The Church Times has this report: UK Evangelicals ask conservative Primates to rethink:
22 CommentsA GROUP of Evangelical bishops in the Church of England have written to conservative Primates urging them to rethink their objections to the Lambeth Conference.
The group, seven diocesan bishops and 13 suffragans, wrote to the Primates of Nigeria, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, and the Southern Cone of America that they “long to share with you in fellowship and in celebration at Lambeth”. To stay away, they suggest, “would inevitably split apart those who share an equally high regard for scriptures [sic] and for the historic faith of the Church”.
The letter arose from an annual gathering of Evangelical bishops. The signatories are the Bishops of Bradford, Bristol, Carlisle, Durham, Lichfield, Oxford, Southwell, Barking, Bedford, Crediton, Croydon, Doncaster, Dunwich, Lancaster, Lynn, Maidstone, Penrith, Southampton, Swindon, and Tewkesbury…
The Church of England General Synod will meet in London from Monday 11 February to Thursday 14 February. The official press release is here and starts:
Major debates on detention without charge, mental health issues and casinos will be on the agenda of the General Synod when it meets at Church House, Westminster, from Monday, February 11, to Thursday, February 14, 2008. There is a large programme of legislative business, the most substantial item being the Revision Stage of the Clergy Terms of Service legislation. Synod will have further opportunity to debate the Anglican Communion Covenant and Senior Church (Crown) Appointments, following earlier debates in July 2007, and there will also be a focus on Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue.
We will be linking to the full agenda and online papers as these become available. There is an outline agenda which you can download here or read online here.
4 CommentsCovenant has an article, sparked by the Wycliffe Hall dispute, which discusses the differences between open and conservative evangelicals in England, mostly from an American perspective.
See “Open Evangelicalism”, the Wycliffe Hall Labor Dispute, and Our Theological Divide by Craig Uffman.
37 CommentsUpdated Thursday
First Anglican Mainstream published a response to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Advent Letter.
That response can be read here.
Then Andrew Goddard published an analysis of that response. You can read that analysis here at Fulcrum.
Update Thursday
And now here comes Michael Poon with a response to Andrew Goddard: Reaffirming our Vows and Rekindling our First Love: the Sanctification of the Anglican Communion.
10 CommentsPress release on behalf of Dr. Elaine Storkey surrounding her unfair dismissal from Wycliffe Hall
Issued by Mortimers Solicitors
7 CommentsFollowing the pre-hearing review in the Reading Employment Tribunal on Monday 7th January Dr. Storkey is very pleased that Wycliffe Hall has acknowledged that she had been dismissed unfairly and has accepted that appropriate compensation is payable.
This was not merely a procedural matter. Dr Storkey brought a claim against the Hall alleging both that procedures were not followed and there were no grounds for dismissal.
The Hall, as Dr Storkey’s employer had alleged that Dr Storkey contributed to her dismissal in that there had been a breakdown of trust as a result of Dr Storkey’s behaviour. This was strongly contested by Dr. Storkey whose contention was that any breakdown of trust and confidence was due to the conduct of the Principal, the failure by the Hall to consider the concerns repeatedly presented by a large number of staff members, and the further failure to properly address her written grievance against the Principal.
Dr. Storkey had raised a formal grievance to the Hall Council, concerning the treatment to which she had been subjected. But that procedure which had been commenced in February 2007 was not concluded, before being prematurely terminated by her dismissal.
At the hearing the Hall formally withdrew the allegations it had previously made against Dr. Storkey and agreed a settlement for this part of her claim which will equate to her salary and benefits until her previously anticipated date of retirement together with a 50% uplift in recognition of its unlawful failure to follow statutory procedures.
The Tribunal, given Dr. Storkey’s intent on pursuing her claim for religious discrimination, has listed the matter for a preliminary issue hearing later in the year. At that hearing the Tribunal will consider whether the religion or belief relied upon by Dr. Storkey which she defines (for this purpose) as ‘open evangelicalism and/or membership of Fulcrum’ constitutes a religion or belief for the purposes of the Employment Equality (Religion of Belief) Regulations 2003 as distinct from conservative evangelicalism.
