to dictate how they should treat gay clergy and their civil partnerships”.
5 CommentsPat Ashworth writes in today’s Church Times Synod urged in two different directions on women bishops. Two quotes from this article:
The chairman of the Catholic Group on the General Synod, the Revd Canon Simon Killwick, has described as “insulting” and “offensive” the motion on women bishops which the House of Bishops will put forward at the July sessions.
Christina Rees, who chairs Women and the Church (WATCH), described “dire predictions” of an exodus of 500 clergy if the Measure were passed unamended as “unfounded and untrue” on Tuesday.
Also in the Church Times (as already noted here) Glyn Paflin writes Women bishops issue may dominate Synod.
2 CommentsChurch Services after Civil Partnerships
20th June 2008
InclusiveChurch today publishes a paper by Revd Brian Lewis, a member of General Synod and of IC’s Executive Committee on the law in relation to services after Civil Partnerships. The paper demonstrates that under the laws of the Church of England – especially Canon B5 – clergy have far greater liberty in this area than is commonly thought. They are permitted to carry out services of prayer and dedication following a civil partnership so long as they are not deemed to be “Services of Blessing”. The paper is available here, or here as a PDF file.
Canon Giles Goddard, Chair of Inclusive Church, said “We very much welcome this long overdue clarification of the law. It makes the distinction between marriages and civil partnerships and sets out what is permissible within the terms of Canon B5. We hope it will be helpful for clergy wishing to provide public services which respond prayerfully and pastorally to the needs of their congregations.”
The Revd Brian Lewis makes the comparison with the Service of Prayer and Dedication following a Civil Wedding (popularly described as a “A Church Blessing”). In these services the individuals are blessed without the service becoming “a Service of Blessing”.
3 CommentsThe Church Times has this news report of the matter, Archbishops reprimand priest who blessed gays by Pat Ashworth.
And it has this leader: Let no man put asunder which starts like this:
THE ARCHBISHOPS are clearly worried about how Anglicans in different provinces might interpret the recent service at St Bartholomew the Great, Smithfield, at which the partnership of two gay priests was celebrated. This can be the only reason they produced their brief but erroneous statement on Tuesday that clerics in the Church of England are “not at liberty simply to ignore” the Church’s teaching on sexuality, which they define, interestingly, as: the 1987 Synod motion, the 1991 Bishops’ statement Issues in Human Sexuality, the 1998 Lambeth Conference motion 1.10, and the House of Bishops’ 2005 statement on civil partnerships…
and ends like this:
16 Comments…The service
is[in] Smithfield is a little thing, not deserving of pronouncements by archbishops. Its only political purpose is to show the impossibility of carving up the Anglican Church into conservative and liberal provinces or dioceses. Or even parishes: some of those interviewed at St Bartholomew’s at the weekend approved of the Rector’s actions, others did not. The challenge for the Lambeth Conference, and for GAFCON before it, is to demonstrate how Christians can disagree profoundly and yet recognise the working of the Holy Spirit in those with whom they disagree.
The New Statesman had A discreet wedding… by Brian Cathcart
The Economist has Two weddings and a divorce
America has A Turbulent Priest and the Anglican Headache by Austen Ivereigh
The Evening Standard had The Anglican ‘gay wedding’ and a distinctly turbulent priest by David Cohen
The Daily Mail had Gay priests, marrying, a smirking Prince and this insidious cult of self by Stephen Glover
1 CommentUpdated early Friday morning to add Church Times article
The press briefing for next month’s meeting of the General Synod of the Church of England took place earlier this week.
Here is the official press release.
July Synod Briefing: Key debates on women bishops, clergy terms of service legislation, climate change, church tourism, ecumenical relations, reader ministry and parochial fees
Here are press reports, although some stray into matters not on the agenda.
Glyn Paflin in the Church Times Women bishops issue may dominate Synod
Riazat Butt in the Guardian Church leaders fear summer of strife over women and gay clergy
Martin Beckford in the Telegraph Church of England faces compensation bill over women bishops
Ruth Gledhill in The Times 500 clergy set to desert Church over ‘betrayal’ on women bishops
Here is our summary of the agenda and our list of online synod papers. The official list is here.