The Tribunal, expressing some disquiet as to its qualification to determine matters of theology has given the parties leave to adduce independent expert evidence and to call one witness, which they anticipated in the case of Dr. Storkey, given her expertise, would be her.
It is Dr Storkey’s hope that the resolution of these issues will leave Wycliffe Hall in a stronger position to pursue its calling of training people for Christian ministry in a context of truth and good governance.
The case continues.
Bill Bowder has Wycliffe Hall admits breach of law over sacked lecturer:
11 CommentsTHE Bishop of Liverpool and the Mayor of Kensington, named trustees of the Oxford theological college Wycliffe Hall, in an action brought against them and against the Hall’s Trustees as a body, have admitted this week that they broke employment legislation….
…Dr Storkey also claimed that she was religiously discriminated against by the college. That claim was now due to be tested at a two-day preliminary hearing on 11 and 12 June, which opened up the possibility of a “Punch and Judy” battle between conservative and liberal Evangelicals, the pre-hearing was told.
Mr Lewis said that the preliminary issue to be tested at that June meeting would be “whether the religion/belief rested on by the claimant in these proceedings which she defines as open Evangelicalism, liberal Evangelicalism, and/or membership of Fulcrum constitutes a religion or belief for the purposes of the 2003 regulations as distinct from conservative Evangelicalism”. Was open Evangelicalism “a religion or belief within the meaning of the regulations and could it attract the protection of the discrimination laws”, he wondered.
Mr Carr said that Dr Storkey, who chairs Fulcrum, was saying that she had a kind of belief that stood in distinction to conservative Evangelicalism. She would have to say that this nuanced difference between liberal open Evangelicals and conservative Evangelicals was a religion or belief protected by the discrimination laws.
The tribunal would have to decide whether those differences were enough to amount to a separate belief protected by the regulation. He said that the position of the Trustees was that there was no such difference. They believed that there was nothing in the regulations that required a further definition within a sub-set of beliefs.
For Dr Storkey, her counsel, Mr Charles Crow, said that she should not have to show that open Evangelicalism was a separate religion or belief, only that she had been discriminated against on the basis of those beliefs. That her beliefs might match the beliefs of others did not deprive her of protection. It would be sectarian to argue that she was protected only if she could that show her beliefs were different.
Mr Lewis said that the ability to make such theological distinctions was “wholly absent” from his job description; but the matter was important, and the tribunal would be prepared to hear it. He ruled that for the preliminary hearing one witness and one expert witness should be heard from both parties. They should exchange the papers they would rely on beforehand.
Pat Ashworth has a lengthy article in the Church Times headed Clergy criticise Nazir-Ali’s talk of no-go areas.
CLERICS working in predominantly Muslim areas of British cities have rebutted assertions by the Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, that Islamic extremism and multiculturalism have resulted in “no-go” areas for non-Muslims.
The Bishop’s comments, made in an article for The Sunday Telegraph, have angered many working in interfaith relations, who says that he has undermined years of patient work. He wrote that one result of a worldwide resurgence of the ideology of Islamic extremism had been “to further alienate the young from the nation in which they were growing up and turn separate communities into ‘no-go’ areas”…
The article includes comments from clergy working in Leicester, Oldham (Manchester), Tower Hamlets (London) and Manningham (Bradford).
There is a leader as well: Dr Nazir-Ali’s view of Britain:
0 CommentsTHE Bishop of Rochester is uniquely placed in the House of Bishops to speak about the experience of Christians as a beleaguered minority in a hostile society, though not by virtue of his see in southern England. His continuing interest in Pakistan has shown him how Christians there are becoming increasingly anxious about the growth of intolerant strains of Islam. As a global observer, he is inclined to take the “clash of cultures” view of the relationship between Islam and the West, and the treatment of Christians in the Indian subcontinent and parts of the Middle East contributes to this view.
There are several surprising aspects about his attempt, in a newspaper article, to place the British situation in this context. It is perhaps unfair to criticise him for what he did not say: Dr Nazir-Ali tends to need a larger canvas to develop his views. None the less, there were three elements missing from his article which might have tempered the glee with which his comments about no-go areas were seized on in some quarters….
There is as yet no trace of this press release on the website page that one might logically expect it, but it is to be found here:
10 CommentsWycliffe Hall press statement regarding Elaine Storkey’s dismissal
January 10th, 20081. At a Pre-Hearing Review in relation to Dr Elaine Storkey’s claims of unfair dismissal and religious discrimination, the College accepted that she had been unfairly dismissed as the College had not, prior to dismissal, gone through the statutory procedures. We are hopeful that a full and amicable settlement can be reached.
2. Nevertheless, we strongly refute any allegation that Elaine’s dismissal from Wycliffe was in any way connected with her religious beliefs. At Wycliffe Hall, our key priority is to equip men and women for modern ministry and this happens in an environment that encourages wide discussion and debate, reflective of the broad range of thinking within the Church as a whole.
3. We look forward to resolving the whole matter as swiftly as possible so that we can concentrate purely on our priorities of maintaining high standards of training, theological teaching and academic excellence at Wycliffe Hall, in equipping men and women fully for modern Christian ministry.
Helen Mitchell
College Administrator
Wycliffe Hall, 54 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6PW
Direct line: +44(0)1865 274201College office: +44(0)1865 274200
College fax: +44(0)1865 274215
www.wycliffe.ox.ac.uk
Updated Friday morning
According to the Daily Telegraph in Church ‘accepts end of blasphemy law’:
The Church of England has signalled that it is prepared to see the abolition of blasphemy offences after the Government announced a review of the ancient law…
… The principle of blasphemy laws dates back to ancient times, but the present common law offence of “blasphemous libel” is based on 19th century court rulings.
In 1838, it was limited to cover only the “tenets and beliefs of the Church of England”.
Yesterday, the Church signalled it could accept abolition. “We are open to the possibility of a review,” said a Church spokesman, urging a “cautious” approach.
It is understood that Church leaders could be willing to back the abolition of blasphemy offences if new laws banning the incitement of religious hatred can provide significant protection for Anglicanism…
The Guardian report on this Ministerial compromise averts backbench revolt over repeal of blasphemy offence says:
…A Church of England spokesman said last night it became clear last year during the debates on the crime of incitement to racial and religious hatred that the church was open to the idea of the blasphemy law being abolished. “But first there has to be adequate time to assess the impact of the new legislation,” he added…
And the Guardian has a leader: An offensive law.
The BBC had Blasphemy law ‘may be abolished’.
Update Friday morning
Rachel Harden has a report in the Church Times Blasphemy report might be repealed.
8 CommentsUpdated again Thursday morning
There are reports in both the Daily Telegraph and The Times about this.
Jonathan Petre writing in the Daily Telegraph under the headline Leading theologian sues bishop over ‘bullying’ reports:
One of the Church of England’s best-known theologians is suing the Bishop of Liverpool following a row at an Oxford theological college.
Dr Elaine Storkey, a regular contributor to Radio 4’s Thought for the Day slot, told an employment tribunal in Reading yesterday she had been bullied while a senior research fellow at Wycliffe Hall.
She accepted around £20,000 from the trustees of the college after they acknowledged that she had been unfairly dismissed from the post. But the 64-year-old is still seeking a ruling of religious discrimination against the president of the 130-year-old college, Bishop James Jones, over the row…
And Fran Yeoman in The Times adds some further information:
…Bruce Carr, representing the trustees of Wycliffe Hall, acknowledged this version of events, adding: “The respondent accepts that the dismissal of the claimant was unfair.”
Charles Crow, representing Dr Storkey, then turned to the issue of alleged religious discrimination. “Within Christian evangelism there are two strands; conservative evangelism and an open and more liberal evangelism,” he said. “As an open and clear proponent of one of those strands, [Dr Storkey] has been discriminated against.”
Mr Carr rejected that, saying Dr Storkey could not allege discrimination against people of the same faith as her. “She is not saying, ‘I’m being discriminated against because of my Christianity’,” he said. “She is saying, ‘I have a particular type of Christian evangelism.’ To paraphrase, she is the wrong type of evangelical.”