5 CommentsGuardian Riazat Butt Priest rebuked for ‘marrying’ gay vicars in church
Telegraph Martin Beckford Bishop of London issues stern rebuke to vicar who conducted gay ‘wedding’ and
Gay ‘wedding’ row reveals Church’s true source of conflict by George Pitcher
Times Ruth Gledhill on her blog has Gay blessing: ‘Four bishops in the sanctuary’
and later, Bishop of London Richard Chartres attacks gay priests’ ‘wedding’
8 CommentsSent: 18 June 2008 12:02
Subject: Communication from the Bishop of London re St Bartholomew the Great
To:
Clergy in the Diocese of London
Diocesan Readers
Churchwardens
PCC Secretaries
PCC Treasurers
Deanery Lay Chairs
Members of the Diocesan Synod
Members of the Bishop’s Council
Please find attached two letters which the Bishop of London has asked me to circulate.
With best wishes
Robert Hargrave
Diocesan Communications
———-
PDF original
18th June 2008
Dear Friends,
Many of you will have seen the publicity over the weekend around the service which was held at St Bartholomew the Great on May 31st. I attach a letter I have written to the Rector which sets out the situation as I understand it.
So much good work is being done both nationally and internationally by the Church as it seeks in the spirit of Jesus Christ to address some of the global issues of peace, justice and poverty that confront the peoples of the world. It would be a tragedy if this episode were to distract us from the big agenda.
With thanks for our partnership in the Gospel.
The Rt Revd & Rt Hon Richard Chartres DD FSA
———
PDF original
18th June 2008
The Reverend Dr Martin Dudley,
St Bartholomew the Great Parish Office,
6 Kinghorn Street,
London,
EC1A 7HW.
Dear Martin,
You have sought to justify your actions to the BBC and in various newspapers but have failed more than two weeks after the service to communicate with me.
I read in the press that you had been planning this event since November. I find it astonishing that you did not take the opportunity to consult your Bishop.
You describe the result as “familiar words reordered and reconfigured carrying new meanings.” I note that the order of service, which I have now received, includes the phrase “With this ring I thee bind, with my body I thee worship”.
At first sight this seems to break the House of Bishops Guidelines which as I explained in my letter of December 6th 2005 apply the traditional teaching of the Church of England to the new circumstances created by the enactment of Civil Partnerships.
The point at issue is not Civil Partnerships themselves or the relation of biblical teaching to homosexual practice. There is of course a range of opinion on these matters in the Church and, as you know, homophobia is not tolerated in the Diocese of London. The real issue is whether you wilfully defied the discipline of the Church and broke your oath of canonical obedience to your Bishop.
The Archbishops have already issued a statement in which they say that “those clergy who disagree with the Church’s teaching are at liberty to seek to persuade others within the Church of the reasons why they believe, in the light of Scripture, tradition and reason that it should be changed. But they are not at liberty simply to disregard it.”
St Bartholomew’s is not a personal fiefdom. You serve there as an ordained minister of the Church of England, under the authority of the Canons and as someone who enjoys my licence. I have already asked the Archdeacon of London to commence the investigation and I shall be referring the matter to the Chancellor of the Diocese. Before I do this, I am giving you an opportunity to make representations to me direct.
Yours faithfully.
The Rt Revd & Rt Hon Richard Chartres DD FSA
53 CommentsBroadcast on Radio 4 this morning
A few weeks ago, two Anglican clergymen celebrated their civil partnership at a service in a famous London church. Newspapers last weekend called it a gay wedding. A number of friends of mine were at the service and told of a happy and wonderful occasion. But there are those who have been deeply upset; people who would quote scripture to argue that it threatens the very fabric of marriage itself.
So what, then, is the Church of England’s theology of marriage?
Back in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as the Book of Common Prayer was being put together, marriage was said to be for three purposes:
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children …
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication ..
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.