The tribunal has scheduled a further hearing for 10 June, but:
urged both parties to reach an agreement before the full hearing, pointing out the difficulties in attempting to resolve a theological dispute in an employment tribunal.
Update
The Liverpool Echo has picked up this story but has a misleading headline, Bishop of Liverpool sued by BBC (the headline has now changed to: Bishop of Liverpool James Jones caught up in bullying row)
…The case has now been adjourned until June, at which point the three members of an employment tribunal will have to decide whether the Doctor’s evangelical stance constitutes a religion as compared with other evangelists.
Their decision could have far-reaching implications within religious circles.
Dr Storkey has named Bishop James as chairman of Wycliffe Hall’s trustees in her legal action along with and Andrew Dalton, the Hall’s treasurer…
…Today Charles Crow, representing Dr Storkey, said of the outstanding claim. He said: “Within Christian evangelism there are two determinate strands; conservative evangelism and an open and more liberal evangelism.
“Those are open and definable strands and as an open and clear proponent of one of those strands, Dr Storkey has been discriminated against.”
Yesterday (Mon) Bruce Carr, representing the trustees, accepted her dismissal was unfair but claimed Dr Storkey could not allege discrimination against people of the same faith as her…
And Education Guardian has Unfairly sacked Oxford college theologian sues bishop.
Tuesday evening
Ruth Gledhill has blogged about this, see Elaine Storkey: ‘Don’t shoot the heretics.’ Ruth has talked to Elaine, part of what she says is this:
…She told me this afternoon: ‘For me, this never started out as a battle between conservatives and open evangelicals. For me, this was trying to draw attention to the fact that we were unhappy with the style of management at Wycliffe Hall. But as time evolved, it started to feel more theological.
‘I am alarmed at the way big walls between people and groups have started to emerge in the way they did not before. People had nuances and differences, but we all worked well together. From the Fulcrum point of view [Elaine is chairman of Fulcrum], it is not what we are wanting. We want to work with everybody rather than create a new camp.
‘I am alarmed at the belligerence of the conservative camp, where they are seemingly going out of their way to make life as difficult as possible for the Archbishop of Canterbury. I cannot imagine what the reasons are. They are being destructive rather than constructive, finding something to argue about rather than working together to find a fruitful outcome…
Wednesday morning
Oxford Mail Ex-don settles dismissal claim
Independent Fire and brimstone! College principal says we’re all going to hell
Guardian College denies theological vendetta
Thursday morning
Ekklesia has a report, Tearfund president accused of double standards over religious discrimination.
Cambridge Evening News has Presenter in a battle of faith.
49 CommentsUpdated again Wednesday morning
The Lancashire Telegraph which is based in Blackburn has Mixed reaction to Bishop’s no-go zone comments.
The BBC has Blears rejects ‘no go’ area claim. On that same page, there is an audio report broadcast on the World at One radio news programme at lunchtime today. This includes an interview by Christopher Landau with the Bishop of Rochester. The relevant government minister Hazel Blears and Bishop Stephen Lowe are also interviewed by Martha Kearney.
At Comment is free there are two articles:
Inayat Bunglawala Don’t go there
By accusing Muslims of creating ‘no-go’ zones in the UK for non-Muslims, the Bishop of Rochester is stirring up racial hatred, pure and simple.
and
Andrew Brown A narrow church
The Church of England has lost its traditional social framework. It may yet come to stand for an England that is, above all, not a Muslim country.
Tuesday morning update
Bradford Telegraph & Argus No-go area suggestion ‘scaremongering’:
Bradford community leaders have accused an Anglican Bishop of “scaremongering” after he claimed certain areas across the UK had become no-go areas for non-Muslims…
…The Bishop of Bradford, the Right Reverend David James, said: “I was dismayed to read the inflammatory headline in a Sunday newspaper claiming that Islamic extremists have created no go areas across Britain where it is too dangerous for non Muslims to enter’. We certainly do not recognise this supposed reality in Bradford.
“Of course, we are aware that there are difficulties arising from a significant measure of residential and cultural separation across communities, especially in the inner city. However, this has generated a range of imaginative initiatives such as the nationally-recognised Linking Schools Project, and the University’s Programme for a Peaceful City – to name but a few.”
And the Daily Telegraph has a leader, Bishop of Rochester leads the way.
Wednesday morning
Jonathan Petre Daily Telegraph Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali stands by his views:
12 Comments…speaking from India, where he is attending a conference, the bishop claimed successive governments had failed to foster an “integrating vision” for Britain.
He said he was echoing concerns voiced by Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality Commission, and those in the 2001 Cantle Report on the race riots in Bradford, Oldham and Burnley…
Updated Monday morning
Press Association Fury over bishop’s comments
Reuters Bishop says extremism creates “no-go areas”
Ekklesia Bishop causes uproar with attack on Islamism and ‘Christian nation’ fears
BBC Profile: Michael Nazir-Ali
The BBC’s Sunday radio programme had an item about this, too. Listen to the item here (4.5 minutes).
Monday morning update
Daily Telegraph Muslims call for ‘no-go’ CoE bishop to resign and Muslim women recruited to stop extremists and Multiculturalism is breeding intolerance
The Times British imams ‘failing young Muslims’ (reference to bishop only at very end of article)
Guardian Bishop under fire for attack on Muslim ‘no-go areas’
Independent Muslim anger at bishop’s ‘ghettoes’ attack and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: No-go areas that are all in the bishop’s mind
Daily Mail Islamic extremism creating ‘no-go’ areas for non-Muslims in Britain, says Bishop of Rochester and Why the Bishop of Rochester is right about ‘no-go’ areas for non-muslims in Britain and No tolerance for no-go areas
Daily Express FURY AT ‘NO-GO’ AREAS RULED BY THE FANATICS
48 CommentsThe Church of England Newspaper trumpeted a new survey on its front page last Friday (you can see this partially on their website front page this week only):
THE GOVERNMENT is failing to defend the place of religion in public life, the results of the inaugural Church of England Newspaper survey of General Synod members has shown.
More than half of Synod members who took part in the poll, 57 per cent, said the government was currently unsuccessful in upholding the place of Christianity in the UK today, with another 23 per cent of respondents saying it was ‘not particularly successful’.
The results come as another blow to Gordon Brown’s Government, already reeling from the lost data fiasco and questions over donations…
And so on and so on. And finally:
The survey, carried out by religiousintelligence.com, canvassed a total of 102 members of General Synod between December 7-17, 2007, representing a response rate of 21 per cent, and included clergy, laity and bishops.
This was the same survey which The Times reported as follows:
The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, has been named “Anglican of the Year” by members of the Church of England…
…In the survey, 29 per cent of Synod members named Dr Sentamu in response to the question: “Which Anglican figure do you think has done most to help the Church in 2007?”
Dr Williams was nominated by 24 per cent, Archbishop Tutu by 12 per cent, Dr Nazir-Ali by 6 per cent and Dr Akinola by 3 per cent.
More than half those surveyed, 57 per cent, said the Government was unsuccessful in upholding the place of Christianity in Britain today, with a further 23 per cent saying the Government was “not particularly successful”.
For the exact wording of the survey, see below in the Comments.
37 CommentsUpdated Sunday morning
The Sunday Telegraph has an article by the Bishop of Rochester which is headlined Extremism flourished as UK lost Christianity.
There is also a news report by Jonathan Wynne-Jones headlined Bishop warns of no-go zones for non-Muslims.
Here’s another bit of what Bishop Nazir-Ali says in his article:
It is now less possible for Christianity to be the public faith in Britain.
The existence of chapels and chaplaincies in places such as hospitals, prisons and institutions of further and higher education is in jeopardy either because of financial cuts or because the authorities want “multifaith” provision, without regard to the distinctively Christian character of the nation’s laws, values, customs and culture.
Not only locally, but at the national level also the establishment of the Church of England is being eroded. My fear is, in the end, nothing will be left but the smile of the Cheshire Cat.
In the past, I have supported the establishment of the Church, but now I have to ask if it is only the forms that are left and the substance rapidly disappearing. If such is the case, is it worth persevering with the trappings of establishment?