How do these three concerns relate to the prospect of gay marriage?
The third priority insists that marriage is designed to bring human beings into loving and supportive relationships. Surely no one can deny that homosexual men and women are in as much need of loving and supportive relationships as anybody else. And equally deserving of them too. This one seems pretty clear.
The second priority relates to the encouragement of monogamy. The Archbishop of Canterbury himself has rightly recognised that celibacy is a vocation to which many gay people are simply not called. Which is why, it strikes me, the church ought to be offering gay people a basis for monogamous relationships that are permanent, faithful and stable.
So that leaves the whole question of procreation. And clearly a gay couple cannot make babies biologically. But then neither can those who marry much later in life. Many couples, for a whole range of reasons, find they cannot conceive children – or, simply, don’t choose to. Is marriage to be denied them? Of course not.
For these reasons – and also after contraception became fully accepted in the Church of England – the modern marriage service shifted the emphasis away from procreation. The weight in today’s wedding liturgy is on the creation of loving and stable relationships. For me, this is something in which gay Christians have a perfect right to participate.
I know many people of good will are bound to disagree with me on this. But gay marriage isn’t about culture wars or church politics; it’s fundamentally about one person loving another. The fact that two gay men have proclaimed this love in the presence of God, before friends and family and in the context of prayerful reflection is something I believe the church should welcome. It’s not as if there’s so much real love in the world that we can afford to be dismissive of what little we do find. Which is why my view is we ought to celebrate real love however and wherever we find it.
36 CommentsBBC Archbishops regret gay ‘wedding’ and also Robert Pigott What will Church do about ‘gay wedding’?
Guardian Riazat Butt Archbishops criticise gay clerics’ ceremony
Daily Mail Steve Doughty Archbishop of Canterbury warns clergy not to ‘disregard’ law of the Church after wedding service for gay clerics
Telegraph Martin Beckford Archbishop of Canterbury greatly concerned by gay ‘wedding’
Independent James Macintyre Anglican leaders attack ‘gay marriage’ priests
7 CommentsUpdated Wednesday morning
It’s hard to keep up with the flow of material on this topic.
Guardian Riazat Butt Priests in civil partnership blessing were reckless, says bishop
New Zealand Herald Gay New Zealand vicar lying low after exchanging vows
New Statesman Martin Dudley Why I blessed gay clergymen’s relationship
The Times Ruth Gledhill To any outside observer this gay marriage was a traditional church wedding
Daily Mail I’d do it all again, says vicar after row over Britain’s first gay ‘wedding’ in an Anglican church
For further links to commentary etc. please refer to Dave Walker’s article at the Church Times Blog The Anglican same-sex blessing service.
Waikato Times Bruce Holloway Gay cleric one of the city’s `best’
Letters to the editor of The Times Church bickering over gays is unchristian
2 CommentsSir, Christians who are not Anglicans are dismayed by the endless bickering in the Church of England (“Church in meltdown over gays and women”, June 16, and letters, June 17) because of what it is doing to the reputation of the Chistian faith. The issues which divide the established Church have nothing to do with the gospel we are all here to declare. Little wonder the pagan world looks on with cynical disbelief…
from Lambeth Palace and Bishopthorpe
Tuesday 17th June 2008
For immediate use
Joint statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York regarding St Bartholomew-the-Great
“We have heard the reports of the recent service in St Bartholomew the Great with very great concern. We cannot comment on the specific circumstances because they are the subject of an investigation launched by the Bishop of London.
On the general issue, however, the various reference points for the Church of England’s approach to human sexuality (1987 Synod motion, 1991 Bishops’ Statement- Issues in Human Sexuality- , Lambeth motion 1:10, House of Bishops’ 2005 statement on civil partnerships) are well known and remain current.
Those clergy who disagree with the Church’s teaching are at liberty to seek to persuade others within the Church of the reasons why they believe, in the light of Scripture, tradition and reason that it should be changed. But they are not at liberty simply to disregard it.”