Update
I published this article before the Sunday Telegraph leader had appeared: Britain has changed but its values must endure. This includes the sentence:
Bishop Nazir-Ali’s concern that the rapidity and scale of immigration, together with the policy of multiculturalism, threaten Britain’s Christian heritage are echoed by the Church of England General Synod, a majority of which worries that large-scale immigration is “diluting the Christian nature of Britain”.
Is that a majority of the synod, or is that a majority of those who responded? Anyway, according to the Telegraph’s own news report (my emphasis added):
In the Synod survey, to be published this week, bishops, senior clergy and influential churchgoers said that an increasingly multi-faith society threatens the country’s Christian heritage and blamed the divisions on the Government’s failure to integrate immigrants into their communities.
It found that more than one in three believe that a mass influx of people of other faiths is diluting the Christian nature of Britain and only a quarter feel that they have been integrated into society.
The overwhelming majority – 80 per cent – said that the Government has not upheld the place of religion in public life and up to 63 per cent fear that the Church will be disestablished within a generation, breaking a bond that has existed between the Church and State since the Reformation.
Meanwhile, the bishop’s remarks are getting huge attention via the news agencies:
Press Association ‘UK Islamists creating no-go areas’
Associated Press UK Bishop Denounces Islamic Extremism
Agence France-Press ‘No-go’ zones in some Muslim areas: British bishop
and the BBC Bishop warns of ‘Islamic areas’
21 CommentsThis letter with 31 signatures on it has been posted at the website of the former Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin.
The list includes a number of Church of England bishops:
The Most Rev. Peter Jensen, Archbishop of Sydney
The Rt. Rev. Matthias Medadues-Badohu, Bishop of Ho
The Rt. Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester
The Rt. Rev. Gerard Mpango, Bishop of Western Tanganyika
The Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh
The Rt. Rev. Ross Davies, Bishop of The Murray
The Rt. Rev. Keith L Ackerman, Bishop of Quincy
The Rt. Rev. Peter Beckwith, Bishop of Springfield
The Rt. Rev. A. Ewin Ratteray, Bishop of Bermuda
The Rt. Rev. Michael Hough, Bishop of Ballarat
The Rt. Rev. John Broadhurst, Bishop of Fulham
The Rt. Rev. Martyn Jarrett, Bishop of Beverley*
The Rt. Rev. John Goddard, Bishop of Burnley
The Rt. Rev. Keith Newton, Bishop of Richborough*
The Rt. Rev. Robert Forsyth, Bishop of South Sydney
The Rt. Rev. Andrew Burnham, Bishop of Ebbsfleet*
The Rt. Rev. Lindsay Urwin, Bishop of Horsham
The Rt. Rev. Wallace Benn, Bishop of Lewes
The Rt. Rev. Henry Scriven, Assistant Bishop, Diocese of Pittsburgh
The Rt. Rev. Bill Atwood, Province of Kenya
The Rt. Rev. Martyn Minns, Convocation of Anglicans in North America
The Rt. Rev. David Anderson, Convocation of Anglicans in North America
The Rt. Rev. John Gaisford, lately Bishop of Beverley RETIRED*
The Rt. Rev. Edward MacBurney, lately Bishop of Quincy
The Rt. Rev. Roger Jupp, lately Bishop of Popondota
The Rt. Rev. David Silk, lately Bishop of Ballarat
The Rt. Rev. Nöel Jones, lately Bishop of Sodor and Man RETIRED
The Rt. Rev. Edwin Barnes, lately Bishop of Richborough RETIRED*
The Rt. Rev. William Wantland, lately Bishop of Eau Claire
The Rt. Rev. Donald Parsons, lately Bishop of Quincy
Among the Church of England bishops, one is a diocesan bishop, the others are either suffragans, or retired bishops, and several are current or former Provincial Episcopal Visitors.
32 CommentsThe BBC reports on the CofE response to the Draft Anglican Covenant: Church comments on Anglican rows:
The Church of England has made clear its disapproval of Anglican provinces which intervene in the affairs of other churches without authorisation.
In a document it said such interventions should not take place except as part of “properly authorised schemes of pastoral oversight”.
It is a response to attempts in the draft Anglican Covenant to commit the Communion to practices to resolve rows…
Riazat Butt’s online report on Tuesday also made it into the Guardian on Wednesday: Anglican rift on gay clergy leads to breakaway summit.
Jonathan Petre at the Daily Telegraph had his own story on Wednesday about the Bishop of Manchester and the Lambeth Conference. See Bishops ‘must face gay clergy debate’:
A Church of England bishop has criticised the Lambeth Conference, which starts in July, for shying away from the issue of homosexuality.
The Bishop of Manchester, the Rt Rev Nigel McCulloch, said it would be “odd” and “irresponsible” for the meeting to sweep the controversy “under the carpet”.
…Bishop McCulloch criticised conservative bishops who are threatening a boycott because the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has invited American liberals…
Here’s the full text of the bishop’s remarks as provided by the diocese:
This is the year of the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference. It is always an important occasion. I was among the first bishops to respond affirmatively to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s invitation. I am sorry that some bishops are still threatening to stay away.
The Anglican Communion is a family. The Christian pattern for family life – for which the church and especially its bishops should be a model – is that, however deep family arguments and differences are, we (of all people) ought to be following the New Testament pattern of meeting together to pray, to learn, to eat and to share.
That said, I do have sympathy with bishops who feel the agenda ought to contain more than simply the currently planned episcopal in-service training. The first Lambeth Conference was called in the wake of controversy; and it would be exceedingly odd – even irresponsible – for the bishops to avoid, and appear to sweep under the carpet, the very issues that are currently inhibiting our common witness to Christ across the world.
Incidentally, would clergy please observe the convention of checking with me before inviting any bishop/archbishop to minister? Such courtesies avoid unwelcome problems – most of which can thereby be overcome.
And earlier, there was a bizarre piece of reporting in The Times by Dominic Kennedy headlined Bishop left in dark over secret gay service. For a better report on this matter try the Evening Standard ARCHBISHOP SPARKS ROW AFTER HOLDING SECRET COMMUNION FOR GAY CLERGY. Note the comment there from the Bishop of London’s spokesperson:
24 Comments“The extent to which the Bishop of London is annoyed has been exaggerated – he’s not annoyed in fact and canon law was not broken. The whole thing seems to have been blown out of proportion.”
Updated Wednesday evening
Press Release Church responds to draft Anglican Covenant
Church responds to draft Anglican Covenant
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, as Presidents of the General Synod, have submitted a Church of England Response to the draft Anglican Covenant published last year for discussion around the Anglican Communion.
All Anglican Provinces were invited to comment on the text prepared by the Covenant Design Group chaired by the Archbishop of the West Indies, the Most Revd Drexel Gomez. The Church of England’s response follows a General Synod debate on the principle of an Anglican Covenant in July 2007, when the following motion was carried.
‘That this Synod:
(a) affirm its willingness to engage positively with the unanimous recommendation of the Primates in February 2007 for a process designed to produce a covenant for the Anglican Communion;
(b) note that such a process will only be concluded when any definitive text has been duly considered through the synodical processes of the provinces of the Communion; and
(c) invite the Presidents, having consulted the House of Bishops and the Archbishops’ Council, to agree the terms of a considered response to the draft from the Covenant Design Group for submission to the Anglican Communion Office by the end of the year.’
The text of the response has been overseen by the House of Bishops’ Theological Group and builds on the earlier work of the Faith and Order Advisory Group. The draft response was discussed by the House of Bishops in October and by the Archbishops’ Council in November.
The Covenant Design Group will be meeting at the end of January to consider all Provincial responses. A ‘take note’ debate on the Church of England response to the Anglican Covenant is planned for the General Synod in February 2008.
—-
The text of the response can be found here, as an RTF file.
Update
An html version of the entire document can now be found here.
In a surprising move, the Daily Telegraph has published a leader comment in favour of Church of England bishops. Commenting on a news article by its own Religious Affairs Correspondent, Jonathan Petre, headlined One in five C of E bishops faces sack, the leader says:
2 CommentsDon’t knock the Church of England’s bishops
When, in 1942, Winston Churchill nominated William Temple for Canterbury, he remarked that he had chosen the only half-crown article in a sixpenny bazaar.