ENDS
27 CommentsUpdated again Wednesday evening
The Liverpool Daily Post has Bishop was branded ‘a liar who dislikes Liverpool’
and also Tribunal judgment accepted – but claims against Bishop ‘completely rejected’.
Another version of the first of these articles is here.
Mr Johnston also worked as a priest in the Manchester diocese, so the story has been picked up by the Bolton News in Sacked Horwich vicar’s job appeal victory.
And Bishop Jones formerly worked in Yorkshire, so the story has been covered in the Yorkshire Post where the headline is Former Hull bishop branded ‘liar and hypocrite’.
The Times David Johnston, sacked vicar who called Bishop a liar, wins £14,500
The diocesan statement quoted in the paper is:
“It appears that our processes were in some way deficient, and we are looking into this as a matter of urgency.
“That said, we now want to put this matter behind us and concentrate on the important work of the Diocesan Board of Finance and support our clergy and congregations in their work pursuing the mission of God in the Diocese of Liverpool.
“Allegations made against the Bishop of Liverpool at the employment tribunal have been made by a former employee of the Diocesan Board of Finance. They did not form the basis on which the judgment was awarded.
“The Diocese rejects these allegations completely.
“As far as the Diocese is concerned, any close examination of the Bishop’s work over the last 10 years shows an outstanding level of commitment. Bishop James was, is and will continue to be a key voice in and excellent ambassador for the City and Diocese of Liverpool.”
The Liverpool Echo has two more articles:
Sacked cleric: Why I say Bishop of Liverpool must quit
and
Wednesday’s Guardian had this in the People column:
1 CommentFor a man of God, the Rt Rev James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool, seems to be spending a lot of time conceding that institutions he heads have treated employees badly. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, to lose one employment tribunal may be accounted a misfortune, to lose two looks like carelessness. Earlier this year Wycliffe Hall, the Oxford theological college whose governing council he chairs which under the new principal he appointed, conservative evangelical Richard Turnbull, has lost 11 of its 13 academic staff in a year admitted it acted unlawfully in sacking theologian Elaine Storkey, a fellow Radio 4 Thought for the Day presenter, for no good cause.
Now, it has taken another tribunal just 15 minutes to decide the way he cast off his Liverpool diocesan press officer, David Johnston, after false rumours about the break-up of his marriage also amounted to unfair dismissal. The bishop, who regards himself as something of a media operator, was said by Johnston to be a liar who did not like Liverpool – a clear calumny according to a diocesan statement. Johnston says there was “no grace or mercy; no humanity” in the bishop’s dealings with him. Jones joins Hereford’s Bishop Anthony Priddis in defeat: Priddis also lost a tribunal this year after refusing to employ a youth worker on the grounds he might one day enter a gay relationship. They’re costing the church a lot of money.
The Liverpool Echo reports Bishop’s former ‘spin doctor’ David Johnston wins unfair dismissal case.
The BBC has Diocese worker unfairly dismissed.
The Telegraph has Vicar wins £14,000 over relationship with colleague.
And there is an earlier Echo report, Diocese under fire at tribunal.
In an unusual approach to employment tribunal reporting, the Claimant has published a great deal of documentation at a purpose-built website, Thomas David Johnston vs Liverpool Diocesan Board of Finance, see here.
7 CommentsEarlier reports here and here.
Riazat Butt at the Guardian has Gay priest resigns after furore over church blessing.
The headline refers to the New Zealand priest, David Lord, about whom there is also this report from New Zealand on Stuff, NZ priest in gay marriage row gives up licence.
Concerning the legal situation in England, Riazat reports this:
38 CommentsDudley is the freeholder of St Bartholomew’s, making it virtually impossible for him to be ousted. But he could face procedures which would involve someone proving there had been an irrevocable pastoral breakdown or that Dudley had acted in a manner unbecoming of a clergyman of the Church of England.
Nigel Seed, a church lawyer, said there was no prohibition on having a service after a civil partnership, provided it was not contrary to church doctrine.
“If you do not purport it to be a service of blessing there is nothing to stop couples from having prayers, hymns or a service of prayer and dedication,” he said.