That was too harsh on the bishops of the time, but how does the bishops’ bazaar compare today?
In monetary terms, their services are less valued now. A diocesan bishop receives £36,230 a year, and an auxiliary suffragan bishop only £29,560.
That is less than a teacher, though we expect great things of bishops.
But, as we report today, instead of finding ways of attracting better candidates, perhaps by increasing the amount they receive to a level where they might no longer wonder how to pay for the children’s shoes, the Church Commissioners, in a secret document, have recommended that more than a fifth of bishops should simply be abolished.
Some dioceses might also go, or be merged. There is talk of selling off historic palaces.
No one is underestimating the difficulties facing the Church of England. Its full-time clergy have diminished in the past century from 24,000 to 9,000. Parishes are amalgamated, and churches crumble and are closed.
The apparent decline reflects lay secularisation, but also a reduced status for clergy. This leads to a diminished pool of talent from which bishops may be drawn.
The solution is not to bash the bishops once more. Real savings should come from trimming a proliferating bureaucracy, not from cutting bishops’ incomes.
As for selling off historic palaces, that is an abdication of trust and a pointless transfer of historic property to unreliable custodians.
A success story for the Church of England has been its cathedrals: well attended and able to draw in those previously little interested in Christianity.
One model for the C of E’s future is the building of central teams in dioceses, flexible and mobile enough to meet local needs. This is no time to weaken episcopal vigour.
The full text of the sermon preached by the Archbishop of Canterbury in his cathedral on Christmas Day can be found here.
2 CommentsMy news report on this, published in the Church Times last week, is now available here.
The statement that the diocese issued to me while I was preparing that article was previously published here and is below the fold.
The full context for that statement was unfortunately not included in the Church Times article as published. I reproduce below a longer version of my report.
Priddis now regrets but remains impenitent
THE Bishop of Hereford, the Rt Revd Anthony Priddis, has said he now regrets “a lot of what has happened” in the case of unlawful discrimination against John Reaney. He lost the case (News, 20 July), but he has not changed his opinion, he said last Friday.
Bishop Priddis said in a witness statement: “I am very sorry for all the hurt and pain my decision not to appoint [him] has caused”, but he went on: “my opinion was, and still is, that at the time of the interview [he] did not have sufficient stability of life to give the assurances the Tribunal have found I was entitled to require of him.”
An employment tribunal at Cardiff last week adjourned before deciding on financial compensation and other remedies, which the parties had failed to agree privately in the four months since judgment was given in July. During the hearing, the chairman repeatedly urged the parties to seek agreement. No decision will now be issued until at least mid-January. A Stonewall spokesman said afterwards: “It is deeply regrettable that John has been forced to come back to endure further unnecessary cross-examination, which has been deeply distressing”.
Counsel for the diocese interrogated Mr Reaney as to why he did not apply for two similar posts recently advertised by Worcester and Guildford dioceses. Mr Reaney said that he lacked the confidence to seek any other church position after the way the bishop had treated him.
When asked whether or not the diocese would in future insert a reference to the employment regulations in its advertising, the bishop was hesitant: “We wouldn’t want to be in a position where we discourage people of homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation to apply for posts”. Later a diocesan spokesperson explained: “Given the judgement of the tribunal the only “safe” option to avoid future discrimination claims is for the Diocese to express a Genuine Occupational Requirement… This we do not wish to do… We are therefore seeking advice on how we can maintain the teachings of the Church without transgressing the law.”
The bishop took strong exception to adverse press reports, saying: “The media attention has, in my opinion, made matters worse for myself, the claimant and the Church of England as a whole.” He insisted the coverage had been “driven by Stonewall” particularly the Bigot of the Year Award. He said: “when they make derogatory statements about me personally, then that’s clearly hurtful to me”. Responding to this, Stonewall said: “The only person responsible for the media coverage is the bishop himself, who was found to have acted unlawfully”.
43 Comments